Homosexual and Violence (was Reply to cow ard (Angle3))
Steve Kalbach
cros...@western.nw.net wrote in article
<333829a6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
: >>Starr,
:
: >>You've got 'em in your sights...excellent analysis of the homosexual
: >>propaganda machine...a series of lies, supported by more lies supported
: >>by more lies, ad nausea!
:
: Old John, it appears that his mind is the "first" thing to go! Or could
: it be that he =is= a dim-bulb as many have pointed out. I tend to
: believe the later, John. Your repetitious posting of an old and tired
: cliche speaks clearly of your limited mental capacity (with a little
: laziness thrown in too.) You are merely a brainless, nonsensical
: blowhard.
:
: John, we have nothing against stupidity, but yours is so gross it seems
: proper that a certain humility should accompany it, even you would agree
: with that...right?
:
: Crosstie Hontoe-Info.
:
:
:
Takes one to know one...and your part of the biggest prapganda machine that
ever was.
Steve Kalbach
Glen Scurr <scu...@agt.net> wrote in article
<3337197a...@news.telusplanet.net>...
: >tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
:
: Sex for pleasure in itself is quite natural. As a man I take great
: pleasure in making love to a woman. What's unnatural is when a person
: can only take pleasure in love making where they have no chance of
: reproducing.
You really need to examine your argument here. <ROFL>
: --
: Glen Scurr
: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
:
John Sanger
In article <01bc3885$87779c20$695a...@kalbachs.lisco.com> "Steve Kalbach" <nos...@nosales.com> writes:
>Glen Scurr <scu...@agt.net> wrote in article
><3337197a...@news.telusplanet.net>...
>: >tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
>:
>: Sex for pleasure in itself is quite natural. As a man I take great
>: pleasure in making love to a woman. What's unnatural is when a person
>: can only take pleasure in love making where they have no chance of
>: reproducing.
>
>You really need to examine your argument here. <ROFL>
>
You seem to have lost track of who has said what..... I did not post
that paragraph....
clueless is as clueless does!
nosales==clueless
--
Ciao!
John S. 8^{)>
tedd...@netcom.com
__
Steve Kalbach
lur...@sneekers.net wrote in article <3292.7022...@sneekers.net>...
: >On 19 Mar 97 17:09:02 -0600, St...@starlink.com wrote:
:
: Are you a physic? How do you know what kind of person he is? He has asked
for
: proof of a bold statement about homosexuality being very common in nature
and
: obviously he doesn't believe that to be the case. It appears that you
cannot
: provide any evidence to support the claim!
:
: It never ceases to amaze me as I lurk here that when someone of the other
side
: of the coin makes a statement all the other side is scream proof and if
they
: don't do it they are liars. Funny when the shoe is on the other
foot...you get
: mindless babble like this and no evidence is provided and I have seen
several
: request asking for proof of this very thing. If all this is documented as
you
: claim then providing proof should not be too difficult to do, but then
again it
: would be if the proof doesn't exist which is also my belief.
:
I have seen time and time again offers of proof. I have also seen time and
time again the people asking for proof start howling--when reference is
provided--as being PRO-GAY BIASED. Did they go check it
out...nope...because it is--their favorite words--PRO-GAY BIASED and
therefore, it is already written off as lies. As I have said before, go do
your own research then come back and argue until then shut-up.
: I have never seen two male dogs engage in anal sex!
And I have never been to the moon either but I believe that man did walk on
it!
: Why exactly does the gay community lie about things like this? Why not
make
: other arguments or bring up other points instead of creating outright
: fabrications as justification?
Why does your community have this need to force their belief system on
people much as a dictator would?
: So basically what your saying dougg...is that there is no evidence for
you
: provide and you just babble...why bother, because you know it is a lie?
:
:
And basically LURKER-as there is no real name--you should go back to doing
exactly what your nickname implies. Oh BTW...why are you LURKING in a
HOMOSEXUAL news group anyway?
za...@nutcracker.net
Again someone ask for proof of this LIE, this bogus claim that is thrown about
here as fact, and yet another babbling bullshit post of NO SUBSTANCE..just
whining excuses as to why no proof is forthcomming.
>: I have never seen two male dogs engage in anal sex!
>And I have never been to the moon either but I believe that man did walk on
>it!
So whats your point. You are an idiot! This is really pathetic.....
>
>: Why exactly does the gay community lie about things like this? Why not
>make
>: other arguments or bring up other points instead of creating outright
>: fabrications as justification?
>Why does your community have this need to force their belief system on
>people much as a dictator would?
Here again it typical homosexual babble, talking about something that is not
even the post. Why don't you just provide the proof for the false claims instead
of ranting on about everything but the subject and making excuses? Once again,
are you stupid or is it that you just can't read. I do not read where his
community whatever that is as it is not specified or implied in any way is
trying to force anything on anyone.
Basically, he is asking for proof that homosexuality is very common in nature
which is one of your communities (obvious) LIES that is tossed about as fact,
but every single time that someone ask for evidence or proof...none comes, only
moronic babbling like your post, making accusations about things never said or
even implied...talking about things that are not in the post....
So why don't your prove it or shut the fuck up?
>: So basically what your saying dougg...is that there is no evidence for
>you
>: provide and you just babble...why bother, because you know it is a lie?
>:
>:
>And basically LURKER-as there is no real name--you should go back to doing
>exactly what your nickname implies. Oh BTW...why are you LURKING in a
>HOMOSEXUAL news group anyway?
How do you know he wasn't in alt.christnet.bible? You don't. You are an idiot!
Shawn Hicks
za...@nutcracker.net wrote:
> >I have seen time and time again offers of proof. I have also seen time and
> >time again the people asking for proof start howling--when reference is
> >provided--as being PRO-GAY BIASED. Did they go check it
> >out...nope...because it is--their favorite words--PRO-GAY BIASED and
> >therefore, it is already written off as lies. As I have said before, go do
> >your own research then come back and argue until then shut-up.
>
> Again someone ask for proof of this LIE, this bogus claim that is thrown about
> here as fact, and yet another babbling bullshit post of NO SUBSTANCE..just
> whining excuses as to why no proof is forthcomming.
(1)
Source: Time, August 17, 1992 v140 n7 p49(3).
Title: Bisexuality: what is it? (includes related article on
bisexual
bonobos pygmy chimpanzees)
Author: Anastasia Toufexis and Eugene Linden
(2)
CALL NUMBER: VT0199
TITLE: Monkeys of Minoo
SOURCE: Produced by Sidney I. Perloe, Dept. of Psychology, Haverford
College
PHYSDES: VHS; col., sd.; 45 min.: 1989
ABSTRACT: This videotape examines the social organization and mating
behavior
in a free-ranging group of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) at Minoo
Park,
Osaka Prefecture, Japan in 1985-86. This group of macaques is comprised
of 325
animals living in the natural habitat in a protected area within Minoo
Park.
Dr. Perloe describes the social structure in matrilineal subgroups,
central-peripheral dimension, and dominance hierarchies.
Mating behaviors include females vocalizing mating calls,
consorting, male
branch-shaking to attract female, huddling, threat by adult male at
approaching
infant during consorting, display by male to female, females attempting
to
solicit males, mounting, copulation and ejaculation. Dr. Perloe also
describes
different relationships, including female homosexual choice and
interference of
consorts
(3)
DEMONIC MALES:
Apes and the Origins of Human Violence
By Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson. Houghton Mifflin. 350 pp. $24.95
"...Yet gang formation is not universal among the great apes.
Among a rare species, the bonobos, there is no rape, battering, or
warfare. The reason, says Wrangham, is the abundance of food in the
bonobos' territory, which allows females to travel with males and keep
them from forming gangs. The females band together, form their own
strong attachments (often involving homosexual behavior), and protect
themselves from errant males. ..."
> So whats your point. You are an idiot! This is really pathetic.....
Naw...pathetic is gettin' your undies in a bunch over "no proof!"
"liars!" even when proof has been posted.
> Basically, he is asking for proof that homosexuality is very common in nature
> which is one of your communities (obvious) LIES that is tossed about as fact,
> but every single time that someone ask for evidence or proof...none comes, only
> moronic babbling like your post, making accusations about things never said or
> even implied...talking about things that are not in the post....
>
> So why don't your prove it or shut the fuck up?
So I posted a few seconds worth of research for you. It doesn't
prove "very," but it does show that it exists in nature. I've
heard farmers brag about bulls that only want to mount other bulls.
Pure hearsay, but a place to start if your call for evidence is more
than blather and you're truely interested in learning rather than
bashing.
--
========================================================
Shawn Hicks bali...@wizard.com
Las Vegas, NV, USA http://www.wizard.com/~balistik/
Steve Kalbach
kaj...@ix.netcom.com wrote in article
<3343fcbb...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
: On 24 Mar 1997 19:16:45 GMT,
:
:
: "Steve Kalbach" <nos...@nosales.com> pulled this out of his ass:
:
: >And basically LURKER-as there is no real name--you should go back to
doing
: >exactly what your nickname implies. Oh BTW...why are you LURKING in a
: >HOMOSEXUAL news group anyway?
:
: Hey! Shit-for-Brains...If you know how, why not check your headers once
Hit a nerve I see...good!
: in a while. If only your queer crap _wer_ limlited to your sick little
My world isn't sick but yours appears to be.
: world...This is what you've posted to:
:
: Newsgroups:
:
alt.activism,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.sex
,alt.discrimination,
:
alt.homosexual,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.bi,soc.culture.israel,soc.cult
ure.jewish,
: soc.culture.usa,soc.men,soc.singles,soc.women
:
:
I know where the post went!
Keenan Wilkie -- see .sig for address
za...@nutcracker.net writes:
[...]
>Basically, he is asking for proof that homosexuality is very common in nature
>which is one of your communities (obvious) LIES that is tossed about as fact,
>but every single time that someone ask for evidence or proof...none comes, only
>moronic babbling like your post, making accusations about things never said or
>even implied...talking about things that are not in the post....
>So why don't your prove it or shut the fuck up?
Here's someting. A similar story was reported recently, but I'll restate
it because apparently you missed it the first time. IF you are going to
claim that the source is gay-biased, SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE, NOT
HEARSAY:
Gay rams lack hormonesensitivity
In male sheep, a lack of docking sites in the brain for a specific
chemical messenger leads to homosexual tendencies. This finding
strengthens the idea that biological factors underlie behavior, says Anne
Perkins, an animal behaviorist at Carroll College in Helena, Mont.
For breeding purposes, ranchers evaluate the sex drive of rams by
watching whether they try to mate with males or females and whether they
ejaculate. To understand why some males prefer other males, Perkins tested
the ponses of both male and female sheep to estrdiol, a type of estrogen
important to the development of sexual characteristics.
She treated the sheep, then studied their brains a month later. In one
respect, all the rams responded alike, no matter what their sexual
leaning: The hormone did not cae a surge of luteinizing hormone, which is
impornt to female sexual response, Perkins reports. However, the
homosexual rams were more like females in that they possessed far fewer
docking sites, or receptors, for estradiol in a part of the brai called
the amygdala than did other rams.
In rodents, the differing responses of male and female amygdalas to
estradiol account for differences in courtship behavior between the two
sexes. Estradiol may play a similar role in sheep, says Perkns, by making
heterosexual males responsive to female odors. The homosexual males, in
contrast, respond more like emales and are aroused more by male odors.
"This may be one piece of the puzzle to help us understand sexual
orientation" she says.
----- SCIENCE NEWS, VOL. 145 MARCH 5, 1994.
(soc.* groups cut from Newsgroups: line)
--
I don't think it will do you much good to glorify Satan. But it also won't
do you much good to glorify Jesus Christ because the man has been dead for
2000 years. -- Ricky Fassett
-My email address-->d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m<--My email address-
Steve Kalbach
za...@nutcracker.net wrote in article
<3399.7022...@nutcracker.net>...
: >I have seen time and time again offers of proof. I have also seen time
and
: >time again the people asking for proof start howling--when reference is
: >provided--as being PRO-GAY BIASED. Did they go check it
: >out...nope...because it is--their favorite words--PRO-GAY BIASED and
: >therefore, it is already written off as lies. As I have said before, go
do
: >your own research then come back and argue until then shut-up.
:
: Again someone ask for proof of this LIE, this bogus claim that is thrown
about
: here as fact, and yet another babbling bullshit post of NO
SUBSTANCE..just
: whining excuses as to why no proof is forthcomming.
I never made the claim. However, I am defending those that have provided
the requesters with references. How did the requesters act when they
received the references? Belligerent. Exposing how the references must be
PRO-GAY BIASED. I have seen several responses like this from those
requesters and if you would like, I will be glad to re-post them so that
you can get your nose un-twisted.
:
: >: I have never seen two male dogs engage in anal sex!
: >And I have never been to the moon either but I believe that man did walk
on
: >it!
: So whats your point. You are an idiot! This is really pathetic.....
: >
No...your the one that is an idiot. You probably think that 1 + 1 = 3!
If you cannot see the logic then you are a very stupid stupid person. One
that would probably buy horse shit and eat it because it is labeled all
natural. How often do your attempts at belittling someone succeed? Never
perhaps!
: >: Why exactly does the gay community lie about things like this? Why not
: >make
: >: other arguments or bring up other points instead of creating outright
: >: fabrications as justification?
:
: >Why does your community have this need to force their belief system on
: >people much as a dictator would?
:
: Here again it typical homosexual babble, talking about something that is
not
: even the post. Why don't you just provide the proof for the false claims
instead
: of ranting on about everything but the subject and making excuses? Once
again,
: are you stupid or is it that you just can't read. I do not read where his
: community whatever that is as it is not specified or implied in any way
is
: trying to force anything on anyone.
