The alt.politics.homosexuality FAQ list
Rob Jellinghaus
Posted biweekly. Last revised August 28, 1993.
Copyright (c) 1993 by Rob Jellinghaus. Freely distributable, but
please do me a favor and let me know where you send it.
I decided to write this FAQ list recently when I realized how many
many times I have repeated myself here on alt.politics.homosexuality.
The discussion here often revolves around a small number of claims
about how homosexuality is a negative thing (in any of several ways),
which are continually posted and refuted. This FAQ list is an attempt
to list some of the most common claims and the usual responses.
Further, the discussion in alt.politics.homosexuality frequently
becomes heated, and even sometimes results in actions above and beyond
normal posting--such as forging cancel messages and mailbombing. It
behooves anyone reading this (or any of the other "anti-gay" groups)
to be aware of this threat.
The list of claims I rebut is a very disheartening list. That there
are people spreading this type of hatred across the net, in 1993, is
really disturbing. Hopefully this FAQ will make it easier to counter
the misinformation, without giving excess exposure to the hatred.
Please email me your comments on this FAQ, whether positive or
negative.
Here's the list of questions and claims that are mentioned in this
FAQ list:
1. What is alt.politics.homosexuality about, anyway?
2. Why even bother arguing with these people?
3. What are some of the most common "anti-gay" claims made on
this group, and in what way is each claim untrue?
Being gay is just an abnormal lifestyle.
The gay rights movement is a social evil.
Gays want special rights.
God says homosexuality is bad, period.
Accepting gays will lead to social breakdown, like in ancient Rome.
Letting gays into the military will damage military effectiveness.
Anyone who disagrees with me about gays is a bigot.
Gays are pedophiles.
If we accept gays, what next?
Gays want to teach kids to be gay.
Gays should not be parents.
AIDS is a gay disease.
Gayness is a genetic defect, since gays can't reproduce.
Gays are promiscuous.
Anal sex is something only gays do.
Anal sex is always unhealthy.
In fact, so are masturbation and oral sex.
The gay rights movement is practicing thought control.
"Homophobia" does not exist.
Gays can be cured.
Gays have kicked people off the net for being anti-gay.
Paul Cameron's research has proven these anti-gay statements.
4. What should I know about forgeries, USENET etiquette, and kill
files, given past events on alt.politics.homosexuality?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What is alt.politics.homosexuality about, anyway?
Soc.motss, the group for discussion of themes relating to gays and
lesbians, was created several years ago. Unfortunately, it was from
time to time beset by people loudly claiming that gays were bad,
homosexuality was evil, and so forth. Roger Klorese created
alt.politics.homosexuality to serve as a place for such topics and the
debates surrounding them.
The threads on alt.politics.homosexuality are often started by people
joining the newsgroup and making any of several anti-gay claims, often
surrounded with insults and abuse towards gays. Many people then
respond, sometimes with straightforward flames, sometimes with
thoughtful answers. Unfortunately, there are some anti-gay posters
that systematically ignore all such responses, and continue to repeat
their bogus points. This engenders flamewars that are as repetitive
as any on the net.
Substantiative discussion of political issues relating to gays is,
unfortunately, rare on this newsgroup; the flame wars tend to drown
out most such threads.
Two recently created newsgroups, alt.flame.faggots and
alt.flame.fucking.faggots, are two of the worst examples of ways to
use USENET. It is depressing that such groups exist. One wonders
when the creators of a.f.f will get around to newgrouping
alt.flame.niggers, or alt.flame.fucking.jews. Actually, one hopes all
such groups will just go away, but USENET unfortunately is plagued by
hate speech in some quarters.
Some of the anti-gay posters behave as they do because they simply
enjoy making people angry. What they really want is to be replied to
by lots of different people. Of course, if they play this game long
enough they run out of new things to say. If this FAQ addresses their
usual provocations well enough to make other responses mostly
unnecessary, and this makes the group more boring for such people, the
FAQ will have done very well. Who knows? Perhaps we will even be
able to discuss politics again (though it's not likely).
In very rare cases, mailbombing and forging battles have erupted
involving posters to alt.politics.homosexuality. I discuss this in
more detail at the end of this FAQ.
2. Why even bother arguing with these people?
Because it makes me sick to hear them, and I need to speak the
truth in response.
Many of the anti-gay posters who have been online the longest are
immune to anything anyone says; engaging them in dialogue is futile.
If you doubt this, by all means, try to argue with them. You will
see that they ignore any substantiative points you make, and proceed
to insult and harass you. If you then decide you simply want to
ignore them, there are ways to make that easier (known as "kill
files"); I describe how to use them at the end of this post.
I wish this FAQ were not necessary. But I believe that answering most
of their bile once and for all is better than bickering with them,
which inflates their egos. I do feel that this FAQ makes all too many
blanket claims about what "gays" want and don't want; gay people are
as (or more) diverse as any other group, however defined, on the
planet, and lumping them all together (as in the vague phrase "the
gay community") is an error. Hopefully I am making that error in a
good cause; hopefully people will also let me know if they disagree.
3. What are some of the most common "anti-gay" claims made on
this group, and what is the truth about each claim?
Most of the flame wars on alt.politics.homosexuality revolve around
these points and their well-known rebuttals.
Being gay is just an abnormal lifestyle.
The belief that gayness is a simple lifestyle choice has been
extensively researched, and the consensus in the psychological
community is that sexual orientation--the sex (or sexes) to which one
is attracted--is in almost all cases not voluntarily chosen.
Furthermore, those who call gayness a "lifestyle" often bring up
several reasons why it is a bad "lifestyle". These reasons are as
bogus as the initial presumption, and are in themselves no arguments
against being gay. In other words, if it _were_ a lifestyle, there
would _still_ be nothing wrong with it.
Neither is gayness "abnormal". Gays are in the minority, but then,
so are left-handed people. Calling gayness "abnormal" presumes that
there is some "normal" standard of human sexuality from which all
other sexualities must be compared (and suffer in the comparison).
Gayness is clearly every bit as natural as straightness (there have
always been and there always will be gay people), and the "abnormal"
label is meaningless.
The gay rights movement is a social evil.
The gay rights movement is a full-fledged part of the civil rights
movement. Racism (discrimination based on race) and anti-Semitism
(discrimination based on religion) are both intolerable in a
democratic society. Likewise, heterosexism (descrimination based on
sexual orientation) is intolerable, and for exactly the same reasons.
People deserve equal treatment under the law, regardless of race,
religion, or sexual orientation.
Gays want special rights.
The gay rights battles that have been so prominently fought this year
have involved efforts to secure laws that would prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation, just as current laws
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or religion. That is,
gays are seeking equal rights, not statutes granting special
preferences to gays.
Sometimes it is asserted that gays will next be attempting to get
affirmative action protection for themselves. No gay rights group has
ever proposed, or is considering proposing, such legislation. The
issue is a strawman used to distract from the real issues, which are
freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The "anti-gay initiatives" that have been passed in Oregon and
Colorado recently seek to remove constitutional rights from gays.
Colorado's Amendment 2 tries to outlaw any attempts to pass laws
protecting people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation. This singles out a particular social group--gay
people--and makes it impossible for them even to _attempt_ to pass
legislation relating to themselves. This kind of exclusion is without
precedent, and is (as Colorado courts are affirming) unconstitutional.
The Christian God says homosexuality is bad, period.
Some passages in the Bible can be interpreted this way. There are
many conflicting interpretations, and in any event, the Bible is not
the direct word of God but the words of humans. Many of the cultural
connotations of the original Hebrew and Greek in the Bible are no
longer known. Moreover, there are many other things that the Bible
says are bad. Slave-owners quoted Colossians 3:22 to prove that God
supported slavery. Many doctors resisted providing anesthesia to
women in labor because pain in childbirth was Eve's punishment
(Genesis 3:16). And the Bible says that women are forbidden to teach
men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in
clothing that "pertains to a man" (Deuteronomy 22:5). Yet you don't
see the fundamentalists complaining about any of _these_....
If an anti-gay poster quotes only the anti-gay parts of his
translations of the Bible, and chooses to ignore other interpretations
or other parts of the Bible that he doesn't agree with, it is clear
that he is using the Bible to support his anti-gay position, rather
than basing that position on the Bible. Moreover, most such posters
do not believe that separation of church and state is a good idea--ask
them and see.
There are other religions that think poorly of homosexuality. Such
religions often also tend towards literal adherence to their selected
interpretation of their holy words, a fundamentalist attitude, a
strong expressed urge to conver the whole world to their beliefs, and
oppression of other groups (such as women) in their society. Such
religions, in my opinion, are a major threat to the peaceful existence
of humanity on this planet.
Accepting gays will lead to social breakdown, like in ancient Rome.
There is no reason to believe that the fall of Rome was due to gays
any more than that it was due to the rise of the Christian emperors.
This statement is generally posted with no supporting facts, and hence
it need not be considered further.
Letting gays into the military will damage military effectiveness.
Numerous studies have been done of whether homosexuals are in any way
less fit for military service than heterosexuals. Some of these
studies were commissioned by the Defense Department. All of them
agree that being gay in no way affects a person's ability to serve
with dignity and distinction, and to observe military codes of
conduct. Several countries around the world (Israel and Australia, to
name two) have no policy against gays in the military, and their
military capability has not suffered in the least.
There are many gays in the military _now_, many of whom have been
multiply decorated for outstanding performance (and then ejected
because they announced they were gay). And further, there have been
many more incidents of sexual harassment by non-gay soldiers than by
gay soldiers (witness the Tailhook scandal). The facts simply do not
support the ban on gays in the military.
Anyone who disagrees with me about gays is a bigot.
"Bigotry" is defined as "fanatical devotion to one's own group,
religion, or race, and intolerance of those who differ." Most
anti-gay posters who attack gays express their dislike of anyone who
is gay; they attack a whole group of people simply because of those
peoples' sexual orientation. That is bigotry. Often, people
disagree, loudly. The anti-gay poster then complains his opponents
are bigoted, but in reality they are attacking him because of what he
has said here on the net, not because he is (say) white, or straight,
or Republican. These people complaining that gays are bigoted against
them is like the KKK complaining that blacks are bigoted against
_them_; it is an utter misappropriation of the word.
Gays are pedophiles.
Studies done of the sexual orientations of pedophiles (people who
compulsively abuse children sexually) have shown that the vast
majority of pedophiles are straight. That is, there are far fewer gay
pedophiles than would be expected given the average number of gays in
the general population. Associating gayness (the mutual love of two
same-sex adults) with pedophilia (the crime of sexual contact with a
non-consenting child) is a tactic that clearly betrays the illogic and
bigotry of the person making the association. Certainly there is
nothing to show that either abusing children or being abused as a
child has a direct effect on one's sexual orientation.
If we accept gays, what next?
Frequently people who make the above comparison also use the following
"argument": if we accept gayness, why should we not accept sadism/
masochism/bestiality/pedophilia/necrophilia? After all, aren't they
also marginalized practices? The obvious implication is that
accepting gayness is the first step on some nebulous slippery slope
towards believing that these other, even more stigmatized sexualities
are acceptable too. This is clearly a strawman argument to distract
from the real issues of whether gayness is not morally wrong; it's
classic guilt by association.
I have already dealt with why gayness is utterly unrelated to pedo-
philia. No more is it related to sadism, masochism, bestiality, or
necrophilia. Bestiality is morally wrong because animals cannot
consent to sex; again, this has nothing to do with gayness. Necro-
philia is such a rare condition, and so far removed from any kind of
sex between consenting adults, that it also is strictly a red herring
in this argument. Sadism and masochism also are unrelated to gayness
(certainly many many straight people do S/M too). And in any event,
the fundamentalists who rant against sadism and masochism are in
almost every case not at all talking about what S/M people actually
_do_. (Rather like they don't talk about what _gay_ people actually
do!) It is eminently possible to have a consensual, healthy, adult
sexual relationship which involves elements of S/M. Certainly the
social stigma against S/M seems to be weakening somewhat as people
learn that it's really not that big a deal, and that S/M people are as
intelligent, as self-aware, and as respectful of others as anyone
else. S/M does NOT equal abuse, and S/M people do NOT want to
"corrupt" anyone into doing S/M. But in any event, linking gayness to
S/M is simply unjustified.
Gays want to teach kids to be gay.
