Homophobes are Dictators
Divine Word
Homophobes like to select only certain passages (written by persons who were
bad or not model of goodness) that suit their purposes. The passages that
are detrimental or demanding
to them are ignored by them. Some of these passages are:
1. If you want to go to heaven, Jesus says, you should leave your family,
everything and follow me (Jesus). Christian homophobes should abandon
their families and their comfortable lives.
2. It is more difficult for rich people to enter heaven than for a camel to
pass through the hole of a needle. All homophobes should not search comfort,
riches and prosperity. They should give their possessions to others.
3. In the bible it is also said that people should give one tenth of their
salaries to charities. All those heterosexuals who follow the bible strictly
should give one tenth of their salaries.
4. The bible also permits and accepts slavery. Then those homophobes should
accept to become slaves if they are enslaved.
5. The bible teaches that women should be obedient and submissive to men.
Then christian women should accept being dominated by men.
6. In Leviticus it is said that after emission by men and discharge by
women, they become soiled and they should not, for many weeks, touch certain
objects and do certain things. If they touch them, these objects should be
destroyed. Heterosexuals who follow the bible literally should destroy the
objects they touch, during that period, after emission or discharge. In
reality they don't follow this command.
7. The bible also says that all males should be circumcised. Those who are
not should be put to death. Today most christians are not circumcised. They
should be put to death.
8. The old testament told Jews to rest on the Sabbath. Anyone catched doing
work or an unusual activity
is punished by death according to the old testament. Nowadays there are so
many people, including christian fundamentalists, working on the Sabbath.
Those homophobes sticking to old testament should not work on this day. They
should accept the death sentence if they work on this day.
Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to their passions."
If God has caused their homosexuality, then God has wanted it and they are
not responsible. If God has wanted it then they should not change because
if they change they will go against God's will. To please God they should
accept it.
Leviticus 18:22 says : "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a
female."
The above statement, if taken to mean anti-gay, is outdated, totalitarian,
discriminatory and displays heterosexual fanaticism and tyranny. Those
anti-homosexual passages written in the bible were written by fanatical
heterosexual men, hungry of women. They were not models of goodness and
righteousness. In fact many were brutal, violent, repressive and living
under women's cunts was their desire (even if they desire this only in their
imagination). Nevertheless we shall answer the above statement.
Know that gays do not sleep with a woman as they would with their partners
for the simple reason that they are not interested with women. Therefore
they do not transgress this principle for they sleep differently with man
and woman. The truth is that most gays do not sleep with women at all.
In the bible heterosexuality is not considered a good thing. It is
considered a necessary evil. God considers virginity as the virtue, as
the ideal. Mary did not have sexual relations. St John in Revelation says
(14) "The 144,000 people stood before the throne; they were singing a new
song, which only they could learn. They are the only ones who have been
redeemed. They are the men who have kept themselves pure by not having
sexual relations with women." St John reveals God thought on
heterosexuality. He considers heterosexuality as dirty and sinful.
God does not like heterosexuals. Floods, earthquakes and cancer are God's
methods to punish heterosexuals. During the last century all earthquakes and
floods occurred in countries and regions where heterosexuality was
predominant.
God tells heterosexuals to leave material success, their families and
heterosexuality if they want to enter heaven. If God tells heterosexuals
these things it is because He knows that heterosexuals can resist their
heterosexuality and can relinquish their condition. They can cure themselves
of their desire for heterosexuality.
Heterosexuals cite only passages that suit their purposes but ignore others
that are against their interests. If they are sincere, they should also
follow the other instructions in the bible.
Their attitude and behaviour show that they are deceitful, sinful,
contradictory and dishonest.
Richard J
> Homophobes are dictators
<snip>
Hey, I care not if you are a lickety split or sally suck em silly. I'm
heterosexual but it doesn't bother me that you or others are not, for
that's your business.
What does bother me is some flaming queen flamboyantly attempting to
convince me that I should appreciate their lifestyle. Live and let live
I always say. Live your lifestyle and I'll live mine. I'll call you if
I ever want to arse fuck someone.
Teflon
Stan de SD
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bue229$g4pqi$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de...
Do understand that you are dealing with one of the regular kooks around
here. We just remind him to loosen his tinfoil hat when he goes off on these
tangents... ;O)
Richard J
Aw!!! Can't I play with the nice troll?!!!! I know they are unreliable
and can never really be domesticated. I mean they smell horrible and it
never leaves them no matter how much they wash. They never housebreak
and keep peeing on the furniture, and have this bad habit of humping
every leg around.
With all the drawbacks, though, I still occasionally enjoy playing with
them. With care and patience (not to mention a good club) they CAN
learn simple tricks, and even if they do not, their ramblings around can
be amusing.
PLEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!! Can I play with this one a little longer??????? HUH?
Teflon
Ninure Saunders
ric...@hotmail.com wrote:
-Stan de SD wrote:
-
-> "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
-> news:bue229$g4pqi$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de...
->
->>Divine Word wrote:
->>
->>
->>> Homophobes are dictators
->>
->><snip>
->>
->>Hey, I care not if you are a lickety split or sally suck em silly. I'm
->>heterosexual but it doesn't bother me that you or others are not, for
->>that's your business.
->>
->>What does bother me is some flaming queen flamboyantly attempting to
->>convince me that I should appreciate their lifestyle. Live and let live
->>I always say. Live your lifestyle and I'll live mine. I'll call you if
->>I ever want to arse fuck someone.
->
->
-> Do understand that you are dealing with one of the regular kooks around
-> here. We just remind him to loosen his tinfoil hat when he goes off on these
-> tangents... ;O)
->
->
-
-Aw!!! Can't I play with the nice troll?!!!! I know they are unreliable
-and can never really be domesticated. I mean they smell horrible and it
-never leaves them no matter how much they wash. They never housebreak
-and keep peeing on the furniture, and have this bad habit of humping
-every leg around.
-
-With all the drawbacks, though, I still occasionally enjoy playing with
-them. With care and patience (not to mention a good club) they CAN
-learn simple tricks, and even if they do not, their ramblings around can
-be amusing.
-
-PLEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!! Can I play with this one a little longer??????? HUH?
-
-Teflon
You could not refute a single point the orginal poster made, and also
engaged in peronal insult and profanity, and YOU have the nerve to call
the PERSON a troll?
Now that's funny.....NOT.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Charlie
Shall I refer to you as a heterophobe? The very phrase homophobe is
misleading to begin with. It assusmes that those of us who believe
that God's love is expressed in the Bible are motivated by fear and
hate. Some may indeed have such motivations but, I would agree that
the motivations of hate and fear are wrong.
You state that homophobes only like to select certain passages that
suit their purposes. Please enlighten us all. Select the passages
you would like us to read that affirm homosexual behavior. I've read
the Bible a few times but I have not come across a single passage.
All of the passages that make any allusion to homosexual behavior are
clearly negative.
Jumping to the conclusion of a motivation of hate because the bible
prohibits certain behavior is certainly misguided. When the bible
speaks against gluttony is it because God hates fat people? Could it
not be that God really loves the glutton and intends a better life for
them? Could it not also be true that God is telling the homosexual
that he intends a better life for them as well. Or should He just
ignore the fact (which no one disagrees with) that homosexuals have a
life expectancy that is 20-30 years less than heterosexuals?
