Re: After Americans Visit, Uganda Weighs Death for Gays
rtk...@gmail.com
wrote:
>'qoute without comment'
>
>After Americans Visit, Uganda Weighs Death for Gays
>
>By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
>
>KAMPALA, Uganda -- Last March, three American evangelical
>Christians, whose teachings about "curing" homosexuals have been
>widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda's
>capital to give a series of talks.
>
>The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan
>organizer, was "the gay agenda -- that whole hidden and dark
>agenda" -- and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values
>and the traditional African family.
>
>For three days, according to participants and audio recordings,
>thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and
>national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were
>presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how
>to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage
>boys and how "the gay movement is an evil institution" whose goal
>is "to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a
>culture of sexual promiscuity."
>
>Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive,
>saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger
>that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death
>sentence for homosexual behavior.
>
>One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan
>politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the
>American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of
>2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has
>put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.
>
>Donor countries, including the United States, are demanding that
>Uganda's government drop the proposed law, saying it violates
>human rights, though Uganda's minister of ethics and integrity
>(who previously tried to ban miniskirts) recently said,
>"Homosexuals can forget about human rights."
>
>The Ugandan government, facing the prospect of losing millions in
>foreign aid, is now indicating that it will back down, slightly,
>and change the death penalty provision to life in prison for some
>homosexuals. But the battle is far from over.
>
>Instead, Uganda seems to have become a far-flung front line in
>the American culture wars, with American groups on both sides,
>the Christian right and gay activists, pouring in support and
>money as they get involved in the broader debate over
>homosexuality in Africa.
>
>"It's a fight for their lives," said Mai Kiang, a director at the
>Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, a New York-based group
>that has channeled nearly $75,000 to Ugandan gay rights activists
>and expects that amount to grow.
>
>The three Americans who spoke at the conference -- Scott Lively,
>a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality,
>including "7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child"; Caleb Lee
>Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads "healing
>seminars"; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus
>International, whose mission is "mobilizing the body of Christ to
>minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality" --
>are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.
>
>"I feel duped," Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been
>invited to speak on "parenting skills" for families with gay
>children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could
>be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some
>Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.
>
>"That's horrible, absolutely horrible," he said. "Some of the
>nicest people I have ever met are gay people."
>
>Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in
>interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the
>Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the
>bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan
>lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that
>someone had likened their campaign to "a nuclear bomb against the
>gay agenda in Uganda." Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr.
>Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so
>harsh.
One of these three, a very nerdy type who said he had been converted
himself from gay to straight and now sells expensive courses on how
other gays can do likewise, was in a dialogue with Rachel Maddow
on her show.
Seems it never entered his head the Ugandans would use his teachings
to demand gays be put to death. Or so he said. A real ninny but a
very dangerous man who now has to live with what his teachings
have wrought.
But this seems to me to be a logical progression from the kind of
anti-gay hatred some posters in this group so love to express.
I am sure they would shed no tears should such a law be passed in
the U.S.
>
>Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three
>Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous
>cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings,
>blackmail, death threats like "Die Sodomite!" scrawled on their
>homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.
>
>"Now we really have to go undercover," said Stosh Mugisha, a gay
>rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard
>and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction
>to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with
>H.I.V., but that her grandmother's reaction was simply, " `You
>are too stubborn.' "
>
>Despite such attacks, many gay men and lesbians here said things
>had been getting better for them before the bill, at least enough
>to hold news conferences and publicly advocate for their rights.
>Now they worry that the bill could encourage lynchings. Already,
>mobs beat people to death for infractions as minor as stealing
>shoes.
>
>"What these people have done is set the fire they can't quench,"
>said the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who went undercover for six
>months to chronicle the relationship between the African anti-
>homosexual movement and American evangelicals.
>
>Mr. Kaoma was at the conference and said that the three Americans
>"underestimated the homophobia in Uganda" and "what it means to
>Africans when you speak about a certain group trying to destroy
>their children and their families."
>
>"When you speak like that," he said, "Africans will fight to the
>death."
>
>Uganda is an exceptionally lush, mostly rural country where
>conservative Christian groups wield enormous influence. This is,
>after all, the land of proposed virginity scholarships, songs
>about Jesus playing in the airport, "Uganda is Blessed" bumper
>stickers on Parliament office doors and a suggestion by the
>president's wife that a virginity census could be a way to fight
>AIDS.
>
>During the Bush administration, American officials praised
>Uganda's family-values policies and steered millions of dollars
>into abstinence programs.
>
>Uganda has also become a magnet for American evangelical groups.
>Some of the best known Christian personalities have recently
>passed through here, often bringing with them anti-homosexuality
>messages, including the Rev. Rick Warren, who visited in 2008 and
>has compared homosexuality to pedophilia. (Mr. Warren recently
>condemned the anti-homosexuality bill, seeking to correct what he
>called "lies and errors and false reports" that he played a role
>in it.)