The "Children of the Rainbow" curriculum, despite what some posters
say, contains NO advocacy of homosexuality, and NO sexual content
whatsoever. The gay-specific message of the curriculum is simply,
"Some kids have gay parents, and some of those families are happy."
There is no assertion that homosexuality is better than hetero-
sexuality, no assertion that all gays are happy, and no description of
any sexual practice at all. The gay rights movement wants to educate
kids that gays exist; nothing more. And moreover, there is no
evidence that kids' sexual orientation is shaped by their education in
any event; kids CAN'T be taught to be gay.
Gays should not be parents.
Studies done of the children of gay parents show such children to be
as or more well-adjusted then children of straight parents. A gay
couple that loves each other and the child will certainly make better
parents than a straight couple with an unwanted child, of which there
are all too many. The most important factor in raising a healthy and
happy child is whether the parents give the child ample love and
support, not what sex the parents are.
AIDS is a gay disease.
AIDS is a disease, period. It affects gay people and straight people.
Worldwide, most people with AIDS are heterosexual. In America, the
number of new AIDS cases among gays is dropping, while the number of
new cases among straights is rising. The fact that gays were so hard
hit by the epidemic says more about the lack of knowledge about the
disease in its early days than it says about gays' sexual practices.
In fact, safer sex techniques, many of which were developed by the gay
community, have gone a long way towards eliminating the risk of AIDS
transmission through sex. And gay women--lesbians--are the group with
the LOWEST risk of contracting AIDS. Most anti-gay posters ignore all
this, of course.
Anyone who still rants "AIDS is a gay disease" is ignoring the facts;
and indeed, in America, AIDS was largely ignored for a long time
precisely because it was thought of as a gay disease. This prejudice
has cost (and will cost) many lives.
Gayness is a genetic defect, since gays can't reproduce.
Sometimes a particularly ignorant anti-gay poster will state something
to the effect of, "Gays can't have kids, so they're defective, and
they will soon vanish." This is clearly absurd; if it were true,
homosexuality would not exist _now_. Straight people occasionally
have gay children; gayness is a stable part of the human gene pool.
The fact that gays do not (usually) have genetic children says nothing
about whether gayness is a normal part of the human population.
The further premise is that people who do not reproduce are defective.
People who argue against gays on this basis clearly don't feel the
same way about all the straight people who can't (or don't want to)
have children; their argument is therefore flawed. Moreover, gays can
(and do) adopt, and lesbians can have children through artificial
insemination; gays can be parents.
A further premise is that the purpose of sexuality is reproduction;
this is equally far from the truth. Sexuality is an enormously
complex part of being human, and sex serves to give people pleasure
and to increase their intimacy, in addition to creating babies.
Our sex drive lasts long after having children, and is present (very
much so!) even if we never have children at all. Sexuality has no
single "purpose".
Gays are promiscuous.
Often anti-gay posters will trot out the old saw about how gay men
(they seldom mention women) have hundreds of partners and know
nothing about monogamy. This is crass stereotyping at its worst.
Most gay men participate in monogamous, long-term relationships, like
everyone else. Some gay men seek out frequent, non-committed sex.
So do some straight people. They're called "swingers". Gayness
does not imply promiscuity.
Anal sex is something only gays do.
Anal sex, in all the studies I have seen, has been determined to be
practiced regularly by about 15% of the population. ("Anal sex" here
means anal contact of any sort for pleasurable purposes.) This 15%
proportion is roughly correct for gay people and for straight people,
for men and for women. (Yes, only about 15% of gay men practice anal
sex regularly.) This means that only a minority of gay people
actually include anal sex of any kind as part of their sex life. This
also means that there are many more straight people who enjoy anal sex
than gay people. Most of the anti-gay-sex rantings spewed into
alt.politics.homosexuality therefore clearly have nothing to do with
reality.
Anal sex is always unhealthy.
Unprotected anal contact is unhealthy. But safer sex techniques can
make anal sex extremely safe, and since the anus contains more nerve
endings than any other part of the male body (and only the clitoris
has more in the female body), many people enjoy anal sex as an
integral part of their healthy sex life. In fact, anal sex, by
enabling relaxation and conscious awareness of the anus, very often
_increases_ its health. The anal muscle must be able to relax, and
only strong muscles can relax easily; weak muscles are often extremely
tense. The people at greatest risk for hemorrhoids and "adult
diapers" are the people with the greatest degree of anal tension--i.e.
NOT people accustomed to anal play; even those who enjoy the more
extreme forms of anal play (such as fisting) are only making their
anuses stronger through what they do.
In fact, so are masturbation and oral sex.
Some anti-gay posters will attack anyone who claims that any kind of
sex other than vaginal intercourse is healthy. It is well established
among psychologists and therapists that masturbation is a normal
sexual practice. Self-pleasuring leads to a greater knowledge of
one's sexual response, a lessened degree of tension, and more comfort
with one's sexuality. No one has EVER produced a scientific study
showing bad effects from repeated masturbation. Oral sex, likewise,
is an age-old practise, and if performed using safer sex techniques
(i.e. condoms!), is a perfectly healthy part of the sex lives of
billions of people.
The gay rights movement is practicing thought control.
This is absurd on its face. Most anti-gay posters are clearly taking
full advantage of their freedom of speech. On a larger scale, anyone
who seriously believes that the gay rights movement has some kind of
monopoly on social change is clearly deluded, given the recent success
of anti-gay-rights legislation in communities nationwide, not to
mention the routine torture and imprisonment of gays around the world.
Those who compare the gay rights movement to a fascist movement are
even more offensive given these facts.
"Homophobia" does not exist.
The word "homophobia" is a recent coinage. It means irrational fear
of or revulsion by homosexuals. Some anti-gay posters take issue with
the word, for some reason. Often it is attacked on the grounds that
the poster is not afraid, therefore claiming the poster is phobic is
qwrong. The response is simply that phobias are not simply fear; they
are an irrational, extreme response to a particular thing. Certainly
many anti-gay posters have irrational, extreme responses to
homosexuality. Some posters go on to say that the revulsion they feel
towards homosexuals is not irrational, but is justified, and then go
on to make one of the other points in this list--none of which are
rationally based.
There clearly are people who hate homosexuals and fear the "spread" of
homosexuality (a meaningless concept--homosexuality is not learned,
and not teachable). These people often go so far as to firebomb and
murder homosexuals; hate crimes against gays are on the rise in
America. Calling these people "homophobic" accurately describes the
deep-seated psychological sickness that causes them to act this way.
Gays can be cured.
First of all, being gay is not in any sense a disease. Some have
claimed that it is, but the American Psychiatric Association, in 1974,
finally removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders. There are no negative mental or physical
effects from being homosexual, except for the difficulties associated
with encountering the prejudice and hatred against gays which are all
too common in today's societies. Calling gayness a disease is like
calling left-handedness a disease; it is a misuse of the word disease.
Studies done of gays who have been "cured" (usually by fundamentalist
preachers) show that the underlying sexual orientation remains
unchanged. The person may attempt to live a straight life, but this
is no more a "cure" than a straight person attempting to live a gay
life.
One example of what people who claim to cure gayness actually do
follows (thanks to Quan Young):
"Clark is a pastor whose counseling program, Quest, led to the
development of Homosexuals Anonymous, the largest antigay
fundamentalist counselling organization in the world. He found the
Quest Ministries in Reading, and reportedly administered some 200
people through 'reorientation counselling' from Clark, his wife, and
an associate." Then from this organization, came the Homosexuals
Anonymous, "... a 14-step program based on Alcoholics Anonymous"
("Homosexuality", Haldeman). Without permission from Clark, a
sociologist, Ronald Lawson, interviewed 14 clients. Not only did none
of them reported any change in sexual orientation, "... all but two
reported Clark had sex with them during 'treatment', in the form of
nude massage or mutual masturbation. The two clients excluded ...
received only telephone counseling. Even the couselee, however,
reported that Clark had masturbated during a telephone counseling
session." (Lawson)
Gays have kicked people off the net for being anti-gay.
There have been incidents on alt.politics.homosexuality in which a
certain anti-gay poster moved beyond his usual bigotry and insults
into the realm of USENET hacking in order to get back at those with
whom he was arguing. In the most recent occurrence, the user forged
cancel messages for other peoples' posts. These actions, when
reported to the user's sysadmin, have resulted in his access through
that account being revoked. The user has subsequently reobtained
access and proceeded to make a stink about how gays censored HIM. The
degree of arrogance and sheer outright lying here is truly
astonishing. In reality, no one has attempted to terminate the net
access of anti-gay posters based simply on their postings; USENET
respects free speech above all else. It is too bad that some anti-gay
people choose to violate this by canceling the words of people they
disagree with.
Paul Cameron's research has proven these anti-gay statements.
Occasionally, an anti-gay poster will post statements by one "Paul
Cameron, M.D." which seem to bear out many of these anti-gay claims.
The fact of the matter is that Paul Cameron is about as shoddy as they
come in his research; he shapes his conclusions according to his
agenda rather than the evidence. The following material was collected
by Quan Young, a student at the University of Florida, and forwarded
to me by Matt Narramore.
Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association in
1983 (LA Times, 2/22/1993). "He was misrepresenting and distorting
other peoples' psychological research and using it to sensationalize
his point of view on homosexuals. He talks about homosexuals being
mass murderers and child molesters and credits other people for those
findings. If you read their research, they have in no way made such
claims. We have letters from those researchers saying his (work) has
distorted their research." Natalie Porter, assistant professor of
psychology at University of Nebraska (LA Times, 8/20/1985). Cameron
has also done "studies" of gay sexual practices, in which he makes
sweeping claims about the entire homosexual population, based on a
sample of 41 people who were involved in the study. The man is
simply incompetent as a researcher.
In general, if you look at Cameron's "work", it is nothing but a
restatement of many of the lies I have already discussed in this FAQ
list. The only difference is it's written by someone who claims to
have medical credentials, but who is in fact only wrapping the same
untruths in a more scientific package.
4. What should I know about forgeries, USENET etiquette, and kill files,
given past events on alt.politics.homosexuality?
You should definitely know how USENET basically works, and what a
forgery, a cancel message, and a mailbomb are. You may also want
to learn about killfiles, which are useful for ignoring posts from
particular net.bigots; I describe those at the end of this FAQ.
First, a little background. When you post an article, it gets placed
into the news file of your local site. From there it gets propagated
to all the sites yours connects to, and from there out into the net.
Each article has a header, consisting of several lines that state what
computers the article was relayed through to get from the poster to
you, who the article was posted by, what newsgroups the article is in,
and so forth.
A forgery is a posting in which some of the lines in the header have
been altered. A forger can send out an article that claims to be from
someone else. This is a widely deplored practice, as USENET is based
on being able to tell who you're speaking to.
When you cancel an article of yours, the news system generates a
special type of article called a "cancel control message", which gets
placed into the newsgroup named control, and propagated like any other
news article. When a cancel message is received by a site, the news
software at that site deletes the posting that is referenced by the
cancel message. Basic news software only lets the user who posted the
article issue a cancel for it.
Cancel messages can also be forged for articles you did not post.
This is the closest thing to censorship on USENET: deleting other
people's words without their consent. One particular anti-gay poster
(d...@TASP.NET) recently was doing just this, to twenty different people
(myself included) over a period of several weeks.
This was discovered by looking for those cancel messages in the
control newsgroup. It was easy to do this; we just subscribed to the
control newsgroup (I use "g control" in rn) and looked for any
articles containing "djk" in the header. Cancel messages expire like
other articles, but I give an example of one of the messages in
question below, in case there are none currently on your system.
This could happen to you, too, so knowing how to look for cancel
messages someone forged for your articles is a useful skill. To find
cancel messages that claim to be from you, just look for your userid
in the header of the control articles. I use "/robj/h" to do this in
rn. You can also use "grep robj *" in /usr/spool/news/control. All
of this is somewhat technical if you know little about UNIX or news,
but if you're going to be playing with flamers, it's good to know
about how the fire works. (ack! excuse me.)
It turns out there's no good technical way to prevent someone from
doing this. USENET is an anarchy; people can pretty much do whatever
they want. What you CAN do if someone does this to you is tell your
sysadmin, and email "root" at the site from which the cancel came.