:
No response to this babble. It would be a waste of my time.
: Basically, he is asking for proof that homosexuality is very common in
nature
: which is one of your communities (obvious) LIES that is tossed about as
fact,
: but every single time that someone ask for evidence or proof...none
comes, only
: moronic babbling like your post, making accusations about things never
said or
: even implied...talking about things that are not in the post....
Proof has been provided on several occasions as was stated in the above
paragraph.
:
: So why don't your prove it or shut the fuck up?
No, I won't shut up. I won't be dictated to by someone who thinks that
his/her way of life is the only way no matter what evidence is brought to
the table. I did that for way to many years.
:
: >: So basically what your saying dougg...is that there is no evidence for
: >you
: >: provide and you just babble...why bother, because you know it is a
lie?
: >:
: >:
:
: >And basically LURKER-as there is no real name--you should go back to
doing
: >exactly what your nickname implies. Oh BTW...why are you LURKING in a
: >HOMOSEXUAL news group anyway?
:
: How do you know he wasn't in alt.christnet.bible? You don't. You are an
idiot!
I don't, but sure got your nuts/tits in an up-roar didn't it!
Steve Kalbach
mea...@ix.netcom.com wrote in article
<33381429...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
: Mr. Hicks,
:
: Your response indicates that my post was a "direct hit". Displaying
: anger and using profanity is indicative of your inability to effectively
: counter my points.
Actually, he did a very clean job in his post to counter your diatribe.
The only statement I saw that had any profanity--if you can call it
that--was this:
: >Homosexuality has been accepted and not accepted by many societies
: >throughout human history. I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream,"
: >but if it it's intended as "western" then you'd do well to poke your
: >head out of your ass and observe reality for a change.
Did you read the whole post or did you just look for profanity?
: Points which clearly establish and support that
: homosexuality is, and is recognized by all civilized societies as being,
: an un-natural and abominable behavior.
:
Your points don't establish anything other than your own belief system.
You think you speak for the world but you speak only for your little social
group. And, only those within that social group that share your opinion.
: For all your efforts you fall far short of being able to even
: precariously establish that homosexuality serves a useful
: purpose in the realm of human sexuality.
:
I will let Mr. Hicks argue this with you.
: -- Mears
:
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards,
Steven E. Kalbach
Steve Kalbach
: >I have seen time and time again offers of proof. I have also seen time
and
: >time again the people asking for proof start howling--when reference is
: >provided--as being PRO-GAY BIASED. Did they go check it
: >out...nope...because it is--their favorite words--PRO-GAY BIASED and
: >therefore, it is already written off as lies. As I have said before, go
do
: >your own research then come back and argue until then shut-up.
:
: Again someone ask for proof of this LIE, this bogus claim that is thrown
about
: here as fact, and yet another babbling bullshit post of NO
SUBSTANCE..just
: whining excuses as to why no proof is forthcomming.
:
And here again Za...@nutcracker.com is another reference that was given:
>You would do well to view the Nat'l Geographic Special on the Bonobos
>Chimpanzees..... just to start with.....
And yet another post!
Then you aren't looking. The first time heard of bonobos performing
homosexual acts was on the PBS show _Nature_. It was the show which
discussed human sexuality. The last five minutes contained scenes
of bonobos having sex, include male-male and female-female. The
narration stated that sex seems to replaced violence in the bonobo
society.
Now, having a doubting mind, I checked this out. I talked to a friend
who is primate zoo keeper. She stated that bonobos, like all
primates, perform male-male-sex acts (the bonobos do it the most often).
And, bonobos also did female genital to female genital sex acts where
are rare among other species. She, of course, could name dozens of
studies which back up this claim.
These are not the only sources I have for this claim. Every source I
have found on bonobo sexual behavior backs up this claim. Performing
homosexuals acts daily are what bonobos are known for.
Your claim that you can't find documentation to back this up indicates
that you aren't even looking. So stop telling lies. You obviously have
If you want more go to DAJANEWS enter ST...@STARLINK.COM and browse through
the entire thread.
Steve Kalbach
----------
> From: za...@nutcracker.net
> Newsgroups: alt.activism; alt.atheism; alt.christnet;
alt.christnet.bible; alt.christnet.sex; alt.discrimination; alt.homosexual;
alt.politics.homosexuality; soc.bi; soc.culture.israel; soc.culture.jewish;
soc.culture.usa; soc.men; soc.singles; soc.women
> Subject: Re: Homosexual and Violence (was Reply to cow ard (Angle3))
> Date: Monday, March 24, 1997 3:10 PM
>
> Again someone ask for proof of this LIE, this bogus claim that is thrown
about
> here as fact, and yet another babbling bullshit post of NO
SUBSTANCE..just
> whining excuses as to why no proof is forthcomming.
>
Additional proof of people giving references for you Za...@nutcraker.net.
And look what the requestor had to say. Notice how the supporting claims
have become minor points in the response back from MEARS.
On 25 Mar 1997 15:51:14 GMT, jrut...@neptune.cs.uml.edu (John Lawrence
Rutledge) scribed:
>In article <333bc951...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> <mea...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Homosexuality is an activity. One which involves choice. Those who
>>choose it are called homosexuals and their behavior is generally not
>>accepted in mainstream societies. Social norms established over
>>thousands of years of human evolvement prescribes the basic behavior of
>>societal groups. Homosexuality behavior has never evolved to the point
>>that it can be called a natural act and consequently, being un-natural,
>>is a behavior that is shunned by all societies in general. A genuine
>>condition of commonality among peoples.
>
>Homosexual is not shunned by all societies in general. It is almost
>the opposite - most societies accept homosexuality. From Ian
>Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd edition, Worth Publishing: New York,
>1987, page 225:
> About a third of the societies included in the cross-
> cultural samples totally forbid homosexuality, or
> sexual orientation toward the same sex. ... In the
> remaining societies, homosexual behavior is tolerated,
> approved, and occasionally required.
>
>| John Lawrence Rutledge
A body of information can be mined for a little nugget that will
precariously balance one minor counterpoint in an expansive contention.
That is exactly what you have done. However, in spite of your
efforts...you have proven nothing.
-- Mears
Steve Kalbach
za...@nutcracker.net wrote in article
<3399.7022...@nutcracker.net>...
: >lur...@sneekers.net wrote in article
<3292.7022...@sneekers.net>...
: >: >On 19 Mar 97 17:09:02 -0600, St...@starlink.com wrote:
: >I have seen time and time again offers of proof. I have also seen time
and
: >time again the people asking for proof start howling--when reference is
: >provided--as being PRO-GAY BIASED. Did they go check it
: >out...nope...because it is--their favorite words--PRO-GAY BIASED and
: >therefore, it is already written off as lies. As I have said before, go
do
: >your own research then come back and argue until then shut-up.
:
: Again someone ask for proof of this LIE, this bogus claim that is thrown
about
: here as fact, and yet another babbling bullshit post of NO
SUBSTANCE..just
: whining excuses as to why no proof is forthcomming.
:
Now Za...@nutcracker.net I give you this tid bit of information:
There is a species of sea gulls--that when there is a shortage of
males--the females will pair bond. It seems that these females go through
the same courtship ritual and build nests expecting to hatch chicks. Now
if you would get off your lazy ass and go to your local library and check
out a book or two (2) on sea gulls and primates, you just might learn
something.
Now as far as NO SUBSTANCE posts go, lets see the substance of the posts
that you have contributed to this new groups:
Subject: Re: Homosexual and Violence (was Reply to cow ard
(Angle3))
From: za...@nutcracker.net
Date: 1997/03/24
Message-Id: <2819.702...@nutcracker.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.sex,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.politics.homose
xuality,alt.sex,shamash.gayje
ws,alt.activism,alt.discrimination,alt.sex.homosexual
No you are showing your ignorance. "Identical" twins are 'Identical"
down to the
last gene and strand of DNA. Who are you trying to convince...us or
yourself.
This is one of the most foolish statements I've ever seen here.
Subject: Re: Homosexual and Violence (was Reply to cow ard
(Angle3))
From: za...@nutcracker.net
Date: 1997/03/24
Message-Id: <2119.7022...@nutcracker.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.sex,alt.sex.homo
sexual,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.jew
ish,soc.motss,soc.bi,shamash.gayjews,alt.activism,soc.men,soc.women,soc.sing
les,alt.discrimination,soc.culture.usa,alt.sex.homosexual
Now you are really lying......Identical twins are Identical down to the
last
strand of DNA....get off your bullshit and get lost. Being born
homosexual is a
crock....another lie of the homosexual agenda, like homosexuality being
common
in nature...right!
Not much BEEF there now is there Za...@nutcracker.net. Also, I would like
to say in reviewing your 15 posts--of which (3) were directed to this NG--I
noticed that someone else had offered you a reference on Rams in response
to your BITCH. How many more references do you want or would you like?
Finally, where is your references and evidence to back-up your broad and
elaborate statements from the other two (2) posts. Not that I am a
specialist on "Identical " twins mind you but the reading might be
interesting.
za...@nutcracker.net
>za...@nutcracker.net wrote:
>> >I have seen time and time again offers of proof. I have also seen time
>> >and time again the people asking for proof start howling--when reference
>> >is provided--as being PRO-GAY BIASED. Did they go check it
>> >out...nope...because it is--their favorite words--PRO-GAY BIASED and
>> >therefore, it is already written off as lies. As I have said before, go
>> >do your own research then come back and argue until then shut-up.
>>
>> Again someone ask for proof of this LIE, this bogus claim that is thrown
>> about here as fact, and yet another babbling bullshit post of NO
>> SUBSTANCE..just whining excuses as to why no proof is forthcomming.
>(1)
>(2)
That is all anyone has ever asked for is proof that it is 'very common" in
nature. However, the above film is not conclusive evidence for this claim as it
appears to only breifly describe homosexual relations between a very few female
monkeys, and as stated only describes this activity but does not actually show
the activity on the film.
>(3)
>DEMONIC MALES:
>Apes and the Origins of Human Violence
>By Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson. Houghton Mifflin. 350 pp. $24.95
>"...Yet gang formation is not universal among the great apes.
>Among a rare species, the bonobos, there is no rape, battering, or
>warfare. The reason, says Wrangham, is the abundance of food in the
>bonobos' territory, which allows females to travel with males and keep
>them from forming gangs. The females band together, form their own
>strong attachments (often involving homosexual behavior), and protect
>themselves from errant males. ..."
Again, I would ask...what is he describing as "homosexual behavior"? Also, is
there any film that shows this "homosexual behavior" taking place?
Certainly, both of these would be starting points, but in reality none of this
alleged "homosexual behavior" has been captured on film. As such, I find the
claims..just that claims, and not only that but suspicious as well!
Even if these two claims could be proven....still this is NOT "very common in
nature"!
>> So whats your point. You are an idiot! This is really pathetic.....
>Naw...pathetic is gettin' your undies in a bunch over "no proof!"
>"liars!" even when proof has been posted.
>> Basically, he is asking for proof that homosexuality is very common in
>> nature which is one of your communities (obvious) LIES that is tossed about
>> as fact, but every single time that someone ask for evidence or
>> proof...none comes, only moronic babbling like your post, making
>> accusations about things never said or even implied...talking about things
>> that are not in the post....
>>
>> So why don't your prove it or shut the fuck up?
>So I posted a few seconds worth of research for you. It doesn't
za...@nutcracker.net
>za...@nutcracker.net writes:
>[...]
>>Basically, he is asking for proof that homosexuality is very common in
>>nature which is one of your communities (obvious) LIES that is tossed about
>>as fact, but every single time that someone ask for evidence or proof...none
>>comes, only moronic babbling like your post, making accusations about things
>>never said or even implied...talking about things that are not in the
>>post....
>>So why don't your prove it or shut the fuck up?
>Here's someting. A similar story was reported recently, but I'll restate
> Gay rams lack hormonesensitivity
Here is another amazing fact that states alledged homosexual behavior, but in
fact says nothing. What are they referring to as homosexual tendencies? Do these
male goats engage in anal sex? If so is there any film to prove it? If not then
I ask why none of these alleged homosexual behaviours of some animals are not
filmed? Without film, I find these claims nothing more than speculation and
without film I find them very suspicious.
James
>and
>: >time again the people asking for proof start howling--when reference is
>: >provided--as being PRO-GAY BIASED. Did they go check it
>: >out...nope...because it is--their favorite words--PRO-GAY BIASED and
>: >therefore, it is already written off as lies. As I have said before, go
>do
>: >your own research then come back and argue until then shut-up.
>:
>: Again someone ask for proof of this LIE, this bogus claim that is thrown
>about
>: here as fact, and yet another babbling bullshit post of NO
>SUBSTANCE..just
>: whining excuses as to why no proof is forthcomming.
>I never made the claim. However, I am defending those that have provided
>the requesters with references. How did the requesters act when they
>received the references? Belligerent. Exposing how the references must be
>PRO-GAY BIASED. I have seen several responses like this from those
>requesters and if you would like, I will be glad to re-post them so that
>you can get your nose un-twisted.
It is an amazing thing that of all the researchers quoted state that they
observed homosexual tendencies. They NEVER state that they have seen two animals
of any kind engaging in homosexual sex?
Also, what is really amazing is the fact that none of them have documented any
of this on film, which is HIGHLY suspicious in the least. After all, if it is SO
COMMON in nature then one would think that it would be easily caught on film? It
is also very amazing that none of these researchers can afford to buy or
borrow a video camera?
>:
>: >: I have never seen two male dogs engage in anal sex!
>: >And I have never been to the moon either but I believe that man did walk
>on
>: >it!
