Sense and Sensitivity
nobody
Sense and Sensitivity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Sher Khan
2005/11/24
Whenever Islam is criticized or Muhammad is ridiculed, some Muslim brothers
vow to kill the critic. Some feel menstrual cramps--complaining that their
right to practice their religion has been violated. Muslims are free to hate
non-believers as directed by Allah, but non-believers are not allowed to
point the finger towards the cruelty and inhumanity of Islam.
Muslims are extremely sensitive to any motion that may relate to Islam. In
the UK , Burger King created a design on the lid of ice cream cups that
barely resembled the word 'Allah'. Muslims felt extremely offended with this
unintentional gesture and Burger King was forced to withdraw the cups, which
caused financial loss. Ironically, Muslims find 'Allah' written in the
clouds, inside of a tomato and on a fish--soon to be found written on a sexy
mermaid's body. So, what's the big deal if Burger King sells 'Allah
'-flavored ice cream? Muslims should appreciate this form of free
advertisement of Allah.
Michael Graham, a radio talk show host, was courageous enough to say "Islam
is a terrorist organization" 23 times during his program that aired on July
25, 2005 , by Washington radio station WMAL-AM. He pointed out the actual
problem and bluntly declared, "The problem is not extremism. The problem is
Islam." Immediately, the American-Muslim association known as CAIR (Captain
Allah's Infamous Rugrats) prompted a huge protest. Michael Graham was asked
to apologize but he refused. The chickenhearted management did not hesitate
to fire him due to the Islamic pressure of CAIR.
Usually, Buddhists are peaceful people. They don't shout 'Buddha is great'
and go for a killing spree. Their religion also demands its followers to
seek the truth, inspired by their conviction. Rev. Kosho Mizushima compared
Buddhism with Christianity and Islam. While explaining the distinction, he
commented, "Religions that force people to believe in gods who do not exist
are, indeed, arrogant faiths that lack compassion." He continued, "The
constant fighting in the Middle East , where many precious lives are lost
every day, is a direct manifestation of the tragic harm that is brought
about by Islam."
Oh boy! What a mistake! Churches did not pay much attention to his
statements but the soldiers of Islam immediately jumped in. Mr. Khankan, a
NY spokesperson of CAIR, demanded an apology and asked for all commentaries
to be removed from the web site. It would be worth mentioning that in June
2001, a director of CAIR, Ali Ramadan Abu Zakouk, claimed suicide bombers
have a "God-given right" to kill civilians but no Muslim gave any objection
to his disparaging remark.
What would be the impact if the US called for wiping the 'Islamic world' off
the map? Pious Muslims would explode with the help of dynamite, killing
themselves and millions of 'Kafirs'. Moderate Muslims would make a massive
flood with their tears; some would even join those pious Muslims to expedite
the process of explosion. However, when the Iranian president declares that
Israel must be destroyed and 'wiped off the map', nothing happens. The
European Union condemned the statement with flowery diplomatic language and
the Islamic world giggled.
Followers of all religions sense superiority, which is good. It brings
competition and competition always yields better products. Most of the
religions compete with each other to make their religion more humane and
progressive. However, Islam does not believe in competition; they want a
monopoly. Like other religions, vendors of Islam try to sell it with a
peaceful coating but they also threaten non-believers with Quranic verses--
"If you don't submit to Islam, Allah will barbecue the non-believers". This
is the fundamental difference with other religions.
The threat is not limited to eternal life; it also applies in worldly life.
When religious auction is in progress, a Buddhist may want to become a
Christian and six months later he may want to try Hinduism. No one would
care whether he changed his belief. Now if he decides to join Islam, his
fate is sealed. He cannot leave Islam because Muhammad has a standing order:
"Kill whoever leaves Islam". This kind of 'gang member' mentality makes
Islam a cult and not a religion.
Islam has clearly divided the world in two groups, Muslims and non-Muslims.
The Muslim community, known as 'Ummah', keeps a clear distance from the
people of other faiths or no faith. This notion derives from Islamic
scriptures that recomm end, Dar ul Islam or Darus salam, meaning the land of
Islam or peace must be separated from the land of Dar ul Harb or Darul Kufr,
meaning the land of war or Kafirs. Dar ul Islam is ruled by Muslims and the
law of the land is purely Islamic, which means a person should be whipped if
he/she misses any prayer, i.e., doing the body caricature five times a day,
head down-rear up. What is the significance of calling Dar ul Harb or the
land of war? According to Quaranic verses 2.193; 9.29; 9.73; 25.52; 48.13;
48.29 and several ahadith, Muslims are duty-bound to fight until Islam
becomes the religion for everyone. Naturally, Muslims consider any country
that is not Islamic is an open land for war; hence, Dar ul Harb is the land
of war for all Muslims.
The threat works for many Muslims; they are scared of Allah's vengeance and
feel the heat of Allah's nuclear furnace. The description of unprecedented
afterlife stops Muslims from thinking rationally; their brains are trapped
between hell and heaven. Also, a false sense of superiority is more
prominent than with any other religion. All Muslims are taught from their
childhood that they belong to the best group of people and people of other
faiths are simply inferior.
While Muslims are bragging about their sensitivity, people of other faiths
and non-believers have failed to sense the motive of Islam. Often they bend
to Islamic protest and apologize for telling the truth. Yes, that's another
Islamic miracle; it only happens when Islam is in action - one has to
apologize for telling the truth. Until the non-Muslim world stops appeasing
Islam and gains the courage to call a spade a spade, no chemotherapy will
stop Islamic cancer.
Dr. Zakir Naik, lightly bearded modern Muslim scholar of India , does not
see anything wrong in calling a non-Muslim a 'Kaifr'. He argues, "'Kafir' is
derived from the word 'kufr', which means to conceal or to reject. In
Islamic terminology, 'Kafir' means one who conceals or rejects the truth of
Islam and a person who rejects Islam is in English called a 'non-Muslim'."
Let's see what Dr. Allah, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the Islamic
Corporation, says about Kafirs. He affirmed in verses 2:10 and 16:39 that
all Kafirs are liars. Imagine, famous Time magazine publishing an article
with a cover story of 'All Muslims are liars'. We can expect that another
manmade Katrina storm would swipe through the whole world but it is OK for
Allah to call non-Muslims liars. Allah even called non-believers of Islam
wicked people in verse 80:42. Should we call Muslims wicked people too?
Allah has cursed non-believers in verse 2:89. Can we curse Muslims? Allah
declared in verse 2:98 that all non-believers of Islam are his enemy. So,
slaves of Allah, known as Muslims, automatically become the enemy of
non-Muslims.
I am sure Allah used to work for the fire department before he became the
god of Muhammad, since it is eminent from all those threats that he made
with fire. He has prepared a huge campfire for the disbelievers, whose fuel
is men and stones (Q2:24). It baffles me to think how stones can be fuel for
fire. Most likely, Allah did not know that oil would be found around his
neighborhood. He talked about this fire business in verses 3:131, 4:14 ,
4:55 , 5:37 , 7:36 , 8:14 , 9:63, 10:8, 11:17 , 13:5 and in many other
verses.
I am offended, too. When Muslims recite the Quran loudly and I hear all
those cursing and belittling comments, I feel degraded, humiliated and
insulted. So what about my sensitivity? I am ashamed to call myself a Muslim
and happy to be a non-Muslim, but why should Allah decide my fate? I don't
work for him, why should I give a "mouse's donkey" (please replace with
substitute words) about his company policy? As a matter of fact, I am
planning to sue this Allah guy for deliberate threatening.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), an American statesman, printer, scientist,
writer and a natural philosopher, who made a great contribution in writing
the constitution, and was also known as 'The wisest American', once wrote in
a letter, "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and
when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so
that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a
sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one". His prudent comment is
explicitly applicable for Islam. So far, Allah has not shown any interest
to protect Islam or the Muslims, yet the professors of Islam are working
ardently and putting band-aids on Islamic wounds. What if contestants of all
other religions declare the same kind of anecdote? Hindus may say that
anyone who does not believe in Hinduism will end up eating cow dung for the
rest of their afterlife. Buddhists can demand that if a person refuses to
follow Buddha, his/her body will be stored in a cold storage and forced to
swallow tons and tons of spinach 24/7--after all, they don't like meat.
Christians may insist that those who reject Christianity will be crucified
repeatedly. Fortunately, other religions do not make these silly demands.
Non-believers of Islam don't wish to fry Muslims in a frying pan but Allah
does.
Mr. Zakir Naik has an easy solution for Kafirs. He suggests that if
non-Muslims feel offended by being called kafir, they may convert and join
the drug selling company of Islam. I have a proposition too. If Muslims
cannot tolerate the criticism of Islam, its marketing manager, Muhammad, and
his pet, Allah, should exercise one simple option - LEAVE ISLAM.
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan51124.htm
>
>Sense and Sensitivity
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>Sher Khan
>2005/11/24
Excellent www.faithfreedom.org website:
A lone voice in the desert; praise be to Allah.
Jiri Pecka
Karel Kriz
nos...@nospam.com (Jiri Pecka) wrote:
Yeah, well, as religions go, Islam is pretty shitty - not shiity - but
shitty. Hard to find something good in there.
My favorite religion/cult are the fictional "Ellen Jamesians" from
"World According to Garp" - look them if you are not familiar with John
Irving.
I think Mormons are also way out there. If you spent any time in Utah
and get some of the history, it's really odd stuff. What's more they
take pride in screwing our government - once you stood in line at the
checkout in Utah behind a woman with 300 food stamps for baby formula,
you get it. The polygamy, and there is plenty of it in the south-west
corner of Utah, is a strange concept. All these women at your beck and
call, great...and then they'll all nag at you and want stuff.
But I digress...yeah, Islam sucks, but try to eradicate it? I don't
think it's possible.
K
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
Or at least not likely in our millenium, I agree. But we can't afford
to stop fighting this cancer. It's worse than communism.
Jiri Pecka
Stan R
It's not about eradicating it - anyone capable of achieving that would
have to eradicate all and any religious belief as well, since all of it
has the potential to become as destructive as Islam. Furthermore, all -
or almost all - of religious belief serves to a large extent to enslave
the human mind to the twin evils of superstition and irrationalism.
While Islam cannot be eradicated, it is in dire need of reform. Just
like Christianity was a few hundred years ago. (Some, myself included,
would argue much of Christianity is still in dire need of reform, but
that's a topic for another thread.)
What makes this task a lot more difficult than it likely was for the
Christian heretics of the time is the fact that the Koran is presumed to
be the very word of God; unchangeable and unchallengeable.
As much as you personally seem to disbelieve it (at least I must assume
so given your comments elsewhere on this forum), the most likely chance
of reforming Islam - or at least of making its followers less dogmatic,
and less forgiving of fundamentalists in their midst than they are now -
is to introduce modern, democratic values to their countries.
What exactly is the best way of achieving that goal remains open to
debate; however I think it's safe to state that isolationism is not an
option, and appeasement even less so.
Regards,
S
kujebak
While it is true, in terms what they believe in, the Mormons are
one of the oddest religious group in this country, the Mormon
lifestyle also has a lot of uniquely positive virtues, two of which
are complete selfufficiency and independence of the world outside
of their own religious community, as well as an intense disregard
for government social programs.
>
> But I digress...yeah, Islam sucks, but try to eradicate it? I don't
> think it's possible.
Comparing present-day Mormons to Islamic extremism, I would
say you're way off, as usual ;-)
>
>
> K
nobody
news:1133294516....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yeah. But comrade Kriz is like all pinkos. When cornered, stating that
all politicians are corrupted anyway, so why not to vote communists/
socialists/liberals again? Better the devil you know ...
His comparision is so off the scale that it doesn't merit serious rebuke.
And on top of it, I prefer works of Orson Scott Card to al-Zarqwi's
deeds. But that's just me.
And it will be always beyond me why man fucking N women should
be condemned, and man fucking M men should be elevated to pedestal
of humanitarian virtue. But bedfellows of commies ceased to surprise
me a long time ago. Same goes for commies.
kujebak
It's all part of the coordinated onslaught on our way of life,
waged by the coalition of Third World interests, and the
"intellectual" conspiracy in our midst. History has shown
that in terms of cultural resilience to adverse conditions,
polygamy seems to be one of the most successful life-
styles. It is also plain that legitimizing nonreproductive
social arrangements eventually leads to the opposite, which
is demographic senescense, and inevitable cultural decline.
mirek
It's home to Winston Blackmore - 'The Bishop of Bountiful'. He was born
and raised into the community and continues to be most powerful man in
Bountiful. His first wife Jane, says he has 26 wives and some 80
children. The men who head up the families in Bountiful make the
decisions and demand that the women be demure, unobtrusive and
obedient. Men rule and women are never to question their power over
them.
Ron Barton: If a man, an older man seduces a 13-year-old girl, he
doesn't commit, in his own mind he doesn't commit sexual abuse on
that girl. Once he's successful in having intercourse with her, then
in his own mind he views himself as married.
Jane Blackmore, Winston's 1st wife claims that the daughters in
Bountiful are getting married - and having babies - as early as 14 and
15, something Winston Blackmore quickly denies.
Winston Blackmore insists that because his marriages are celestial -
not legal - he's not a polygamist, just an adulterer. And that's not a
crime.
kujebak
I'm not sure whether you got my point, but I think it's rather in-
teresting that if we changed a couple of names in your excerpt,
we could be talking about present-day Saudi Arabia :-)
Jiri Borsky
Thus even ***more*** appropriate topic for soc.culture.czecho-slovak.
Oslnen svetlymi zitrky,
yours, dim, Jiri Borsky
Pavel Dvorak
Why change anything? This is about the present-day Canada, Bountiful,
British Columbia. Polygamy is illegal in Canada, but our liberal government
would not do anything about this, because it could cause trouble. What if
the polygamists invoked the matter of religous freedom? They have their
rights, don't they? There is the charter of rights, isn't there? Freedom of
religion, eh?
Pavel
kujebak
Nobody came up with an article about Islam, and Kriz tossed in
a personal observation of Mormons and polygamy, so I'm not quite
sure which "topic" you are referring to, and why you are raising
an issue with me. In case you are objecting to the entire thread,
and not me personally (BTW you're quite welcome to ignore my
own posts), I'm sure you can find something of personal interest
in the wide assortment of other topics treated in this group. Let
me assure you that you're not alone in finding most of the stuff
discussed here rather boring.
Tony
"Pavel Dvorak" <ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:dmlnae$rk3$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
sekty fanatiku, jako Honzovo mesto (Johnst.town) Nebeska brana, kde se sami
vykastruji atd. Taky se me"libi' ti nove narozeni krestane, ti zas radi
valci, pred nabytim tech valecnejch choutek se radi uvadeli do stavu opojeni
treba heroinem. Dneska radi rozmlouvaji s Bohem a vykladaji, jak jim Buh
naridil, kde zautocit a zasit to seme Demokraacie.
nobody
Eh or no eh. You can't have a cake an eat it too. Regardless of what I think
of it, polygamy is not worse than homosexuality. If for nothing else, it's
'natural' (I don't wish to engage in another war of defining the definition,
Stan).
Most mammals (including humans) are promiscuite. That is not an endorsing
of the current state of affairs, but acknowlidging it's existence. Either we
ackowledge the freedom of sexual preference (and there is nothing /or should
be/ synonymous with endorsment0, and admit that harvesting multiple pussies
in the same life-frame is no worse than buggering, and uphold it by laws, or
admit that we are PC hypocrites by pushing through one sexual preferency
above another. And it has nothing to do with religious freedom, a feeble
scare-monger wrapper around the special-interest issues. To praphrase
a familiar saying, some sexual preferences are deemed more eqaul than
others, and the most 'equal' ones are homosexual. I guess the 'redneck'
heteros will have a tough life for a few centuries to come.
kujebak
"nobody" <nob...@nowhere.non> wrote in message
news:2vOdnSff9usl6xPe...@rogers.com...
Give it up, nobody. You cannot attempt to convince a secularist bigot
of cultural benefits of natural family units (which include *formal* poly-
gamous family arrangements) without ending up defending the role of
religion in our culture, which is inevitably pulled into the discussion as
the singular basis of all conservative values and traditions, which, of
course, it is not.
> Most mammals (including humans) are promiscuite. That is not an endorsing
> of the current state of affairs, but acknowlidging it's existence. Either
> we
> ackowledge the freedom of sexual preference (and there is nothing /or
> should
> be/ synonymous with endorsment0, and admit that harvesting multiple
> pussies
> in the same life-frame is no worse than buggering, ...
Polygamy and sexual promiscuity are not necessarily inclusive.
Polygamous relationships are quite acceptable in certain societies,
while sexual promiscuity is almost universally not.
> ...and uphold it by laws, or admit that we are PC hypocrites by pushing
> through one sexual preferency above another. And it has nothing to do
> with religious freedom, a feeble scare-monger wrapper around the special-
> interest issues. To praphrase a familiar saying, some sexual preferences
> are deemed more eqaul than others, and the most 'equal' ones are homo-
> sexual. I guess the 'redneck' heteros will have a tough life for a few
> centuries
> to come.
Lacking the means of genetic perpetuation, the homosexual "lifestyle"
is doomed to oblivion. It is a temporary fad created by the cultural
upheaval brought on by the hippies forty years ago. The reason why
it's important to resist any attempts to provide same sex relationships
with the same legal status as heterosexual marriages, is that any spe-
cial provisions enacted today will have no meaning forty years from
now. In the future they would only serve tax cheaters and con artists.
>
>
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>> of it, polygamy is not worse than homosexuality. If for nothing else, it's
>> 'natural' (I don't wish to engage in another war of defining the
>> definition,
>> Stan).
>
>Give it up, nobody. You cannot attempt to convince a secularist bigot
Hear hear, a "secularist bigot"? A kind of contradiction of terms I'd
say... :-)
>Lacking the means of genetic perpetuation, the homosexual "lifestyle"
>is doomed to oblivion.
Yeah, I agree: Similar obsolete fad as left-handedness. Have you
noticed there are less left-handed people these days? Finally they
must have realized their folly. And oh my, those redheads! With their
obscene freckled faces!! There are still a few of them around, living
life in sin, no doubt.
> It is a temporary fad created by the cultural
>upheaval brought on by the hippies forty years ago.
I guess they must have suddenly remembered the unspeakable vice of the
Greeks and Romans a couple of millenia earlier.
Have a guess what this handful of mostly unknown losers in the list
below had in common. (Hint: they were not hippies.)
Jiri Pecka
--------------------------------------
Alan Turing, British computer scientist, father of modern computing
Albrecht Durer (1471-1528), German artist
Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.E.), Macedonian general and ruler
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.), Athenian philosopher
Augustus (Gaius Caesar Octavianus, 63 B.C.E.-C.E. 14), Roman Emperor
Babur (1483-1530), Indian military leader, ruler, and writer
Basil II (c. 958-1025), Byzantine ruler
Benedict IX (1020-1055), pope
Benjamin Britten (1913-1977), British composer
Benvenuto Cellini (1500-1571), Italian sculptor, writer
Bernard Montgomery (1887-1976), British general
Bjorn Lomborg, contemporary critic of environmentalism
Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921), French composer
Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, 1569-1609), Italian
artist
Catherine the Great (1729-1796), Russian ruler born in Germany
Cecil John Rhodes (1853-1902), British statesman, capitalist
Charles IX (1550-1574), French ruler
Charles Robert Ashbee (1863-1942), British architect, designer, and
writer
Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy (1433-1477), French nobleman
Charles XII (1682-1718), Swedish king
Charles XV (1826-1872), Swedish and Norwegian king
Christian Dior (1905-1957), French fashion designer
Christian Kampmann (1939-1988), Danish novelist
Christian VII (1749-1808), Danish and Norwegian king
Christina (1626-1689), Swedish queen
Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), British playwright
Claude Debussy (1862-1918), French composer
Claudius (10 B.C.E.-C.E. 54), Roman emoeror
Cole Porter ,U.S. composer, 20th c.
Colette (Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette Goudeket, 1873-1954), French writer
Commodus (C.E. 161-192), Roman emperor
Conradin (1252-1268), Bavarian prince
Constance Louisa Maynard (1849-1935), British educator
Constantine IX (961-1028), Byzantine ruler
Constantine P. Cavafy (1863-1935), Greek poet
Constantine V ("Copronymus," 718-775), Byzantine ruler
Constantine VIII (d. 947), Byzantine ruler
Domitian (C.E. 51-96), Roman ruler
Donatello (Donato di Niccolo di Betto Bardo, 1386-1466), Italian
sculptor
Edvard Grieg (1843-1907), Norwegian composer
Edward II, English King, 14th c.
Edward Irving (1792-1834), British theologian
Elisar von Kupffer ("Elisarion," 1872-1942), German painter, writer,
and philosopher
Eugene, Prince of Savoy (1663-1736), French-Italian-Austrian general
Euripides (480-406 B.C.E.), Athenian playwright
Federico García Lorca (1898-1936), Spanish writer
Ferdinand I (1861-1948), Bulgarian ruler
Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521), Portuguese-Spanish admiral, explorer
Florence Nightingale (1820-1910), British nurse, reformer
Frédéric Chopin (1810-1849), French composer born in Poland
Frederick the Great (1712-1786), Prussian king
George Gershwin (1898-1937), U.S. composer
George III (1738-1820), British ruler
George Platt Lynes (1907-1955), U.S. photographer
George Sand (Aurore Dupin, 1803-1876), French writer
Georges II (1890-1947), Greek ruler
Gustavus III (1746-1792), Swedish king
Gustavus V (1858-1950), Swedish king
Hadrian (Publius Aelius Hadrian, C.E. 76-138), Roman ruler
Hafiz (Shams ud-Din Mohammed, d. 1389?), Persian poet
Hannibal (247-182 B.C.E.), Cartagenian military leader
Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875), Danish writer
Henry (1726-1802), Prussian prince
Henry III (1551-1589), French ruler
Henry IV of Castile (1425-1472), Castlian ruler
Henry More (1614-1687), British philosopher and theologian
Herman Melville (1819-1891), U.S. writer
Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus, 65-8 B.C.E.), Roman poet
Iemitsu Tokugawa (1604-1651), Japanese military leader
Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971), Russian-born composer
J. Edgar Hoover, U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.
Jack Kerouac (1922-1969), U.S. writer
James Buchanan (1791-1868), U.S. president
James Dean (1931-1955), U.S. actor
Jean Marais (Jean Alfred Villain-Marais, 1913- ), French actor
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), German writer and scientist
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), British economist
John Milton (1608-1674), British poet, writer
John XXII (1249-1334), pope
Jules Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661), French statesman
Julius Caesar, Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.
Julius III (1487-1555), pope
Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938), Turkish reformist ruler
Leonard Bernstein (1918-1991), U.S. composer, conductor
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Italian artist, scientist, inventor
Lord Byron, English poet, 18th c.
Louis XIII (1601-1643), French ruler
Louis XVIII (1755-1824), French ruler
Ludwig II (1845-1886), Bavarian ruler
Ludwig Wittgenstein ,Austrian mathematician, philosopher, 20th c.
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.), Roman statesman, orator, writer
Marlene Dietrich (Maria Magdalene von Losch, 1901-1992), German-born
actress
Marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834), French soldier and statesman
Michel Foucault (1926-1984), French philosopher and scholar
Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564), Italian artist
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1569-1609), Italian artist
N.A. Rimski-Korsakov (1844-1908), Russian composer
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian statesman, philosopher
Oscar Wilde (1856-1900), Irish writer
Paul Verlaine (1844-1896), French poet
Paul VI (1897-1978), pope
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822), British poet
Peter I (Peter the Great, 1672-1725), Russian tsar
Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893), Russian composer
Philip II (382-336 B.C.E.), Macedonian ruler
Philip, Duc d'Orleans (1640-1701), French aristocrat
Pierre André de Suffren de Saint-Tropez (1729-1788), French military
leader
Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), French philosopher and reformer
Pim Fortuyn, recently assassinated right-wing Dutch politician
Pius XII (1876-1958), pope, theologian
Plato (427-347 B.C.E.), Athenian philosopher
Pope Benedict IX ,1032-1044
Pope John XII *955-964
Pope Julius III ,1550-1555
Ptolemy IV ("Philopater," 222-205 B.C.E.), ancient Greek ruler
Ptolemy VI ("Philometor," 181-146 B.C.E.), ancient Greek ruler
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Russian composer
R.S.S. Baden-Powell (1857-1941), British soldier (and founder of the
Boy Scouts)
Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926), German/Austrian poet
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), U.S. philosopher and writer
Rama IV (1881-1925), Siamese ruler
Raphael (Raphael Santi, 1483-1520), Italian artist
Richard I (The Lion Heart, 1157-1199), English king
Richard II (1367-1400), British ruler
Richard Wagner (1813-1883), German composer
Rudolf II (1552-1612), German-Bohemian-Hungarian ruler
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), British scientist, writer, statesman
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), British scientist
Sir Noel Coward (1899-1973), British playwright, actor, composer
Sir Osbert Sitwell (1892-1964), British writer
Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586), British poet
Sir Richard F. Burton (1821-1890), British explorer and scholar
Sir Roger Casement (1864-1916), Irish poet and reformer
Sir Ronald Storrs (1881-1955), British historian and colonial
administrator
Sixtus IV (1414-1484), pope
Socrates (469?-339 B.C.E.), Athenian philosopher
Solon, Greek statesman
Sophocles (496?-406 B.C.E.), Athenian dramatist and soldier
Suleiman I (the Magnificent) Ottoman ruler, 15th c.
