Consequences of Homosexual Marriage
tim jones
One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
largely accomplishes–the only step remains is the creation of a
constitutional right to homosexual marriage–is whether as a society we
want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals. Other
arguments are largely beside the point. Homosexuals argue that
allowing them all the rights of heterosexuals, including the right to
marry, is simply a question of justice, of the equal protection of the
laws. That argument leaves out of the account the effects of
normalization on individuals and on society. It would have force only
if there were no serious adverse effects from homosexual behavior.
There are such effects, however, and we are entitled to consider them.
We may begin at the personal level. How many fathers and mothers are
pleased or even indifferent to whether their sons and daughters grow
up to spend their lives as practicing homosexuals? Very few, if any.
They may love their child regardless, but they are not happy about the
direction taken by the child’s sexuality. There are excellent reasons
for the unhappiness. Perhaps there is revulsion at the nature of
homosexual acts, perhaps sadness that there will be no grandchildren,
perhaps a well-founded fear of the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle,
or perhaps the reasons for unhappiness about the child’s homosexuality
are never fully articulated in the minds of parents. Still, there is,
as Leon Kass said in opposition to human cloning, the “wisdom of
repugnance.”
The issues to be confronted, then, are whether complete acceptance of
the normality of homosexual behavior would lead to an increase in the
number of homosexuals and whether there are good reasons to resist any
policy that leads to unqualified approval of homosexual behavior. I
think the answer to both of these questions is yes. The subject for
discussion is not the degree of tolerance, which seems to me
appropriate and humane, but full acceptance, which is neither.
To address the first issue, if homosexual marriage completes the
normalization of homosexuality that is now racing forward, there will
be more homosexuals in the population, probably very significantly
more. There is not a “gay gene,” but there are very probably genetic
factors, along with environmental influences in the womb or in early
life, that create greater or less predispositions toward homosexual
behavior. Like other predispositions, toward alcoholism, for example,
the urge to homosexual conduct can often be resisted, and a
significant number of homosexuals respond to therapy that enables them
to live contentedly as heterosexuals. The willingness to resist or
seek therapy will certainly be affected by the degree of stigma
attached to the behavior in question. If all traces of taint are
removed, if homosexuality is made to seem completely normal, a matter
of indifference to anyone else or to society, young men and women
uncertain of their sexuality will be that much more likely to be drawn
into a homosexual life. There will surely be some young men and women
who will not be deterred from homosexuality by any degree of stigma,
just as there will be some deflected by quite mild degrees of social
disapproval. There could hardly be a stronger signal from society that
homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable than the creation of
a right to homosexual marriage.
The next question, therefore, is what would be so calamitous about
removing all restraints on homosexual behavior? The answer is, a great
many extremely unhappy consequences would follow.
The first of these is the severe distress inflicted upon many
individuals who choose, or are led into, the homosexual way of life.
Though many homosexuals would deny it, homosexual males are much more
likely to lead unhappy lives than are heterosexuals. Homosexual males
engage in substances abuse and suffer mood and anxiety disorders, and
major depression, as well as considering and actually attempting
suicide, at rates far greater than do heterosexual males. Homosexual
apologists attempt to explain these facts by citing the pressures of
discrimination. But the rates are similarly high in the Netherlands
and New Zealand, two countries known as homosexual-friendly. Thus, in
the Netherlands the prevalence of mood disorders among homosexuals was
39 percent and among nonhomosexuals 13.3 percent, a ratio of about
three to one. For anxiety disorders, the numbers were 31.7 percent as
opposed to 13.2 percent; and major depression, 39.3 and 10.9 percent.
A study in New Zealand found the number for homosexual and
nonhomosexual thoughts of suicide to be 67.9 percent and 28 percent,
while those for suicide attempts were 32.1 percent and 7.1 percent.
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reports, “In spite of its superficial
appeal and the activists’ repeated claims, no studies support the
hypothesis that social disapproval of homosexuality is the prime cause
of the high levels of internal distress evident in homosexual
populations, even long before AIDS.” Richard Fitzgibbons, a clinical
psychologist specializing in anger management, notes that a child’s
anger felt betrayal by his peers or father is “one of the major
reasons a notable element of sadomasochism is found in homosexual
practices. When the extreme sadomasochistic behaviors engaged in by
the homosexual men are reported, most people are shocked. . . . If the
same type of behavior took place among heterosexuals, the identical
acts would be considered forms of abuse and evidence of a disorder,
yet they are considered ‘normal’ among homosexual men.
Homosexuality, moreover, is an addictive disorder. As Dr. Fitzgibbons
notes, “The first men diagnosed with AIDS reported an average of one
thousand partners during their lives. Those who have researched the
HIV-AIDS epidemic have noted that some homosexual males actually have
five to ten sexual encounters in a single night.” “The person has
often attempted to fill the emptiness experienced in childhood or
adolescence with numerous sexual encounters but it is an emptiness
that is never satisfied sexually.” It is no wonder that he says,
“Involvement in a homosexual lifestyle starts many young men down a
clear path of self-destruction.”
These manifestations of psychological distress that seem frequently
accompany homosexual conduct make use of the word “gay” absurdly
inappropriate. Psychiatrist Joseph Nicolosi calls it “a self-deceptive
identity” that has been “brilliantly marketed and bought without
question by the most influential institutions–professional psychology
and psychiatry, churches, educators, and the media–of American
society.” The term “gay” makes homosexuality sound innocuous, if not
appealing, but it hides the terrible reality that so many homosexuals
experience.
IAAH
> Robert Bork
>
>
>
> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
> constitutional right to homosexual marriage�is whether as a society we
> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals. Other
> arguments are largely beside the point. Homosexuals argue that
> allowing them all the rights of heterosexuals, including the right to
> marry, is simply a question of justice, of the equal protection of the
> laws. That argument leaves out of the account the effects of
> normalization on individuals and on society. It would have force only
> if there were no serious adverse effects from homosexual behavior.
> There are such effects, however, and we are entitled to consider them.
No society that's "normalized" SSM has noted an
increase in homosexuals. You are free to make up
scary fables, however. It is your final recourse.
>
> We may begin at the personal level. How many fathers and mothers are
> pleased or even indifferent to whether their sons and daughters grow
> up to spend their lives as practicing homosexuals? Very few, if any.
> They may love their child regardless, but they are not happy about the
> direction taken by the child�s sexuality. There are excellent reasons
> for the unhappiness. Perhaps there is revulsion at the nature of
> homosexual acts, perhaps sadness that there will be no grandchildren,
> perhaps a well-founded fear of the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle,
> or perhaps the reasons for unhappiness about the child�s homosexuality
> are never fully articulated in the minds of parents. Still, there is,
> as Leon Kass said in opposition to human cloning, the �wisdom of
> repugnance.�
>
> The issues to be confronted, then, are whether complete acceptance of
> the normality of homosexual behavior would lead to an increase in the
> number of homosexuals and whether there are good reasons to resist any
> policy that leads to unqualified approval of homosexual behavior. I
> think the answer to both of these questions is yes. The subject for
> discussion is not the degree of tolerance, which seems to me
> appropriate and humane, but full acceptance, which is neither.