Social pressure is the most effective tool on USENET; forged cancels
are universally acknowledged as a Bad Thing, so if it happens to you,
make a big stink about it. Just because USENET is an anarchy
doesn't mean there are no standards of etiquette; in fact, etiquette
is all that holds the net together.
This particular poster (djk) has also mailbombed people, by (for
example) sending them mail containing 3,000 control-Gs, which could
cause your terminal to beep for a couple of hours. If this happens to
you, let your sysadmin know, and give them all the relevant background
(including a copy of this FAQ if you like). This type of harassment
is utterly unacceptable.
If this does start happening, don't immediately start attacking
people on the net, and especially don't resort to using the same
tactics on the miscreants. Contact the relevant sysadmins through
email, as well as any other people who have also been attacked.
Work together and share information.
It is possible that a forged cancel message could in turn be forged to
come from someone who did not in fact forge it. There is no record of
this happening, and very little incentive to do it, but it is
possible. The person who ultimately is responsible is the sysadmins
of the sites that seem to be, or that actually are, producing the
forgeries and mailbombs. Talk to them. Things usually work them-
selves out fairly quickly.
Here is an example of a valid cancel message, one which was not
forged:
-----------------------------------
From robj Sat Aug 7 16:20:03 PDT 1993
Article: 296579 of control
Control: cancel <robjCBE...@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual,alt.flame.faggots,alt.flame
Path: netcom.com!robj
From: ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: cmsg cancel <robjCBE...@netcom.com>
Message-ID: <robjCB...@netcom.com>
Sender: ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <240v9s$l...@hpbs3591.boi.hp.com> <2418bs$r...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <robjCBE...@netcom.com>
Distribution: netcom
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 23:18:18 GMT
Lines: 2
<robjCBE...@netcom.com> was cancelled from within rn.
-----------------------------------
Note that the Path: line says the article came from netcom.com!robj,
which is the same as ro...@netcom.com. It's clear that the message
traveled from the same place designated in the From: and Sender:
lines.
Now, here is a forged cancel message:
-----------------------------------
>From netcomsv!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!linac!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!overload.lbl.gov!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!crash!tasp!djk Wed Aug 4 11:02:38 PDT 1993
Article: 291560 of control
Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!linac!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!overload.lbl.gov!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!crash!tasp!djk
From: ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,alt.homosexual,alt.flame.faggots
Subject: cancel <robjCAz...@netcom.com>
Message-ID: <wHJJ8B...@TASP.NET>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 93 00:18:43 PDT
References: <robjCAx...@netcom.com> <XcRg8B...@TASP.NET>
Control: cancel <robjCAz...@netcom.com>
Reply-To: d...@TASP.NET (Daniel J. Karnes)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 10
Cancelled with Waffle by <d...@TASP.NET>.
-----------------------------------
Note that the From: line claims the article is from me, but the Path
line says the article is from "crash!tasp!djk", and the article itself
even states that the cancel wasn't issued by me. What you are looking
at is how censorship is practiced on USENET. Be careful; it could
happen to you.
Now, then, about killfiles:
Many of the anti-gay posters are so resistant to actual discussion, and
so irritating to read, that you may just wish to ignore them altogether.
There are ways to set your newsreader to delete articles by certain
individuals; through a "kill file", which specifies articles you do
not wish to read, you can eliminate the worst bigots from your life!
Different newsreaders have different ways of using killfiles. I use
rn, so my example will refer to it.
To add a particular user (I will use d...@TASP.NET as an example) to your
killfile in rn, go to alt.politics.homosexuality. When you are reading
the group, type ^K (control-K). This will put you into an editor which
is editing your killfile for alt.politics.homosexuality. Type the
following:
then exit your editor. What that line says is "junk any articles which
contain the text `d...@TASP.NET' in the header." Replace d...@TASP.NET
with the userid of the person you no longer wish to read, and presto,
your blood pressure will be much happier.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This concludes the alt.politics.homosexuality FAQ list. Please send
me any and all comments on it. I expect I will revise it gradually
over time, making it more balanced and broadened. I appreciate all
the good feedback and support I've gotten so far, and I look forwards
to reducing the noise and increasing the signal on alt.politics.
homosexuality.
Truth is the best revenge!
--
Rob Jellinghaus ro...@netcom.com uunet!netcom!robj
Alberto Adolfo Pinkas
Rob Jellinghaus <ro...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Because it makes me sick to hear them, and I need to speak the
>truth in response.
>
And they are not necessarily the same thing.
>Racism (discrimination based on race) and anti-Semitism
>(discrimination based on religion)
Actually, anti-semitism is not discrimination based on religion.
If you are going to write a FAQ with "the truth", you should get
your facts straight. I know lots of non-religious Jews, atheists
Jews who have been victims of antisemitism (without the -), and
a Jew does not need to be religious to be it's victim.
>Likewise, heterosexism (descrimination based on
>sexual orientation) is intolerable, and for exactly the same reasons.
Ooopppss. Heterosexism???? So, heterosexuals are the only ones who
discriminate based on sexual orientation?
>The "anti-gay initiatives" that have been passed in Oregon and
>Colorado recently seek to remove constitutional rights from gays.
In Oregon?
> The Christian God says homosexuality is bad, period.
>
>Some passages in the Bible can be interpreted this way. There are
>many conflicting interpretations, and in any event, the Bible is not
>the direct word of God but the words of humans.
I guess that that is "your" interpretation.
>Many connotations of the original Hebrew and Greek in the Bible are no
>longer known.
So, you cannot argue one way or the other?
>
>If an anti-gay poster quotes only the anti-gay parts of his
>translations of the Bible, and chooses to ignore other interpretations
>or other parts of the Bible that he doesn't agree with, it is clear
>that he is using the Bible to support his anti-gay position, rather
>than basing that position on the Bible.
Well, this is alt.politics.HOMOSEXUALITY. So, there might be a reason
why they do not post about the other stuff. It is call: Topic.
>There are other religions that think poorly of homosexuality. Such
>religions often also tend towards literal adherence to their selected
>interpretation of their holy words, a fundamentalist attitude, a
>strong expressed urge to conver the whole world to their beliefs, and
>oppression of other groups (such as women) in their society. Such
>religions, in my opinion, are a major threat to the peaceful existence
>of humanity on this planet.
Well, Judaism see homosexuality as an abomination. Now, I have never
seen Jews trying to convert the whole world to their belief or them
to be a threat to "peaceful existence of humanity".
That is inflammatory speach without much content.
>There clearly are people who hate homosexuals and fear the "spread" of
>homosexuality (a meaningless concept--homosexuality is not learned,
>and not teachable). These people often go so far as to firebomb and
>murder homosexuals; hate crimes against gays are on the rise in
>America. Calling these people "homophobic" accurately describes the
>deep-seated psychological sickness that causes them to act this way.
Saying that the term "homophobic" describes their sickness is like
saying that the word "sodomite" describes Gay's sickness.
>Truth is the best revenge!
Then you are in big problem
>
>--
>Rob Jellinghaus ro...@netcom.com uunet!netcom!robj
Alberto A. Pinkas
a...@wam.umd.edu
ap...@umail.umd.edu
Rob Jellinghaus
>In article <robjCCn...@netcom.com>,
>Rob Jellinghaus <ro...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Racism (discrimination based on race) and anti-Semitism
>>(discrimination based on religion)
>
>Actually, anti-semitism is not discrimination based on religion.
>If you are going to write a FAQ with "the truth", you should get
>your facts straight. I know lots of non-religious Jews, atheists
>Jews who have been victims of antisemitism (without the -), and
>a Jew does not need to be religious to be it's victim.
Um, sure, whatever. I stand by my statement. I feel that
characterizing a Jew as someone who associates themselves with the
Jewish religion is eminently reasonable, and I feel that
characterizing someone as anti-Semitic based on their discrimination
against Jews is also eminently reasonable. I recognize that this is
one of your pet peeves, but I feel this characterization is still
accurate.
>>Likewise, heterosexism (descrimination based on
>>sexual orientation) is intolerable, and for exactly the same reasons.
>
>Ooopppss. Heterosexism???? So, heterosexuals are the only ones who
>discriminate based on sexual orientation?
There is no reason for you to read that sentence that way. Hetero-
sexism (the kind of sexism displayed by all "anti-gay" posters)
clearly _is_ discrimination based on sexual orientation. I never
said that it was the _only_ kind of such discrimination.
>>>The "anti-gay initiatives" that have been passed in Oregon and
>>Colorado recently seek to remove constitutional rights from gays.
>
>In Oregon?
Yes; some local initiatives there, similar to OR9 in form, have passed
and are currently being blown apart in the courts.
>>Many connotations of the original Hebrew and Greek in the Bible are no
>>longer known.
>
>So, you cannot argue one way or the other?
Nope. Nor can anyone.
>>If an anti-gay poster quotes only the anti-gay parts of his
>>translations of the Bible, and chooses to ignore other interpretations
>>or other parts of the Bible that he doesn't agree with, it is clear
>>that he is using the Bible to support his anti-gay position, rather
>>than basing that position on the Bible.
>
>Well, this is alt.politics.HOMOSEXUALITY. So, there might be a reason
>why they do not post about the other stuff. It is call: Topic.
Swish. That one went right over your head, huh, Alberto? My point
had nothing to do with what people do and don't post about. It
has to do with how those people try to use the Bible to support
their position.
>>There are other religions that think poorly of homosexuality. Such
>>religions often also tend towards literal adherence to their selected
>>interpretation of their holy words, a fundamentalist attitude, a
>>strong expressed urge to conver the whole world to their beliefs, and
>>oppression of other groups (such as women) in their society. Such
>>religions, in my opinion, are a major threat to the peaceful existence
>>of humanity on this planet.
>
>Well, Judaism see homosexuality as an abomination. Now, I have never
>seen Jews trying to convert the whole world to their belief or them
>to be a threat to "peaceful existence of humanity".
>That is inflammatory speach without much content.
Then I guess Judaism wasn't one of the religions I was talking about.
My description does apply, though, to Islamic fundamentalism, as
well as Christian fundamentalism.
>>These people often go so far as to firebomb and
>>murder homosexuals; hate crimes against gays are on the rise in
>>America. Calling these people "homophobic" accurately describes the
>>deep-seated psychological sickness that causes them to act this way.
>
>Saying that the term "homophobic" describes their sickness is like
>saying that the word "sodomite" describes Gay's sickness.
Classic Pinkas statement. Care to explain that one in more detail?
Again, I stand by my explanation of "homophobic".
As usual, Pinkas, you are picking nits for no apparent reason. I
prefer to debate with people who are doing more than just spouting
their unsupported opinions, which is all you ever do (as you've said
on numerous occasions).
Ron Buckmire
>The alt.politics.homosexuality Frequently-Asked-Questions List.
>Posted biweekly. Last revised August 28, 1993.
>Copyright (c) 1993 by Rob Jellinghaus. Freely distributable, but
>please do me a favor and let me know where you send it.
Please note that this FAQ is kept in the Queer Resources Directory at
vector.intercon.com in /pub/QRD/qrd/info/RESOURCES/network directory...
--
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``BOYCOTT COLORADO!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buc...@rpi.edu buc...@rpitsmts.bitnet
"The love that dared not speak its name now won't shut up!" -Rev. Jerry Falwell
Alberto Adolfo Pinkas
Rob Jellinghaus <ro...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Um, sure, whatever. I stand by my statement. I feel that
>characterizing a Jew as someone who associates themselves with the
>Jewish religion is eminently reasonable, and I feel that
>characterizing someone as anti-Semitic based on their discrimination
>against Jews is also eminently reasonable. I recognize that this is
>one of your pet peeves, but I feel this characterization is still
>accurate.
You can assume whatever you want, of feel, for that matter, but
you started your personal FAQ saying that you were going to tell
the truth. In that case, you should know that you are talking
about antisemitism and not anti-Semitism. If you want to know
the difference ask in s.c.j. Then, whatever your feeling
is, the large majority of Jews on this world do not follow the
Jewish religion, and antisemitism is not based on that
religion but on stupid theories like that on the Protocols
of the Elders os Zion. Besides that, a jew is not someone
who associates himslef with the Jeiwsh religion but someone
who is born Jewixh. Later, he/she can associate him/hersel with
the Jewish religion. And, you can associate yourself with the
Jewish religion without being Jewish.