>
>Many Africans view homosexuality as an immoral Western import,
>and the continent is full of harsh homophobic laws. In northern
>Nigeria, gay men can face death by stoning. Beyond Africa, a
>handful of Muslim countries, like Iran and Yemen, also have the
>death penalty for homosexuals. But many Ugandans said they
>thought that was going too far. A few even spoke out in support
>of gay people.
>
>"I can defend them," said Haj Medih, a Muslim taxi driver with
>many homosexual customers. "But I fear the what? The police, the
>government. They can arrest you and put you in the safe house,
>and for me, I don't have any lawyer who can help me."
>
>
> Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
The Post Quartermaster
"Bio-Ear" <nos...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7qf439...@mid.individual.net...
> into a pot, boiled down into a black sticky residue & used to pave
> the
> streets." --- Cajun aka Capitaist Pig
Well, look at it this way. There's all this talk about evolution.
Homosexuality goes against nature. If nature did not want us to
procreate, why did it provide us with the means to reproduce? Now, if
evolution is all they say it is, it's possible that it could lead to a
world of homosexuals instead of heterosexuals and therby end what
nature began. And because of that possibility, who can prove that it
is not right that the homosexuals be annihilated.
--
Now listen up! What I say
around here goes, ya hear?
If you don't like it,
take it to the Chaplin.
The Post Quartermaster
High Miles
Well if it should, then we have to demand the extermination of
retards, idiots, cripples, and useless old people as well.
We have to be fair.
Thumper
If your chil;d turned out to be gay would you annihilate him or her?
Thumper
Evelyn
"High Miles" <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_Pt0n.1640$ZB2....@newsfe13.iad...
Let's not forget the homophobes and racists. We could certainly do with
less of them.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
The Post Quartermaster
"Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ak05k5pgjgrbm0qjg...@4ax.com...
There's always that possibility.
El Castor
Now, now Rita. You really don't expect that to happen, do you? On the
other hand, if a Gay gene is at last discovered, would you object if
straight mothers elected to abort their unborn homosexual? Any problem
with that? Inquiring minds want to know.
Islander
---[snip]---
>
> Well, look at it this way. There's all this talk about evolution.
> Homosexuality goes against nature. If nature did not want us to
> procreate, why did it provide us with the means to reproduce? Now, if
> evolution is all they say it is, it's possible that it could lead to a
> world of homosexuals instead of heterosexuals and therby end what nature
> began. And because of that possibility, who can prove that it is not
> right that the homosexuals be annihilated.
>
>
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
Even setting aside the complete ignorance about natural
selection, I noticed three logical errors in that one paragraph.
Rumpelstiltskin
>> If your chil;d turned out to be gay would you annihilate him or her?
>> Thumper
>
>There's always that possibility.
Another jerk. Maybe Sordo invited him. Instant killfile.
I'm just glad I don't have to live among those people.
There seem to be a lot of 'em someplace, I don't know
where.
Jack Pine Savage
So, we'd have 4 choices for you then............
High Miles
Those bible believin' NASCAR fans are rabid.
Islander
Normally, they would be pretty isolated, but unfortunately, the Internet
makes it easy for them to find each other.
This one is probably a product of the distain that the troops hold for
post quartermasters. No toilet paper? Damn!
Islander
Red herring alert!
rtk...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is indeed and that is why I ignored it. El Castor is the master of
a very childish form of "gotcha" debate.
I do note that none on the right here are the least bothered by the
Ugandan penchant for executing gay people and the involvement
of U.S. preachers in creating the climate under which such a
travesty can even be considered.
The boys on C Street, of whom John Ensign was one until he
was found to be an adulterer, are very close to the Christian
movement in Uganda. So is Rick Warren who sells many, many
of his books there.
The right wingers here are treating it as a joke. Their moral
compasses are wobbly as jello.
El Castor
Well! I have only one thing to say to that! Gotcha. (-8
Rumpelstiltskin
Jello brains are not magnetic.
Those missionaries are the anti-gay theistic community
in microcosm. They encourage treating others as less than
equal. That's usually justified by what they say their god
wants. Nothing else ultimately works, though twisted and
dishonest people like El Castor argue otherwise.
Of course much of the real source of such behaviour
lies not in the gods, who have no reality, but in humans'
innate xenophobia. The origin of xenophobia is easy to
understand from a natural selection standpoint when
one considers the desperate need of homogeneity in a
barely-surviving population completely dependent on
co�peration, and therefore dependant on predictability.
The gods are merely an ancient tool for guaranteeing
homogeneity among the "ins" and aggression toward the
"outs". The bible is one example that makes that plain,
as is the Koran. That xenophobia shows up against
people within a society who are "different", such as
Jews in a "Christian" society, as well as against foreigners,
for that primitive reason. It's obvious that the result will
continue to be what it has always been, but when the
predictable consequences erupt, civilized considerations
sometimes finally kick in, too late, and they then say it
wasn't their intention. If you jump down a well, you get
no credit for saying it wasn't your intention to hit the
bottom, no matter what you believed before you jumped.
You can't create a just, not-scary, civilization by
building the foundation on unexamined savagery.