>
> To address the first issue, if homosexual marriage completes the
> normalization of homosexuality that is now racing forward, there will
> be more homosexuals in the population, probably very significantly
> more. There is not a �gay gene,� but there are very probably genetic
You know why homosexuals have more "unhappy lives"
than heterosexuals?
It's because fabulist idiots like yourself think
that institutionalized oppression is a good thing
and work to perpetuate it.
Such pathetic ignorance from you, and the worst
part is that there are other idiots that will be
all too willing to amplify it.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
anonymous
Homosexuals have the right to marry in Canada and some other countries.
There is nothing normal about being heterosexual. Just look at the
heterosexual porn sites. google "free porn videos"
Homosexuals love women but don't need to use them for a sexual purpose.
Homosexuals don't require one person over another to pay for their food
and drinks.
Only heterosexual men must have a wallet full of cash sufficient to make
it any woman's
time worthwhile.
> We may begin at the personal level. How many fathers and mothers are
> pleased or even indifferent to whether their sons and daughters grow
> up to spend their lives as practicing homosexuals?
No parent on the planet wants a homosexual offspring, but homosexuals
are created from
within a heterosexual environment. Almost any homosexual can point out
to any parent
what things are likely to cause a predisposition to producing a
homosexual child.
Parents don't want to listen.
> There are excellent reasons
> for the unhappiness. Perhaps there is revulsion at the nature of
> homosexual acts,
Sorry, I am not sure what homosexual acts are revulsive? You see, if
you did as I suggested and googled "free porn videos" you would have see
free videos by the thousands
where men toss women around like meat, shove their penises in their
mouths, vaginas and butts and squirt all over the woman's face, pull her
hair, slap her around and those aren't the bad vidoes.
> perhaps sadness that there will be no grandchildren,
Most parents can't wait for their children to leave home so the parents
can sell house and start getting ready for retirement. Additionally,
parents know the sooner their offspring produce offspring the less
likely the guy will cheat on his wife, drive home drunk and impaired to
name just a few worries.
> perhaps a well-founded fear of the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle,
Not sure about the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle: Two consenting
men working, saving, traveling the world, buying and fixing up a house,
throwing and attending dinner parties around the city and around the
world. Sounds pretty good to me.
The heterosexual lifestyle, remember has the support of the government,
the church, society as a whole, the world as a whole and yet 45 percent
of all marriages end in divorce. Ever asked a man or woman what he
though of the man or woman he married and then divorced? You ought to
ask.
> or perhaps the reasons for unhappiness about the child’s homosexuality
> are never fully articulated in the minds of parents.
The unanswered question is whether parents realize what they did to
facilitate
the development of their child's homosexuality. The homosexuals can
certainly articulate it. Homosexuality doesn't just happen when the
teenagers testicles drop and the voice changes.
> Still, there is,
> as Leon Kass said in opposition to human cloning, the “wisdom of
> repugnance.”
>
> The issues to be confronted, then, are whether complete acceptance of
> the normality of homosexual behavior would lead to an increase in the
> number of homosexuals and whether there are good reasons to resist any
> policy that leads to unqualified approval of homosexual behavior.
Sadly, parents would give billions to anyone who could make their child
a heterosexual.
Any person would gladly give millions to anyone who could make them
heterosexual.
There is no money in making anyone homosexual. And if you could make a
homosexual then you could make a heterosexual. So it would be a win
win.
> I
> think the answer to both of these questions is yes. The subject for
> discussion is not the degree of tolerance, which seems to me
> appropriate and humane, but full acceptance, which is neither.
>
Well, homosexuals are the most hated people on the planet. There is no
such word as acceptance, but having said that, homosexuals are really
fortunately to have such an awesome life even without any rights at
all. It is a good life.
> To address the first issue, if homosexual marriage completes the
> normalization of homosexuality that is now racing forward, there will
> be more homosexuals in the population, probably very significantly
> more.
Your comment would be supported if you could point to one person since
the time of adam and eve who wanted to become a homosexual. Now we must
not forget there are pastors sons, sons of high up fathers in local
churches who marry women to hide they are homosexual and it is very
unlikely any of these homosexuals are going to prefer a homosexual
marriage. The only source of homosexual production is a heterosexual
union
inside or outside of wedlock. Funny enough, probably 99.99 percent of
all homosexuals could be prevented if they parents were educated, but
usually when you examine the mother and the father of the homosexual
child, you see why the child is homosexual and the parents have bigger
problems.
> There is not a “gay gene,” but there are very probably genetic
> factors, along with environmental influences in the womb or in early
> life, that create greater or less predispositions toward homosexual
> behavior.
Oh, absolutely true.
> Like other predispositions, toward alcoholism, for example,
> the urge to homosexual conduct can often be resisted,
Ask Ted Haggard about resistance to homosexuality. The number of
alcoholics who stop drinking is like 5 or 10 percent. All the rest
remain a drinking active alcoholics.
And you expect better odds for homosexuals? Lots of people don't
drink, but name how many you know that don't fuck/screw? You see all
the priests I know either screwed women or men but none I knew or heard
about refrained from sex.
> and a
> significant number of homosexuals respond to therapy that enables them
> to live contentedly as heterosexuals.
That would probably be among others the ex gay groups who are usually
bright educated people who start cutting up their body and mutilating
themselves due to the frustration of not being able to deal with their
efforts to not stop homosexuality on all levels.
> The willingness to resist or
> seek therapy will certainly be affected by the degree of stigma
> attached to the behavior in question. If all traces of taint are
> removed, if homosexuality is made to seem completely normal, a matter
> of indifference to anyone else or to society, young men and women
> uncertain of their sexuality will be that much more likely to be drawn
> into a homosexual life.
Not sure how anyone would be drawn into a homosexual lifestyle.
Firstly, most boys try to have sex with women and if that doesn't work,
they do any number of things and eventually may indulge in
homosexuality. No human would say that homosexuality is normal, but
having said that, just ask any woman how normal she feels her husband is
and how normal his sex life is.
There will surely be some young men and women
> who will not be deterred from homosexuality by any degree of stigma,
> just as there will be some deflected by quite mild degrees of social
> disapproval.
A homosexual like a heterosexual may or may not act on his desire to
have sex with
another person. But that doesn't make the person straight or gay. Lots
of men are married and touch and almost fondle other males as their way
of dealing with their homosexuality.
> There could hardly be a stronger signal from society that
> homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable than the creation of
> a right to homosexual marriage.
Boys who can't bring their boyfriends home in the same way that boys
bring their girlfriends home, means they have to hide at night at rest
stations, night-clubs,
place ads in newspapers. All this can in bad circumstances lead to a
great problem with aids. If a guy can bring home his boyfriend to meet
the family, have dinner, join the family going to a basketball game or
hockey game as the case may be, it leads to a healthier lifestyle.
>
> The next question, therefore, is what would be so calamitous about
> removing all restraints on homosexual behavior? The answer is, a great
> many extremely unhappy consequences would follow.
>
> The first of these is the severe distress inflicted upon many
> individuals who choose, or are led into, the homosexual way of life.