>: So whats your point. You are an idiot! This is really pathetic.....
>: >
>No...your the one that is an idiot. You probably think that 1 + 1 = 3!
>If you cannot see the logic then you are a very stupid stupid person. One
>that would probably buy horse shit and eat it because it is labeled all
>natural. How often do your attempts at belittling someone succeed? Never
>perhaps!
No I don't think 1 + 1 = 3! However I do think that you are a complete jackass!
Being on the moon and seeing two animals of the same sex engaging in anal sex
cannot be compared and it would take a complete idiot to even put the two in the
same sentence.
>: >: Why exactly does the gay community lie about things like this? Why not
>: >make
>: >: other arguments or bring up other points instead of creating outright
>: >: fabrications as justification?
>:
>: >Why does your community have this need to force their belief system on
>: >people much as a dictator would?
>:
>: Here again it typical homosexual babble, talking about something that is
>not
>: even the post. Why don't you just provide the proof for the false claims
>instead
>: of ranting on about everything but the subject and making excuses? Once
>again,
>: are you stupid or is it that you just can't read. I do not read where his
>: community whatever that is as it is not specified or implied in any way
>is
>: trying to force anything on anyone.
>:
>No response to this babble. It would be a waste of my time.
Actually, you couldn't think up any more bullshit to spew, and you doing the
very same thing I mention above. Talking about everything but the post..seems to
be the practice of the day?
>: Basically, he is asking for proof that homosexuality is very common in
>nature
>: which is one of your communities (obvious) LIES that is tossed about as
>fact,
>: but every single time that someone ask for evidence or proof...none
>comes, only
>: moronic babbling like your post, making accusations about things never
>said or
>: even implied...talking about things that are not in the post....
>Proof has been provided on several occasions as was stated in the above
>paragraph.
>:
>: So why don't your prove it or shut the fuck up?
>No, I won't shut up. I won't be dictated to by someone who thinks that
>his/her way of life is the only way no matter what evidence is brought to
>the table. I did that for way to many years.
No evidence has been brought to the table! Show us film! Surely someone can
afford to buy a friggin' video camera to capture two animals engaging in
homosexual sex! It is after all....."so common in nature"...right. One should
just be able to take a leisurely stroll out in the woods and film several
instances in one day?
>:
>: >: So basically what your saying dougg...is that there is no evidence for
>: >you
>: >: provide and you just babble...why bother, because you know it is a
>lie?
>: >:
>: >:
>:
>: >And basically LURKER-as there is no real name--you should go back to
>doing
>: >exactly what your nickname implies. Oh BTW...why are you LURKING in a
>: >HOMOSEXUAL news group anyway?
>:
>: How do you know he wasn't in alt.christnet.bible? You don't. You are an
>idiot!
>I don't, but sure got your nuts/tits in an up-roar didn't it!
You are a dumbass. Really you are!
However, you are very amusing!
Steve Kalbach
James <jam...@admark.com> wrote in article
<01bc39fa$ba0db900$185a...@kalbachs.lisco.com>...
: >za...@nutcracker.net wrote in article
: ><3399.7022...@nutcracker.net>...
: It is an amazing thing that of all the researchers quoted state that they
: observed homosexual tendencies. They NEVER state that they have seen two
: animals
: of any kind engaging in homosexual sex?
:
: Also, what is really amazing is the fact that none of them have
documented
: any
: of this on film, which is HIGHLY suspicious in the least. After all, if
it
: is SO
: COMMON in nature then one would think that it would be easily caught on
: film? It
: is also very amazing that none of these researchers can afford to buy or
: borrow a video camera?
:
I have one question for you James and it is would you bother to view the
act if it were on tape? I think not! The rule you are applying here is,
Why should I research when I know I am right so I wont bother; however, I
don't want to be proven wrong so I won't bother. And that is the basic
double edged sword logic that you, za...@nutcracker.net, and
st...@starrlink.com follow in your posts.
Benjamin Oakley
>
Steve,
First of all lets get something straight. I DO NOT hate homosexuals, and as a
matter of fact there many gays that I know and have known that are and have been
good friends of mine. That said...they knew what my thoughts on the matter were
and I knew what theirs were. They respected my thoughts and I in turn respected
theirs.
However the problem comes when "anyone" tries to tell me that something is
wrong with me because I do not think the homosexual lifestyle is "normal". They
call me a "homophobe", a latent homosexual, or other such silly names or
they want to tell me that I have something wrong with me. This really pisses me
off, as I am entitled to my thoughts and feelings as anyone of you! These
people do not even know me or the type of person that I am and yet I cannot
disagree with them without being attacked verbally and called all kinds of
rediculous names.
What really pisses me off more than that is a liar. A liar and a thief are one
and the same. The whole strategy of the so called "homosexual agenda" is nothing
but lies! They lie about the percentage of homosexuals in the population, etc.
It just goes on and on and on with no end to it! They twist what the bible says
about homosexualtiy, they lie about homosexuality being "very common" in nature,
yet there is little if any proof to support any of these wild claims. They claim
Jesus was gay, David was gay and others...this is nothing but twisting of the
scriptures to benefit the "agenda", and if we believed these people then
"everyone" that ever lived was a homosexual a latent homosexual or other similar
bullshit?
I have asked for proof of the claim about "homosexuality being "very common" in
nature, hell even one girl posted here that homosexual behavior had been
observed in all mammals. You know as well as I do that this is utter bullshit!
Why all the lies?
There has been no conclusive evidence provided by anyone, nothing but ramblings
and babblings and personal attacks and other such bullshit. The reasonable thing
in my mine is this....if in fact it is so "very common" in nature then why has
no one documented these homosexual acts on film. Everyone states that a
"voice" on the tape goes on to say that homosexual behavior is a common
thing....etc, etc, etc,....or that a report in a magazine says so and so. A
"voice". What the hell does this mean? Why has NO ONE filmed the homosexual acts
between two male chimps instead of showing hetersexual acts and this "magic"
voice stating in the background that homosexual behavior is very common?
If the bonobos chimps could be observed on film for instance engaging in
homosexual sex as opposed to heterosexual acts being portrayed on the film
and this "magic voice" in the back ground describing how commonplace
homosexual activity is, then that would be proof of sorts, but not that it is
very common in nature.
If on the other hand if it is common in nature then anyone armed with a video
camera should be able to simply stroll through the woods and hopefully capture
these homosexual acts at some point. That is what I would consider proof, not
voices on a tape talking about homosexual behavior while the film shows
heterosexual behavior, not printed research by obvioulsly gay- biased
researchers!
Why no pictures...no film, nothing concrete to support any of these claims. This
is were I have a problem with the whole thing, not to mention all the other lies
that have come out of the homosexual agenda. I cannot stand a liar, gay,
straight, red, green, or purple. So I find the whole thing very suspicious and
will never be able to entertain the idea as fact unless I can witness it with my
own eyes, and not just one incident but many to substansiate the claim of it
being "very common!"
I would certainly watch the film...and I can assure you that I would not be
turned on by it as some of the brain dead "heterophobes" here have already
ranted about...just pathetic fantasies in their deluded minds I guess..., nor
do I imagine that it would disgust me either.
However it would be a start down the road to changing my mind about the matter.
But it would take more than one instance to even begin to justify the claim of
it being "very common in nature". I do NOT believe this and would have to
witness it with my OWN eyes for that oppinion to change....It is a simple thing
really as to why I do not believe it, starting with the other lies spread by the
homosexual movement, and as I have already stated...I find it highly suspicious
that no one has been able to film at least three or four of these "very common"
instances of animals engaging in homosexual sex!
Daniel Mocsny
Xich Lo wrote:
>
> This whole argument about whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature
> (meaning other than humans) is absurd. You want proof that
> homosexuality occurs in nature? Fine. Humans do it. Other than that,
> it doesn't matter. Animals do many things humans don't and vice versa.
> The fact is (and it is a fact) homosexuality is a natural part of human
> existence. How do I know? Well, I am gay. I have always been gay. I
> have never had any desire for women. And nothing, nothing, nothing is
> going to change that. I was born this way. Period.
I believe you, but do you believe a homophobe has any more
control over his homophobia than (s)he has over his/her
sexual orientation?
I don't. I have found homosexuality disturbing about as long
as I have found women attractive. Now, I have learned to control
my attraction for women. If I find a woman attractive, I keep my
hands to myself unless she clearly indicates that she finds me
attractive. If I am in a business meeting with a woman I find
attractive, and expressing that attraction would be inappropriate,
I don't express it. I can't change my attractions, but I can
choose to suppress them when necessary.
Similarly, I believe I have learned to control my...I hesitate
to say "disgust" but a better word is not forthcoming...with
gay sex. What two consenting adults wish to do with their bodies
is not my business. I will not concoct silly religious
or pseudo-scientific arguments to promote my genetically-programmed
homophobia as being THE "morally right" or "natural" behavior for
all people. But the fact remains that the vast majority of
heterosexuals are not entirely comfortable with the notion of gay
sex and never will be. Since most people reason emotively first and
then later justify decisions with logic, the world will never lack
for homophobes who dress up their genetically-programmed revulsion
for homosexuality in the guise of some specious external authority.
I suggest that vociferous homophobes have not learned to control
their counterproductive genetic programming, in much the same way
that a date-rapist has not learned to control his.
Incidentally, it is even easier to argue for the existence of
homophobia genes than for homosexuality genes. Given that
homosexuality is a vastly more sensible alternative than
heterosexuality (considering the massive cost of raising offspring),
it is possible that homophobia genes are as adaptive as genes
for heterosexuality. That is, given that homosexuality genes
have been producing a stable pool of homosexuals in every generation,
homophobia genes may get a foothold by "protecting" heterosexuals
who lack the homosexuality genes from falling into homosexuality.
In other words, if heterosexuals are going to do something as
dangerous and expensive as have children, they can probably benefit
from both positive (toward MOTOS) and negative (away from MOTSS)
motivations.
> Assuming you are heterosexual, think about that for a moment. Do you
> ever recall a time in your life when you questioned your sexuality, when
> you wondered whether or not you were attracted to women. I suspect the
> answer is no. You have always been heterosexual and always will be.
> It's the same with homosexuality.
Not always. Before I reached puberty, I thought girls were disgusting
too. I remember denying vehemently as a very young boy that I
would ever "like" girls (not being aware at the time, of course, of
exactly what "like" entailed). Then puberty arrived, and POW. So much
for my childhood point of view.
Also, there are lots of people who are bisexual, or who shift from
hetero to homo or vice versa. That doesn't mean they aren't responding
to genes; we certainly have genes that express themselves at different
stages in our lives. So whether you have been a homosexual all your
life or for the last five minutes is not, by itself, an unassailable
argument either for or against genes for homosexuality. What is clear
from your example is that you are unlikely to find women attractive
as long as you live, and nothing you can do will change that fact.
And certainly, no homophobe is going to oppress you into liking women.
I'm not entirely sure why they would try, either.
> Why doesn't the Bible take this into account?
Probably because it was written by people with homophobia genes.
> Well, the Bible doesn't
> take into account things like skyscrapers when it talks about the Tower
> of Babel, now does it? The Bible was written by a simpler people at a
> very different time. To try to apply it entirely to today's life is
> absolutely absurd (and this coming from someone who considers himself a
> halfway decent Christian).
Considering the number of different behaviors for which the Bible
provides a posteriori justification, I don't see applying it to
any situation to be absolutely absurd. It seems to be one of the
most effective tools for social control that man has ever invented.
How many secular documents from the same period are still influencing
as many people?
If the Bible promoted homosexuality in an obvious way, would you
still regard it as irrelevant?
--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny: mailto:dmo...@mfm.com
--- Home page: http://www.mfm.com/~dmocsny
zoner
Xich Lo (kevin_...@ccmail.turner.com) wrote:
: This whole argument about whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature
: (meaning other than humans) is absurd. You want proof that
: homosexuality occurs in nature? Fine. Humans do it. Other than that,
: it doesn't matter. Animals do many things humans don't and vice versa.
: The fact is (and it is a fact) homosexuality is a natural part of human
: existence. How do I know? Well, I am gay. I have always been gay. I
: have never had any desire for women. And nothing, nothing, nothing is
: going to change that. I was born this way. Period.
: Assuming you are heterosexual, think about that for a moment. Do you
: ever recall a time in your life when you questioned your sexuality, when
: you wondered whether or not you were attracted to women. I suspect the
: answer is no. You have always been heterosexual and always will be.
: It's the same with homosexuality.
: Why doesn't the Bible take this into account? Well, the Bible doesn't
: take into account things like skyscrapers when it talks about the Tower
: of Babel, now does it? The Bible was written by a simpler people at a
: very different time. To try to apply it entirely to today's life is
: absolutely absurd (and this coming from someone who considers himself a
: halfway decent Christian).
Homosexuality is the same today as it was back then, except maybe not as
perverse. And since God does not change, homosexuality is still an
abomination. No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
says it is wrong.
Jer...@aol.com
Well, my three female dogs engage in all sorts of sexual activity
ranging from licking each others' gentials to humping one another
'doggie style'. Look for the new book by aMontana geneticist who
studied sheeps' brains. She found structural diffs. btw the gay rams
(who form a full 10% of rams) and straight rams. There is mounting
genetic evidence, not yet conclusive, of a genetic pre-disposition to
homosexuality.
Of course most Christians don't want to be confused with the facts, do
they? They just want to perpetuate a prejudice through hateful
misrepresentations.
Jenner
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:22:27 -0500, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com>
wrote:
: I believe you, but do you believe a homophobe has any more
: control over his homophobia than (s)he has over his/her
: sexual orientation?