Theocritus (c. 301 - c. 260, B.C.E.), Greek philologist and poet
Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, C.E. 53?-117), Roman ruler
Tsunayoshi Tokugawa (1646-1709), Japanese military leader
Tyrone Power (1914-1958), U.S. actor
Vasco da Gama (1460-1524), Portuguese admiral, explorer
Virgil (Publius Vergilius Maro, 70 B.C.-C.E. 19), Roman poet
W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965), British writer
William II (1056-1100), English ruler
William III (1650-1702), English and Dutch ruler
Stan R
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:21:04 GMT, "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> of it, polygamy is not worse than homosexuality. If for nothing else, it's
>>> 'natural' (I don't wish to engage in another war of defining the
>>> definition,
>>> Stan).
>> Give it up, nobody. You cannot attempt to convince a secularist bigot
>
> Hear hear, a "secularist bigot"? A kind of contradiction of terms I'd
> say... :-)
>
>> Lacking the means of genetic perpetuation, the homosexual "lifestyle"
>> is doomed to oblivion.
>
> Yeah, I agree: Similar obsolete fad as left-handedness. Have you
> noticed there are less left-handed people these days? Finally they
> must have realized their folly. And oh my, those redheads! With their
> obscene freckled faces!! There are still a few of them around, living
> life in sin, no doubt.
>
>> It is a temporary fad created by the cultural
>> upheaval brought on by the hippies forty years ago.
>
> I guess they must have suddenly remembered the unspeakable vice of the
> Greeks and Romans a couple of millenia earlier.
>
> Have a guess what this handful of mostly unknown losers in the list
> below had in common. (Hint: they were not hippies.)
<...snip list...>
Just out of interest, have you omitted any women in that list?
I'm genuinely curious: Surely there must've been plenty of homosexual
females with some major achievement to their name - i.e. besides
feminazism. Or do we accept the leftist feminists' view of history that
it is just all evil men's fabrication?
Or perhaps...I may've forgotten...in the Catholic church's book, a
woman's place was to be barefoot and pregnant, eh?
Jak jsme rikali v ceskem narodaku: Holt v tom pripade asi nebyl cas na
zadna hrdinstvi...
S
Jiri Pecka
You are right; this was just a shortlist of the most famous names, I
did not want to use the more complete lists available on the web that
are kilometers long. There are a few female notables in that list, but
the list below is a bit more complete and contains quite a few famous
names.
But there is no doubt that women had it generally much harder to
succeed, whether lesbians or not. They had to become feminists first
to start with, just to be able to break through. That by itself was
such a huge effort, that many of them are simply known as "feminists",
even though they had many more talents to their name; talents which
sadly could not be put to good use in Christiendom (let alone
Islamendom). Zenska patri do kuchyne, ze jo. A do postele.
Jiri Pecka
-----------------------
Adrienne Rich (1929- ), U.S. poet, critic*
Akiko Yosano (1878-1942), Japanese poet
Alberta Hunter (1895-1984), U.S. singer
Alice B. Toklas (1880-1967), U.S. writer
Alice Dunbar (Alice Ruth Moore Dunbar-Nelson, 1875-1935), U.S. editor,
writer, and activist
Alice James (1848-1892), U.S. diarist
Alla Nazimova (1879-1945), Russian actress
Amanda Bearse, US actress (Married...with Children), director
Amy Lowell (1874-1925), U.S. poet
Andrea Dworkin (1946- ), U.S. writer*
Angelina Emily Grimké Weld (1805?-1879), U.S. writer
Anita Augspurg (1857-1943), German social reformer
Anita Berber (1899-1928), German dancer and actress
Ann Bancroft (1955- ), U.S. explorer and teacher*
Anna (Elizabeth) Klumpke (1856-1942), U.S. painter
Anna Blaman (1905-1960), Dutch novelist
Anna Brownell Murphy Jameson (1794-1860), Irish writer
Anna Elisabet Weirauch (1887-1970), German writer
Anna Elizabeth Dickinson (1842-1932), U.S. writer, orator, social
reformer
Anna Ivanovna (1693-1740), Russian ruler
Anne (1665-1714), British queen
Anne Bonney (17th-18th century), British pirate
Anne Charlotte Leffler (1849-1892), Swedish writer
Anne Seward (1747-1809), British poet
Anne Seymour Damer (1749-1828), British sculptor
Annemarie Grewel (1935- ), Dutch politician and scholar*
Antoinette Louisa Brown Blackwell (1825-1921), U.S. minister
Barbara Deming (1917-1984), U.S. writer and activist
Barbara Grier ("Gene Damon," 1933- ), U.S. writer and publisher*
Barbara Hammer (1939- ), U.S. filmmaker*
Bernice Abbott (1898-1991), U.S. photographer
Bessie Smith ,U.S. singer, 20th c.
Bessie Smith, US blues singer
Bryher (Annie Winifred Ellermann, 1894-1983), British writer
Candace Gingrich, activist, half-sister of former U.S. Speaker of the
House Newt Gingrich
Carla Tardi (1948- ), U.S. artist*
Catherine the Great (1729-1796), Russian ruler born in Germany
Charlotte Bunch (1944- ), U.S. writer and editor*
Charlotte Charke (1713-1760), British actress
Charlotte Cushman (1816-1976), U.S. actress
Charlotte Mary Mew (1869-1928), English poet
Charlotte Wolff (1897-1986), Polish-born English psychiatrist and
scholar
Christina (1626-1689), Swedish queen
Clara Sipprell (1885- 1975), U.S. photographer
Colette (Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette Goudeket, 1873-1954), French writer
Constance Louisa Maynard (1849-1935), British educator
Dame Christabel Pankhurst (1880-1958), British lawyer, writer,
activist
Dame Edith Sitwell (1887-1964), British poet
Dame Ethyl Smyth (1858-1944), British composer
Dame Ivy Compton-Burnett (1884-1969), British novelist
Dame Lillian Charlotte Barker (1874-1955), British educator and prison
administrator
Diana Blok (1952- ), Dutch photographer*
Dora de Houghton Carrington (1893-1932), British painter
Dorothy Arzner (1900-1979), U.S. filmmaker
Dorothy Baker (1907-1968), U.S. writer
Dorothy Thompson (1894-1961), U.S. journalist
Edith Cooper (1862-1913), British playwright and poet
Edith Hamilton (1867-1963), U.S. classicist
Edith Lees Ellis (1856-1916), British writer and lecturer
Edith Somerville (1858-1949), Irish novelist
Edna Ferber ,U.S. author, 20th c.
Edna Lewis Thomas (1886-1974), U.S. actress
Edna St. Vincent Millay (1892-1915), U.S. poet, playwright
Eileen Gray (Kathleen Eileen Moray Gray, 1878-1976), Irish architect,
designer
Eleanor Rathbone (1872-1946), British activist, politician, writer
Eleanor Roosevelt ,U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.
Eliza Cook (1818-1889), British poet
Elizabeth Alice Austen (1866-1952), U.S. photographer
Elizabeth Arden (1878-1966), Canadian entrepreneur
Elizabeth Bishop (1911-1979), U.S. poet
Elizabeth Bowen (1899-1973), Irish writer
Elizabeth Cushier (1837-1932), U.S. physician
Elizabeth Peabody (1804-1894), U.S. educator, feminist
Elizabeth Robins (1862-1952), U.S. actress, playwright, novelist
Ellen Day Hale (1855-1940), U.S. painter
Ellen DeGeneres, US comedian
Ellen Gates Starr (1859-1940), U.S. social reformer
Ellen Thorneycroft Felkin (1860-1929), British novelist
Elsa Maxwell (1883-1963), U.S. journalist, socialite
Elsie De Wolfe (Lady Elsie De Wolfe Mendl, 1865-1950), U.S. interior
designer
Emile-Marie Bouchard ("Polaire," 1877-1939, French actress and singer
Emily Anderson (1956- ), British photographer*
Emily Blackwell (1826-1910), U.S. physician
Emily Carr (1871-1945), Canadian artist and writer
Emily Dickinson (1830-1886), U.S. poet
Emily Faithfull (1835-1895), British printer and activist
Emma Calvé (1858-1942), French opera singer
Emma Goldman (1869-1940), US lecturer, journalist
Emma Stebbins (1815-1882), U.S. sculptor
Ethel Sands (1873-1962), U.S.-born painter and arts patron
Ethel Walker (1861-1951), British painter
Ethel Waters (1900-1977), U.S. singer
Eva Selina Gore-Booth (1870-1926), Irish poet and social reformer
Evelien Eshius (1942- ), Dutch politician*
Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966), British writer
Fanny Kemble (1809-1893), British actress and writer
Felicja Vestfali (Felicja Westfalowicz, 1824-1880), Polish opera
singer
Florence Converse (1871-1967), U.S. teacher and novelist
Florence Nightingale (1820-1910), British nurse, reformer
Florence Wyle (1881-1968), Canadian sculptor
Florine Stettheimer (1871-1944), U.S. painter
Frances (Norma) Loring (1887-1968), Canadian sculptor
Frida Kahlo (1907-1954), Mexican painter
Gabriele D'Annunzio (1863-1938), Italian poet and politician
Gabrielle De Veaux Clements (1858-1948), U.S. painter
George Sand (Aurore Dupin, 1803-1876), French writer
Gladys Bentley (1907-1960), U.S. entertainer
Gladys Hynes (1888-1958), British painter
Greta Garbo (1905-1990), Swedish actress
Helen Rose Hull (1888-1971), U.S. writer and teacher
Henriëtte Hilda Bosmans (1895-1952), Dutch pianist and composer
Hilda Doolittle ("H.D.," 1886-1961), U.S. poet and scholar
Isadora Duncan (1877-1927), U.S. choreographer, dancer
Jackie "Moms" Mabley (Mary Aiken, 1894-1975), U.S. singer, actor
Jane Addams (1866-1935), U.S. social reformer
Jane Bowles (1917-1973), U.S. writer
Jane Chambers (1937-1983), U.S. writer
Jane Ellen Harrison (1850-1928), British scholar and translator
Jane Gay (1830-1919), U.S. photographer
Jane Rule (1931- ), Canadian writer*
Janet Cooling (1951- ), U.S. artist*
Janet Flanner ("Genet," 1892-1978), U.S. journalist
Janis Ian (1951- ), U.S. singer and songwriter*
Janis Joplin (1943-1970), U.S. singer
Jeanne Eagles (1890-1929), U.S. actress
Jeanne Mammen (1890-1976), German graphic artist
Jeanne Recamier (1777-1849), French arts patron
Jeannette Augustus Marks (1875-1964), U.S. educator
Joan Baez (1941- ), U.S. singer*
Joan Crawford (1908-1977), U.S. actress
Judy Grahn (1940- ), U.S. poet*
Judy Holliday (Judith Tuvim, 1922-1965), U.S. actress
K.D. Lang, Canadian country and blues singer, musician
Karen Thompson (1947- ), U.S. activist*
Karoline von Günderode (1780-1806), German poet
Kate Clinton, US comedian
Kate Cory, (1861-1958), U.S. photographer
Kate Millet (1934- ), U.S. writer, feminist*
Katharine Cornell (1893-1974), U.S. actress
Katherine (Susan) Anthony (1877-1965), U.S. writer, teacher, activist
Katherine Bradley (1848-1914), British playwright and poet
Katherine Lee Bates (1859-1929), U.S. poet
Katherine Mansfield (1888-1923), New Zealand writer
Klara Johanson (1875-1948), Swedish writer and critic*
Lady Una Troubridge (1887-1963), British writer, singer, sculptor
Louise Abbéma (1858-1927), French painter
Louise Labé (c. 1524-1566), French poet
Louise Michel (1830-1905), French anarchist
Louise Pearce (1885-1959), U.S. medical researcher
Lydia Zinovieva-Annibal (1866-1907), Russian novelist
Madame de Stael (1766-1817), French writer
Margaret C. Anderson (1886-1973), U.S. editor and writer
Margaret Cho, US actress and comedienne
Margaret Fuller (1810-1850), U.S. journalist and reformer
Margaret Mead (1901-1978), U.S. anthropologist
Margarethe Cammermeyer *U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.
Margrethe Mather (c. 1885-1952), U.S. photographer
Marguérite Moréno (1871-1948), French actress
Marguerite Yourcenar (1903-1987), French writer, critic, scholar
Maria Schneider (1952- ), Belgian actress*
Marianne Moore (1887-1972), U.S. poet
Marie Antoinette ,French Empress, 18th c.
Marie Corelli ("Mary MacKay," 1855-1924), British novelist
Marie de Sevigne (1626-1696), French writer
Marie Laurencin (1885-1956), French painter
Marie-Claire Blais (1939- ), Canadian novelist*
Marilyn Hacker (1942- ), U.S. poet*
Marilyn Miller (1898-1936), U.S. entertainer
Marina Ivanovna Tsvetaeva (1892-1941), Russian poet
Marlene Dietrich (Maria Magdalene von Losch, 1901-1992), German-born
actress
Martha Carey Thomas (1857-1935), U.S. educator
Martina Navratilova (1956- ), Check born U.S. tennis player*
Mary Anna Hallock Foote (1847-1938), U.S. illustrator and writer
Mary Edwards Walker (1832-1919), U.S. physician and reformer
Mary Emma Wooley (1863-1947), U.S. educator
Mary Garrett Hay (1857-1928), U.S. suffragist
Mary Meigs (1917- ), U.S. painter*
Mary Read (d.1720), British pirate
Mary Renault (Mary Challans, 1905-1983), British novelist
Mary Sarton ,U.S. author, 20th c.
Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), British writer
Melissa Etheridge, US singer, musician, composer
Mercedes de Acosta (1893-1967), U.S. writer
Natacha Rambova (1897-1966), U.S. actress, writer, scholar
Natalie Clifford Barney (1877-1972), U.S. writer, arts patron
Olga Broumas (1949- ), U.S. poet*
Queen Anne ,English Queen, 18th c.
Rebecca Jackson (1795-1871), U.S. religious leader
Roberta Achtenburg *U.S. politician, 20th c.
Rosa Bonheur (1822-1899), French artist
Rosa von Praunheim (Holger Mischwitzky, 1942- ), German filmmaker*
Rose Elizabeth Cleveland (1846-1918), U.S. writer, educator, lecturer,
editor
Rosemary Manning ("Sara Davys," 1911-1988), English writer
Sappho (6th century B.C.E.), Greek poet
Sara Josephine Baker (1873-1945), U.S. health reformer
Sara Teasdale (1884-1933), U.S. poet
Sarah Bernhardt (1844-1923), French actress
Sarah Orne Jewett (1849-1909), U.S. writer
Sinead O'Connor, Irish musician
Sophia Iakovlevna Parnok ("Andrei Polianin," 1885-1933), Russian poet,
translator
Sophia Jex-Blake (1840-1912), English doctor and educator
Thelma Wood (1901-1970), U.S. sculptor
Ursula Kroeber LeGuin (1929- ), U.S. novelist*
Vicountess Rhonnda (Margaret Haig Thomas Mackworth, 1883-1958),
Violet Oakley (1874-1961), U.S. painter and illustrator
Violette Leduc (1907-1972), French writer
Stan R
Kilometres long? --- Panbu s nami a zle pryc! Snad nechces tvrdit ze
bylo na svete za tech par poslednich stoleti tolik homosexualu?
Je prece zcela jasne, ze to je moderni vymozenost, za kterou muzou
hippies z 60.let! :-)
Besides, I remember reading somewhere that homosexuality is a disease
that can be cured. Not quite sure what the suggested treatment was, but
at a guess some electroshock "therapy" and/or insulin shocks might have
been on the preferred list... Or, if all else fails, maybe sibenice?
> There are a few female notables in that list, but
> the list below is a bit more complete and contains quite a few famous
> names.
But no doubt this is a modern fabrication by the gay worldwide
conspiracy movement! ;-)
> But there is no doubt that women had it generally much harder to
> succeed, whether lesbians or not. They had to become feminists first
> to start with, just to be able to break through. That by itself was
> such a huge effort, that many of them are simply known as "feminists",
> even though they had many more talents to their name; talents which
> sadly could not be put to good use in Christiendom (let alone
> Islamendom). Zenska patri do kuchyne, ze jo. A do postele.
As I said - the preferred state is to be barefoot and pregnant. It was
not so long ago I had that very thing said to me - in a totally serious
fashion - as a retort by a self-proclaimed devout Catholic client of
mine, who had happened to ask how many children my wife and I had
(none). -- Well, at least we are married - not in church, but I did not
tell him that ;-) - so we are not living in sin.
Therefore, there may be hope for us yet. Buh je prece milosrdny, ne? --
Teda aspon se to o nem z nejakeho duvodu povida...:-)
Religion - the rot of the soul.
BTW - thanks for the list. Informative to say the least. I'll save it
especially for those few Christian fundie clients we get here in Oz.. :-)
Cheers,
S
Stan R
> Martina Navratilova (1956- ), Check born U.S. tennis player*
Mate... this kind of spelling is a disgrace to one of the best female
tennis players ever...
Jiri Pecka
Gosh, I forgot to czech that list, sorry... ;-)
JP
Stan R
I admit I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say/compare here.
AFAIK we don't have homosexual marriage (here in Australia, anyhow), so
clearly we cannot have homosexual polygamy. The fact that some gays are
promiscuous is no different to some heteros being inclined to screw around.
How does this relate to making a lifetime commitment to one person and
sticking with that commitment?
> And it has nothing to do with religious freedom, a feeble
> scare-monger wrapper around the special-interest issues. To praphrase
> a familiar saying, some sexual preferences are deemed more eqaul than
> others, and the most 'equal' ones are homosexual. I guess the 'redneck'
> heteros will have a tough life for a few centuries to come.
Mindless conspiracy theory. Sorry, but the point you are trying to make
continues to escape me. Are you saying that if we want to ban polygamy,
we should also ban homosexuality? And if so, the rationale for that is...?
On one hand you are opposed to homosexual marriage and on another hand
you are comparing polygamy - i.e. the marriage of one man to many women
- with presumably a loving, committed homosexual relationship of two
adult human beings; which by that analogy you believe should also be
illegal. This does not make sense. -- Or maybe it does, on some obscure
religious grounds, which of course I would by definition be unable to
follow, as I often tend to have trouble with arguments built around
irrational pretexts.
Cheers,
S
FEEB
>Why change anything? This is about the present-day Canada, Bountiful,
>British Columbia. Polygamy is illegal in Canada, but our liberal
government
>would not do anything about this, because it could cause trouble. What
if
>the polygamists invoked the matter of religous freedom? They have their
>rights, don't they? There is the charter of rights, isn't there?
Freedom of
>religion, eh?
>
>Pavel
Yeah, I wonder if I could create a religion that would worship AK-47 the
way some muslims worship it (see various logos and flags of muslims groups
and organizations). Once the religion is established I can claim my
religious right to carry AK-47 around at all times the same way Sikhs
carry their "ceremonial" daggers. That would create quite a havoc with
all those leftist anti-gun pro-various-nutty-religions groups.
FEEB
>Therefore, there may be hope for us yet. Buh je prece milosrdny, ne? --
>Teda aspon se to o nem z nejakeho duvodu povida...:-)
>
>Religion - the rot of the soul.
Hallowed are the Ori.
Jiri Pecka
Hallowed are we.
The power of the Ori will be felt far and wide and the wicked shall be
vanquished. Our great holy armies shall spread Origin to all the
unbelievers.
Jiri Pecka
FEEB
Wow, I kind of anticipated nobody would know what that means. You got me
:-)
kujebak
"Jiri Pecka" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:438ecbe7.1536656@news-server...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:21:04 GMT, "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> of it, polygamy is not worse than homosexuality. If for nothing else,
>>> it's
>>> 'natural' (I don't wish to engage in another war of defining the
>>> definition,
>>> Stan).
>>
>>Give it up, nobody. You cannot attempt to convince a secularist bigot
>
> Hear hear, a "secularist bigot"? A kind of contradiction of terms I'd
> say... :-)
Agreeably, the term does make a certain splash (in
real sense of the word), which is quite intended.
Let's try this for size:
A secularist bigot is a person who views religion as an
intellectual refuge for people of lesser intelligence.
Plenty of them around here, wouldn't you say?
Secularist bigots, that is ;-)
>
>>Lacking the means of genetic perpetuation, the homosexual "lifestyle"
>>is doomed to oblivion.
>
> Yeah, I agree: Similar obsolete fad as left-handedness. Have you
> noticed there are less left-handed people these days? Finally they
> must have realized their folly. And oh my, those redheads! With their
> obscene freckled faces!! There are still a few of them around, living
> life in sin, no doubt.
I'm sure there are as many lefties in the world today, as
there have ever been. Same thing for redheads and freckle
faces. Your analogies are not really valid, and this is why:
There is one thing that separates individuals who are dif-
ferent in other ways from homosexual *activists* (empha-
sis added just in case you're not absolutely clear what I'm
talking about). They make no demands to redefine the
cultural standards.
>
>> It is a temporary fad created by the cultural
>>upheaval brought on by the hippies forty years ago.
>
> I guess they must have suddenly remembered the unspeakable vice of the
> Greeks and Romans a couple of millenia earlier.
>
> Have a guess what this handful of mostly unknown losers in the list
> below had in common. (Hint: they were not hippies.)
But how any of these people have really been *gay*?
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>>>
>>>Give it up, nobody. You cannot attempt to convince a secularist bigot
>>
>> Hear hear, a "secularist bigot"? A kind of contradiction of terms I'd
>> say... :-)
>
>Agreeably, the term does make a certain splash (in
>real sense of the word), which is quite intended.
>Let's try this for size:
>A secularist bigot is a person who views religion as an
>intellectual refuge for people of lesser intelligence.
>Plenty of them around here, wouldn't you say?
>Secularist bigots, that is ;-)
Hmmm... depends how you define "intelligence". I might actually agree
with you that standard IQ tests alone may not be entirely sufficient
to reliably determine if someone will be prone to the deleterious
mental defect of religiosity or not. ;-)
>>>Lacking the means of genetic perpetuation, the homosexual "lifestyle"
>>>is doomed to oblivion.
>>
>> Yeah, I agree: Similar obsolete fad as left-handedness. Have you
>> noticed there are less left-handed people these days? Finally they
>> must have realized their folly. And oh my, those redheads! With their
>> obscene freckled faces!! There are still a few of them around, living
>> life in sin, no doubt.
>
>I'm sure there are as many lefties in the world today, as
>there have ever been. Same thing for redheads and freckle
>faces. Your analogies are not really valid, and this is why:
>There is one thing that separates individuals who are dif-
>ferent in other ways from homosexual *activists* (empha-
>sis added just in case you're not absolutely clear what I'm
>talking about). They make no demands to redefine the
>cultural standards.
Well, you were not talking about *activists* before. You were talking
about homosexual "lifestyle" and its "means of genetic perpetuation".
Perhaps you should be more specific and provide your definition of
what homosexual lifestyle actually is. Don't forget to specify which
particular homosexual that you know you are actually talking about.
Perhaps you can also like to specify what hetorosexual lifestyle is.
(This may sound like a silly question, but I would just like to
establish your position on this.)
And while at it, it might be also interesting to hear your definition
of what exactly you mean by "cultural standard".
>> Have a guess what this handful of mostly unknown losers in the list
>> below had in common. (Hint: they were not hippies.)
>
>But how any of these people have really been *gay*?
I am not sure if I understand the question: In my vocabulary, the word
"gay" is a synonymum for "homosexual" in the same way as "straight" is
a synonymum for "heterosexual". But in any case, to answer your
question anyway, let's start with the first one in the list, Alan
Turing:
-------------
Alan Mathison Turing (June 23, 1912 - June 7, 1954) was a British
mathematician, logician, and cryptographer.
Turing is often considered to be a father of modern computer science.
With the Turing Test, he made a significant and characteristically
provocative contribution to the debate regarding artificial
intelligence: whether it will ever be possible to say that a machine
is conscious and can think. He provided an influential formalisation
of the concept of algorithm and computation with the Turing machine,
formulating the now widely accepted "Turing" version of the
Church-Turing thesis, namely that any practical computing model has
either the equivalent or a subset of the capabilities of a Turing
machine.
During World War II, Turing worked at Bletchley Park, Britain's
codebreaking centre and was for a time head of Hut 8, the section
responsible for German Naval cryptanalysis. He devised a number of
techniques for breaking German ciphers, including the method of the
bombe, an electromechanical machine which could find settings for the
Enigma machine.
After the war, he worked at the National Physical Laboratory, creating
one of the first designs for a stored program computer, although it
was never actually built. In 1947 he moved to the University of
Manchester to work, largely on software, on the Manchester Mark I then
emerging as one of the world's earliest true computers.
In 1952, Turing was convicted of acts of gross indecency after
admitting having a sexual relationship with a man in Manchester. He
was placed on probation and required to undergo hormone therapy.
Turing died in 1954; the inquest found that he had committed suicide
by eating an apple laced with cyanide.
(source: Wikipedia)
-------------
In Pecka's summary, this poor chap contributed enormously to saving
our civilization by being instrumental in breaking the "Enigma code"
of the Nazis. He was researching artificial intelligence and computers
long before anyone else did. He gave the world the famous concepts of
the "Turning test" and "Turing machine", the bread and butter of every
AI researcher today.
When he was caught having "unnatural sex", that silly naive soul did
not even try to save himself by denying the "charges" but instead told
his inquisitors openly and brazenly in their faces that this was
simply because he was homosexual!