Evelyn
"Rumpelstiltskin" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:gl65k593jpq4vqc0k...@4ax.com...
If we start killing everyone who thinks or lives a little differently than
we do, then we are as bad as the worst of the jihadist terrorists.
Evelyn
<rtk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v8e5k5tmtvj2q1j9t...@4ax.com...
Not sure of the exact quote, but wasn't it Gandhi who said he very much
liked Christ, but not so much the Christians, who were very unlike Christ.
Rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>Not sure of the exact quote, but wasn't it Gandhi who said he very much
>liked Christ, but not so much the Christians, who were very unlike Christ.
As I recall, it was the Dalai Lama who said "I like your
Christ, but not your Christianity." Many others, including
Shelley, have felt the same way.
The Post Quartermaster
"Islander" <nos...@priracy.net> wrote in message
news:Crydne2FtclbBd_W...@rockisland.com...
Tell me what I don't know.
The Post Quartermaster
The Post Quartermaster
beholder"? If that's the case, why would you think a person immoral
for thinking something you do is immoral?
The Post Quartermaster
Gays are less than equal. I'll change my mind about that when two gay
men can equal up and produce an offspring.
Islander
There will be a spokesman for The Family on Rachel Maddow this evening
to defend them on the Uganda Kill the Gays Bill. Should be interesting!
High Miles
>
> "Rumpelstiltskin" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:ur65k5p5gg1871cdc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:41:27 -0800, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Post Quartermaster wrote:
>>> ---[snip]---
>>>>
>>>> Well, look at it this way. There's all this talk about evolution.
>>>> Homosexuality goes against nature. If nature did not want us to
>>>> procreate, why did it provide us with the means to reproduce? Now, if
>>>> evolution is all they say it is, it's possible that it could lead to a
>>>> world of homosexuals instead of heterosexuals and therby end what
>>>> nature
>>>> began. And because of that possibility, who can prove that it is not
>>>> right that the homosexuals be annihilated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You don't know much about evolution, do you?
>>
>>
>> Even setting aside the complete ignorance about natural
>> selection, I noticed three logical errors in that one paragraph.
>>
>>
> Educate me there sweetie. Point out those errors.
Uh oh.
Looks like the quartermaster has a crush.............:-)
High Miles
>
> Gays are less than equal. I'll change my mind about that when two gay
> men can equal up and produce an offspring.
Oh - so men and women who are unable to reproduce are LESS than equal.
Equality based upon capability to reproduce is an interesting concept.
Bet you have a few more twisted clods of shit in that little head.
The Post Quartermaster
Well, can you dispute that nature intended for us to procreate? If so,
please exhibit your superior intellect by putting forth a sensible
rebuttle instead of just doing the same thing everyone else that can't
face truth do, attack the messenger.
--
Now listen up! What I say
around here goes, ya hear?
If you don't like it,
take it to the Chaplin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyqvuTxaEs
The Post Quartermaster
Islander
>
> "Islander" <nos...@priracy.net> wrote in message
> news:Crydne2FtclbBd_W...@rockisland.com...
>> The Post Quartermaster wrote:
>> ---[snip]---
>>>
>>> Well, look at it this way. There's all this talk about evolution.
>>> Homosexuality goes against nature. If nature did not want us to
>>> procreate, why did it provide us with the means to reproduce? Now, if
>>> evolution is all they say it is, it's possible that it could lead to
>>> a world of homosexuals instead of heterosexuals and therby end what
>>> nature began. And because of that possibility, who can prove that it
>>> is not right that the homosexuals be annihilated.
>>>
>>>
>> You don't know much about evolution, do you?
>
> Tell me what I don't know.
>
You seem to believe that evolution has some predestined intent. It does
not. It is a natural process consisting of two parts, random genetic
variation and natural selection. Genetics provides an enormous variety
of options, especially in the most complex organisms. Some of these
options are inheritable while many are simply random changes in how
living beings develop and mature. Some of these variable options may
remain dormant for generations, only to surface later. We are pretty
sure that homosexuality is not inherited - not a product of a gene that
is passed from parent to child like skin color, for example. Rather, it
appears that it is just a collection of variables affecting the many
aspects of sexuality. It happens naturally within the first part of
evolution and is not a factor in the second part. Procreation of the
human species continues simply because the incidence of homosexuality is
much lower than the propensity of the species to breed.
The result is that homosexuality occurs naturally, is not a product of
an individual's environment, cannot be "cured," and most importantly
from your point of concern, is not a factor in survival of the human
species.
This is a very brief summary of this little corner of science. There is
much more that is easily available to you if you can put your prejudices
aside and open your mind to the reality of our complex world.
Evelyn
I surely don't want to miss that! I hope Rachel makes fools of them......
(if anyone can, she can)
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:MuqdnUpNfdJO5t7W...@giganews.com...
>
> "High Miles" <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:O8K0n.2223$Sk4...@newsfe10.iad...
>> The Post Quartermaster wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Gays are less than equal. I'll change my mind about that when two gay
>>> men can equal up and produce an offspring.