>
>>>Likewise, heterosexism (descrimination based on
>>>sexual orientation) is intolerable, and for exactly the same reasons.
>>
>>Ooopppss. Heterosexism???? So, heterosexuals are the only ones who
>>discriminate based on sexual orientation?
>
>There is no reason for you to read that sentence that way. Hetero-
>sexism (the kind of sexism displayed by all "anti-gay" posters)
>clearly _is_ discrimination based on sexual orientation. I never
>said that it was the _only_ kind of such discrimination.
Actually, there is. It is one of the ways your definition can be read.
And, from the rest of your FAQ it is legit to make such an interpretation.
>
>>>>The "anti-gay initiatives" that have been passed in Oregon and
>>>Colorado recently seek to remove constitutional rights from gays.
>>
>>In Oregon?
>
>Yes; some local initiatives there, similar to OR9 in form, have passed
>and are currently being blown apart in the courts.
According to the Washington Blade, if the Colorado case gets to the US
Supreme Court there is a good chance that the SC would ratify it.
>>>If an anti-gay poster quotes only the anti-gay parts of his
>>>translations of the Bible, and chooses to ignore other interpretations
>>>or other parts of the Bible that he doesn't agree with, it is clear
>>>that he is using the Bible to support his anti-gay position, rather
>>>than basing that position on the Bible.
>>
>>Well, this is alt.politics.HOMOSEXUALITY. So, there might be a reason
>>why they do not post about the other stuff. It is call: Topic.
>
>Swish. That one went right over your head, huh, Alberto? My point
>had nothing to do with what people do and don't post about. It
>has to do with how those people try to use the Bible to support
>their position.
It did not go over my head, even if you cannot understand what YOU wrote.
You said above: "anti-gay posters quote ONLY anti-gay parts.
Now you say that your point has nothing to do with what people do
and do not post.
Now, tell us, which parts of the bible support a gay position?
>
>Then I guess Judaism wasn't one of the religions I was talking about.
>My description does apply, though, to Islamic fundamentalism, as
>well as Christian fundamentalism.
Well, how about non-fundamentalists who still believe that homosexuality
is an abomination and still believe what the bible says: That they have
to preach the gospel?
>
>>>These people often go so far as to firebomb and
>>>murder homosexuals; hate crimes against gays are on the rise in
>>>America. Calling these people "homophobic" accurately describes the
>>>deep-seated psychological sickness that causes them to act this way.
>>
>>Saying that the term "homophobic" describes their sickness is like
>>saying that the word "sodomite" describes Gay's sickness.
>
>Classic Pinkas statement. Care to explain that one in more detail?
>Again, I stand by my explanation of "homophobic".
It is not weird that you cannot understand it. You only get things that
are based on slogans.
>
>As usual, Pinkas, you are picking nits for no apparent reason. I
>prefer to debate with people who are doing more than just spouting
>their unsupported opinions, which is all you ever do (as you've said
>on numerous occasions).
>
The reason is clear. You claim to be telling "the truth". You show no
modesty but come around and make a long FAQ full of slogans and
mistakes. Now, YOU are the one making the assertions and then YOU should
be the one presenting support to those assertions, not just: I feel that
calling a Jew someone who associates himself with the Jewish religion
is right.
YOUR saying things in numerous occations does not make them right, and you
seem to be unable to present any backing for your own long and quite
useless FAQ.
>--
>Rob Jellinghaus ro...@netcom.com uunet!netcom!robj
Alberto A. Pinkas
a...@wam.umd.edu
ap...@umail.umd.edu
Gary Landers
Subject: Re: The alt.politics.homosexuality FAQ list
Summary:Carping and nagging
Expires:
References: <robjCCn...@netcom.com> <262mpl$2...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
Sender: Gary L
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Keywords:
>>
Friend Pinkus,
In his recent FAQ, Jellinghaus starts out sincerely enough...
>>"Because it makes me sick to hear them, and I need to speak the
>>truth in response..."
>
Then you in your response to the same FAQ began your attack in
your usual, nasty, take no prisoners fashion...
>"I guess you do not speak "the truth" but what you consider to be true.
>And they are not necessarily the same thing ..."
>
>>
>> Now about that...I wrote a little note earlier..ah, here it is:
>
Mr. Pinkus,
Reading your posts of late I could not help noticing that you
indeed seem uniquely gifted in name-calling and taking others to task for
their ideas. Both I and Jellyinghaus despite our imperfections do put some
work into what we post. You on the other hand have demonstrated only your
willingness to heap mud on said work. This, of course, is your right,
however, I'm sure their are others beside myself who believe a more
substantive contribution on your part is long overdue.
So how about it, Al? Put up or shut up!
Gary L.
Lulu of the lotus-eaters
Alberto Adolfo Pinkas <a...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>You can assume whatever you want, of feel, for that matter, but
>you started your personal FAQ saying that you were going to tell
>the truth. In that case, you should know that you are talking
>about antisemitism and not anti-Semitism. If you want to know
>the difference ask in s.c.j. Then, whatever your feeling
>is, the large majority of Jews on this world do not follow the
>Jewish religion, and antisemitism is not based on that
>religion but on stupid theories like that on the Protocols
Since when is s.c.j the arbitrator of English grammar. Readers of
that group may or may not feel as you do about the various capital
letters and dashes in 'anti(-)S/semitism' -- but they are, at any rate
a tiny minority of English speakers. At any rate, there is no right
and wrong in language, but simply usage: and both variations are
quite acceptable and widely used (no matter what obscure distinction
you think attaches to the difference).
>of the Elders os Zion. Besides that, a jew is not someone
>who associates himslef with the Jeiwsh religion but someone
>who is born Jewixh. Later, he/she can associate him/hersel with
>the Jewish religion. And, you can associate yourself with the
>Jewish religion without being Jewish.
This is pure Nazi propoganda. It's really curious how closely the
Zionist mirror the Nazi's in this an so many other things (to say
nothing of the active Zionist/Nazi collaboration during WWII -- in
which Shamir, for example, participated). Judaism is not an eternal
curse or blessing carried upon every daughter's daughter's daughter or
son for all eternity following every descendent of Moses' wives. All
this stupid belief is is the old-time antisemitic (and Zionist) dogma
about "racial" Judaism. For example, all of my maternal ancestors
whom I know about specifically (which is only a couple generations)
were Jewish -- but I am not, and neither is my mother. Judaism is not
a taint or a stain, it's a RELIGION. If a bunch of atheists or Xtians
or whatever want to pretend their Jewish that's their business, but
they happen to be wrong. Personally, I'll call myself what I am
religiously -- an atheist -- without either pride nor shame at the
somewhat foolish religious beliefs of my ancestors (either Jewish, or
Xtian, or possibly other things I know not of specifically).
Yours, Lulu...
--
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
Alberto Adolfo Pinkas
Lulu of the lotus-eaters <qui...@twain.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
>Since when is s.c.j the arbitrator of English grammar. Readers of
>that group may or may not feel as you do about the various capital
>letters and dashes in 'anti(-)S/semitism' -- but they are, at any rate
>a tiny minority of English speakers. At any rate, there is no right
>and wrong in language, but simply usage: and both variations are
>quite acceptable and widely used (no matter what obscure distinction
>you think attaches to the difference).
>
s.c.j. has never been an arbitrator of English grammar but he could
find there complete references with respect to the words antisemitism
and anti-Semitism. The forst one being defined as hate towards the Jews,
whichever trace they are, and the second one as hate towards the Semites,
including the Arabs.
>>of the Elders os Zion. Besides that, a jew is not someone
>>who associates himslef with the Jeiwsh religion but someone
>>who is born Jewixh. Later, he/she can associate him/hersel with
>>the Jewish religion. And, you can associate yourself with the
>>Jewish religion without being Jewish.
>
>This is pure Nazi propoganda. It's really curious how closely the
>Zionist mirror the Nazi's in this an so many other things (to say
>nothing of the active Zionist/Nazi collaboration during WWII -- in
>which Shamir, for example, participated). Judaism is not an eternal
>curse or blessing carried upon every daughter's daughter's daughter or
>son for all eternity following every descendent of Moses' wives. All
>this stupid belief is is the old-time antisemitic (and Zionist) dogma
>about "racial" Judaism. For example, all of my maternal ancestors
>whom I know about specifically (which is only a couple generations)
>were Jewish -- but I am not, and neither is my mother. Judaism is not
>a taint or a stain, it's a RELIGION. If a bunch of atheists or Xtians
>or whatever want to pretend their Jewish that's their business, but
>they happen to be wrong. Personally, I'll call myself what I am
>religiously -- an atheist -- without either pride nor shame at the
>somewhat foolish religious beliefs of my ancestors (either Jewish, or
>Xtian, or possibly other things I know not of specifically).
>
I guess you are trying to be funny, but I will answer you anyway.
First, I am not a Zionist. I happen to believe that Zionism is a
form of racism.
Second, we were talking about antisemitism. For antisemites, and
there is where the debate started, a Jew is someone who is born Jewish,
even if s/he is religious or not, and someone who has converted to
Judaism. Personally, I reject the idea of matrilinear descend. However,
it did not matter to those who went after my family in Europe, or to
the local Nazis in Argentina, and their antisemites allies.
Judaism is not just a religion. It is a nation that has an identity,
and that is why there are atheists and secular Jews. They consider
themselves members of the Jewish Nation and not part of the Jewish faith.
Whoever your ancestors were, you seem not to know too much about the
subject.
>Yours, Lulu...
>--
> _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
> _/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
> _/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
Alberto A. Pinkas
a...@wam.umd.edu
ap...@umail.umd.edu
Alberto Adolfo Pinkas
Gary Landers <scoo...@access.digex.net> wrote:
> Friend Pinkus,
>
First, I am not your friend. Second, my name is not Pinkus.
> In his recent FAQ, Jellinghaus starts out sincerely enough...
>
>>>"Because it makes me sick to hear them, and I need to speak the
>>>truth in response..."
>>
> Then you in your response to the same FAQ began your attack in
>your usual, nasty, take no prisoners fashion...
>
>>"I guess you do not speak "the truth" but what you consider to be true.
>>And they are not necessarily the same thing ..."
>>
That part was not an attack. Actually there is a difference between
a person's opinion and the truth. Sometimes they are similar, sometimes
they are not. Mr. Jellinghaus was speaking his opinion about several
matters and not "the truth". With most of his opinion I coincide. With some
of his opinions I did not coincide.
>
>Mr. Pinkus,
Again, my name is not Pinkus.
>
> Reading your posts of late I could not help noticing that you
>indeed seem uniquely gifted in name-calling and taking others to task for
>their ideas. Both I and Jellyinghaus despite our imperfections do put some
>work into what we post. You on the other hand have demonstrated only your
>willingness to heap mud on said work. This, of course, is your right,
>however, I'm sure their are others beside myself who believe a more
>substantive contribution on your part is long overdue.
>
Let's take this point by point. It is true that I get into name-calling
more than I should, although I did not use name calling with Mr. Jellyinghaus.
I used it with you because I cannot believe that you actually put any work
on what you write. And, of course, it is you the one who makes generalizations
that include me. I believe that you are kind of sick from what you said in
your posts, but I do not believe that you have done any substantive
contribution to this net other than a few posts without anything on them.
Now, my critique to Mr. Jellyinghaus' FAQ was with the idea of making it
more general and of taking from it mistakes that I consider obvious.
> So how about it, Al? Put up or shut up!
>
Well, well, well. I am not Al, to start with. Then, don't ever give me
orders.
>
>Gary L.
Rob Jellinghaus
>According to the Washington Blade, if the Colorado case gets to the US
>Supreme Court there is a good chance that the SC would ratify it.
Jesus. That's not what I've heard... hope it's not true.
>It did not go over my head, even if you cannot understand what YOU wrote.
>You said above: "anti-gay posters quote ONLY anti-gay parts.
>Now you say that your point has nothing to do with what people do
>and do not post.
>Now, tell us, which parts of the bible support a gay position?
My point had to do with how anti-gay posters support their arguments
based on the Bible. I actually don't think we're disagreeing here.
What parts of the bible support gayness? How about "Love thy
neighbor as thyself?" In general, everywhere Jesus talks about love
and acceptance is good support for gayness.
>>Then I guess Judaism wasn't one of the religions I was talking about.