On your point that Christians don't follow the demands of scripture
completely. You are right. There is nothing wrong with the demands.
Love your neighbor (including your homosexual neighbor) as yourself.
Love your enemies (even the ones labelling you as homophobe), there
are a lot that you left out. It could best be summed up in the demand
"To be holy as God is holy". The fact of the matter is that none of
us can meet the Biblical demands of righteousness. We are trapped in
the dilemma that the homosexuals frequently describe as "I was born
this way". We were born with a propensity towards evil not good. No
one has to teach a baby to lie or be selfish. That is OUR dilemma.
But that is also why Jesus died on the cross. If I could be good on
my own, if I could overcome my sin, my weakness, with my own
determination and ability Jesus would have never had to die. But he
died for my sin. He died to break the power of sin in our lives and
to make us fully acceptable to God. Not because of our goodness, but
because of His. Some people struggle with the sins of lying, racism,
gluttony, gossip, pride, others with sexual sins. Jesus said whoever
sins is the slave of sin. He also said I have come to set you free.
Doesn't mean it will be automatic or without efffort -- but God is in
the business of changing lives.
May you experience His grace as well.
Love Charlie
JohnnyP
Why must everyone accept and approve of what everyone does in their
own lives. I have an idea if you want to be gay be gay, and if you
want to be straight be straight. If you are straight don't try and
convince people why they should not be gay, and again if you are gay
don't try to make people understand why it is o.k. Be happy with what
you are. People don't like to be pushed into believing things. Lastly,
we as a people need to focus on what we have in common not our
differences. We all live in a country that isn't doing so well right
now, but I find myself reading about why it is or isn't o.k. to be
gay. Who really cares if SOMEONE ELSE is gay or not. Don't impose on
others beliefs. Someone said "live and let live." This is good advice.
Southside of Scotland
> 4cha...@suscom.net (Charlie) wrote in message news:<ce89a901.0402...@posting.google.com>...
> > Divine Word,
> > Shall I refer to you as a heterophobe? The very phrase homophobe is
> > misleading to begin with. It assusmes that those of us who believe
> > that God's love is expressed in the Bible are motivated by fear and
> > hate. Some may indeed have such motivations but, I would agree that
> > the motivations of hate and fear are wrong.
> > You state that homophobes only like to select certain passages that
> > suit their purposes. Please enlighten us all. Select the passages
> > you would like us to read that affirm homosexual behavior. I've read
> > the Bible a few times but I have not come across a single passage.
> > All of the passages that make any allusion to homosexual behavior are
> > clearly negative.
> >
> > Jumping to the conclusion of a motivation of hate because the bible
> > prohibits certain behavior is certainly misguided. When the bible
> > speaks against gluttony is it because God hates fat people? Could it
> > not be that God really loves the glutton and intends a better life for
> > them? Could it not also be true that God is telling the homosexual
> > that he intends a better life for them as well. Or should He just
> > ignore the fact (which no one disagrees with) that homosexuals have a
> > life expectancy that is 20-30 years less than heterosexuals?
The 20 - 30 year figure has been touted by christian fundamentalists
for years and has absolutely no grounding in anything resembling the
truth. It is a fact that nobody within fundamentalist circles
disagrees with. Any sane, reasonable person certainly does.
The fact that gays and lesbians are more likely to become
depressed/suicidal is because they have to live under the cloud of
christian hate mongers telling them that something that they have had
no choice over is perverted/sinful/of the devil etc and will consign
them to the fires of hell (or some such fantasy based in the fear of
christianity).
The bible should be viewed in much the same light as Aesops Fables or
the tales of Ancient Greece and have as much, if not less, relevance
to life in the 21st century.
angel eyes
Chelpka
> the tales of Ancient Greece and have as much, if not less, relevance
> to life in the 21st century.
This is a funny statement to tack on without any support. What is your reasoning?
Southside of Scotland
Ancient books of stories written thousands of years ago, the parallels
are fairly obvious to me.
Andy
............................... >
> >
> > Love Charlie
Charlie, you are clearly misguided. If you call yourself a Christian,
who should you follow? Should you follow in the footsteps of Moses
and Leviticus, or in the footsteps of Christ? Last time I checked,
Christ had nothing at all to say about homosexuality. His message was
this: love one another as I have loved you. That was it, nothing
more, nothing less.
Also, which would you say is more of an insult to God, a man and a
woman who marry, but frequently have affairs and then divorse and
remarry others, or two men who live in a monogomous relationship and
love thier adopted kids more than anything else in the world. When I
see the kindness love that my homosexual friends give to me and
others, I have proof right in front of me that homosexuality is not a
sin, but a blessing that should be celebrated, just like ethnicity,
gender and race.
P.S. Scientific studies have found homosexuality to be not uncommon in
the wild. It allows for the homosexual couple to care for the
offspring of other animals living around them. This helps the species
by helping the young develop that otherwise would not recieve enough
care. So is it ok for two homosexuals to adopt kids that otherwise
wouldn't recieve that love?
Robert Clary
they all resist other so called "abominations" like shellfish.
Anybody who eats shrimp, crabs or creyfish is no different that a
homosexual in the eyes of Yahwah [the god of the tanakh ie old
testament].
Cay you say HYPOCRITE ??
Kerry
The Bible as you know it today is nothing like it was first written.
It has been interpreted and translated over the centuries and it has
been proven that sections have been changed and some omitted.
You do not need to take the word of the bible literally to have God in
your heart. You only need open yourself to his word and he will speak
to you directly as he has to me.
Here is the rub! I am a gay man, The Lord created me as I am, I spent
the first 40 years of my life miserably trying to live a hetrosexual
life style, a few years ago I was so depressed I came very close to
taking my own life. Amost 5 years ago I met another man in a very
similar situation to me. He even spent 12 years of his adult life as a
Jehovas Witness. We were both previously married to women and between
us have 4 children. We are now together as a gay couple and never been
happier.
I have not lost my faith, have not turned my back on God and I beleive
with all my heart he has not turned away from me.
In case you are wondering I have a fantastic relationship with my ex
wife and my children are happy and it shows in every aspect of their
lives, I have them every weekend and see them at least once during the
week too.
I pray every night and I my prayers are for others.
I do not come from a religious background, none of my close family are
religious. I do not own a bible and have only begun researching and
reading the old and new testament in order to be well read in these
sorts of debates. I do not need the written word to follow and love
God.
Kerry.
Livid
I generally agree with your premise ,but I would go even further.I am
from a segment of the population that has suffered immeasurably at the
hands of those with "deeply held beliefs"stemming from many faiths.And
it has cost lives; I count the loss of 55 friends over the last couple
of decades.I'm a gay man who pre-dates the plague of AIDS.I'm not
suggesting the religious gave us HIV;we accepted full responsibility
for the spread of the virus amongst our ranks,and paid dearly for
it;over 12,000 Canadians.But as a Canadian residing in California at
the beginning of this tragedy,I remeber well,the right-wing and the
religious fighting vociferously,in opposition to any funding for the
resaerch necessary to unravel the mysteries of HIV.Their reasoning;the
disease was the act of a vengeful deity.The result;the development of
treatment options that came too late for friends I loved more than
life itself,and which today,keep me alive.In one of the terrible
injustices of life(my opinion), almost everyone will benefit
enormously from AIDS research;which is,in reality,research into
virology and immunology.Of everyone who tested positive at the same
time as myself,there's only 1% os us left.So,we are studied ,to
determine why some of us survived longer.The answer is,in all
likelihood,genetic. Back to the 'soothsayers' of religion with blood
on their hands;it is a reprehensible hypocrisy that the religion in
which I grew up,Catholicism ; issued a document in 1987 entitled 'On
the Care and Treatment of Homosexual Persons'. In a paragraph dealing
with the subject of anti-gay violence (still as prevalent as ever); it
reads : when gay people "seek to protect behaviours to which no one
has any conceivable right,neither the church ,nor society at large
should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain
ground and irrational and violent reactions increase." How's that for
diluted christian sympathy? Second degree murder, anyone ?