:
: I don't. I have found homosexuality disturbing about as long
: as I have found women attractive.
I guess it depends on if one considers both heterosexuality and
homophobia inate.
I believe one is learned and one is inate.
Guess which one?
: Now, I have learned to control
: my attraction for women. If I find a woman attractive, I keep my
: hands to myself unless she clearly indicates that she finds me
: attractive. If I am in a business meeting with a woman I find
: attractive, and expressing that attraction would be inappropriate,
: I don't express it. I can't change my attractions, but I can
: choose to suppress them when necessary.
I don't consider that suppression so much as appropriate and
respectful behavior.
:
: Similarly, I believe I have learned to control my...I hesitate
: to say "disgust" but a better word is not forthcoming...with
: gay sex. What two consenting adults wish to do with their bodies
: is not my business. I will not concoct silly religious
: or pseudo-scientific arguments to promote my genetically-programmed
: homophobia as being THE "morally right" or "natural" behavior for
: all people.
Your uncomfortability is yours, Dan. As long as you don't use it as a
metric to vote against the rights of people, to encourage violence
against people, or practice violence yourself, I don't have a problem
with it.
I'm disgusted by some things. We all are.
: But the fact remains that the vast majority of
: heterosexuals are not entirely comfortable with the notion of gay
: sex and never will be.
I don't care if they are not entirely comfortable as long as they
don't practice any of the dehumanizing things I mentioned above. They
don't have to like it. Hell, I don't like some things. It's part of
being human.
:Since most people reason emotively first and
: then later justify decisions with logic, the world will never lack
: for homophobes who dress up their genetically-programmed revulsion
: for homosexuality in the guise of some specious external authority.
Well, at least you don't make excuses for your discomfort. I
appreciate your honesty.
:
: I suggest that vociferous homophobes have not learned to control
: their counterproductive genetic programming, in much the same way
: that a date-rapist has not learned to control his.
Neat analogy.
: Also, there are lots of people who are bisexual, or who shift from
: hetero to homo or vice versa.
Some of us shift from one gear to another, thereby maintining a "good
spin" in the opinion of experienced cyclists regardless of how many
years we have been out of the saddle.
[inside memory jog for Dan]
Bisexuals don't, at least this one doesn't, shift from one orientation
to another.
: > Why doesn't the Bible take this into account?
:
: Probably because it was written by people with homophobia genes.
Now, that is both insightful and funny.
Remember me, Dan? Check out the web page.
***
To reply by e-mail, remove the spam fodder (the **)
from my e-mail address.
http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29
***
Diedrich G. Kohl
In <3339AF...@mfm.com> Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>[...] do you believe a homophobe has any more control over his/her
>homophobia than (s)he has over his/her sexual orientation? I don't.
>I have found homosexuality disturbing about as long as I have found
>women attractive.
>[...snip re learning to control/suppress *expression* of feelings
>that are offensive/unwelcome to others...(and thank you for that)...]
>I believe I have learned to control my...I hesitate to say "disgust"
>but a better word is not forthcoming...with gay sex. What two
>consenting adults wish to do with their bodies is not my business.
Do you mean here:
(a) "Ugh, that's distasteful to contemplate *myself* doing"; or
(b) "Ugh, that's distasteful to contemplate *anyone* (including gay
people) doing"
?
If (a), I don't have a particular problem with that. I have the same
attitude myself toward some esoteric gay sexual activities and the
things you do in bed with a woman -- although I recognize that some
people do like those things. You are not expected to find appealing,
or even neutral, the notion of your having sex with a man.
If (b), well, there's no point in my debating that.
>I will not concoct silly religious or pseudo-scientific arguments to
>promote my genetically-programmed homophobia as being THE "morally
>right" or "natural" behavior for all people. But the fact remains
>that the vast majority of heterosexuals are not entirely comfortable
>with the notion of gay sex and never will be. Since most people
>reason emotively first and then later justify decisions with logic,
>the world will never lack for homophobes who dress up their
>genetically-programmed revulsion for homosexuality in the guise of
>some specious external authority.
So you think that the a posteriori reasoning [religious and pseudo-
scientific argument] exists to justify the a priori premise/belief
[that homosexuality is wrong/disturbing/etc.]? Wow, you're a rarity!
>[...]
>Incidentally, it is even easier to argue for the existence of
>homophobia genes than for homosexuality genes.
>[...remainder snipped for brevity; please see original post...]
There are many theories about the causes of homophobia (and I have no
intention of rehashing them here), but your hypothesis of a genetic
basis is a new one to me! Evidence suggests otherwise; for example:
1. Research shows that the childhood and adolescent sexual experiences
of both homosexuals and heterosexuals are fairly similar, and that
it is quite common for boys to engage in same-sex experimentation.
(Sorry, I don't have the statistics; maybe someone knows them?)
Evidently boys regard it neutrally at the time. Is this because
their "genetic homophobia programming" hasn't yet kicked in, or is
it because they haven't yet been taught that it's "undesirable"?
2. Attitudes towards sexuality, including homosexuality, vary greatly
by culture. Scandinavian countries have legalized same-sex unions.
Some countries persecute homosexuals. Some societies stone to death
adulterous wives. Some Native American tribes revere homosexuals.
There are some tribes in East Melanesia and New Guinea in which all
boys go through a period of exclusive homosexual activity from age
9 to 19 as a "passage into manhood". Historically, some societies
(e.g., ancient Greece) have regarded homosexuality unremarkably. In
Victorian times, women were taught that sex was a necessary evil.
3. Studies/polls consistently show that attitudes towards gay/lesbian
people are influenced in a significant positive way by whether the
respondent personally knows any gay/lesbian people.
So, like other attitudes and prejudices, it seems evident that this
one is a product of cultural, societal, and personal influences.
You're correct that it's difficult (though not impossible) to change
deep-seated prejudices, phobias, or feelings -- whatever their origin.
I accept that you did not arrive at your current attitude towards
homosexuality by explicit, objective, independent deliberation on the
subject. Few people do. But you don't need a genetic theory to justify
or explain its origin; our socially/culturally instilled attitudes are
not conscious choices, and you need look no further than that. It is
not "your fault" that you have acquired these attitudes, and I get the
distinct impression that that's what you are seeking to disclaim with
your genetic theory.
A general comment ... Your posting is certainly an unusual one for
this type of thread! Here is a summary (not all re-quoted above):
- You don't seem to care profoundly about this issue.
- You don't seem to be interested in spreading hatred/condemnation.
- You seem to have a laissez-faire attitude.
- You don't subscribe to the (endlessly-rehashed) biblical arguments.
- You accept that gay people are naturally the way they are, cannot
change, and you don't see why anyone would want to try changing them.
- You think anti-gay arguments are after-the-fact rationalizations for
intrinsically held beliefs.
What are you doing here??! :-)
--Rick
----------
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18."
-- Albert Einstein
Jake Coughlin
Daniel Mocsny (dmo...@mfm.com) wrote:
: I believe you, but do you believe a homophobe has any more
: control over his homophobia than (s)he has over his/her
: sexual orientation?
you're absolutely right -- we are *all* slaves to our
emotions, and all of the arguments boil down to the
simple fact that everyone's using their rationality
equally. therefore, no one's right and no one's wrong.
there is no knowledge. saaayyy... who the fuck are you?
and what the hell are you doing?
: Probably because it was written by people with homophobia genes.
huh. i thought God wrote the Bible.
: Considering the number of different behaviors for which the Bible
: provides a posteriori justification,
ew! new word: posteriori. groovey! use it! love it!
(if it's in your genes, that is.)
: If the Bible promoted homosexuality in an obvious way, would you
: still regard it as irrelevant?
shhh! i can't hear my genes over all this chatter!
--
__
\/ Jake Coughlin (ja...@panix.com)
"When the tongue or the pen is let loose in a frenzy of passion, it is
the man, and not the subject, that becomes exhausted." -- Thomas Paine
christopher l warner
: all people. But the fact remains that the vast majority of
: sex and never will be. Since most people reason emotively first and
yes, but how many heterosexuals are entirely comfortable with hetero-
sex? i know so many people that for infinite reasons, all have
reservations, bad memories, or guilt towards all sexual acts.
FJ!!
In article <3339AF...@mfm.com>, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>I believe you, but do you believe a homophobe has any more
>control over his homophobia than (s)he has over his/her
>sexual orientation?
Absolutly. In stark contrast to sexual orientation, many people
have changed their attitudes towards homosexuality - usually
by examining what bothers them so.
>all people. But the fact remains that the vast majority of
>heterosexuals are not entirely comfortable with the notion of gay
>sex and never will be.
Neither are most children with heterosexual sex - most will be
actively disgusted by the thought and the very images of kissing.
Most of this goes away upon repeated exposure to the thought or
varying levels of images, and a lot of societal conditioning that
this is actually desireable behaviour. We can try to factor in
hormones as well, but ethnographic studies of varying cultures do not
bear out that people automatically accept sex and sexuality
because of their attractions - just look at Victorian times.
These hetero-affirming circumstances do not exists for homosexual
sensuality - quite the opposite, revulsion for homosexual sensuality is
very much encouraged. Your genese are just a convenient excuse here,
as the mechanisms and changes have been reported.
>And certainly, no homophobe is going to oppress you into liking women.
>I'm not entirely sure why they would try, either.
You are wrong. It happens a lot under peer pressure, and not too long
ago pressuring people into liking women was accepted psychiatric
practice. It wasn't successful, except that it ended up royally
screwing up the people pressured.
FJ!!
Not!
In article <333945...@ccmail.turner.com>, Xich Lo <kevin_...@ccmail.turner.com> says:
>
>This whole argument about whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature
>(meaning other than humans) is absurd. You want proof that
>homosexuality occurs in nature? Fine. Humans do it. Other than that,
>it doesn't matter. Animals do many things humans don't and vice versa.
>The fact is (and it is a fact) homosexuality is a natural part of human
>existence. How do I know? Well, I am gay. I have always been gay. I
>have never had any desire for women. And nothing, nothing, nothing is
>going to change that. I was born this way. Period.
I've never experienced time dilation. Therefore Lorentz transformations
have no basis in reality, right? Bull. Your experience proves
nothing at all.
Devon Williams
pet...@aol.com
zoner wrote:
>
> Xich Lo (kevin_...@ccmail.turner.com) wrote:
> : This whole argument about whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature
> : (meaning other than humans) is absurd. You want proof that
> : homosexuality occurs in nature? Fine. Humans do it. Other than that,
> : it doesn't matter. Animals do many things humans don't and vice versa.
> : The fact is (and it is a fact) homosexuality is a natural part of human
> : existence. How do I know? Well, I am gay. I have always been gay. I
> : have never had any desire for women. And nothing, nothing, nothing is
> : going to change that. I was born this way. Period.
> : Assuming you are heterosexual, think about that for a moment. Do you
> : ever recall a time in your life when you questioned your sexuality, when
> : you wondered whether or not you were attracted to women. I suspect the
> : answer is no. You have always been heterosexual and always will be.
> : It's the same with homosexuality.
> :
> : Why doesn't the Bible take this into account? Well, the Bible doesn't
> : take into account things like skyscrapers when it talks about the Tower
> : of Babel, now does it? The Bible was written by a simpler people at a
> : very different time. To try to apply it entirely to today's life is
> : absolutely absurd (and this coming from someone who considers himself a
> : halfway decent Christian).
>
> Homosexuality is the same today as it was back then, except maybe not as
> perverse. And since God does not change, homosexuality is still an
> abomination. No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
> says it is wrong.
Folks, it is obvious that most of you are not university educated - at
least in the arts - from your moronic comments. Morality is a purely
human construct. It is not from some divine source. Morality is simply
a set of rules. There is no 'one' morality. Look around your family,
your city, your country, then the world. God has no say in these rules.
We humans make them up as we go, hence their changeability. Use your
brains, open your minds, get some education anywhere but in church.
Shawn Hicks
Daniel Mocsny wrote:
[...]
> Similarly, I believe I have learned to control my...I hesitate
> to say "disgust" but a better word is not forthcoming...with
> gay sex. What two consenting adults wish to do with their bodies
> is not my business. I will not concoct silly religious
> or pseudo-scientific arguments to promote my genetically-programmed
> homophobia as being THE "morally right" or "natural" behavior for
> all people.
"Genetically-programmed homophobia?!!" What a hoot. That has
*got* to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
Look 'Ma! He says he's genetically a bigot!
The KKK will be overjoyed to hear this.
> But the fact remains that the vast majority of
> heterosexuals are not entirely comfortable with the notion of gay
> sex and never will be.
Those people have been taught that homosexuality is wrong
and disgusting. Studys show that people who know a
gay or lesbian person are less likely to be disgusted
by homosexuality.
> Since most people reason emotively first and
> then later justify decisions with logic, the world will never lack
> for homophobes who dress up their genetically-programmed revulsion
> for homosexuality in the guise of some specious external authority.
I am not revolted by hetersexual sex. I'm just not turned on
by it. Of course, I wasn't taught that heterosexual sex is
wrong or disgusting.
> I suggest that vociferous homophobes have not learned to control
> their counterproductive genetic programming, in much the same way
> that a date-rapist has not learned to control his.
I suggest that homophobes are homophobes because they want
to be.
> Incidentally, it is even easier to argue for the existence of
> homophobia genes than for homosexuality genes. Given that
> homosexuality is a vastly more sensible alternative than
> heterosexuality (considering the massive cost of raising offspring),
> it is possible that homophobia genes are as adaptive as genes
> for heterosexuality. That is, given that homosexuality genes
> have been producing a stable pool of homosexuals in every generation,
> homophobia genes may get a foothold by "protecting" heterosexuals
> who lack the homosexuality genes from falling into homosexuality.