>>My description does apply, though, to Islamic fundamentalism, as
>>well as Christian fundamentalism.
>
>Well, how about non-fundamentalists who still believe that homosexuality
>is an abomination and still believe what the bible says: That they have
>to preach the gospel?
They're fundamentalists, for all practical purposes.
>>>Saying that the term "homophobic" describes their sickness is like
>>>saying that the word "sodomite" describes Gay's sickness.
>>
>>Classic Pinkas statement. Care to explain that one in more detail?
>>Again, I stand by my explanation of "homophobic".
>
>It is not weird that you cannot understand it. You only get things that
>are based on slogans.
Nice detailed explanation... not!
>YOUR saying things in numerous occations does not make them right, and you
>seem to be unable to present any backing for your own long and quite
>useless FAQ.
How you go from criticizing 5% of the points in my FAQ to concluding
that I present no backing for any of it and it's all useless is a
mystery to me. Care to elucidate?
Unfortunately, Landers, being the rudeboy that he is, seems to have
driven you away. In spite of our disagreements I'm sorry to see you
go.
Lulu of the lotus-eaters
>Lulu of the lotus-eaters <qui...@twain.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>>This is pure Nazi propoganda. It's really curious how closely the
>>Zionist mirror the Nazi's in this an so many other things (to say
>>nothing of the active Zionist/Nazi collaboration during WWII -- in
>>which Shamir, for example, participated). Judaism is not an eternal
>>curse or blessing carried upon every daughter's daughter's daughter or
>>son for all eternity following every descendent of Moses' wives. All
>>this stupid belief is is the old-time antisemitic (and Zionist) dogma
>>about "racial" Judaism. For example, all of my maternal ancestors
>>whom I know about specifically (which is only a couple generations)
>>were Jewish -- but I am not, and neither is my mother. Judaism is not
>>a taint or a stain, it's a RELIGION. If a bunch of atheists or Xtians
>>or whatever want to pretend their Jewish that's their business, but
>>they happen to be wrong. Personally, I'll call myself what I am
>>religiously -- an atheist -- without either pride nor shame at the
>>somewhat foolish religious beliefs of my ancestors (either Jewish, or
>>Xtian, or possibly other things I know not of specifically).
>I guess you are trying to be funny, but I will answer you anyway.
>First, I am not a Zionist. I happen to believe that Zionism is a
>form of racism.
I'm glad we're agreed on that much. But your rhetoric sure sounds an
awful lot like that of Zionists... who amongst other things grant
Israeli citizenship on the basis of "racial" Judaism. I shouldn't
have assumed a belief for you on the basis of superficial resemblance,
however.
>Second, we were talking about antisemitism. For antisemites, and
>there is where the debate started, a Jew is someone who is born Jewish,
>even if s/he is religious or not, and someone who has converted to
>Judaism. Personally, I reject the idea of matrilinear descend. However,
There are a variety of antisemites in the world. Perhaps most hold a
*racial* version of "Jewishness" -- but certainly many do not. Some
people have a hatred for Judaism as religion (whom I would probably
want to call "antisemitic" on those grounds), others (like myself)
merely a mild distaste (much like my feelings towards most other
religions). At any rate, you repeatedly go way beyond explaining the
*racial* confusions of antisemites; in fact, you rather actively
advocate the very same notions you attribute to them.
>it did not matter to those who went after my family in Europe, or to
>the local Nazis in Argentina, and their antisemites allies.
>Judaism is not just a religion. It is a nation that has an identity,
>and that is why there are atheists and secular Jews. They consider
>themselves members of the Jewish Nation and not part of the Jewish faith.
>Whoever your ancestors were, you seem not to know too much about the
>subject.
Aside from the fact that I probably know a good deal more about the
matter than you do, what you say is complete bullshit... and bullshit
of a rather dangerous sort. Of course Nazis and Fascists in Europe,
and their kindred spirits in Argentina and elsewhere believe in the
fantasy of a "Jewish nation" (I rather made that point in my equation
of Zionism and Nazism, after all), but that hardly means that us more
enlightened people -- whatever our religion or ancestry -- are
required to buy into the delusions of these antisemites. If politics
in the US takes a bit of a turn (even further) to the right, I'll no
doubt be marched to the ovens right along with other members of my
supposed "Nation" (and presumably, most readers of this group), but
even on the way I'll hardly decide to start buying into the rhetoric
of antisemitism, as you seem so willing to do. I'm certainly a member
of no nation besides the US -- and even that quite unwillingly and
involuntarily.
Michael Loomis
alt.politics.homose.. by Rob Jellinghaus@netcom.c
(Alberto Adolfo
> Pinkas) writes:
> >In article <robjCCn...@netcom.com>,
> >Rob Jellinghaus <ro...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>Racism (discrimination based on race) and anti-Semitism
> >>(discrimination based on religion)
> >
> >Actually, anti-semitism is not discrimination based on religion.
> >If you are going to write a FAQ with "the truth", you should get
> >your facts straight. I know lots of non-religious Jews, atheists
> >Jews who have been victims of antisemitism (without the -), and
> >a Jew does not need to be religious to be it's victim.
>
> Um, sure, whatever. I stand by my statement. I feel that
> characterizing a Jew as someone who associates themselves with the
> Jewish religion is eminently reasonable, and I feel that
> characterizing someone as anti-Semitic based on their discrimination
> against Jews is also eminently reasonable. I recognize that this is
> one of your pet peeves, but I feel this characterization is still
> accurate.
If Mr. Jellinghaus plans to ignore popular definitions of
anti-Semitism such as that suggested by Mr. Pinkas, then I would suggest
he turn his FAQ project over to someone more capable of writting an
evenhanded FAQ.
The form of anti-Semitism suggest by Mr. Pinkas was the form of
anti-Semitism realized in Nazi Europe and certainly more relevent today
than the anti-semitism of medieval Spain. The anti-semitism of medieval
Spain used religion as its identifier.
MichaeLoomis
Unknown
>>According to the Washington Blade, if the Colorado case gets to the US
>>Supreme Court there is a good chance that the SC would ratify it.
>
>Jesus. That's not what I've heard... hope it's not true.
>
>>It did not go over my head, even if you cannot understand what YOU wrote.
>>You said above: "anti-gay posters quote ONLY anti-gay parts.
>>Now you say that your point has nothing to do with what people do
>>and do not post.
>>Now, tell us, which parts of the bible support a gay position?
>
>My point had to do with how anti-gay posters support their arguments
>based on the Bible. I actually don't think we're disagreeing here.
>What parts of the bible support gayness? How about "Love thy
>neighbor as thyself?" In general, everywhere Jesus talks about love
>and acceptance is good support for gayness.
Jesus was in no way affirming support for the adherents of sexual
proclivities hereto predefined in the Hebrew scriptures as unacceptable;
to wit, sodomy, tansvesticism, bestiality.
The remark "Love thy neighbor..." is not uttered by Jesus, but by the person
who had immediately beforhand asked Him:
"Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He (Jesus) said
to him, "WHat is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
So he answered and said, `You shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart, with all your soul, with all your stength and with all
your mind' and `Your neighbor as yourself.' And He (Jesus) said to
him, `You have answered rightly; do this and you shall live.' But
he, WANTING TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF......" Luke 10:25-29
Self-justification evidently hasn't stopped. Like Jesus said, "Do this..."
and a love of God, which only comes from being filled with His Spirit,
will overcome the love for homosexuality.
**************************************************************************
* Buddy Beaudoin || The one-second Gospel: "..if the Son makes *
* || you free, you shall be free indeed." Jn 8:36 *
**************************************************************************
All remarks are mine and not those of my company, or of anyone smarter than me.
Rob Jellinghaus
>In article <263r2k$l...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> a...@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) quotes ro...@netcom.com:
>>My point had to do with how anti-gay posters support their arguments
>>based on the Bible. I actually don't think we're disagreeing here.
>>What parts of the bible support gayness? How about "Love thy
>>neighbor as thyself?" In general, everywhere Jesus talks about love
>>and acceptance is good support for gayness.
>
>Jesus was in no way affirming support for the adherents of sexual
>proclivities hereto predefined in the Hebrew scriptures as unacceptable;
>to wit, sodomy, tansvesticism, bestiality.
And as my very FAQ points out, these are in no way synonymous with
"gayness". You once again betray your inability to genuinely read
and absorb the material people post here.
Unknown
Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
wolf in sheep's clothing.
The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual deviances
that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to come out
of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are: sodomites.
Frank W. Elliott Jr.
>
>Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
>and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
>wolf in sheep's clothing.
>
>The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual
It's "transvestism."
>deviances
>that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to
>come out
>of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are:
>sodomites.
>
>**************************************************************************
>* Buddy Beaudoin || The one-second Gospel: "..if the Son makes *
>* || you free, you shall be free indeed." Jn 8:36 *
>**************************************************************************
>All remarks are mine and not those of my company, or of anyone smarter than me.
1) A friend of mine who studied at yeshiva informs me that the Talmud
(one of the Hebrew scriptures) actually takes up the topic of anal
intercourse between a man and his wife. It supports the right of a
husband to have anal intercourse with his wife and finds one such man
_not_ liable for the _damages_ he causes his wife by doing so.
So "sodomy" is part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and, yes, Strom,
heteros do it.
2) Neither Jesus (the leading Christian authority) nor Maimonedes (a leading
Jewish authority) consider the sin of Sodom to be sexual.
Do you claim to know more than they?
--Frank
Seth Gordon
>
>and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
>wolf in sheep's clothing.
"Gayness" is a more precise term than "sodomy", which, depending on who
you ask, can mean:
(1) "unnatural" sex (whatever that means)
(2) oral or anal sex (which can occur between two men as well as two women)
(3) sex between humans and non-humans (again, of whatever gender)
(4) homosexual sex
Let us not forget that according to the Bible, one of the principal
sins of the residents of Sodom was inhospitality toward strangers,
a practice not unknown among heterosexual folkk.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
WARNING: This message may contain flammable material. Do not expose to
open flames. In case of accidental ignition, douse keyboard with water.
buddy=christ?
In article 44...@Princeton.EDU, ell...@courant.princeton.edu (Frank W. Elliott Jr.) writes:
> In article <73...@eastman.UUCP> (Buddy Beaudoin) writes:
> >deviances
> >that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to
> >come out
> >of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are:
> >sodomites.
> (one of the Hebrew scriptures) actually takes up the topic of anal
> intercourse between a man and his wife. It supports the right of a
> husband to have anal intercourse with his wife and finds one such man
> _not_ liable for the _damages_ he causes his wife by doing so.
>
> So "sodomy" is part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and, yes, Strom,
> heteros do it.
>
> 2) Neither Jesus (the leading Christian authority) nor Maimonedes (a leading
> Jewish authority) consider the sin of Sodom to be sexual.
>
> Do you claim to know more than they?
>
> --Frank
Well since he keeps saying that he speaks for god, and that he's a prophet of the
lord, and obviously thinks his knowledge and interpretation of the scriptures are
infoulable, I would argue that I not only thinks he knows more than Christ, but
that he actually thinks he *is* Christ, since Christ is the only human ever given
*permission* to speak for God that I know of...
So what's the deal buddy, are you the messiah or what?
Should we quake in your presence?
Get down and wash your feet?
Tell me what was the food like in Jerusalem 2000 years ago?
Or even *sodom* for that matter, since you seem to be such an expert on that
particular city and it's sins?
I was always told that the sins of sodom were related to it's inhabitants having
a cold heart, are you sure we're reading from the same works? Maybe you just
rewrote it and didn't publish the new version so all of the faithful could read
and obey?
phas@brspva
>
> The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual deviances
> that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to come out
> of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are: sodomites.
Back to Sodomy again, Mr Beaudoin, now you are repeating your arguments,
thinking perhaps that we've forgotten all we said to you a few weeks ago about
sodomy? Well we havn't, so go run along and think up something new.
To paraphrase Prime Ministers Question time (Where the same question is always
asked, but the PM only answers in full once)
"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago"
________________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Spark ph...@siva.bris.ac.uk
I've never outraged nature. I've always listened to
her advice and followed it wherever it went. -Joe Orton
________________________________________________________________________________
phas@brspva
>
[Asking of Buddy B]
> Do you claim to know more than they?