The only people lead into a homosexual way of life are the congregation
of churches where the parents pay the church money and they church
workers split open the young boys rectum with his adult penis. Those
are the climates unhappy consequences of men in society who join the
church to hide their homosexuality and then rape and sexually assault
the boys of the congregation.
> Though many homosexuals would deny it, homosexual males are much more
> likely to lead unhappy lives than are heterosexuals.
Well, that is an easy one. Ask any queer, homosexual, gay person you
see anywhere on the planet how their day is going. They probably won't
stop talking and laughing and filling you with joyful stories.
No go to any heterosexual man or woman on the planet and ask them how
good their life is and how good their day is. The will start
complaining even while you run out of time and start running away from
them.
> Homosexual males
> engage in substances abuse and suffer mood and anxiety disorders, and
> major depression, as well as considering and actually attempting
> suicide, at rates far greater than do heterosexual males.
As the most hated people on the planet, I think homosexuals do fairly
well on a daily basis.
I mean, look at you. You could be telling the entire internet how
wonderful your life is today and all you have spent your time doing is
describing how horrible and unhappy you think the lives of homosexuals
are.
Oh, and ask a guy if he is getting enough sex from his wife. And ask
women what her thoughts are about sex and how after she washes his dirty
underwear with skid marks, make
his dinner, irons his clothes, cuts the lawn, takes their kids to sports
events and buys groceries, that sometimes she really does have a
headache and really is too tired to have the guy shake her bones in
order to ejaculate all over her face before he tires out and falls
asleep.
> Homosexual
> apologists attempt to explain these facts by citing the pressures of
> discrimination. But the rates are similarly high in the Netherlands
> and New Zealand, two countries known as homosexual-friendly. Thus, in
> the Netherlands the prevalence of mood disorders among homosexuals was
> 39 percent and among nonhomosexuals 13.3 percent, a ratio of about
> three to one. For anxiety disorders, the numbers were 31.7 percent as
> opposed to 13.2 percent; and major depression, 39.3 and 10.9 percent.
> A study in New Zealand found the number for homosexual and
> nonhomosexual thoughts of suicide to be 67.9 percent and 28 percent,
> while those for suicide attempts were 32.1 percent and 7.1 percent.
>
> Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reports, “In spite of its superficial
> appeal and the activists’ repeated claims, no studies support the
> hypothesis that social disapproval of homosexuality is the prime cause
> of the high levels of internal distress evident in homosexual
> populations, even long before AIDS.” Richard Fitzgibbons, a clinical
> psychologist specializing in anger management, notes that a child’s
> anger felt betrayal by his peers or father is “one of the major
> reasons a notable element of sadomasochism is found in homosexual
> practices. When the extreme sadomasochistic behaviors engaged in by
> the homosexual men are reported, most people are shocked. . . . If the
> same type of behavior took place among heterosexuals, the identical
> acts would be considered forms of abuse and evidence of a disorder,
> yet they are considered ‘normal’ among homosexual men.
>
Listen, I live in a big city and yeah there are a few sado homos but
there are thousands of heterosexual men and women from 20s to 70s
dressed in leather and whipping their spouses several nights a month.
> Homosexuality, moreover, is an addictive disorder. As Dr. Fitzgibbons
> notes, “The first men diagnosed with AIDS reported an average of one
> thousand partners during their lives.
So if heterosexuals aren't getting aids and each homo has thousands of
partners, there must be a lot of homos in the world.
> Those who have researched the
> HIV-AIDS epidemic have noted that some homosexual males actually have
> five to ten sexual encounters in a single night.” “The person has
> often attempted to fill the emptiness experienced in childhood or
> adolescence with numerous sexual encounters but it is an emptiness
> that is never satisfied sexually.”
Just ask women about their husband's faithness during the marriage, will
you?
It is no wonder that he says,
> “Involvement in a homosexual lifestyle starts many young men down a
> clear path of self-destruction.”
Well, of course that is why heterosexual marriage is so good because the
divorce rate is not 100 percent by only 45 percent.
>
> These manifestations of psychological distress that seem frequently
> accompany homosexual conduct make use of the word “gay” absurdly
> inappropriate. Psychiatrist Joseph Nicolosi calls it “a self-deceptive
> identity” that has been “brilliantly marketed and bought without
> question by the most influential institutions–professional psychology
> and psychiatry, churches, educators, and the media–of American
> society.” The term “gay” makes homosexuality sound innocuous, if not
> appealing, but it hides the terrible reality that so many homosexuals
> experience.
Hell, whenever I meet homosexuals they start talking about their next
vacation, planned renovations, always wearing the best of fashions,
buying new cars, summer homes - and these are just average homos not the
rich ones. Just look at the homos and lesbians at home depot anytime of
the day or night.
If you heard of how the guys wear the most expensive silk shirts, and
stuff to these cocktail parties - how can you not see it is a great
life. As a heterosexual buddy if he can join you for a beer. He usually
has to cover for his wife who works when he doesn't so they don't have
to pay 50 dollars per day per child for daycare. The guy has to take
his girls to soccer games and practice - his sons to hockey. There is
no money for dinner parties and silk shirts. But I don't mind that you
don't get it right. Because if you got it right, you would get millions
of people wanting to just see it never mind participate because it would
be better than tv, the bars, the world as we know it.
Pat Magroyne
Pat Magroyne
> You know why homosexuals have more "unhappy lives"
> than heterosexuals?
> It's because fabulist idiots like yourself think
> that institutionalized oppression is a good thing
> and work to perpetuate it.
Correct. Indications are that this is changing, however.
Uncle Vic
> Robert Bork
>
>
>
> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
> largely accomplishes�the only step remains is the creation of a
> constitutional right to homosexual marriage�is whether as a society we
> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
What? Are you stupid? Do you really think the legalization of
homosexual marriage is going to increase the number of hoomosexuals in
society? Like all these straight men are going to change to gay?
> Other
> arguments are largely beside the point. Homosexuals argue that
> allowing them all the rights of heterosexuals, including the right to
> marry, is simply a question of justice, of the equal protection of the
> laws. That argument leaves out of the account the effects of
> normalization on individuals and on society.
How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
> It would have force only
> if there were no serious adverse effects from homosexual behavior.
> There are such effects, however, and we are entitled to consider them.
>
> We may begin at the personal level. How many fathers and mothers are
> pleased or even indifferent to whether their sons and daughters grow
> up to spend their lives as practicing homosexuals? Very few, if any.
Irrelevant.
<flush>
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Bird is the word
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC6D578...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Bork
>>
>>
>>
>> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
>> constitutional right to homosexual marriage-is whether as a society we
>> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
>
> What? Are you stupid? Do you really think the legalization of
> homosexual marriage is going to increase the number of hoomosexuals in
> society? Like all these straight men are going to change to gay?
Stupid Atheist! You know full well that all men have homosexual thoughts and
that if being gay was normalized then they'll choose to act on those
impulses and constant wet dreams of bath house games and wearing cowboy
outfits and going camping with our fellow heterosexuals. Everyone has gay
sex in high school and college but it's the moral person coupled with strong
christian values that chooses to have sex with women and reject our natural
urge to slather a man's nuts with our tongues. I advise many men to marry
short haired women and put a poster of Brad Pitt over the bed so we can get
aroused for our yearly sex with the wife.