Uh, no. But nice try.
> In other words, if heterosexuals are going to do something as
> dangerous and expensive as have children, they can probably benefit
> from both positive (toward MOTOS) and negative (away from MOTSS)
> motivations.
Which is a rilly rilly odd thing to say. Straight folk don't
have to worry about any homosexual menace converting them
away from productive child-rearing. They have the best
protection of all--a heterosexual orientation. Simply being
disinterested in members of the same sex is enough. Nature
doesn't need to create bigots too.
Ralph&Paul
zo...@mail.goodnet.com,UseNetNews writes:
>Homosexuality is the same today as it was back then, except maybe not as
>perverse. And since God does not change, homosexuality is still an
>abomination. No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because
>God
>says it is wrong.
What if you don't believe in god? Is it still wrong?
Kerry J. Renaissance
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>Allan Crossman (a.cro...@ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
>: > No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
>: > says it is wrong.
>:
>: Good one. Can you explain WHY God says it is wrong?
> This is easy.
> Assume you have eyes. Next, assume you can see. Finally, observe
>that the function of a penis is to urinate, and to engage in
>procreative-type activity, NOT to be inserted in the body cavity of
>someone else's excretion system.
So, your objection is not, in fact, to homosexuality at all, but to
anal sex -- something couples of all genders and combinations have
been known to engage (m/m, m/f, f/m, and f/f -- to limit this to
couples). What is your objection to anal sex? How do you feel about
oral sex? Do you believe consenting adults should be allowed to
handcuff their willing partner to their headboards? What about
role-playing?
It's also worth noting that the obvious function of the mouth is to
eat and produce noise -- kissing serves no useful purpose whatsoever
(and do you know how many germs are in the mouth?). Be careful where
you tread when you go into the "The obvious function of an organ
is...." land, especially when invoking deities.
-- Kerry
"Writing is a struggle between presence and absence."
-- Lu Ji
Glue
Excuse me but homosexuality occurs in nature continously as does inestuous
relationships. Various breeds of monkey, including Chimpanzees, Gorillas,
and Orangutans, learn how to have sex from family members male and female.
Several other animals mainly in the insect world although not exclusively
change gender at will, to copulate and procreate, in several species, if
there are not enough females to breed, some of the animals switch.
Oh wow! Isn't nature a grand place where every exception to what is
thought of as the rule can be changed, just think a couple of hundred
years ago the established church swore black and blue that the world was
flat, hmmm! maybe they could be wrong about homosexuality too. Oh by the
way I'm a straight Christian boy who has no homosexual friends ( not of my
own choice mind you, as many people still hide their sexuality due to
ignorant bastards, and tend to keep to themselves until later in life for
fear of societies CHRISTIAN values.) Actually I retract my statement I'm
not Christian I'm better than most of them, I can except people for their
individuality not their sexual preference.
Glue.
Eric Bohlman
Daniel Mocsny (dmo...@mfm.com) wrote:
: Incidentally, it is even easier to argue for the existence of
: homosexuality is a vastly more sensible alternative than
: heterosexuality (considering the massive cost of raising offspring),
: it is possible that homophobia genes are as adaptive as genes
: for heterosexuality. That is, given that homosexuality genes
: have been producing a stable pool of homosexuals in every generation,
: homophobia genes may get a foothold by "protecting" heterosexuals
: who lack the homosexuality genes from falling into homosexuality.
: In other words, if heterosexuals are going to do something as
: dangerous and expensive as have children, they can probably benefit
: from both positive (toward MOTOS) and negative (away from MOTSS)
: motivations.
There are a couple problems with this argument. The first one is that
you're conflating two different emotions: 1) a revulsion against engaging
in homosexual acts *oneself* and 2) a revulsion against *other people*
who engage in homosexual acts. The second does not follow from the
first, and could have *no* survival benefit, since whether or not *other*
people engage in homosexual acts has no bearing whatsoever on whether or
not *you* engage in heterosexual acts to procreate. I personally hate
the taste of some foods, but I'm not bothered at all by the fact that
other people eat them.
The second problem is that in order to procreate, all one needs is a
strong desire to engage in heterosexual sex. Plenty of men get women
pregnant even when this results in economic disaster for both partners,
and when both partners knew in advance that it would, which suggests that
most heterosexuals don't need special circumstances to keep them
heterosexual.
Heterosexuality means having a specific attraction to members of the
opposite sex and specifically *wanting* to have sex with them. You seem
to be implying that people are only heterosexual because there homophobe
genes prevent them from wanting sex with members of the same sex, which
without those genes they'd find more desirable than heterosexual sex, so
they settle for "second best." This seems to be based on an incorrect
zero-sum view of life, that everything one actively desires must be
matched by something that one actively hates. It's like assuming that in
order to have friends, you must have enemies, or that loving one person
requires you to have at least one person that you hate. Life doesn't
work that way. There isn't a limited pool of utility such that an
increase in one person's utility can only come from a decrease in someone
else's.
John Simpson
[Some newsgroups trimmed.]
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:22:27 -0500, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com>
said unto us:
>Similarly, I believe I have learned to control my...I hesitate
>to say "disgust" but a better word is not forthcoming...with
>gay sex. What two consenting adults wish to do with their bodies
>is not my business.....Since most people reason emotively first and
>then later justify decisions with logic, the world will never lack
>for homophobes who dress up their genetically-programmed revulsion
>for homosexuality in the guise of some specious external authority.
[snip]
>Before I reached puberty, I thought girls were disgusting
>too. I remember denying vehemently as a very young boy that I
>would ever "like" girls (not being aware at the time, of course, of
>exactly what "like" entailed). Then puberty arrived, and POW. So much
>for my childhood point of view.
Suggests something about your "genetic" homophobia, too, doesn't
it?
Peace,
John Simpson
fe...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~feste
----------------------------------------------------
"A crowded elevator smells different to a dwarf."
Dwight R. Welch
zoner (zo...@mail.goodnet.com) wrote:
: Homosexuality is the same today as it was back then, except maybe not as
: perverse. And since God does not change, homosexuality is still an
: abomination. No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
: says it is wrong.
a.homosexuality signfies a sexual orientation, a term which is only a
century old..to try to read that back on the Bible is inherently
anachronistic
b.same sex acts were not the same then, especially in Greece in the first
century it was dominated by male/boy pedastry and male/boy prostitution
that has little correlation with committed,consensual, same sex relations
c.the Bible points to God, it is not God itself. It's as much fallible as
you and I
Dwight
#liberal christian
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1764
Jenner
On 26 Mar 1997 21:39:41 GMT, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:
: Homosexuality is the same today as it was back then, except maybe not as
: perverse. And since God does not change, homosexuality is still an
: abomination. No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
: says it is wrong.
Get this straight, zoner. Your god, your bible, is not my god nor my
bible. I don't care what you think your god says about this subject.
I only care about the problems you and your ilk have surrounding it.
John A. Stanley
In article <5hek5c$g...@news.tamu.edu>,
dwilliams@ttiadmin@tamu.edu.spamremover (Not!) wrote:
>In article <333945...@ccmail.turner.com>, Xich Lo <kevin_...@ccmail.turner.com> says:
>>
>>(meaning other than humans) is absurd. You want proof that
>>homosexuality occurs in nature? Fine. Humans do it. Other than that,
>>it doesn't matter. Animals do many things humans don't and vice versa.
>>The fact is (and it is a fact) homosexuality is a natural part of human
>>existence. How do I know? Well, I am gay. I have always been gay. I
>>have never had any desire for women. And nothing, nothing, nothing is
>>going to change that. I was born this way. Period.
>
>have no basis in reality, right? Bull. Your experience proves
>nothing at all.
The study of human sexuality can only be done on humans, and the only
evidence is human experience. His experience and that of millions of
other homosexuals prove everything.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
"Hey! You got your razor in my wager!"
Xich Lo
zoner wrote:
> Homosexuality is the same today as it was back then, except maybe not as
> perverse. And since God does not change, homosexuality is still an
> abomination. No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
> says it is wrong.
Wrong Wrong Wrong. God doesn't change? So there is no difference
between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament?
I hate to tell you, but it is BASIC Christian teaching that God does
change, as is evidenced by his changing from a "vengeful" God to a
"forgiving" God. Besides, who are you to say that God doesn't change?
Do you speak for God? I think God can speak for himself/herself, and I
suggest you leave it to him/her to decide it we homosexuals are, as you
put it, an abomination, especially since God said point blank, "Judge
not lest ye be judged."
Allan Crossman
> No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
> says it is wrong.
Good one. Can you explain WHY God says it is wrong?
--
Allan Crossman <a.cro...@ukonline.co.uk>
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/a.crossman/home.html
Babylon 5, Bolo, and Realmz pages...
James Garner
Allan Crossman (a.cro...@ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
: > No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
: > says it is wrong.
:
: Good one. Can you explain WHY God says it is wrong?
This is easy.
Jenner
On 28 Mar 1997 22:06:28 GMT, da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
You could try using your brains too.
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:18:00 +0000 Xich Lo
<kevin_...@ccmail.turner.com> posted:
>zoner wrote:
>> Homosexuality is the same today as it was back then, except maybe not as
>> perverse. And since God does not change, homosexuality is still an
>> abomination. No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
>> says it is wrong.
>Wrong Wrong Wrong. God doesn't change? So there is no difference
>between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament?
>I hate to tell you, but it is BASIC Christian teaching that God does
>change, as is evidenced by his changing from a "vengeful" God to a
>"forgiving" God. Besides, who are you to say that God doesn't change?
>Do you speak for God? I think God can speak for himself/herself, and I
>suggest you leave it to him/her to decide it we homosexuals are, as you
>put it, an abomination, especially since God said point blank, "Judge
>not lest ye be judged."
While you seek understanding and tolerarnce for yourself and other
gays, you continue to repeat hateful lies about the God of the Jewish
people. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing the same thing
you criticize in others. In addition your remarks are false.
Christians rely on the civil govenments of Greece, Rome etc
continuously until the United STates to enforce criminal laws and to
sue to people who have damaged them. So it is fine that they can
point to their bible and say"How kind and forgiving God is here" (and
that ignores the many verses which I don't consider kind or loving.
Christians are not a nation and they don't have to have a law of their
own, but the state laws they vote for are just as hard as the laws God
gave the Jewish people. Jews are a nation and they have to have a law
to determine what is bad and to resolve disputes.
When Christians brag about how loving their God is, they ignore their
own teaching, that the wages of sin are death.
And for you Kevin, who has known hatred, to participate in the sewing
of hate, you should be ashamed.
Shalom, mei...@erols.com
Probably posting from soc.culture.jewish.
I miss many posts so e-mail also if you
want me to get it. Also not a posek.
****** ******
Join the Mosaic Outdoor Mountain Club
to enjoy the outdoors with all kinds of
Jews of all ages all over the USA.
Nationwide event Maryland LaborDayWkEnd
O/C/R/S E-mail me.
****************************************
John Sanger
In article <5hhfd4$j...@news-central.tiac.net> da...@tiac.net (James Garner) writes:
>Allan Crossman (a.cro...@ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: > No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
>: > says it is wrong.
>:
>: Good one. Can you explain WHY God says it is wrong?
>
> This is easy.
>
> Assume you have eyes. Next, assume you can see. Finally, observe
>that the function of a penis is to urinate, and to engage in
>procreative-type activity, NOT to be inserted in the body cavity of
>someone else's excretion system.
You are the one determining that the Penis is NOT to be inserted into
the body cavity of someone else using and oriface not use for
reproduction......
Now back to the question that you did not answer but instead used your
own words for in an effort to obfuscate.....
Supply the explaination from your deity's own words why homosexuality is
wrong!
Ben Kosse
>: > No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
>: > says it is wrong.
>: Good one. Can you explain WHY God says it is wrong?
>that the function of a penis is to urinate, and to engage in
>procreative-type activity, NOT to be inserted in the body cavity of
>someone else's excretion system.
human is that sexual activity brings pleasure.
WOW! That means that a) sex isn't used purely for procreation, and
b) therefore, homosexuality has a purpose.
Now, I could go on, but I think I'll leave it as is.
--
Ben Kosse bmk...@cs.rit.edu <#??? (Don't have one yet)>
BGC Otaku and worshipper of the Red-Eyed Goddess. Member of ShAS.
Anime, RPG's, computers, poetry (read/write), music (listen/compose).
Author of the Bubblegum Crisis theme pack (see the homepage below).
Homepage with anime and other interests. (http://www.rit.edu/~bmk7411)
Daryl Kazmier
>
>
>
There can be no "sensible" argument about the goodness or badness of
homosexuality. As you can see from the remarks already made, those who
are against it can only fall back on the bible or some vague god--that
is *not* an argument against anything. If the bible or some god is the
argument against gayness, then one must believe in the bible or some
form of god--I find it easier to believe in Mother Goose--but for
certain the bible and god are not good reasons to be against homo-
sexuality. Why would anyone be against homosexuality? The reason they
give is that it isn't natural and in the bible it says . . .
dion...@infinet.com
zoner (zo...@mail.goodnet.com) said:
}Homosexuality is the same today as it was back then, except maybe not as
}perverse.
Apparently you've never heard of autoerotic asphyxiation...
}And since God does not change, homosexuality is still an
}abomination. No matter what you say, homosexuality is WRONG, because God
}says it is wrong.
Where?
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Consider a country where worshipping the wrong God is considered immoral.