>>
>> Oh - so men and women who are unable to reproduce are LESS than equal.
>> Equality based upon capability to reproduce is an interesting concept.
>> Bet you have a few more twisted clods of shit in that little head.
>
> Well, can you dispute that nature intended for us to procreate? If so,
> please exhibit your superior intellect by putting forth a sensible
> rebuttle instead of just doing the same thing everyone else that can't
> face truth do, attack the messenger.
Just because nature gave us the equipment to procreate doesn't always mean
that procreation is always what is best for us.
I might mention that nature also gave us a brain to decide when procreation
is wise and necessary.
Consider that nature gave us cancer, polio, and all sorts of hideous
diseases too, does that mean we should allow them free rein?
The Post Quartermaster
So, basically you're telling me that a species can continue to exist
without the ability to procreate? Then, why did nature provide the
means to reproduce? I think, if you would take the time to go back and
read my original post, you will find that I said "if
>>>> evolution is all they say it is, it's possible that it could lead
>>>> to a world of homosexuals instead of heterosexuals and therby end
>>>> what nature began." So, you don't believe evolution leading to
>>>> such a scenario is possible but you believe that you descended
>>>> from a monkey? Let me ask this question. Was the monkey on your
>>>> Mother's side or your Father's?
--
Now listen up! What I say
around here goes, ya hear?
If you don't like it,
take it to the Chaplin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyqvuTxaEs
The Post Quartermaster
The Post Quartermaster
"Evelyn" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi02v8$hv4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
That's your sensible rebuttle?
Thumper
<quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org> wrote:
>
>"High Miles" <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:O8K0n.2223$Sk4...@newsfe10.iad...
>> The Post Quartermaster wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Gays are less than equal. I'll change my mind about that when two
>>> gay men can equal up and produce an offspring.
>>
>> Oh - so men and women who are unable to reproduce are LESS than
>> equal.
>> Equality based upon capability to reproduce is an interesting
>> concept.
>> Bet you have a few more twisted clods of shit in that little head.
>
>Well, can you dispute that nature intended for us to procreate? If so,
>please exhibit your superior intellect by putting forth a sensible
>rebuttle instead of just doing the same thing everyone else that can't
>face truth do, attack the messenger.
You make no sense. The above question has absolutely nothing to do
with equal rights except as an excuse in your twisted mind. Do old
folks that are no longer of child bearing age to be denied the same
rights as younger people? How about those who simply decide not to
have children?
Crawl back under your rock bigot.
Thumper
Thumper
Kill file this dope. He asked for a sensible rebuttal and he was
given one. It's obvious that her is another that is too fundamentally
dishonest to bother with.
Thumper
The Post Quartermaster
You must be mistaken. I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about
simply being equal. Such as equal to the task of reproducing. So, Mr.
Highly Indignant Twerp, instead of the usual sissy method of attacking
a messenger, can you come up with an instance in which two men (or if
you prefer, two women) can have sex with each other and have that
result in an offspring that would evolve into one gay person? If so,
please elaborate because I just know you're an expert on this
evolution stuff.
The Post Quartermaster
If you can't face the truth, kill the messenger, huh? But, let me
answer your implication of a search for logic. I'll answer the
previous poster by saying, no I guess you're right we should not allow
"them" free rein. And I'm sure you would want to be fair and apply
that same logic to gays, right?
rtk...@gmail.com
rtk...@gmail.com
Your sig reads:
Now listen up! What I say
around here goes, ya hear?
If you don't like it,
take it to the Chaplin.
Is that Charlie? There is no common noun "chaplin". Just thought you
might like to know that. The least you could do is spell the words in
your sig correctly - don't you think?
The Post Quartermaster
<rtk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8q97k5dedg0c9pbi3...@4ax.com...
I'll tend to my spellin' and you just carry on with your grading
papers and we'll do fine. By the way, I think you missed the "ya".
--
Now listen up! What I say
around here goes, ya hear?
If you don't like it,
take it to the Chaplin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyqvuTxaEs
The Post Quartermaster
Islander
I took the time to answer you. The least that you can do is to attempt
to read with comprehension. a) evolution or nature has no intent - it
simply is what it is. b) procreation is working just fine despite your
concern.
The Post Quartermaster
No, what you did was parrot what you've read and heard about the
Darwin theory of evolution. The operative word being "theory". There
are all kinds of books, by scientists even, that dispute that theory.
Both sides have their supporters. Surprise! So, if someone like me
wants scientific proof of either side, wouldn't they be within all
reason to ask the question I did; "And because of that possibility,
who can prove that it is not right that the homosexuals be
annihilated." The most obvious answer would be "Nobody". To which I
would rest my case that gays are not equal to the task of reproducing
their own kind and that's against the intent of nature, unless you
think nature just thought it would be a neat trick to provide the
means of procreation and make that such a really giddy experience.
--
Now listen up! What I say
around here goes, ya hear?
If you don't like it,
take it to the Chaplin.