Homosexuals act on those impulses from the devil and that is why we should
shun them and prevent them from reccruiting more homosexuals with the
prospect of gay marriage. I mean what man wouldn't want to spend all day
with his fellow men and never have to stick his penis in that nasty fish
stank again.
Syd M.
<kissmy...@shitkickerwillies.com> wrote:
> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CC6D578...@216.196.97.131...
>
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Robert Bork
>
> >> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
> >> largely accomplishes-the only step remains is the creation of a
> >> constitutional right to homosexual marriage-is whether as a society we
> >> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
>
> > What? Are you stupid? Do you really think the legalization of
> > homosexual marriage is going to increase the number of hoomosexuals in
> > society? Like all these straight men are going to change to gay?
>
> Stupid Atheist! You know full well that all men have homosexual thoughts and
> that if being gay was normalized then they'll choose to act on those
> impulses and constant wet dreams of bath house games and wearing cowboy
> outfits and going camping with our fellow heterosexuals.
Maybe you will, but us straight guys will just shrug and get back to
our real lives and not think a second thought about it.
PDW
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Bork
ROTFL!!!!
Thank heaven he got "Borked" by Senate that provided
us with a RARE display of intelligence!!
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert Bork
>>
>> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which
>> Lawrence largely accomplishes�the only step remains is the creation
>> of a constitutional right to homosexual marriage�is whether as a
>> society we want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
> What? Are you stupid? Do you really think the legalization of
> homosexual marriage is going to increase the number of hoomosexuals
> in society? Like all these straight men are going to change to gay?
Hey! Robert Bork wrote that. Figuring THAT out would impose
'WAY too much strain on that which passes for his brain.
>> Other arguments are largely beside the point. Homosexuals argue that
>> allowing them all the rights of heterosexuals, including the right to
>> marry, is simply a question of justice, of the equal protection of the
>> laws. That argument leaves out of the account the effects of
>> normalization on individuals and on society.
> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being
able to answer!
>> It would have force only
>> if there were no serious adverse effects from homosexual behavior.
>> There are such effects, however, and we are entitled to consider them.
>>
>> We may begin at the personal level. How many fathers and mothers are
>> pleased or even indifferent to whether their sons and daughters grow
>> up to spend their lives as practicing homosexuals? Very few, if any.
> Irrelevant.
True. As irrelevant as is the LOSER who WROTE that piece of
bigoted TRIPE. America is SO lucky that -- in a RARE display of
intelligence -- the Senate "Borked" him, rather than allowing him to
POISON the Supreme Court!
><flush>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:>>> tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Robert Bork
>>>> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which
>>>> Lawrence largely accomplishes -- the only step remains is the
>>>> creation of a constitutional right to homosexual marriage -- is
>>>> whether as a society we want a significant increase in the
>>>> number of homosexuals.
>>> What? �Are you stupid? �Do you really think the legalization of
>>> homosexual marriage is going to increase the number of homosex-
>>> uals in society? �Like all these straight men are going to change to gay?
>> Stupid Atheist! You know full well that all men have homosexual thoughts
>> and that if being gay was normalized then they'll choose to act on those
>> impulses and constant wet dreams of bath house games and wearing cowboy
>> outfits and going camping with our fellow heterosexuals.
> Maybe you will, but us straight guys will just shrug and get back to
> our real lives and not think a second thought about it.
Not only that, but that loser proved his ignorance with those first
two words: "stupid atheist."
I'm a normal Christian (as opposed to the hateful PSEUDO-
Christian RRR cultists who are giving us a bad name) whose father
was a minister, and whose best friend is an atheist. And in all of my
68 years, I have YET to EVER meet an atheist whom I would regard to
be stupid. They rank among society's MOST INTELLIGENT people.
They THINK. (A concept that is alien to all bigots and RRR cultists,
who usually are the SAME people.)
Jimbo
>
> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
> largely accomplishes–the only step remains is the creation of a
> constitutional right to homosexual marriage–is whether as a society we
> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals. Other
> arguments are largely beside the point. Homosexuals argue that
> allowing them all the rights of heterosexuals, including the right to
> marry, is simply a question of justice, of the equal protection of the
> laws. That argument leaves out of the account the effects of
> normalization on individuals and on society. It would have force only
> if there were no serious adverse effects from homosexual behavior.
> There are such effects, however, and we are entitled to consider them.
>
> We may begin at the personal level. How many fathers and mothers are
> pleased or even indifferent to whether their sons and daughters grow
> up to spend their lives as practicing homosexuals? Very few, if any.
> They may love their child regardless, but they are not happy about the
> direction taken by the child’s sexuality.
Parents are often not happy about any of a number of actions, career
choice, etc.. etc.. of their children. I don't see this as being a
legal hurtle to equal treatment under the law, but a personal matter
between parents and their children.
Hell, my mother didn't talk to me for an entire year after I enlisted
in the military. My dad sulked for at least that long after I started
law school. Kids are going to lead thier own life regardless.
> There are excellent reasons
> for the unhappiness. Perhaps there is revulsion at the nature of
> homosexual acts, perhaps sadness that there will be no grandchildren,
Which isn't a concern. Many gay couples adopt, or have children by
invitro fertilization, serrogate parents, and even by previous
opposite sex relationships. The 2000 US Census showed that just over
600,000 same sex households were raising just under 1,000,000 children
in the US.
> perhaps a well-founded fear of the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle,
> or perhaps the reasons for unhappiness about the child’s homosexuality
> are never fully articulated in the minds of parents. Still, there is,
> as Leon Kass said in opposition to human cloning, the “wisdom of
> repugnance.”
Or a clear demonstration of Kass' homophobia.
>
> The issues to be confronted, then, are whether complete acceptance of
> the normality of homosexual behavior would lead to an increase in the
> number of homosexuals
Not likely, an increase in the number of "out" homosexuals is likely,
but contrary to common bigot thought, people don't just decide to
become homosexual en masse because it happens to be more accepted.
and whether there are good reasons to resist any
> policy that leads to unqualified approval of homosexual behavior.
No one cares what you do nor do not approve of. Just follow the
constitution and basic human rights.
Bird is the word
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
message news:1ip7g5lib36on0r69...@4ax.com...
who would have ever figured that moron Chilton can't spot sarcasm? I guess
that's why pedophile Craig is going to hell for all eternity
raven1
<timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
>largely accomplishes�the only step remains is the creation of a
>constitutional right to homosexual marriage�is whether as a society we
>want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
That's absolutely idiotic. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to
alter anyone's sexual preference from what it is already.
Ric Locke
> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
> message news:1ip7g5lib36on0r69...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:25:46 -0800 (PST),
>> "Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Bird is the word" wrote:
>>>> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>>>>> tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Robert Bork
>>
>>>>>> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which
>>>>>> Lawrence largely accomplishes -- the only step remains is the
>>>>>> creation of a constitutional right to homosexual marriage -- is
>>>>>> whether as a society we want a significant increase in the
>>>>>> number of homosexuals.
