Children have sexual rights too
David Lentz
No User wrote:
>
> [[ Children often have sleep overs. Children often experiment
> with each other sexually on these sleep overs. They learn from
> this experimentation what gender they are what sexual partner
> they like. Some 60 percent by empirical evidence have sex on
> sleep overs.
>
> Empirical evidence shows children should have sexual experiences
> in childhood. They need sexual experiences to teach them who they
> are and what they enjoy. This should be done with their friend
> before they have a girl friend because they are comfortable with
> their friends. Where as they probably will not be comfortable
> with the opposite sex.
>
> Empirical evidence shows sexual relationships with child
> experimentation pave the way to later sexual unions. Especially
> for girls, they provide remediation for the abysmal lack of earlier
> sex experience and education. Girls learn what feels good and how
> to ask for it.
>
> Empirical evidence shows even this sexual experimentation with
> those that are older than the child as long as it is not forced
> or violent and nonpenetrating can provide remediation for the
> abysmal sexual education that they often receive. This experience
> can even be according to empirical evidence a positive experience.]]
>
> Children should also have rights to have sex. We are born sexual
> beings and that right is primary to our being.
Empirical evidence suggests the above author is blowing smoke.
Cite actual evidence from a credible source and prove me wrong.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Eric Anderson
the liberal intelligentsia concerning pedophilia when directed towards
boys
DrNybble
>Children should also have rights to have sex. We are born sexual
>beings and that right is primary to our being.
This is one of an increasing number of opening shots in the next war
of public opinion designed to eventually legitimize pedophilia.
I look forward to responses from one of the posted newsgroups
(alt.politics.homosexuality) to see how vehemently some will deny that
it has anything to do with that abnormal lifestyle and point out
exceptions that attempt to draw attention away from the gay
connection. A poster named "Uranus" will probably be one of them.
Given time, it will be illegal to "discriminate" against those who
have sex with young children. It will become normal and accepted.
Marriage between a 30 year old man and an 12 year old male child will
be accepted. Sex with animals (pets) will be "normal" as will their
inter-species "marriages".
You don't think so?
Forty to fifty years ago we didn't have:
- declared "normalcy" of an abnormal lifestyle.
- gay marriages
- gay adoption of children
- Special laws protecting gays.(gay rights)
- NAMBLA lobbying for younger ages of sexual consent.
- TV shows directed at normalizing the gay/lesbian lifestyle
- Barney Frank
With time, all things are possible.
Uranus
DrNybble wrote:
> >Children should also have rights to have sex. We are born sexual
> >beings and that right is primary to our being.
>
> This is one of an increasing number of opening shots in the next war
> of public opinion designed to eventually legitimize pedophilia.
>
> I look forward to responses from one of the posted newsgroups
> (alt.politics.homosexuality) to see how vehemently some will deny that
> it has anything to do with that abnormal lifestyle and point out
> exceptions that attempt to draw attention away from the gay
> connection. A poster named "Uranus" will probably be one of them.
Well you're right, because we all know every child that has ever
been molested has been done so by a heterosexual family or friend
of the family member. We all know if it is not a family or friend of
the family member then the next down the line is their preacher.
Then is their heterosexual coach, baby sitter, dentist, dog walker,
neighbor then maybe the one rouge homosexual who hasn't had a
date in 15 years will get a little over excited and go for some jail
bait. Like every heterosexual has at one time or would if the
opportunity were to arise. My grand father married my grand mother
at 13 was he a pedophile? Jesus mother had sex with god at 13 was
god a pedophile?
>
>
> Given time, it will be illegal to "discriminate" against those who
> have sex with young children. It will become normal and accepted.
> Marriage between a 30 year old man and an 12 year old male child will
> be accepted. Sex with animals (pets) will be "normal" as will their
> inter-species "marriages".
Yes, yes, and pig will fly and the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
>
>
> You don't think so?
> Forty to fifty years ago we didn't have:
> - declared "normalcy" of an abnormal lifestyle.
> - gay marriages
> - gay adoption of children
> - Special laws protecting gays.(gay rights)
> - NAMBLA lobbying for younger ages of sexual consent.
> - TV shows directed at normalizing the gay/lesbian lifestyle
> - Barney Frank
>
> With time, all things are possible.
Forty to fifty years ago we had:
- Blacks and white were separated
- they could not drink or eat with whites
- they could not ride in the same coach
- they could not marry a white person
- they could not go to the same schools
- their children were called mongrels as mixed animals
- homosexuals were being put into institutions for the mentally ill
- they were being arrested in their homes in their bed rooms
for having sex with each other.
- They still are not allowed to marry
- and people still misinterpret the bible to say there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible where there is not.
You watch and see someone like DrNybble will say, is too a
sin in the bible. Duh duh And by the way anus NAMBLA
no longer exists. Find something new to use on homosexuals,
maybe like:
VRWC
<eand...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>he doesn't have to, this is basically the current "thinking" coming from
>the liberal intelligentsia concerning pedophilia when directed towards
>boys
>
>David Lentz wrote:
>
>> Empirical evidence suggests the above author is blowing smoke.
>> Cite actual evidence from a credible source and prove me wrong.
>>
Liberals think government will support teenage pregnancies and STD's.
Papa Budge
<no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
> [[ Children often have sleep overs. Children often experiment
> with each other sexually on these sleep overs. They learn from
> this experimentation what gender they are what sexual partner
> they like. Some 60 percent by empirical evidence have sex on
> sleep overs.
>
> Empirical evidence shows children should have sexual experiences
> in childhood. They need sexual experiences to teach them who they
> are and what they enjoy. This should be done with their friend
> before they have a girl friend because they are comfortable with
> their friends. Where as they probably will not be comfortable
> with the opposite sex.
>
> Empirical evidence shows sexual relationships with child
> experimentation pave the way to later sexual unions. Especially
> for girls, they provide remediation for the abysmal lack of earlier
> sex experience and education. Girls learn what feels good and how
> to ask for it.
>
> Empirical evidence shows even this sexual experimentation with
> those that are older than the child as long as it is not forced
> or violent and nonpenetrating can provide remediation for the
> abysmal sexual education that they often receive. This experience
> can even be according to empirical evidence a positive experience.]]
>
> Children should also have rights to have sex. We are born sexual
> beings and that right is primary to our being.
Children do have rights to sex. Your problem is you wish you had rights
to sex with children. You plainly do not. Your neurosis is no claim for
that right. It is a claim to get psychological help, and to be certain
you do not allow yourself ever to be alone with a child.
If you are unable to do this, your community will be more than eager to
help you. That is not your community's threat to you, it is its promise
to children who need its protection from you.
--papa budge
"Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything:
That's how the light gets in."
--lc
"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
--jc
Back-sassed a Free Man..
DrNybble
wrote:
>
>
>DrNybble wrote:
>
>> >Children should also have rights to have sex. We are born sexual
>> >beings and that right is primary to our being.
>>
>> This is one of an increasing number of opening shots in the next war
>> of public opinion designed to eventually legitimize pedophilia.
>>
>> I look forward to responses from one of the posted newsgroups
>> (alt.politics.homosexuality) to see how vehemently some will deny that
>> it has anything to do with that abnormal lifestyle and point out
>> exceptions that attempt to draw attention away from the gay
>> connection. A poster named "Uranus" will probably be one of them.
>
>Well you're right, because we all know every child that has ever
>been molested has been done so by a heterosexual family or friend
>of the family member. We all know if it is not a family or friend of
>the family member then the next down the line is their preacher.
>Then is their heterosexual coach, baby sitter, dentist, dog walker,
>neighbor then maybe the one rouge homosexual who hasn't had a
>date in 15 years will get a little over excited and go for some jail
>bait. Like every heterosexual has at one time or would if the
>opportunity were to arise. My grand father married my grand mother
>at 13 was he a pedophile? Jesus mother had sex with god at 13 was
>god a pedophile?
>
You know, it might not be so long, after all, before what many people
consider "impossible" becomes commonplace.
>
>>
>>
>> Given time, it will be illegal to "discriminate" against those who
>> have sex with young children. It will become normal and accepted.
>> Marriage between a 30 year old man and an 12 year old male child will
>> be accepted. Sex with animals (pets) will be "normal" as will their
>> inter-species "marriages".
(I knew I should have placed a " :-) " after the last one.)
>
>Yes, yes, and pig will fly and the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Well, there you have it, folks. A very predictable response.
He's saying: "Don't worry. Go to sleep. No need to fight it because
It will NEVER happen."
Am I close to your intended message?
>
>>
>>
>> You don't think so?
>> Forty to fifty years ago we didn't have:
>> - declared "normalcy" of an abnormal lifestyle.
>> - gay marriages
>> - gay adoption of children
>> - Special laws protecting gays.(gay rights)
>> - NAMBLA lobbying for younger ages of sexual consent.
>> - TV shows directed at normalizing the gay/lesbian lifestyle
>> - Barney Frank
>>
>> With time, all things are possible.
>
>
>Forty to fifty years ago we had:
>- Blacks and white were separated
>- they could not drink or eat with whites
>- they could not ride in the same coach
>- they could not marry a white person
>- they could not go to the same schools
>- their children were called mongrels as mixed animals
You ARE predictable!
Those are advancements in the recognition of civil liberties, not at
all like the original subject matter. Are you trying to equate the
civil rights movement to the attempt to legitimize pedophilia (or
bestiality)? Are you trying to say that attempting to reduce the age
of sexual consent is to be looked upon as social advancement and the
recognition of some civil right?
Or are you just trying to cloud the issue by bringing up the
non-relevant?
>
>- homosexuals were being put into institutions for the mentally ill
>- they were being arrested in their homes in their bed rooms
> for having sex with each other.
>- They still are not allowed to marry
Civil unions a la Hawaii?
>- and people still misinterpret the bible to say there is a sin
> of homosexuality in the bible where there is not.
I suppose you have your own "modern" version of the Bible?
>You watch and see someone like DrNybble will say, is too a
>sin in the bible. Duh duh And by the way anus NAMBLA
>no longer exists. Find something new to use on homosexuals,
>maybe like:
>http://www.cesnur.org/testi/TheFamily/italy.htm
NAMBLA under any other name (or no name at all) will continue to
flourish as long as there are people who try to normalize the
abnormal.
Just keep posting like you have been. It's a very effective way to
let others know exactly what type of people are (not) looking out for
our children and (not) defending the moral underpinnings of our
society.
I'll be trolling for you - - to give you the opportunity to further
defend the misunderstood; the oppressed; the persecuted people of
unquestionable moral values. Your continued posting on the net will
further stimulate awareness of the very dangers you try so hard to
minimize.
Have a nice day
:-)
DrNybble
Uranus
Papa Budge wrote:
> In article <8224a2377387d65f...@anon.xg.nu>, No User
> <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
>
> > Children should also have rights to have sex. We are born sexual
> > beings and that right is primary to our being.
>
> Children do have rights to sex.
Maybe, but without proper sexual education what the USA is
getting is:
Six boys, ages 5 to 13, suspects in gang rape of 8-year-old girl
http://www.brainerddispatch.com/stories/092199/new_0921990006.shtml
And the USA being dead last in the industrialized world in
preventing teen pregnancy.
http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror/unicef/inbirth.htm
http://www.pta.org/programs/challeng/chldsex.htm
Uranus
DrNybble wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:50:37 GMT, Uranus <UpUranus.@politician.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I look forward to responses from one of the posted newsgroups
> >> (alt.politics.homosexuality) to see how vehemently some will deny that
> >> it has anything to do with that abnormal lifestyle and point out
> >> exceptions that attempt to draw attention away from the gay
> >> connection. A poster named "Uranus" will probably be one of them.
> >
> >Well you're right, because we all know every child that has ever
> >been molested has been done so by a heterosexual family or friend
> >of the family member. We all know if it is not a family or friend of
> >the family member then the next down the line is their preacher.
> >Then is their heterosexual coach, baby sitter, dentist, dog walker,
> >neighbor then maybe the one rouge homosexual who hasn't had a
> >date in 15 years will get a little over excited and go for some jail
> >bait. Like every heterosexual has at one time or would if the
> >opportunity were to arise. My grand father married my grand mother
> >at 13 was he a pedophile? Jesus mother had sex with god at 13 was
> >god a pedophile?
> >
>
> You know, it might not be so long, after all, before what many people
> consider "impossible" becomes commonplace.
Yeah after all it was only 2000 years ago gods raped 13 year
old little girls, and jesus had sex with sheep. You type defend the
bible when all through it, it condones child abuse. It is no wonder
so may christians protect molesters by misinforming people that
homosexuals are the threat.
John 10:
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me:
1 Peter 5:
5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder.
Mark 10:
13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch
them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto
them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not:
for of such is the kingdom of God.
John 6:
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured
at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joel 3:
3 And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for
an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.
Songs 8:
8 We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we
do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?
Genesis 19:
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
> >> You don't think so?
> >> Forty to fifty years ago we didn't have:
> >> - declared "normalcy" of an abnormal lifestyle.
> >> - gay marriages
> >> - gay adoption of children
> >> - Special laws protecting gays.(gay rights)
> >> - NAMBLA lobbying for younger ages of sexual consent.
> >> - TV shows directed at normalizing the gay/lesbian lifestyle
> >> - Barney Frank
> >>
> >> With time, all things are possible.
> >
> >
> >Forty to fifty years ago we had:
> >- Blacks and white were separated
> >- they could not drink or eat with whites
> >- they could not ride in the same coach
> >- they could not marry a white person
> >- they could not go to the same schools
> >- their children were called mongrels as mixed animals
>
> You ARE predictable!
Not as much as you are.
> Or are you just trying to cloud the issue by bringing up the
> non-relevant?
You are so entrenched in your bigotry that intersexual and homosexuals
issues are non-relevant subjects to you, well to intersexuals and
homosexuals they are very relevant issues. Who was it that is trying
to associate NAMBLA with homosexuals.
You want to keep yopur special rights to marry who you choose and
deny these rights to intersexuals and homosexuals, saparet but equal
infers upon those being saparated infereority. It has to be a marriage.
>
>
> NAMBLA under any other name (or no name at all) will continue to
> flourish as long as there are people who try to normalize the
> abnormal.