Livid
it an incredible oversimplification for many who are
gay/lesbian/transgendered.There are far too many out there who will
not under any circumstances let gays "live".
Most violent homophobes are gay or bisexual themselves and have been
so ingrianed with the falsehhod that being gay is immoral and makes
you a sissy,that they hate that part of themselves.In a society that
accepted humanity as it is; they would have no need to 'bash' that
part of themselves in others. If it all sounds a bit analytical , you
have to have been called to a city morgue in the middle of the night
to identify the beaten remains of a friend, to really understand.
meth...@hotmail.com (JohnnyP) wrote in message news:<e5d8933e.04030...@posting.google.com>...
Suz
now clean and good to eat. I don't think anyone got a similar message
about homosexuals.
Southside of Scotland
> Except Peter (?) was given a vision from the Lord saying ALL food was
> now clean and good to eat. I don't think anyone got a similar message
> about homosexuals.
Then again, that really depends on the meaning that is taken from
Leviticus. If you put it into cultural context the section of the book
that is used by christians to bash homosexuals can mean something
totally different.
However, I don't remember hearing anybody coming down in a vision
saying that it was now ok to wear 'cloth made of more than one fibre'.
I hope you don't wear polyester/cotton.
Chelpka
> are fairly obvious to me.
What if you used the same reasoning in a different time period and
said that the New York Times and the Harry Potter books are the same
in value, content, themes, literary technique, and so on.. Both
written in the same time, both have stories. I don't think you can
draw conclusions from this basis alone.
Southside of Scotland
As an example you are using a time period where you know the authors
of both works, the context that they have been written in and the
audience that they are aimed at. Not to mention the fact that they are
in your mother tongue and have not been translated from translations.
This leaves the final text wide open to all kinds of interpretation,
mis-interpretation or misrepresentation according to the agenda of the
translator.
This misrepresentation goes on to this day, which is why I still think
the parallel of Aesops Fables and the writings in the bible, both
being thousands of years old, both translated into English, both
telling stories that are unsubstantiated, is a particularly relevant
one.
SmellTheRosesOrDie
paticular thread, I do not know how to create a thread, I am posting
my message in this one. There is a person being called "Ed" who
created the thread "TROLL ALERT", who is bashing heterosexuals with
cruel and mainly untrue. He stated, "heterosexuals are sinners" and
"heterosexuals will burn in hell", to name two off the top of my head.
First of all, all humans, (if I spelled that wrong, I apologize),
according to Christ, are sinners, this is NOT divided by sexuality,
and it is lying and rude to say it is. Second, just because someone is
a heterosexual does not mean they will burn in hell. It is not decided
by mortals of who will, it is decided by the Creator, it is rude to
say someone will, when you do not have the power to decide this, and
it is rude to say it at all. Bashing heterosexuals does not impove the
image of homosexuals, and you cannot say what an entire group is
unless the entire group is exactly the same. Heterosexuals are not all
the same person. AND JUST BECAUSE I AM HETEROSEXUAL DOES NOT MEAN I AM
A TERRORIST OR THAT I AM DESTROYING THE EARTH!
Despite the horrific bashing of this "Ed" character on heterosexuals,
I do not resent homosexuals, nor wish them not to marry. They are
human beings and should be treated with respect as all should be. I
believe your religion should not determine what YOU think about any
issue. It is YOUR choice what YOU think, and dont let anyone tell you
that if your religious leaders believe something, you have to too. If
you wish to homosexual, be homosexual, if you are heterosexual, be
heterosexual, dont let anyone tell you what to be. Live and let live.
SmellTheRosesOrDie
greatest I have heard. You have the right idea in you head, man, use
it.
Southside of Scotland
I am sorry that you feel this way about this troll posting this
nonsense, but perhaps it will give you some kind of idea of how it
feels to read all those things about homosexuals, especially if you
happen to be one yourself. It would appear that it is fair game to
accuse homosexuals of everything from child molestation to being the
root cause of the World Trade Centre attrocity, without any proof or
just cause. Not very pleasant, and not at all necessary.
I would take issue with you over the sending of anybody to the fires
of hell though. Do you really, honestly in your heart of hearts, think
that a loving, caring god would actually consign you to such a fate as
an act of vengeance? Vengeance is not a loving feeling, and one that
great and compassionate people would not countenance. If man is made
in the image of god, as is claimed in the bible, do you not think that
this compassion is a trait that they have picked up off god?
The other issue I have is your closing statement. Whilst admirable in
it's sentiment, it is wrong in it's fact, and should read........
If you are homosexual be homosexual, if you are heterosexual be
heterosexual...... for you have as much choice in the matter, either
way.
However, live and let live, why do we seem to have such a hard time
getting on ?
Clapham Omnibus
>
> I am sorry that you feel this way about this troll posting this
> nonsense, but perhaps it will give you some kind of idea of how it
> feels to read all those things about homosexuals, especially if you
> happen to be one yourself. It would appear that it is fair game to
> accuse homosexuals of everything from child molestation to being the
> root cause of the World Trade Centre attrocity, without any proof or
> just cause. Not very pleasant, and not at all necessary.
>
> I would take issue with you over the sending of anybody to the fires
> of hell though. Do you really, honestly in your heart of hearts, think
> that a loving, caring god would actually consign you to such a fate as
> an act of vengeance? Vengeance is not a loving feeling, and one that
> great and compassionate people would not countenance. If man is made
> in the image of god, as is claimed in the bible, do you not think that
> this compassion is a trait that they have picked up off god?
>
> The other issue I have is your closing statement. Whilst admirable in
> it's sentiment, it is wrong in it's fact, and should read........
>
> If you are homosexual be homosexual, if you are heterosexual be
> heterosexual...... for you have as much choice in the matter, either
> way.
>
> However, live and let live, why do we seem to have such a hard time
> getting on ?
If only it was that easy. The simple fact is that very many people
find homosexuality disgusting. These are not just religious zealots.
In the UK it was illegal until quite recently, and many of us grew up
in that environment, i.e. the wretched business was mainly confined to
public toilets.
Then it firstly become legal, and subsequently was thrown in normal
peoples' faces on a daily basis as suddenly queers became 'gays'. A
curse had become a great gift! There are a large group of people who
have a slightly feminine side to their character. In former times
they would have quietly got on with their lives, maybe getting married
and maybe not. Now they are encouraged to take the queer route, as
buggery is suddenly socially acceptable.
But what has to be accepted is that it isn't socially acceptable to
the average man in the street. We have to talk PC, but go to any bar
or other gathering of blokes and you'll hear what males really think
about queers.