>>
>>>>> What? Are you stupid? Do you really think the legalization of
>>>>> homosexual marriage is going to increase the number of homosex-
>>>>> uals in society? Like all these straight men are going to change to
>>>>> gay?
>>
>>>> Stupid Atheist! You know full well that all men have homosexual
>>>> thoughts
>>>> and that if being gay was normalized then they'll choose to act on those
>>>> impulses and constant wet dreams of bath house games and wearing cowboy
>>>> outfits and going camping with our fellow heterosexuals.
>>
>>> Maybe you will, but us straight guys will just shrug and get back to
>>> our real lives and not think a second thought about it.
>>
>> Not only that, but that loser proved his ignorance with those first
>> two words: "stupid atheist."
>>
>> I'm a normal Christian (as opposed to the hateful PSEUDO-
>> Christian RRR cultists who are giving us a bad name) whose father
>> was a minister, and whose best friend is an atheist. And in all of my
>> 68 years, I have YET to EVER meet an atheist whom I would regard to
>> be stupid. They rank among society's MOST INTELLIGENT people.
>>
>> They THINK. (A concept that is alien to all bigots and RRR cultists,
>> who usually are the SAME people.)
>>
>
> who would have ever figured that moron Chilton can't spot sarcasm? I guess
> that's why pedophile Craig is going to hell for all eternity
Go the f* away.
WangoTango
says...
>
> Homosexuals love women but don't need to use them for a sexual purpose.
>
Google "lesbian"
;)
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[ ... ]
> Who would have figured Chilton can't spot sarcasm?
You only made one mistake. The sarcasm was TOO good. You
sounded just like a lemming of the RRR Cult in that post.
anonymous
>
well written
very funny
anonymous
Nice correction. Auh, homosexual men love women but don't need to use
any woman for a sexual purpose.
JumpsOnFire
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
>
> I'm a normal
OF ALL THE LIES YOU HAVE TOLD OVER THE YEARS THIS IS THE MOST FLAGRANT.
You are about as normal as a two headed snake, Crazy Craig...
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> ��� ���
> ��� George Richard Tiller, MurDerer ���
> ��� A True American ZERO! ���
> ��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
> ��� In Hell For Eternity
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> -- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
Again you show us, Crazy Craig, that the only reason you make hundreds
of posts a day is to SPAM your snake oil in an attempt to con decent
people out of their money.
>
> www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
BE-VA
But creating the environment that can influence a young mind toward
homosexuality as would any child raised by two men or two women
homosexuals would be subject to can and will increase the frequency of
homosexual behavior. You know that, however, you or any other
homosexual simply won't admit that it's the truth.
JumpsOnFire
Ric Locke aka "Craig Chilton", Bill Taylor and a dozen other dirty sox
-- <warric...@gmail.com> said:
> Go the f* away.
BRILLIANT, considering your education level.
BE-VA
So, you're saying that he's "One Of Yours." This is getting to be
interesting, Crazy Crag. I think you're telling the world more than you
really want to about you and your Crazy Craig Chilton "CCC Cult."
BE-VA
Of course you use men (any available man too since sexual gratification
is the only purpose of homosexual "sex", it can have no other) for
sexual purposes. That's why you're called homosexual, queer, cock
suckers and a variety of other names.
JTEM
tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality,
> which Lawrence largely accomplishes–the only step
> remains is the creation of a constitutional right to
> homosexual marriage–is whether as a society we
> want a significant increase in the number of
> homosexuals.
Look. If the only reason you're not introducing yourself
as "Gay" to everybody right now is because you can't
get married, then you're gay. Period.
Gay men are sexually & romantically attracted to
members of their own gender. Period. If this doesn't
describe you then you're not gay, and there's nothing
anyone around you can do to change that (including
marrying each other).
The problem here is that, like all truly lunatic Reich
wingers, you're confusing "Closeted" with "Not gay."
It's true that many people ARE closeted -- which is to
say, they are gay but they don't reveal this fact to
very many people -- and that the number of closeted
gay men drops as society becomes more & more
accepting of homosexuality.
Put another way: The number of gay men can't increase,
but more gay men will "Admit" that they are gay.
Yes, gay marriage will likely result in fewer & fewer
closeted homosexuals, as more & more stop lying to
friends and family and admit that they are gay. And, yes,
that includes many people who pretend that they are
straight, even marry women, but sleep around with men
behind everybody's backs.
You know, "Conservatives." No true liberal would have
any reason to hide the fact that they're gay.
What, they're afraid that if anyone finds out we'll elect
them to congress, make them serve next to Barney
Frank?
I'm sorry, but it's only social "Conservatives" who have
a motive for lying... for hiding the fact that they secretly
have sex with men.
anonymous
Then why is it that ALL homosexuals are produce and raised by
heterosexuals in a heterosexual environment and they come out
queer/homosexual? So much for influence.
anonymous
>
> tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality,
> > which Lawrence largely accomplishes–the only step
> > remains is the creation of a constitutional right to
> > homosexual marriage–is whether as a society we
> > want a significant increase in the number of
> > homosexuals.
>
> Look. If the only reason you're not introducing yourself
> as "Gay" to everybody right now is because you can't
> get married, then you're gay. Period.
>
> Gay men are sexually & romantically attracted to
> members of their own gender. Period. If this doesn't
> describe you then you're not gay, and there's nothing
> anyone around you can do to change that (including
> marrying each other).
>
> The problem here is that, like all truly lunatic Reich
> wingers, you're confusing "Closeted" with "Not gay."
>
> It's true that many people ARE closeted -- which is to
> say, they are gay but they don't reveal this fact to
> very many people -- and that the number of closeted
> gay men drops as society becomes more & more
> accepting of homosexuality.
>
will ever be more accepting of homosexuals and they believe that
homosexuals will remain the most hated people on the planet. But what
closeted homosexuals do believe is that if they come out
they may risk wealthy, employment, business, family inherritance, being
disowned by family and friends and in some cases disowned by the entire
town/community if it is in the far south of the usa, a religious
community or the far north of Canada to give examples.
thomas p.
"BE-VA" <blackwater...@testland.org> skrev i meddelelsen
news:2009111902385197157-blackwaterevangelist@testlandorg...
> On 2009-11-18 08:39:40 -0500, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> said:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:47:43 -0800 (PST), tim jones
>> <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
>>> constitutional right to homosexual marriage-is whether as a society we
>>> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
>>
>> That's absolutely idiotic. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to
>> alter anyone's sexual preference from what it is already.
>
> But creating the environment that can influence a young mind toward
> homosexuality as would any child raised by two men or two women
> homosexuals would be subject to can and will increase the frequency of
> homosexual behavior. You know that, however, you or any other homosexual
> simply won't admit that it's the truth.
>
Sane heterosexuals and homosexuals know that it is pure nonsense born
of bigotry.
thomas p.
It must be terrible to have to lie so much as you do. My sympathies.
Ric Locke
OTOH, true brilliance consists of polluting a non-pertinent newsgroup,
thereby pissing off people who might agree with you. Genius.