For this callous and unspeakable crime, he was given a choice of
either going to prison or undergo reduction of testicles and
enhancement of breasts using hormone therapy. Here he made yet another
stupid decision, having obligingly chosen the second alternative. Two
years later he committed suicide.
Could this be precisely due to your hated "gay activism" that such
things can't happen any more? Perhaps poofters had finally enough of
certain, as you call it, "cultural standards"?
Jiri Pecka
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>long before anyone else did. He gave the world the famous concepts of
>the "Turning test" and "Turing machine", the bread and butter of every
>AI researcher today.
Ooops, that's "Turing test" of course.
Stan R
A word of advice, Mr Bures: Never underestimate Mr Pecka! He's a smart
cookie that one! Note that he even recognized correctly the immortal
poetry of vojin Dusan Jasanek from Cerni Baroni, which I posted a
sample of here the other day! :-)
S
Jiri Pecka
<speechless and blushing modestly>
Jiri Pecka
Paul J Kriha
Jiri Pecka <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:438ef869.12931218@news-server...
The Merkins always misspell "cheque", don't they.
pjk
FEEB
Jiri Pecka
<fe...@chem.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Such possibility is certainly always worth suspecting. :-)
Jiri Pecka,
googler extraordinaire
kujebak
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:15:22 GMT, "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>>Give it up, nobody. You cannot attempt to convince a secularist bigot
> >>
> >> Hear hear, a "secularist bigot"? A kind of contradiction of terms I'd
> >> say... :-)
> >
> >Agreeably, the term does make a certain splash (in
> >real sense of the word), which is quite intended.
> >Let's try this for size:
> >A secularist bigot is a person who views religion as an
> >intellectual refuge for people of lesser intelligence.
> >Plenty of them around here, wouldn't you say?
> >Secularist bigots, that is ;-)
>
> Hmmm... depends how you define "intelligence". I might actually agree
> with you that standard IQ tests alone may not be entirely sufficient
> to reliably determine if someone will be prone to the deleterious
> mental defect of religiosity or not. ;-)
I think you know that what I'm talking about has nothing to do
with IQ scores. Secularist bigotry is about categorizing people
based on their *views*. You cannot deny that it is generally
accepted as fact that conservative thinking is based on religious
beliefs, which means that anyone espousing traditional values
is therefore incapable of reasonable argument. Case in point -
despite the unquestionable evidence showing the dramatic
changes in the world's population dynamics presented in his
book, Buchanan's "Death of the West" was basically dis-
missed as a piece of religious bigotry and racism, presu-
mably because his conclusions are so politically unpalatable,
but in reality, because of who he is, and what he stands for.
>
> >>>Lacking the means of genetic perpetuation, the homosexual "lifestyle"
> >>>is doomed to oblivion.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I agree: Similar obsolete fad as left-handedness. Have you
> >> noticed there are less left-handed people these days? Finally they
> >> must have realized their folly. And oh my, those redheads! With their
> >> obscene freckled faces!! There are still a few of them around, living
> >> life in sin, no doubt.
> >
> >I'm sure there are as many lefties in the world today, as
> >there have ever been. Same thing for redheads and freckle
> >faces. Your analogies are not really valid, and this is why:
> >There is one thing that separates individuals who are dif-
> >ferent in other ways from homosexual *activists* (empha-
> >sis added just in case you're not absolutely clear what I'm
> >talking about). They make no demands to redefine the
> >cultural standards.
>
> Well, you were not talking about *activists* before. You were talking
> about homosexual "lifestyle" and its "means of genetic perpetuation".
> Perhaps you should be more specific and provide your definition of
> what homosexual lifestyle actually is. Don't forget to specify which
> particular homosexual that you know you are actually talking about.
Those who are clogging up our legislature and judicial system
with incessant, senseless demands, as well as those who are
given classroom time in our public schools in order to expose
our children to alternative ways of expressing one's sexuality,
and to relieve them of all pertinent cultural preconceptions, such
as that marriage and procreation is the ultimate purpose of our
existence. I realize, it takes actually having kids, to know about
such things ;-)
> Perhaps you can also like to specify what hetorosexual lifestyle is.
> (This may sound like a silly question, but I would just like to
> establish your position on this.)
>
> And while at it, it might be also interesting to hear your definition
> of what exactly you mean by "cultural standard".
You know we've already had an exhaustive discussion of this
subject. I'm sure you can refer to your notes ;-)
>
> >> Have a guess what this handful of mostly unknown losers in the list
> >> below had in common. (Hint: they were not hippies.)
> >
> >But how any of these people have really been *gay*?
>
> I am not sure if I understand the question: In my vocabulary, the word
> "gay" is a synonymum for "homosexual" in the same way as "straight" is
> a synonymum for "heterosexual".
To me "gay" denotes a "liberated" homosexual, which probably
was its original meaning back in the 70s. What it means today,
I confess, I have no clue.
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>> Hmmm... depends how you define "intelligence". I might actually agree
>> with you that standard IQ tests alone may not be entirely sufficient
>> to reliably determine if someone will be prone to the deleterious
>> mental defect of religiosity or not. ;-)
>
>I think you know that what I'm talking about has nothing to do
>with IQ scores. Secularist bigotry is about categorizing people
>based on their *views*. You cannot deny that it is generally
>accepted as fact that conservative thinking is based on religious
>beliefs, which means that anyone espousing traditional values
>is therefore incapable of reasonable argument. Case in point -
>despite the unquestionable evidence showing the dramatic
>changes in the world's population dynamics presented in his
>book, Buchanan's "Death of the West" was basically dis-
>missed as a piece of religious bigotry and racism, presu-
>mably because his conclusions are so politically unpalatable,
>but in reality, because of who he is, and what he stands for.
The tragedy of conservatives like Buchanan is that they only get it
half right: They are right espousing economical freedoms and pointing
out the follies of the various hysterical leftie -isms such as
multiculturalism or environmentalism, but they are wrong on the social
freedom aspects, and often they end up ramming Jesus down one's
throat, which I am finding kinda embarrassing. On the other hand, the
liberals would let you have most of your social freedoms allright, but
they'd force-feed you with their other nefarious agenda.
Enter right-wing libertarianism (i.e. "liberalism" in the original
sense of the word, now sadly forgotten), which has got it "right" on
all fronts. :-)
>> Well, you were not talking about *activists* before. You were talking
>> about homosexual "lifestyle" and its "means of genetic perpetuation".
>> Perhaps you should be more specific and provide your definition of
>> what homosexual lifestyle actually is. Don't forget to specify which
>> particular homosexual that you know you are actually talking about.
>
>Those who are clogging up our legislature and judicial system
>with incessant, senseless demands, as well as those who are
>given classroom time in our public schools in order to expose
>our children to alternative ways of expressing one's sexuality,
>and to relieve them of all pertinent cultural preconceptions, such
>as that marriage and procreation is the ultimate purpose of our
>existence. I realize, it takes actually having kids, to know about
>such things ;-)
You are now talking to a grandfather. :-)
In terms of "marriage and procreation being the ultimate purpose of
existence", I personally don't see my purpose of existence quite this
way, but I can see why many people do, and I am of course fine with
it. Since you find the institution of marriage of such paramount
importance for one's happiness, the more I am finding it incredible
that you would actually wish to deny it to some people.
When you say "incessant, senseless demands", what exactly do you have
in mind? Since you already did mention marriage, I presume that what
you mean is the incessant demands to legalize gay marriage? This will
surely cease being incessant when such legalization is granted. Would
this be senseless? Frankly, it is the opposition to it that I find
senseless. My position on this subject is (for example) well
summarized by the (conservative!) Economist magazine:
>> Perhaps you can also like to specify what hetorosexual lifestyle is.
>> (This may sound like a silly question, but I would just like to
>> establish your position on this.)
>>
>> And while at it, it might be also interesting to hear your definition
>> of what exactly you mean by "cultural standard".
>
>You know we've already had an exhaustive discussion of this
>subject. I'm sure you can refer to your notes ;-)
I honestly can't remember having had this discussion, especially in
this context. This is a reflection on my bad memory, which is now,
sadly, becoming a proverbial issue. :-)
>> >> Have a guess what this handful of mostly unknown losers in the list
>> >> below had in common. (Hint: they were not hippies.)
>> >
>> >But how any of these people have really been *gay*?
>>
>> I am not sure if I understand the question: In my vocabulary, the word
>> "gay" is a synonymum for "homosexual" in the same way as "straight" is
>> a synonymum for "heterosexual".
>
>To me "gay" denotes a "liberated" homosexual, which probably
>was its original meaning back in the 70s. What it means today,
>I confess, I have no clue.
This does not matter; we are talking about principles, not semantics.
For a change, I need to confess that I don't know what a "liberated"
homosexual means. Do you mean a homosexual who is no longer being
given a choice between a jail term and chemical castration? If so,
then I guess that the poor old poofter Alan Turing, who cracked the
Nazi code and helped to save our civilization, would have really
appreciated being thus "liberated".
Jiri Pecka
kujebak
Congrats!
That means you were probably never exposed to any of this.
>
> In terms of "marriage and procreation being the ultimate purpose of
> existence", I personally don't see my purpose of existence quite this
> way, but I can see why many people do, and I am of course fine with
> it. Since you find the institution of marriage of such paramount
> importance for one's happiness, the more I am finding it incredible
> that you would actually wish to deny it to some people.
If you defined marriage as something merely to facilitate
cohabitation, then you would be right - it would be unjust
to deny gay people its benefits. But that's not what it is,
in the mind of most people, and in the intent of our laws.
The fact that we confer matrimony on people, who are
obviously too old to procreate, doesn't change anything.
If it is so much a question of fairness, then perhaps we
shouldn't allow menopausal women to marry, and that's
as far as this issue should ever be allowed to go.
>
> When you say "incessant, senseless demands", what exactly do you have
> in mind? Since you already did mention marriage, I presume that what
> you mean is the incessant demands to legalize gay marriage? This will
> surely cease being incessant when such legalization is granted. Would
> this be senseless? Frankly, it is the opposition to it that I find
> senseless. My position on this subject is (for example) well
> summarized by the (conservative!) Economist magazine:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yra9j
I have heard all the legal, economic, and philosophical arguments.
You can hear all mine at:
http://tinyurl.com/9vrku
>
> >> Perhaps you can also like to specify what hetorosexual lifestyle is.
> >> (This may sound like a silly question, but I would just like to
> >> establish your position on this.)
> >>
> >> And while at it, it might be also interesting to hear your definition
> >> of what exactly you mean by "cultural standard".
> >
> >You know we've already had an exhaustive discussion of this
> >subject. I'm sure you can refer to your notes ;-)
>
> I honestly can't remember having had this discussion, especially in
> this context. This is a reflection on my bad memory, which is now,
> sadly, becoming a proverbial issue. :-)
>
> >> >> Have a guess what this handful of mostly unknown losers in the list
> >> >> below had in common. (Hint: they were not hippies.)
> >> >
> >> >But how any of these people have really been *gay*?
> >>
> >> I am not sure if I understand the question: In my vocabulary, the word
> >> "gay" is a synonymum for "homosexual" in the same way as "straight" is
> >> a synonymum for "heterosexual".
> >
> >To me "gay" denotes a "liberated" homosexual, which probably
> >was its original meaning back in the 70s. What it means today,
> >I confess, I have no clue.
>
> This does not matter; we are talking about principles, not semantics.
> For a change, I need to confess that I don't know what a "liberated"
> homosexual means. Do you mean a homosexual who is no longer being
> given a choice between a jail term and chemical castration?
Give me a break.
I think you know darn well what I mean ;-)
Paul J Kriha
Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote in message news:3v8a76F...@individual.net...
[...]
> As I said - the preferred state is to be barefoot and pregnant. It was
> not so long ago I had that very thing said to me - in a totally serious
> fashion - as a retort by a self-proclaimed devout Catholic client of
> mine, who had happened to ask how many children my wife and I had
> (none). -- Well, at least we are married - not in church, but I did not
> tell him that ;-) - so we are not living in sin.
Jesus, Stan! But you are! You are living in mortal sin!
To get properly married, you have to confess, get absolution,
go to the Mass, receive the body of Christ and THEN you
can get married in the holy church.
Stan, Stan, Stan, you adulterer and fornicator. :-)
> Therefore, there may be hope for us yet. Buh je prece milosrdny, ne? --
> Teda aspon se to o nem z nejakeho duvodu povida...:-)
>
> Religion - the rot of the soul.
yeah, it rots it, but only if you have one to start with.... :-)
pjk
nobody
news:srropurzhgbebagbp...@news1.chem.utoronto.ca...
No, it wouldn't. There was a case in Toronto while back when adherent
of some such obscure religion was allowed by the court to carry his
"ceremonial dagger" into school. Left-libs are all for religious freedom, if
it does not involve Christianity. Look up "seasons greetings" and "holiday
trees" one day. Mentioning of Christmas in a public place could bring
you a multi-million dollar lawsuit. As could any ommission of proper
name for whatever non-Cristian religious ceremony/celebration/schedule.
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>> You are now talking to a grandfather. :-)
>
>Congrats!
>That means you were probably never exposed to any of this.
Pardon my naivity, any of what exactly?
>> In terms of "marriage and procreation being the ultimate purpose of
>> existence", I personally don't see my purpose of existence quite this
>> way, but I can see why many people do, and I am of course fine with
>> it. Since you find the institution of marriage of such paramount
>> importance for one's happiness, the more I am finding it incredible
>> that you would actually wish to deny it to some people.
>
>If you defined marriage as something merely to facilitate
>cohabitation, then you would be right - it would be unjust
>to deny gay people its benefits. But that's not what it is,
>in the mind of most people, and in the intent of our laws.
I am not sure what exactly in your view would fall under "facilitating
cohabitation", but in any case I believe that marriage is also a
serious expression of love and commitment to one's partner. Is this
what you suggested that exists, in your words, "in the mind of most
people"? If so, then what exactly are your grounds for denying gay
people this?
>The fact that we confer matrimony on people, who are
>obviously too old to procreate, doesn't change anything.
>If it is so much a question of fairness, then perhaps we
>shouldn't allow menopausal women to marry, and that's
>as far as this issue should ever be allowed to go.
Are you really saying this with a straight (no pun intended) face? So
according to you, elderly people should not be allowed to marry, and
if a married couple does not produce children (within your strictly
specified deadline of course - how long would you grant them, say 10
months max?), then they should be automatically forced to divorce, in
order to uphold the sanctity of the noble "cornerstone of our
civilization"?
>> When you say "incessant, senseless demands", what exactly do you have
>> in mind? Since you already did mention marriage, I presume that what
>> you mean is the incessant demands to legalize gay marriage? This will
>> surely cease being incessant when such legalization is granted. Would
>> this be senseless? Frankly, it is the opposition to it that I find
>> senseless. My position on this subject is (for example) well
>> summarized by the (conservative!) Economist magazine:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yra9j
>
>I have heard all the legal, economic, and philosophical arguments.
>You can hear all mine at:
>http://tinyurl.com/9vrku
This rather illogical argument, has been thoroughly and intelligently
debunked by the Economist article I quoted above. Apparently, you have
not read it? To counter that with this quote from Michael Savage
serves nothing but underscoring my argument.
>> This does not matter; we are talking about principles, not semantics.
>> For a change, I need to confess that I don't know what a "liberated"
>> homosexual means. Do you mean a homosexual who is no longer being
>> given a choice between a jail term and chemical castration?
>
>Give me a break.
>I think you know darn well what I mean ;-)
I swear I don't! And I really naively thought that I was reasonably
well informed on this subject. But of course, there is always
something new to learn...
nobody
See below.
> AFAIK we don't have homosexual marriage (here in Australia, anyhow), so
> clearly we cannot have homosexual polygamy.
I wasn't referring specifically to "homosexual polygamy" (whatever that
means). But spin you put on my statements is somewhat indicatory
(if that is a real word). See next paragraph.
> The fact that some gays are
> promiscuous is no different to some heteros being inclined to screw
around.
Right. What I exactly stated was "Most mammals (including humans)
are promiscuite." Please notice that it was you who included
anti-gay spin to something what I didn't even indicate.
>
> How does this relate to making a lifetime commitment to one person and
> sticking with that commitment?
It depends how one defines "a lifetime commitment ...", doesn't it?
>
> > And it has nothing to do with religious freedom, a feeble
> > scare-monger wrapper around the special-interest issues. To praphrase
> > a familiar saying, some sexual preferences are deemed more eqaul than
> > others, and the most 'equal' ones are homosexual. I guess the 'redneck'
> > heteros will have a tough life for a few centuries to come.
>
> Mindless conspiracy theory.
Do you really believe that?
> Sorry, but the point you are trying to make
> continues to escape me. Are you saying that if we want to ban polygamy,
> we should also ban homosexuality?
No. What I'm saying is that if you are promoting love,
freedom of consenting adults, lifetime commitment, etc. in case
of gays/lesbians, you should support the same in the case of
pplygamic or polyandric relationships. (Check out Heinlein's Friday.)
Wiping out "incest" from CC is next, of course. If there is no intent
to procreate, surely there is no harm in two (or more) people living
in sexual harmony, love, lifetime commitment, etc., even if they
happen, by misfortune of their genetic makeup, to be brother(s) and
sister(s), or men and women.
> And if so, the rationale for that is...?
It's not so, as described above. But please tell me, what is a rationale
for opposing (or even not suggesting, if we are so righteous and
considerate) marriages (and on purpose I'm not saying "unions")
of more than two people? Or two people affected by their genetic
makeup for which hey can't be blamed for? (Maybe we should
call them "onions"? You know, multiple layers. And not only in
the bed. And multiple lawyers. Also not only in the bed. :-)
>
> On one hand you are opposed to homosexual marriage and on another hand
> you are comparing polygamy
I freely admit to opposing to call homosexual union a marriage.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have an equal rights as any married
couple (see the verb "to couple"). My problem (and not only mine)
is that they want to ram it down our throats till we choke, and
try to hijack relgious institution (marriage) just to show us they
can do it. And gullible among us will applaud to their "worthy"
goal. Please remember that there is a difference between being
non-religious and anti-religious. But as I've indicated, if you
endorse gay marriage you would be a hypocrite not to support
the marriage of *any* number of consenting adults, despite the
DNA makeup they are not responsible for anyway. After all, it's
all about love, life commitment and what not. It's not about
procreation, and even secular religionists should not be able to get
away with "obscure religious grounds". Whadda yoy say?
> - i.e. the marriage of one man to many women
> - with presumably a loving, committed homosexual relationship of two
> adult human beings; which by that analogy you believe should also be
> illegal.
Nowhere I've said that "homosexual relationship of two
adult human beings" ... "should also be illegal". All what I'm saying
is that marriage of above should not be legally recognized institution.
> This does not make sense. --
Of course. But I wouldn't expect from you to criticize me for
something I didn't state. I understand that you disapprove of my
disapproval of "gayness". However, disapproval is not the same
as disrespect. IMHO it's genetically caused defect (and therefore
my previous reference tu it as unnatural, while back). Meaning that
I'm not going to shoot out cancer patients on the spot. But it would
kinda upset me if I was brainwashed into believing that having a cancer
is OK and natural, and someone wanted to infect me to learn about
benefits of having one first-hand.
> Or maybe it does, on some obscure religious grounds,
Well, you wouldn't dare (publicly) to use the term
"obscure religious grounds" when talking about non-Christian
religion, would you?
> which of course I would by definition
By whose definition, if I may ask?
> be unable to
> follow, as I often tend to have trouble with arguments built around
> irrational pretexts.
The question is how to recognize "irrational pretexts" on non-subjective
level, isn't it? Even objectivism tends to be a tad relative, eh? Er, I mean
subjective :-)
Stan R
I was not intending to put any spin on anything. I obviously did not
quite understand the angle you had taken on this - and stated as much.
This may have been due to your not having expressed yourself clearly or
my being somewhat slow on the uptake - take your pick.
>> The fact that some gays are
>> promiscuous is no different to some heteros being inclined to screw
> around.
>
> Right. What I exactly stated was "Most mammals (including humans)
> are promiscuite." Please notice that it was you who included
> anti-gay spin to something what I didn't even indicate.
There was no spin. Having multiple partners - i.e. being promiscuous -
is not a sexual preference; it's simply a behavioural characteristic.
Perhaps your use of this term in such a context confused me to assume
you were talking about homosexuality - which indeed is a sexual preference.
>> How does this relate to making a lifetime commitment to one person and
>> sticking with that commitment?
>
> It depends how one defines "a lifetime commitment ...", doesn't it?
Not really. What's there to define? Lifetime commitment to
something/somebody is just that - lifetime.
Or would you say that living with someone for 10 years equals lifetime
commitment?
I suppose living with some people even for a few months can feel like a
lifetime, but that's something altogether different. :-)
>>> And it has nothing to do with religious freedom, a feeble
>>> scare-monger wrapper around the special-interest issues. To praphrase
>>> a familiar saying, some sexual preferences are deemed more eqaul than
>>> others, and the most 'equal' ones are homosexual. I guess the 'redneck'
>>> heteros will have a tough life for a few centuries to come.
>> Mindless conspiracy theory.
>
> Do you really believe that?
I do. Perhaps I should apologise for using a rather uncouth turn of
phrase, but what you said above is not only incorrect but also rather
simplistic.
>> Sorry, but the point you are trying to make
>> continues to escape me. Are you saying that if we want to ban polygamy,
>> we should also ban homosexuality?
>
> No. What I'm saying is that if you are promoting love,
> freedom of consenting adults, lifetime commitment, etc. in case
> of gays/lesbians, you should support the same in the case of
> pplygamic or polyandric relationships. (Check out Heinlein's Friday.)
OK; fair enough.
I certainly would not have any problem with that; if someone is not
happy with having just one wife, good luck to him to have several. I
will be the first one to offer my commiserations! :-)
It could even help eliminate situations akin to the case of the Islamic
Imam in France we were discussing here some time ago. Several wives,
loads of children, no job (or indeed any intention of getting one) and
due to the wives (bar the "official" one) being classed as single
mothers, the happy family was collecting over 6000 euro a month in
welfare payments.
> Wiping out "incest" from CC is next, of course. If there is no intent
> to procreate, surely there is no harm in two (or more) people living
> in sexual harmony, love, lifetime commitment, etc., even if they
> happen, by misfortune of their genetic makeup, to be brother(s) and
> sister(s), or men and women.
While from a purely libertarian perspective I have no problem with this,
it is not as simple, because typically incest occurs not between
brothers and sisters, but between fathers and daughters.
You are dealing with relationships here which are by their very nature
extremely unequal; therefore this cannot be condoned in any justifiable way.
Of course, another issue to consider is that at least in case of
homosexual couples, if they desire to have children, there is no danger
of this occurring without engaging an outside donor. The potential for
genetic defects that are likely to result from incestuous relationships
- initial "agreement" to not procreate notwithstanding; the potential is
there - would indicate to be sufficient grounds to ban these types of
relationships across the board - even where the participants were
consenting adults, as opposed to abused children.
But you did know this, didn't you, and were just teasing with a
comparison as outrageous as the one above? ;-)
>> And if so, the rationale for that is...?
>
> It's not so, as described above. But please tell me, what is a rationale
> for opposing (or even not suggesting, if we are so righteous and
> considerate) marriages (and on purpose I'm not saying "unions")
> of more than two people?
Nothing. That is not my position, anyway. I think you need to ask the
Pope that question.
> Or two people affected by their genetic
> makeup for which hey can't be blamed for?
Are you talking about incest again?
> (Maybe we should
> call them "onions"? You know, multiple layers. And not only in
> the bed. And multiple lawyers. Also not only in the bed. :-)
>
>> On one hand you are opposed to homosexual marriage and on another hand
>> you are comparing polygamy
>
> I freely admit to opposing to call homosexual union a marriage.
Well, that's fine then. If we only differ on semantics, I think there's
good chance we will agree 100% in the end! ;-)
> I'm not saying they shouldn't have an equal rights as any married
> couple (see the verb "to couple"). My problem (and not only mine)
> is that they want to ram it down our throats till we choke, and
> try to hijack relgious institution (marriage) just to show us they
> can do it.
Ah; c'mon - you've been reading too much of The Guardian! :-)
Personally I know several gay people and have several more for clients,
yet not a single one wants to "ram" anything down anyone's throat. They
just want to be treated the same as any other couple - with which you've
just said you agree; good!
Only very few of them are even interested in "marriage"; they just want
equal legal recognition, which is something they still don't have to
anywhere the same extent as us "straights". You should look at the
issues surrounding, for example, estate planning for gay couples - an
absolute nightmare and totally unfair in many aspects (at least here in
Australia; could be different in Canada).
What you describe above is the result of a very noisy, very tiny
minority, supported by assorted leftists desperate for a cause to pursue.
> And gullible among us will applaud to their "worthy"
> goal.
I'm happy to applaud. And I say that as a happily married heterosexual.
I'd be more concerned if they wanted me to pay for their ceremonies, but
so far there's no sign of that happening! :-)
> Please remember that there is a difference between being
> non-religious and anti-religious.
Of course. I'm happy to rally under the anti flag. ;-)
If there is evil in the world, you can bet it's the result of religious
dogma.
> But as I've indicated, if you
> endorse gay marriage you would be a hypocrite not to support
> the marriage of *any* number of consenting adults, despite the
> DNA makeup they are not responsible for anyway.