Now tell us it is non-relevant. Like the bible, if NAMBLA did not
exist you would have to invent it to continue your bigotry toward
intersexuals and homosexuals. You are pathetic
> I'll be trolling for you - -
I know the sexually repressed homosexuals are always stalking
after men. That is why they are dangerous.
Come out come out where ever you are.
Uranus
VRWC wrote:
The USA government already does support teenage pregnancies and
STD's with lack of sexual education. The rest of the industrial world
have much lower teen pregnancy rates, much higher virginity rates,
and the ones that do teach explicit sex education from very early ages.
The proof is the USA is dead last in preventing teen pregnancies.
DEAD LAST.
Sex Education does not cause experimentation with sex, it
causes them to know everything there is to know about it
and they do not need to experiment with sex.
http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror/unicef/inbirth.htm
http://www.pta.org/programs/challeng/chldsex.htm
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/preg122397.html
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_1/m0999/7238_320/61635295/p1/article.jhtml?term=teen+pregnancy+rates
------------
Ninure Saunders
DrNy...@rea-alp.com wrote:
->Children should also have rights to have sex. We are born sexual
->beings and that right is primary to our being.
-
-This is one of an increasing number of opening shots in the next war
-of public opinion designed to eventually legitimize pedophilia.
Which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with homosexuality.
-
-I look forward to responses from one of the posted newsgroups
-(alt.politics.homosexuality) to see how vehemently some will deny that
-it has anything to do with that abnormal lifestyle and point out
-exceptions that attempt to draw attention away from the gay
-connection. A poster named "Uranus" will probably be one of them.
There is no "gay connection" to pedophillia, any more than there is a
"heterosexual connection" to pedopjillia.
-
-Given time, it will be illegal to "discriminate" against those who
-have sex with young children. It will become normal and accepted.
-Marriage between a 30 year old man and an 12 year old male child will
-be accepted.
Strange you are NOT concerned about the fact that it currently legal for
adult males to have sex with girl children as young i2 in some states in
the USA.
.
Why is that?
Sex with animals (pets) will be "normal" as will their
-inter-species "marriages".
Only if "nter-species" can be shown to be USA citizens.......because the
right to marry of consenting adults to marry the consenting adult is
covered under the USA Constitution.
-
-You don't think so?
-Forty to fifty years ago we didn't have:
-- declared "normalcy" of an abnormal lifestyle.
You mean like integration?
-- gay marriages
We don't have secular "gay marriages" yet.
-- gay adoption of children
You prefer that these children recieve no love, no care?
Perhaps you'd prefer to throw them out on the street? Maybe gas them?
-- Special laws protecting gays.(gay rights)
Please name a special law protecting gays that doesn't protect you.
-- NAMBLA lobbying for younger ages of sexual consent.
Gee recently in one State their was a push to raise the AOC for girls so
that adult men could no longer legally have sex with 14 year old
girls...guess who fought against it? Guess who defeated it?
-- TV shows directed at normalizing the gay/lesbian lifestyle
Can we talk R.A.W.? NITRO? THE MEN'S CLUB?
-- Barney Frank
Elected by an overwhelming majority fot decades....oh wait, you
conservatives are opposed to the popular vote if it goes against your
views.
-
-With time, all things are possible.
Yeah, one name the "moral high ground" will no longer belong to people
like you, but to people who believe in the principles of "liberty, and
justice for all".
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Eric Anderson
"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered
The taboo against sex with children
continues to erode.
By Mary Eberstadt
Until very, very recently, public
questioning of the social prohibition against
pedophilia—to say nothing of positive
celebration of child
molestation—was practically non-existent
in American life. The reasons
why are not opaque. To most people, the
very word "pedophilia"
summons forth a preternatural degree of
horror and revulsion; and the
criminal law that reflects those
reactions has consistently treated the sexual
molestation of minors as a serious and
eminently punishable offense. So it
is small wonder that, historically
speaking, the taboo against using legal
minors for sex was no more publicly
controversial in the United States than
the prohibitions against, say,
cannibalism or bestiality. Those few partisans
of the idea who did sometimes sally
forth customarily found themselves
regarded as the lowest of the social
low, even by the criminal class.
This social consensus against the sexual
exploitation of children and
adolescents, however—unlike those
against, say, animal sex or incest—is
apparently eroding, and this regardless
of the fact that the vast majority of
citizens do overwhelmingly abominate the
thing. For elsewhere in the public
square, the defense of adult-child
sex—more accurately, man-boy sex—is
now out in the open. Moreover, it is on
parade in a number of
places—therapeutic, literary, and
academic circles; mainstream publishing
houses and journals and magazines and
bookstores—where the mere
appearance of such ideas would until
recently have been not only
unthinkable, but in many cases, subject
to prosecution.
Dramatic though this turnaround may be,
it did not happen overnight. Four
years ago in these pages, in an essay
called "Pedophilia Chic," I described
in some detail a number of then-recent
public challenges to this particular
taboo, all of them apparently isolated
from one another.1 Plainly, as the
record even then showed, a surprising
number of voices were willing to
rise up on behalf of what advocates
refer to as "man-boy love," or what
most people call sexual abuse.
Yet while the examples themselves were
easy enough to document, their
larger meaning seemed far from clear.
Why, in a post-Cold War world
bursting with real political
controversies, were some people intent on
insisting that the time had come to
rethink an issue that most people already
vehemently, passionately, agreed about?
And why was the taboo against
pedophilia under particular pressure in
the mid-1990s, of all times—an
interval when, readers will recall,
public attention to the sexual abuse of girl
children had simultaneously reached an
all-time high? Perhaps, or so it
seemed reasonable to speculate, all that
really lay behind these efforts was
just that familiar postmodern idol,
shock value. Perhaps this "pedophilia
chic," I guessed then, was simply "the
last gasp of a nihilism that has
exhausted itself by chasing down every
other avenue of liberation, only to
find one last roadblock still manned by
the bourgeoisie."
Four-plus years and many other
challenges to the same taboo later, it is
clear that this hypothesis got something
wrong. For one thing, no sustained
public challenges have arisen over other
primal taboos. Even more telling, if
nihilism and nihilism alone were the
explanation for public attempts to
legitimize sex with boy children, then
we would expect the appearance of
related attempts to legitimize sex with
girl children; and these we manifestly
do not see.2 Nobody, but nobody, has
been allowed to make the case for
girl pedophilia with the backing of any
reputable institution. Publishing
houses are not putting out acclaimed
anthologies and works of fiction that
include excerpts of men having sex with
young girls. Psychologists and
psychiatrists are not competing with
each other to publish studies
demonstrating that the sexual abuse of
girls is inconsequential; or, indeed,
that it ought not even be defined as
"abuse."
Two examples from the last few weeks
will suffice to show the double
standard here. In the November 12 New
York Times Book Review, a
writer found it unremarkable to observe
of his subject, biographer Gavin
Lambert, that when "Lambert was a
schoolboy of 11, a teacher initiated
him [into homosexuality], and he 'felt
no shame or fear, only gratitude.'" It
is unimaginable that New York Times
editors would allow a reviewer to
describe an 11-year-old girl being
sexually "initiated" by any adult (in that
case, "initiation" would be called
"sexual abuse"). Similarly, in
mid-December the New York Times Magazine
delivered a cover piece
about gay teenagers in cyberspace which
was so blasé about the older
men who seek out boys in chat rooms that
it dismissed those potential
predators as mere "oldies." Again, one
can only imagine the public outcry
had the same magazine published a story
taking the same so-what
approach to online solicitation,
off-line trysts, and pornography "sharing"
between anonymous men and underage
girls.
No: As was true four years ago,
contemporary efforts to rationalize,
legitimize, and justify pedophilia are
about boys. Forget about abstractions
like nihilism; what the record shows is
something more prosaic. The reason
why the public is being urged to
reconsider boy pedophilia is that this
"question," settled though it may be in
the opinions and laws of the rest of
the country, is demonstrably not yet
settled within certain parts of the gay
rights movement. The more that movement
has entered the mainstream, the
more this "question" has bubbled forth
from that previously distant realm
into the public square. It should go
without saying, though under the
circumstances it cannot, that many, many
leaders and members of that
movement draw a firm line at consenting
adults, want no part of any such
"debate," and are in fact disgusted and
appalled by it. Then there are other
opinions.
I
Let us begin with one recent public
challenge to the taboo against
pedophilia that did garner the public
attention it deserved, albeit belatedly,
and which demonstrates both the
boy-specific character of today's
revisionism and the gulf between popular
and other views of the subject.
This was the episode that began with the
publication in July 1998 of an
essay in the American Psychological
Association's (APA) prestigious
Psychological Bulletin called "A
Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed
Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using
College Samples" and
co-authored by Bruce Rind (Temple
University), Robert Bauserman
(University of Michigan), and Philip
Tromovitch (University of
Pennsylvania).
The density of its professional jargon
and 30-plus pages aside, the
argument of "Meta-Analytic" was
straightforward enough: that the common
belief that "child sexual abuse causes
intense harm, regardless of gender"
was not supported by the studies the
authors cited; that, to the contrary,
"negative effects [of child sexual
abuse] were neither pervasive nor
typically intense, and that men reacted
much less negatively than women."
The article also criticized the
"indiscriminate use of this term [child sexual
abuse] and related terms such as victim
and perpetrator," suggesting
instead that the child's feelings about
sex acts with adults should be taken
into account, and that "a willing
encounter with positive reactions would be
labeled simply adult-child sex."
What was equally radical about
"Meta-Analytic," though less discussed at
the time, was its specific comparison of
pedophilia to "behaviors such as
masturbation, homosexuality, fellatio,
cunnilingus, and sexual promiscuity."
All such, the authors noted, "were
codified as pathological in the first
edition of the American Psychiatric
Association's (1952) Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders";
and all are so codified no more.
What this analogy tacitly suggested, of
course, was the assurance that
pedophilia, too, would someday take its
place at the liberationist table. In
the meantime, as the authors put it,
"This history of conflating morality and
law with science in the area of human
sexuality by psychologists and others
indicates a strong need for caution in
scientific inquiries of sexual behaviors
that remain taboo, with child sexual
abuse being a prime example
[emphasis added]."
As MIT psychologist G.E. Zuriff observed
later in an essay for the Public
Interest, "It is not difficult to see
how these ideas would antagonize not
only Dr. Laura [Schlessinger] but the
public at large." For although the
incendiary potential of asking people to
give pedophilia a second look may
or may not have been grasped by the APA
authorities who accepted the
article for publication, no such
ambiguity marked the reaction of the lay
public. Most people were made aware of
"Meta-Analytic" in March 1999,
when Schlessinger devoted the first of
two radio talks to attacking the
article, and their own livid view of the
matter was made known in the
course of a multi-dimensional public
uproar that took months to die down.
The denouement was a series of unusual
events, including a public
castigation of the American
Psychological Association by majority whip
Tom DeLay; a House vote to condemn the
"Meta-Analytic" essay itself
(355-0, with 13 abstentions); and a
highly unusual public rejection by the
APA of the piece's conclusions, along
with a promise to acquire an
independent evaluation of the article.
In retrospect, there were two
significant and little-noticed facts in all this.
One was not so much the schism that this
controversy revealed between
elite-therapeutic and popular thinking
about pedophilia, but rather that the
schism itself had gone unnoticed for so
long. For shocking though it may
have been to the general public,
"Meta-Analytic" was in fact only the latest
in a very long series of professional
attempts to revise therapeutic
conceptions of boy pedophilia, attempts
of which most lay readers remain
quite ignorant.
Professionals in the field know better.
Fifteen years ago, for example, in his
careful research volume Child Sexual
Abuse, noted authority David
Finkelhor was already drawing attention
to the "body of opinion and
research [that] has emerged in recent
years which is trying hard to
vindicate homosexual pedophilia." To
read Finkelhor's sources on the
subject—or, for that matter, to read the
notes in the heavily sourced
"Meta-Analytic" itself—is to see exactly
what he means. In their call to
redefine "abuse" as "contact," for
example, Rind, Bauserman, and
Tromovitch were merely resurrecting
research and conceptual work
stretching back over two decades;
similarly, their distinctions between
boys' and girls' supposed experiences of
abuse have a pedigree that begins
with Kinsey and branches out
dramatically in professional publications of
the last 25 years. The authors of
"Meta-Analytic" may have made their
points boldly enough to get noticed; but
that is the only academic novelty
to which they could truly lay claim. The
real news about the normalization
of pedophilia displayed in
"Meta-Analytic" was that nothing about it was
conceptually new.
The second peculiarity of the outrage
over "Meta-Analytic," which also
went unnoticed at the time, was that it
was not, in fact, universally shared.
The notorious North American Man-Boy
Love Association (NAMBLA),
predictably enough, cheered the study as
"good news." Less explicable
was the reaction within the gay press,
which not only failed to distance its
movement from the study, but went on to
excoriate the APA's critics
(particularly Laura Schlessinger). This
was the same approach taken,
independently, by at least two
mainstream—and relatively
conservative—gay journalists.
Writing in the New York Times Magazine,
prominent author and activist
Andrew Sullivan complained about the
"sour reception" that had greeted
the study. After all, he wrote, Rind et
al. had found that "lasting
psychological trauma among adult
survivors of abuse, particularly for men,
was much less than feared." This,
according to Sullivan, should be "a
reason for relief." Instead, and what he
evidently found disagreeable,
"outraged members of the religious right
accused the APA of tolerating
pedophilia" and "launched a crusade to
punish the organization." He
concluded sarcastically: "That'll teach
them to look on the bright side."
Another writer outraged over the outrage
about "Meta-Analytic" was
respected reporter and political analyst
Jonathan Rauch. In his commentary
on the controversy published in the
National Journal, Rauch roundly
defended the study. It was the critics
of the "Meta-Analytic" piece, Rauch
wrote, who were "turning out
stomach-churning stuff." The vote in
Congress—as opposed, say, to what Rind
et al. had written—was "faintly
sinister." Like the authors of the piece
itself, Rauch advocated that, in the
name of "science," researchers should
"abandon the current custom of
referring to all adult sexual encounters
with minors, regardless of the
circumstances, as 'child sexual abuse,'"
because they could "perform
finer-grained analyses if they used
'abuse' to denigrate injurious or unwilling
encounters. Other encounters," Rauch
echoed, "could be called 'adult-child
sex' or 'adult-adolescent sex.'"