I'm a homophobe. I don't like them, just like I don't like snakes,
rats, horse racing and lots of other things. People are allowed not
to like some things. My views were maybe coloured by being attacked
by one when I was 17 and hitchhiking alone across France. A classmate
was murdered by one when I was 9. So I have some history.
It's simple. Most real blokes don't like queers, and there's no way
that they can be forced to do so. It's a matter of personal freedom
of choice.
Clapham
Rob Mitchell
> ethelthr...@hotmail.com (Southside of Scotland) wrote in message news:<7f288f0.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I am sorry that you feel this way about this troll posting this
> > nonsense, but perhaps it will give you some kind of idea of how it
> > feels to read all those things about homosexuals, especially if you
> > happen to be one yourself. It would appear that it is fair game to
> > accuse homosexuals of everything from child molestation to being the
> > root cause of the World Trade Centre attrocity, without any proof or
> > just cause. Not very pleasant, and not at all necessary.
> >
> > I would take issue with you over the sending of anybody to the fires
> > of hell though. Do you really, honestly in your heart of hearts, think
> > that a loving, caring god would actually consign you to such a fate as
> > an act of vengeance? Vengeance is not a loving feeling, and one that
> > great and compassionate people would not countenance. If man is made
> > in the image of god, as is claimed in the bible, do you not think that
> > this compassion is a trait that they have picked up off god?
> >
> > The other issue I have is your closing statement. Whilst admirable in
> > it's sentiment, it is wrong in it's fact, and should read........
> >
> > If you are homosexual be homosexual, if you are heterosexual be
> > heterosexual...... for you have as much choice in the matter, either
> > way.
> >
> > However, live and let live, why do we seem to have such a hard time
> > getting on ?
>
> If only it was that easy. The simple fact is that very many people
> find homosexuality disgusting.
Many people find races other than their own disgusting as well.
> These are not just religious zealots.
Indeed.
> In the UK it was illegal until quite recently, and many of us grew up
> in that environment, i.e. the wretched business was mainly confined to
> public toilets.
Erm, ITYM promiscuous homosexuality was confined to toilets.
> Then it firstly become legal, and subsequently was thrown in normal
> peoples' faces on a daily basis as suddenly queers became 'gays'.
Sounds rather like it becoming legal in the U.S. for Blacks to vote, &
later for women to vote. I seem to recall that women mounted a
suffrage campaign in Britain as well.
> A
> curse had become a great gift! There are a large group of people who
> have a slightly feminine side to their character. In former times
> they would have quietly got on with their lives, maybe getting married
> and maybe not. Now they are encouraged to take the queer route, as
> buggery is suddenly socially acceptable.
Hmmm. And now the equality of women is socially acceptable. Go
figure.
> But what has to be accepted is that it isn't socially acceptable to
> the average man in the street.
Voting rights for women was not socially acceptable to the average man
on the street in 1900, in either the U.S. or the U.K. Fascinating how
that has changed just a bit.
> We have to talk PC, but go to any bar
> or other gathering of blokes and you'll hear what males really think
> about queers.
Indeed. In many such venues one can also hear a good deal of similar
disparagement of women, & of persons of other races.
> I'm a homophobe. I don't like them, just like I don't like snakes,
Snakes can be rather dangerous to humans, depending on what species of
snake we're discussing (& many, such as me, do not bother to check for
a positive identification of species before fleeing one seen in the
wild), so that does not seem terribly irrational.
> rats,
If one bites ya...
> horse racing
Hmmm, simple taste there, I guess, unless your objection is based on
"abuse" of the horseys? ;-)
> and lots of other things. People are allowed not
> to like some things.
Yeppers. I cannot stand okra. I think it tastes like slime
incarnate. However, for some strange reason I do not condemn those
who eat it.
> My views were maybe coloured by being attacked
> by one when I was 17 and hitchhiking alone across France. A classmate
> was murdered by one when I was 9. So I have some history.
An extremely atypical history, if I may venture to say so. ;-)
> It's simple. Most real blokes don't like queers, and there's no way
> that they can be forced to do so. It's a matter of personal freedom
> of choice.
Certainly. It is also freedom of choice to not like Blacks. The
question is, is this dislike rational?
I'm still waiting for someone, anyone (no one on earth has yet
succeeded in doing so) to explain how 2 people of the same gender
involved in a completely monogamous & permanent relationship harms
even a single human on earth in the slightest.
neptune3
wrote:
>
>Hmmm. And now the equality of women is socially acceptable. Go
>figure.
>
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.
The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.
Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
And feminism is Jewish:
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
By Michael Shaprio
# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)
Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria,
Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl Friedan,
the
mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist, best-selling
author,
professor, a founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the
National
Women's Political Caucus, and the First Women's Bank, researcher,
journalist,
Democrat, clinical psychologist, and grandmother, Betty Friedan was
the most
influential feminist of the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and
others as
an "initiator of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings
and
lectures, including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE
and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live
and work...
When the war against fascism ended two decades later, four million
women lost
their jobs to returning GIs. Women were again told that their place
was in the
home. The freedom to work to build up and defend their nation was
over. Men
would earn the family's bread. What the boys needed was a warm place
to come
home to every night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some
of the
values toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen,
church) as the
Nazis they thought they had defeated...
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
Clapham Omnibus
> > It's simple. Most real blokes don't like queers, and there's no way
> > that they can be forced to do so. It's a matter of personal freedom
> > of choice.
>
> Certainly. It is also freedom of choice to not like Blacks. The
> question is, is this dislike rational?
>
> I'm still waiting for someone, anyone (no one on earth has yet
> succeeded in doing so) to explain how 2 people of the same gender
> involved in a completely monogamous & permanent relationship harms
> even a single human on earth in the slightest.
Oversimplification again. Queers can go about their unnatural
business behind closed doors, and without offending normal people.
Nobody even needs to know that they are queer, and would much prefer
it that way. In every other way than buggering blokes in private they
can lead entirely normal lives.
Black people can hardly hide their colour, and can't choose to be
'normal' in public. Equating normal black people with queers is
ridiculous.
As to how blokes having sex with other blokes rather than women
affects the world, well it's a matter of reproduction. It is believed
that over 10% of the world's population are queer now, with a steady
rise ongoing. Some estimates are that over 50% of people in the US
will be queer or lesbian before the end of this century. Nature
didn't plan it that way! It doesn't work.
Clapham
Rob Mitchell
> On 16 Apr 2004 19:28:41 -0700, sorbus...@my-deja.com (Rob Mitchell)
> wrote:
>
> >Hmmm. And now the equality of women is socially acceptable. Go
> >figure.
>
> The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
> for fighting "sexism".
I was not particularly aware that leftists ruled America at the
present point. Power here seems, at the moment, to belong rather
strongly to the Right. But what do I know; I only live in this
country. ;-)
> This should be replaced by a nation that is for
> manhood and womenhood.
Why, exactly? I do not see you explain that anywhere below.
> Not only are the sexes different, but the
> reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
> are different.
Well yes, duh, when we are attracted to the opposite sex.
> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
> to be protected by female policemen.
What difference does it make? And why would it be at all advisable to
allow *fewer* people to become police officers.
And what is a female policeMAN, exactly? ;-)
> We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
> government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
> enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
> changed.
>
> The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
> and nationalism.