That argument does not stand up for the reasons given above.
> After all, it's
> all about love, life commitment and what not. It's not about
> procreation, and even secular religionists should not be able to get
> away with "obscure religious grounds". Whadda yoy say?
What's a "secular religionist"?
>> - i.e. the marriage of one man to many women
>> - with presumably a loving, committed homosexual relationship of two
>> adult human beings; which by that analogy you believe should also be
>> illegal.
>
> Nowhere I've said that "homosexual relationship of two
> adult human beings" ... "should also be illegal".
That's OK then. :-)
> All what I'm saying
> is that marriage of above should not be legally recognized institution.
That's not OK, unless you are really saying that as long as gays settle
for a "legal union" - with exactly the same rights and, say, an
appropriate civil ceremony, then it's all okey-dokey.
In which case again, you are merely playing with words and your POW is
not that different from mine. ;-)
>> This does not make sense. --
>
> Of course. But I wouldn't expect from you to criticize me for
> something I didn't state.
I try not to. Sometimes you need to repeat what you said, before I get
it. :-)
> I understand that you disapprove of my
> disapproval of "gayness".
Not really; I don't disapprove. I think you are generally a fairly
sensible person and whether you approve or disapprove of something is a
moot point, as long as you don't proclaim that all of those practising
whatever it is you disapprove of should be shot.
I disapprove of smoking, yet I acknowledge smokers' right to smoke and
believe that banning smoking everywhere and turning smokers into a
pariah class is wrong, and if this came to a vote, I would vote for
their rights. I would also vote that they should pay for their medical
treatment - which incidentally to a large extent they already do via
tobacco taxes. Besides, they tend to die conveniently at about the time
they would otherwise become eligible for the Aged Pension, so in fact it
could be said smokers are model citizens! :-)
> However, disapproval is not the same
> as disrespect. IMHO it's genetically caused defect (and therefore
> my previous reference tu it as unnatural, while back).
Man, you are really playing with fire here. If it is a "genetically
caused defect", do you think that, just maybe, it could be "cured" one day?
Like, you know, they've tried in the past? Castration, insulin shocks,
that kind of stuff?
Considering it is relatively common for many people out there to start
out straight and gradually become interested in the same sex as they get
older, is this "defect" perhaps something like Altzheimers?
Or how does this square with the fact most gays are actually bisexual?
Are they then only partially genetically affected?
Mmmm....not sure about your theory...
> Meaning that
> I'm not going to shoot out cancer patients on the spot. But it would
> kinda upset me if I was brainwashed into believing that having a cancer
> is OK and natural, and someone wanted to infect me to learn about
> benefits of having one first-hand.
Now that is a rather far-fetched analogy, but I guess given what
background belief system you have started this argument with, it clearly
is logical and makes perfect sense... ;-)
>> Or maybe it does, on some obscure religious grounds,
>
> Well, you wouldn't dare (publicly) to use the term
> "obscure religious grounds" when talking about non-Christian
> religion, would you?
Me? Of course I would. Except maybe in Victoria (Aust. State), the home
of the "world's first" anti-vilification laws. A place where two
Christian pastors have been convinced and fined for reading passages
from the Koran in their church "in a way that made the audience
laugh"...Two Muslim converts happened to be there as "observers" and
they complained.
But here in the Northern Territory? No worries. Pass us another beer,
mate! :-)
>> which of course I would by definition
>
> By whose definition, if I may ask?
Mine, of course. The only one that matters in this case. ;-)
>> be unable to
>> follow, as I often tend to have trouble with arguments built around
>> irrational pretexts.
>
> The question is how to recognize "irrational pretexts" on non-subjective
> level, isn't it? Even objectivism tends to be a tad relative, eh? Er, I mean
> subjective :-)
Typically one can safely conclude something is irrational if it's in any
way, shape or form based solely on religious belief. ;-)
S
Jiri Pecka
>> However, disapproval is not the same
>> as disrespect. IMHO it's genetically caused defect (and therefore
>> my previous reference tu it as unnatural, while back).
>
>Man, you are really playing with fire here. If it is a "genetically
>caused defect", do you think that, just maybe, it could be "cured" one day?
Actually, I happen to be with Mr. nobody on this one. I tend to agree
that it is probably genetic. From what I understand, people "feel"
their sexual preference deep inside from early childhood, long before
they actually learn all those interesting details about having sex,
similarly to left-handed children who go about using their left hand
in preference to the right one automatically, as if it was a perfectly
natural thing - and for them it indeed is.
>Like, you know, they've tried in the past? Castration, insulin shocks,
>that kind of stuff?
Inventive as mankind undoubtedly is, it might be possible one day to
alter this condition, perhaps by some sort of DNA manipulation. But
only in a nasty Orwellian society should this ever need to be
contemplated. Why bother at all? Why would anyone sensible want all
people to be "cured" so that they are all the same? Where would you
stop, prescribing the same eye colour, etc.? I think it would be all
rather boring. From what I know, most homosexuals are happy about what
they are, if only the outside world gave them a break so that they
could hold hands in a public park safely without being jeered at or
spat upon, or worse. I'd like to believe this will be true much
earlier before we will have the technological means to turn gays into
straights.
>Considering it is relatively common for many people out there to start
>out straight and gradually become interested in the same sex as they get
>older, is this "defect" perhaps something like Altzheimers?
Could it be that they were gay all their lives and got married because
of familiy and societal pressures? Now when the kids are grown up and
the society has become a bit more tolerant, perhaps there are fewer
reasons to keep pretending?
> Or how does this square with the fact most gays are actually bisexual?
Is this correct? Have you seen any figures to support this?
It seems that in identical twins, if one is homosexual, then the
chance of the other being also homosexual is much greater. However,
this chance is not actually full 100%, which is perhaps puzzling. But
with left-handedness you also don't get your anticipated 100% yield,
yet few would doubt that left-handedness is real and not an acquired
bad behaviour, an "abomination before God".
Here I found a good and interesting article about this:
http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html
Jiri Pecka
kujebak
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 18:36:40 -0800, "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> You are now talking to a grandfather. :-)
>>
>>Congrats!
>>That means you were probably never exposed to any of this.
>
> Pardon my naivity, any of what exactly?
Most of the stuff I'm talking about, like gay marriage ballot
initiatives, and indoctrination of children in school disguised
as "sensitivity training" is relatively new.
>
>>> In terms of "marriage and procreation being the ultimate
>>> purpose of existence", I personally don't see my purpose
>>> of existence quite this way, but I can see why many people
>>> do, and I am of course fine with it. Since you find the insti-
>>> tution of marriage of such paramount importance for one's
>>> happiness, the more I am finding it incredible that you would
>>> actually wish to deny it to some people.
>>
>>If you defined marriage as something merely to facilitate
>>cohabitation, then you would be right - it would be unjust
>>to deny gay people its benefits. But that's not what it is,
>>in the mind of most people, and in the intent of our laws.
>
> I am not sure what exactly in your view would fall under "facilitating
> cohabitation", but in any case I believe that marriage is also a
> serious expression of love and commitment to one's partner. Is this
> what you suggested that exists, in your words, "in the mind of most
> people"? If so, then what exactly are your grounds for denying gay
> people this?
OK George, let me try to lay it out for you ;-)
I don't know how it is in your part of the world, but here
the purpose of the marriage license is to provide certain eco-
nomic benefits to childbearing couples, primarily to facilitate
having and raising children. Why would you need a license
and a tax break for anything else marriage presumably provides,
like "love and commitment to one's partner"? I'm sure you
know many married couples who are absolutely miserable
with each other, and the only thing that keeps them together
are the children they need to provide for. That is the only kind
of commitment that matters to society as a whole.
>>The fact that we confer matrimony on people, who are
>>obviously too old to procreate, doesn't change anything.
>>If it is so much a question of fairness, then perhaps we
>>shouldn't allow menopausal women to marry, and that's
>>as far as this issue should ever be allowed to go.
>
> Are you really saying this with a straight (no pun intended)
> face? So according to you, elderly people should not be
> allowed to marry, and if a married couple does not produce
> children (within your strictly specified deadline of course -
> how long would you grant them, say 10 months max?),
> then they should be automatically forced to divorce, in
> order to uphold the sanctity of the noble "cornerstone
> of our civilization"?
No I am not saying that. What I'm saying is, this is where
the gay lobby seems to be driving this issue in our courts -
civil rights and fairness in the eyes of the law - instead of
looking common ground in the definition of what marriage
is.
>>> When you say "incessant, senseless demands", what exactly do you have
>>> in mind? Since you already did mention marriage, I presume that what
>>> you mean is the incessant demands to legalize gay marriage? This will
>>> surely cease being incessant when such legalization is granted. Would
>>> this be senseless? Frankly, it is the opposition to it that I find
>>> senseless. My position on this subject is (for example) well
>>> summarized by the (conservative!) Economist magazine:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yra9j
>>
>>I have heard all the legal, economic, and philosophical arguments.
>>You can hear all mine at:
>>http://tinyurl.com/9vrku
>
> This rather illogical argument, has been thoroughly and intelligently
> debunked by the Economist article I quoted above. Apparently, you have
> not read it? To counter that with this quote from Michael Savage
> serves nothing but underscoring my argument.
And you have obviously not bothered to look for my arguments
further down in the thread. The Savage quote was just a teaser
designed to provoke a reaction. Nowhere have I indicated that
I agree with anything this guy has ever said.
nobody
Well, maybe I'm getting a bit sensitive with an old age, when
my statement "Most mammals ... are promiscuite" is turned
into "some gays are promiscuous" :-)
> Having multiple partners - i.e. being promiscuous -
> is not a sexual preference; it's simply a behavioural characteristic.
Well, OK, so I had to look it up at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_preference
so as to not remain ignorant about terms we are using here. I'll paste
quote here from above link because it's relevant to what we are
discussing here:
[quote]
After using the term for a short period of time, gay rights
advocates generally began using the term sexual orientation
instead, as it helped to promote the view that sexual desire
was a not a matter of "preference" but inherent and
unchangeable (i.e. homosexuality is something one is
born with).
[/quote]
> Perhaps your use of this term in such a context confused me to assume
> you were talking about homosexuality - which indeed is a sexual
preference.
As is clear from above, it's rather sexual orientation. According to the
source, it's "gay rights advocates" saying it, so if you don't agree, take
it up with them. :-)
OTH, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation:
[quote]
For example, men who have sex with men, or "MSM",
is a clinical term used to describe behavior only.
[/quote]
So here we go about preference, orientation and behaviour. My point
being, yet again, that it's hypocritical to approve and support one
kind of sexual behaviour and not others, on whatever made-up pretext.
More about that later.
> >> How does this relate to making a lifetime commitment to one person and
> >> sticking with that commitment?
> >
> > It depends how one defines "a lifetime commitment ...", doesn't it?
>
> Not really. What's there to define? Lifetime commitment to
> something/somebody is just that - lifetime.
OK. What is a percentage of gay couples, as opposed to couples
married in a religious ceremony, where *both* partners really
*mean* to be it a lifetime commitment. To be clear, I'm not
talking about situation if it doesn't work out, if there is a honest
commitment at the onset of relationship.
> Or would you say that living with someone for 10 years equals lifetime
> commitment?
Nope. Technically, you can assess it only after both partners are 6' under.
But I'm just splitting hair :-)
> I suppose living with some people even for a few months can feel like a
> lifetime, but that's something altogether different. :-)
Oh, my. Did you invite in-laws? :-)
> >>> And it has nothing to do with religious freedom, a feeble
> >>> scare-monger wrapper around the special-interest issues. To praphrase
> >>> a familiar saying, some sexual preferences are deemed more eqaul than
> >>> others, and the most 'equal' ones are homosexual. I guess the
'redneck'
> >>> heteros will have a tough life for a few centuries to come.
>
> >> Mindless conspiracy theory.
> >
> > Do you really believe that?
>
> I do. Perhaps I should apologise for using a rather uncouth turn of
> phrase, but what you said above is not only incorrect but also rather
> simplistic.
Well, if I hear about stories schools showing pictures of gay sexual
activity and describing it as a "love", and parents are not allowed
to see what their kids are taght ... I don't get upset if you call my
statement simplistic, but it could benefit me if you pointed out
where and why I'm wrong.
> >> Sorry, but the point you are trying to make
> >> continues to escape me. Are you saying that if we want to ban polygamy,
> >> we should also ban homosexuality?
> >
> > No. What I'm saying is that if you are promoting love,
> > freedom of consenting adults, lifetime commitment, etc. in case
> > of gays/lesbians, you should support the same in the case of
> > pplygamic or polyandric relationships. (Check out Heinlein's Friday.)
>
> OK; fair enough.
>
> I certainly would not have any problem with that; if someone is not
> happy with having just one wife, good luck to him to have several. I
> will be the first one to offer my commiserations! :-)
Back in CSSSR we had this joke:
Q: What is a punisment for polygamy?
A: Multiple mothers-in-law!
> It could even help eliminate situations akin to the case of the Islamic
> Imam in France we were discussing here some time ago.
C'mon. Would you deny the benefit of "love", "lifetime commitment"
and "marriage" to a gay couple just because they practice some
religion? If yes, than you are not really pro-gay, but anti-religious,
and you've chosen gay/lesbian vehicle for the attack.
If not, than you shouldn't decline societal benefits to people
of different sexual behaviour than those by 'approved' ones.
> Several wives,
> loads of children, no job (or indeed any intention of getting one) and
> due to the wives (bar the "official" one) being classed as single
> mothers, the happy family was collecting over 6000 euro a month in
> welfare payments.
So? Legalizing polygamy and classifying them as a family, with
presumed maximum of benefits per family unit would solve the problem,
wouldn't it? You are just disguising your sexual-behaviour bigotry as
an economical issue. I could make similar assertions about gay marriages
and implications for tax, real estate, insurance et al. consequences. But
I didn't, because that is not the real issue, and if I did, you would rip
me to the pieces, wouldn't you? :-)
> > Wiping out "incest" from CC is next, of course. If there is no intent
> > to procreate, surely there is no harm in two (or more) people living
> > in sexual harmony, love, lifetime commitment, etc., even if they
> > happen, by misfortune of their genetic makeup, to be brother(s) and
> > sister(s), or men and women.
>
> While from a purely libertarian perspective I have no problem with this,
> it is not as simple, because typically incest occurs not between
> brothers and sisters, but between fathers and daughters.
Even if it was so (you didn't provide any reliable statistics), so what?
What do you have against sexual behaviour of two or more consenting
adults? Honestly.
> You are dealing with relationships here which are by their very nature
> extremely unequal;
Oh, I see. While all other relationships are extremely equal.
> therefore this cannot be condoned in any justifiable way.
You see, you sound just like some preacher. I understand you. Deep
within you, you believe that *some* sexual behaviours should be
expunged. You can't support it on any rational grounds (your
statement above doesn't constitute one), but you still think you
are right. And you are. But there are people who think that some
*other* sexual behaviour is "wrong". Point being made is that
you can't open Pandorra's box only half-way. If you start
tampering with something what was (rightly or wrongly)
established for millenia, you should have enough of a stomach
to take it all.
> Of course, another issue to consider is that at least in case of
> homosexual couples, if they desire to have children, there is no danger
> of this occurring without engaging an outside donor.
Unless the future progress in DNA tampering will solve the "problem".
I doubt you would deny them the benefits of medical science with the
same vigor you deny theoretical cure for their condition.
> The potential for
> genetic defects that are likely to result from incestuous relationships
> - initial "agreement" to not procreate notwithstanding; the potential is
> there - would indicate to be sufficient grounds to ban these types of
> relationships across the board
Now, on one hand you take argument that it's about "love" and
"relationship", not some nutty religious outdated and unenlightened
concept of procreation, if it comes to gays. OTH, you are very
concerned with the genetic results of procreation for people of
other sexual behaviour. What gives?
BTW, that was (among other things) what I was talking about
when making reference to Animal Farm and gays/lesbians being
more equal than others.
> - even where the participants were
> consenting adults, as opposed to abused children.
> But you did know this, didn't you, and were just teasing with a
> comparison as outrageous as the one above? ;-)
However hard I try, I can't see what is more outrageous about one man
loving two women and them returning love, with all sexual implications,
than one man loving another, with all sexual implications. Please help my
wicked mind. :-)
> >> And if so, the rationale for that is...?
> >
> > It's not so, as described above. But please tell me, what is a rationale
> > for opposing (or even not suggesting, if we are so righteous and
> > considerate) marriages (and on purpose I'm not saying "unions")
> > of more than two people?
>
> Nothing. That is not my position, anyway. I think you need to ask the
> Pope that question.
I didn't notice his contributions here, so please don't side-step the issue.
;-)
> > Or two people affected by their genetic
> > makeup for which hey can't be blamed for?
>
> Are you talking about incest again?
No. I'm talking about the fact that you seem to treat some genetical
preconditions more favourably than others, while people born
with them are in no way responsible for their genetic makeup.
Just think about it.
> > (Maybe we should
> > call them "onions"? You know, multiple layers. And not only in
> > the bed. And multiple lawyers. Also not only in the bed. :-)
> >
> >> On one hand you are opposed to homosexual marriage and on another hand
> >> you are comparing polygamy
> >
> > I freely admit to opposing to call homosexual union a marriage.
>
> Well, that's fine then. If we only differ on semantics, I think there's
> good chance we will agree 100% in the end! ;-)
It's not really about semantics. Calling it that just derides majority
of Eart's population. Either we get technical, and fuck PCness and
religiosity, or we discuss issues within the social context. But
somehow I think that you would be honest enough to admit that
it would be unfair (and therefore invalid) to discuss some subjects
(or their aspects) in purely logical manner and others in purely
emotional manner.
> > I'm not saying they shouldn't have an equal rights as any married
> > couple (see the verb "to couple"). My problem (and not only mine)
> > is that they want to ram it down our throats till we choke, and
> > try to hijack relgious institution (marriage) just to show us they
> > can do it.
>
> Ah; c'mon - you've been reading too much of The Guardian! :-)
Nice try, again.
Marriage is, historically, a religious institution. And it doesn't matter
what religion we are talking about. How old are civil ceremonies, and
organization of nations on non-religious grounds as states? I know
that I sound like a broken record, but why the central issue wasn't
equal rights, but "marriage"? And you, as anti-religious person,
have no problem with using millenia old religious concept for
the purpose all those religions oppose to.
> Personally I know several gay people and have several more for clients,
> yet not a single one wants to "ram" anything down anyone's throat. They
> just want to be treated the same as any other couple - with which you've
> just said you agree; good!
Oh, but they want legalized gay marriage, don't they? They won't settle
for recognized civil union, with the same rights as other married couples?
Please ask them and let me know, I'm really interested in the street's
opinion.
And I'm not sure if you've noticed that I didn't call for a "marriage"
between multiple consenting adults regardless of their genetical
heritage (they are not responsible for anyway). Just for civil
(you see, I'm not asking for religious, as gays are) recognition
and equal rights not cropped by their sexual behaviour. I'm
asking for much less than gays, and you seem to be denying
me even the crumbs from the feast table. So much for equality, eh?
> Only very few of them are even interested in "marriage"; they just want
> equal legal recognition, which is something they still don't have to
> anywhere the same extent as us "straights".
See above. Why the gay activism concentrated on the "marriage" issue,
and not purely on "equal legal recognition"? That's why I say they are
ramming their agenda down our throats.
> You should look at the
> issues surrounding, for example, estate planning for gay couples - an
> absolute nightmare and totally unfair in many aspects (at least here in
> Australia; could be different in Canada).
Well. I'm crying already. How unfair! It's not like in enlightened
Canada, when woman, if she decides, can legally get you dead.
Either you commit suicide, or die of hunger, or in jail. For no
other reason than she doesn't like you any more. But I digress.
Who said that life is fair?
> What you describe above is the result of a very noisy, very tiny
> minority, supported by assorted leftists desperate for a cause to pursue.
But that's not an excuse. Most of the human suffering was caused
by "a very noisy, very tiny minority" getting to power, by intimidation
and elbowing their way to the top through indifferent silent majority.
> > And gullible among us will applaud to their "worthy"
> > goal.
>
> I'm happy to applaud. And I say that as a happily married heterosexual.
Well, we can discuss it again when marriage will be deemed inappropriate for
heteros, because their sexual preference/orientation is aberation.
> I'd be more concerned if they wanted me to pay for their ceremonies, but
> so far there's no sign of that happening! :-)
>
> > Please remember that there is a difference between being
> > non-religious and anti-religious.
>
> Of course. I'm happy to rally under the anti flag. ;-)
> If there is evil in the world, you can bet it's the result of religious
> dogma.
It's up for discussion. If I said it already on this forum. I apologise.
When engaged in similar argument elsewhere, I've pulled up numbers
of people killed due non-religious ideologies and secular despots
versus estimated victims of Christianity (the scope of discussion
wasn't religion in general, just the thorn in the leftist's eye). I don't
have it any more, but I remember that Christianity looked like
rosy-faced fresh-bathed and oiled baby when compared with
anti-religious crowd.
> > But as I've indicated, if you
> > endorse gay marriage you would be a hypocrite not to support
> > the marriage of *any* number of consenting adults, despite the
> > DNA makeup they are not responsible for anyway.
>
> That argument does not stand up for the reasons given above.
Yeah. But reasons (or opinions, rather) are not arguments.
> > After all, it's
> > all about love, life commitment and what not. It's not about
> > procreation, and even secular religionists should not be able to get
> > away with "obscure religious grounds". Whadda yoy say?
>
> What's a "secular religionist"?
You, for one. You believe God doesn't exist without any shred of evidence
supporting your belief. Again, to support my view, here is a quote from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion:
[quote]
Religion (see etymology below) -sometimes used interchangeably
with faith or belief system-is commonly defined as belief
concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral
codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated
with such belief.
[/quote]
Please note that "supernatural" is only one facet of the term.
Although, given the facts, even your secular belief could be
described as supernatural. Isn't English a fine language? ;-)
> >> - i.e. the marriage of one man to many women
> >> - with presumably a loving, committed homosexual relationship of two
> >> adult human beings; which by that analogy you believe should also be
> >> illegal.
> >
> > Nowhere I've said that "homosexual relationship of two
> > adult human beings" ... "should also be illegal".
>
> That's OK then. :-)
>
> > All what I'm saying
> > is that marriage of above should not be legally recognized institution.
>
> That's not OK, unless you are really saying that as long as gays settle
> for a "legal union" - with exactly the same rights and, say, an
> appropriate civil ceremony, then it's all okey-dokey.
This is exactly what I'm saying. Same rights, different term. Surely
there must be some combinations of symbols of English alphabet
left to describe a new phenomenom. No need to steal a well-established
word, don't you think?
> In which case again, you are merely playing with words and your POW is
> not that different from mine. ;-)
As I've indicated earlier, I don't think it's "merely playing with words".
You are aware that words what were perfectly kosher some time ago
are being erased from dictionaries (and vocabularies, to boot it) because
they are deemed to being offensive by some special interest groups.
Surely you wouldn't accept my calling gays some other name and
my defense that it is "merely playing with words". Or would you?
As you can see, there are different digrees of simplicity, and I don't want
to divert to discussion about fractals, universe and everything.
> >> This does not make sense. --
> >
> > Of course. But I wouldn't expect from you to criticize me for
> > something I didn't state.
>
> I try not to. Sometimes you need to repeat what you said, before I get
> it. :-)
It's clearly my fault. Unless the opponent refuses to hear what I'm saying.
:-)
> > I understand that you disapprove of my
> > disapproval of "gayness".
>
> Not really; I don't disapprove. I think you are generally a fairly
> sensible person and whether you approve or disapprove of something is a
> moot point, as long as you don't proclaim that all of those practising
> whatever it is you disapprove of should be shot.
It's more complicated than that. I still think that all of those
practicising
some of what I disagree with should be shot. No, take that back. Should
get the same treatment as their victims. But people of different sexual
preference/orientation/behaviour, if it is between consenting adults,
don't fall in that special category.
> I disapprove of smoking, yet I acknowledge smokers' right to smoke and
> believe that banning smoking everywhere and turning smokers into a
> pariah class is wrong, and if this came to a vote, I would vote for
> their rights.
Just in case you've missed, it will never come to vote, and politicians
pressured by special interest groups will make decisions. About
smoking bans. About gay marriages. About whatever. Talk about
insignificance of small, but loud minority. So your PR gesture
won't cost you anything :-)
> I would also vote that they should pay for their medical
> treatment - which incidentally to a large extent they already do via
> tobacco taxes.
Well, you want to punish them even more than they are.
After all, they are a cash cow for funding government projects,
like socialist healthcare, as you yourself recognize.
> Besides, they tend to die conveniently at about the time
> they would otherwise become eligible for the Aged Pension, so in fact it
> could be said smokers are model citizens! :-)
You could save your smiley. There was a scientifical study (don't have
reference to it), suggesting that by dying at the earlier age, smokers
unburden not only state-run pension plans (like if one could live off one,
unless being politician), but "universal", "free" socialist health-care
system.
I'm a smoker, and from my POW, government is stealing tons of money
from me to give it to someone else. Like to someone who is overweight
because (s)he eats 24/7 fat-saturated junk. And for that, you suggest, and
some other people, that smokers should be punished even more. E.g.
by paying some special medical premium, or whatever.
I have this secret dream. If by some miracle, or disease, all people
suddenly
stopped feling the urge to smoke, many governments would be totally fucked
up.