To his credit, Rauch did report that "in
1989, when he was 23 and just out
of college, Bauserman [one of the
Meta-Analytic authors] published a
cross-cultural comparison of attitudes
toward man-boy sexual relations in a
Dutch journal called Paidika." This
journal, in Rauch's description, "had
taken pro-pedophilia stands"—something
which he admitted "raises red
flags."
But at the same time Rauch, like
Sullivan, avoided the real issue at
hand—that "Meta-Analytic" quite
obviously aimed at de-stigmatizing boy
pedophilia itself. Even more startling,
though, was his bland depiction of
Paidika. This is not exactly a journal
in which pro-pedophile ideas have
somehow surfaced accidentally. It is a
publication dedicated to the
phenomenon of "boy-loving," the most
prominent such "scholarly journal"
in the world, whose long-time editor,
the late Edward Brongersma, was a
convicted pedophile as well as the
author of a two-volume pedophile
classic, Loving Boys. (To describe this
as a journal which "had taken
pro-pedophilia stands" is akin to
describing The Weekly Standard as a
magazine where conservative arguments
have reportedly appeared.) And,
of course, the qualifier "23 and just
out of college" served to soften
Bauserman's earlier appearance in
Paidika, suggesting it was an excess of
youth.
Both Sullivan and Rauch are not only
prominent gay journalists but also
leading proponents of the worldview to
which the gay rights movement
owes much of its recent and stunning
political success—the argument that,
as Sullivan's Virtually Normal puts it,
"homosexuals . . . have the
equivalent emotional needs and
temptations of heterosexuals." Both writers
are also members of the Independent Gay
Forum, an institution aimed at
"forging a mainstream identity"; and
both have frequently broken ranks with
the leftists and radicals who dominate
gay activism. That two such
mainstream authors should mock the
public outcry against that APA article
illustrates something noteworthy: that
in place of a social consensus against
pedophilia per se, a separate
option—call it anti-anti-pedophilia—appears
to have taken root. According to that
view, the problem is less sex with
minors than the people who declare
themselves against it—Dr. Laura fans,
congressmen, dissident therapists,
religious types, and anyone else who
does not grasp the necessity of putting
words like "child sexual abuse" in
quotes.
II
In some of the clinical and therapeutic
literature on pedophilia, it has
become customary to distinguish between
"ephebophilia," or sexual
attraction to postpubescent children and
teenagers, and "pedophilia"
proper, meaning attraction to
prepubescent children. Both forms are
exhibited more than occasionally in
another part of the written world,
namely gay fiction. "Fiction" here
emphatically does not mean pornography
as such, but the kind of literature
authored by self-consciously gay writers,
published by reputable houses, and
reviewed respectfully in the mainstream
press. Again, it must be emphasized that
numerous gay authors of note do
not positively portray sex between
adults and minors, and ipso facto are
not part of this discussion.
Plenty of authors do cross the line,
though. "Gay fiction," Philip Guichard
complained in an article for the Village
Voice last summer, "is rich with
idyllic accounts of 'intergenerational
relationships,' as such affairs are
respectfully called these days." Over
four years ago, "Pedophilia Chic"
quoted passages from the works of
several acclaimed authors—including
Edmund White, the late Paul Monette, and
Larry Kramer—which frankly
and often sympathetically portrayed men
seeking and having sex with
underage boys. Today there are many more
such examples to be found in
gay fiction, all verifiable by a trip to
the local chain bookstore.
Last year, for example, St. Martins
Press published a novel called The
Coming Storm by Paul Russell, a
professor of English at Vassar and the
author of three previously well-received
works of fiction. The drama of this
tale revolves around something that
remains an imprisonable offense in
almost every state—a sexual "affair"
between a troubled 15-year-old boy
(Noah) and his 25-year-old gay boarding
school teacher (Tracy). (The age
of 15, incidentally, is no definitive
limit in Russell's narrative. In the course
of the book, Tracy also fantasizes about
14-year-old boys.)
The Coming Storm became the object of
effusive praise by award-winning
reviewer Dennis Drabelle in the
Washington Post Book World (August
15, 1999). The Coming Storm, Drabelle
enthused, "takes off from a
sensational subject—forbidden
sexuality—to arrive at unexpected heights
and subtleties." It "persuades the
reader" that "the sexual relationship
between Noah and Tracy is not only not
harmful to either but a boon to the
precocious junior partner, who becomes a
better, more engaged student
after the affair gets under way." What
is "troublesome" about the book,
according to Drabelle, is not that
anyone is "corrupted" by what happens
("no one is"), but that "it is apt to be
stereotyped, not least by the legal
system that makes it a crime [emphasis
added]."
This cheerleading for the sexual
molestation of teenagers in the Sunday
pages of one of the country's major
newspapers did not pass without
comment. One reader berated Drabelle in
the letters column for "strongly
implying that child abuse, when it takes
place between two males, should
no longer be viewed by the public as
either a social offense or a crime."3
Yet as even a partial survey of related
literature shows, what is truly
anomalous about this case—of a
mainstream reviewer in a mainstream
family newspaper ratifying sex between
grown men and boys—was that
anyone bothered to be bothered about it
at all. Other writers, including
prominent writers among them, have gone
further still, and with even less
consequence.
Consider David Leavitt, one of the best
known of contemporary gay
authors, whose numerous novels and short
stories, among them The Lost
Language of Cranes and, most recently,
Martin Bauman; or, A Sure
Thing, are routinely reviewed in the
better journals and magazines. In fact,
it would be hard to think of a gay
fiction writer more consistently
represented in mainstream publishing.
For that reason, it is all the more
surprising to read what this ostensibly
mainstream author chose to write in his
introduction to the equally
mainstream Penguin Book of International
Gay Writing (1995, edited by
Mark Mitchell). There, in the course of
describing what the anthology
includes, Leavitt notes matter-of-factly
that "Another 'forbidden' topic from
which European writers seem less likely
to shrink is the love of older men
for young boys." He then draws attention
to one particular book excerpted
in the volume, When Jonathan Died, by
Tony Duvert. "The coolly assured
narrative" of this work, Leavitt
informs, "compels the reader to imagine the
world from a perspective he might
ordinarily condemn." Duvert, writes
Leavitt, "offers us a homosexual
Lolita—one in which the child is seducer
as much as seduced."
The object of this praise by one of
America's leading gay novelists,
appearing in one of publishing's most
prestigious book series, is the tale of
a man and boy who are living together in
Italy. The scene selected is
sexually graphic. And the age of this
child, whom Leavitt considers
"seducer as much as seduced"? He is—page
427 in the hard cover
edition—"hardly seven."
Another seemingly representative
collection of gay literature, this one on
the shelf at Barnes & Noble and also
apparently selling without comment,
is The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay
Man Should Read, an
Anchor Book published by Doubleday in
1998. Its editor/author, Robert
Drake, is a novelist and editor of other
anthologies who has won the
Lambda Literary Award. Like the Penguin
anthology edited by Leavitt,
Drake's book too strives for canonical
status, aspiring to offer a roadmap
to the most important texts of gay
history.
As it turns out, several of the texts
that editor Drake thought worth
including feature scenes of man-boy
sex—again, what most of the rest of
the public calls abuse or molestation.
One work is something called The
Carnivorous Lamb by Agustin Gomez-Arcos,
described as a book about
an incestuous relationship between a boy
and his older brother (to Drake,
"the best, most complex yet satisfying
novel of filial love ever written").
Another text, this one by writer Matthew
Stadler—described as the
recipient of a Guggenheim fellowship for
his first novel—is called The
Dissolution of Nicholas Dee. This book,
says editor Drake, "is an
operatic adventure into the realms of
love, personality, ambition and art . . .
a pure joy to read." Its protagonist is
"a pedophile's dream: the mind of a
man in the body of a boy." Drake also
excerpts and discusses William S.
Burroughs's nightmarish The Wild Boys: A
Book of the Dead, the
pederastic violence of which defies
description. Yet this work, according
to Drake, "tears straight to the heart
of one of the greatest sources,
community-wide, of 1990s gay angst: What
to do with men who love
boys?"4
Still another example of how standards
are being lowered by a major
publisher and respected writer—this one
from academia and available at
Borders—is A History of Gay Literature:
The Male Tradition, published
in 1998 by Yale University Press. This
book, "the first full-scale account of
gay male literature, across cultures,
languages and from ancient times to the
present," is authored by Gregory Woods,
described on the jacket as "the
foremost gay poet working in Britain
today." It includes a longish chapter
on "Boys and Boyhood" which is a
seemingly definitive account of
pro-pedophile literary works, ranging
over texts from the platonic Death in
Venice to the noir likes of the
aforementioned Tony Duvert. Nothing is
questioned, much less condemned, in the
course of Woods's account of
these works. The only moral ambiguity
that occurs to him concerns not the
boy but the man in the equation. Woods
concludes: "By playing [i.e.,
having sex] with boys, the man remains
boyish. Whether you regard this as
a way of retreating from life or, on the
contrary, as a way of engaging
with it at its most honest and least
corrupted level, depends on which
writer you consult at any given time
[emphasis added]."
III
As for the related matter of gay
non-fiction, here too, judging by the public
domain, the subject of boy pedophilia
has a manifest niche.
One book only recently available in the
"gay studies" section of a Borders
in downtown D.C., for example, is a
peculiar classic of a sort entitled Male
Inter-Generational Intimacy: Historical,
Socio-Psychological, and
Legal Perspectives, edited by the
aforementioned pedophile icon Edward
Brongersma and two colleagues. This
book, according to one of its jacket
endorsements, "shed[s] critical light on
the broad spectrum of man-boy
love and its place in ancient and
contemporary societies." In other words, it
is a series of briefs using scientistic
polemics in an effort to rationalize the
sexual molestation of boy children. The
article abstracts speak for
themselves. ("Pedophilia is always
considered by mainstream society as
one form of sexual abuse of children.
However, analysis of the personal
accounts provided by pedophiles suggests
that these experiences could be
understood differently." "The incidence
of violence is very low in pedophile
contacts with boys. The influence can be
strong in lasting relationships; it
can either be wholesome or unwholesome."
And so on.)
Of course, this opus that "gay studies"
bookshelves now reserve space for
did not spring from nowhere. The book
itself grew out of two issues of the
American Journal of Homosexuality (Vol.
20, Nos. 1/2, 1990) dedicated
to the pondering of "male
inter-generational love." Here again, an
ostensibly mainstream gay vehicle was
put to the service of advocating
pedophilia. In fact, the case of the
Journal of Homosexuality is
particularly interesting as a case study
of how a pernicious idea can spread.
The editor of this reputable gay
journal, John P. DeCecco, is a
psychologist at San Francisco State
University. DeCecco is favorably
quoted in the introduction to Male
Inter-Generational Intimacy for having
praised the "enormously nurturant
relationship" that can result from
pedophile-boy contact. DeCecco is also
on the editorial board of Paidika.
As one would expect, such
cross-pollination in gay fiction and criticism is
verifiable many times over via the
inhuman efficiencies of cyber-correlation.
It was not immediately obvious, for
example—in fact, it came as a
surprise—that typing "Paidika" into an
ordinary search engine would turn
up a reference to Gay Men's Press
bestsellers; but it did not take long to
see why. For one of the books on the Gay
Men's Press bestseller list turns
out to be Dares to Speak: History and
Contemporary Perspectives on
Boy-Love, edited by Joseph Geraci—all of
whose chapters but one
appeared originally in Paidika itself.
Another book on the same bestseller
list is Some Boys, described as a
"memoir of a lover of boys" that "evokes
the author's young friends across four
decades and as many continents."
Another on the same list is For a Lost
Soldier by Rudi van Dantzig,
advertised as involving sex between an
11-year-old boy and a Canadian
soldier in Holland in 1944. There are
more.
Surfing also makes plain that the
better-known gay organizations, all of
whom stand dead set against any
conflation of homosexuality and
pedophilia, are nonetheless sending
mixed messages about what is and is
not off-limits for the underage. Most of
them, for instance, now have
"youth sections" on their websites for
and about legal minors. The
justification for this heightened
attention to the young is to ameliorate the
angst of gay teenagers. At the risk of
stating the obvious, though, it is hard
to see how this purpose is served by
encouraging boys to act and think
sexually at ever younger ages, which is
an all but unavoidable side effect of
the type of "outreach" these sites
engage in.
Consider, for example, the website of
PFLAG (Parents, Families and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays), one of
the more respected gay rights
organizations in the country. It is just
a click of the mouse from PFLAG's
"useful links" to a site where one can
read the "coming-out" stories of
children aged 10, 11, and 12. Similarly,
the "youth" section of GLAAD's
publication list (Gay & Lesbian Alliance
Against Defamation) simply
assumes that minors are sexually
autonomous—and active. One piece
("Landmark Survey Shows Gay Youth Coming
Out Earlier than Ever")
notes approvingly that most children now
"realize" their orientation at age
12. Another piece, "Lesbian and Gay
Youth Find Safe Place in
Cyberspace," counsels: "Don't believe
much of the hype about how
cyberspace is populated with
pedophiles." These citations are taken from
just the first two pages of GLAAD's
15-page list of publications for and
about "gay youth."
At OutProud—another site recommended and
linked by leading gay
organizations—visitors are routed to a
comic strip called "Queer Boys." It
features two boys who are said to be 16
and look younger. They set off
for Manhattan ("Let's run away to New
York, where it's safe to be
Queer!!" "Kewl!"), where they triumph
over evildoers (i.e., parents and
reparative therapists) and find
happiness at last thanks to the habitués of a
bar in the West Village. ("A gay rock
club! That's so cool! Damn! I wish
we were old enough to get in!!" says one
of the boys. "Damn those
politicians! Damn them all to hell!!"
replies the other.)
For a final example of how pedophilia is
being defined down, consider XY
magazine—which would doubtless have run
afoul of the obscenity laws
until very recently. Started just four
years ago, XY is now, according to its
founder and publisher Peter Ian
Cummings, the "third largest gay magazine
in the U.S., selling over 60,000 copies
per year and hav[ing] more than
200,000 readers." (These numbers are
unaudited, but would put XY on a
par with the Advocate in circulation,
though lower than Out magazine's
120,000.) Cummings also reports that
"you can find XY on sale in Borders,
Tower Records, Virgin Megastores, B.
Dalton, Barnes & Noble,
Waldenbooks, and many others."