>
> --Frank
Yes of course he does, they always do. He has a hotline to g...@heaven.org
Jim Halat
> Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
> and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
> wolf in sheep's clothing.
How come you don't refer to heterosexuality as coitus then? Clearly, pussy-pumping
defines your entire being, right?
> The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual deviances
> that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to come out
> of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are: sodomites.
A transvestite is a cross-dresser; it has nothing at all to do with sex or
sexuality. But accuracy is nothing that intolerant bible-thumpers -- like
your big 'ol bigoted self -- really care about, is it? Furthermore, We
don't call ourselves Sodomites, because we've never been there. Why don't
you seek some psychiatric help for your twisted mental *problem*. You'll
feel alot better about yourself. Really!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jim halat e-mail: ha...@bear.com
Tim Ikeda
>>"Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up and disguised, so as to not offend
>>the general populace. You know - like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
se...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (Seth Gordon) wrote:
> "Gayness" is a more precise term than "sodomy", which, depending on who
> you ask, can mean:
> (1) "unnatural" sex (whatever that means)
> (2) oral or anal sex (which can occur between two men as well as two women)
> (3) sex between humans and non-humans (again, of whatever gender)
> (4) homosexual sex
> [...]
Since sodomy also includes non-coital sex, I suspect this would
place a real damper on foreplay... ...which in turn, would put a
*real* damper on coital sex.
"Brace yourself, Brigette!!!" -- Old Testament-style love ballad?
If "Gayness" is really only disguised sodomy, and homosexuals are "gay"
all of the time, then I think we hetero-breeder-types have a lot to
learn regarding their incredible sexual endurance. Think about it. ;^)
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
ti...@mendel.berkeley.edu
Rob Jellinghaus
>>In article <71...@eastman.UUCP> (Buddy Beaudoin) writes:
>>>Jesus was in no way affirming support for the adherents of sexual
>>>proclivities hereto predefined in the Hebrew scriptures as unacceptable;
>>>to wit, sodomy, tansvesticism, bestiality.
>>
>>And as my very FAQ points out, these are in no way synonymous with
>>"gayness". You once again betray your inability to genuinely read
>>and absorb the material people post here.
>
>Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed
>up and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
>wolf in sheep's clothing.
No, no, let me. Buddy, there's this nice thing I wrote called a
FAQ List. Spell it out: F A Q L I S T. It has some
facts about some stuff. Like this, for example:
Anal sex is something only gays do.
Anal sex, in all the studies I have seen, has been determined to be
practiced regularly by about 15% of the population. ("Anal sex" here
means anal contact of any sort for pleasurable purposes.) This 15%
proportion is roughly correct for gay people and for straight people,
for men and for women. (Yes, only about 15% of gay men practice anal
sex regularly.) This means that only a minority of gay people
actually include anal sex of any kind as part of their sex life. This
also means that there are many more straight people who enjoy anal sex
than gay people. Most of the anti-gay-sex rantings spewed into
alt.politics.homosexuality therefore clearly have nothing to do with
reality.
Like yours, for example.
D. Owen Rowley
>Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
>and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
>wolf in sheep's clothing.
why you put your jammys on and crawl back into your winnie the pooh bedsock
buuuuuuuuuu-dee ( read it in a Paulee shore voice dickwad!)
Just in case nobody ever `splained it to you yet..
male sexuality is hot.. steamy .. sweaty.. and perfectly natural..
( at least ours is.. too bad if yours isn't)
oh.. and its not uncommon for the *genarl populace to enjoy ..
so-do-my(friends)
>The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual deviances
>that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to come out
>of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are: sodomites.
Fine .. but I am not a hebrew, and frankly people who try to make me live my life by
the rules of some *other* culture, are not acceptable to me.
so, why don't you just go find some corner to jerk off in, it will be
ever so much more fun for you.
snort
---
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, ow...@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
Lulu of the lotus-eaters
Rob Jellinghaus <ro...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Anal sex, in all the studies I have seen, has been determined to be
>practiced regularly by about 15% of the population. ("Anal sex" here
>means anal contact of any sort for pleasurable purposes.) This 15%
>proportion is roughly correct for gay people and for straight people,
>for men and for women. (Yes, only about 15% of gay men practice anal
>sex regularly.) This means that only a minority of gay people
>actually include anal sex of any kind as part of their sex life. This
>also means that there are many more straight people who enjoy anal sex
>than gay people. Most of the anti-gay-sex rantings spewed into
>alt.politics.homosexuality therefore clearly have nothing to do with
>reality.
Not to defend any anti-gay rants... which I quite agree to be idiotic.
But I would suggest that as self-proclaimed FAQ author you do a little
more research into sexological surveys. Every survey I've ever seen
placed the incidence of regular anal intercouse in (sexually active)
gay-men around 75% or slightly higher. In slight contrast,
heterosexual men and women have *ever* engaged in penile/anal
intercourse in about 50% of cases; and do so engage regularly in
perhaps 10%-20% of cases. Lesbians, understandably, have the lowest
rate of this. You're certainly correct to say that anal sex is not an
exclusively gay activity... but you're suppossed numbers seem very
queer (so to speak). I think both that the overall rate must be
higher than you say, and that the dimorphism between gays and
straights is significant (though by no means absolute).
Bill Stuart
In a previous article, (Buddy Beaudoin) says:
>>>Jesus was in no way affirming support for the adherents of sexual
>>>proclivities hereto predefined in the Hebrew scriptures as unacceptable;
>>>to wit, sodomy, tansvesticism, bestiality.
BOOK OF ISSAC: For men to enter heaven, they must becoem women;
for women to enter heaven, they must become men.
>>
>>And as my very FAQ points out, these are in no way synonymous with
>>"gayness". You once again betray your inability to genuinely read
>>and absorb the material people post here.
>>
>Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
>and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
>wolf in sheep's clothing.
Sodomy is practiced more often by heterosexuals. If your bbs has
the last months messages saved, you can look at my post of statistics
which prove it. If you did not see these, i will repost them for you.
>The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual deviances
>that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to come out
>of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are: sodomites.
Depends how you define transvestitism. A tight t-shirt and a
miniskirt would be considered "menswear" in Ancient jerusalem, while a
business suit would be considered more feminine (Females had to have their
bodies covered, men did not).
Please read Exodous 39. It describes a dress made for the priests
to wear which no Drag queen alive would want.
And please note that a "Sodomist" is some one from sodomy, who is
inhospitable to visitors.
Marvin Greer
>The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual deviances
>that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to come out
>of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are: sodomites.
Hey Buddy,
You know, it's really offensive to me when christians quote a Jewish book,
BUT, if you insist.......
you are citing Leviticus, you might want to look a few verses above the
one you are quoting, and note the one regarding eating pork, shellfish,
etc.. Now, since you are such a serious follower of the "Hebrew" scriptures,
I'm sure you maintain a 'kosher' diet.
Now, I don't eat the items listed above because my holy book, (I'M Jewish)
says not to, and I have a choice. On the other hand, I was born gay,
I have tried heterosexuality, and I'm still gay. I really do not feel
that homosexuality is a choice for me, just as your heterosexuality isn't
a conscieous choice for you. I have found that I can live most aspects
of my life within the boundaries of Jewish Law. I did not ask to be gay,
but because Jewish Law teaches us to be honest and open, I do not hide
my sexuality.
Now, fundie-bigots like yourself read the Jewish Scripture, worship a
Jewish God, and a Jewish Messiah, and actually try to tell people like
me what the laws of my faith tell me?
I remember that Jesus once came upon a group of men who were about to
stone a person (a prostitute, perhaps, I don't remember the specifics)
to death, and he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I would never approach you, Buddy, on the net or in person, and try to
convert you to any facet of my life. To do so would violate your dignity.
You are who you want to be, and if you are happy, I wish you a long and
prosperous life. Please do me, and everyone else who posts to glbt
areas, the same courtesy. I will promise you that you are not the first
christian to condemn our lifestyles, nor will you be the last. Perhaps
you feel that by harassing us, you are saving us. Please do not save me.
If an eternity in Hell is the price I must pay for being the person that
God, etc, created, then I am prepared for that consequence. I do not
need or want your pity, prayers or thoughts.
If you want to pray for some gay souls....... How about starting with the
millions of our brothers and sisters who have been murdered by ignorant
bigots like yourself.
Shalom!!!!!!
M arvin
--
***********------------------------------------------------------------
********* Marvin Greer mgr...@netcom.com (preferred)
******* (Quetzal) marvin...@fog.city.org
***** marvin...@tatertot.com
----***----------------------------------------------------------------
* Heterosexuality isn't normal, it's just common.......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown
>>
>>"Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
>>and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
>>wolf in sheep's clothing.
>
>"Gayness" is a more precise term than "sodomy", which, depending on who
>you ask, can mean:
>
>(1) "unnatural" sex (whatever that means)
>
>(2) oral or anal sex (which can occur between two men as well as two women)
>
>(3) sex between humans and non-humans (again, of whatever gender)
>
>(4) homosexual sex
>
>Let us not forget that according to the Bible, one of the principal
>sins of the residents of Sodom was inhospitality toward strangers,
>a practice not unknown among heterosexual folkk.
Reminds me of a cute story I heard once:
Little Johnny was raised in a conservative church that taught the literalness
of the Bible. After a move to another state, his family began attending a
church where the sunday school teacher did not hold the same views. On the
first Sunday that he attended, the teacher asked the children what their
favorite Bible story was. Johnny's hand shot up and yelled out, "My favorite
story is when Moses parted the sea for the choldren of Israel to cross over.
When she replied that the water was really only six inches deep where they
crossed, Johnny started to dance up and down and laugh. When asked what was
so funny, he remarked, "How about that! God drowneded all those Egyptians
in just six inches of water!!"
And how about that, God killed all those Sodomites for their inhospitality!!!
RIGHT!!!!
phas@brspva
>
> And how about that, God killed all those Sodomites for their inhospitality!!!
>
> RIGHT!!!!
Correct, for once, though not, I feel intentionally.
Your arguments follow a diurnal path, we have been here before, and I refer you
to my original answer, of course you have forgotten it 'conveniently', but go
and read Ezekial 16 vs48-50 as I told you to last time and you will find that
your above statement, sarcastically intended, is in fact true. And before you
quote the '...did detestable things before God' bit, remember that the
translation of detestable is more accurately 'ritually unclean.'
Don't use sarcasm, you don't understand it.
David Cullum
>In article <74...@eastman.UUCP>, (Buddy Beaudoin) writes:
>>
>> And how about that, God killed all those Sodomites for their inhospitality!!!
>>
>> RIGHT!!!!
>
>Correct, for once, though not, I feel intentionally.
>
>Your arguments follow a diurnal path, we have been here before, and I refer you
>to my original answer, of course you have forgotten it 'conveniently', but go
>and read Ezekial 16 vs48-50 as I told you to last time and you will find that
>your above statement, sarcastically intended, is in fact true. And before you
>quote the '...did detestable things before God' bit, remember that the
>translation of detestable is more accurately 'ritually unclean.'
Better be careful there Andrew. Are you really so sure that detestable
always means ritually unclean. I would suggest you go down to your
local library and see if they have a Hebrew - English Lexicon and look
up the words that you claim to know. Toevah does not always refer to
ritual uncleanliness if that is what you are implying. Since you seem
to understand the Hebrew so well, why does the author of Leviticus
use a different word in Lev. 11 where he is specifically talking about
the laws of cleanliness. The author does not use toevah there, instead
he uses shaqat and sheqet to call them abominable and detestable.
Why would this word - which clearly means to be made dirty (polluted)
not be used 7 chapters later when God calls homosexual conduct
abominable (detestable) if all it was was uncleanliness. Probably
because toevah means more than just ritual uncleanliness.
Any comments?
dave cullum
da...@uipesl.ece.uiuc.edu
Unknown
Here's a cute Rabbi joke and certainly in no way insensitive, demeaning,
critical or offensive.
There were four rabbis who were theological buddies. However, whenever they
got together to discuss the scriptures, three would always seem to side
against a certain fourth. One day the same thing happened, and the lone
rabbi, sick of always getting what seemed to be beat up mentally, appealed
to a higher authority. He cried out, "O G-d, I know I'm right and you know
that I'm right. I wish that you would show them I right by a sign from heaven."