Billions plucked from thin (tobacco) air have to amount to something,
despite the level of corruption, waste, mediocrity and so forth in
socialist countries like Canada.
> > However, disapproval is not the same
> > as disrespect. IMHO it's genetically caused defect (and therefore
> > my previous reference tu it as unnatural, while back).
>
> Man, you are really playing with fire here. If it is a "genetically
> caused defect", do you think that, just maybe, it could be "cured" one
day?
Please see the quote on the top. It's the gay-rights activists suggesting
that. And studies I've read about before this issue was a hot political
potato and unbiased scientifical research based on facts was still
possible.
However, classifying some condition as caused genetically doesn't
suggest, in any way, shape or form, that that condition should be
automatically alleviated. And it even doesn't suggest it should not be :-)
> Like, you know, they've tried in the past? Castration, insulin shocks,
> that kind of stuff?
Now, you are being silly. I take it as a use of hyperbola, I'm doing
that myself too, sometimes :-)
> Considering it is relatively common for many people out there to start
> out straight and gradually become interested in the same sex as they get
> older, is this "defect" perhaps something like Altzheimers?
And perhaps, Mr. Pecka pointed to you to the answer? Just so you don't
get lost on your way, here is another quote from one of the links above:
[quote]
Some people who feel homosexual desire may engage in heterosexual
behavior and even heterosexual marriage for a number of reasons,
whether cultural or religious beliefs, or through fear of discrimination
should they "come out".
[/quote]
> Or how does this square with the fact most gays are actually bisexual?
> Are they then only partially genetically affected?
Again, see the links supplied above.
> Mmmm....not sure about your theory...
As long as you are sure about yours ...
> > Meaning that
> > I'm not going to shoot out cancer patients on the spot. But it would
> > kinda upset me if I was brainwashed into believing that having a cancer
> > is OK and natural, and someone wanted to infect me to learn about
> > benefits of having one first-hand.
>
> Now that is a rather far-fetched analogy, but I guess given what
> background belief system you have started this argument with, it clearly
> is logical and makes perfect sense... ;-)
It's getting too late, and it doesn't (it really doesn't) relate to the
point
on hand, so I skip the response.
> >> Or maybe it does, on some obscure religious grounds,
> >
> > Well, you wouldn't dare (publicly) to use the term
> > "obscure religious grounds" when talking about non-Christian
> > religion, would you?
>
> Me? Of course I would. Except maybe in Victoria (Aust. State), the home
> of the "world's first" anti-vilification laws. A place where two
> Christian pastors have been convinced and fined for reading passages
> from the Koran in their church "in a way that made the audience
> laugh"...Two Muslim converts happened to be there as "observers" and
> they complained.
Ozzies became Muzzies. Who could guess? :-(
> But here in the Northern Territory? No worries. Pass us another beer,
> mate! :-)
Enjoy while it lasts.
> >> which of course I would by definition
> >
> > By whose definition, if I may ask?
>
> Mine, of course. The only one that matters in this case. ;-)
Aha.
> >> be unable to
> >> follow, as I often tend to have trouble with arguments built around
> >> irrational pretexts.
> >
> > The question is how to recognize "irrational pretexts" on non-subjective
> > level, isn't it? Even objectivism tends to be a tad relative, eh? Er, I
mean
> > subjective :-)
>
> Typically one can safely conclude something is irrational if it's in any
> way, shape or form based solely on religious belief. ;-)
OK, so we have to turn to authority again, just for the definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality
[quote]
Irrationality is talking or acting without regard of rationality.
Usually pejorative, the term is used to describe emotion-driven
thinking and actions which are, or appear to be, less useful or
logical than the rational alternatives. There is a clear tendency
to view our own thoughts, words, and actions as rational and
to see those who disagree as irrational.
[/quote]
As you can see, there is no correlation between irrationality
and religiosity in rational definition of irrationality. But you knew
that already, didn't you? (And I especially like the spin /not mine/
it puts on your definition :-)
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>> Perhaps your use of this term in such a context confused me to assume
>> you were talking about homosexuality - which indeed is a sexual
>preference.
>
>As is clear from above, it's rather sexual orientation. According to the
>source, it's "gay rights advocates" saying it, so if you don't agree, take
>it up with them. :-)
>OTH, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation:
>[quote]
>For example, men who have sex with men, or "MSM",
>is a clinical term used to describe behavior only.
>[/quote]
>
>So here we go about preference, orientation and behaviour. My point
>being, yet again, that it's hypocritical to approve and support one
>kind of sexual behaviour and not others, on whatever made-up pretext.
I just don't get this argument: You did say that you believe that
homosexuality is probably genetic. Fine, there is plenty of evidence
of it, and I am indeed in an agreement with it. Hence, it is not a
"just" a behavioural issue over which people have control, but rather
an innate condition. So are you now suggesting that polygamy is also a
genetic, innate condition? Obviously not, so how can you make such
comparisons? And why does it matter anyway? Who is the one being
hypocritical here?
>OK. What is a percentage of gay couples, as opposed to couples
>married in a religious ceremony, where *both* partners really
>*mean* to be it a lifetime commitment. To be clear, I'm not
>talking about situation if it doesn't work out, if there is a honest
>commitment at the onset of relationship.
Do you really expect that anyone would have such statistics? How would
such figures be actually obtained considering the society attitudes
towards homosexuality? Your question also seems to imply that in order
for gays to be able to demonstrate a credible lifetime commitment for
one another, they do need a religious ceremony - which is precisely
what you wish to deny them!
>BTW, that was (among other things) what I was talking about
>when making reference to Animal Farm and gays/lesbians being
>more equal than others.
Where exactly do gays/lesbians say or imply they are more equal then
others? By claiming they want the *equal* rights to be married? :-)
>Nice try, again.
>Marriage is, historically, a religious institution.
Religion always steps in in important moments of human life; birth,
various passage rites, marriage, death. People always thought that
these special occasions needed some ceremony to make them more
profound and memorable, and religion always obliged, especially as
there was money to be made in a nice and cosy monopoly. The growing
number of people who discard religious ceremonies, yet celebrate
marriage with equal joy and equal result, is a testimony to the fact
that the religious element is no longer important to many people.
>See above. Why the gay activism concentrated on the "marriage" issue,
>and not purely on "equal legal recognition"? That's why I say they are
>ramming their agenda down our throats.
I guess some of them must be in agreement with your own assertion that
only a religious ceremony provides a couple the necessary recognition
and blessing for happiness in a life-long commitment. So why should
they stop there? For some, this would be as important as it is to you.
For others, it would be "only" a matter of principle. Many others
wouldn't care, I am sure. So why not go for the whole lot so that
everyone can be happy.
>Well. I'm crying already. How unfair! It's not like in enlightened
>Canada, when woman, if she decides, can legally get you dead.
>Either you commit suicide, or die of hunger, or in jail. For no
>other reason than she doesn't like you any more. But I digress.
>Who said that life is fair?
I am sure that after gays will get their marriage, which is
inevitable, many of them will eventually regret it when it comes to
messy divorce suits. In fact granting it to them might be your best
"revenge". :-)
>But that's not an excuse. Most of the human suffering was caused
>by "a very noisy, very tiny minority" getting to power, by intimidation
>and elbowing their way to the top through indifferent silent majority.
There seems to be quite a difference: I have not heard yet the gays
saying they'd like to put all straights into concentration camps. They
just want to get married and invite you to the party. :-)
>You believe God doesn't exist without any shred of evidence
>supporting your belief.
Nice try. If you believe in something, the onus is always on *you* to
prove it. So where is your "irrefutable proof that God exists" that we
can finally *not* have to laugh at?
By the way, there is a large green monkey, sitting on a rocking chair,
orbiting the invisible planet called Magma, right in the centre of the
Milky Way. He is our Creator, the Ruler of the Universe, and He knows
all our thoughts. Stop worshipping Him at your peril! Are you saying I
am wrong? Even crazy?? What, without any shred of evidence supporting
your belief??? :-)
Jiri Pecka
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>>>That means you were probably never exposed to any of this.
>>
>> Pardon my naivity, any of what exactly?
>
>Most of the stuff I'm talking about, like gay marriage ballot
>initiatives, and indoctrination of children in school disguised
>as "sensitivity training" is relatively new.
You are right; I haven't been exposed to it. In order to make a
judgment I would need to see the specific details of it. In general,
is such a "sensitivity training" necessary? Considering the fact that
people are still hated, bashed or even murdered just for being
homosexual, bearing in mind activities such as
http://www.godhatesfags.com, or the sad fact that if gays are holding
hands in my nearby public park, then this is a health hazard for them
(one gay has been bashed to death and another severely injured just a
walking distance from my home), I'd say probably yes, although I do
recognize this may provoke an adverse reaction in some people, and
probably largely undeserved.
>> I am not sure what exactly in your view would fall under "facilitating
>> cohabitation", but in any case I believe that marriage is also a
>> serious expression of love and commitment to one's partner. Is this
>> what you suggested that exists, in your words, "in the mind of most
>> people"? If so, then what exactly are your grounds for denying gay
>> people this?
>
>OK George, let me try to lay it out for you ;-)
>I don't know how it is in your part of the world, but here
>the purpose of the marriage license is to provide certain eco-
>nomic benefits to childbearing couples, primarily to facilitate
>having and raising children. Why would you need a license
>and a tax break for anything else marriage presumably provides,
>like "love and commitment to one's partner"? I'm sure you
>know many married couples who are absolutely miserable
>with each other, and the only thing that keeps them together
>are the children they need to provide for. That is the only kind
>of commitment that matters to society as a whole.
To be frank, I am not sure anymore what actually matters to society as
a whole. :-) In any case, how do I ask "society" what matters to it?
The institution of marriage exists, and it does not exclude people who
can't have, or don't want to have, children. And besides, who is to
say that all gays don't want to have children anyway? Is it better for
an orphan or some handicapped kid whom no-one wants to suffer alone in
an institution or be adopted by a sensible, loving gay couple?
>> Are you really saying this with a straight (no pun intended)
>> face? So according to you, elderly people should not be
>> allowed to marry, and if a married couple does not produce
>> children (within your strictly specified deadline of course -
>> how long would you grant them, say 10 months max?),
>> then they should be automatically forced to divorce, in
>> order to uphold the sanctity of the noble "cornerstone
>> of our civilization"?
>
>No I am not saying that. What I'm saying is, this is where
>the gay lobby seems to be driving this issue in our courts -
>civil rights and fairness in the eyes of the law - instead of
>looking common ground in the definition of what marriage
>is.
Where else would you look for fairness and civil rights then in
legislation? What exactly, specifically, do you mean by "looking for
common ground in the definition of what marriage is"? Damned if they
do, damned if they don't...
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yra9j
>>>
>>>I have heard all the legal, economic, and philosophical arguments.
>>>You can hear all mine at:
>>>http://tinyurl.com/9vrku
>>
>> This rather illogical argument, has been thoroughly and intelligently
>> debunked by the Economist article I quoted above. Apparently, you have
>> not read it? To counter that with this quote from Michael Savage
>> serves nothing but underscoring my argument.
>
>And you have obviously not bothered to look for my arguments
>further down in the thread. The Savage quote was just a teaser
>designed to provoke a reaction. Nowhere have I indicated that
>I agree with anything this guy has ever said.
No, I did not look further down the thread, you are right. But you did
not tell me that I had to do so! :-)
If I go down in the (too long) thread, I can see is many insults from
the side of the homophobes, which kind of suggests they might need
some sensibility training. :-) Apart from your first post (which you
have now yourself disowned as being merely a teaser), you have made
further two contributions in that thread, and on both counts your
points were soundly defeated by your opponents, to whom you have then
not responded. ;-)
Jiri Pecka
Stan R
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:11:24 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
>
>>> However, disapproval is not the same
>>> as disrespect. IMHO it's genetically caused defect (and therefore
>>> my previous reference tu it as unnatural, while back).
>> Man, you are really playing with fire here. If it is a "genetically
>> caused defect", do you think that, just maybe, it could be "cured" one day?
>
> Actually, I happen to be with Mr. nobody on this one. I tend to agree
> that it is probably genetic...
...defect?
Have a good read what you are agreeing with, before giving such an
unqualified endorsement. ;-)
> From what I understand, people "feel"
> their sexual preference deep inside from early childhood, long before
> they actually learn all those interesting details about having sex,
> similarly to left-handed children who go about using their left hand
> in preference to the right one automatically, as if it was a perfectly
> natural thing - and for them it indeed is.
Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
details about having sex". ;-)
But I don't dispute that perhaps this may indeed be the "normal" case -
whatever "normal" may mean.
Mind you, I don't think a comparison with left-handedness is valid, as
the "cause" of that particular "defect" has long been known to originate
in a specific "wiring" of the brain.
No such cause has yet been found with homosexuality.
>> Like, you know, they've tried in the past? Castration, insulin shocks,
>> that kind of stuff?
>
> Inventive as mankind undoubtedly is, it might be possible one day to
> alter this condition, perhaps by some sort of DNA manipulation.
Yes, I'm sure you are right. Like myself, you do believe in the power of
the human mind to come up with all sorts of amazing inventions and
discoveries.
God willing, of course! :-)
> But
> only in a nasty Orwellian society should this ever need to be
> contemplated. Why bother at all? Why would anyone sensible want all
> people to be "cured" so that they are all the same? Where would you
> stop, prescribing the same eye colour, etc.?
Blond, tall, with blue eyes. Hang on...haven't we been there before?
> I think it would be all
> rather boring. From what I know, most homosexuals are happy about what
> they are, if only the outside world gave them a break so that they
> could hold hands in a public park safely without being jeered at or
> spat upon, or worse. I'd like to believe this will be true much
> earlier before we will have the technological means to turn gays into
> straights.
Dead set. I could not agree more. I also think that within the next two
or three decades, open homosexual behaviour of the kind you describe
will become akin to your earlier comparison with left-handedness -
totally normal and nothing to comment about.
>> Considering it is relatively common for many people out there to start
>> out straight and gradually become interested in the same sex as they get
>> older, is this "defect" perhaps something like Altzheimers?
>
> Could it be that they were gay all their lives and got married because
> of familiy and societal pressures? Now when the kids are grown up and
> the society has become a bit more tolerant, perhaps there are fewer
> reasons to keep pretending?
It could, but I find it hard to believe this is _always_ the predominant
case.
I do know a woman for instance, in her mid thirties, who for a number of
years lived in a lesbian relationship. In fact, she'd never ever had a
male sexual partner before. She has recently "shacked up" with a male
friend and has now become "normal" to the extent they are contemplating
getting married. ;-)
Now given that there was no closet this person needed to come out of in
the first place, considering she was living in an openly homosexual
relationship, her moving to become straight would indicate to me that
such a shift, be it sudden like seemingly at least it was in this case,
or gradual, is entirely possible - without the parameters you specified
above.
>> Or how does this square with the fact most gays are actually bisexual?
>
> Is this correct? Have you seen any figures to support this?
Sure - the main body of work of Alfred Kinsey sets to prove just this
contention.
Mind you, I should have clarified that this applies equally across the
board, to both gays and straights.
Kinsey contends that very few people are fully this way or the other;
rather we all fit somewhere along the line; away from the extremes.
Therefore most of us are bisexual to some degree:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html
In this case he applies his research findings onto males only, but in
his other work this was shown to hold for females as well.
It is also not unusual, according to Kinsey and others, for our
preference to alter to a various degree as we progress between gradle
and grave.
<...>
S
Stan R
I have already explained that that was the only way I could manage to
"connect" the comparison you were clearly making.
I have also since stated that I obviously misunderstood you.
Why continue to dwell on it?
>> Having multiple partners - i.e. being promiscuous -
>> is not a sexual preference; it's simply a behavioural characteristic.
>
> Well, OK, so I had to look it up at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_preference
> so as to not remain ignorant about terms we are using here. I'll paste
> quote here from above link because it's relevant to what we are
> discussing here:
> [quote]
> After using the term for a short period of time, gay rights
> advocates generally began using the term sexual orientation
> instead, as it helped to promote the view that sexual desire
> was a not a matter of "preference" but inherent and
> unchangeable (i.e. homosexuality is something one is
> born with).
> [/quote]
And this quote from wiki relates to the point being made exactly in what
way?
You have now found that according to wiki "sexual preference" is these
days called "sexual orientation". Fine. So what does that have to do
with "promiscuity"?
>> Perhaps your use of this term in such a context confused me to assume
>> you were talking about homosexuality - which indeed is a sexual
> preference.
>
> As is clear from above, it's rather sexual orientation. According to the
> source, it's "gay rights advocates" saying it, so if you don't agree, take
> it up with them. :-)
So? How does this relate to promiscuous behaviour?
> OTH, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation:
> [quote]
> For example, men who have sex with men, or "MSM",
> is a clinical term used to describe behavior only.
> [/quote]
From the same source:
"Sexual orientation refers to the sexual gender(s) to which a person is
attracted and which form the focus of a person's amorous or erotic
desires, fantasies, and spontaneous feelings, in other words the
gender(s) toward which one is primarily 'oriented'."
This confirms basically what I said above. Again I am left to ask: What
does this have to do with "promiscuity"?
> So here we go about preference, orientation and behaviour. My point
> being, yet again, that it's hypocritical to approve and support one
> kind of sexual behaviour and not others, on whatever made-up pretext.
> More about that later.
Nice strawman. There was never any talk on my side of "approving and
supporting one kind of sexual behaviour over another". You were
comparing sexual orientation/preference (take your pick) with sexual
behaviour.
Even then, I've stated several times already that I have no argument
with your original argument - i.e. that there is no reason for polygamy
to be illegal.
I don't think polygamy and homosexuality have anything in common, one
being "sexual behaviour" and the other "sexual preference", but whatever
- I'm happy to agree neither should be illegal. Therefore, at this
stage, you and I do not have an argument.
Have I made myself clear now?
>>>> How does this relate to making a lifetime commitment to one person and
>>>> sticking with that commitment?
>>> It depends how one defines "a lifetime commitment ...", doesn't it?
>> Not really. What's there to define? Lifetime commitment to
>> something/somebody is just that - lifetime.
>
> OK. What is a percentage of gay couples, as opposed to couples
> married in a religious ceremony, where *both* partners really
> *mean* to be it a lifetime commitment. To be clear, I'm not
> talking about situation if it doesn't work out, if there is a honest
> commitment at the onset of relationship.
Who knows? Perhaps more than you would think. I am not aware of any
study having been done on this for either homos or heteros.
I have no doubt that except for the odd marriage of convenience, anyone
who's getting married believes it's to be a lifetime commitment.
But again - perhaps when you are going through it for the third or
fourth time, that conviction may be less strong! ;-)
>> Or would you say that living with someone for 10 years equals lifetime
>> commitment?
>
> Nope. Technically, you can assess it only after both partners are 6' under.
> But I'm just splitting hair :-)
>
>> I suppose living with some people even for a few months can feel like a
>> lifetime, but that's something altogether different. :-)
>
> Oh, my. Did you invite in-laws? :-)
My in-laws are actually nice people, but even so, I don't begrudge the
fact they live in New Zealand! ;-)
>>>>> And it has nothing to do with religious freedom, a feeble
>>>>> scare-monger wrapper around the special-interest issues. To praphrase
>>>>> a familiar saying, some sexual preferences are deemed more eqaul than
>>>>> others, and the most 'equal' ones are homosexual. I guess the
> 'redneck'
>>>>> heteros will have a tough life for a few centuries to come.
>>>> Mindless conspiracy theory.
>>> Do you really believe that?
>> I do. Perhaps I should apologise for using a rather uncouth turn of
>> phrase, but what you said above is not only incorrect but also rather
>> simplistic.
>
> Well, if I hear about stories schools showing pictures of gay sexual
> activity and describing it as a "love", and parents are not allowed
> to see what their kids are taght ... I don't get upset if you call my
> statement simplistic, but it could benefit me if you pointed out
> where and why I'm wrong.
I don't have children so cannot comment what they teach in schools these
days. Having said that, I would be more concerned with kids being taught
about American imperialism and the benefits of communist/socialist
societies (as is apparently not uncommon) than being shown a picture of
two men/women kissing.
But that's just my opinion.
>>>> Sorry, but the point you are trying to make
>>>> continues to escape me. Are you saying that if we want to ban polygamy,
>>>> we should also ban homosexuality?
>>> No. What I'm saying is that if you are promoting love,
>>> freedom of consenting adults, lifetime commitment, etc. in case
>>> of gays/lesbians, you should support the same in the case of
>>> pplygamic or polyandric relationships. (Check out Heinlein's Friday.)
>> OK; fair enough.
>>
>> I certainly would not have any problem with that; if someone is not
>> happy with having just one wife, good luck to him to have several. I
>> will be the first one to offer my commiserations! :-)
>
> Back in CSSSR we had this joke:
> Q: What is a punisment for polygamy?
> A: Multiple mothers-in-law!
>
>> It could even help eliminate situations akin to the case of the Islamic
>> Imam in France we were discussing here some time ago.
>
> C'mon. Would you deny the benefit of "love", "lifetime commitment"
> and "marriage" to a gay couple just because they practice some
> religion? If yes, than you are not really pro-gay, but anti-religious,
> and you've chosen gay/lesbian vehicle for the attack.
> If not, than you shouldn't decline societal benefits to people
> of different sexual behaviour than those by 'approved' ones.
Did you read what I said? The fact this bloke is an Islamic Imam is only
a peripheral issue; the main point is that current law allows his
other wives to collect welfare benefits they should not be entitled to.
From that POV, to allow polygamy would be of benefit to society.
>> Several wives,
>> loads of children, no job (or indeed any intention of getting one) and
>> due to the wives (bar the "official" one) being classed as single
>> mothers, the happy family was collecting over 6000 euro a month in
>> welfare payments.
>
> So? Legalizing polygamy and classifying them as a family, with
> presumed maximum of benefits per family unit would solve the problem,
> wouldn't it?
Indeed. Precisely what I'd said.
> You are just disguising your sexual-behaviour bigotry as
> an economical issue. I could make similar assertions about gay marriages
> and implications for tax, real estate, insurance et al. consequences. But
> I didn't, because that is not the real issue, and if I did, you would rip
> me to the pieces, wouldn't you? :-)
Smile all you want; it is actually in many cases "the real issue". But
let's not go there; I don't feel like going into examples of clear
discrimination that exists in much of current tax/social security etc
law against same sex couples.
>>> Wiping out "incest" from CC is next, of course. If there is no intent
>>> to procreate, surely there is no harm in two (or more) people living
>>> in sexual harmony, love, lifetime commitment, etc., even if they
>>> happen, by misfortune of their genetic makeup, to be brother(s) and
>>> sister(s), or men and women.
>> While from a purely libertarian perspective I have no problem with this,
>> it is not as simple, because typically incest occurs not between
>> brothers and sisters, but between fathers and daughters.
>
> Even if it was so (you didn't provide any reliable statistics), so what?
> What do you have against sexual behaviour of two or more consenting
> adults? Honestly.
Honestly?
Are you serious, or did you just forget the smiley?
Can't you see that this is precisely what it is not - i.e. "two or more
consenting _adults_"?
Or would you argue we should legalize paedophilia, because many of those
10-year old kids understand what it's all about and are therefore
"consenting"?
Please...don't make me lower my so far respectable opinion of
yourself... :-(
>> You are dealing with relationships here which are by their very nature
>> extremely unequal;
>
> Oh, I see. While all other relationships are extremely equal.
A father/offspring relationship, where that offspring is a young child,
is an extremely unequal relationship. Who has the power here? Can it
ever be the child?
I am sorry if you can't see it, and if so, then perhaps we should stop
debating right here.
>> therefore this cannot be condoned in any justifiable way.
>
> You see, you sound just like some preacher. I understand you. Deep
> within you, you believe that *some* sexual behaviours should be
> expunged.
I believe that child abuse can never be condoned and therefore should be
expunged.
I feel sorry for you if you feel otherwise.
> You can't support it on any rational grounds (your
> statement above doesn't constitute one),
The fact that in this instance you seem to be unable to distinguish what
is and what isn't rational does not yet mean that my argument above is
faulty.
> but you still think you
> are right.
Of course I'm right. And the sole reason that I can put down your
possible attempt at challenging this particular assertion in the context
of incestuous relationships is that you do not understand what is being
said, or alternatively that you are taking the piss.
> And you are. But there are people who think that some
> *other* sexual behaviour is "wrong". Point being made is that
> you can't open Pandorra's box only half-way. If you start
> tampering with something what was (rightly or wrongly)
> established for millenia, you should have enough of a stomach
> to take it all.
What is is that has been established for millennia in this instance?
Even primitive societies recognized incest for what it was, and
therefore it has been a universal taboo across all cultures.
Homosexuality and/or polygamy, to borrow your, if imperfect, comparison,
have in the past been tolerated and/or openly practised in many cultures.
The current situation regarding both is a direct result of centuries of
Catholic church's approach towards the subject.
How does reversing this situation on one or both of these fronts open
the Pandora's box, and how does this equal legalizing incest?
>> Of course, another issue to consider is that at least in case of
>> homosexual couples, if they desire to have children, there is no danger
>> of this occurring without engaging an outside donor.
>
> Unless the future progress in DNA tampering will solve the "problem".
> I doubt you would deny them the benefits of medical science with the
> same vigor you deny theoretical cure for their condition.