Nationalism rejects a unisex society?? Never heard that one before.
I don't recall any such thing playing any role at all in the
nationalist movements in history such as those involving the Czechs,
the Finns, etc.
> There certainly
> wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan.
I'd guess not, where a woman could be beaten merely for *accidentally*
allowing her veil to slip when she stooped to pick up an object she
had dropped.
> And
> it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
> masters the Jews
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Why did I suspect that was coming?
There is, quite obviously, no need for me to read or respond to this
article any further.
Rob Mitchell
> sorbus...@my-deja.com (Rob Mitchell) wrote in message news:<e2cd83fe.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > It's simple. Most real blokes don't like queers, and there's no way
> > > that they can be forced to do so. It's a matter of personal freedom
> > > of choice.
> >
> > Certainly. It is also freedom of choice to not like Blacks. The
> > question is, is this dislike rational?
> >
> > I'm still waiting for someone, anyone (no one on earth has yet
> > succeeded in doing so) to explain how 2 people of the same gender
> > involved in a completely monogamous & permanent relationship harms
> > even a single human on earth in the slightest.
>
> Oversimplification again. Queers can go about their unnatural
> business behind closed doors,
"Unnatural" only in the sense that it is not the norm for most people.
Neither is left-handedness.
> and without offending normal people.
> Nobody even needs to know that they are queer, and would much prefer
> it that way. In every other way than buggering blokes in private they
> can lead entirely normal lives.
>
> Black people can hardly hide their colour, and can't choose to be
> 'normal' in public. Equating normal black people with queers is
> ridiculous.
Is it now? I might suggest that if we see two men kissing in public,
or two women, then that will make it as obvious as the color of one's
skin. And heterosexuals can kiss in public.
> As to how blokes having sex with other blokes rather than women
> affects the world, well it's a matter of reproduction. It is believed
> that over 10% of the world's population are queer now,
Believed by whom, exactly? I've seen that figure given too, but it
seems to be rather wishful thinking.
> with a steady
> rise ongoing.
With a steady rise ongoing?? That I have NEVER seen stated by any of
those same sources. Instead, they claim that figure as having been
the constant norm for centuries.
> Some estimates are that over 50% of people in the US
> will be queer or lesbian before the end of this century. Nature
> didn't plan it that way! It doesn't work.
I have never seen any reputable study which suggests anything like
that. I am aware of not a shred of solid evidence that the percentage
of homosexual humans is increasing in the slightest. It seems to be
remaining at about the same percentage it has been for all of recorded
human history.
I would be amazed if any rational person on earth actually believes
that the human race is in the slightest danger of not being able to
replicate itself within the foreseeable future. This rather obviously
is not the case.
The "reproduction" argument is always an incredibly weak one to bring
against homosexuality. It is not even mildly necessary for "all"
members of a species to reproduce, unless that species exists in such
incredibly small numbers that it is in danger of extinction.
How many billion people are alive on the earth today?
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>I have never seen any reputable study which suggests anything like
>that. I am aware of not a shred of solid evidence that the percentage
>of homosexual humans is increasing in the slightest. It seems to be
>remaining at about the same percentage it has been for all of recorded
>human history.
Oh, the goddam bigot is just baiting you. His intent is NOT to be
reasonable, fair, or even intelligent. By broadcasting false
statistics, it is his intention to EXACERBATE the sickness of
homophobia even further. He's about as reasonable as a brownshirt.
--
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
Discovers the webcam!
http://www.gay-bible.org/index.html#webcam
neptune3
wrote:
>
>I was not particularly aware that leftists ruled America at the
>present point.
How can that be possible? Because in Orwellian Newspeak there is
are the terms "left" and "right", both of which are liberal and
neither is good.
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
> Power here seems, at the moment, to belong rather
>strongly to the Right. But what do I know; I only live in this
>country. ;-)
Semantics again. Capitalist who are only for the rich are in power.
What this has to do with all the other issues such as affirmative
action is not explained.
>
>> This should be replaced by a nation that is for
>> manhood and womenhood.
>
>Why, exactly? I do not see you explain that anywhere below.
Because we like it. It's the same reason we should have a nation
that is against homosexual perversion. Leftists fight for the kind of
nation they want. We fight for the kind of nation we want. What's not
to understand?
>
>> Not only are the sexes different, but the
>> reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
>> are different.
>
>Well yes, duh, when we are attracted to the opposite sex.
What do you mean by the opposite sex? If they sowed a vagina on a
football player do you thing men would be attracked to it?
>
>> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
>> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
>> to be protected by female policemen.
>
>What difference does it make?
I am saying what I and many other people want. That is all you need
to understand. Don't we have the right to fight for want we want?
There is no point in talking to your kind. There is only a point in
outnumbering and outvoting your kind.
Rob Mitchell
> On 17 Apr 2004 11:44:26 -0700, sorbus...@my-deja.com (Rob Mitchell)
> wrote:
>
> >I was not particularly aware that leftists ruled America at the
> >present point.
>
> How can that be possible? Because in Orwellian Newspeak there is
> are the terms "left" and "right", both of which are liberal and
> neither is good.
>
> The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
> original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
> perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
>
> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
Already you use loaded language. You don't simply say
"homosexuality," you instead insist on adding the word "perversion."
You have yet to demonstrate that all homosexuality, in & of itself, is
a "perversion."
> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
> good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
> corrupt the culture of the nation.
You have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality, in & of itself,
"corrupts" any nation on earth in the slightest.
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft
ROFL!!! "Witchcraft"?? Boy, that's a loaded & extremely biased term
if I've ever seen one. In fact, it borders on psychosis. You surely
do not expect any reasonable person on earth to take you seriously
when you utter hogwash like that, do you?
> which states-- If it
> harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within.
Oh? That "poison" is...what, exactly? When a given activity does
indeed harm no one on earth in the slightest, how is that bad in any
way?
> The Rede of
> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
And you keep lumping homosexuality in with things which are CLEARLY
harmful, beyond all possible doubt. No person with even the slightest
amount of common sense needs it to be explained how prostitution &
drugs are clearly harmful.
And I'm still waiting for it to be explained how homosexuality, in &
of itself, is a "perversion." Oh, & I'll warn you in advance: please
don't use the tired old "reproduction" argument. I've blasted that
one to smithereens, with the greatest of ease, on more occasions than
I can remember, & am almost always met with utter silence by whatever
poster I've challenged with it.
> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
> about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
> the nation better.
Bull, that's a sweeping generalization.
> There are beaches where normal families will not go
> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
Oh, now you appear to be talking about an entirely different thing:
sex on the beach. Wouldn't they be equally reluctant to take their
families there if there were a bunch of heterosexuals having sex on
the beach? Or is having sex on the beach not what you mean by
"practice their perversion"? I can't imagine what ELSE you could
mean, unless you mean mere standard displays of affection between
persons of the same gender that are no different in the nature of the
actual displays than publicly-accepted displays of affection between
persons of opposite gender, such as kissing & holding hands.
> This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
> who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
> should be done to make the nation great.
Nonsense. Sweeping generalization.
> Their philosophy, taken to
> its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
> stop at the red lights.