He no longer finished his plea when in the middle of a beautiful sun-filled
sky a dark cloud formed, rumbled for a few moments and dissipated. "See,
I told you!", said the distraught rabbi. The others merely pointed out that
thunderclouds frequently appear during the summer months as apparently did
this one.
The now perturbed rabbi cast his eyes up and spoke, "Lord, I need a really
big sign to show them. Just one!" All of a sudden, several clouds appeared,
rushed together, and a tremendous bolt of lightning hurled itself to the
earth and destroyed a tree just a few yards from the cowering rabbis. The
little rabbi smiled, but his friends merely remarked that nothing really
unusual occured; after all, thunderclouds produce thunder and lightning.
Exasperated, the lone rabbi opened his mouth and barely got the words,
"G-d, just one really big...." when the sky turned suddenly dark and a
voice came from the sky, "H-E-E-S R-I-G-G-H-H-T !!!"
The rabbi put his hands on his hips and said, "Wel-l-l-l...?" One of the
three glanced at the others, turned to the fourth and said, "So now it's
three to two!"
- story from a Jewish friend
Another Jewish friend of mine told me that if you got five rabbis together
in a room, you would probably get six opinions.
Need I say more? Having a title doesn't mean that you are right.
Benetna'asch
Frank:
:>1) A friend of mine who studied at yeshiva informs me that the Talmud
:>(one of the Hebrew scriptures) actually takes up the topic of anal
:>intercourse between a man and his wife. It supports the right of a
:>husband to have anal intercourse with his wife and finds one such man
:>_not_ liable for the _damages_ he causes his wife by doing so.
:>So "sodomy" is part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and, yes, Strom,
:>heteros do it.
:>2) Neither Jesus (the leading Christian authority) nor Maimonedes (a leading
:>Jewish authority) consider the sin of Sodom to be sexual.
:>Do you claim to know more than they?
:Having a title doesn't mean that you are right.
Jesus wasn't right about the sin of Sodom not being sexual?
Or the authors of the Talmud weren't right?
Or Moses wasn't always right?
Or Paul wasn't always right?
Or what?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In as much as the pursuit of the stars | Brian D. Kane (Benetna'asch)
is our destiny, this pursuit will lead | kane@{buast7,astro,buast1}.bu.edu
to a radical redefinition of the basic | Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
thing we call "family". Change awaits. | Boston, MA 02215.|_|^|_|^|_|^|_|^|_|
T8(7v)C3L1wvhb+(hcl)d--a+w-cye++gft(1,4,6,7,8,10)k+s-m1+m2+q--
Benetna'asch
:Why would this word - which clearly means to be made dirty (polluted)
:not be used 7 chapters later when God calls homosexual conduct
:abominable (detestable) if all it was was uncleanliness. Probably
:because toevah means more than just ritual uncleanliness.
:Any comments?
Mm-hmm...
God was misquoted.
Unknown
>
>>>>Jesus was in no way affirming support for the adherents of sexual
>>>>proclivities hereto predefined in the Hebrew scriptures as unacceptable;
>>>>to wit, sodomy, tansvesticism, bestiality.
>
> BOOK OF ISSAC: For men to enter heaven, they must becoem women;
>for women to enter heaven, they must become men.
Couldn't find it in any version of the Judeo/Christian scriptures that I own or
could locate it the main library of my city. And besides, if the rabbis believed
that it was truly God-inspired, they would have included it in with the others
a long time ago.
>>>And as my very FAQ points out, these are in no way synonymous with
>>>"gayness". You once again betray your inability to genuinely read
>>>and absorb the material people post here.
>>>
So, do you have any other FAQes of other spurious works around?
>
>>Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
>>and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
>>wolf in sheep's clothing.
>
> Sodomy is practiced more often by heterosexuals. If your bbs has
>the last months messages saved, you can look at my post of statistics
>which prove it. If you did not see these, i will repost them for you.
I never alluded to or said that they didn't. Sodomy is sodomy no matter who
practises it.
>
>>The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual deviances
>>that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to come out
>>of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are: sodomites.
>
> Depends how you define transvestitism. A tight t-shirt and a
>miniskirt would be considered "menswear" in Ancient jerusalem, while a
>business suit would be considered more feminine (Females had to have their
>bodies covered, men did not).
Tranvestism, according to Webster, is "the practise of adopting the dress, the manner[isms],
and frequently the sexual role of the opposite sex." A pants suit or slacks on a lady is
not cross-dressing. Even you know what a drag-queen is: someone who attempts to pass
themselves off as a female, when they aren't.
> Please read Exodous 39. It describes a dress made for the priests
>to wear which no Drag queen alive would want.
Priestly garments are not dresses anymore than the cassocks or albs that the Roman Catholic
priests, or those in relgious orders, wear.
>
> And please note that a "Sodomist" is some one from sodomy, who is
>inhospitable to visitors.
What dictionary do you use?
The two words you have is mind is Sodom, a city which lies buried beneath the end of the
Dead Sea, and sodomite.
A sodomite, according to Webster, is someone who practises sodomy. Would you like Webster's
definition of the term or my unexpurgated one?
Unknown
>
> > Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
> > and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
> > wolf in sheep's clothing.
>
>How come you don't refer to heterosexuality as coitus then? Clearly, pussy-pumping
>defines your entire being, right?
I don't need to; people do know the difference, you know. You just don't want to use
the term "sodomy" because of the heavy negative influence. People aren't stupid; you
would just prefer to keep them in the dark.
>
> > The other two terms (tansvesticism and bestiality) are the two other sexual deviances
> > that the Hebrew scriptures pronounce as unacceptable. If you really want to come out
> > of the closet, why don't you people call yourselves what you really are: sodomites.
>
>A transvestite is a cross-dresser; it has nothing at all to do with sex or
>sexuality.
Transvetism, according to Webster:
The practise of adopting the dress, the manner, and frequently the sexual role
of the opposite sex.
Ever heard of the term "drag queen"?
>But accuracy is nothing that intolerant bible-thumpers -- like
>your big 'ol bigoted self -- really care about, is it? Furthermore, We
>don't call ourselves Sodomites, because we've never been there.
You should because according to Webster, a sodomite is one who practises sodomy - something
that you pride yourself as "getting real good at."
>Why don't
>you seek some psychiatric help for your twisted mental *problem*. You'll
>feel alot better about yourself. Really!
>
My sister said the same thing to me twenty-three years ago after I got filled with the
Holy Spirit. Actually, what she said was that I was a severe manic depressive; I was high
but I would come down. Every couple of years when I see her (she lives a great distance
from me) I always remark to her, "Let's see now, Nanc...twenty-three (or whatever) years
and I still haven't come down!"
Jim Halat
Jim Halat wrote:
> >Why don't
> >you seek some psychiatric help for your twisted mental *problem*. You'll
> >feel alot better about yourself. Really!
> >
> My sister said the same thing to me twenty-three years ago after I got filled with the
> Holy Spirit. Actually, what she said was that I was a severe manic depressive; I was high
> but I would come down. Every couple of years when I see her (she lives a great distance
> from me) I always remark to her, "Let's see now, Nanc...twenty-three (or whatever) years
> and I still haven't come down!"
And? Does that imply that you are well? My suggestion is for you to take your
sister's original advice. Any addiction that will keep you high for 23+ straight
years has got to take it's toll. And, buddy, it's showing on you.
Clayton Colwell
In article <74...@eastman.UUCP>, (Buddy Beaudoin) writes:
>
> Another Jewish friend of mine told me that if you got five rabbis together
> in a room, you would probably get six opinions.
>
> Need I say more? Having a title doesn't mean that you are right.
Does that include the title of Supreme Being?
Seriously, what the other person was trying to tell you is that
his friend studied the Talmud at a yeshiva, which *should* give him
a better-than-working knowledge of Hebrew scripture. He also
provided (albeit anecdotally) a case of sodomy not proscribed
by Hebrew scripture, a case that Hebrew scripture evidently found
not "unacceptable".
Seriously, your joke is pointless, other than to point out the
fallacy of proof-by-authority (which you've already used quite
often in your incessant use of Scripture).
--
Clay Colwell "If homosexuality is a disease, then let's all call
arch...@vnet.ibm.com in queer to work." - Robin Tyler
IBM Austin, TX Disclaimer: This is *Clay* talkin', not IBM.
Allen Ethridge
: ((somebody else wrote))
: >Why don't
: >feel alot better about yourself. Really!
: >
: My sister said the same thing to me twenty-three years ago after I got filled with the
: Holy Spirit. Actually, what she said was that I was a severe manic depressive; I was high
: but I would come down. Every couple of years when I see her (she lives a great distance
: from me) I always remark to her, "Let's see now, Nanc...twenty-three (or whatever) years
: and I still haven't come down!"
Mania is as much an illness as is depression or manic-depression.
If you really went up and never came down you should seek psychiatric
help.
--
al...@well.sf.ca.us Words got me the wound
ethr...@bnr.ca and will get me well,
my opinions are my own if you believe it.
-- Jim Morrison
Bill Stuart
In a previous article, (Buddy Beaudoin) says:
>> BOOK OF ISSAC: For men to enter heaven, they must becoem women;
>>for women to enter heaven, they must become men.
>
>Couldn't find it in any version of the Judeo/Christian scriptures that I own or
>could locate it the main library of my city. And besides, if the rabbis believed
>that it was truly God-inspired, they would have included it in with the others
>a long time ago.
You obviously know nothing about the history of the bible. If the
Bible included every piece of religious scripture, it would be hundreds of
volumes long. Issac is a book that you have to get seperately from the
Bible. It is every bit as binding and as holy as any other piece of
literature from the bible.
If the Rabbis (whoever they are) are deciding what goes into the
bible, then it is no longer the word of god, but the word of the Rabbis.
>>
>>>Please pass the mustard for this baloney. "Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up
>>>and disguised, so as to not offend the general populace. You know - like a
>>>wolf in sheep's clothing.
>>
>> Sodomy is practiced more often by heterosexuals. If your bbs has
>>the last months messages saved, you can look at my post of statistics
>>which prove it. If you did not see these, i will repost them for you.
>
>I never alluded to or said that they didn't. Sodomy is sodomy no matter who
>practises it.
You said quite plainly that "'Gayness' is merely sodomy". Look a
few lines up this post, and you will see it too! It is amazing how much of
oa hypocryte you are.
Most gay men do not like being sodomized. only 10-15 percent of
the human race have the nerve endings required to enjoy anal sex.
>>
>> Depends how you define transvestitism. A tight t-shirt and a
>>miniskirt would be considered "menswear" in Ancient jerusalem, while a
>>business suit would be considered more feminine (Females had to have their
>>bodies covered, men did not).
>
>Tranvestism, according to Webster, is "the practise of adopting the dress, the manner[isms],
>and frequently the sexual role of the opposite sex." A pants suit or slacks on a lady is
>not cross-dressing. Even you know what a drag-queen is: someone who attempts to pass
>themselves off as a female, when they aren't.
Ok, here are the definitions for you, if you want. I am an
authority on these:
Transvestite: Usually male, usually heterosexual (according to a
poll taken by tapistry, i believe).
Female impersonator: A male who dresses like a famous female and
mimics her.
Drag queen: Ranges from Eartha Quake (a 400 pound queen) to Bobbi
Treat (a 19 year old queen who wears a long pink wig). Many queens are
heterosexual. Done to entertain.
Pre-op transsexual: A transsexual who is so far along in the
operation, that it is absolutely impossible to tell that the person is not
totally female without looking between the legs. Often referred to as
"shemale".
Dream Girl: A very attractive drag queen.
These are very basic and there are other types of Transgenderists,
there are subcatagories under the other catagories, etc. Just to give you
the idea that there are thousands of variations on the word "Transvestite"
or "Drag queen"
>> Please read Exodous 39. It describes a dress made for the priests
>>to wear which no Drag queen alive would want.
>
>Priestly garments are not dresses anymore than the cassocks or albs that the Roman Catholic
>priests, or those in relgious orders, wear.
Why? Fabric is fabric. What is the difference?
>>
>> And please note that a "Sodomist" is some one from sodomy, who is
>>inhospitable to visitors.
>
>What dictionary do you use?
I got that out of the bible.
>
>The two words you have is mind is Sodom, a city which lies buried beneath the end of the
>Dead Sea, and sodomite.