What gives XY its unprecedented niche is
that here, for the first time, is a
mass-market magazine "officially
targeted toward 12-29 year old young
gay men," every issue of which, as one
admiring journalist puts it, "features
scantily clad young men in several photo
spreads and on the cover." Then
there is the non-photo content. The
first issue was stamped "Underage."
Another issue included a sympathetic
pro-and-con interview with a
prominent member of NAMBLA. An article
in another issue was titled
"F— the Age of Consent." There is also a
smattering of self-help that can
only make minors easier to find—for
example, advice about what kids
should do if their parents install a
filtering system that prevents them from
reaching gay cyberspace (answer: get
around it).
In sum, if one had taken on the
challenge of designing a magazine for
pedophiles, it would probably look a lot
like XY, which is why its market
niche and evident reader support invite
reflection. So too, for obvious
reasons, does the public (gay) reaction
to all this. On the one hand, Out
magazine referred to XY's debut as a
"dubious achievement" and suggested
that it was equivalent to child
pornography. Similarly, Philip Guichard
complained in his Village Voice piece
(headlined "I Hate Older Men"):
"Mainstream gay culture dresses up its
kiddie porn in a pretense of serving
teens. As nice as it is to believe that
magazines like XY and Joey [a recent
competitor] are actually consumed by gay
teens, it's obvious to me that the
shirtless kids in provocative poses who
fill their glossy pages are there for
older men." What's more, XY's publisher
has complained of "pedophobia"
on the part of his gay critics; and most
advertisers, by Cummings's
account, including those popular with
the male gay market (Calvin Klein,
Abercrombie & Fitch, the Gap), have
demurred from buying space in its
pages. Apparently, the fear of
supporting child sex, or the fear of
appearing to do so—or both—remain potent
corporate motivators.5
At the same time, however, to judge by
the endorsements on XY's website,
numerous other observers have weighed in
favorably. The San Francisco
Examiner says that of all magazines, XY
is "the one most on the cutting
edge of change." The Ft. Lauderdale
Express Gay News calls it "the most
courageous magazine in America." The
general-interest entertainment guide
Time Out New York observes that "XY has
boldly established itself as a
unique publication that tackles sex,
romance, and other issues facing gay
teens and men." But perhaps the most
accurate indication of XY's
community standing comes from the
business publication Advertising Age,
which noted: "XY is playing a
significant role in mainstream online media. . .
. The magazine's site can be accessed
directly via America Online, and the
magazine is also providing content to
the 'youth channel' on
PlanetOut.com." This success is a sign
of the times. Some of the largest
and most respected gay organizations in
the country now list XY, of all
things, as a "resource" for gay
youth—this, alongside a burgeoning number
of websites also aimed at minors and
replete with personal ads, chat
rooms, "pen pals," and other forms of
anonymous contact rife with the
potential for subterfuge.
IV
It is tempting to throw up one's hands
on reading a litany like this one, and
to blame it all on our anything-goes
postmodern life. But this is determinism
masquerading as pessimism, and a
determinism that does not fit the facts.
Today's pressures to normalize
pedophilia are not the result of some
omnipotent and unstoppable
taboo-devouring social and moral juggernaut;
they are occurring one bookstore, one
magazine, one publisher and
advertiser, one author and editor and
consumer at a time. Case by case,
given a more enlightened public, it is
not hard to imagine these
decisions—like the one that led to
Penguin's putting its imprimatur on a
pedophilic sex scene, or like the
misguided efforts by some gay
organizations to refer teens to unsavory
and perhaps even unsafe
websites—being made otherwise. Such a
turnaround is particularly
imaginable in the case of chain
bookstore merchandisers, who routinely
place pro-pedophile works on the
gay-interest shelves—a phenomenon
that thoughtful movement activists must
find outrageous.
It would help immensely if those members
of the gay rights movement who
have not realized what is being
committed in their name—along with those
who do realize what is going on, and who
deplore it—join forces against
this trend. Here too, one can imagine
progress being made; decent people,
by definition, tend ultimately to do
what decency requires. When
"Pedophilia Chic" appeared four years
ago, for example, a poignant
response soon came from Paul W. Simmons,
the political director of the
Log Cabin Republicans in Houston. He
feared that the piece would leave
readers with the "erroneous impression
that the gay male community
endorses sexual exploitation of
adolescent males." The letter continued:
"Unfortunately, the homosexual
community's political leadership, which is
dominated by radical leftists, has
failed to denounce loudly the North
American Man-Boy Love Association and
other nefarious groups. But on
this issue, as with many others, the
leadership is removed from the
constituency it purports to serve. For a
sizable majority of gay men, sexual
relations with children are viewed as
morally appalling, and the adult
practitioners of it are seen as
pathological deviants."
These are words with which any
reasonable person will agree. They also
raise the question of why—particularly
in light of the astonishing political
and social victories of the last several
years—leaders of that movement
have not been more scrupulous about some
of its ranks.
In an interesting pro-movement 1996
book, Perfect Enemies: The
Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and
the Politics of the 1990s,
authors John Gallagher and Christopher
Bull propose an answer of sorts to
this question. Most national gay groups,
they note, opted for respectability
as the movement grew, particularly by
passing resolutions denouncing
NAMBLA and all it stood for. At the same
time, according to the authors,
pedophilia advocates did enjoy lingering
protection among parts of the
movement because "many thoughtful
activists who opposed NAMBLA's
goals could not escape the suspicion
that to denounce the organization
would be to mimic society's condemnation
of their own sexual orientation."
Whatever its origins, the reluctance by
some activists to draw such lines
means this: Today, instead of standing
foursquare with the rest of the public
against this evil, the gay rights
movement appears divided. A few proclaim
boys to be sexual fair game. Influential
others disavow pedophilia per se,
but tolerate its advocacy on grounds of
political solidarity with persecuted
groups. Still others, in the relatively
new development noted earlier, appear
to have opted for a kind of
anti-anti-pedophilia, according to which the
"real" problems for the movement are
somehow Dr. Laura and the religious
right, rather than the facts to which
such critics draw attention: e.g., that
efforts are being made to destigmatize
the sexual exploitation of boy
children; or that positive portrayals of
"inter-generational sex," which are
extremely rare in the rest of the
culture, are not rare in gay literature and
journalism. And, once again obviously,
there are the many, many other
people—representative of that "sizable
majority" of which the Log Cabin
Republican wrote—who must be as
distressed by such advocacy as he is,
but appear undecided what to do about
it.
Today's gay rights advocates preside
over what is probably the single most
successful domestic political movement
of the post-Cold War era. The sine
qua non of its dramatic advance has been
the tolerance of the civic
majority, for whom the movement's most
stirring appeals—to equity and
fair treatment and "a place at the
table," as Bruce Bawer put it—have
turned out to resonate more deeply than
even most activists could have
imagined. This is not to say that public
unanimity reigns here, any more than
it does over the agendas of other
special interest groups. Reasonable
people, both inside and outside of the
gay rights movement, disagree in
good faith on profound points—from the
interpretation of Judeo-Christian
teachings, to the implications of civil
unions, to the appropriate public
health measures in the wake of AIDS, to
the judicial propriety of
hate-crime laws.
But it is not and will not be the case
that this same tolerance can be
parlayed into support for predators.
About pedophilia there remains one
and only one proposition that commands
public assent. It is this: If the
sexual abuse of minors isn't wrong, then
nothing is.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/magazine/mag_6_16_00/eberstadt_feat_6_16_00.asp
VRWC
<cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>Right wing dufuses try to tell us what LIBERALS think..
>
In your case, you have no thought processes. You've haven't reached
that point in therapy.
VRWC
wrote:
>
>
>Papa Budge wrote:
>
>> In article <8224a2377387d65f...@anon.xg.nu>, No User
>> <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
>>
>> > Children should also have rights to have sex. We are born sexual
>> > beings and that right is primary to our being.
>>
>> Children do have rights to sex.
>
>
>
>Maybe, but without proper sexual education what the USA is
>getting is:
>Six boys, ages 5 to 13, suspects in gang rape of 8-year-old girl
You don't need a whole curriculum to explain that promiscuous sex
amongst children can lead to unwated pregnancies and STD's. Just like
adults, they know they run the risk of AIDS by living a lifestyle of
irresponsible sex. Responsibility is the name of the game in many
facets of life.
VRWC
wrote:
> ....------------------------
>
>VRWC wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:51:44 -0500, Eric Anderson
>> <eand...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >David Lentz wrote:
>> >
>> >> Empirical evidence suggests the above author is blowing smoke.
>> >> Cite actual evidence from a credible source and prove me wrong.
>> >>
>> Liberals think government will support teenage pregnancies and STD's.
>
>The USA government already does support teenage pregnancies and
>STD's with lack of sexual education. The rest of the industrial world
>have much lower teen pregnancy rates, much higher virginity rates,
>and the ones that do teach explicit sex education from very early ages.
>The proof is the USA is dead last in preventing teen pregnancies.
>DEAD LAST.
>
>Sex Education does not cause experimentation with sex, it
>causes them to know everything there is to know about it
>and they do not need to experiment with sex.
The original poster condones secual experimintation amongst
adolescents which is ludicrous.
Eric Payne
> [[ Children often have sleep overs. Children often experiment
> with each other sexually on these sleep overs. They learn from
> this experimentation what gender they are what sexual partner
> they like. Some 60 percent by empirical evidence have sex on
> sleep overs.
Yeah? So? You have two 8 year olds, or 9 year olds, or 10 year olds...
you've got two contemporaries, who are also friends, engaging in a bit
of experimentation. The normal "you show me yours and I'll show you
mine" that ALL children go through, with other children of either
gender.
That's not "sexual experimentation." And I defy you to attribute ANY
evidence, "empirical" or otherwise that claims it to be.
BTW: "Empirical evidence" is read by professionals as: "I believe this
to be true, but can't prove it; if I believe it, though, it must be
true."
> Empirical evidence shows children should have sexual experiences
> in childhood. They need sexual experiences to teach them who they
> are and what they enjoy. This should be done with their friend
> before they have a girl friend because they are comfortable with
> their friends. Where as they probably will not be comfortable
> with the opposite sex.
Again with the "empirical evidence." Jesus. You want to fuck kids and
not face prosecution/contempt for it? Go to hell. Touch some kid... I
hope their Daddy blows your brains out.
>
> Empirical evidence shows sexual relationships with child
> experimentation pave the way to later sexual unions. Especially
> for girls, they provide remediation for the abysmal lack of earlier
> sex experience and education. Girls learn what feels good and how
> to ask for it.
Oh, geez! Again with the "I believe it to be true, so it must be, that
young girls need an adult mentor to teach them about sex." You're one
sick, twisted bastard; if you're successfully hiding that sickness
from others, STATISTICALLY you'll break one day, and give yourself
away, and get what's coming to you.
<remaining sickness snipped>
Children have the right to be children; to live a life that is, for a
period of time, free of responsibilities and worries. Children have
the right NOT to have sex with sickos like you; your "empirically
evidenced" rights are NOT rights.
Touch a child in my presence, and you're a dead man.
But, then, you don't have the courage to post a name/address with your
convictions, do you? Go back to the park bench. Maybe some cop'll see
you...
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Uranus
VRWC wrote:
You can live in your fantasy world that this will do it, but reality has
shown that this type of approach don't work, and will only get your
daughters pregnant and dead with AIDS. Programs as you describe
the D.A.R.E. type programs have proven that they actually do more
harm than no program at all. They have never worked. What works
is not trying to stop it. Just giving them raw explicit cold hard facts
and not making a big deal out of it so that it makes it cool to do.
The Netherlands by no stretch of the imagination is a prudish society
until 1985 every type of sex there is was more or less legal there.
Yet they are the third in the world for preventing teen pregnancy.
Now you cannot say it is because they stop them from having sex.
Or even teach abstinence, hardly, because even prostitution is legal
there and one can window shop for a date that you want to be with.
It is obvious from these country's examples and studies that have
followed this activity, that just giving facts at young ages prevents
the curiosity that leads to the overwhelming desire to experiment
with sex that the USA exhibits.
Uranus
VRWC wrote:
I don't know of anyone as boys adolescents that did not at some
time look at each others penis and even beat each other off.
If they did not where you lived then you probable grew up in
New York or some other very homophobic place as that.
Uranus
Eric Payne wrote:
How did you get from this troll bot paragraph above, that they want
to fuck kids? No wonder Freud was seen as a pervert or something,
for even bring up the subject that children have a sexual nature.
It seems people cannot think rationally about the subject. Is it ok
if I tell you I beat off all the time when I was 10 years old and still
do.
Oh my god I think I probably damaged my brain, that's way I'm a liberal.
Not to mention the hair on my hands. And it is now growing all over my
back, god knows what I did to get that. I bet it was that 10 year old
girl next door that I kissed when I was 11 years old. It must be like
cancer it takes a while before it shows up. This troll got his moneys
worth out of you.
> <remaining sickness snipped>
TyrannyOfGovt
"No User" <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
news:8224a2377387d65f...@anon.xg.nu...
> [[ Children often have sleep overs. Children often experiment
> with each other sexually on these sleep overs.
> This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> http://anon.xg.nu
> ---
Uranus......... You bet find better anonymizing software
>
>
Uranus
TyrannyOfGovt wrote:
This coming from someone that hears voices from a sky fairy.
frank...@my-deja.com
Sounds like his source is NAMBLA and the DNC which are really the same
group.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
David L. Moffitt
"Uranus" <UpUranus.@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A87654A...@politician.com...
%%%% Kissed a girl! You are a faggot. Why are you kissing girls?
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS,TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn proud of it!
http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott/1.htm
Liberal Logic:
That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really
want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him
your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.
> > <remaining sickness snipped>
>
>
>
Uranus
David L. Moffitt wrote:
I guess we are all born bisexual and I had not choose to be a
homosexual yet. You know some people do it backward. You
of course on the other hand started out a faggot, kissing all your
friends, and any other boy you could find, then choose to be
sort of heterosexual. But your problem is you have yet to
convert all the way, and are still 60/40 bisexual and you fear
the 40 percent homosexuality you still have. I on the other
hand don't care, in a pinch I would probably let you kiss my ass.
David L. Moffitt
"Uranus" <UpUranus.@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A8793B5...@politician.com...