Regards,
Ric
ZerkonXXXX
> It would have force only if there were no serious adverse effects from
> homosexual behavior. There are such effects, however, and we are
> entitled to consider them.
The state becomes 'entitled' because of serious adverse effects.
Granted the "serious adverse effects" of homosexuality which entitle, it
is these effects which become the issue.
An abusive upbringing also has very serious adverse effects and is much
more prevalent today than homosexuality. Indeed, a type of homosexuality
may result in such a upbringing.
Is the state now entitled to become involved in the marriages of victims
of child abuse with the equal given the abused child consistently grows
into an abusive adult? Following such consequences; divorce, alcoholism,
incarceration, mental illness, in fact all destructive non normative
parental behavior would then entitle government interference. Adverse
consequences now become a justification applied arbitrarily to
homosexuality.
For instance...
> ........... a notable element of sadomasochism is found in
> homosexual practices..... . . If the same type of behavior took place
> among heterosexuals, the identical acts would be considered forms of
....... military interrogation or consequences of war.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.
This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:ustel318uigdheu19...@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:87r6i0m...@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).
See Message-ID:
<news:n5tn72l8p74cfv8vc...@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:m3d5dvp...@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.
The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)
Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:2iell25bqiqgv16ir...@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "bi...@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).
However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:skmio2d2lukbv2gkt...@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:embji...@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:embjhn02...@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).
He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:016tu2d0ksk24dsuc...@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:87ps7kj...@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:87ps7kj...@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:dp22v21m779nvfjdc...@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:s4d4v29mamrmrstji...@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.
Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
>>>> Robert Bork
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
<gero...@yahoo.com> ...
...lied his ass off again and, as usual, made a total public
FOOL of himself. Whis is pretty much all that he EVER does.
<fush idiocy>
He could do humanity a favor by jumping INTO the fire.
I'll bet no one would even attend the ash-scattering.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor (aka "JumpsOnFire") wrote:
>> Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> said:
>>> Go the f* away.
>> BRILLIANT, considering your education level.
(That from an IDIOT who probably would have to look up the word,
"education" -- after re-memorizing the alphabet, so he could find it.
> OTOH, true brilliance consists of polluting a non-pertinent newsgroup,
> thereby pissing off people who might agree with you. Genius.
>
>Regards,
>Ric
There's ANYONE who actually would AGREE with Bill Taylor?
No SANE person would.
raven1
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
>On 2009-11-18 08:39:40 -0500, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> said:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:47:43 -0800 (PST), tim jones
>> <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
>>> largely accomplishes�the only step remains is the creation of a
>>> constitutional right to homosexual marriage�is whether as a society we
>>> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
>>
>> That's absolutely idiotic. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to
>> alter anyone's sexual preference from what it is already.
>
>But creating the environment that can influence a young mind toward
>homosexuality as would any child raised by two men or two women
>homosexuals would be subject to can and will increase the frequency of
>homosexual behavior.
No study has found such a thing to be true. Do you have a citation to
back up your claim?
> You know that,
No, I don't. You claim it, but can you support your claim with actual
data?
> however, you or any other
>homosexual simply won't admit that it's the truth.
I'm straight.
Don Martin
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:47:43 -0800 (PST), tim jones
>
> >One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
> >largely accomplishes–the only step remains is the creation of a
> >constitutional right to homosexual marriage–is whether as a society we
> >want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
>
> That's absolutely idiotic. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to
> alter anyone's sexual preference from what it is already.
I suspect, though, that the general acceptance of homosexuality would
be followed by an _apparent_ increase of homosexuals, as there would
be fewer barriers to coming out, but this would be an artifact of
increased visibility of homosexuals already present.
Jon Schild
> Robert Bork
>
>
>
> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
> constitutional right to homosexual marriage�is whether as a society we
> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
1. Why would homosexual marriage lead to more homosexuals? Are you
stupid enough to believe that two married gay men can have sex with each
other and somehow produce gay children?
2. Your bigotry is revealed by even asking whether "we want a
significant increase in the number of homosexuals".
> Other arguments are largely beside the point.
Which means this whole post is, by definition of the author, beside the
point.
WangoTango
blackwater...@testland.org says...
> sexual gratification
> is the only purpose of homosexual "sex", it can have no other
>
you shag has every chance to get knocked up........
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-11-18 08:39:40 -0500, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> said:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:47:43 -0800 (PST), tim jones
>> <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence
>>> largely accomplishes�the only step remains is the creation of a
>>> constitutional right to homosexual marriage�is whether as a society we
>>> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
>>
>> That's absolutely idiotic. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to
>> alter anyone's sexual preference from what it is already.
>
>But creating the environment that can influence a young mind toward
>homosexuality
Is that what happened to you? You think that it was your upbringing
that led to you being attracted to men?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
raven1
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
>On 2009-11-18 16:54:24 -0500, anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> said:
>
>> WangoTango wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <4B03730E...@anonymous.com>, anon...@anonymous.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> Homosexuals love women but don't need to use them for a sexual purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Google "lesbian"
>>>
>>> ;)
>>
>> Nice correction. Auh, homosexual men love women but don't need to use
>> any woman for a sexual purpose.
>
>Of course you use men (any available man too since sexual gratification
>is the only purpose of homosexual "sex", it can have no other)
I'm curious as to what you think the "purposes" of heterosexual sex
are other than procreation, and why they wouldn't apply to homosexual
sex as well.
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.rywerywey.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
>
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
> The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
> (As compiled by
You're nuttier than a fruitcake.
Pat Magroyne
> homosexual "sex"
Again, we ask, why the obsession with homosexuality?
Pat Magroyne
> homosexuality
.
> homosexuals
.
> homosexual behavior.
.
> homosexual
Obsessed much?
RamRod Sword of Baal
"Bill Taylor" <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote in message
news:e3b06c11007b5710...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
That is rich (Fruit cake) coming from you.
JTEM
anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> I would put it another way. No closeted homosexual
> feels that anyone will ever be more accepting of
> homosexuals and they believe that homosexuals
> will remain the most hated people on the planet. But
> what closeted homosexuals do believe is that if they
> come out they may risk wealthy, employment,
> business, family inherritance, being disowned by
> family and friends and in some cases disowned by
> the entire town/community
Absolutely true. Well, at an intellectual level.
Most are raised to think that "Fags are icky," and they
require a period of time to challenge & reject these
early (and deeply ingrained) teachings.
This can be a rather rough & painful experience.
Once this occurs though, they have the choice of
either rejecting the anti-gay social/family environment,
or consciously playing along.
anonymous
Actually, the coming out of homosexuals for the most part is related to
financial. As the most hated people on the planet whether one comes out
or not, is consistent and will never change but that is not why people
come out or don't come out. People come out because they want to be
honest with people who they are whether they are hated or loved by the
people they tell. People who remain in the closet do so mostly for
economic stability and social stability. If you stay in the closet you
know that most people know you are a homosexual because a guy either
talks about screwing women or he doesn't.