ROFL!!!! How you're getting a "logical conclusion" that way I'm sure
I don't know. It certainly isn't a result of any sort of rational
thinking. The reasons why people need to stop at red lights are
blatantly obvious: there will be wrecks & people will be hurt or
killed if they don't. There will be tremendous monetary damage done
to many vehicles. How you could possibly equate this with an activity
which harms not a single person on earth in the slightest I'm sure I
don't know.
> Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
> on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV.
Oh, I get it now: yer a mere troll, who posts nonsense like this just
for the purpose of being "controversial" or some such weird thing. No
rational person on earth would actually believe such nonsense. We all
know how allowing such a thing would be clearly & directly harmful to
millions of people. Only a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the "left"
would ever approve such a thing, as you surely must have known
perfectly well years before you posted this article, if you have any
common sense at all.
> Their
> philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Only in the opinion of an abysmally paranoid person.
> Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
> Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
> as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution,
Please produce figures compiled by reputable researchers which show
that any even remotely significant percentage of "leftists" are
actually in favor of legalizing both those things. If there are such
people, isn't it actually true that this is really a tiny vocal
minority?
> namely
> that the state can't tell them what they can't do.
The state most certainly CAN tell them what they can't do, if what
they are attempting to do is provably harmful to others.
> People don't like
> laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
> that,
Especially when the things they are prevented from doing are not
provably harmful in even the slightest way to even a single human on
the entire planet, much less in this specific country.
> but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
> want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
> but good laws would make a nation good.
Yes they do. Good laws that have a legitimate purpose. Not arbitrary
laws that have no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
> The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
> freedom.
And yet, strangely, I do not recall them legalizing heroin. Go
figure.
> In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
> the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
> Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
> that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
> Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
> government and have an anarchy.
You do realize that you're talking about an entirely different
ideology from those who merely honestly believe that there is nothing
inherently wrong with homosexuality in & of itself, correct?
> The right wing cares about the future.
So do many who honestly believe there is nothing wrong with
homosexuality.
> Leftists only care about the
> present.
That is not unique to leftists.
> >> This should be replaced by a nation that is for
> >> manhood and womenhood.
> >
> >Why, exactly? I do not see you explain that anywhere below.
>
> Because we like it.
Who is "we," exactly? You made that statement in the context of
promoting inequality between the genders in your previous article. I
do not see that "we," as in the majority of people who live in this
country, left, right, & every variation in between, "like" any such
thing.
> It's the same reason we should have a nation
> that is against homosexual perversion. Leftists fight for the kind of
> nation they want. We fight for the kind of nation we want. What's not
> to understand?
Oh, THAT part I understand, fighting for the type of nation one wants.
The problem comes when one is fighting to preserve completely
irrational prejudices.
> >> Not only are the sexes different, but the
> >> reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
> >> are different.
> >
> >Well yes, duh, when we are attracted to the opposite sex.
>
> What do you mean by the opposite sex?
Good golly, what do you THINK I mean by the opposite sex? The same
thing that is normally meant by that term, of course. Now you are
pretending to be stupid.
> If they sowed a vagina on a
> football player do you thing men would be attracked to it?
My, you do love descending to the depths of ridiculousness, don't you.
> >> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
> >> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
> >> to be protected by female policemen.
> >
> >What difference does it make?
>
> I am saying what I and many other people want.
Based on an irrational prejudice.
> That is all you need
> to understand. Don't we have the right to fight for want we want?
Yes, if it has a rational basis.
> There is no point in talking to your kind.
The same could quite reasonably be said of you.
> There is only a point in
> outnumbering and outvoting your kind.
That's how the system works at present. Pray that it does not change.
But the outnumbering & outvoting you may not find as easy as you
think. Oh yes, it may work in the short term, but it looks like this
particular irrational prejudice is gradually becoming less common with
each passing year.
neptune3
wrote:
>
>Already you use loaded language. You don't simply say
>"homosexuality," you instead insist on adding the word "perversion."
>You have yet to demonstrate that all homosexuality, in & of itself, is
>a "perversion."
>
Some people say "gay". That is loaded language. And its obvious they
are perverts.
>
>You have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality, in & of itself,
>"corrupts" any nation on earth in the slightest.
By David M. Bresnahan Š 2000, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
"You shouldn't have done it. It ruined our lives," cried one of
several boys
from the back row of a Medina, Ohio, courtroom last week. Michael
Maggy, 35,
a former Boy Scout leader, had just pleaded guilty to rape and sexual
battery, and the poignant comments from his victims were brought home
by a
sentence of life in prison issued by Medina County Common Pleas Judge
Christopher J. Collier. "I know what I have done to you," Maggy said
to his
scout victims, as reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "I can't
apologize
enough." Confessing that he too had been sexually molested as a boy,
Maggy
said he had lacked the courage to seek help. "I did not get counseling
or
even talk about it. Look where it got me," he said.
Crafting 'gay' children
Many homosexuals are attracted to young boys, they fantasize about
young
boys, they frequent websites about young boys, they cruise the streets
for
young boys, and they volunteer as Boy Scout leaders in an attempt to
have
sex with young boys, according to a world-renowned researcher and
author.
Dr. Judith Reisman, formerly a research professor at American
University,
veteran pornography researcher and expert witness before the attorney
general's commission on pornography, is the author of "Kinsey: Crimes
and
Consequences." Having extensively researched the homosexual lifestyle,
Reisman and other experts have reached some disturbing conclusions.
Contrary
to the popular view that there is little crossover between
homosexuality and
pedophilia, she says homosexuals are anxious to recruit young boys --
a
practice that is becoming easier thanks to sex education and
"diversity
programs" in schools that teach children to consider homosexuality as
both
acceptable and normal.
In one of the major cultural battlefronts of the year, the Boy Scouts
of
America has taken the legal challenges to it before the Supreme Court
and
won the right to deny avowed homosexuals entrance as adult leaders.
Nevertheless, ever since the BSA's founding early last century, it has
been
plagued with a constant undercurrent of pedophile scout leaders
preying on
the vulnerable, trusting boys they "lead."
Greg Shields, Boy Scouts of America's national spokesman, says
homosexuals
cannot serve as examples to young boys because they do not live by the
Scout
Oath to be "morally straight." Although painfully aware of the
problems BSA
has had over the years of men preying on boys, Shields takes a
somewhat
corporate and elusive line in separating the organization's homosexual
policy from its child sexual abuse policy.
"Unfortunately, child molestation can come from anyone. We are
teaching boys
character values. Everyone knows where we stand on this. We have never
accepted homosexuals as leaders and we never will," said Shields. But
Reisman says what 90 years of police blotter statistics prove -- that
young
boys are in real danger of sexual molestation, and that the BSA has
sound
reasons to ban homosexuals.
Reisman conducted two recent scientific studies that challenge the
popular
mantra of homosexual activists who insist that: 1) they are "born that
way,"
2) homosexuals make up 10 percent of the population, and 3) youths
should be
able to have sex at an early age.
"Crafting 'Gay' Children: An Inquiry into the Abuse of Vulnerable
Youth Via
Establishment Media and the School Room" and "Partner Solicitation
Language
as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation," are continuations of the
work
Reisman began with her study, "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences."
(Regarding her book, Charles E. Rice, professor of law at Notre Dame
Law
School, notes, "Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that
Alfred
Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading.
Any
judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that
research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty.")
Since the Supreme Court's June 28 decision in favor of the Boy Scouts,
activist attacks on the 90-year-old organization have increased
dramatically.