Then good luck to them! I would hope that even you could accept that if
such an "operation" were possible, the chance of a handicapped offspring
arising as a result would be eliminated, or at least reduced to a level
comparable to the "normal" population.
So what's the problem? Would you not rather have a child growing up in a
loving, caring homosexual household, as opposed to a broken down one
ruled by an alcoholic child abuser - despite the fact he was heterosexual?
It's still a long way removed from a father fucking his 10-year old
daughter, don't you think?
>> The potential for
>> genetic defects that are likely to result from incestuous relationships
>> - initial "agreement" to not procreate notwithstanding; the potential is
>> there - would indicate to be sufficient grounds to ban these types of
>> relationships across the board
>
> Now, on one hand you take argument that it's about "love" and
> "relationship", not some nutty religious outdated and unenlightened
> concept of procreation, if it comes to gays. OTH, you are very
> concerned with the genetic results of procreation for people of
> other sexual behaviour. What gives?
I am sorry if you can't see the obvious.
> BTW, that was (among other things) what I was talking about
> when making reference to Animal Farm and gays/lesbians being
> more equal than others.
>
>> - even where the participants were
>> consenting adults, as opposed to abused children.
>
>> But you did know this, didn't you, and were just teasing with a
>> comparison as outrageous as the one above? ;-)
>
> However hard I try, I can't see what is more outrageous about one man
> loving two women and them returning love, with all sexual implications,
> than one man loving another, with all sexual implications. Please help my
> wicked mind. :-)
Please re-read what I said. Hint: It was not about the same thing as
your reply.
>>>> And if so, the rationale for that is...?
>>> It's not so, as described above. But please tell me, what is a rationale
>>> for opposing (or even not suggesting, if we are so righteous and
>>> considerate) marriages (and on purpose I'm not saying "unions")
>>> of more than two people?
>> Nothing. That is not my position, anyway. I think you need to ask the
>> Pope that question.
>
> I didn't notice his contributions here, so please don't side-step the issue.
> ;-)
Given, as already mentioned above, that we are at least in part talking
about a state of affairs directly related to teachings of predominantly
Catholic origins, I would have thought the implication was rather obvious.
>>> Or two people affected by their genetic
>>> makeup for which hey can't be blamed for?
>> Are you talking about incest again?
>
> No. I'm talking about the fact that you seem to treat some genetical
> preconditions more favourably than others, while people born
> with them are in no way responsible for their genetic makeup.
> Just think about it.
I have, and I still can't work out what you are on about. What genetic
preconditions are we comparing here? Polygamy and homosexuality again?
-- If so, I've stated several times that while I would dispute these are
both "genetic" preconditions, I've also said I have no problem treating
them equally.
If you are talking about incestuous relationships, then no, I make no
qualms about banning those.
I would also dispute that the inclination of some people - and I
hesitate to use the term "people" in this context - to screw their own
kids is "genetic" in its nature.
<...>
>>> I'm not saying they shouldn't have an equal rights as any married
>>> couple (see the verb "to couple"). My problem (and not only mine)
>>> is that they want to ram it down our throats till we choke, and
>>> try to hijack relgious institution (marriage) just to show us they
>>> can do it.
>> Ah; c'mon - you've been reading too much of The Guardian! :-)
>
> Nice try, again.
> Marriage is, historically, a religious institution. And it doesn't matter
> what religion we are talking about. How old are civil ceremonies, and
> organization of nations on non-religious grounds as states? I know
> that I sound like a broken record, but why the central issue wasn't
> equal rights, but "marriage"? And you, as anti-religious person,
> have no problem with using millenia old religious concept for
> the purpose all those religions oppose to.
As Mr Pecka has already replied to this elsewhere, I'll leave it as is.
>> Personally I know several gay people and have several more for clients,
>> yet not a single one wants to "ram" anything down anyone's throat. They
>> just want to be treated the same as any other couple - with which you've
>> just said you agree; good!
>
> Oh, but they want legalized gay marriage, don't they? They won't settle
> for recognized civil union, with the same rights as other married couples?
> Please ask them and let me know, I'm really interested in the street's
> opinion.
As a matter of fact, what most of them want is just equal legal
recognition. Believe it or not, eh?
> And I'm not sure if you've noticed that I didn't call for a "marriage"
> between multiple consenting adults regardless of their genetical
> heritage (they are not responsible for anyway). Just for civil
> (you see, I'm not asking for religious, as gays are) recognition
> and equal rights not cropped by their sexual behaviour. I'm
> asking for much less than gays, and you seem to be denying
> me even the crumbs from the feast table. So much for equality, eh?
Pardon me...what am I denying you here? The right to sleep with your own
- or, indeed, other people's - children?
'cos that's the only type of behaviour I would deny you. Whatever else
you do is your own business.
>> Only very few of them are even interested in "marriage"; they just want
>> equal legal recognition, which is something they still don't have to
>> anywhere the same extent as us "straights".
>
> See above. Why the gay activism concentrated on the "marriage" issue,
> and not purely on "equal legal recognition"? That's why I say they are
> ramming their agenda down our throats.
Because that's what sells newspapers. Simple, really.
>> You should look at the
>> issues surrounding, for example, estate planning for gay couples - an
>> absolute nightmare and totally unfair in many aspects (at least here in
>> Australia; could be different in Canada).
>
> Well. I'm crying already. How unfair! It's not like in enlightened
> Canada, when woman, if she decides, can legally get you dead.
> Either you commit suicide, or die of hunger, or in jail. For no
> other reason than she doesn't like you any more.
It is unfair, your unrelated story notwithstanding. Because you can come
up with a negative example relating to hetero relationships, does that
somehow justify continuation of an unsatisfactory and unfair state of
affairs in homosexual ones?
As Mr Pecka has pointed out, it is entirely possible that the very same
situation with all its associated acrimony will result for the gays from
what you are opposing - i.e. their right to marry.
Will you be happier then?
> But I digress.
> Who said that life is fair?
Who said it has to continue being unfair across the board?
<...>
>>> Please remember that there is a difference between being
>>> non-religious and anti-religious.
>> Of course. I'm happy to rally under the anti flag. ;-)
>> If there is evil in the world, you can bet it's the result of religious
>> dogma.
>
> It's up for discussion. If I said it already on this forum. I apologise.
> When engaged in similar argument elsewhere, I've pulled up numbers
> of people killed due non-religious ideologies and secular despots
> versus estimated victims of Christianity (the scope of discussion
> wasn't religion in general, just the thorn in the leftist's eye). I don't
> have it any more, but I remember that Christianity looked like
> rosy-faced fresh-bathed and oiled baby when compared with
> anti-religious crowd.
I've seen such arguments before. By and large, they are bullshit and
based on logical fallacies, outright untruths and/or ignoring of the
fact that when the Christian (read "Catholic") church was at its most
destructive, it lacked the weapons of mass destruction we have today -
at a time when its power has been severely curtailed and when in most
important ways it has also been forced to "mature" somewhat.
Unlike Islam, which is essentially where Christianity was a few hundred
years ago, but in an era of atomic weapons.
Having said that, note I did not specifically finger Christianity - I
was talking of religion in general.
<...>
>>> After all, it's
>>> all about love, life commitment and what not. It's not about
>>> procreation, and even secular religionists should not be able to get
>>> away with "obscure religious grounds". Whadda yoy say?
>> What's a "secular religionist"?
>
> You, for one. You believe God doesn't exist without any shred of evidence
> supporting your belief. Again, to support my view, here is a quote from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion:
> [quote]
> Religion (see etymology below) -sometimes used interchangeably
> with faith or belief system-is commonly defined as belief
> concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral
> codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated
> with such belief.
> [/quote]
> Please note that "supernatural" is only one facet of the term.
> Although, given the facts, even your secular belief could be
> described as supernatural. Isn't English a fine language? ;-)
It can be, provided you have mastered it sufficiently. ;-)
The para above can only relate to the argument you make if you stretch
its likely meaning way beyond any reasonable limits.
Regardless, again, this is an old, tired argument you are making; one
that Mr Pecka debunks with his usual elegance and succinctness
elsewhere. I will therefore refrain from repeating the effort.
<...>
>>> I understand that you disapprove of my
>>> disapproval of "gayness".
>> Not really; I don't disapprove. I think you are generally a fairly
>> sensible person and whether you approve or disapprove of something is a
>> moot point, as long as you don't proclaim that all of those practising
>> whatever it is you disapprove of should be shot.
>
> It's more complicated than that. I still think that all of those
> practicising
> some of what I disagree with should be shot. No, take that back. Should
> get the same treatment as their victims. But people of different sexual
> preference/orientation/behaviour, if it is between consenting adults,
> don't fall in that special category.
Good. This means you will revoke your comments about legalizing incest now?
>> I disapprove of smoking, yet I acknowledge smokers' right to smoke and
>> believe that banning smoking everywhere and turning smokers into a
>> pariah class is wrong, and if this came to a vote, I would vote for
>> their rights.
>
> Just in case you've missed, it will never come to vote, and politicians
> pressured by special interest groups will make decisions. About
> smoking bans. About gay marriages. About whatever. Talk about
> insignificance of small, but loud minority. So your PR gesture
> won't cost you anything :-)
But it can come to a vote. You just need to set up your very own vocal
minority. Sure, it's gonna be hard work, but how long do you think has
it taken the gay lobby to get itself heard?
The path is hard, but it's there.
>> I would also vote that they should pay for their medical
>> treatment - which incidentally to a large extent they already do via
>> tobacco taxes.
>
> Well, you want to punish them even more than they are.
Where did I say that? Have you read the rest of the para?
> After all, they are a cash cow for funding government projects,
> like socialist healthcare, as you yourself recognize.
Correct.
>> Besides, they tend to die conveniently at about the time
>> they would otherwise become eligible for the Aged Pension, so in fact it
>> could be said smokers are model citizens! :-)
>
> You could save your smiley. There was a scientifical study (don't have
> reference to it), suggesting that by dying at the earlier age, smokers
> unburden not only state-run pension plans (like if one could live off one,
> unless being politician), but "universal", "free" socialist health-care
> system.
I know.
> I'm a smoker, and from my POW, government is stealing tons of money
> from me to give it to someone else. Like to someone who is overweight
> because (s)he eats 24/7 fat-saturated junk. And for that, you suggest, and
> some other people, that smokers should be punished even more. E.g.
> by paying some special medical premium, or whatever.
Don't be so touchy. I did not say "single out smokers". I used them as
an example. I actually believe people should be able to do whatever they
want, as long as it's not harming anyone else but themselves. If that
activity requires extra funding, let them fund it themselves. If they
are already paying extra taxes due to the activity they are engaging in,
let's work out what the shortfall is and let them fund that.
Do you disagree with such and approach? And if so, on what grounds?
<...>
And I have replied to that elsewhere.
<...>
Regards,
S
kujebak
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:49:11 GMT, "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>That means you were probably never exposed to any of this.
>>>
>>> Pardon my naivity, any of what exactly?
>>
>>Most of the stuff I'm talking about, like gay marriage ballot
>>initiatives, and indoctrination of children in school disguised
>>as "sensitivity training" is relatively new.
>
> You are right; I haven't been exposed to it. In order to make a
> judgment I would need to see the specific details of it. In general,
> is such a "sensitivity training" necessary? Considering the fact that
> people are still hated, bashed or even murdered just for being
> homosexual, bearing in mind activities such as
> http://www.godhatesfags.com, or the sad fact that if gays are holding
> hands in my nearby public park, then this is a health hazard for them
> (one gay has been bashed to death and another severely injured just a
> walking distance from my home), I'd say probably yes, although I do
> recognize this may provoke an adverse reaction in some people, and
> probably largely undeserved.
Aside from the long-established concept (from English
Common Law) in our society of presumed innocence
until proven guilty, which, in general, makes this kind of
focused indoctrination of our children an instance of com-
munist-style social engineering, and a blatant misuse of
public school authority, you're not even addressing my
point, which is whether this specific subject matter even
belongs in the classroom.
>
>>> I am not sure what exactly in your view would fall under "facilitating
>>> cohabitation", but in any case I believe that marriage is also a
>>> serious expression of love and commitment to one's partner. Is this
>>> what you suggested that exists, in your words, "in the mind of most
>>> people"? If so, then what exactly are your grounds for denying gay
>>> people this?
>>
>>OK George, let me try to lay it out for you ;-)
>>I don't know how it is in your part of the world, but here
>>the purpose of the marriage license is to provide certain eco-
>>nomic benefits to childbearing couples, primarily to facilitate
>>having and raising children. Why would you need a license
>>and a tax break for anything else marriage presumably provides,
>>like "love and commitment to one's partner"? I'm sure you
>>know many married couples who are absolutely miserable
>>with each other, and the only thing that keeps them together
>>are the children they need to provide for. That is the only kind
>>of commitment that matters to society as a whole.
>
> To be frank, I am not sure anymore what actually matters to
> society as a whole. :-) In any case, how do I ask "society"
> what matters to it?
All you have to do is to look at your tax code.
I am sure in Australia you have the same two basic tax rate
categories as we do - single, and married ;-)
> The institution of marriage exists, and it does not exclude
> people who can't have, or don't want to have, children.
As I aready said, infertile or unwilling (heterosexual) couples
getting the benefit of the doubt is not enough to invalidate the
underlying intent of special treatment of marriage as presently
defined (legal union of two people of the opposite sex).
> And besides, who is to say that all gays don't want to have
> children anyway? Is it better for an orphan or some handi-
> capped kid whom no-one wants to suffer alone in an insti-
> tution or be adopted by a sensible, loving gay couple?
Even if a substantial number of gay couples *did* want to
raise children (a somewhat far-fetched presumption), their
number would still be insignificant compared to the rest of
(normal) families on social services adoption waiting lists.
Then there is the issue of the selection process itself.
A whole new can of worms, wouldn't you say ;-)
>
>>> Are you really saying this with a straight (no pun intended)
>>> face? So according to you, elderly people should not be
>>> allowed to marry, and if a married couple does not produce
>>> children (within your strictly specified deadline of course -
>>> how long would you grant them, say 10 months max?),
>>> then they should be automatically forced to divorce, in
>>> order to uphold the sanctity of the noble "cornerstone
>>> of our civilization"?
>>
>>No I am not saying that. What I'm saying is, this is where
>>the gay lobby seems to be driving this issue in our courts -
>>civil rights and fairness in the eyes of the law - instead of
>>looking common ground in the definition of what marriage
>>is.
>
> Where else would you look for fairness and civil rights then in
> legislation? What exactly, specifically, do you mean by "looking
> for common ground in the definition of what marriage is"?
> Damned if they do, damned if they don't...
I am pointing out the fact the "gay marriage" issue is not an
equal rights issue, any more than slavery was before the 13th
Amendment to the Constitution. It will not be an equal rights
issue until we redefine the concept of "marriage" in the same
fundamental way (as a legal union of two individuals, period).
And no, they're not damned if they don't. There are many
places in the U.S. (California included) with same-sex civil
union provisions in state law, giving gay couples virtually all
the economic benefits of being married.
kujebak
As far as I recall, the guy made a couple of pithy arguments
about equal rights, based on the underlying premise that people
of the same sex were discriminated against by not being allowed
to marry, but he didn't come up with anything (not one thing) to
convince me of the *overall benefit* of changing the definition
of marriage, in order to make his argument valid, compared to
the volumes of contrary evidence I brought in.
>
> Jiri Pecka
>
Jiri Pecka
>Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
>details about having sex". ;-)
What, you were not attracted by females even before you knew *exactly*
what to do with them? ;-)
>Mind you, I don't think a comparison with left-handedness is valid, as
>the "cause" of that particular "defect" has long been known to originate
>in a specific "wiring" of the brain.
Hence, genetic. :-) Did you look at this at all?
http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html
>> Could it be that they were gay all their lives and got married because
>> of familiy and societal pressures? Now when the kids are grown up and
>> the society has become a bit more tolerant, perhaps there are fewer
>> reasons to keep pretending?
>
>It could, but I find it hard to believe this is _always_ the predominant
>case.
I would go even as far as to suggest that perhaps *most* gays are
married and just acting straight. Just think about it, how much easier
life would become and how difficult it must be to reveal oneself to
parents, workmates, etc. Perhaps they only started coming out en
masse, because it is now easier to do?
>I do know a woman for instance, in her mid thirties, who for a number of
>years lived in a lesbian relationship. In fact, she'd never ever had a
>male sexual partner before. She has recently "shacked up" with a male
>friend and has now become "normal" to the extent they are contemplating
>getting married. ;-)
Hallelujah, she has seen the light! :-)
>Now given that there was no closet this person needed to come out of in
>the first place, considering she was living in an openly homosexual
>relationship, her moving to become straight would indicate to me that
>such a shift, be it sudden like seemingly at least it was in this case,
>or gradual, is entirely possible - without the parameters you specified
>above.
Presumably if one believes in Jesus strongly enough:
http://www.exodus-international.org/
>Mind you, I should have clarified that this applies equally across the
>board, to both gays and straights.
>
>Kinsey contends that very few people are fully this way or the other;
>rather we all fit somewhere along the line; away from the extremes.
>Therefore most of us are bisexual to some degree:
>
>http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html
>
>In this case he applies his research findings onto males only, but in
>his other work this was shown to hold for females as well.
>
>It is also not unusual, according to Kinsey and others, for our
>preference to alter to a various degree as we progress between gradle
>and grave.
That's surely a major cause of concern, Stan. Next time when you visit
my place, we need to ask our wives to better sit between us. ;-)
Seriously though, it would be interesting to see the percentages of
those "exclusive ones" at the opposite ends of the "0" and "6" types,
as opposed to the potentially "swinging" ones between. Have you got
such data?
Jiri Pecka
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>> You are right; I haven't been exposed to it. In order to make a
>> judgment I would need to see the specific details of it. In general,
>> is such a "sensitivity training" necessary? Considering the fact that
>> people are still hated, bashed or even murdered just for being
>> homosexual, bearing in mind activities such as
>> http://www.godhatesfags.com, or the sad fact that if gays are holding
>> hands in my nearby public park, then this is a health hazard for them
>> (one gay has been bashed to death and another severely injured just a
>> walking distance from my home), I'd say probably yes, although I do
>> recognize this may provoke an adverse reaction in some people, and
>> probably largely undeserved.
>
>Aside from the long-established concept (from English
>Common Law) in our society of presumed innocence
>until proven guilty, which, in general, makes this kind of
>focused indoctrination of our children an instance of com-
>munist-style social engineering, and a blatant misuse of
>public school authority, you're not even addressing my
>point, which is whether this specific subject matter even
>belongs in the classroom.
As I said earlier, before I'd agree that this is "indoctrination" any
more than simple civic education instilling basic sensible values as
expected in the classroom, I'd need to see the specific texts which
you deem so offensive. I admit I have not got the slightest idea what
you are talking about.
>> To be frank, I am not sure anymore what actually matters to
>> society as a whole. :-) In any case, how do I ask "society"
>> what matters to it?
>
>All you have to do is to look at your tax code.
>I am sure in Australia you have the same two basic tax rate
>categories as we do - single, and married ;-)
Yes, as far as I know this is indeed the case. But I still don't get
your drift: We also have tax rebates for dependants. So if a married
couple is childless, then the don't get the dependant deducation,
it's really that simple.
>> The institution of marriage exists, and it does not exclude
>> people who can't have, or don't want to have, children.
>
>As I aready said, infertile or unwilling (heterosexual) couples
>getting the benefit of the doubt is not enough to invalidate the
>underlying intent of special treatment of marriage as presently
>defined (legal union of two people of the opposite sex).
So women after menopause (where applying the "benefit of doubt" would
really be stretching the truth) should be prohibited from marriage,
as you have in fact indicated earlier? (That would be nice of you
indeed. After all, the Christians really are justifiably famous for
their compassion and fondness of heart.)
So why don't you say it straight away that all you are concerned about
are their tax benefits. (Of course, when you do, then I will have to
remind you of my comment above about deductions for dependants.)
>> And besides, who is to say that all gays don't want to have
>> children anyway? Is it better for an orphan or some handi-
>> capped kid whom no-one wants to suffer alone in an insti-
>> tution or be adopted by a sensible, loving gay couple?
>
>Even if a substantial number of gay couples *did* want to
>raise children (a somewhat far-fetched presumption), their
>number would still be insignificant compared to the rest of
>(normal) families on social services adoption waiting lists.
>Then there is the issue of the selection process itself.
>A whole new can of worms, wouldn't you say ;-)
I believe that selection processes regarding foster parenting are
already in place. So let's see; does your "benefit of doubt" apply
only to some?
>> Where else would you look for fairness and civil rights then in
>> legislation? What exactly, specifically, do you mean by "looking
>> for common ground in the definition of what marriage is"?
>> Damned if they do, damned if they don't...
>
>I am pointing out the fact the "gay marriage" issue is not an
>equal rights issue, any more than slavery was before the 13th
>Amendment to the Constitution. It will not be an equal rights
>issue until we redefine the concept of "marriage" in the same
>fundamental way (as a legal union of two individuals, period).
Good idea. Let's do it then. :-)
>And no, they're not damned if they don't. There are many
>places in the U.S. (California included) with same-sex civil
>union provisions in state law, giving gay couples virtually all
>the economic benefits of being married.
Nah, let them get married. I can't wait to go to the party. :-)
Jiri Pecka
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>> If I go down in the (too long) thread, I can see is many insults from
>> the side of the homophobes, which kind of suggests they might need
>> some sensibility training. :-) Apart from your first post (which you
>> have now yourself disowned as being merely a teaser), you have made
>> further two contributions in that thread, and on both counts your
>> points were soundly defeated by your opponents, to whom you have then
>> not responded. ;-)
>
>As far as I recall, the guy made a couple of pithy arguments
>about equal rights, based on the underlying premise that people
>of the same sex were discriminated against by not being allowed
>to marry, but he didn't come up with anything (not one thing) to
>convince me of the *overall benefit* of changing the definition
>of marriage, in order to make his argument valid, compared to
>the volumes of contrary evidence I brought in.
To give you the benefit of doubt, I looked at the thread yet again. My
impression is that he demolished you with his valid arguments to the
point that you could not produce any sensible counter-arguments, so
you gave up... ;-)
Jiri Pecka
Paul J Kriha
Jiri Pecka <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:43922423.1154640@news-server...
[...]
> By the way, there is a large green monkey, sitting on a rocking chair,
> orbiting the invisible planet called Magma, right in the centre of the
> Milky Way.
To a true and fully paid-up believer Magma is not invisible.
Last night I saw HSB Green MonKey during my brief visit
on a red-eye to submit my November status report for
Pangaea and Gondwana and I again saw Magma quite clearly.
> He is our Creator, the Ruler of the Universe, and He knows
> all our thoughts. Stop worshipping Him at your peril! Are you saying I
> am wrong? Even crazy?? What, without any shred of evidence supporting
> your belief??? :-)
Non-believers? Tharrr, them old fools must be the old Rodinians.
They still haven't learn how to spell Pangaea.
pjk
> Jiri Pecka
>
kujebak
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:53:09 GMT, "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> You are right; I haven't been exposed to it. In order to make a
>>> judgment I would need to see the specific details of it. In general,
>>> is such a "sensitivity training" necessary? Considering the fact that
>>> people are still hated, bashed or even murdered just for being
>>> homosexual, bearing in mind activities such as
>>> http://www.godhatesfags.com, or the sad fact that if gays are holding
>>> hands in my nearby public park, then this is a health hazard for them
>>> (one gay has been bashed to death and another severely injured just a
>>> walking distance from my home), I'd say probably yes, although I do
>>> recognize this may provoke an adverse reaction in some people, and
>>> probably largely undeserved.
>>
>>Aside from the long-established concept (from English
>>Common Law) in our society of presumed innocence
>>until proven guilty, which, in general, makes this kind of
>>focused indoctrination of our children an instance of com-
>>munist-style social engineering, and a blatant misuse of
>>public school authority, you're not even addressing my
>>point, which is whether this specific subject matter even
>>belongs in the classroom.
>
> As I said earlier, before I'd agree that this is "indoctrination"
> any more than simple civic education instilling basic sensible
> cific texts which you deem so offensive. I admit I have not
> got the slightest idea what you are talking about.
I am surprised to see you using such loaded expressions.
It's not like you ;-) I have no qualms about teaching civics
in public schools, as long as it does not include instilling
*any kind* of values in our children. In our society, this
is the prerogative of the parents.
>
>>> To be frank, I am not sure anymore what actually matters to
>>> society as a whole. :-) In any case, how do I ask "society"
>>> what matters to it?
>>
>>All you have to do is to look at your tax code.
>>I am sure in Australia you have the same two basic tax rate
>>categories as we do - single, and married ;-)
>
> Yes, as far as I know this is indeed the case. But I still don't get
> your drift: We also have tax rebates for dependants. So if a married
> couple is childless, then the don't get the dependant deducation,
> it's really that simple.
But they still benefit from having their income tax computed
at a *lower* rate, right? I use the separate tax classification
of married people as the most obvious example of our recog-
nition of the social significance of marriage.
There are, of course, other, not as easily defensible consi-
derations, which I am purposefully avoiding.
>>> The institution of marriage exists, and it does not exclude
>>> people who can't have, or don't want to have, children.
>>
>>As I aready said, infertile or unwilling (heterosexual) couples
>>getting the benefit of the doubt is not enough to invalidate the
>>underlying intent of special treatment of marriage as presently
>>defined (legal union of two people of the opposite sex).