Consider further that the majority of these people consider the right God
to be Cthulhu. Therefore, all Christians in this country are considered
immoral and their actions illegal. According to you, this is a perfectly
correct state of affairs. All the majority needs to do is say "our
religion considers Christians to be immoral because they don't pay respect
to the right God." They need not show that your worship harms anyone
else. They need no further justification to criminalize your religion. I
don't know why you Christians complain about Roman persecution. By your
arguments, the Romans had a perfect right to do what they did.
-- da...@iris.ucr.edu (David Choweller), 07 Oct 1995
dion...@infinet.com
James Garner (da...@tiac.net) said:
} Assume you have eyes. Next, assume you can see. Finally, observe
}that the function of a penis is to urinate, and to engage in
}procreative-type activity, NOT to be inserted in the body cavity of
}someone else's excretion system.
Assume you have a mouth. Next, assume you can use it. Finally observe
that the function of the mouth is to chew food, and to allow air passage.
Does this mean that oral sex is "wrong"?
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
"Military authorities are prohibited under the First Amendment from
expelling soldiers who are members of extremist hate groups, as long as
their membership is not 'active.' Under today's regulations, therefore, a
soldier who tells his commanding officer, 'I am gay,' will be auto-
matically discharged, whereas a soldier who tells a superior, 'I am a
member of the American Nazi Party and a believer in the ideals of Adolph
Hitler,' will be allowed to serve."
-- Editorial in The New Republic.
dion...@infinet.com
mei...@erols.com said:
}Christians are not a nation and they don't have to have a law of their
}own, but the state laws they vote for are just as hard as the laws God
}gave the Jewish people. Jews are a nation and they have to have a law
}to determine what is bad and to resolve disputes.
The Christians have a nation. Two. The first is Vatican City. (Want an
interesting diversion? Examine its laws.) The second? Iran. The country
that proudly proclaims: "The government of God on Earth." (And surely
it's a Christian country if it worships God...)
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
"Dr. Scott!" "Janet!" "Brad!" "Rocky!" "YO ADRIAN!"
dion...@infinet.com
za...@nutcracker.net said:
}Here is another amazing fact that states alledged homosexual behavior, but in
}fact says nothing. What are they referring to as homosexual tendencies? Do these
}male goats engage in anal sex? If so is there any film to prove it? If not then
}I ask why none of these alleged homosexual behaviours of some animals are not
}filmed? Without film, I find these claims nothing more than speculation and
}without film I find them very suspicious.
Anyone else tempted to use Jurassic Park as "proof that dinosaurs are
still exist"?
I've got tape of UFOs too. (The X-Files is a *wonderful* show.) Maybe that
means that there really are aliens on our southern most continent who are
secretly controlling the world...
Next.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Lord, please grant me the serentiy to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies
of those I had to kill because they really pissed me off!
esme...@jumpstart.com
It may come to your suprise that a large percentage of gays do not
engage in anal sex!
Thomas D. Langenback
dion...@infinet.com wrote:
>
> The Christians have a nation. Two. The first is Vatican City. (Want an
Ummm...I think you're confusing Christion with Catholic.
> interesting diversion? Examine its laws.) The second? Iran. The country
> that proudly proclaims: "The government of God on Earth." (And surely
> it's a Christian country if it worships God...)
"Well, it's got wings, so it MUST be able to fly" (pointing at an
ostrich)
Yeah, right. Next time you're in Iran (or meet an Iranian), explain to
>THEM< that they're Christian. I'm sure that will be news to most of them.
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------\
|disc...@resurrection.com Thomas D. Langenback|
| "Believing is Seeing" |
| http://members.tripod.com/~disciple1 Say 'NO' to SPAM|
\-----------------------------------------------------------------/
lala...@netvision.net.il
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:11:25 -0600, "Thomas D. Langenback"
<disc...@resurrection.com> wrote:
Get the hell out of soc.culture.israel and soc.culture.jewish with
that thread.
__________________________________________________________________________
The JDL (Gersy the Leech), Aruz-7 , SNS and Igal Hamagil (The Shit Maker) STINK
__________________________________________________________________________
Please do your best not to send nasty e-mail to: nimr...@netvision.net.il
__________________________________________________________________________
dion...@infinet.com
Thomas D. Langenback (disc...@resurrection.com) said:
}Ummm...I think you're confusing Christion with Catholic.
Oh, looky here folks: Cult wars! Who's the "true Christian"?
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
House sex: When you're newly married and having sex in every room of the
house -- trying many and various positions.
Bedroom sex: That period of time after marriage when you have sex just in
the bedroom.
Hall sex: When you've been married for many, many years, and you just pass
each other in the hall and say "fuck you".
Ralph&Paul
will...@wanweb.net,UseNetNews writes:
>On 3/31/97 12:00AM, in message <5hnquf$m...@news1.infinet.com>,
>>
>> And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
>>
>> House sex: When you're newly married and having sex in every room
>> of the
>> house -- trying many and various positions.
>>
>> Bedroom sex: That period of time after marriage when you have sex
>> just in
>> the bedroom.
>>
>> Hall sex: When you've been married for many, many years, and you
>> just pass
>> each other in the hall and say "fuck you".
>>
>As a child I was told "If you can't say something nice don't say
>anything at all".
>I am certain this would cut down considerably on the amount of e-mail
>but this newsgroup would be a little easier on the eyes.
>Some think foul language is used to divert attention away from the
>person's tiny mind that uttered it.
We thought it was very funny, but as children we were told " if you
can't find something nice to say, come sit by me".
Maltb
===================
If you believe in the Bible then you must also believe that anyone who
was born outside of marriage (what ever definition you have for this
type of contract) can never be a member of the Church nor can his
children for TEN generations.... (Dueteronomy)
If you believe in the Bible then you have to agree in abortion, because
Joshua, commanded pregnant women to be slain.
If you believe in the Bible then you must also know that you will have
to abandon (family values) your unbelieving wife and any children you
and she had (Ezra)
If you say this is Old Testement and not applicable to us today, then
you are agreeing, thank you very much, that ethics is relative. So,
what others ethical rules can we change to make your homophobic little
life more comfortable? But, remember, we can't use the Bible, because
its laws and ethics are relative.
Samaritan
Ahem....Yes, this is the Old Testament, and yes, it is NOT applicable
today, and no, ethics should not be relative. Right and wrong are
absolutes...no middle ground. Something is either right or not. And as
Christians, we follow the rules Jesus set. Since Jesus brought these
rules, they began with Him. The rules He brought have been in effect for
Christians for around 2000 years. They have stood the test of time. I
see nothing "relative" about that.
--
Samaritan********sama...@centuryinter.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"God's got an army, not afraid to fight
Soldiers of the Cross and children of the Light..."
-----Carman----
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Kerry J. Renaissance
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>Conrad Sabatier (con...@neosoft.com) wrote:
>: In article <5i1ruu$n...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>: da...@tiac.net (James Garner) writes:
>: >
>: > You want the same rights? You have the same rights.
>:
>: Do we? Including the right to marry, legally?
> "Marriage" is a concept for a man and a woman. Not for a man and a
>man, a man and a tree, or a man and a computer.
You have some objection to recognizing the legal unions of consenting
adults? (Your other examples are simply ridiculous and not worth
bothering with. If it can't consent, it can't marry.) What is so
right about mixed gender marriages in your eyes? Come, tell us what
makes you deserving of this special right.
-- Kerry
"Writing is a struggle between presence and absence."
-- Lu Ji
Lady Mel
Kerry J. Renaissance wrote:
>
> da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>
> >Allan Crossman (a.cro...@ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
>
> >: > says it is wrong.
> >:
> >: Good one. Can you explain WHY God says it is wrong?
> > Assume you have eyes. Next, assume you can see. Finally, observe
> >that the function of a penis is to urinate, and to engage in
> >procreative-type activity, NOT to be inserted in the body cavity of
> >someone else's excretion system.
>
> anal sex -- something couples of all genders and combinations have
> been known to engage (m/m, m/f, f/m, and f/f -- to limit this to
> couples). What is your objection to anal sex? How do you feel about
> oral sex? Do you believe consenting adults should be allowed to
> handcuff their willing partner to their headboards? What about
> role-playing?
>
> It's also worth noting that the obvious function of the mouth is to
> eat and produce noise -- kissing serves no useful purpose whatsoever
> (and do you know how many germs are in the mouth?). Be careful where
> you tread when you go into the "The obvious function of an organ
> is...." land, especially when invoking deities.
>
> -- Kerry
>
> "Writing is a struggle between presence and absence."
> -- Lu Ji
I just love it.
Did God encourage us to love one another?
Isn't the Catholic Church one of the biggest hypocrites of the nineties?
Get real, people want to be loved and be intimate. Although I don't
think anything should be inserted analy, I have no right to tell others
not to do so. Good point about the mouth. We all like being kissed, and
kissing IS very pleasurable. But kissing is not the purpose for which
the mouth was designed - chewing, masticating and lubricating and
serving as a passage for food and saliva. One's own.
We just want to love and be loved. If that means someone prefers their
own sex. So be it. In the privacy of their own home - who gives a shit
anyway?
M
James Garner
Lady Mel (mel...@faraday.DIALix.com.au) wrote:
: We just want to love and be loved. If that means someone prefers their
: own sex. So be it. In the privacy of their own home - who gives a shit
: anyway?
This is all well and fine, if it's only what you do in your home.
But that's not what homosexuals want. They want special rights,
just because they engage in such behavior. They want special laws.
That's what many people give a shit about.
Douglas Goodridge
>Ahem....Yes, this is the Old Testament, and yes, it is NOT applicable
>today, and no, ethics should not be relative. Right and wrong are
>absolutes...no middle ground. Something is either right or not. And as
>Christians, we follow the rules Jesus set. Since Jesus brought these
>rules, they began with Him. The rules He brought have been in effect for
>Christians for around 2000 years. They have stood the test of time. I
>see nothing "relative" about that.
So, since Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality, then it
isn't a sin? If it were so important as many christians say, then
don't you think Jesus would have said something about it. He sure
spoke at length about dishonestly, adultery, and lack of compassion.
Why is it that Christians spend more time pointing out the sins of
other's than doing the things Jesus did such as healing the sick and
feeding the hungry?
dougg
Visit my homepage at:
http://www.iea.com/~dougg/mikedoug.html
Scott Carpenter
On 2 Apr 1997 03:14:29 GMT, da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
> This is all well and fine, if it's only what you do in your home.
>
> But that's not what homosexuals want. They want special rights,
>just because they engage in such behavior. They want special laws.
>
> That's what many people give a shit about.
Not quite true. I want an end to special rights. I want the special
rights that you have - the special rights that protect your lifestyle
choices and that give you a strangehold on legal relationships - to be
changed to equal rights.
I agree - special rights are not good. Unless, of course, you're the
one with the special rights.
Ronnie
I agree - special rights are not good. What special rights are
homosexuals asking for?
Xich Lo
James Garner wrote:
>
> This is all well and fine, if it's only what you do in your home.
>
> But that's not what homosexuals want. They want special rights,
> just because they engage in such behavior. They want special laws.
>
> That's what many people give a shit about.
You are terribly wrong about this. I don't know of a single homosexual
who wants "special rights." We want the same rights accorded to
virtually every other American. We want to be able to marry whomever we
choose (as well as receive the same tax and insurance benefits that
heterosexual marriages receive). We want to be able to live our lives
without fear of being beaten or murdered. We want to be able to do our
jobs without fear of being fired for not other reason than for being
gay. We want to be able to hold hands in public without being
ridiculed. These are all rights guaranteed to heterosexuals by the
Constitution. But they are not guaranteed to homosexuals. Your
contention that we want "special rights" shows how you take your own
freedoms for granted. We want the same rights you have. Currently we
do not have those rights.
Ronnie
>isn't. Personally, I have no problems with gays, nor do I think they
>should be legally less equal. I just don't think a term with a meaning
>that goes back to time immemorable has to be changed for it.
>
But, you see, gays have married in the past. So, the meaning is love,
and has not changed at all.
Ron
Hector
I'm with you all the way, then, except for one thing: Marriage. Why?
Because it would require re-definition of the term. Marriage has a
definition, not just legally, but logically: It is a union between a man
& a woman. Sorry, but that is the way it is. You ought to have the same
tax breaks and so on as married folk accorded to your unions as a matter
of justice, but a term other than "Marriage" *must* be assigned. It's
*not* 'Marriage'. That word is already taken, and its meaning doesn't
include same-sex unions.
Seriously, this one concession would probably diffuse most, if not all,
of the hostility against the idea of so-called 'gay marriage'. It would
also show who's really against Gay Unions for hateful reasons, and who
isn't. Personally, I have no problems with gays, nor do I think they
should be legally less equal. I just don't think a term with a meaning
that goes back to time immemorable has to be changed for it.
Hector
-------------------------------------
Note: Return address is bogus as an anti-spam precaution.
E-mail received by invitation only.
-------------------------------------
John De Salvio
In article <5hsiul$4...@news-central.tiac.net>, da...@tiac.net (James
Garner) wrote:
> But that's not what homosexuals want. They want special rights,
> just because they engage in such behavior. They want special laws.
>
> That's what many people give a shit about.
No matter how often "you people" shout out this blatant lie,
it remains exactly that - a blatant lie.
Time and time again you have been asked what specific
"special rights" we are demanding, and time and again
you fail to mention even ONE.
NOT ONE.
Not surprisingly, the radical right makes it a point to
interject the "special rights" phrase and the "homosexual
agenda" phrase in all their arguments to keep the intentional
demonizing of homosexuals on the front burner.
You people may think we are stupid, but the fact of the matter
is, more and more poeple are beginning to realize that the
arguments you attempt to foist on the American people
are no longer being bought.