Homosexual political organizations have gone into overdrive, lobbying
and
threatening corporate sponsors to discontinue their support; President
Clinton has been urged to step down as honorary president of BSA; a
few
members of Congress even tried -- unsuccessfully -- to revoke the
organization's honorary charter. And Clinton even signed an executive
order,
which was followed in lockstep by a Justice Department memo designed
to
evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands and facilities -- on the
grounds
that the organization illegally discriminates against homosexuals. All
this,
in spite of the Supreme Court's favorable decision three months
earlier.
Although homosexual activists claim they are no more likely to
sexually
molest children than heterosexuals are, Reisman says research proves
the
opposite. "They're claiming that homosexuals are not looking to have
sex
with boys, yet you have this massive number of boys out there
prostituting
themselves. And how do you have all these Internet sites if they're
not
looking for boys? This is not heterosexual. By definition, when you're
having sex with someone of your own sex, that's homosexual," Reisman
said.
Based on data from a study of non-incarcerated child sex offenders,
Gene G.
Abel, M.D., has found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys
with an
incidence that is occurring five times greater than the molestation of
girls."
A professor of psychiatry who has taught at several medical schools,
including Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Abel
is
currently affiliated with Emory University School of Medicine and
Morehouse
School of Medicine. He has been a research scientist in the field of
sexual
violence for 25 years, and the National Institute of Mental Health has
awarded him funding for six long-term studies to investigate sexual
violence
and to design new ways to stop it.
Specifically, Abel's report provides data to show that, on average,
150.2
boys are molested per homosexual pedophile offender, whereas only 19.8
girls
are molested per heterosexual pedophile offender. Incredibly,
homosexual
offenders admitted between 23.4 and 281.7 acts of molesting boys.
Reisman's research in "Crafting 'Gay' Children" determined that the
total
population of homosexual men in America was no more than 2 million in
1991.
During the same year, "U.S. Population, Statistical Abstracts" show
that 6-8
million boys under age 18 were sexually abused.
Meanwhile, the population of heterosexual men in the U.S. was
approximately
86--88 million in 1991, and an estimated eight million girls were
sexually
abused that year.
Based on the government's own statistics -- the "Statistical Abstract
of the
United States, 1992, Data on Boys and Girls," published by the U.S.
Commerce
Department -- Reisman cited the following for that year:
Of 86 - 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8
million
girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls.
An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men
victimized
6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 - 24 percent of all
boys.
Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually
molested
per homosexual adult male.
Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male,
which is
to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males victimizes a girl
under
18.
Within the child protection establishment, sexual abuse is defined
simply as
an adult having sex with a juvenile under age 18 -- whether
"consensual" or
not. When dealing with children, "consensual" is not the legitimizing
criterion it is for adults. Indeed, almost invariably, sexual
predators
defend their "loving" physical relationships with children as being
"consensual," when in reality the seduction and manipulation of
children --
resulting in their "consent" -- is both an art form and the stock in
trade
of pedophiles. The Simon and Schuster book "Homosexualities," by Alan
Bell,
reports that 25 percent of homosexual men admit to having had sex with
boys
who are 16 or under.
Further corroborating this well-hidden homosexual proclivity for
targeting
younger males are the following findings published in the Journal of
the
American Medical Association:
50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male
by
the age of 16. 20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult
male by
age 10.
"The Advocate," a popular homosexual newsmagazine, conducted a survey
of its
readers. Of the 2,500 responses obtained, 21 percent admitted that an
adult
man committed a sexual act with them by the time they were 15.
'The ideal situation' Boy Scout camping trips provide a perfect
setting for
homosexuals to pursue their forbidden desires, according to Reisman,
who
added that any organization that provides opportunities for
homosexuals to
spend time with young boys will become a magnet for homosexual child
molesters.
Of all the various youth groups today, "the Boy Scouts provide the
ideal
situation" for men to find young boys to molest, according to Reisman.
The BSA has strict rules designed to prevent child abuse of all kinds,
said
Shields. Rules include "Two-Deep Leadership," which requires a minimum
of
two adults to be present with boys at all times. Another basic rule is
that
adults may not be in the same tent as boys (except their own
children).
Shields told WorldNet that when the rules are followed, there are no
problems. "Each incident (of abuse) took place when the leaders were
not
trained or the rules weren't followed," he said.
Despite the BSA training and rules, the incidents of reported child
molestation have been on the rise. The scouting organization
attributes the
increase to greater awareness because of the training given to boys
and to a
record number of boys in the program -- about 5 million. BSA
statistics and
various media reports over the past 20 years show a near-tripling of
sexual
abuse cases -- from about 70 cases a year then to about 200 annually
now.
Reisman expressed concern that the BSA rules may not go far enough.
The
ideal situation, she said, is for fathers to go on camping trips with
their
sons. Fathers should stay in tents with their own sons, and boys who
are not
related to them should not sleep in their tent. She recognized,
however,
that not all boys have a father to go with them. She also advised that
young, single men should never be permitted to camp with boys, but
that it
would be ideal, rather, if leaders are married and have children
participating in the program.
The 'helping hand'
In Gilbert Herdt's book, "Gay and Lesbian Youth," Douglas Feldman, a
medical
anthropologist and a member of the homosexual activist community, is
quoted
as saying, "These kids are our future and we must invest in them."
Feldman
states that teen-agers are "very susceptible to sexually transmitted
diseases," and that sexually abused boys "have about a 1 in 4 chance
of
developing AIDS in approximately five years."
Herdt speaks of adult male homosexuals as "coaches" and "guides" who
should
help young boys overcome their heterosexual "victim" status by "coming
out"
into homosexuality.
Reisman blames the nation's public schools and lawmakers for granting
various protections to such "coaches" and "guides" within the nation's
schools. "They teach confused children about tolerance, sexual
diversity and
such. They like to tell young boys that 'at least one in 10 of you are
gay.'
Anyone who objects is immediately labeled homophobic," she said.
In his study, "The Role of Adult Advisors" (as quoted from Herdt's
"Gay
Culture in America"), homosexual advocate Frederick Lynch says, "What
has
not been brought out fully in some other coming-out studies is the
role of
the guide, teacher or 'helping hand' in either the signification
state, the
coming-out stage or both ... the often benign and helpful role that
older,
more experienced homosexual men play with regard to younger (males)."
Reisman is concerned that educators have embraced the homosexual
agenda and
now encourage boys to have sex with each other at an early age. One of
the
places such experimentation could easily take place is in a tent
during a
Boy Scout camping trip, she said. Boys who have been told that
experimentation is acceptable may also be willing to accept the
advances of
an adult male or older boy, she added.
"They tell these impressionable kids that if they feel different,
confused,
strange, or if they are questioning, that they may be gay," she said.
"What
child isn't confused at that age, anyway? These kids don't know what
to
think, and then they're told it's OK to experiment to find out."
>
>ROFL!!! "Witchcraft"?? Boy, that's a loaded & extremely biased term
>if I've ever seen one. In fact, it borders on psychosis. You surely
>do not expect any reasonable person on earth to take you seriously
>when you utter hogwash like that, do you?
Put the words - Witchcraft - and - Rede - in your search
engine. You will see the liberals philosophy on the screen.
>
>> which states-- If it
>> harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
>> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within.