>
> So women after menopause (where applying the "benefit of
> doubt" would really be stretching the truth) should be prohi-
> bited from marriage, as you have in fact indicated earlier?
> (That would be nice of you indeed. After all, the Christians
> really are justifiably famous for their compassion and fondness
> of heart.)
As I already mentioned, this was merely a mental exercise -
an absurd extension of the gay marriage argument.
> So why don't you say it straight away that all you are concerned
> about are their tax benefits. (Of course, when you do, then I will
> have to remind you of my comment above about deductions for
> dependants.)
Preferential tax rate for married people, and dependent
deductions are two different tax provisions serving two
different purposes. As you know, your dependents need
not be your children, and you don't need to be married
to claim dependents on your tax return. The reason why
I think same-sex couples should not be given the same
legal recognition, and tax treatment, as opposite-sex
families is because homosexual relationships are not based
on the same intentions. You know darn well that not only
are all homosexuals perfectly capable of forming normal
family units, they all have the biological prerequisites to
reproduce as well, but they *chose not* to do so. The
fact that they may be genetically predisposed for that
choice is totally immaterial in this context.
>>> And besides, who is to say that all gays don't want to have
>>> children anyway? Is it better for an orphan or some handi-
>>> capped kid whom no-one wants to suffer alone in an insti-
>>> tution or be adopted by a sensible, loving gay couple?
>>
>>Even if a substantial number of gay couples *did* want to
>>raise children (a somewhat far-fetched presumption), their
>>number would still be insignificant compared to the rest of
>>(normal) families on social services adoption waiting lists.
>>Then there is the issue of the selection process itself.
>>A whole new can of worms, wouldn't you say ;-)
>
> I believe that selection processes regarding foster parenting are
> already in place. So let's see; does your "benefit of doubt" apply
> only to some?
Here's the same argument I used with Boy George:
Would you like to be in the shoes of the civil servant trying
to decide whether to assign a foster child to a homosexual
household? What about the kid's rights? Should the decision
be left entirely upon him? How do you explain any of this
stuff to a 10year old?
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>
>> As I said earlier, before I'd agree that this is "indoctrination"
>> any more than simple civic education instilling basic sensible
>> values as expected in the classroom, I'd need to see the spe-
>> cific texts which you deem so offensive. I admit I have not
>> got the slightest idea what you are talking about.
>
>I am surprised to see you using such loaded expressions.
>It's not like you ;-) I have no qualms about teaching civics
>in public schools, as long as it does not include instilling
>*any kind* of values in our children. In our society, this
>is the prerogative of the parents.
Which particular expression of mine do you actually consider "loaded"?
You have still failed to provide a specific example, so we could get
outraged together. :-)
I personally don't think that it hurts the society if the school says
to kids that thay have to be nice to each other - even though one
happens to be homosexual. Relying on parents alone these days does not
seem to always cut it. Not everyone is as tolerant and responsible as
you are. ;-)
In practice, you can't have a school *not* instill any values at all:
A school is a microcosm where kids need to get along one with another.
You get bullying, petty intrigues, various little "turf" wars. Kids
immature as they are, can be often very cruel if they perceive someone
as being different and easy target. The teachers do need to keep the
peace and it is often difficult if parents do not co-operate.
>> Yes, as far as I know this is indeed the case. But I still don't get
>> your drift: We also have tax rebates for dependants. So if a married
>> couple is childless, then the don't get the dependant deducation,
>> it's really that simple.
>
>But they still benefit from having their income tax computed
>at a *lower* rate, right?
Right.
>I use the separate tax classification
>of married people as the most obvious example of our recog-
>nition of the social significance of marriage.
>There are, of course, other, not as easily defensible consi-
>derations, which I am purposefully avoiding.
Because you know very well you'd be walking a very thin ice there.
;-)
>> So women after menopause (where applying the "benefit of
>> doubt" would really be stretching the truth) should be prohi-
>> bited from marriage, as you have in fact indicated earlier?
>> (That would be nice of you indeed. After all, the Christians
>> really are justifiably famous for their compassion and fondness
>> of heart.)
>
>As I already mentioned, this was merely a mental exercise -
>an absurd extension of the gay marriage argument.
An absurd extension of *your* position on it, to be more precise. ;-)
>> So why don't you say it straight away that all you are concerned
>> about are their tax benefits. (Of course, when you do, then I will
>> have to remind you of my comment above about deductions for
>> dependants.)
>
>Preferential tax rate for married people, and dependent
>deductions are two different tax provisions serving two
>different purposes. As you know, your dependents need
>not be your children, and you don't need to be married
>to claim dependents on your tax return. The reason why
>I think same-sex couples should not be given the same
>legal recognition, and tax treatment, as opposite-sex
>families is because homosexual relationships are not based
>on the same intentions. You know darn well that not only
>are all homosexuals perfectly capable of forming normal
>family units, they all have the biological prerequisites to
>reproduce as well, but they *chose not* to do so. The
>fact that they may be genetically predisposed for that
>choice is totally immaterial in this context.
Not immaterial at all. It is not their fault they are homosexual and
they should not be compelled to pretend otherwise.
As to the purposes of marriage, we have been there already, so let's
not move in circles - if it was indeed *all* only about children then
we would end up with those absurd extensions we have just dismissed
above.
>> I believe that selection processes regarding foster parenting are
>> already in place. So let's see; does your "benefit of doubt" apply
>> only to some?
>
>Here's the same argument I used with Boy George:
>Would you like to be in the shoes of the civil servant trying
>to decide whether to assign a foster child to a homosexual
>household?
If the job paid more than my current one, then why not?
There are certain jobs I could never do, such as being a prison
warden, or a sewerage cleaner, but I'd have no problems with being a
civil servant playing God. ;-)
>What about the kid's rights? Should the decision
>be left entirely upon him? How do you explain any of this
>stuff to a 10year old?
What difference does it make compared to the existing situation? That
civil servant can make just as big, far-reaching mistakes in deciding
who can foster or not, with a straight couple as with a gay couple.
You should get out a bit more to clear up some of your misconceptions
about gays. Not all gays are child molesters, and not all straight
couples should have kids. ;-)
Jiri Pecka
Jiri Pecka
<paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>> By the way, there is a large green monkey, sitting on a rocking chair,
>> orbiting the invisible planet called Magma, right in the centre of the
>> Milky Way.
>
>To a true and fully paid-up believer Magma is not invisible.
>Last night I saw HSB Green MonKey during my brief visit
>on a red-eye to submit my November status report for
>Pangaea and Gondwana and I again saw Magma quite clearly.
Of course you did! Opening your heart to HSB GMK indeed yields huge
benefits: You can see and understand so much more than non-believers,
and upon death you will enter the Green MonKey heavenly kingdom. On
the other hand, not believing is certain to bring about damnation and
misery to your soul.
>> He is our Creator, the Ruler of the Universe, and He knows
>> all our thoughts. Stop worshipping Him at your peril! Are you saying I
>> am wrong? Even crazy?? What, without any shred of evidence supporting
>> your belief??? :-)
>
>Non-believers? Tharrr, them old fools must be the old Rodinians.
>They still haven't learn how to spell Pangaea.
Indeed. And worse still, they will suffer in eternity, with sulphur
flames licking their sinful bodies amidst their incessant cries and
tooth gnashing. By then it will be too late. Repent ye Rodinian
unbelievers while there is still time!
Jiri Pecka
Stan R
> "Jiri Pecka" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
<...>
> > Yes, as far as I know this is indeed the case. But I still don't get
> > your drift: We also have tax rebates for dependants. So if a married
> > couple is childless, then the don't get the dependant deducation,
> > it's really that simple.
>
> But they still benefit from having their income tax computed
> at a *lower* rate, right?
Wrong.
There is no such thing as a "married" tax rate in Australia; Mr Pecka's
erroneous assent to your contention notwithstanding.
As Mr Pecka says, there are rebates for having dependant children
(Family benefits Part A & B, which differ in ways I do not need to go
into here), and there is now (since 2001) also a "baby bonus" - i.e. a
one-off cash payment to a "person legally responsible for a child"
(note s/he does not have to be part of a couple, and even less married
to receive this). Adoptive parents - even gay ones - can qualify.
A person's status (i.e. being single or "coupled") will determine the
measure of eligibility for welfare benefits and the Aged Pension. It
will, however, have no effect whatsoever on that person's tax rate.
Thus, due to the wonderful workings of our "progressive" tax system
(another one of your favourites, eh? ;-)) we often see the clearly
unfair situation where a couple with a high income earning/high tax
paying spouse whose partner remains at home to look after children will
pay a lot more tax & end up with less net disposable income, than a
working couple with the same amount of gross pre-tax income, but split
evenly between the two. The government has tried to reduce this effect
by bringing in various rebates and so on, but they have stated they do
not support any form of income splitting between the members of a
couple in any circumstances.
Of course, this is when the couple concerned need to talk to a
professional financial adviser who is often able to largely correct
such an unsatisfactory & discriminatory situation... :-)
S
Stan R
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:15:53 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
>
> >Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
> >details about having sex". ;-)
>
> What, you were not attracted by females even before you knew *exactly*
> what to do with them? ;-)
Sure I was - I even knew what to do with them - i.e. grab that soft
pink thing with my toothless lips and suck hard to get at the milk! :-)
> >Mind you, I don't think a comparison with left-handedness is valid, as
> >the "cause" of that particular "defect" has long been known to originate
> >in a specific "wiring" of the brain.
>
> Hence, genetic. :-) Did you look at this at all?
> http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html
I did. Note again that I did not have a dispute with the word "genetic"
(and I agree that this is likely the "root of the problem" :-))
It was the "defect" that I found somewhat objectionable.
> >> Could it be that they were gay all their lives and got married because
> >> of familiy and societal pressures? Now when the kids are grown up and
> >> the society has become a bit more tolerant, perhaps there are fewer
> >> reasons to keep pretending?
> >
> >It could, but I find it hard to believe this is _always_ the predominant
> >case.
>
> I would go even as far as to suggest that perhaps *most* gays are
> married and just acting straight. Just think about it, how much easier
> life would become and how difficult it must be to reveal oneself to
> parents, workmates, etc. Perhaps they only started coming out en
> masse, because it is now easier to do?
Who knows. In the absence of any hard research on the topic (or at
least I am not aware of one - which may mean little as sexual
preferences are not my area of professional expertise, nor am I a gay
activist), your guess is as good as the next person's.
> >I do know a woman for instance, in her mid thirties, who for a number of
> >years lived in a lesbian relationship. In fact, she'd never ever had a
> >male sexual partner before. She has recently "shacked up" with a male
> >friend and has now become "normal" to the extent they are contemplating
> >getting married. ;-)
>
> Hallelujah, she has seen the light! :-)
That's right. Now if she were a man, she'd only need to wait another
three years to make sure the disease does not re-occur and she could
even become a Catholic priest! :-)
> >Now given that there was no closet this person needed to come out of in
> >the first place, considering she was living in an openly homosexual
> >relationship, her moving to become straight would indicate to me that
> >such a shift, be it sudden like seemingly at least it was in this case,
> >or gradual, is entirely possible - without the parameters you specified
> >above.
>
> Presumably if one believes in Jesus strongly enough:
> http://www.exodus-international.org/
And if that fails, there is always the Cape Town option:
http://tinyurl.com/953x4
> >Mind you, I should have clarified that this applies equally across the
> >board, to both gays and straights.
> >
> >Kinsey contends that very few people are fully this way or the other;
> >rather we all fit somewhere along the line; away from the extremes.
> >Therefore most of us are bisexual to some degree:
> >
> >http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html
> >
> >In this case he applies his research findings onto males only, but in
> >his other work this was shown to hold for females as well.
> >
> >It is also not unusual, according to Kinsey and others, for our
> >preference to alter to a various degree as we progress between gradle
> >and grave.
>
> That's surely a major cause of concern, Stan. Next time when you visit
> my place, we need to ask our wives to better sit between us. ;-)
Funny you should say that. My wife has for years now dropped her
earlier bisexual tendencies (or at least that's what she's telling me!
:-))
So that's yet another proof one's sexual orientation does not always
remain constant.
> Seriously though, it would be interesting to see the percentages of
> those "exclusive ones" at the opposite ends of the "0" and "6" types,
> as opposed to the potentially "swinging" ones between. Have you got
> such data?
I'd assume that the references given at Kinsey Institute would have to
have that one covered. As far as how much of it is on the Net: Who
knows? I'm sure you could find it if only you'd put your Googler
Extraordinaire award into some real action! :-)
S
kujebak
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:52:03 GMT, "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> As I said earlier, before I'd agree that this is "indoctrination"
>>> any more than simple civic education instilling basic sensible
>>> values as expected in the classroom, I'd need to see the spe-
>>> cific texts which you deem so offensive. I admit I have not
>>> got the slightest idea what you are talking about.
>>
>>I am surprised to see you using such loaded expressions.
>>It's not like you ;-) I have no qualms about teaching civics
>>in public schools, as long as it does not include instilling
>>*any kind* of values in our children. In our society, this
>>is the prerogative of the parents.
>
> Which particular expression of mine do you actually consider "loaded"?
> You have still failed to provide a specific example, so we could get
> outraged together. :-)
Words like "basic", and "sensible" have lots of implied
meaning, which may not be generally accepted, or agreed
upon.
>
> I personally don't think that it hurts the society if the school says
> to kids that thay have to be nice to each other - even though one
> happens to be homosexual. Relying on parents alone these days does not
> seem to always cut it. Not everyone is as tolerant and responsible as
> you are. ;-)
I don't think I ever met a better devil's advocate than yourself.
I am convinced you agree with most of what I'm saying ;-)
> In practice, you can't have a school *not* instill any values at all:
> A school is a microcosm where kids need to get along one with another.
> You get bullying, petty intrigues, various little "turf" wars. Kids
> immature as they are, can be often very cruel if they perceive someone
> as being different and easy target. The teachers do need to keep the
> peace and it is often difficult if parents do not co-operate.
I'm talking about the public school curriculum, not socialization
effects of the school environment .
>>> Yes, as far as I know this is indeed the case. But I still don't get
>>> your drift: We also have tax rebates for dependants. So if a married
>>> couple is childless, then the don't get the dependant deducation,
>>> it's really that simple.
>>
>>But they still benefit from having their income tax computed
>>at a *lower* rate, right?
>
> Right.
>
>>I use the separate tax classification
>>of married people as the most obvious example of our recog-
>>nition of the social significance of marriage.
>>There are, of course, other, not as easily defensible consi-
>>derations, which I am purposefully avoiding.
>
> Because you know very well you'd be walking a very thin ice there.
> ;-)
Not because they're wrong - because they're politically incorrect.
>>> So women after menopause (where applying the "benefit of
>>> doubt" would really be stretching the truth) should be prohi-
>>> bited from marriage, as you have in fact indicated earlier?
>>> (That would be nice of you indeed. After all, the Christians
>>> really are justifiably famous for their compassion and fondness
>>> of heart.)
>>
>>As I already mentioned, this was merely a mental exercise -
>>an absurd extension of the gay marriage argument.
>
> An absurd extension of *your* position on it, to be more precise. ;-)
The danger of inconsistent use of emoticons is in that it
can easily result in being completely misconstrued :-)
>
>>> So why don't you say it straight away that all you are concerned
>>> about are their tax benefits. (Of course, when you do, then I will
>>> have to remind you of my comment above about deductions for
>>> dependants.)
>>
>>Preferential tax rate for married people, and dependent
>>deductions are two different tax provisions serving two
>>different purposes. As you know, your dependents need
>>not be your children, and you don't need to be married
>>to claim dependents on your tax return. The reason why
>>I think same-sex couples should not be given the same
>>legal recognition, and tax treatment, as opposite-sex
>>families is because homosexual relationships are not based
>>on the same intentions. You know darn well that not only
>>are all homosexuals perfectly capable of forming normal
>>family units, they all have the biological prerequisites to
>>reproduce as well, but they *chose not* to do so. The
>>fact that they may be genetically predisposed for that
>>choice is totally immaterial in this context.
>
> Not immaterial at all. It is not their fault they are homosexual and
> they should not be compelled to pretend otherwise.
> As to the purposes of marriage, we have been there already, so let's
> not move in circles - if it was indeed *all* only about children then
> we would end up with those absurd extensions we have just dismissed
> above.
George, it is you who insists on running in circles. They are
*not* compelled to do anything. It is the whole society that
is being compelled by their misplaced demand to change one
of its oldest, and most significant concepts, in order for them
to *feel* normal. No need to look for a common denominator
(meaning of the institution of marriage), because nowadays
everything's all about "good feelings". Achievement, personal
sacrifice, and such are definitely passé in all aspects of life
(including matrimony). Gay marriage is just a "me too prize"
for the sex-preference challenged. Why else would 5% of
the population have such political clout?
>
>>> I believe that selection processes regarding foster parenting are
>>> already in place. So let's see; does your "benefit of doubt" apply
>>> only to some?
>>
>>Here's the same argument I used with Boy George:
>>Would you like to be in the shoes of the civil servant trying
>>to decide whether to assign a foster child to a homosexual
>>household?
>
> If the job paid more than my current one, then why not?
> There are certain jobs I could never do, such as being a prison
> warden, or a sewerage cleaner, but I'd have no problems with being a
> civil servant playing God. ;-)
You're being purposefully tangential.
>
>>What about the kid's rights? Should the decision
>>be left entirely upon him? How do you explain any of this
>>stuff to a 10year old?
>
> What difference does it make compared to the existing situation? That
> civil servant can make just as big, far-reaching mistakes in deciding
> who can foster or not, with a straight couple as with a gay couple.
> You should get out a bit more to clear up some of your misconceptions
> about gays. Not all gays are child molesters, and not all straight
> couples should have kids. ;-)
That is without a doubt, however, I don't think it would make
that decision any easier.
>
> Jiri Pecka
>
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>> I personally don't think that it hurts the society if the school says
>> to kids that thay have to be nice to each other - even though one
>> happens to be homosexual. Relying on parents alone these days does not
>> seem to always cut it. Not everyone is as tolerant and responsible as
>> you are. ;-)
>
>I don't think I ever met a better devil's advocate than yourself.
>I am convinced you agree with most of what I'm saying ;-)
You may or not be right on this one. I will leave it to you to figure
out. ;-)
>> In practice, you can't have a school *not* instill any values at all:
>> A school is a microcosm where kids need to get along one with another.
>> You get bullying, petty intrigues, various little "turf" wars. Kids
>> immature as they are, can be often very cruel if they perceive someone
>> as being different and easy target. The teachers do need to keep the
>> peace and it is often difficult if parents do not co-operate.
>
>I'm talking about the public school curriculum, not socialization
>effects of the school environment .
Well I am not an educationist, that's for sure. But I would have
thought that these are intertwined. In any case, I really can't
comment unless I'd see specifically what kids are being taught. It's
been a while since I've seen a textbook. It might be quite an
interesting excercise indeed.
>> Because you know very well you'd be walking a very thin ice there.
>> ;-)
>
>Not because they're wrong - because they're politically incorrect.
Oh, I am no stranger to political incorrectness, as you have probably
already noted from my other posts. Mostly we agree on such subjects.
But I am looking at this particular issue in a 'defender' role not
because some lefite liberal says so, but because what I understand
about the subject. For example, the Economist is certainly not a
beacon of leftie political correctness - yet, they do share the same
opinion, so I am certainly not the only 'rightie' who thinks this way.
It might be worthwile to keep in mind that left-handedness was
regarded as an abominable affront to God a couple of centuries ago.
And defenders of the poor wretched left-handed souls would have been
probably looked upon as "politically correct" - if there was such a
thing then.
Nowadays you need to wonder what was all the fuss about:
Left-handedness? Yawn... The only time this issue comes to light is
when designers of man/machine interfaces need to take ergonomics into
consideration - and then they design items in such a way that they
could be used by both, as a matter of fact, entirely without any ill
feelings or any emotion whatsoever (I know that, becase I manufacture
things). I predict it will be the same with homosexuality one day,
maybe 100 years from now?
>>>> So women after menopause (where applying the "benefit of
>>>> doubt" would really be stretching the truth) should be prohi-
>>>> bited from marriage, as you have in fact indicated earlier?
>>>> (That would be nice of you indeed. After all, the Christians
>>>> really are justifiably famous for their compassion and fondness
>>>> of heart.)
>>>
>>>As I already mentioned, this was merely a mental exercise -
>>>an absurd extension of the gay marriage argument.
>>
>> An absurd extension of *your* position on it, to be more precise. ;-)
>
>The danger of inconsistent use of emoticons is in that it
>can easily result in being completely misconstrued :-)
Tsk tsk, rest assured I am not finding you *that* attractive! :-)
>everything's all about "good feelings". Achievement, personal
>sacrifice, and such are definitely passé in all aspects of life
>(including matrimony).
That's a worry I certainly do share, but I would not certainly blame
it on gays. I can also imagine that many gay activists will consider
it an "achievement" when they finally win the right to wed. :-)
>Gay marriage is just a "me too prize"
>for the sex-preference challenged. Why else would 5% of
>the population have such political clout?
Do they? I don't know. Maybe they form secret, subversive societies
plotting to rule the world? Just like the sinister Sionists and other
Jews? Beware the homosexual military-industrial complex... :-)
Jiri Pecka
Jiri Pecka
>> Hence, genetic. :-) Did you look at this at all?
>> http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html
>
>I did. Note again that I did not have a dispute with the word "genetic"
>(and I agree that this is likely the "root of the problem" :-))
>
>It was the "defect" that I found somewhat objectionable.
OIC, sorry, this was a misunderstanding: I thought you were focused on
the "genetic" bit. In terms to calling it a "defect", this is of
course relative. It implies this is something which needs to be fixed,
in the opinion of the observer. Such was indeed the case with
eft-handedness until early last century. Nowadays no-one would call
this a "defect" anymore. I believe homosexuality is where
left-handedness was a hundred years ago. It is still a "defect" to
many (although not to the "sufferers" themselves and not to
professionals in the field). It will cease to be regarded as a
"defect" a hundred years from now. (Unless the civilized world gets
taken over by Islam, in which case it will be another 1000 years.)
>> >Now given that there was no closet this person needed to come out of in
>> >the first place, considering she was living in an openly homosexual
>> >relationship, her moving to become straight would indicate to me that
>> >such a shift, be it sudden like seemingly at least it was in this case,
>> >or gradual, is entirely possible - without the parameters you specified
>> >above.
>>
>> Presumably if one believes in Jesus strongly enough:
>> http://www.exodus-international.org/
>
>And if that fails, there is always the Cape Town option:
>http://tinyurl.com/953x4
Oh yes. See how great capitalism is. Isn't it all about money anyway?
Mr Kujebak is concerned about lost personal tax revenue if gays are
allowed to tie the knot. And here you already have entrepreneurs
sallivating for the pink wedding dollar. That's the way! :-)
>I'd assume that the references given at Kinsey Institute would have to
>have that one covered. As far as how much of it is on the Net: Who
>knows? I'm sure you could find it if only you'd put your Googler
>Extraordinaire award into some real action! :-)
I was just being lazy. You caught me out! :-)
Jiri Pecka
Ivan Kinda
> Jiri Pecka wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:15:53 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
>>>details about having sex". ;-)
>>
>>What, you were not attracted by females even before you knew *exactly*
>>what to do with them? ;-)
>
> Sure I was - I even knew what to do with them - i.e. grab that soft
> pink thing with my toothless lips and suck
Until here I thought you were talking about clitoris :-)
> hard to get at the milk! :-)
>
>
>>>Mind you, I don't think a comparison with left-handedness is valid, as
>>>the "cause" of that particular "defect" has long been known to originate
>>>in a specific "wiring" of the brain.
>>
>>Hence, genetic. :-) Did you look at this at all?
>>http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html
>
>
> I did. Note again that I did not have a dispute with the word "genetic"
> (and I agree that this is likely the "root of the problem" :-))
Genetic is nonsensical - they would be "selected" out of the gene pool
very quickly, wouldn't they? Another theory is "chemical", see
www.krysalis.net/homosexuality.htm
Ivan
Nothing added after here ...
kujebak
> kujebak wrote:
>> "Jiri Pecka" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> <...>
>
>> > Yes, as far as I know this is indeed the case. But I still don't get
>> > your drift: We also have tax rebates for dependants. So if a married
>> > couple is childless, then the don't get the dependant deducation,
>> > it's really that simple.
>>
>> But they still benefit from having their income tax computed
>> at a *lower* rate, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> There is no such thing as a "married" tax rate in Australia; Mr Pecka's
> erroneous assent to your contention notwithstanding.
It could be Mr. Pecka is too loaded to do his own taxes :-)
It also means that in Australia the whole "gay marriage" issue is al-
most entirely academic. In the U. S. the only thing that differentiates
between spousal "civil unions" and married couples is the federal tax
code.
>
> As Mr Pecka says, there are rebates for having dependant children
> (Family benefits Part A & B, which differ in ways I do not need to go
> into here), and there is now (since 2001) also a "baby bonus" - i.e. a
> one-off cash payment to a "person legally responsible for a child"
> (note s/he does not have to be part of a couple, and even less married
> to receive this). Adoptive parents - even gay ones - can qualify.
>
> A person's status (i.e. being single or "coupled") will determine the
> measure of eligibility for welfare benefits and the Aged Pension. It
> will, however, have no effect whatsoever on that person's tax rate.