>
>A sodomite, according to Webster, is someone who practises sodomy. Would you like Webster's
>definition of the term or my unexpurgated one?
The biblical definition of sodomist is someone who lives in Sodom.
I assumed you were talking about the biblical meaning, since you can't
write a paragraph without briging it up.
Unknown
>>>"Gayness" is merely sodomy dressed up and disguised, so as to not offend
>>>the general populace. You know - like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
>
>se...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (Seth Gordon) wrote:
>> "Gayness" is a more precise term than "sodomy", which, depending on who
>> you ask, can mean:
>> (1) "unnatural" sex (whatever that means)
>> (2) oral or anal sex (which can occur between two men as well as two women)
>> (3) sex between humans and non-humans (again, of whatever gender)
>> (4) homosexual sex
>> [...]
>
>Since sodomy also includes non-coital sex, I suspect this would
Sodomy is Non-coital sex, Timothy, (except sex with your fist which
is commonly known as masturbation) or did you get an `F' or `incomplete'
in Biology-101?
HIDE YOUR EYES, VIRGINS AND OTHER PRUDENT PEOPLES!!
Coitus is `penis-in-vagina' sex.
Sodomy is `penis-in-everywhere-else-but-vagina' sex.
per definitions found in my favorite dictionary:
COITUS - The physical union of the male and female genitalia accompanied
by rythmic movements leading to the ejacualtion of semen from
the penis into the female reproductive tract.
[Webster's Third New International Dictionary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SODOMY - Carnal copulation with one of the same sex or with an animal:
non-coital carnal copulation with a member of the opposite sex:
specifically - the penetration of the male organ into the mouth
or anus of another. Compare: bestiality, buggery,
cunnilingus, fellatio, homosexuality, pederasty.
[Webster's Third New International Dictionary]
>place a real damper on foreplay... ...which in turn, would put a
>*real* damper on coital sex.
What damper?? Can't you arouse or get aroused without oral sex?? You need
a good sex manual, friend!!
Unknown
>>
>[Asking of Buddy B]
>
>> Do you claim to know more than they?
>>
>> --Frank
>
>Yes of course he does, they always do. He has a hotline to g...@heaven.org
>
a hotline; it's a lifeline. Get one soon.
Tim Ikeda
I wrote:
>>Since sodomy also includes non-coital sex, I suspect this would
Buddy replied:
>Sodomy is Non-coital sex, Timothy, (except sex with your fist which
>is commonly known as masturbation) or did you get an `F' or `incomplete'
>in Biology-101?
Really? Sodomy is discussed in Bio-101? It wasn't on the final.
But sodomy includes more than non-coital sex; as you've corrected yourself
in the text below.
>HIDE YOUR EYES, VIRGINS AND OTHER PRUDENT PEOPLES!!
>
>Coitus is `penis-in-vagina' sex.
>Sodomy is `penis-in-everywhere-else-but-vagina' sex.
> per definitions found in my favorite dictionary:
>
>COITUS - The physical union of the male and female genitalia accompanied
> by rythmic movements leading to the ejacualtion of semen from
> the penis into the female reproductive tract.
> [Webster's Third New International Dictionary]
Side note 1: Ejaculation is not required for coitus.
Side note 2: Ewes have vaginas... but that's bestiality/sodomy. Still,
coitus is possible with sheep (species being irrelevent).
Therefore, sodomy must be more than "penis-in-everywhere-
else."
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SODOMY - Carnal copulation with one of the same sex or with an animal:
> non-coital carnal copulation with a member of the opposite sex:
> specifically - the penetration of the male organ into the mouth
> or anus of another. Compare: bestiality, buggery,
> cunnilingus, fellatio, homosexuality, pederasty.
> [Webster's Third New International Dictionary]
>
>>place a real damper on foreplay... ...which in turn, would put a
>>*real* damper on coital sex.
>
>What damper?? Can't you arouse or get aroused without oral sex?? You need
>a good sex manual, friend!!
You mean, more than the "in, out, done" that the nuns taught?
I just like variety. But since we're hacking at definitions...
Copulation is sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse refers to
sexual contact with the genitalia of at least one person. However,
this "sexual contact" need not be oral, anal or vaginal but could also
be digital. Digital manipulation is non-coital sexual intercourse; ergo,
it's sodomy. I can only guess what your version of non-sodomizing foreplay
is but if you'd like to describe it, that would be appreciated.
But thanks for the insults, Christian. I know it's hard to follow
in Jesus' path. I will pray for God to forgive you.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
ti...@mendel.berkeley.edu
Tim Ikeda
In article <75...@eastman.UUCP>, (Buddy Beaudoin) wrote:
> Sodomy is Non-coital sex, Timothy, (except sex with your fist which
> is commonly known as masturbation) or did you get an `F' or `incomplete'
> in Biology-101?
Sex with one's fist is seems more like masochism than masturbation.
I guess we do things differently, you and I.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
ti...@mendel.berkeley.edu
Jim Halat
> The hotline has an access code; it's J-E-S-U-S. And by the way, it's not
> a hotline; it's a lifeline. Get one soon.
[Golden Buckle of the Bible Belt Preacher Voice On]
Friends! And you are my friends! Welcome to the Reverend Buddy Beaudoin's
discount house of worship. Yes, friends, you too can own a direct line
to JEEEEEEZUS, for only $4.95 per holy minute. That's right, just $4.95.
So pick up your phone now and dial 550-LORD or 550-NAIL and you will
receive the WORD for today. And don't forget to check your local paper
for the newest clue for our Pope-In-The-Pizza contest. Yes! You could
an all expense paid pilgrimage for two to exciting Las Vegas, Neeeevada!
So, hurry up and dial that phone. Say, AMEN!
[Golden Buckle of the Bible Belt Preacher Voice Off]
Tim Fogarty
I'm sure I'm not the first to jump on this, but I
just can't pass it up.
In article <75...@eastman.UUCP>, (Buddy Beaudoin) writes:
|>Sodomy is Non-coital sex, Timothy, (except sex with your fist which
|>is commonly known as masturbation) or did you get an `F' or `incomplete'
|>in Biology-101?
Oh, I thought that sex with your fist was commonly known as fisting.
And let me tell you, auto-fisting ain't easy. I prefer to use my
palm for masturbation. Although, fingers work well for both.
|>
|>HIDE YOUR EYES, VIRGINS AND OTHER PRUDENT PEOPLES!!
|>
|>Coitus is `penis-in-vagina' sex.
|>Sodomy is `penis-in-everywhere-else-but-vagina' sex.
Gosh, lesbians mustn't ever be committing sodomy. Someone tell that
judge in Virginia.
|> per definitions found in my favorite dictionary:
|>
|>COITUS - The physical union of the male and female genitalia accompanied
|> by rythmic movements leading to the ejacualtion of semen from
|> the penis into the female reproductive tract.
|> [Webster's Third New International Dictionary]
|>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>SODOMY - Carnal copulation with one of the same sex or with an animal:
|> non-coital carnal copulation with a member of the opposite sex:
|> specifically - the penetration of the male organ into the mouth
|> or anus of another. Compare: bestiality, buggery,
|> cunnilingus, fellatio, homosexuality, pederasty.
|> [Webster's Third New International Dictionary]
|>
|>>place a real damper on foreplay... ...which in turn, would put a
|>>*real* damper on coital sex.
|>
|>What damper?? Can't you arouse or get aroused without oral sex?? You need
|>a good sex manual, friend!!
|>
You know, what gets me is that the only people who use the words
"coitus" and "sodomy" are these so called right-wing fundimentalist
Christians.
--
Tim Fogarty (FOG...@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1: STS-59, launch date March 31, 1994
SRL-2: STS-66, launch date August 18, 1994 <=== new date
Tim Fogarty
In article <32...@ursa.bear.com>, ha...@panther.bear.com (Jim Halat) writes:
|>
|>[Golden Buckle of the Bible Belt Preacher Voice On]
|>
|>Friends! And you are my friends! Welcome to the Reverend Buddy Beaudoin's
|>discount house of worship. Yes, friends, you too can own a direct line
|>to JEEEEEEZUS, for only $4.95 per holy minute. That's right, just $4.95.
I always here it as JAAAH-ZUS.
|>So pick up your phone now and dial 550-LORD or 550-NAIL and you will
|>receive the WORD for today. And don't forget to check your local paper
|>for the newest clue for our Pope-In-The-Pizza contest. Yes! You could
|>an all expense paid pilgrimage for two to exciting Las Vegas, Neeeevada!
|>So, hurry up and dial that phone. Say, AMEN!
|>
|>[Golden Buckle of the Bible Belt Preacher Voice Off]
|>
|>
|>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|> jim halat e-mail: ha...@bear.com
|>
--
Tim Fogarty (FOG...@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
buddy_no_sodomy
>
> I'm sure I'm not the first to jump on this, but I
> just can't pass it up.
>
Yeah buddy sure does write stuff which invites comment doesn't he?
> In article <75...@eastman.UUCP>, (Buddy Beaudoin) writes:
>
> |>Sodomy is Non-coital sex, Timothy, (except sex with your fist which
> |>is commonly known as masturbation) or did you get an `F' or `incomplete'
> |>in Biology-101?
>
> Oh, I thought that sex with your fist was commonly known as fisting.
> And let me tell you, auto-fisting ain't easy. I prefer to use my
> palm for masturbation. Although, fingers work well for both.
>
Yes and if you *do* fist, make sure you use *lots* of lubricants, otherwise
it could be as painful and irritating as attempting a sensible conversation
with Buddy Herr quote-meister...
> |>
> |>HIDE YOUR EYES, VIRGINS AND OTHER PRUDENT PEOPLES!!
> |>
> |>Coitus is `penis-in-vagina' sex.
> |>Sodomy is `penis-in-everywhere-else-but-vagina' sex.
>
> Gosh, lesbians mustn't ever be committing sodomy. Someone tell that
> judge in Virginia.
>
Interesting huh? A lot of states had problems around the issue of rape because
of similar wordings... Rape is traditionally defined as forced *entry* of a
penis into a vagina by the perpetrator, which of course precludes same sex rape
as well as a woman raping a man, all of which are not only possible, but documented.
Actually phone sex, or even lustful thoughts qualify as sodomy since they produce
sexual pleasure as a result of the action... I doubt many people can actually
say that they don't *somehow* violate the pricipal of sodomy... However the real
point never was *sodomy* for the law makers, it was the fact that laws were
intentionally written to condemn same sex partners by people who hardly knew how
to have sex themselves, let alone them knowing alternatives methods and their
implications...
> |>>place a real damper on foreplay... ...which in turn, would put a
> |>>*real* damper on coital sex.
> |>
> |>What damper?? Can't you arouse or get aroused without oral sex?? You need
> |>a good sex manual, friend!!
> |>
>
> You know, what gets me is that the only people who use the words
> "coitus" and "sodomy" are these so called right-wing fundimentalist
> Christians.
>
Well you see they have to use *words* since they understand *concepts* so poorly...
You see they are so concerned about themselves and preventing themselves from
going to hell, they loose sight of the intentent of religion in the first place:
To build a stronger healthier society in which people love and respect each other
despite their differences and flaws, and gives them something to work on (their
own character) to keep their noses out of everyone elses business...
Oh and buddy, although most men don't anything more than "coitus", the same is
*not* true for the female of the species. In fact 2 out of 3 women cannot have
an orgasm purely by coital stimulation, but of course you wouldn't know that
since the only person you seem really concerned with is yourself... Your snide
comments to the affect of "what's you problem can't get it up", are not only the
mark of an emotionally immature individual, but also displays a general lack of
knowledge about sexuality in the hetero sense... It's no wonder you're so ill
informed about homosexuals...
Oh and I hope your wife is one of the 1/3, otherwise she was surely short changed
due to your attitude... But then what am I saying, anyone married to you couldn't
have had very expectations in the first place...
John Sanger
you are on now is based upon fiction and lies and your distortions of the
fiction does not increase you chances of having a life.
Ciao!
John S. 8^{)>
tedd...@netcom.com
__
John Sanger
BB you really do need to stop reading that book of fiction and start
reading about the reality that is all around you.
phas@brspva
>
> is commonly known as masturbation) or did you get an `F' or `incomplete'
> in Biology-101?
Actually sex with your fist is commonly known as 'Fisting' Be sure to use
plenty of lube and gloves!