The Post Quartermaster
Rumpelstiltskin
<2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The Post Quartermaster wrote:
>>
>> "Rumpelstiltskin" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:ur65k5p5gg1871cdc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:41:27 -0800, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Post Quartermaster wrote:
>>>> ---[snip]---
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, look at it this way. There's all this talk about evolution.
>>>>> Homosexuality goes against nature. If nature did not want us to
>>>>> procreate, why did it provide us with the means to reproduce? Now, if
>>>>> evolution is all they say it is, it's possible that it could lead to a
>>>>> world of homosexuals instead of heterosexuals and therby end what
>>>>> nature
>>>>> began. And because of that possibility, who can prove that it is not
>>>>> right that the homosexuals be annihilated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You don't know much about evolution, do you?
>>>
>>>
>>> Even setting aside the complete ignorance about natural
>>> selection, I noticed three logical errors in that one paragraph.
>>>
>>>
>> Educate me there sweetie. Point out those errors.
>
>
>Uh oh.
>Looks like the quartermaster has a crush.............:-)
Doomed to be unrequited.
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:Y76dnWoKkvFCOd7W...@giganews.com...
No, you were saying that we are made to procreate by nature, and that was
your argument why gays should not have their freedom. I say that
procreation is not necessarily our only purpose, that our minds are more
important in deciding what our purpose is. If a person is gay, that is
what and who they are. It is hard wired in, not a personal choice nor
should it be subject to YOUR twisted logic...... by which you seemingly used
the word "nature" as a rule, (in your particular narrow vision of it),
rather than with all its naturally occurring variations, free will, wired
in differences, and not so easy answers.
Live and let live..... that's all.
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:L9mdnaJOPOQfDN7W...@giganews.com...
>> The result is that homosexuality occurs naturally, is not a product of an
>> individual's environment, cannot be "cured," and most importantly from
>> your point of concern, is not a factor in survival of the human species.
>>
>> This is a very brief summary of this little corner of science. There is
>> much more that is easily available to you if you can put your prejudices
>> aside and open your mind to the reality of our complex world.
>
> So, basically you're telling me that a species can continue to exist
> without the ability to procreate? Then, why did nature provide the means
> to reproduce? I think, if you would take the time to go back and read my
> original post, you will find that I said "if
All women are EQUIPPED by nature to be prostitutes, does that mean they must
do so? All beings are equipped to procreate, does that mean they have to?
You refer to "nature" like you are referring to some creator god or
something. Human beings have free will, and by NATURE, some do not feel
attraction to opposite sex relationships but instead are attracted to same
sex. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring variation that is present in
all cultures. Live and let them be who they are!
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
I don't know why you bother talking to some people, Evelyn.
Islander
Hopeless! You don't even understand the scientific method or the
meaning of a scientific theory. Look them up and educate yourself.
Then see if you can understand the difference between a hypothesis and a
theory.
No actual scientist would support your hypothesis.
Evelyn
You just never know when some simple good sense will bring a new realization
to them.
Charlie
> "The Post Quartermaster" <quartermasterextraordina...@postfiftyone.org>
> wrote in messagenews:L9mdnaJOPOQfDN7W...@giganews.com...
Evelyn, I feel like you do "live aand let live" Let them be what they
are.
I vehemently disagree that marriage should be changed to any union
other than a man and a woman.
Charlie
Evelyn
"Charlie" <anonym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c627a6c-976f-477c...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
You are entitled to your opinion, Charlie.
I think that as long as married couples are granted special financial and
legal benefits, gays in a long term union should be treated the same way.
Whether it is called marriage or whatever, it should be a matter of
equality.
Rumpelstiltskin
>> I don't know why you bother talking to some people, Evelyn.
>
>You just never know when some simple good sense will bring a new realization
>to them.
Had any luck with that lately?
Have you tried termites? They might be more amenable to
sensible thought than right-wing talk-radio fans.
Charlie
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:17:56 -0800 (PST), Charlie
>
> Some of the most emotional and divisive issues in our society,
> specifically issues such as homosexual marriage and adoption by
> homosexuals and other "gay rights" issues, revolve around one central
> and critical issue. That issue is: is homosexual activity moral and
> "legalizeable" or immoral and "illegalizeable"?
>
> If we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is moral and
> that it should be protected via legislation, then by logical extension
> we must also conclude that such things as homosexual marriage and
> adoption should likewise be legal.
>
> Conversely, if we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is
> immoral and "illegalizeable," then by logical extension we must also
> conclude that homosexual marriage and adoption should be illegal.
>
> In an effort to bring clarity to these issues and to help unify us
> around truth, rather than keep us divided by untruth and confusion,
> what follows is a rigorously logical analysis of that aforementioned
> central homosexual issue.
>
> For centuries, the position of "traditional value" people re
> homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual acts
> are physiologically (if not also psychologically) unnatural deviations
> from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual
> deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own
> particular deviations from other reasonable norms. In short, legal
> homosexual acts are bad and absurd legal precedents.