> Thus, due to the wonderful workings of our "progressive" tax system
> (another one of your favourites, eh? ;-)) we often see the clearly
> unfair situation where a couple with a high income earning/high tax
> paying spouse whose partner remains at home to look after children will
> pay a lot more tax & end up with less net disposable income, than a
> working couple with the same amount of gross pre-tax income, but split
> evenly between the two. The government has tried to reduce this effect
> by bringing in various rebates and so on, but they have stated they do
> not support any form of income splitting between the members of a
> couple in any circumstances.
This is what we call the "marriage tax penalty" in the U.S., and is
the other significant factor behind providing lower combined tax
brackets for married people, than single taxpayers, which probably
makes more sense than trying to establish some sort of meaningful,
nationwide deductible amount for "living expense" - something utterly
impossible in this country, given its regional economic diversity (now
here's a warm'n'fuzzy word I guess I should learn to use more often :-)
>
> Of course, this is when the couple concerned need to talk to a
> professional financial adviser who is often able to largely correct
> such an unsatisfactory & discriminatory situation... :-)
Are you suggesting your income tax law is just as convoluted,
and ambiguous, as ours?
>
> S
>
Paul J Kriha
Jiri Pecka <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:439374a7.3305562@news-server...
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 01:55:27 +1300, "Paul J Kriha"
> <paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> By the way, there is a large green monkey, sitting on a rocking chair,
> >> orbiting the invisible planet called Magma, right in the centre of the
> >> Milky Way.
> >
> >To a true and fully paid-up believer Magma is not invisible.
> >Last night I saw HSB Green MonKey during my brief visit
> >on a red-eye to submit my November status report for
> >Pangaea and Gondwana and I again saw Magma quite clearly.
>
> Of course you did! Opening your heart to HSB GMK
Just checking if we are on the same frequency...
HSB = His Supreme Being not Horrible Sonava Bitch
Right?
> indeed yields huge
> benefits: You can see and understand so much more than non-believers,
> and upon death you will enter the Green MonKey heavenly kingdom. On
> the other hand, not believing is certain to bring about damnation and
> misery to your soul.
>
> >> He is our Creator, the Ruler of the Universe, and He knows
> >> all our thoughts. Stop worshipping Him at your peril! Are you saying I
> >> am wrong? Even crazy?? What, without any shred of evidence supporting
> >> your belief??? :-)
> >
> >Non-believers? Tharrr, them old fools must be the old Rodinians.
> >They still haven't learn how to spell Pangaea.
>
> Indeed. And worse still, they will suffer in eternity, with sulphur
> flames licking their sinful bodies amidst their incessant cries and
> tooth gnashing.
Hmmm, I see the dentist will be raking it in, yet again.
pjk
Paul J Kriha
kujebak <kuj...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:U9Nkf.3004$fO5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
[...]
>
> You're being purposefully tangential.
Ouch, that would drive me sinusidal.
pjk
Stan R
> "Stan R" <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:1133744459.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> kujebak wrote:
>>> "Jiri Pecka" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> <...>
>>
>>>> Yes, as far as I know this is indeed the case. But I still don't get
>>>> your drift: We also have tax rebates for dependants. So if a married
>>>> couple is childless, then the don't get the dependant deducation,
>>>> it's really that simple.
>>> But they still benefit from having their income tax computed
>>> at a *lower* rate, right?
>> Wrong.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "married" tax rate in Australia; Mr Pecka's
>> erroneous assent to your contention notwithstanding.
>
> It could be Mr. Pecka is too loaded to do his own taxes :-)
It's actually worse than that: I suspect Mr Pecka LIKES paying taxes!
Because if he did not, then I can't work out why he would have such an
affinity for keeping a sizeable dollop of his spare cash in a bank
account paying some 1.5% interest, which is then fully taxable! :-)
There you go - there clearly is hope for you yet! :-)
>> Of course, this is when the couple concerned need to talk to a
>> professional financial adviser who is often able to largely correct
>> such an unsatisfactory & discriminatory situation... :-)
>
> Are you suggesting your income tax law is just as convoluted,
> and ambiguous, as ours?
Well, what do you reckon? Over 10,000 pages of patched-up, often
contradictory junk, growing at a rate of some 2,000 extra pages per year.
At this rate, the tax advisory profession will be one of the fastest
growing industries in this country for a number of years yet! ;-)
(Having said that, I hasten to add I am not a tax professional; I prefer
to combine the 'prijemne s uzitecnym' ;-))
S
Stan R
> Stan R wrote:
>> Jiri Pecka wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:15:53 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
>>>> details about having sex". ;-)
>>>
>>> What, you were not attracted by females even before you knew *exactly*
>>> what to do with them? ;-)
>>
>> Sure I was - I even knew what to do with them - i.e. grab that soft
>> pink thing with my toothless lips and suck
>
> Until here I thought you were talking about clitoris :-)
Oh my, Mr Kinda...I may suffer from all sorts of age-related issues
(like sore knees & achilles from running in even moderate doses), but I
must state here that toothless lips I do not yet have!
No doubt that's in store for later, though. But then I doubt clitoris is
likely to be of any interest either by that stage...an obvious lose/lose
situation...
Bummer, this bloody aging process sucks. Can we sue someone for that -
maybe that God fellow all the religous freaks hold in such reverence?
S
Ivan Kinda
> Ivan Kinda wrote:
>
>> Stan R wrote:
>>
>>> Jiri Pecka wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:15:53 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
>>>>> details about having sex". ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What, you were not attracted by females even before you knew *exactly*
>>>> what to do with them? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure I was - I even knew what to do with them - i.e. grab that soft
>>> pink thing with my toothless lips and suck
>>
>>
>> Until here I thought you were talking about clitoris :-)
>
>
> Oh my, Mr Kinda...I may suffer from all sorts of age-related issues
> (like sore knees & achilles from running in even moderate doses), but I
> must state here that toothless lips I do not yet have!
Hey, you were the one talking about your toothless lips :-) How do I
know you didn't get them knocked out in some freakish accident - like
getting caught when sucking the wrong one ;-)
> No doubt that's in store for later, though. But then I doubt clitoris is
> likely to be of any interest either by that stage...an obvious lose/lose
> situation...
Dunno ... yet :-)
> Bummer, this bloody aging process sucks. Can we sue someone for that -
> maybe that God fellow all the religous freaks hold in such reverence?
Aging, in my experience, is great. I now get away with bloody well
anything. It is great to be an aged excentric with no memory ;-)
> S
Jiri Pecka
wrote:
>Genetic is nonsensical - they would be "selected" out of the gene pool
>very quickly, wouldn't they?
I am not an expert but I believe it is not that simple: There are
dominant and regressive genes, and genes which get only turned on so
rarely that they don't threaten the larger picture of the general
human reproduction process, and yet show a fairly fixed statistical
occurance level. There does seem to be a greater correlation of
homosexuality in identical twins, as well as a greater occurence along
the maternal line, which would suggest genetic causes.
> Another theory is "chemical", see
>
>www.krysalis.net/homosexuality.htm
Admittedly, this is also an interesting theory. Maybe both
possiblities could be true: an underlying weak genetic process
influencing the outcome of the chemical one, one way or the other.
Or whatever, doesn't really matter...
Jiri Pecka
Jiri Pecka
<paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>Just checking if we are on the same frequency...
>HSB = His Supreme Being not Horrible Sonava Bitch
>Right?
Nah, that means Hanuman Sanctus Beatissimus.
The saintest and blessest monkey ever.
>> Indeed. And worse still, they will suffer in eternity, with sulphur
>> flames licking their sinful bodies amidst their incessant cries and
>> tooth gnashing.
>
>Hmmm, I see the dentist will be raking it in, yet again.
Which reminds me his reminder he sent me about six months ago.
He wants to see my teeth again. Not sure why.
Jiri Pecka
Jiri Pecka
>> It could be Mr. Pecka is too loaded to do his own taxes :-)
Not sure about the "too loaded" bit, but you are right in that I just
sign the forms, hoping that whoever prepared them knew well what they
were doing. :-)
>It's actually worse than that: I suspect Mr Pecka LIKES paying taxes!
>Because if he did not, then I can't work out why he would have such an
>affinity for keeping a sizeable dollop of his spare cash in a bank
>account paying some 1.5% interest, which is then fully taxable! :-)
Maybe I just love my bank manager? :-)
>> Are you suggesting your income tax law is just as convoluted,
>> and ambiguous, as ours?
>
>Well, what do you reckon? Over 10,000 pages of patched-up, often
>contradictory junk, growing at a rate of some 2,000 extra pages per year.
>
>At this rate, the tax advisory profession will be one of the fastest
>growing industries in this country for a number of years yet! ;-)
>
>(Having said that, I hasten to add I am not a tax professional; I prefer
>to combine the 'prijemne s uzitecnym' ;-))
Stan's usual modest understatement: He is Australia's best tax expert
amongst financial advisers, and the best financial adviser amongst tax
experts. Watch his star rise... :-)
Jiri Pecka
FEEB
>I personally don't think that it hurts the society if the school says
>to kids that thay have to be nice to each other - even though one
>happens to be homosexual. Relying on parents alone these days does not
>seem to always cut it.
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying. Does the above mean
that you (supposedly libertarian) agree that government (via its school
proxy) should have the ultimate say in bringing up your (grand)children
because relying on their parents would not seem to cut it?
And BTW, have you ever seen an 8 year old homosexual?
FEEB
>George, it is you who insists on running in circles. They are
>*not* compelled to do anything. It is the whole society that
>is being compelled by their misplaced demand to change one
>of its oldest, and most significant concepts, in order for them
>to *feel* normal. No need to look for a common denominator
>(meaning of the institution of marriage), because nowadays
>everything's all about "good feelings". Achievement, personal
>sacrifice, and such are definitely passé in all aspects of life
>(including matrimony). Gay marriage is just a "me too prize"
>for the sex-preference challenged. Why else would 5% of
>the population have such political clout?
IMHO, this distills the essence of the whole problem. It is the same "me
too prize" that universities lowered themselves to recently, because why
would not anyone be entitled to a degree in astrophysics? "It is after
all not your fault that your IQ is 56".
FEEB
>Man, you are really playing with fire here. If it is a "genetically
>caused defect", do you think that, just maybe, it could be "cured" one
day?
>
>Like, you know, they've tried in the past? Castration, insulin shocks,
>that kind of stuff?
Genetically caused defect can only be repaired by changing the defective
information in the DNA. That cannot be done by castration, insulin shocks
and "that kind of [macrobiological] stuff". Ask any geneticist.
kujebak
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:57:32 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
>
>>> It could be Mr. Pecka is too loaded to do his own taxes :-)
>
> Not sure about the "too loaded" bit, but you are right in that I just
> sign the forms, hoping that whoever prepared them knew well what they
> were doing. :-)
People with money can afford to hire tax accountants.
The rest of us have two choices - to learn the ropes the
best we can, or get screwed by paying more than we have
to. Computer tax accounting software (such as the one by
Intuit) has proved to be a significant equalizer, now that
for 50 bucks one can produce a 300 dollar tax return,
which is what average tax assistance costs nowadays.
kujebak
"Ivan Kinda" <i...@concept-cdt.com> wrote in message
news:4393cb04$1...@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> Stan R wrote:
> > Jiri Pecka wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:15:53 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
> >>>details about having sex". ;-)
> >>
> >>What, you were not attracted by females even before you knew *exactly*
> >>what to do with them? ;-)
> >
> > Sure I was - I even knew what to do with them - i.e. grab that soft
> > pink thing with my toothless lips and suck
>
> Until here I thought you were talking about clitoris :-)
>
> > hard to get at the milk! :-)
> >
> >
> >>>Mind you, I don't think a comparison with left-handedness is valid, as
> >>>the "cause" of that particular "defect" has long been known to
originate
> >>>in a specific "wiring" of the brain.
> >>
> >>Hence, genetic. :-) Did you look at this at all?
> >>http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html
> >
> >
> > I did. Note again that I did not have a dispute with the word "genetic"
> > (and I agree that this is likely the "root of the problem" :-))
>
> Genetic is nonsensical - they would be "selected" out of the gene pool
> very quickly, wouldn't they? Another theory is "chemical", see
Not necessarily. It would depend on the transmission mechanism.
Many genetic disorders (sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, etc.) do not
breed out, because they're carried by recessive genes.
Jiri Pecka
<fe...@chem.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:58:21 GMT, Jiri Pecka wrote:
>
>>I personally don't think that it hurts the society if the school says
>>to kids that thay have to be nice to each other - even though one
>>happens to be homosexual. Relying on parents alone these days does not
>>seem to always cut it.
>
>Just to make sure I understand what you're saying. Does the above mean
>that you (supposedly libertarian) agree that government (via its school
>proxy) should have the ultimate say in bringing up your (grand)children
>because relying on their parents would not seem to cut it?
Emotionally loaded words? I never said that the government should have
the "ultimate say in bringing up etc". But I can't see why the ths
school can't say to kids, specifically, you shouldn't hate
homosexuals. If you had a homosexual kid, would you be happy for
him/her to attend a classroom being bullied by sons/daughters of
people like this http://www.godhatesfags.com? And even by their own
teachers? This is where teenage suicides come from. After all, you
don't review "the government's" math or physics books either.
>And BTW, have you ever seen an 8 year old homosexual?
Most likely yes, and so did you.
Jiri Pecka
Ivan Kinda
I agree. But, should the cause be "chemical" than the condition could be
changed. If that became widely known, tested and practiced, than being
homosexual would be purely by choice.
Ivan
Pavel Dvorak
This is very much the same situation as it is in Canada. Some time ago
the government considered taxing the family income rather than income of each
partner separately, but then someone realized that it would result in a
lot of faked divorces and whichever other ways to avoid this tax on the
total family income. In other words, it would undermine the traditional
family and very likely lose votes for the natural governing party, which
would be even worse from their point of view.
Pavel
Stan R
Jiri Pecka wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:57:32 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
>
> >> It could be Mr. Pecka is too loaded to do his own taxes :-)
>
> Not sure about the "too loaded" bit, but you are right in that I just
> sign the forms, hoping that whoever prepared them knew well what they
> were doing. :-)
That was Mr Kujebak's observation, not mine. I would never say about
anyone that they are too loaded...er, at least not in financial terms,
anyway.
Outside of that, there's almost always plenty of extremely loaded
characters sprawled under trees in any Darwin park...but that's a
different story... ;-)
> >It's actually worse than that: I suspect Mr Pecka LIKES paying taxes!
> >Because if he did not, then I can't work out why he would have such an
> >affinity for keeping a sizeable dollop of his spare cash in a bank
> >account paying some 1.5% interest, which is then fully taxable! :-)
>
> Maybe I just love my bank manager? :-)
That would be a clear case of misdirected love. :-)
> >> Are you suggesting your income tax law is just as convoluted,
> >> and ambiguous, as ours?
> >
> >Well, what do you reckon? Over 10,000 pages of patched-up, often
> >contradictory junk, growing at a rate of some 2,000 extra pages per year.
> >
> >At this rate, the tax advisory profession will be one of the fastest
> >growing industries in this country for a number of years yet! ;-)
> >
> >(Having said that, I hasten to add I am not a tax professional; I prefer
> >to combine the 'prijemne s uzitecnym' ;-))
>
> Stan's usual modest understatement: He is Australia's best tax expert
> amongst financial advisers, and the best financial adviser amongst tax
> experts. Watch his star rise... :-)
Thank you, Jiri, for your kind words. I promise to repay you in the
future by telling everyone about your extraordinary Googling skills!
After all, Google share price has skyrocketed since the initial public
offering - there is bound to be some money in being endowed by such an
ability! ;-)
S
Pavel Dvorak
[lots nuked here and at the end]
>
>> >I do know a woman for instance, in her mid thirties, who for a number of
>> >years lived in a lesbian relationship. In fact, she'd never ever had a
>> >male sexual partner before. She has recently "shacked up" with a male
>> >friend and has now become "normal" to the extent they are contemplating
>> >getting married. ;-)
>>
This 'conversion' is probably not that uncommon; personally I knew one guy
who married, had children, divorced and then shacked up with a young
fellow. (I learned about this when I first got back to (then still)
Czechoslovakia. He entered the pub and one of my friends pointed out:
Podivej se, prisel Zdenek a jeho manz~elek.) Druhy pripad je opacnym
smerem - kaamrad, ktery byl homo od mladi se najednou (nekdy kolem
padesatky) ozenil.
>> Hallelujah, she has seen the light! :-)
>
> That's right. Now if she were a man, she'd only need to wait another
> three years to make sure the disease does not re-occur and she could
> even become a Catholic priest! :-)
>
Since heterosexual priests are supposed to live in celibacy, it seems only
natural to impose the same on the homosexual ones. (Not that I consider
the celibacy reasonable and enforceable ...)
Pavel
Zdislav V. Kovarik
I have resisted for a long time, but:
Many liberals (the left variety, who stole the good name from classical
liberals) appease expanding Islam, and advocate homosexual marriages.
Possible motivation? They want to sit back and watch the two fight it out.
Guess who will be on the receiving end (bad choice of words...).
Cheers, Slavek(ZVK)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Friends gave me for my birthday a humidifier and a dehumidifier. So I
locked the two in a room and let them fight it out."
(Steven Wright, "smutny muz")
Pavel Dvorak
[nuked]
>
> Aging, in my experience, is great. I now get away with bloody well
> anything. It is great to be an aged excentric with no memory ;-)
>
Seconded.
Pavel
Pavel Dvorak
By choice of his/her parents, though.
Pavel
> Ivan
Jiri Borsky
>
> "Stan R" (aus...@mail.co.za) writes:
>
> [lots nuked here and at the end]
>
> >
> >> >I do know a woman for instance, in her mid thirties, who for a number of
> >> >years lived in a lesbian relationship. In fact, she'd never ever had a
> >> >male sexual partner before. She has recently "shacked up" with a male
> >> >friend and has now become "normal" to the extent they are contemplating
> >> >getting married. ;-)
> >>
>
> This 'conversion' is probably not that uncommon; personally I knew one guy
> who married, had children, divorced and then shacked up with a young
> fellow. (I learned about this when I first got back to (then still)
> Czechoslovakia. He entered the pub and one of my friends pointed out:
> Podivej se, prisel Zdenek a jeho manz~elek.) Druhy pripad je opacnym
> smerem - kaamrad, ktery byl homo od mladi se najednou (nekdy kolem
> padesatky) ozenil.
Reading Pavel's contribution I was going to remark that our friends' daughter,
to this point a lesbian, has now met a male friend she is rather sweet on...
only to notice that Stan R describes this very situation in the quotation above.
(These days I no longer read the whole newsgroup. Only certain contributors,
plus the occasional "lucky dip" into the politically incontinent bucket.)
JB
Jiri Borsky
Soon to be thirded. I think. Or should I wait a bit?
Yours ditheringly,
Jiri Borsky
PS: What was the question?
Jiri Pecka
<kov...@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>
>I have resisted for a long time, but:
>
>Many liberals (the left variety, who stole the good name from classical
>liberals) appease expanding Islam, and advocate homosexual marriages.
>Possible motivation? They want to sit back and watch the two fight it out.
>Guess who will be on the receiving end (bad choice of words...).
>
Well you know the answer already:
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html
It will be them first, us second, liberals last (after they have
entirely fullfilled their useful idiot role).
Jiri Pecka
kujebak
But (and it's a real *big* but), neither one of you could possibly
have known that, so there was no *opportunity* for discrimination,
and therefore no need for prophylactic ('scuse me, preventive) sen-
sitivity lessons. Don't you think that homosexuals' biggest woe is
their own urge for outside acceptance?
>
> Jiri Pecka
>
kujebak
"Pavel Dvorak" <ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:dn2j8i$hm$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
I think it's no coincidence that Catholic priesthood attracts
*so many* homosexuals, which makes your logic somewhat
moot :-)
>
> Pavel
>
kujebak
Gee, I thought you already *were* a (dithering) old fart :-)
Stan R
I fail to see the reasoning behind that. In fact, the opposite should
be true, as can be seen from the following (admittedly rather
simplified) example. Medicare levy of 1.5% & child rebates etc not
included:
Case 1:
- High income earner on $100,000 p.a. -> marginal tax rate 47% in this
FY
- Non-working spouse
- Tax: Spouse 1: $32,712 & spouse 2: Low income rebate ($235)
- Net couple take-home income: $67,523
Case 2:
- 2x medium income earners on $50,000 each -> marginal tax rate 30%
- Tax payable: $11,172 x 2 = $22,344
- Net couple take-home pay: $77,656
- Difference from Case 1 = $10,093 better off.
This is roughly how it works now. If couples were taxed on a combined
income, allowed to be split equally between them, as opposed to their
individual ones, they would clearly be a lot better off in many cases.
Why should this mean people would "fake" divorce?
> In other words, it would undermine the traditional
> family
For reason stated above, I can't see how this conclusion can be arrived
at - unless of course you are saying that the government proposed to
*combine* the two taxpayers' income and then tax it on the same
progressive scales applicable to individuals.
Which of course would suck in a big way.
> and very likely lose votes for the natural governing party, which
> would be even worse from their point of view.
Absolutely. That is of course always the most important consideration.
;-)
S
Paul J Kriha
Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote in message news:3vifplF...@individual.net...
> Ivan Kinda wrote:
> > Stan R wrote:
> >> Jiri Pecka wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:15:53 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
> >>>> details about having sex". ;-)
> >>>
> >>> What, you were not attracted by females even before you knew *exactly*
> >>> what to do with them? ;-)
> >>
> >> Sure I was - I even knew what to do with them - i.e. grab that soft
> >> pink thing with my toothless lips and suck
> >
> > Until here I thought you were talking about clitoris :-)
>
> Oh my, Mr Kinda...I may suffer from all sorts of age-related issues
> (like sore knees & achilles from running in even moderate doses), but I
> must state here that toothless lips I do not yet have!
Good Lord!
I say. Some nasty twist of the genetical roulette wheel?
I must be one of the lucky ones then, with my teeth
inside my mouth and not on my lips.
> No doubt that's in store for later, though. But then I doubt clitoris is
> likely to be of any interest either by that stage...an obvious lose/lose
> situation...
>
> Bummer, this bloody aging process sucks. Can we sue someone for that -
> maybe that God fellow all the religous freaks hold in such reverence?
I think it was done, well, at least in a Hollywood(?) film.
Class action against all churches and religious organisations,
who couldn't resist the temptation of declaring themselves
representatives of God on Earth.
pjk
> S
Paul J Kriha
Jiri Pecka <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:43942f41.11878156@news-server...
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:47:22 +1300, "Paul J Kriha"
> <paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >Just checking if we are on the same frequency...
> >HSB = His Supreme Being not Horrible Sonava Bitch
> >Right?
>
> Nah, that means Hanuman Sanctus Beatissimus.
> The saintest and blessest monkey ever.
I have this faint feeling of suspicion that you keep
making up all this stuff, along as you go.
> >> Indeed. And worse still, they will suffer in eternity, with sulphur
> >> flames licking their sinful bodies amidst their incessant cries and
> >> tooth gnashing.
> >
> >Hmmm, I see the dentist will be raking it in, yet again.
>
> Which reminds me his reminder he sent me about six months ago.
> He wants to see my teeth again. Not sure why.
Use Fedex, they are fast and quite reliable.
pjk
> Jiri Pecka
Paul J Kriha
Jiri Pecka <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:43943350.12916812@news-server...
I suppose it's not as worrying commendation as if you said he was
the best tax expert amongst Formula One drivers, and the best
Formula One driver amongst tax experts... :-)
pjk
Stan R
Paul J Kriha wrote:
> Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote in message news:3vifplF...@individual.net...
> > Ivan Kinda wrote:
> > > Stan R wrote:
> > >> Jiri Pecka wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:15:53 +0930, Stan R <aus...@mail.co.za> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Well, personally I can't say I felt heterosexual "long before learning
> > >>>> details about having sex". ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> What, you were not attracted by females even before you knew *exactly*
> > >>> what to do with them? ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Sure I was - I even knew what to do with them - i.e. grab that soft
> > >> pink thing with my toothless lips and suck
> > >
> > > Until here I thought you were talking about clitoris :-)
> >
> > Oh my, Mr Kinda...I may suffer from all sorts of age-related issues
> > (like sore knees & achilles from running in even moderate doses), but I
> > must state here that toothless lips I do not yet have!
>
> Good Lord!
> I say. Some nasty twist of the genetical roulette wheel?
> I must be one of the lucky ones then, with my teeth
> inside my mouth and not on my lips.
Good one!
I turn away in embarrassment, teeth, lips, gums, knees and all... :-)
> > No doubt that's in store for later, though. But then I doubt clitoris is
> > likely to be of any interest either by that stage...an obvious lose/lose
> > situation...
> >
> > Bummer, this bloody aging process sucks. Can we sue someone for that -
> > maybe that God fellow all the religous freaks hold in such reverence?
>
> I think it was done, well, at least in a Hollywood(?) film.
> Class action against all churches and religious organisations,
> who couldn't resist the temptation of declaring themselves
> representatives of God on Earth.
"The Man Who Sued God" with Billy Connolly
http://imdb.com/title/tt0268437/
Quite a funny movie from what I recall. Is that the one you mean?
S
Paul J Kriha
Yes, that's the one.
How could I forget it was a film with Billy Connolly?
I drive a car with registration number TKTBOO
and I forget Billy Connolly.
Hmmmm.
What? What was I talking about?
Oh, yes, good bye.
pjk
> S