%%%%% "We are all born bisexual" is queer propaganda attempt to try and make their actions against nature sound normal. I have
always liked girls and always will. As a queer you would love to kiss my ass. You can kiss my dog's ass instead.
VRWC
wrote:
Did you enjoy it? Do you do it now?
VRWC
wrote:
You did not grow up as a normal child, or you did not grow up yet.
Yoour parents must have instilled no values in you.
Eric Anderson
Uranus
VRWC wrote:
No, you assume your childhood is a normal typical childhood for
all children in the USA, and there is no typical childhood for
everyone. Your childhood is a regional example. You have to take
into account all the people in New York, Los Angeles, on indian
reservation etc. not just your little world view childhood. Americans
have very great problems with only looking at people in the USA
or a small region and saying all humans are thus. This is the same
thing Freud did and got his theory of sexual wrong.
Uranus
VRWC wrote:
Those that are sexually repressed always want to hear the
sexual details, it is like gang rape so guys can watch each
other having sex and call it a heterosexual activity. No wonder
so many military men engage in this activity especially in Japan
and Thailand. I would expect this from David Moffitt. ("I did it
to prove I was a man", and in the back of his mind saying
(I bet) god he has nice balls.)
David L. Moffitt
"Eric Anderson" <eand...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:3A8833D3...@bellsouth.net...
> come on man, don't do that to your dog
%%%% I failed to mention my dog has been dead 3 months!
David L. Moffitt
"Uranus" <UpUranus.@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A888B28...@politician.com...
%%%% I see you are still trying to wrongly prove that your queer pedophile fantasies are not sick perversions. Did you lust over the
donkeys also?
Eric Anderson
i bet if it was only dead 3 days though, he'd still take you up on that
Uranus
David L. Moffitt wrote:
I note your projections and also urge you to look up the word libel.
Janus
David L. Moffitt wrote:
> "Eric Anderson" <eand...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:3A8833D3...@bellsouth.net...
> > come on man, don't do that to your dog
>
> %%%% I failed to mention my dog has been dead 3 months!
I guess now you will have to get some sheep?
JR.GORE4PREZ
<UpUranus.@politician.com> wrote:
I love it when people use anonymous ID's and cry "libel". It really
points out who the true netloons are.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David L. Moffitt
"Uranus" <UpUranus.@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A88BD80...@politician.com...
%%%% I note your projection and look up the words: faggot, pedophile, and queer.
>
David L. Moffitt
"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A88CBB6...@politician.com...
>
>
> David L. Moffitt wrote:
>
> > "Eric Anderson" <eand...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:3A8833D3...@bellsouth.net...
> > > come on man, don't do that to your dog
> >
> > %%%% I failed to mention my dog has been dead 3 months!
>
> I guess now you will have to get some sheep?
%%%% No thank you I'll stay with women which is as nature intended!
> http://www.getset.com/maple-ridge/pain.html
%%%% Ain't me but, definitely kin by his good looks. Definitely a product of Dunafries County Scotland!
David L. Moffitt
dose today?
Fenris
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> %%%% No thank you I'll stay with women which is as nature intended!
Read up on our very close relatives, the bonobos:
Frans De Waal and Frans Lanting, BONOBO The Forgotten Ape, University of
California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, London, 1997, 210 pages (including
photographs) $27.97.
Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
American 272(4):82- 88, March 1995
And see Bruce Bagemihl's book, "Animal Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality
and Natural Diversity" St. Martin's Press.It's a meta-analysis of
homosexual behavior in a wide range of non-human animal species.
--
To e-mail me replace "spamsucks" with "azstarnet.com"
merlin
what are you trying to start with repeating this stuff?
who are you attempting to help by starting a new thread like this?
do you not understand that whomo ever it is that you are speaking to is
using you as you use them?
try to love everyone and find jesus in the that love, then you will see
thru the silliness of speaking of the sexual activities of any god or
person that lived 2,000 years ago.
in love with the living gay christ jesus,
merlin
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:38:26 GMT,
>
>
> Uranus <UpUranus.@politician.com> wrote:
>
> |>Yeah after all it was only 2000 years ago gods raped 13 year
> |>old little girls, and jesus had sex with sheep. You type defend the
> |>bible when all through it, it condones child abuse. It is no wonder
> |>so may christians protect molesters by misinforming people that
> |>homosexuals are the threat.
>
>
> So,Uranus, you're saying from the homosexual male's perspective that
> God was a baby raper and Jesus fucked sheep -- and for that reason
> homosexuals are free to have sex with children of any age and to suck
> a dog's dick if they want to? You don't find living with those kinds
> of thoughts relative the kind of sexual contact you prefer always on
> your mind, to be disturbing?
VRWC
wrote:
Quote from "Your Anus":
"No wonder
so many military men engage in this activity especially in Japan
and Thailand. I would expect this from David Moffitt. ("I did it
to prove I was a man", and in the back of his mind saying
(I bet) god he has nice balls.)"
I'd suggest you read your own post. Does the word "stupid " have any
meaning?
Aaron Kulkis
"Back-sassed a Free Man.." wrote:
>
> Right wing dufuses try to tell us what LIBERALS think..
That's because you airheads don't even know how to think, let alone
what.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
DrNybble
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:39:16 GMT, Uranus <UpUranus.@politician.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I note your projections and also urge you to look up the word libel.
>
>The cock sucker is going to sue!
>hahahahahahaha!
>Get it on Deliverance Dildo!
You guys better lay off Uranus or he'll start using his hermaphrodite
argument on you. You see, a hermaphrodite having attributes of BOTH
sexes, is technically engaging in homosexual activity either way. He
like to use that argument to muddy the water. He's probably holding
that in reserve.
Janus
David L. Moffitt wrote:
I don't know do you have AIDS? After all I did a prostrate examination,
I find using my corona of glans and the deep (Buck's) fascia are much
more sensitive in detecting the general consistency and any nodules in the
adjacent tissues. And it feels good to.
Matthew Alexander
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:18:56 -0700, tto...@spamsucks.com (Fenris)
>wrote:
>
>>Read up on our very close relatives, the bonobos:
>>
>>Frans De Waal and Frans Lanting, BONOBO The Forgotten Ape, University of
>>California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, London, 1997, 210 pages (including
>>photographs) $27.97.
>>
>>Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
>>American 272(4):82- 88, March 1995
>>
>>And see Bruce Bagemihl's book, "Animal Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality
>>and Natural Diversity" St. Martin's Press.It's a meta-analysis of
>>homosexual behavior in a wide range of non-human animal species.
>
>
>Now! Laaaaaaaaaaadies and Gentleeeeeeeeeeeeemen! Cast you eye to the
>center ring where Burnem and Baleem is proud to present "Fenris
>Fosdick" and his "Cock Sucking Bonobo Chips!"
You do realize that your reply does nothing to disprove or discredit
Fenris' point... right?
David L. Moffitt
"Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:ttowne-1302...@dialup07ip081.tus.azstarnet.com...
%%%% All written by faggots attempting to try and make their deviant and sick sexual habits appear "normal".
David L. Moffitt
"DrNybble" <DrNy...@rea-alp.com> wrote in message news:ie7j8tk75qf8dpju9...@4ax.com...
David L. Moffitt
"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A89A08E...@politician.com...
cough you expectorate blood and fragments of your own esophagus that has eroded away. Will you feel good when the mucous from lung
inflammation caused by your pneumocystic carii infection is slowly choking you to death or will you feel good as you slowly bleed to
death from your joyful rectum as you partner in perversion looks on knowing soon that he too will die the same way begging as you
are for only a few more minutes of life to prey God to save you from your own self inflicted death sentence.
Janus
David L. Moffitt wrote:
Well then I can see I won't be accommodating your anus no matter
how much you pucker, so you're trying to tell us you tested positive?
I will have to use a glove. So you have experienced a sudden onset
of umbilicated pustular elements rapidly developing like generalized
vaccinia? What I suggest to do is stick you head between your legs
and say good by.
David L. Moffitt
"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A89C9BC...@politician.com...
with the same woman for the past 35 years. I will never die a slow agonizing death as you will due to your abominations against
nature.
Ninure Saunders
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
-"Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message
news:ttowne-1302...@dialup07ip081.tus.azstarnet.com...
-> In article <96b9ia$3sfi$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "David L.
-> Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
->
-> > %%%% No thank you I'll stay with women which is as nature intended!
->
-> Read up on our very close relatives, the bonobos:
->
-> Frans De Waal and Frans Lanting, BONOBO The Forgotten Ape, University of
-> California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, London, 1997, 210 pages (including
-> photographs) $27.97.
->
-> Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
-> American 272(4):82- 88, March 1995
->
-> And see Bruce Bagemihl's book, "Animal Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality
-> and Natural Diversity" St. Martin's Press.It's a meta-analysis of
-> homosexual behavior in a wide range of non-human animal species.
-
-%%%% All written by faggots attempting to try and make their deviant and
sick sexual habits appear "normal".
<sarcasm>
And Mein Kampf was written by you averahe White Conservative Christiam.
</sarcasm>
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Ninure Saunders
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
-"DrNybble" <DrNy...@rea-alp.com> wrote in message
news:ie7j8tk75qf8dpju9...@4ax.com...
-> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:09:21 GMT, Bill Taylor <bta...@fdn.com> wrote:
->
-> >On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:39:16 GMT, Uranus <UpUranus.@politician.com>
-> >wrote:
-> >
-> >>I note your projections and also urge you to look up the word libel.
-> >
-> >The cock sucker is going to sue!
-> >hahahahahahaha!
-> >Get it on Deliverance Dildo!
->
-> You guys better lay off Uranus or he'll start using his hermaphrodite
-> argument on you. You see, a hermaphrodite having attributes of BOTH
-> sexes, is technically engaging in homosexual activity either way. He
-> like to use that argument to muddy the water. He's probably holding
-> that in reserve.
->
-%%%% Ok! Then that must make me a butch lesbian trapped in a man's body
because I lust over beautiful women all day!
ADULTERER!!!
Lev. 20:10 ł ŚIf a man commits adultery with another manąs wife ‹with
the wife of his neighbor ‹both the adulterer and the adulteress must be
put to death.
Then Jesus said:
Matt. 5:27 łYou have heard that it was said, ŚDo not commit adultery.ą
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart.
Guess we gotta slander you, keep you away from all the kiddies, deprive
you of all civil rights, if not kill you, right?
Fenris
malex*postnospam*@concentric.net (Matthew Alexander) wrote:
> You do realize that your reply does nothing to disprove or discredit
> Fenris' point... right?
That's expecting an awful lot of him. :)
Fenris
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> "Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message
news:ttowne-1302...@dialup07ip081.tus.azstarnet.com...
> > In article <96b9ia$3sfi$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "David L.
> > Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > %%%% No thank you I'll stay with women which is as nature intended!
> >
> > Read up on our very close relatives, the bonobos:
> >
> > Frans De Waal and Frans Lanting, BONOBO The Forgotten Ape, University of
> > California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, London, 1997, 210 pages (including
> > photographs) $27.97.
> >
> > Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
> > American 272(4):82- 88, March 1995
> >
> > And see Bruce Bagemihl's book, "Animal Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality
> > and Natural Diversity" St. Martin's Press.It's a meta-analysis of
> > homosexual behavior in a wide range of non-human animal species.
>
> %%%% All written by faggots attempting to try and make their deviant and
sick sexual habits appear "normal".
Oh, my. You really are consumed with hate. And didn't you say you worked
in health care? I do hope you find some love in your life.
Matthew Alexander
Glad to hear it. Fortunetly, most people reading a.p.h. are educated
enough to practive normal homosexual and/or heterosexual monogamous
sexual relationships or at least use condoms and know their partners'
hisotry. Their chances of getting AIDS are no more significant that
yours.
Being a health worker, I'm surprised that hasn't occured to you.
VRWC
In other words. you haven't an opion on the original post.
VRWC
It's too logic to ones who rationalize promiscutiy and homosexuality.
Fenris
<bta...@fdn.com> wrote:
> Fenris is an unimportant nobody!
Has someone claimed otherwise?
> Now the Bonobo chips [sic.], The wild
> animals that eat raw food [don't you?],
> swing from trees, shit in plain view of the
> rest of the "herd" and pick fleas from each other's bodies and eat
> them, you know the very same wild beast that homosexuals so often
> compare themselves to, well they are the STARS, MAN! Nobody
> gives a damn about Fenris the unimportant.
You seem to, Robert. :)
It has to do with the defintion of natural. Please tell us what you think
is "natural" for human beings.
Healthy heterosexuals do not spend their time in Gay NGs foaming at the
mouth about homosexuals/homosexuality. Get some love in your life, you
poor thing.
Janus
Bill Taylor wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2001 02:40:48 GMT, malex*postnospam*@concentric.net (Matthew
> Fenris is an unimportant nobody! Now the Bonobo chips, The wild
> animals that eat raw food, swing from trees, shit in plain view of the
> rest of the "herd" and pick fleas from each other's bodies and eat
> them, you know the very same wild beast that homosexuals so often
> compare themselves to, well they are the STARS, MAN! Nobody
> gives a damn about Fenris the unimportant.
Except you it appears. Most bonobos are far more civilized than
Banana Republicunts are. Their social habits rate them as kinder
more empathetic, they don't have wars thye solve their problems
peacefully, and respect each other. All and all their society is
far superior socially to the human species, we are the animals
compared to them.
Janus
Fenris wrote:
They have to prove they are butch to themselves and others so
they can cover their secret to themselves and others that they
are really 60/40 bisexuals. 60 percent heterosexual 40 percent
scared about why they keep looking at male parts and wanting
to pull on them.
http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html
DrNybble
This is not the place for confessions of such a personal nature.
Janus
VRWC wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 05:41:15 -0600, "David L. Moffitt"
> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> Well then I can see I won't be accommodating your anus no matter
> >> how much you pucker, so you're trying to tell us you tested positive?
> >> I will have to use a glove. So you have experienced a sudden onset
> >> of umbilicated pustular elements rapidly developing like generalized
> >> vaccinia? What I suggest to do is stick you head between your legs
> >> and say good by.
> >>
> >%%%% Unlike your asshole mine is exit only. I am negative for any STDs due to a normal hethrosexual monogamous sexual relationship
> >with the same woman for the past 35 years. I will never die a slow agonizing death as you will due to your abominations against
> >nature.
> >
> It's too logic to ones who rationalize promiscutiy and homosexuality.