To quote another "radical homosexual,"
I'll stop telling the truth about you
if you'll stop telling the lies about us.
Deal?
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
Eric Seright-Payne
Hector wrote:.
>
> I'm with you all the way, then, except for one thing: Marriage. Why?
> Because it would require re-definition of the term. Marriage has a
> definition, not just legally, but logically: It is a union between a man
> & a woman. Sorry, but that is the way it is. You ought to have the same
> tax breaks and so on as married folk accorded to your unions as a matter
> of justice, but a term other than "Marriage" *must* be assigned. It's
> *not* 'Marriage'. That word is already taken, and its meaning doesn't
> include same-sex unions.
Then, you're right. It's not marriage. Marriage is the legal union, and
recognition of that union. Anything else is psuedo-marriage... and is
grounds for the "special rights" claim that others make in re:
homosexuals.
If we suddenly were to say, okay, don't let us get married, but let us
do "fill-in-the-blank-with-whatever-term-you-deem-appropriate," then
that, indeed, would be a "special right," as it would be something
accorded to homosexuals simply because we are homosexuals. And over
time, if not immediately, people would forget (or ignore) we settled for
that as a concession to your uncomfortability with the term "marriage,"
all that would be bandied about publicly would be the "special right"
being accorded to homosexuals.
Definitions change, daily. New terms and concepts are being defined
daily. Go to a dictionary of 25 years ago, and see if the word "modem"
is there. Or byte. Or internet. As things grow and evolve, so do words,
terms and definitions. The world is changing; the definition of marriage
must change with it.
You're uncomfortable with that? Tough. Live with it. We've had to live
with far, far worse over the years.
>
> Seriously, this one concession would probably diffuse most, if not all,
> of the hostility against the idea of so-called 'gay marriage'. It would
> also show who's really against Gay Unions for hateful reasons, and who
> isn't. Personally, I have no problems with gays, nor do I think they
> should be legally less equal. I just don't think a term with a meaning
> that goes back to time immemorable has to be changed for it.
It would diffuse nothing. The hostility would go on unabated.
The only real way to diffuse hostility is to openly state that all
persons, and all unions are equal, be those unions homo- or
heterosexual. It's the perceived differences now that are aiding and
abeting the hostility and hatred; should those differences actually be
legislated into action as a "seperate-but-equal" status, much akin to
segregation laws of previous years, the hostility would only increase...
especially were we to refuse to acknowledge those laws and still push
for our rightful place as equal citizens. Then the hostility would be:
Those damn fags just don't know their place.
Again, terms change. Live with it.
Eric Seright-Payne
Livermore, CA
Unsolicited emails subject to a $500 <American> retrieval/storage fee,
as allowed by Federal Law.
Karl Denninger
In article <3342A2...@wco.com>, Eric Seright-Payne <j...@wco.com> wrote:
>Hector wrote:.
>>
>> I'm with you all the way, then, except for one thing: Marriage. Why?
>> Because it would require re-definition of the term. Marriage has a
>> definition, not just legally, but logically: It is a union between a man
>> & a woman. Sorry, but that is the way it is. You ought to have the same
>> tax breaks and so on as married folk accorded to your unions as a matter
>> of justice, but a term other than "Marriage" *must* be assigned. It's
>> *not* 'Marriage'. That word is already taken, and its meaning doesn't
>> include same-sex unions.
>
>Then, you're right. It's not marriage. Marriage is the legal union, and
>recognition of that union. Anything else is psuedo-marriage... and is
>grounds for the "special rights" claim that others make in re:
>homosexuals.
Yep.
I do not support special breaks for any class of people. At all. In fact,
I am vehemently opposed to them. Whether it is "gay rights", "afro-american
rights", "woman's rights", "affirmative action", etc.
Why don't we try "HUMAN RIGHTS" for a change?
As in "we're all equal as PEOPLE".
You want to marry someone as the *secular* world defines it? Fine.
You get all the privileges AND RESPONSIBILITIES that come with it.
Regardless of the genders of the people involved.
The problem I have with the "co-habitating gay people" health insurance
debate, for example, is that those people DIDN'T give up the rights that
other single people have in order to obtain these things.
That is, they got the rights but NOT the responsibilities.
That's a problem. It is discriminatory, and it is further in violation of
the equal protection clause in the Constitution in the US.
We don't need that kind of bias, and its illegal besides.
Do it the right way. Define "marriage" legally at the secular level as a
legal union of two *human beings, each of the age of consent*. Religious
organizations and their problems with this are irrelavent to the question;
there is always a Justice of the Peace.
Poof!
The problem disappears.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Hector
Eric Seright-Payne wrote:
>
> Hector wrote:.
> >
> > I'm with you all the way, then, except for one thing: Marriage. Why?
> > Because it would require re-definition of the term. Marriage has a
> > definition, not just legally, but logically: It is a union between a man
> > & a woman. Sorry, but that is the way it is. You ought to have the same
> > tax breaks and so on as married folk accorded to your unions as a matter
> > of justice, but a term other than "Marriage" *must* be assigned. It's
> > *not* 'Marriage'. That word is already taken, and its meaning doesn't
> > include same-sex unions.
>
> Then, you're right. It's not marriage. Marriage is the legal union, and
> recognition of that union. Anything else is psuedo-marriage... and is
> grounds for the "special rights" claim that others make in re:
> homosexuals.
>
Eric:
You missed it again! Internet, byte, and so on are *new* terms, for new
concepts hitherto unknown. They are not re-definitions of previously
existent terms. *I* didn't define the word Marriage, thousands of years
of history have. It has never included single sex unions. If you want
society to produce this new concept, as an arguable
improvement/advancement of civilization, go ahead and make your case.
*I* won't try to stop you. But realize that it *would* be a new concept.
Name it. Marriage is already taken.
The Separate but equal thing also is capricious and does not apply, for
the following reason: The term Human didn't have to be re-written to
include blacks. They always were human, and you wouldn't get an argument
about it, even from most racists back before civil rights. Oh, I suppose
a lot of real flaming bigots would have argued the point anyway, either
to be a**holes or because they really were that ignorant, but most
people would have disagreed. Marriage has *never* included gay unions.
Even honest people who want it to have to admit that it hasn't.
You say
> It would diffuse nothing. The hostility would go on unabated.
It sounds as if you've decided nobody but you is reasonable. Real tasty
position to take. Maybe that's why the discussion is going nowhere, and
to nobody's benefit. Your hostility and bigotry leap off the page.
<<"You're uncomfortable with that? Tough. Live with it. We've had to
live with far, far worse over the years.>>?? What is this, a contest?
Maybe you should put sex on the shelf for a while and concern yourself
with becoming an adult first. But I forgot...nobody ever suffered as
much as you, and it's everyone else's fault. Oh. Excuse me. And I
thought I was just trying to go about my business...guess you told *me*.
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:13:23 +0000 Xich Lo
<kevin_...@ccmail.turner.com> posted:
>>
>> But that's not what homosexuals want. They want special rights,
>> just because they engage in such behavior. They want special laws.
>You are terribly wrong about this. I don't know of a single homosexual
>who wants "special rights." We want the same rights accorded to
>virtually every other American.
I know it will look like I am taking sides on this here, and both
sides may be antagonized, but I think it is my role to comment here.
"We want the same rights accorded every other American" It is not
surprising one might say this because there is constant talk about
rights these days, without specifying rights before the government and
rights before individuals not working for the government at the time.
There may well be a Constitutional right for homosexuals not to be
denied government employment or housing, etc.
But individual until 1964 or so had just about total freedom to be a
discriminatory, for good reasons or bad, as they wished. It is still
true, despite what they show on tv, in most cases that a shopkeeper, a
landlord,, an employer, an employee, etc are free to discriminate on
all but a few bases: They are race, religion, national origin,
physical disability, things like that that have been singled out for
special treatment by special legislation. That is what he means by
special rights.
The vast majority of distinctions that exist are still acceptable
reasons for discrimination. He picks his nose, his shirt is dirty,
his shirttails are out, his hair is long, he wears a beard (unless it
is for religious reasons), I don't like the color of his clothes, she
posed naked, she shaves her head, he curses, he rides a motorcyle, he
is an adulterer, he has sex out of marriage, she smokes cigarettes, he
is said to be a pederast, he smells bad, he reminds me of my
ex-brother-in-law, I just don't like him. etc. It doesn't matter if
the reason is reasonable, good or bad, firmly held or weakly held.
Because these are not the major battlegrounds, because in the major
batlegrounds for the most part the decision has been made by our
legislators in the direction of non=discrimination it is not
surprising that one might believe that every distinction except
homoselxuality is covered. But that is far from the case.
Any comments on the rest of your post are beyone this idea and are at
my own risk.
>We want to be able to marry whomever we
>choose (as well as receive the same tax and insurance benefits that
>heterosexual marriages receive).
Obviously those with dirty shirts don't seem suitable for income tax
benefits, so I see how this one bothers you. I think in one Cal city,
one can name a cobeneficiary without attaching any title to him or
alleging any role. Of course, without the requirement of a formal
marriage, any two guys who want to save money will be able to use this
option. Maybe even with formal marriage many of them would do so.
> We want to be able to live our lives
>without fear of being beaten or murdered.
This is guarenteed and should be strictly enforced
> We want to be able to do our
>jobs without fear of being fired for not other reason than for being
>gay.
Many people who opposed racism and didn't practice it, opposed the
original civil rights law because of a variety or reasons: goverment
power, where will it end, etc. I personally only favored the law for
black Americans who were brought here against their will, no other
groups. I have never asked for any special treatment as a Jew, don't
want to, but to be honest might do so in extremis.
> We want to be able to hold hands in public without being
>ridiculed. These are all rights guaranteed to heterosexuals by the
>Constitution.
Not being ridiculed is not guaranteed.
> But they are not guaranteed to homosexuals. Your
>contention that we want "special rights" shows how you take your own
>freedoms for granted. We want the same rights you have.
The only special rights I have is as a Jew, I didn't ask for them and
I have not exerted them. None of my other habits or statuses have
rights.
>Currently we
>do not have those rights.
I don't like the government involved but I think everyone and I know
that all Jews have a duty to be polite and kind to homosexuals. I
hope this post is not an exception, but until now I have never been
rude to such a person, including my roommate or his friends, including
my girlfriends friends. (If I were to refer to any of these as my
friends, it would be acliche.).
OUT OF TOWN will miss posts, so e-mail me
if you wish me to see your answer.
Eric Seright-Payne
Hector wrote:
> You missed it again! Internet, byte, and so on are *new* terms, for new
> concepts hitherto unknown. They are not re-definitions of previously
> existent terms. *I* didn't define the word Marriage, thousands of years
> of history have. It has never included single sex unions. If you want
> society to produce this new concept, as an arguable
> improvement/advancement of civilization, go ahead and make your case.
> *I* won't try to stop you. But realize that it *would* be a new concept.
> Name it. Marriage is already taken.
That's right. "Marriage" is taken. But you are adamant about the
creation of a new term for a gay marriage, and go to great lengths to
ignore the first paragraph of my posting, which clearly stated
definitions of words change. Definitions are not carved in stone,
resolute eternally. For instance, the word gay itself... it did not
always mean "slang term for homosexual males," but through the years,
that is a definition now included in most dictionaries.
> The Separate but equal thing also is capricious and does not apply, for
> the following reason: The term Human didn't have to be re-written to
> include blacks.
Wrong, Hector. The term "Human" did not originally include
African-Americans. In fact, at one point in history, segregation was
championed before the Supreme Court of the United States, using just
that reason for the continuance thereof: according to the then-accepted
definition of the terms "human" and "man," blacks were neither,
therefore were not entitled to the rights the Constitution stated all
men had, having been created equal.
> They always were human, and you wouldn't get an argument
> about it, even from most racists back before civil rights. Oh, I suppose
> a lot of real flaming bigots would have argued the point anyway, either
> to be a**holes or because they really were that ignorant, but most
> people would have disagreed. Marriage has *never* included gay unions.
> Even honest people who want it to have to admit that it hasn't.
Again, wrong. A few years ago documents revealed to have come from the
files of the Catholic Church emerged, in which ceremonies, clearly
stated to be "Marriage Ceremonies" were performed between two men on a
routine basis; normally those men were then going off to fight the
Crusades.
>
> You say "It would diffuse nothing. The hostility would go on unabated."
>
> It sounds as if you've decided nobody but you is reasonable. Real tasty
> position to take. Maybe that's why the discussion is going nowhere, and
> to nobody's benefit. Your hostility and bigotry leap off the page.
Hostility? Bigotry? If that's the way you wish to read it, that's fine.
I read it as both practical and realistic. Living in the San Francisco
Bay Area, where homosexuality is more readily accepted, one would think
there would be no problem with discrimination and/or acts of violence
against gays.
Unfortunately, that's not the case. The number of "gay bashings" in this
area is only a percentage off the national average of the same.
The point I was making is valid; it's your interpretation of that point
- coming, I understand, from the viewpoint of a nonhomosexual man who
is, I believe, genuinly concerned with attempting to make everyone happy
- is skewed.
And I even understand how it could be so... random acts of violence
perpetrated against you for no other reason than you exist is not
something you must face on a daily basis. For us, it is.
We not only HAVE to be aware of what the climate is today, we HAVE to be
concerned with how the climate today is going to affect tomorrow... the
creation of a "different-but-equal" class would only foster more hatred
and animosity, as then those persons who claim gays are seeking "special
rights" would have something solid to point to: a legal distinction that
exists only for gays.
> <<"You're uncomfortable with that? Tough. Live with it. We've had to
> live with far, far worse over the years.>>?? What is this, a contest?