>
> Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations
> and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable
> sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from
> other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of
> deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal
> treatment.
>
> For example, many towns have ordinances restricting what people can do
> with their homes and yards. These towns want to prevent slums from
> forming and ruining their environments. Now, what if someone wants to
> move into a picturesque section of such a town and wants to have a
> yard of mud with paper littered around it and wants to have a house
> which has the exterior's coating of paint badly chipped up? We should
> tolerate that if we tolerate homosexual acts.
>
> To those "freedom-loving" liberals who disagree with that last
> sentence, we can just ask them if they would outlaw any action that
> lowered someone's property values. And if they would, we could point
> out that an openly homosexual person moving into a conservative area
> would likely lower property values in that area since many
> conservatives might decide to move out of that area, just like black
> people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately
> cause "white flight" and lower property values. Does that mean
> liberals would agree to outlaw homosexual behavior in that geographic
> area? Or would they outlaw black people moving into certain white
> areas of the country? This gives the reader an idea of the kind of
> legal swamp liberals are wont to create. (Let us remember that trial
> lawyers, who are big contributors to liberal Democratic politicians,
> thrive when our laws are confusing and contradictory. Do liberal
> politicians intentionally create confusing laws which help keep trial
> lawyers busy as a payback for campaign contributions by those
> lawyers?)
>
> And if liberals would not outlaw actions that lower property values,
> then if they tolerate homosexual deviations they would fairly have to
> tolerate other deviations (as the aforementioned pig sties) which
> lower property values. In either case, whether "freedom-loving"
> liberals would choose to outlaw actions that lower property values or
> not outlaw, the consequences are very messy for them and their
> ideology.
>
> Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their
> supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold
> this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to
> "discriminate" against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g.,
> people who have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these
> deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren't hurting
> anybody; but it is NOT okay to "discriminate" against homosexual and
> bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by
> saying things like "Exhibitionists offend people." We point out that
> tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the
> world are offended by homosexual activity. We don't want to depress
> homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no
> sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to
> anyone NOT in denial about reality.
>
> Incidentally, we should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual
> activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny
> is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny
> is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two
> pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual
> deviations is an absurd legal precedent.
>
> Homosexuals like to say, as part of their defense of homosexual acts,
> that they are not hurting anybody when they engage in such acts
> (though, because they do tend to be more promiscuous than "normal,"
> they do spread more sexual diseases per capita than more sexually
> "normal" people). Well, people who live in an ugly pig sty like the
> one described above can say the same thing about that pig sty---it
> does not hurt anybody. That does not carry much weight. Many actions
> are wrong that do not "hurt" anybody.
>
> If we tolerate such deviations we will wind up with an ugly, confused,
> and sick society. Let us learn from the decay and fall of the great
> Roman and Greek societies, which came to value debauchery. Once people
> depart from decent moral standards it is frequently all downhill after
> that because it is harder to be moral than immoral, generally
> speaking. This is because being moral requires some effort
> (self-restraint or self-denial), and people tend to take the "path of
> least resistance."
>
> Indeed, over the last 30 years or so, as our society has become more
> accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, as has the
> out-of-wedlock birthrate and teen suicide rate, we have seen the rise
> of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. etc.
>
> Thus, we should ever try to see to it that morality is the path of
> least resistance by creating inhibitions to immorality, by at least
> attaching serious social stigmas to immorality and preferably by
> illegalizing immoral behavior. (To those who say that we cannot
> legislate morality, we can reply that outlawing murder, rape, theft,
> racist behaviors, sexist behaviors, indecent exposure, disturbing the
> peace, etc., etc., is legislating morality and is obviously proper.)
>
> Ultimately, all the rules or laws against homosexual activity,
> bestiality (human-animal sex), normal or deviant sex in public,
> indecent exposure, obscene literature and videos, the utterance of
> certain swearwords in public or using them in newspapers and magazines
> and on TV and radio---all the rules or laws against those things rest
> on the same basis as the laws or ordinances against the existence of
> such things as ugly, unkempt houses and yards. What is that basis?
> Nothing more than this: a large number of people find such things
> unpleasant or offensive or repugnant, etc., etc.
>
> It is a matter of maintaining high standards at the least, and at the
> most of slowly raising those standards as we make society better.
> Allowing people to lower our standards, to take us down toward a more
> animalistic state of being, is to allow people to slowly ruin our
> advanced and advancing society.
>
> Sure we can survive (after a fashion) if we allow (for examples)
> public heterosexual or homosexual or human-animal sexual activity, but
> what kind of life would that be? Sure we can survive in a muddy,
> unkempt, littered, ugly ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't take time to respond to all of that. I simply feel this is not
a new issue homosexual activity has been in existance since pre
history and any effort to control it IMO is senseless.
No one should have any right to decide if I use my mouth or any part
of my body to love my wife. It is no one elses business. Therefore I
have no interest or desire to stop any one else doing what they want
in private and without coersion.
Charlie
Charlie
> "Charlie" <anonymouse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was pretty sure you felt that way.