Here is your logic, just like with the black the white heterosexuals
would not allow blacks to go to school at all, then only in their own
very run down schools, would hire them only begrudgingly.
Then would call blacks stupid, lazy niggers. Now the same white
heterosexuals cannot any longer use blacks for their bolstering of
their inferior manhoods, so now have recycled the same old bigotry
upon homosexuals and intersexuals. They will not allow homosexuals
or intersexuals to legally marry they do everything in their power
to make it very hard to form monogamous relationships, if they do try
and bring their mate home then they risk getting kicked out of their
apartments, if they bring their mates picture to work they can be fired.
If they have sex in the privacy of their own home in their own bedroom
they can be hauled off to jail. With all these hindrance you have the
nerve to then call homosexuals promiscuous.
What do you have to say about Colin Powell?
Fenris
<TwoH...@politician.com> wrote:
> All and all their society is far superior socially to the human species, we
> are the animals compared to them.
Yeh, I'druther be a bonobo! :)
David L. Moffitt
"Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:ttowne-1402...@dialup002ip416.tus.azstarnet.com...
%%%% I have love in my life, the same girl/woman since we were 14 in the 8th grade 38 years ago. I am not consumed with hate. I have
true pity for those who waste their lives to practice an abomination to nature and God and die an agonizing death because of it.
Maybe it is God's way of chlorinating the gene pool. But, then again if you are queer you are not going to reproduce. Opinions are
like assholes, everyone has one and I'm frequently an asshole with my opinion!
David L. Moffitt
"Matthew Alexander" <malex*postnospam*@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3a8ac6b...@news.concentric.net...
%%%% Yeah, the check is in the mail, I will respect you in the morning and I won't cum in your mouth. (but, you would enjoy that)
(1)Homosexual sex (male) is not normal/natural.
(2)Rectal tears are the primary route for infections of the virus.
(3)Condoms break/tear/come off.
(4)Your partners history includes every one of their previous sexual partners history also.
(5)Do you like playing russian roulette? You are.
(6) Outside of Africa (primarily due to their sexual practices and ignorance) there are millions more infected homosexual with AID's
than hethrosexual.
David L. Moffitt
"Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:ttowne-1402...@dialup001ip169.tus.azstarnet.com...
%%%% Then why are you cross posting into other groups that think homosexuality is an abomination against nature and the slow
horrible death you get is so well deserved because of your perversions? Are you a sadomasochist also?
David L. Moffitt
"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A8AA583...@politician.com...
%%%% Your hethrophobic tendencies are showing!
David L. Moffitt
"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A8AA969...@politician.com...
>
>
> VRWC wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 05:41:15 -0600, "David L. Moffitt"
> > <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >>
> > >> Well then I can see I won't be accommodating your anus no matter
> > >> how much you pucker, so you're trying to tell us you tested positive?
> > >> I will have to use a glove. So you have experienced a sudden onset
> > >> of umbilicated pustular elements rapidly developing like generalized
> > >> vaccinia? What I suggest to do is stick you head between your legs
> > >> and say good by.
> > >>
> > >%%%% Unlike your asshole mine is exit only. I am negative for any STDs due to a normal hethrosexual monogamous sexual
relationship
> > >with the same woman for the past 35 years. I will never die a slow agonizing death as you will due to your abominations against
> > >nature.
> > >
> > It's too logic to ones who rationalize promiscutiy and homosexuality.
>
>
> Here is your logic, just like with the black the white heterosexuals
> would not allow blacks to go to school at all, then only in their own
> very run down schools, would hire them only begrudgingly.
> Then would call blacks stupid, lazy niggers. Now the same white
> heterosexuals cannot any longer use blacks for their bolstering of
> their inferior manhoods, so now have recycled the same old bigotry
> upon homosexuals and intersexuals.
%%%% Sorry I'm neither black or white or racially mixed----That line doesn't work. Next question:
They will not allow homosexuals
> or intersexuals to legally marry
%%%% Can you procreate? Next question:
they do everything in their power
> to make it very hard to form monogamous relationships,
%%%% Be monogamous, all relatioships are hard. Next question:
if they do try
> and bring their mate home then they risk getting kicked out of their
> apartments,
%%%% Buy your own home and you won't be kicked out. Next question:
if they bring their mates picture to work they can be fired.
%%%% Tell them it is your brother/sister---Start your own bussiness. Next question:
> If they have sex in the privacy of their own home in their own bedroom
> they can be hauled off to jail.
%%%% What you do in your bedroom is your bussiness. Don't scream so loud/ don't brag about it. Next question:
With all these hindrance you have the
> nerve to then call homosexuals promiscuous.
%%%% Don't need to call the promiscuous all you need to do is read the walls in any restroom in any town. You are your own worst
enemy and confessor. Next question:
>
> What do you have to say about Colin Powell?
%%%% A very fine man and an example for all men to follow. Next question?
Fenris
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> "Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message
news:ttowne-1402...@dialup001ip169.tus.azstarnet.com...
> > In article <jjil8tsq6n8kn5f7o...@1ax.com>, Bill Taylor
> > <bta...@fdn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Fenris is an unimportant nobody!
> >
> > Has someone claimed otherwise?
> >
> > > Now the Bonobo chips [sic.], The wild
> > > animals that eat raw food [don't you?],
> > > swing from trees, shit in plain view of the
> > > rest of the "herd" and pick fleas from each other's bodies and eat
> > > them, you know the very same wild beast that homosexuals so often
> > > compare themselves to, well they are the STARS, MAN! Nobody
> > > gives a damn about Fenris the unimportant.
> >
> > You seem to, Robert. :)
> >
> > It has to do with the definition of natural. Please tell us what you think
> > is "natural" for human beings.
> >
> > Healthy heterosexuals do not spend their time in Gay NGs foaming at the
> > mouth about homosexuals/homosexuality. Get some love in your life, you
> > poor thing.
>
> %%%% Then why are you cross posting into other groups that think homosexuality
> is an abomination against nature and the slow horrible death you get is so
> well deserved because of your perversions?
Non sequitur.
I don't think you speak for everyone else in those NGs.
>Are you a sadomasochist also?
I think you mean a masochist. No, you are assuming that you are causing me
pain. You are not. The damage you do with your hate is to yourself. You
reall need to get some help. Under all that garbage is someone worth it.
Fenris
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > Oh, my. You really are consumed with hate. And didn't you say you worked
> > in health care? I do hope you find some love in your life.
>
> %%%% I have love in my life...
Not enough, if you need to be promoting hate, as you do.
> I am not consumed with hate.
Yes, you are.
> I have true pity for those who waste their lives to practice an
abomination to > nature and God and die an agonizing death because of it.
Love is never a waste. God is not a homophobe. God IS love. Your hatred
separates you from God.
> Maybe it is God's way of chlorinating the gene pool.
You need to learn more about the epidemiology of HIV, and you need to
learn some genetics.
> But, then again if you are queer you are not going to reproduce.
False assumption and, again, you need to learn some genetics.
> Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and I'm frequently an asshole
> with my opinion!
Well, recognizing one's problems is the first step to correcting them, and
no one is perfect.
Janus
David L. Moffitt wrote:
> "Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:ttowne-1402...@dialup002ip416.tus.azstarnet.com...
> > In article <96cs7j$io3g$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "David L.
> > Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message
> > news:ttowne-1302...@dialup07ip081.tus.azstarnet.com...
> > > > In article <96b9ia$3sfi$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "David L.
> > > > Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > %%%% No thank you I'll stay with women which is as nature intended!
> > > >
> > > > Read up on our very close relatives, the bonobos:
> > > >
> > > > Frans De Waal and Frans Lanting, BONOBO The Forgotten Ape, University of
> > > > California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, London, 1997, 210 pages (including
> > > > photographs) $27.97.
> > > >
> > > > Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
> > > > American 272(4):82- 88, March 1995
> > > >
> > > > And see Bruce Bagemihl's book, "Animal Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality
> > > > and Natural Diversity" St. Martin's Press.It's a meta-analysis of
> > > > homosexual behavior in a wide range of non-human animal species.
> > >
> > > %%%% All written by faggots attempting to try and make their deviant and
> > sick sexual habits appear "normal".
> >
> > Oh, my. You really are consumed with hate. And didn't you say you worked
> > in health care? I do hope you find some love in your life.
>
> %%%% I have love in my life, the same girl/woman since we were 14
I thought you like them young, I knew you were projecting, and you love
the New Zealand man too?
> to practice an abomination to nature and God
Not!
If you read Leviticus 18 and 20 in context the laws being
given are rights of ownership (because woman and children
were property of the father or the husband in the case of girl,
Deu 22:28-30), and things to keep oneself clean, with a bit
of ritual one must not partake in. There was a ritual in that time
of having sodomy with a priest to bring a bountiful harvest,
one would pay a priest to have sex with them, to have a good
harvest (the word qadesh used in 5 references for sodomite in
Deu 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24 etc. translates to unclean and male
temple prostitute). So why would this be wrong? The problem is
also in this time the way that ownership of the females went
from father to husband, would be by intercourse. A type of
passing of the seed. If a male has sex with another male two
problems occur (back then), one the right of ownership, if a
male has sex with a male who own who, does the man that had
sex the the other man now own him (?) and second if one spills
the seed and it does not go toward building of the nation
(Lev 18:24) or being fruitful and multiplying (Gen 9:1) it
was wasting seed (Gen 38:8-10, Deu 23:1-2). (Back then the way
you were strong as a nation was to have lots of people to go to
war with. With out being strong god's people would die, and
his word along with this.)
Now in this light read this again.
Leviticus 18:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination.
It does not say Thou shalt not be a homosexual it is
abomination. It is saying don't spill the seed with a
man as with a woman it is not clean and does not
help toward building the nation. The actions is sodomy,
not homosexuality. Sodomy can be with a male or female.
Abomination (tow`ebah) in this case is as unclean, and ritual
(Not unlike the word "qadesh" meaning unclean and male temple
prostitute (ritualized sodomy, spilling of the seed and
idolatry).)
http://www.khouse.org/cgi-bin.blb/strongs.pl?book=Lev&chapter=18&verse=22&strongs=08441
http://www.khouse.org/cgi-bin.blb/c.pl?book=Lev&chapter=18&verse=22
It is unclean as in:
Deu 23:
10 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason
of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go
abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:
And it does not build the nation as in:
Deu 23:
23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy
member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of
the LORD.
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the
LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into
the congregation of the LORD.
Building the nation is a big deal to their survival.
Ref.
Deu 22:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,
and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's
father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because
he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his
father's skirt.
Deu 23:
23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member
cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD;
even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation
of the LORD.
Lev 18:
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these
the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Genesis
9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them,
BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY, and replenish the earth.
Genesis 38:
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife,
and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came
to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled
it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD:
wherefore he slew him also.
Deu 23:
17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a
sodomite (qadesh) of the sons of Israel. (qadesh translates
to unclean and male temple prostitute) In other words there
shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a whore of
the sons of Israel.
http://www.khouse.org/cgi-bin.blb/c.pl?book=Deu&chapter=23&verse=17
Note sodomite = qadesh which means
unclean and male temple prostitute
http://www.khouse.org/cgi-bin.blb/strongs.pl?book=Deu&chapter=23&verse=17&strongs=06945
Fenris
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> %%%% Yeah, the check is in the mail, I will respect you in the morning
and I won't cum in your mouth. (but, you would enjoy that)
David, you really ought to know that it is always the homophobes who get
off on talking dirty. And there is research which indicates the most
violently homophobic, like yourself, are repressed homosexuals. I'd get
some help.
> (1)Homosexual sex (male) is not normal/natural.
Sure it is--except for heterosexuals, in cultures which are homophobic.
> (2)Rectal tears are the primary route for infections of the virus.
Anal intercourse and homosexuality are not synonymous. Anal intercourse is
not practiced universally by homosexuals nor is it by any means exclusive
to them.
> (3)Condoms break/tear/come off.
So double-bag it or avoid the necessity for using them.
> (4)Your partners history includes every one of their previous sexual
partners history also.
Of course. That is true for heterosexuals, as well. And heterosexuals are
not noted for their faithfulness in monogamous relationships. Spend some
time fielding calls on an AIDS hotline.
I take it you support monogamous, same-sex marriage. That's wonderful!
> (5)Do you like playing russian roulette? You are.
Vide supra.
> (6) Outside of Africa (primarily due to their sexual practices and ignorance)
> there are millions more infected homosexual with AID's than hethrosexual.
Uh, better take another look at SE Asia and S. America. AIDS is everyone's
problem.
For someone claiming to be in the health care field, your ignorance, fear,
and hatred are pretty shocking. Oh, and learn how to spell "heterosexual."
David L. Moffitt
"Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:ttowne-1402...@dialup09ip025.tus.azstarnet.com...
ôżô
\/
Janus
Bill Taylor wrote:
> And I'm sure that you would be perfectly happy wed to one of them
> (same sex of course) if only the stupid old government would stop
> walking all over your civil right to marry any body, thing or object
> you wish. Are you people a bunch of loose cannons are what...Scary!
Oh look guys another one that thinks homosexuality is a perversion
so it is no difference than bestiality and polygamy. What homosexuals
want is equality just like blacks wanted when they were denied the right
to marry whites. Homosexuals don't want to marry their dog they want
to marry each other with the same rights as everyone else has. You
just want to keep your special right to marry who you choose and deny
this right to intersexuals and homosexuals.
Janus
Bill Taylor wrote:
> HERE IT COMES FOLKS! The favorite homosexual put down!
> Their pin headed logic running like this -- if the hets don't like
> homosexuals calling hets homosexuals will really piss then off. So as
> a last resort before the stage of blinding tears and the pulling out
> of hair and piercing screams start, they untarp the big guns and call
> the het a homosexual! Can you believe it? They try to piss us off by
> calling us "WHAT THEY ARE!", That's their ultimate insult!
> So much for homosexual intelligence.
Pot kettle, in your ignorance what you do not understand is
not everyone is a homophobe, most guys do not care about
homosexuals and do not even think about it much. They just
don't like it or would ever do it, end of story. But then there
are people that go out of their way to come into homosexuals
news groups to spout, and no matter how much proof you
give them they cannot see any side but their bigotry and
their defense for themselves. They read everything they can,
they go out of their way to attack everyone that says any
pro-homosexual statements and always call pro-homosexuals
homosexual themselves. (I have been call a homosexual so
often I don't care anymore. I just treat the words homosexual
and heterosexual equally.) When you have a fear that you do not
even express to yourself about a group and feel the need to
attack them and dissociate yourself from them that is a phobia.