No, it's no contest. For more years than either one of us can count,
gays/lesbians have had their very lives threatened with extinction based
solely on political and personal whims. A lot of those whims have their
basis in the perception of those politicians as to what the majority of
the populace want. We're then told, when acts are perpetrated against
us, tough. Majority Rules.
Doesn't work that way when it comes to rights. When our rights to
MARRIAGE (not domestic partnership, not some un-named alternative
choice) are finally granted us, the definition will change. I repeat:
You're uncomfortable with that? Tough. Live with it.
Just as we've been told: You don't like the fact you can't marry your
lover, or that you can get fired simply for putting your lover's photo
on your desk, or that you can't serve in the military? Tough.
> Maybe you should put sex on the shelf for a while and concern yourself
> with becoming an adult first. But I forgot...nobody ever suffered as
> much as you, and it's everyone else's fault. Oh. Excuse me. And I
> thought I was just trying to go about my business...guess you told *me*.
Now we come to the crux of the matter: most heterosexuals, for some
reason I don't understand, cannot picture anything having to do with
homosexuals without the act of sex entering the picture!
Just where in your initial posting or my response thereto, was sex
mentioned? Nowhere. But you just can't get beyond that. To you, as is
obvious by this unwarranted comment, the sex is overriding.
Why is that?
Eric Seright-Payne
Livermore, CA
The appropriate venue for response to a public posting is publicly.
Private emailings will be deleted, unread.
Unsolicited email is subject to a $500 <American> retrieval/storage fee,
Jenner
On 2 Apr 1997 03:14:29 GMT, da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
: Lady Mel (mel...@faraday.DIALix.com.au) wrote:
:
: : We just want to love and be loved. If that means someone prefers their
: : own sex. So be it. In the privacy of their own home - who gives a shit
: : anyway?
:
: This is all well and fine, if it's only what you do in your home.
Why don't you keep your heterosexuality behind closed doors? Why
don't you have to?
:
: But that's not what homosexuals want. They want special rights,
: just because they engage in such behavior. They want special laws.
Sure they do. They want the *same* special rights as heterosexuals
have.
:
: That's what many people give a shit about.
What they give a shit about is having and making *sure* there are
have-nots.
***
To reply by e-mail, remove the spam fodder (the **)
from my e-mail address.
http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29
***
J. Micheal Nobles
>tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
> Supply the explaination from your deity's own words why homosexuality is
> wrong!
"The man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two
shall become one flesh." ^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
But then again you dont exactly believe that God exists, so you would obviously
doubt that this came from Him or not. Now if you are just asking where it is
found that would be in Genesis. Please remember your question when you respond.
Mike Nobles | "I know it broke Your heart, to see me struggle
Univ. of Tulsa | in the dark... Oh, Lord, now I believe... Love
Mcfarlin Library | was never meant to die... yet You gave your all
nobl...@centum.utulsa.edu | to keep it alive..."
| Kathy Troccoli - "Love was never meant to die"
Views expressed above are my own and not necessarily that of my employers
Jay L Cole
des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote:
>In article <5hsiul$4...@news-central.tiac.net>, da...@tiac.net (James
>Garner) wrote:
>> But that's not what homosexuals want. They want special rights,
>> just because they engage in such behavior. They want special laws.
>>
>> That's what many people give a shit about.
>No matter how often "you people" shout out this blatant lie,
>it remains exactly that - a blatant lie.
>Time and time again you have been asked what specific
> "special rights" we are demanding, and time and again
>you fail to mention even ONE.
Well, don't group me in with this guy, because I agree with none of
his hatred and intolerance. But in when I was in Denver a few years
ago, wasn't the Gay community trying to get gay's classified as a
disadvantaged minority status. That gives them priviledges with the
ACLU, etc. In fact, wasn't that some of the Anti-Gay ammendment
language that was drafted (btw, I don't agree with the ammendment and
thank god the court systems didn't either).
>NOT ONE.
>Not surprisingly, the radical right makes it a point to
>interject the "special rights" phrase and the "homosexual
>agenda" phrase in all their arguments to keep the intentional
>demonizing of homosexuals on the front burner.
Yes, unfortunately, they do it carte-blanch and that is just plain
lying.
>To quote another "radical homosexual,"
>I'll stop telling the truth about you
>if you'll stop telling the lies about us.
>Deal?
Okay, deal.
Jay Cole
PS: I removed some of the groups from this thread.
Hector
Ronnie wrote:
>Hector wrote:
> >(snip) isn't. Personally, I have no problems with gays, nor do I think they
> >should be legally less equal. I just don't think a term with a meaning
> >that goes back to time immemorable has to be changed for it.
> >
>
> But, you see, gays have married in the past. So, the meaning is love,
> and has not changed at all.
>
> Ron
Bait and switch again. The meaning irrevocably includes 1 man and 1
woman. Whatever else it includes, including love, it includes this. It
specifically, and by definition, excludes 2 people of the same sex as
the members. If I loved my sister, does your definition of the word
Marriage permit us to marry, as well? Maybe that's the next proposed
rewrite? I also love my daughter. Shouldn't I be able to marry her, too?
Or maybe you feel you love your lover *more* than I love my daughter.
What say?
That gays have oftentimes nevertheless married members of the opposite
sex doesn't exactly buttress your argument, and I wouldn't have
mentioned it in your position. I still feel that you ought to be able to
come up with a name for your unions, which ought to be legally, if not
religiously, sanctioned, and legally equivalent to marriage. Why 'if not
religiously'? Because I'm not God, and don't presume to speak for Him.
It's not my call. Let Him give His own opinion.
...Hey, why don't you ask the people who gave us the term 'womyn' to
help? They ought to be able to come up with something, without doing
violence to the existing and well-established term 'Marriage',although
why they apparently have decided to specifically disavow being 'women'
continues to puzzle me. Anyway, as I said in my previous post, it
*would* separate those who would discriminate out of bigotry from those
of us who simply don't want our established societal definitions
destroyed. We have no grudge against you; why must you ask us to give up
everything we believe in to prove we think you're OK? How about acting
like you think *I'm* OK for a change?
Alex Elliott
Hector (Stryga...@Chaos.org) wrote:
: We have no grudge against you; why must you ask us to give up
: everything we believe in to prove we think you're OK? How about acting
: like you think *I'm* OK for a change?
And why does calling a same-sex union "marriage" require you to
give up anything? How will that devalue any opposite-sex
marriage? Why do you think that because I wish to include
same-sex couples in the definition of marriages that I have
any lack of respect for opposite-sex marriages?
The word "daughter" is used to designate either a couple's
biological female offspring, or a female child being raised
by a couple. When you hear an adopted girl referred to as
someone's "daughter", do you feel that devalues your biological
relationship with your own daughter? (I'm presuming here: for
all I know, the daughter you refer to above could be adopted.)
: I still feel that you ought to be able to
: come up with a name for your unions, which ought to be legally, if not
: religiously, sanctioned, and legally equivalent to marriage.
Legally, the relationship between a parent and their biological
daughter is identical to the relationship between a parent and
their adopted daughter. We use the same words ("parent" and
"daughter") in both situations. If same-sex unions are legally
identical to opposite-sex unions, what is the logic for using
different words? What would be lost from heterosexual marriage
by using the word "marriage" for same-sex unions that would not
be lost if another word were used?
Alex.
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Alex Elliott
Yale University Physics Department
New Haven, CT, USA
email: ell...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
WWW: http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~elliott
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Brian Betty
By the way.
When did Christ mention homosexuality? He doesn't. He says to love your
neighbour as yourself, etc. Nothing about gay people.
St. Paul does, but his letters bear little in common with the Gospel, eh?
Samaritan (sama...@centuryinter.net) wrote:
[snip quote about Deuteronomy]
: Ahem....Yes, this is the Old Testament, and yes, it is NOT applicable
: today, and no, ethics should not be relative. Right and wrong are
: absolutes...no middle ground. Something is either right or not. And as
: Christians, we follow the rules Jesus set. Since Jesus brought these
: rules, they began with Him. The rules He brought have been in effect for
: Christians for around 2000 years. They have stood the test of time. I
: see nothing "relative" about that.
: --
Nizan
YES
__________________________________________________________________________
The JDL (Keresh the Leech), Aruz-7, SNS and Igal (The Shit Maker) STINK
__________________________________________________________________________
Please do your best not to send nasty e-mail to: nimr...@netvision.net.il
__________________________________________________________________________
Nizan
Nizan
Nizan
Nizan
Nizan
Nizan
Nizan
Nizan
Nizan
Keenan Wilkie -- see .sig for addres
nobl...@centum.utulsa.edu (J. Micheal Nobles) writes:
>>tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>> Supply the explaination from your deity's own words why homosexuality is
>> wrong!
>"The man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two
>shall become one flesh." ^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^
>But then again you dont exactly believe that God exists, so you would obviously
>doubt that this came from Him or not. Now if you are just asking where it is
>found that would be in Genesis. Please remember your question when you respond.
Yep, that verse about says it all. "homosexuality is wrong", can't get
any clearer than that...
...provided you are stoned.
(soc.* newsgroups cut...AGAIN!)
--
I don't think it will do you much good to glorify Satan. But it also won't
do you much good to glorify Jesus Christ because the man has been dead for
2000 years. -- Ricky Fassett
-My email address-->d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m<--My email address-
Xich Lo
I don't care what people call a legal union between two same-sex
partners. It is absolutly vital that if citizens of this country are to
be truly considered equal, then homosexual unions MUST be honored with
legal status (along with the tax and other benefits that go along with
them). Until these unions are recognized by the federal government,
then this country is guilty of violating its own Constitution.
Hector
I'm with you, wholeheartedly.
John Bell
It is simple. Whether homosexuality is considered right or wrong in a
moral sense or not, it is filthly and liable to produce disease. Why
would any sane man want to push his penis up someones arse? If you
believe in evolution, then it is an abberation. If all creatures were
like this they would die out. Therefore it is unnatural. The nicest
thing that can be said for homosexuals is that they are freaks of
nature. The truth is they are vile and wicked men.I wish they would
stop trying to defend the indefensible and stop sending this rubbish
into all newsgruops. I apologise for those who acuse me of
infiltrating their space. It won't happen again. I just wanted to have
my say. Stay clean.
John Bell
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:36:08 -0800, Daryl Kazmier <dar...@kode.net>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
>There can be no "sensible" argument about the goodness or badness of
>homosexuality. As you can see from the remarks already made, those who
>are against it can only fall back on the bible or some vague god--that
>is *not* an argument against anything. If the bible or some god is the
>argument against gayness, then one must believe in the bible or some
>form of god--I find it easier to believe in Mother Goose--but for
>certain the bible and god are not good reasons to be against homo-
>sexuality. Why would anyone be against homosexuality? The reason they
>give is that it isn't natural and in the bible it says . . .
>
>dar...@tir.com
Nizan
Nizan
will...@wanweb.net
On 4/3/97 12:13PM, in message <3344d332...@news.netvision.net.il>,
Nizan <nimr...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> YES
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> ________
> The JDL (Keresh the Leech), Aruz-7, SNS and Igal (The Shit Maker) STINK
> __________________________________________________________________
> ________
> Please do your best not to send nasty e-mail to: nimr...@netvision.net.il
> __________________________________________________________________
> ________
Okay I will not.
John De Salvio
In article <3343fafb...@news.btinternet.com>, j...@btinternet.com
(John Bell) wrote:
> It is simple. Whether homosexuality is considered right or wrong in a
> moral sense or not, it is filthly and liable to produce disease.
ANY sexual act CAN be "filthy and liable to produce disease."
> Why would any sane man want to push his penis up someones arse?
There you go with the stupid assumption that homosexuality is a
sex act.
Homosexuality is an orientation, benign in and of itself. One can
be a homosexual and not have sex. A great number of homosexuals
do NOT have anal sex.
But then, you are so stupid and bigoted, as soon as you hear the
word "homosexual," your mind races to the crotch. Who's got the
problem here, bud?
Any sex acts performed by homosexuals are also performed
by heterosexuals. Or do you lead that sheltered a life?
Guess what fool? "Sane" men push their penises up women's
arses all the time. Are they homosexuals? Go to any adult straight
porno video rental shop. Almost half the videos feature anal sex
with women! "Any sane man etc. etc." Blah blah blah. Idiot!
> If you believe in evolution, then it is an abberation.
Somewhere along the line of evolution you got left out.
From what you have "written", you have not evolved
beyond profoundly ignorant.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
Nizan
YES
__________________________________________________________________________
Nizan
Conrad Sabatier
In article <3343fafb...@news.btinternet.com>,
j...@btinternet.com (John Bell) writes:
> It is simple.
No, it is not. But you obviously are.
Thanks for "sharing". Bye.
--
Conrad Sabatier http://www.neosoft.com/~conrads
Ralph&Paul
da...@tiac.net,UseNetNews writes:
> You want the same rights? You have the same rights.
no honey lamb, we don't have the same rights. if my life partner gets
sick, his family can have me banned from the hospital, can your wifes
family do that to you? And if he should die, his family can take all
his property away from me. can your wifes family do that? do you and
your wife get a tax break for being married, cause we don't. does your
wife get your social security if you die? cause we don't. in short
lambie-pie, we want exactly what you got, nothing more nothing less.
> What you want are special rights. You want to be able to say to
>someone who normally has a property or liberty right against any other
>person: "No, you can do that to HIM, since he's not a homosexual, but
>you
>can't do that to me, since I'm a homosexual."
splain this to me lucy, cause i can't make heads or tails of it. sounds
like you're trying to say that we want protection under the law from
discrimination, and you don't think we deserve it. why?