I don't.
Charlie
Evelyn
Hopefully we can be mutually respectful about it, and agree to politely see
it differently from one another. All too often on newsgroups that isn't
the case.....:-(
no...@nowhere.com
When do they do anything in private, look no further than San Fran and
what they do there, look at all they try to do and advertise on the
internet at schools. What they do is not private and the only thing
they know is coercion.
The Post Quartermaster
I think you're getting off the reservation there a bit as it seems
you're saying homosexuality is a choice. Well, I agree. But that
doesn't answer the question.
The Post Quartermaster
Well, then prove their equality or shut up.
The Post Quartermaster
Let's see, you've engaged in the attack on me yet you want someone to
be respectful to you???
The Post Quartermaster
Let me stop you there. I have not argued that gays should not have
their freedom. I'm arguing that they are not equal to the task of
creating offspring as those they wish to be equal to do. And thus I
challenge you to prove that equality. If they want to be treated like
everyone else, they should act like everyone else.
More proof that El Castor is an utterly dishonest hypocrite above
>Path: forte-easynews!core-iad-easynews!news-in-02-iad.easynews.com!news.easynews.com!s02-b17!npeersf01.iad.highwinds-media.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!82.197.223.103.MISMATCH!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!138.195.8.3.MISMATCH!news.ecp.fr!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
>From: Geoff <nos...@privacy.net>
>Newsgroups: soc.retirement
>Subject: Re: After Americans Visit, Uganda Weighs Death for Gays
>Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0800
>Organization: �
>Lines: 27
>Message-ID: <7qk1dg...@mid.individual.net>
>References: <Crydne2FtclbBd_W...@rockisland.com> <nd2dnVOZ-sln1N7W...@giganews.com> <boGdnc7zH8FcHt7W...@rockisland.com> <L9mdnaJOPOQfDN7W...@giganews.com> <hi0okd$vm9$1...@news.eternal-september.org> <3c627a6c-976f-477c...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <7qjop2...@mid.individual.net> <6cf53b23-cef1-49f0...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <b3i9k5thtngpag1d7...@4ax.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: individual.net UPiYkolZVOykmITJfxpINQdDmFh8bcBWjbWCe/u5ThJxYNZh7o
>Cancel-Lock: sha1:xawtIOlOyM1YHqMo+RQNvWM+oMQ=
>X-No-Archive: yes
>Xref: core-iad-easynews soc.retirement:717901
>X-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:00:17 UTC (s02-b17)
>Check it out, San Francisco at it's finest:
>
>http://zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/
>
>http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
Thumper
Whom does this hurt? There are no casual attendees that would be
surprised by this. Everyone there knows what happens there. The ones
who complain either weren't there at all or attended only to take
pictures to expose to the general public.
THumper
Charlie
>
> When do they do anything in private, look no further than San Fran and
> what they do there, look at all they try to do and advertise on the
> internet at schools. What they do is not private and the only thing
> they know is coercion.
If you read carefully what I said you will see that *I* care not about
what they do. I care a lot about what they do, that effects others.
Charlie
Charlie
>
> Let's see, you've engaged in the attack on me yet you want someone to
> be respectful to you???
>
That is the way I remember this group.
Charlie
Jim E
utterly dishonest hypocrite above <ch...@glass.com> wrote:
You idiot, what does this post have to do with El Castor?
Olly Mensch
namely - "live and let live", indeed - and I agree.
However, when it comes to marriage, the very foundation of our society,
I agree with you that it should be between a man and a woman, ONLY -
for many reasons having to do with society as such.
Olly
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:H_6dnUvgY4j5UdnW...@giganews.com...
The key word is mutual. If it can't be mutually respectful, I know very
well how to go the other way too.
Evelyn
That was then, this is now. You will be responded to in the way you behave
yourself.
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:vIadnQMWmc7DVtnW...@giganews.com...
I don't believe it is a choice. I believe that they are born the way they
are. The question is whether people are meant to be heterosexual or not by
nature. Some are not and some are.
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:l6-dnSiFk9CqUNnW...@giganews.com...
They don't ask that we act like them, so why should we demand it of them?
Let them be who they are.
The Post Quartermaster
The way you're jumping on the band wagon with the gays, I'm sure you
do know very well how to go the other way. I'll be vetry clear. I have
no respect for anybody that goes against nature, period! And I have no
respect for anyone that supports those that go against nature. And in
going against nature, I don't confine my disdain to gays, I include
polluters, poachers and anyone that violates the laws of nature. Those
of you that pick and choose what parts of a law you support are not
worthy of being able to enjoy what nature provides.
Charlie
> "Charlie" <anonymouse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
There is one thing that I'm sure would be different if we should fall
in to a strong disagreement. I fight my own battles. The "pack" as I
think of many here will descend and make it an impossible task to
reach understanding.
I can fight any way an opponent chooses from the dirtiest to the most
honorable.
Charlie
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
Funny how all these right wingers were equally attracted
to men and women, but had to choose to be heterosexual.