If he doesn't talk about screwing women, then he is likely gay. Even
bisexuals talk about screwing women. I read recently that is the
problem for gays in the military because all these men, young, very
young and old talk about screwing women, probably on a non-stop basis,
and there are those guys that remain quiet and don't say anything and
they are usually rightly or possibly wrongly suspected of being
homosexual and then the trouble starts when the young heterosexual males
bug, bother and try to draw out or trick the homosexual into a
confession or in some cases simply kill him or make it look like an
accident. If you don't pretend your are a heterosexual, you are going
to be suspect no matter where you exist. Heterosexual men and women are
no different than homosexuals. Every new person is analysed and slotted
based on is he married, is he gay, straight, got a girlfriend, divorced,
whatever.
If your family has famous people in it such as actors, entertainers,
politicians, military connections, anything with power or position,
priest, pastor, church leader, etc. it is unlike the homosexual within
that family setting can afford to come out because they embarrass the
family or worse will be left out of the estate, so there is, in those
circumstances, a huge deterrent not to risk being disowned. For the
average joe, it is no big deal. At worst move to a different city and
do your own thing because you are a nobody with no money prospects from
an estate.
anonymous
Don't religous people say that you can only have sex for a procreation
purpose and no other. Isn't that what they say those that wrote the
Bible said.
anonymous
Imagine not being able to life your life. You have money, position,
good healthy, lovely wife and children, are an outstanding member of a
church. While you sit and pray in church with your wife and two lovely
daughters, a young 24 year old man with his girlfriend arrives and sits
down. He is very good looking, nice smile, awesome body, nicely dressed
in casual or dress clothes. You are attracted to men, particularly this
man. It is obvious you don't want to risk what you have beers of
church, family, friends, work, so you send time hating what you can't
have but want.
It is not that dissimilar from men who know they are homosexuals and
wait until they retire or are retired and divorced until they come out.
Even though they find a partner / lover younger or the same age, these
men never seem to adjust to two gay guys in their early 20s rolling
around on the floor teasing, tormenting and wrestling.
As any man will tell you, being an out twenty something is not easy, not
any easier I suppose than a straight male dealing with his sex drive,
good to awesome looks, drinking partying, going to college, etc. but not
doing that and have that as lost years while you stayed in the closet or
marriage, will always be painful. It is not that dissimilar to guys who
had to work and help the family finances while their peers had fun and
partied - these guys often spend the rest of their life trying to make
up for those lost years while others who partied, partied hard are happy
to settle down and raise a a family and live a conservative life.
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <wwwp897t8o7.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:43:19 -0500,
> SUBMORONIC BIGOT, BILL TAYLOR (aka "JumpsOnFire"
> <gero...@yahoo.com> ...
>
Nope. Guess again.
Bill Taylor
philosophy
> >> constitutional right to homosexual marriage-is whether as a society we
> >> want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
>
> > society? Like all these straight men are going to change to gay?
>
> Stupid Atheist! You know full well that all men have homosexual thoughts and
> that if being gay was normalized then they'll choose to act on those
> impulses and constant wet dreams of bath house games and wearing cowboy
> sex in high school and college but it's the moral person coupled with strong
> christian values that chooses to have sex with women and reject our natural
> urge to slather a man's nuts with our tongues. I advise many men to marry
> short haired women and put a poster of Brad Pitt over the bed so we can get
> aroused for our yearly sex with the wife.
>
> Homosexuals act on those impulses from the devil and that is why we should
> shun them and prevent them from reccruiting more homosexuals with the
> prospect of gay marriage. I mean what man wouldn't want to spend all day
> with his fellow men and never have to stick his penis in that nasty fish
> stank again.
As soon as you start using terms like "everyone" you have lost your
argument. Each person is different.
Sexuality is a continuum, some are gay, some are not and a lot are bi.
There should be absolutely no discrimination whatsoever. We are
all human beings.
philosophy
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:47:43 -0800 (PST), tim jones
>
> <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >constitutional right to homosexual marriage–is whether as a society we
> >want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals.
>
> alter anyone's sexual preference from what it is already.
Not only that.
I really do not understand why these people are soooooo homophobic.
I mean, one has to consider, that on a probability basis alone, many
more individuals are actually bisexual, rather than homosexual.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor (aka "JumpsOnFire") wrote:
>>>> Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>> Go the f* away.
>>>> BRILLIANT, considering your education level.
>> (That from an IDIOT who probably would have to look up the word,
>> "education" -- after re-memorizing the alphabet, so he could find it.
>>> OTOH, true brilliance consists of polluting a non-pertinent newsgroup,
>>> thereby pissing off people who might agree with you. Genius.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Ric
>> There's ANYONE who actually would AGREE with Bill Taylor?
>>
>> No SANE person would.
> 52% [ignorant bigots] did in California and Maine.
Things are changing FAST for the BETTER in California! And then
it will be the same for Maine, and all the other states.
Have a look at the imminent EXTINCTION of your hate-agendas:
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
SUBMORONIC BIGOT, BILL TAYLOR (aka "JumpsOnFire"
<gero...@yahoo.com> ...
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
philosophy <catswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bird is the word" <kissmy...@shitkickerwillies.com> wrote:
See, "Bird?" I *told* you that you did TOO good a job of
sounding like an RRR cultist with that satire. They really ARE
that nutty.
Thus, satire that portrays them TOO well can make the writer
appear to be one of them.
Uncle Vic
<kiss...@shitkickerwillies.com> wrote:
> Stupid Atheist!
Stupid believer!
There, now I feel better.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Uncle Vic
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
>> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
>
> There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being
> able to answer!
Did you see "J" try to answer it last month? LOL! Of course, he never
addressed the real question. Maybe he's not actually married, and doesn't
have a clue. Which begs the question, why the FUCK is he making statements
concerning the effects of gay marriage on marriage itself?
Jon Schild
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:56:31 -0600,
> Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
>
> There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being
> able to answer!
My favorite non-answer is, "Well, it wouldn't really affect my marriage
specifically. My concern is the damage to marriage as an institution."
Of course, they can't explain what tht is either.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
>> There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being
>> able to answer!
> Did you see "J" try to answer it last month? LOL!
I missed that, unfortunately. It must have been quite comical!
> Of course, he never addressed the real question. Maybe he's not actually
> married, and doesn't have a clue. Which begs the question, why the FUCK is
> he making statements concerning the effects of gay marriage on marriage itself?
The way I see it, ANY person who whies about OTHER people's marriages,
whether same-sex or not, are automatically classifiable as a bone-ignorant,
lowlife busybody who has NO life. Any such person would be a surprise to
me if they had an IQ over 85.
(And fortunately, the vast MAJORITY of people having 85- IQs still
have enough intelligence and common sense NOT to be bigots.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
What's really NEAT about all of this is that NO FACTS even EXIST
that can support the stances of the anti-same-sex marriage bigots.
Thus, all they can do is:
(1) Make total FOOLS of themselves to all intelligent people.
(2) CON a lot of lower-intellect people into siding with them
by barraging them incessantly with lying propaganda and
specious scare tactics.
They DEPEND on the latter one. We need to concentrate on that
same group of people, and EDUCATE them with the FACTS.