And there is research that shows this is cause by a repression
of the very thing they attach so much. A person can be 90/10
bisexual, note that is bisexual not homosexual they like both sexes.
People like you lump anyone that likes the same sex in any degree
as homosexual. They are bisexual. Say it with me B i s e x u a l.
New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal
http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html
>
>
> __
> If you wish to know what your enemy fears most, see what he tries to
> frighten you with. -Nelson
I have seen the enemy and it is ourselves.
VRWC
wrote:
Put me down as another person who thinks homosexuality is a
perversion. Might as well. I do not agree with the homosexual agenda.
I am a homophobe and I don't care. There was a time when I thought
homosexuals were people, but the activists, like ACT UP! or Queer
Nation, of the movement reduced my compasion for their cause. I
worked in W. Hollywood where Halloween was a circus. I do not look at
homosexuals as geing a race like Asians, Blacks, Caucasian or
Hispanics, but then again, I do not take inventory of the people I
know. Race or sexual orientation is not impotant to me. It only boils
down to character. I look at homosexuality as a deviation. I believe
people are born tha way, but I grew up in middle-class, family
orientated neighborhood wheere a man married a woman and vice versa. I
grew up in a heterosexual atmosphere which I considered normal. Call
me a homophobe if it makes you feel beter. I can live with that label.
All the animal behavior studies won't change my mind.
David L. Moffitt
"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A8AD580...@politician.com...
%%%% Your asshole is for the evacuation of feces (taking a shit) not for sex. That is not natural. You can take the bible and twist
it and take quotes out of context to justify any action of mankind you want to. If I am wrong no harms is done to my soul for
rejection of your abominations. If you are wrong you will be frying for eternity! So wash the shit off your dick and find yourself a
good woman.
David L. Moffitt
"Fenris" <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:ttowne-1402...@dialup09ip025.tus.azstarnet.com...
> In article <96fitm$272m$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "David L.
> Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > %%%% Yeah, the check is in the mail, I will respect you in the morning
> and I won't cum in your mouth. (but, you would enjoy that)
>
> David, you really ought to know that it is always the homophobes who get
> off on talking dirty. And there is research which indicates the most
> violently homophobic, like yourself, are repressed homosexuals. I'd get
> some help.
%%%% I have heard of those studies-----Made by hethrophobics.
> > (1)Homosexual sex (male) is not normal/natural.
>
> Sure it is--except for heterosexuals, in cultures which are homophobic.
%%%% Your ass for for the evacuation of feces. (taking a shit for the ignorant)
> > (2)Rectal tears are the primary route for infections of the virus.
>
> Anal intercourse and homosexuality are not synonymous. Anal intercourse is
> not practiced universally by homosexuals nor is it by any means exclusive
> to them.
%%%% Yeah, uhhuh and the check is in the mail.
> > (3)Condoms break/tear/come off.
>
> So double-bag it or avoid the necessity for using them.
%%%% Keep a dick out of your ass and away from risky lifestyle and you won't need to either.
> > (4)Your partners history includes every one of their previous sexual
> partners history also.
>
> Of course. That is true for heterosexuals, as well. And heterosexuals are
> not noted for their faithfulness in monogamous relationships. Spend some
> time fielding calls on an AIDS hotline.
>
> I take it you support monogamous, same-sex marriage. That's wonderful!
>
> > (5)Do you like playing russian roulette? You are.
>
> Vide supra.
>
> > (6) Outside of Africa (primarily due to their sexual practices and ignorance)
> > there are millions more infected homosexual with AID's than hethrosexual.
>
> Uh, better take another look at SE Asia and S. America. AIDS is everyone's
> problem.
%%%% Keep your dick in your pants and only use it as it was intended (on women) and your risk is decreased ten thousand fold.
David L. Moffitt
"Janus" <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A8AF69A...@politician.com...
%%%% If you do not like the opinions of "homophobes" quit cross posting into groups that think you are abominations against God and
nature and thought of as sick perverts that should die a slow horrible death. (which you will)
David Lentz
Janus wrote:
<snip>
> Oh look guys another one that thinks homosexuality is a perversion
> so it is no difference than bestiality and polygamy. What homosexuals
> want is equality just like blacks wanted when they were denied the right
> to marry whites. Homosexuals don't want to marry their dog they want
> to marry each other with the same rights as everyone else has. You
> just want to keep your special right to marry who you choose and deny
> this right to intersexuals and homosexuals.
Race is a genetic trait. Sexual behavior is not. If the
homophiles wish to treated as normal people, all they need do is
to behave as normal people. Simple isn't it.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Ninure Saunders
<pro...@pro-death.com> wrote:
-On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:22:46 GMT,
-goodshepherd...@earthling.net (Ninure Saunders) wrote:
-
->In article <96csfs$g7ik$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "David L.
->Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
->
->-"DrNybble" <DrNy...@rea-alp.com> wrote in message
->news:ie7j8tk75qf8dpju9...@4ax.com...
->-> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:09:21 GMT, Bill Taylor <bta...@fdn.com> wrote:
->->
->-> >On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:39:16 GMT, Uranus <UpUranus.@politician.com>
->-> >wrote:
->-> >
->-> >>I note your projections and also urge you to look up the word libel.
->-> >
->-> >The cock sucker is going to sue!
->-> >hahahahahahaha!
->-> >Get it on Deliverance Dildo!
->->
->-> You guys better lay off Uranus or he'll start using his hermaphrodite
->-> argument on you. You see, a hermaphrodite having attributes of BOTH
->-> sexes, is technically engaging in homosexual activity either way. He
->-> like to use that argument to muddy the water. He's probably holding
->-> that in reserve.
->->
->-%%%% Ok! Then that must make me a butch lesbian trapped in a man's body
->because I lust over beautiful women all day!
->
->ADULTERER!!!
->
->Lev. 20:10 ł ŚIf a man commits adultery with another manąs wife ‹with
->the wife of his neighbor ‹both the adulterer and the adulteress must be
->put to death.
->
->Then Jesus said:
->
->Matt. 5:27 łYou have heard that it was said, ŚDo not commit adultery.ą
->28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
->committed adultery with her in his heart.
->
->
->Guess we gotta slander you, keep you away from all the kiddies, deprive
->you of all civil rights, if not kill you, right?
->
->Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
->
-In other words. you haven't an opion on the original post.
"opion"?
Is that option, or opinion?
I believe I have posted my opinion on this subject before.
Do children have sexual righta?
They certainly have the right to be "left alone" by adults......
They have the right not to be made feel dirty or ashamed for the
normal sexual play that happens between children..."show me uours and
I'll show you mine".....
They have the right to appropriate sex education for their age group, so
that they don't learn and believe some of the really stupid things I
heard when I 12 like: "You can get pregnant by kissing, but not by
f#$ing, so if you F#$K and don't kiss, you won't get pregnant.
And I repeat, they have the absolute right to be left alone (sexualy) by adults.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Fenris
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > Sure it is--except for heterosexuals, in cultures which are homophobic.
>
> %%%% Your ass for for the evacuation of feces. (taking a shit for the
ignorant)
Yeh, we are all really overwhelmed by your vocabulary.
> > > (2)Rectal tears are the primary route for infections of the virus.
> >
> > Anal intercourse and homosexuality are not synonymous. Anal intercourse is
> > not practiced universally by homosexuals nor is it by any means exclusive
> > to them.
>
> %%%% Yeah, uhhuh and the check is in the mail.
That's a brilliant refutation of the facts. :)
Suggest you rent some heterosexual porno videos (oh, that's
"hethrosexual," to you) and find out how popular anal intercourse is. And,
as I said, it is not universally practiced by homosexuals. There are lots
of ways to make love. Your imagination is apparently very limited.
> > > (3)Condoms break/tear/come off.
> >
> > So double-bag it or avoid the necessity for using them.
>
> %%%% Keep a dick out of your ass and away from risky lifestyle and you
won't need to either.
Non sequitur. And there is nothing innately risky about homosexuality.
"Nor does the linkage between homosexual behavior and AIDS render the
fierce prejudices against those who find pleasure in homophile or lesbian
relationships any less irrational. Were it not for medical advances, good,
clean heterosexual men and women would still be dying in vast numbers from
syphilis, a venereal scourge that once was of far greater magnitude than
AIDS."
p. 236, ³Our Kind,² Marvin Harris, Harper Row, 1989 (a very general
introduction to the evolution of human life and culture)
And, BTW, you might want to be aware that some 20.3% of American men have
achieved orgasm with other men.
> > > (6) Outside of Africa (primarily due to their sexual practices and
> > > ignorance) there are millions more infected homosexual with AID's than
> > > hethrosexual.
> > Uh, better take another look at SE Asia and S. America. AIDS is everyone's
> > problem.
>
> %%%% Keep your dick in your pants and only use it as it was intended (on
women) and your risk is decreased ten thousand fold.
Wrong. Call your local AIDS hotline and get some accurate information. No
one is immune from the need for caution.
Fenris
<Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
To whatever extent sexual orientation is or is not genetic, the
alternative is not choice. Sexual orientation seems to be determined in
very early childhood, at the latest.
According to professionals in all of the relevant disciplines,
homosexuality is perfectly normal in our species and others.
An American Psychological Association Statement on Homosexuality
The following is an excerpt from a published statement, January 26,
1990, by Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director for Professional
Practice with the American Psychological Association. Prior to joining APA,
Dr. Welch practiced in the mental health delivery system for 15 years.
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is
neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a
minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study
after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians.
Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational
adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as
well as heterosexuals.
Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research
suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the
life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten
percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across
cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of
a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of
homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral
codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to
repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in
psychological accoutrements.
All targets of discrimination, be they blacks, women, handicapped,
or religious sects, have a uniquely horrible dimension to their
suffering. This is true for gay men and lesbians as well. Psychologically,
sexuality and sexual orientation represent life forces which form the most
sensitive bedrock of our being. They not only shape our attitudes and our
passions, but they are so fundamental to our personality structure that they,
in large part, determine our sense of personal cohesiveness and our level
of comfort in the world. They are the driving force with which we love,
work, and create.
For patients (in psychotherapy), the societal assumption that
homosexuality (is) sick and/or immoral creates(s) an emotional,
sensual, and spiritual prison where self-expression, love, and the deepest
forms of human connectedness (are) stultified though anguishing guilt and
self-loathing. For those of us in psychology who have had this kind
of experience working with gay men and lesbians, the impact has been
quite profound. For over two decades now, the American Psychological
Association has advocated the elimination of discrimination against
gay men and lesbians.
Finally, if one thinks about the vast real problems confronting
our society and attacking our family structure--problems such as
family violence, divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, homelessness,
and isolation, it becomes clear that individuals who are obsessed with how
a minority of our citizens express love and sexuality have, indeed,
established a most peculiar set of priorities, both for themselves and
for others.
Healthy and secure heterosexuals do not feel threatened by
homosexuality. Healthy heterosexuals don't need to oppress
homosexuals. Healthy heterosexuals donšt need to repair homosexuals.
The real issue confronting our society today is not why people
seek love and understanding as they do, but why some seem so unable to
love and understand at all.
Fenris
<pro...@pro-death.com> wrote:
> Put me down as another person who thinks homosexuality is a
> perversion. Might as well.
Why? It is a value judgement relative to culture, one which is not
supported by the professionals in any of the relevant disciplines.
> I do not agree with the homosexual agenda.
Which is what? I never got a copy.
> I am a homophobe and I don't care. There was a time when I thought
> homosexuals were people, but the activists, like ACT UP! or Queer
> Nation, of the movement reduced my compasion for their cause. I
> worked in W. Hollywood where Halloween was a circus.
Ever been to Mardi Gras?
Do you always judge a group by the members whose behavior you dislike?
> I do not look at
> homosexuals as geing a race like Asians, Blacks, Caucasian or
> Hispanics...
Neither does anyone else.
> It only boils
> down to character. I look at homosexuality as a deviation. I believe
> people are born tha way...
"Character" is a matter of choice, not genetics. Make up your mind.
> ...but I grew up in middle-class, family
> orientated neighborhood wheere a man married a woman and vice versa.
As have most homosexuals.
> I grew up in a heterosexual atmosphere which I considered normal.
As have most homosexuals.
> Call me a homophobe if it makes you feel beter. I can live with that label.
> All the animal behavior studies won't change my mind.
There is plenty of ethnological data, as well. A majority of cultures are
not homophobic; some have gone so far as to make universal prescriptions
of same-sex marriage for a particular stage in life.
Homophobia correlates with cultures which are expansionistic and
pro-natalistic. It is interesting that even in our own, moderately
homophobic culture, 20.3% of ment have achieved orgasim with other men.
From: "Psychology and You: Answers to Your Questions About
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"
By: The American Psychological Association
[This pamphlet is available from APA, 750 First St NE, Washington
DC 20002-4242, phone 202-336-5700]
Q: What is sexual orientation?
A: Sexual orientation is one of the four components of sexuality
and is distinguished by an enduring emotional, romantic,
sexual or affectional attraction to individuals of a particular
gender. The three other components of sexuality are
biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of
being male or female) and social sex role (adherence to
cultural norms for feminine and masculine beaviour). Three
sexual orientations are commonly recognised: _homosexual_,
attraction to individuals of one's own gender; _heterosexual_,
attraction to individuals of the other gender; or _bisexual_,
attractions to members of either gender. Persons with a
homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as _gay_
(both men and women) or _lesbian_ (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behaviour because
it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may
not express their sexual orientation in their behaviours.
Sidebar:
Homosexual orientation is not limited to a particular type of
person. Gay men and lesbians are of all ages, cultural
backgrounds, races, religions and nationalities. They work
in all occupations and live in all parts of the country.
Q: What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
A: How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual
is not well understood by scientists. Various theories have
proposed differing sources for sexual orientation, including
genetic or inborn hormonal factors and life experiences during
early childhood. However, many scientists share the view that
sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age
through complex interactions of biological, psychological and
social factors.
Q: Is sexual orientation a choice?