Most heterosexual liberals, in contrast, are that way by
nature and couldn't have chosen otherwise. That's yet
another difference between liberals and conservatives.
Charlie
have no
> respect for anyone that supports those that go against nature.
And where did you read or learn what is "against nature"?
Is it nature for man and woman to have oral sex? Anal sex? mutual
masterbation?
Charlie
The Post Quartermaster
been born with a fully developed brain.
The Post Quartermaster
I have no problem with that. It's when they want to be like they are
not. The states grant the privilege of marriage in the eyes of the
state law, because the states believe, rightly or wrongly, that the
marriage of a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring
and raising a family is a desirable thing. To reduce that privilege to
a mere exercise in un-natural sex is abhorant to the intent of the
laws of the states, and I might add, to a vast majority of the
citizens of this country. The gays are using a strawman in trying to
gain respect for their behavior. I don't really concern myself with
the marriage part. You can marry your horsie for all I care. But don't
try to sell your desire to do so based on my ability to produce, with
my female wife, an offspring in our image. Just say that you want to
marry your horse because you like to eat hay and he likes to watch TV.
The Post Quartermaster
You'll have to ask nature about that. My opinion regading it will
remain that. My opinion.
Charlie
<quartermasterextraordina...@postfiftyone.org> wrote:
> "Charlie" <anonymouse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Would you tell me what your opinion is for those questioned love
making methods?
Since your statement above said you are against those who do things
against nature, it would help if we understood what you meant.
Charlie
The Post Quartermaster
Charlie
Like I said, it will remain my opinion. I will decide what my morals
are. I will determine what I think goes against nature and I will
report on it when I see it. If you and your wife would like to post a
picture of the two of you engaging in some sex act that you feel I
might think goes against nature, feel free to do so, take a picture
and email it to me, I'll take a look and let you know. I am in this
conversation because some claimed that gays are equal to
heterosexuals. They demonstrated their position (no pun intended) and
that allowed me to express my opinion about "them".
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:oaSdnWKyieblbNnW...@giganews.com...
You go against nature every time you take an antibiotic.
You go against nature when you ride in a car. etc. etc. etc.
You get the picture.
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:ReWdnRqXS-Jun9jW...@giganews.com...
LOL! So you are saying that YOU decide what is against nature and what is
not? A bit presumptuous to say the least!
Evelyn
So can we all, if we choose to do so.
I find that not caving in to the worst is better.
Evelyn
"Rumpelstiltskin" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:irs9k5583chf5rj14...@4ax.com...
Interesting....
Regardless of my politics, I know that I am a heterosexual since I simply
don't get turned on from women. I admire other women, I like the fact that
many are beautiful, smart, interesting, engaging, witty, and all those other
things human beings can be, but I am just not sexually attracted to women.
I have pretty much always been that way.
Among those I know who are homosexual, and among the parents of homosexuals,
they seem to say that they were always inclined to be that way, and were
different even as children. I don't care which it is, I do believe that
people should be allowed to be what and who they are.
It doesn't affect me, my own sexuality, the state of my marriage, or take
anything away from my life to grant homosexuals the right to be who they
are, or to allow them equal rights. As for the openly promiscuous
behavior that El C and Biohazard are fixated on, there are laws against
public lewdness, whether the people engaging in it are heterosexual or
homosexual.
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:7IqdncGyFNtha9nW...@giganews.com...
If you are getting into brain science here, you ought to cite something.
As a matter of fact there has been some research that indicated there was a
subtle, brain-structure difference in homosexuals.
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:2rGdnf6A3tmmZNnW...@giganews.com...
What about childless couples? You place an inordinate amount of importance
on reproduction. Some are childless by choice, using "unnatural" means to
prevent that, and others not by choice.
And you still haven't answered Charlie about what particular acts you
consider to be unnatural between anybody.
The Post Quartermaster
You're building strawmen now.
The Post Quartermaster
No, you just don't get it. I am saying I decide what is right for me.
I decide how, when, what and where I do things. I don't try to get
anyone to agree with me. But I will defend my position and debate
until nature calls me home.
The Post Quartermaster
Uh oh, they won't like that.
rtk...@gmail.com
Also:
Is it against nature to ejaculate prematurely to avoid impregnating
the woman? Inquiring minds want to know. Surely Mr. Nature will
have a definitive answer -- right?
How about using condoms and other methods of birth control to
prevent having offspring?
Not every hetereosexual wishes to be a parent.
Charlie
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is now established for me that you are not someone I want to waste
time with. Not that what you believe is wrong, but because you are
afraid to say what you believe so how would I know.
Charlie
The Post Quartermaster
Charlie
I certainly agree with your decision and salute your departure.
Evelyn
"The Post Quartermaster" <quartermaster...@postfiftyone.org>
wrote in message news:yb-dnVUDZvXrlNjW...@giganews.com...
No more than when you say that people who have sex in certain ways are
"unatural". Maybe a vibrator is "unnatural".... maybe watching a porn film
is "unnatural"..... I say if two people can do it together, then it is
natural.