BE-VA
Homosexuals couldn't care less about marriage as an institution . Your
objective is to de-emphasize marriage and then put another thread in
the web of lies that you are desperately using to support your claim of
being a legitimate part of the scheme of mankind - YOU ARE NOT AND YOU
NEVER WILL BE. Regardless of how much success you may have in your
quest to destroy the fundamental institutions and the very foundation
of our society you will never be anything but disgusting and repulsive
freaks very much like the one who bites the heads off chickens in
carnival side shows and revels in the shock it causes normal people.
BE-VA
Bippy, have you noticed what the subject of this thread and the header
of this newsgroup relates to?
If you want to kill turkeys you go where the turkeys are.
BE-VA
Newsgroup -- alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject - Consequences of Homosexual Marriage
Pay attention, boy!
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-11-20 07:11:15 -0500, Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> said:
>
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:56:31 -0600, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
>>>
>>> There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being able
>>> to answer!
>>
>> My favorite non-answer is, "Well, it wouldn't really affect my marriage
>> specifically. My concern is the damage to marriage as an institution."
>> Of course, they can't explain what tht is either.
>
>Homosexuals couldn't care less about marriage as an institution .
And you know this because you've been appointed a representative?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor (aka "BE-VA")
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> said:
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>>> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
>>> There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being able
>>> to answer!
>> My favorite non-answer is, "Well, it wouldn't really affect my marriage
>> specifically. My concern is the damage to marriage as an institution."
>> Of course, they can't explain what tht is either.
> Homosexuals couldn't care less about marriage as an institution.
36,000 of them in California, alone, proved you WRONG, last year.
<remaining ignorant hate-swill flushed>
RamRod Sword of Baal
"BE-VA" <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote in message
news:200911202151008930-blackwaterevangelist@testlandorg...
The voters in Washington State do not agree with you :-)
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>Submoronic Bigot, BILL TATLOR (aka ""BE-VA" )
<blackwater-a...@testland.org> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> But...
> Well you do not seem capable of learning.
The average house cat born blind and deaf could outperform that
submoronic bigot in the learning department.
> You talk of liberals, well they certainly showed up on voting day in
> Washington State where they beat the bigot vote.
>
> This bill expands the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded
> state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent
> to those of married spouses.
>
> Passed by a majority of voters !!!!
And Taylor is too DUMB and too DISHONEST to ADMIT that!
Thus being one of Usenet's biggest DOLTS -- and a constant
earner of �� OCR �� Points. Which serve to DESTROY his own
loathsome agendas against civil/human rights and personal liberties.
His self-destruction is funnier than hell to watch!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The One HUGE Contribution
that Overt Bigots Make to Society:
Earning �� OCR �� Points!
One thing is for sure: No one will ever see an INTELLIGENT
RRR Cult bigot. I.e., those who *openly* oppose the right
of all girls and women who so choose to access the remedy of
abortion-upon-request (Anti-Choicers)... or who seek to DENY
access to across-the-board EQUAL rights (including the right to
marry their chosen same-sex partners) to gays. Or both. (It's
normally both. With most such bigots, it's usually in for a penny,
in for a pound.). Bigotry and IGNORANCE go together.
The ONLY thing that such sociopaths are really good for is
something that all bigots who have openly declared support for
the above two hate-agendas do VERY well: every time they do
it, they automatically build up their own personal stockpiles of
�� OCR �� Points.
And the more Points they earn, the more LUDICROUS those
caricatures of human beings become. And the more society
becomes AWARE, at a now-accelerating pace, that those loath-
some agendas are something that NO intelligent, sensible, or
fair-minded person would want ANYTHING to do with.
So TO all of those who DO so publicly make such total fools
of themselves, leading to the ultimate auto-destruction of their
hate-agendas -- the egalitarians who support, defend, and pro-
mote human/civil rights and personal liberties are everywhere
PRAISING you for this ONE aspect of your personality defect
that accomplishes something GOOD. By earning all those virtual
�� OCR �� Points, you actually (albeit inadvertently) ARE making
a relevant contribution to hastening the *demise* of bigotry,
and in the process you therefore are contributing to making the
USA a far BETTER place.
Before much longer, the American people will reach the point
at which they would find attending a rat fight to be preferable
to having any association with your agendas -- just as happened
with the segregationists. AND -- just as happened to the segreg-
ationists after their agendas swirled down the Drain of Extinction,
those who remain bigots of the *above* ilk will almost all bottle up
their hatefulness in their minds and never openly express it, so
as not to be regarded by their neighbors and society as pariahs.
Now that this more recent set of bigoted agendas is going
down the drain at an ever-accelerating pace, the process is
becoming very entertaining theater for all who are fair-minded
egalitarians. Because the RRR cultists are SO bone-ignorant
that they either don't realize that they're making this positive
contribution, or else they just they can't help themselves. (Yet.)
And in the process, they can't even present any FACTS to sup-
port their hate-agendas, because NO such facts even EXIST!
It's FUN to watch, since the ultimate outcome will be so
BENEFICIAL to America... and to societies all over the world
that will be looking up us for our ENDING these forms of bigotry,
and thus becoming far more admirable and worthy of emulation.
America has done it before -- when it got RID of segregation.
So the precedent for this was set very nicely, 45 years ago.
Most of the egalitarians still living who helped to guide *those*
agendas into oblivion are doubtlessly watching and assisting
*these* agendas to the same doom with equal enthusiasm and
relish! (We've done this before, and we're LOVING this process!)
The Points the bigots earn are virtual, of course, but the
*process* of their earning them has a very REAL impact. That's
why "OCR" stands for �� Operation Consciousness-Raising ��.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
BE-VA
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
>
>> Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> said:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
>
>>>> There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being able
>>>> to answer!
>
>>> My favorite non-answer is, "Well, it wouldn't really affect my marriage
>>> specifically. My concern is the damage to marriage as an institution."
>>> Of course, they can't explain what tht is either.
>
>> Homosexuals couldn't care less about marriage as an institution.
>
> 36,000 of them in California, alone, proved you WRONG, last year.
But, Crazy Craig, 24,000 of them have since divorced or died of AIDS.
Not a good record, not a good record at all!
>
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
BILL TAYLOR **REMINDS** us that he not only is a LIAR
but also is a TOTAL IGNORAMUS!!
Moronic BIGOTS have ZERO credibility.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:45:38 -0500,
Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor (aka "BE-VA")
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> said:
>>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>>> Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
>>>>> There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being
>>>>> able to answer!
>>>> My favorite non-answer is, "Well, it wouldn't really affect my
>>>> marriage specifically. My concern is the damage to marriage as
>>>> an institution." Of course, they can't explain what that is either.
>>> Homosexuals couldn't care less about marriage as an institution.
>> 36,000 of them in California, alone, proved you WRONG, last year.
> But 24,000 of them have since divorced or died of AIDS.
ROTFLMAO... After saying something THAT blatantly and LYINGLY
stupid, THIS will make a great SIG -- so that people can FREQUENTLY
be reminded that you -- just like other desperate homophobic bigots who
are helplessly watching their ludicrous hate-agendas swirling down the
Drain of EXTINCTION, to join those of equally submoronic segregation-
ists -- are nothing but a ridiculous social RETARD. A laughingstock.
RamRod Sword of Baal
As usual, lies from "BE-VA"