A: No. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early
adolescence without any prior sexual experience. And some
people report trying very hard over many years to change
their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with
no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not consider
sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be
voluntarily changed.
Q: Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?
A: No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health
professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness,
mental disorder or emotional problem. Much objective
scientific research over the past 35 years shows us that
homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not associated
with emotional or social problems.
Homosexuality was thought to be a mental illness in the past
because mental health professionals and society had biased
information about homosexuality since most studies only
involved lesbians and gay men in therapy. When researchers
examined data about gay people who were not in therapy, the
idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was found to be
untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the
importance of the new research by removing the term
"homosexuality" from the official manual that lists all
mental and emotional disorders. In 1975 the American
Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting
this action. Both associations urge all mental health
professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness
that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Since the original declassification of homosexuality as a
mental disorder, this decision has subsequently been
reaffirmed by additional research findings and both
associations.
Q: Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?
A: Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by
homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental
differences between the two groups of children in their
intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment,
popularity with friends, developmment of social sex role
identity or development of sexual orientation.
Another stereotype about homosexuality is the mistaken
belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual
men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence
indicating that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals
to molest children.
Sidebar:
The APA encourages all mental health professionals to work to
help persons of all sexual orientations to accept and
integrate their inner feelings and to overcome their
prejudices and false beliefs about one another.
Q: Why do some gay men and lesbians tell people about their
sexual orientation?
A: Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is
important to their mental health. In fact, the process of
identity development for lesbians and gay men, usually called
"coming out", has been found to be strongly related to
psychological adjustment -- the more positive the gay male or
lesbian identity, the better one's mental health and the
higher one's self esteem.
Q: Why is the "coming out" process difficult for some gays and
lesbians?
A: Because of false stereotypes and unwarranted prejudice towards
them, the process of "coming out" for lesbians and gay men can
be a very challenging process which may cause emotional pain.
Lesbian and gay people often feel "different" and "alone" when
they first become aware of same-sex attractions. They may
also fear being rejected by family, friends, co-workers and
religious institutions if they do "come out".
In addition, homosexuals are frequently the targets of
discrimination and violence. This threat of violence and
discrimination is an obstacle to lesbian and gay people's
development. In a 1989 national survey, 5% of the gay men and
10% of the lesbians reported physical abuse or assault related
to being lesbian or gay in the last year; 47% reported some
form of discrimination over their lifetime. Other research
has shown similarly high rates of discrimination and violence.
Q: What can be done to help lesbians and gay men overcome
prejudice and discrimination against them?
A: The people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men
and lesbians are those who say they know one or more gay
person well. For this reason, psychologists believe negative
attitudes toward gays as a group are prejudices that are not
grounded in actual experience with lesbians or gay men but
on stereotypes and prejudice.
Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination
are very important, just as they are for other minority
groups. Some states include violence against an individual on
the basis of her or his sexual orientation as a "hate crime"
and eight US states have laws against discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.
Q: Can therapy change sexual orientation?
A: No. Even though homosexual orientation is not a mental
illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt
conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation,
some individuals may seek to change their own sexual
orientation or that of another individual (for example,
parents seeking therapy for their child). Some therapists
who undertake this kind of therapy report that they have
changed their clients' sexual orientation (from homosexual to
heterosexual) in treatment. Close scrutiny of their reports
indicates several factors that cast doubt: many of the claims
come from organisations with an ideological perspective on
sexual orientation, rather than from mental health
researchers; the treatments and their outcomes are poorly
documented; and the length of time that clients are followed
up after the treatment is too short.
In 1990 the American Psychological Association stated that
scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy
works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's
sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's
sexual behaviour. It would require altering one's emotional,
romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's
self-concept and social identity. Although some mental health
providers do attempt sexual orientation conversion, others
question the ethics of trying to alter through therapy a trait
that is not a disorder and that is extremely important to an
individual's identity.
Not all gays and lesbians who seek therapy want to change
their sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians may seek
counselling for any of the same reasons as anyone else. In
addition, they may seek psychological help to "come out" or
to deal with prejudice, discrimination and violence.
Q: Why is it important for society to be better educated about
homosexuality?
A: Educating all people about sexual orientation and
homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice.
Accurate information about homosexuality is especially
important to young people struggling with their own sexual
identity. Fears that access to such information will affect
one's sexual orientation are not valid.
Q: Where can I find more information about homosexuality?
A: The publications and organisations listed below can all
provide you with further information:
References:
Garnets, L.D., et al, "Issues in Psychotherapy
With Lesbians and Gay Men", _American_
_Psychologist_, Vol 46 #9, pp 964-972.
Goodchilds, J.D., _Psychological_Perspectives_
_on_Human_Diversity_In_America_, American
Psychological Association, Washington DC, 1993.
Garnets, L.D., and Kimmel, D.C., _Psychological_
_Perspectives_on_Lesbian_&_Gay_Male_Experiences_,
Columbia University Press, New York, 1993.
Gonsiorek, J.C., and Weinrich, J.D., _Homosexuality:_
_Research_Implications_For_Public_Policy_, Sage
Publications, California, 1991.
Herek, G.M., and Berrill, K.T., _Journal_of_
_Interpersonal_Violence_, Vol 5 #3.
Organisations:
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
1734 14th Street NW
Washington DC 20009
Telephone: 1-202-332-6483
National Institute of Mental Health
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 7C02
Rockville MD 20857
Telephone: 1-301-443-4513
Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays
1012 14th Street NW Suite 700
Washington DC 20005
Telephone: 1-202-638-4200
Sex Information and Education Council of the United States
130 West 42nd Street, Suite 2500
New York NY 10036
Telephone: 1-212-819-9770
Special Thanks:
Special thanks to the following APA members and staff whose
assistance made this brochure possible:
Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., University of California at Davis.
Oliva M. Espin, Ph.D., San Diego State University, president
of APA division 44.
APA Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns.
Clinton W. Anderson, M.A., APA Office on Lesbian and Gay
Concerns.
Brochure written by Stephen J. Blommer.
Produced by the APA Office of Public Affairs.
David Lentz
Fenris wrote:
<snip>
> > Race is a genetic trait. Sexual behavior is not. If the
> > homophiles wish to treated as normal people, all they need do is
> > to behave as normal people. Simple isn't it.
>
> To whatever extent sexual orientation is or is not genetic, the
> alternative is not choice. Sexual orientation seems to be determined in
> very early childhood, at the latest.
>
> According to professionals in all of the relevant disciplines,
> homosexuality is perfectly normal in our species and others.
>
> An American Psychological Association Statement on Homosexuality
>
> The following is an excerpt from a published statement, January 26,
> 1990, by Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director for Professional
> Practice with the American Psychological Association. Prior to joining APA,
> Dr. Welch practiced in the mental health delivery system for 15 years.
Note I said behavior and not this mythical supposed deviant
orientation.
As for the American Psychological Association, it appears be be
little more than a front organization for the North American
Man/Boy Love Association. \
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
John LaVoy
VRWC wrote:
<snip what is obviously unimportant, given the next comment>
> Call
> me a homophobe if it makes you feel beter. I can live with that label.
> All the animal behavior studies won't change my mind.
Actually, nothing will change your mind. No argument, no evidence, no data. Your
unwillingness to examine your own beliefs in the light of contrary evidence ought to
scare you. You might be happy being called a homophobe, but you appear to be a
brainophobe too.
Fenris
<Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
> Note I said behavior and not this mythical supposed deviant orientation.
Really. When did you choose yours? Or are you telling us that you are as
attracted to men as to women?
> As for the American Psychological Association, it appears be be
> little more than a front organization for the North American
> Man/Boy Love Association. \
Yeh, right--the American Psychiatric Association and the AMA, as well.
John LaVoy
David Lentz, putting the cart before the horse, wrote:
>
> As for the American Psychological Association, it appears be be
> little more than a front organization for the North American
> Man/Boy Love Association. \
Right. They don't categorize homosexuality as a disease and they are therefore a
front for NAMBLA. Why don't we accept their determination that homosexulaity
isn't a disease, because they are a front for NAMBLA. Your thought process is
like a cat chasing its tail.
>
>
> David
>
> --
> qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Ninure Saunders
<Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
-Janus wrote:
-
-<snip>
-
-> Oh look guys another one that thinks homosexuality is a perversion
-> so it is no difference than bestiality and polygamy. What homosexuals
-> want is equality just like blacks wanted when they were denied the right
-> to marry whites. Homosexuals don't want to marry their dog they want
-> to marry each other with the same rights as everyone else has. You
-> just want to keep your special right to marry who you choose and deny
-> this right to intersexuals and homosexuals.
-
-Race is a genetic trait. Sexual behavior is not. If the
-homophiles wish to treated as normal people, all they need do is
-to behave as normal people. Simple isn't it.
-
-David
---
Christianity is a choice......so does that mean it is okay for people who
hate/dislike/believe Christians are wrong to deny them their civil rights?
If not why not?
Craig K. Gowens
> >
> > They will not allow homosexuals
> > or intersexuals to legally marry
>
> %%%% Can you procreate? Next question:
Most homosexuals, like most heterosexuals, are quite capable of procreating.
Being a homosexual does not make one infertile or impotent.
Craig K. Gowens
Craig K. Gowens
> Janus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Oh look guys another one that thinks homosexuality is a perversion
> > so it is no difference than bestiality and polygamy. What homosexuals
> > want is equality just like blacks wanted when they were denied the right
> > to marry whites. Homosexuals don't want to marry their dog they want
> > to marry each other with the same rights as everyone else has. You
> > just want to keep your special right to marry who you choose and deny
> > this right to intersexuals and homosexuals.
>
> Race is a genetic trait.
Not according to the scientists at the Human Genome Project. There are no
genes for race. Race is hertiable but not genetic.
> Sexual behavior is not.
Sexual orientation is almost certainly genetic. The probability of it not
being so is very small.
Craig K. Gowens
Harrison Numbugger
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:17:34 GMT, Janus <TwoH...@politician.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Oh look guys another one that thinks homosexuality is a perversion
>>so it is no difference than bestiality and polygamy. What homosexuals
>>want is equality just like blacks wanted when they were denied the right
>>to marry whites. Homosexuals don't want to marry their dog they want
>>to marry each other with the same rights as everyone else has. You
>>just want to keep your special right to marry who you choose and deny
>>this right to intersexuals and homosexuals.
>
>
>Not special rights but laws established by the majority. Have you
>forgotten that we are a "Republic" and that's the way we govern
>ourselves. The rule of our society is law. But laws cannot be written
>in a way to cover every conceivable condition. However when the US
>laws governing marriage were written they were and remain to this day,
>based on what is the norm, what is the best for most, and what do
>western societies (others like us) do. There is no trend, even if one
>looks at the human society in general, away from the concept of
>viewing marriage as a joining in matrimony of one man and one woman.
>There are one or two exceptions found in small insignificant mostly
>socialist countries but the number is so small as to be reasonably
>disregarded when looking for established trends.
so you are saying that if bigotry is protected by law it is ok?
bigotry is bigotry, whether practiced by the majority or not.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Robert W Lawrence
<>You
<>just want to keep your special right to marry who you choose and deny
<>this right to intersexuals and homosexuals.
Those who engage in homosexual behavior have the exact same rights to marry and
are subject to the exact same restrictions on marriage that apply to all
Americans regardless of race, creed, sex or country of national origin.
The idea, BTW, that there is ANY comparison to a people who were bought into
this country in chains, worked to death, raped, bought and sold at their owners
whim and were segregated for over 1300 years after they were freed to a group of
people who's only distinguishing characteristic is the manner in which they
engage in sex is about as racist as you can get.
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@rwlcpa.com
1Peter 5:7
Robert W Lawrence
<>> I do not agree with the homosexual agenda.
<>
<>Which is what? I never got a copy.
The homosexual agenda is quite simple. They want their sexual behavior accorded
the same protected status as race, creed, sex and country of national origin.
It is interesting they are not interested in having the polygamous and the
incestuous given this status based on their sexual behavior. It is apparent they
are like the pigs in "Animal Farm"-"all sexual behaviors are equal-some are more
equal than others"
Fenris
And why would anyone consider the ability to procreate something in which
to take pride? It's not as if it requires great skill or intelligence. :)
Robert W Lawrence
<>
<> The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is
<>neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a
<>minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study
<>after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians.
<>Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational
<>adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as
<>well as heterosexuals.
The APA position on homosexuality was not based on peer reviewed research-it was
determined on(brace yourself) a vote. There is NO study that proves homosexual
behavior is genetic.
But then again it doesn't matter whether the "behavior" is chosen or not. The
issue is as to whether homosexual behavior is to be granted the same protected
status as race, creed, sex and country of national origin. The so called
"homosexual rights" groups scream bloody murder when pedophilia, incest and
polygamy are mentioned but how can we elevate one sexual behavior to "protected
status" and not similarly accord ALL sexual behaviors that status?
Robert W Lawrence
<>But then there
<>are people that go out of their way to come into homosexuals
<>news groups to spo
Then are people like me who is too lazy to edit his headers so his posts to
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh end up in all sorts of strange newsgroups.
Fenris
> Janus <TwoH...@politician.com> wrote:
>
> <>You
> <>just want to keep your special right to marry who you choose and deny
> <>this right to intersexuals and homosexuals.
>
>
> Those who engage in homosexual behavior have the exact same rights to marry
> and are subject to the exact same restrictions on marriage that apply to all
> Americans regardless of race, creed, sex or country of national origin.
Yeh, as long as they marry people they don't love, there's no problem.
Please explain how you are harmed by anyone else's consensual relationship
or why it is the government's business.
> The idea, BTW, that there is ANY comparison to a people who were bought into
> this country in chains, worked to death, raped, bought and sold at their
> owners whim and were segregated for over 1300 years after they were freed to a
> group of people who's only distinguishing characteristic is the manner in
> which they engage in sex is about as racist as you can get.
No, it isn't. Reducing the core part of people's identity related to
romantic love to "the manner in which they engage in sex" is about as
dehumanizing as one can get. Persecuting and murdering people for whom
they love is a horrible thing, as bad as for racial reasons. The
mechanisms and results of prejudice are very much the same, even if there
has, in this country, been a difference in the scale of the crimes, the
numbers committed. Why would you suppose that the pain of or injustice
suffered by any particular, innocent group which has been persecuted for
any reason is greater or more valid than for any other group?