>
>Oh? That "poison" is...what, exactly? When a given activity does
>indeed harm no one on earth in the slightest, how is that bad in any
>way?
http://www.blessedcause.org/Militant%20Intent.htm
GAY MILITANT INTENT: OUR KIDS
From Concerned Women From America
by Beverly LaHaye
Dear Concerned American,
What I am about to tell you in this letter is so outrageous you may
find it
hard to believe. I was astounded myself. I could not believe that our
nation had fallen so far. But the reports here are true.
I have warned many times that our children are under attack. Now I'm
writing to sound the alarm that the situation is even worse than I
thought.
I'll tell you more details in a moment, but here's just a sample of
what
I've discovered:
Cross-dressing promoted to grade-school children
Graphic instruction in "gay" sex taught to teenage boys and girls
Armed guards posted to keep parents out of high school assemblies led
by
radical homosexual activists
A book - published by a taxpayer-funded university - that endorses sex
between children and adults!
I've warned about this for many years. Now the evidence is beyond
dispute:
there is an evil scheme aimed at destroying our children.
The attack comes on many fronts. It aims to expose children to sex at
earlier and earlier ages... to rob them of their innocence and open
them up
to immoral and unhealthy practices... to set them up to accept
messages of
"safe sex" and homosexuality... to usher them into becoming advocates
for -
and ultimately participants in - sexual promiscuity, sodomy,
bisexuality,
and transgenderism.
These reports confirm my worst fears about this scheme. The time is
short!
Radical homosexual activists have long said, "Whoever controls the
schools,
controls the future." If they can convince the next generation that
homosexuality is "just another lifestyle," there will be no stopping
them.
Even more chilling: If they can lure a whole generation of young
people to
explore "alternative" sexual behavior... to discover their "gay
side"...
they will have a whole new generation of young, willing sex partners.
Their first step is to promote gender confusion. Nothing I have ever
seen
promises to confuse kids more than a lesson guide obtained and given
to me
by one of the researchers here at CWA.
GRADE SCHOOL LESSON PROMOTES CROSS-DRESSING
The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, also known as
"GLSEN, is
pushing a grade-school curriculum book that promotes cross-dressing.
This
book was created by a homosexual parents group at the Buena Vista
Elementary
School in San Francisco. It includes a lesson based on a children's
book
titled "Jesse's Dream Skirt."
As incredible as it sounds, this is real!
The story is about a young boy named Jesse who likes trying on his
mother's
dresses, and dreams of a skirt "that whirled, twirled, flowed and
glowed,
and felt soft inside."
Jesse's mom helps him make a skirt, and he wears it to daycare, where
his
classmates make fun of him. The daycare teacher, Bruce, gathers the
children together and says, "Jesse loves his skirt. Why are some of
you
making fun of him?" A girl says, "Well, I wear pants. Why can't
Jesse wear
a skirt?"
A boy, Mike, says that one day his mother let him dress upin her old
dresses
and hats. "It was a lot of fun," he said, until his father came in
and
yelled at him, saying, "Take off that dress, I don't want my son to be
a
sissy!" Mike told his daycare classmates, "I don't know, - I still
don't
see what was wrong with it."
The children and their teacher discuss the issue and most of hte
children
end up liking Jesse's skirt. Some even start making dresses
themselves.
The book ends with Jesse twirling around in his "dream skirt," with
his
boy-style underwear showing. The companion lesson plan says the "key
message" of "Jesse's Dream Skirt" is: "Respect means keeping our minds
open.
Having open minds means giving people freedom to be who they want to
be."
I don't know what's worse: encouraging boys to wear dresses, or the
negative
portrayal of Mike's father. Children who study "Jesse's Dream Skirt"
are
getting the message that their parents' view of morality cannot be
trusted.
Lest you think this sort of insanity is restricted to California, take
a
loot at this next report, straight from the Midwest.
Armed Security Guard Ejects Mother of Student from School Assembly on
Homosexuality
This really made me angry when I heard about it!
The incident took place in St. Louis, Missouri last year just after
school
had started for fall. Debra Loveless, whose daughter attends Metro
High
School, heard that GLESEN was conducting a school-sponsored assembly.
Loveless had told school officials that she considered the event
inappropriate. When she tried to view it for herself, she was
escorted out
of the assembly by an armed security guard. (Just for wanting to view
it!)
Can you believe the arrogance of those school administrators!
We may never know all of what those dear young people were exposed to
during
that assembly. But if GLSEN's past performance is any indication, the
material was corrupting an destructive.
GLESEN has produced some of the most foul "educational" material in
the
dishonorable history of sex education. Two years ago, CWA uncovered a
pornographic teaching session conducted in Massachusetts by GLSEN.
During that workshop, homosexual instructors indoctrinated children as
young
as 14 years old. The children heard detailed descriptions of
perverted sex
acts, including the dangerous practice known in homosexual slang as
"fisting." After it was exposed, that session sparked outrage across
the
nation. It was such a scandal that it became known as "Fistgate."
GLSEN
leaders responded by becoming much more secretive. Apparently this
has led
them to keep parents out of their workshops like the one in St. Louis.
So it has come to this. Our tax dollars foot the bill for homosexual
propaganda to poison our children's minds and defile their hearts.
And when
parents want to find out what's going on, they get thrown out of
public
schools by armed guards!
It's time for parents and grandparents to stand up and fight to
protect our
children. We can't think that just because it hasn't happened in our
school
yet that it never will! The radical homosexual activists won't stop
with
just the California schools. They won't stop with just the big city
schools. They won't stop until they have reached every school in the
nation.
DANGEROUS NEW BOOK PROVIDES ACADEMIC "COVER" FOR PEDOPHILES AND CHILD
MOLESTERS
The University of Minnesota Press has just published Judith Levine's
Harmful
to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. This book
includes
such outrageous statements as, "Sex is not harmful to children...
There are
many ways even the smallesst children can partake of it."
On another page, the author gushes over a "lush and mysterious" photo
of a
"naked 3- or 4-year-old." Quoting a variety of pedophiles, Levine
says
children are not necessarily harmed by sex with adults.
She also advocates that America adopt a law like Holland's that
legalizes
sex between adults and children as young as 12!
It's unbelievable, but this book is defended by the liberal media
elite.
I'm shocked and heartbroken. But we should not be surprised.
America's
standars of sexual morality have been belittled as "taboos," and been
worn
down step by step. Today, almost nothing is off limits.
Sex between adults and children is just the next barrier to be torn
down.
How long will it take these radical activists to achieve their next
evil
objective?
Our grade-school children are already being taught that cross-dressing
is
just wonderful self-expression. Graphic details of perverted sex
practices
are already being taught to high school children, and parents are
being
locked out of assemblies taught by radical homosexual activisits.
We must - and we can - stop this. NOW!
I grieve for our children and grandchildren. And I fear for our
nation if
we do not stand up to this assault of immorality and defeat it. I was
reminded of a passage in the Old Testament book of the prophet
Ezekiel. In
Chapter 22, the Lord recounts the many sins of Jerusalem, including
many
examples of sexual immorality and perversity. Finally God says,
"I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand
in the
breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I
found
none."
We need people who stand in the gap for our children and for America.
I ask
you to do three things. First, pray. This attack is spiritual, and
we must
fight back on our knees to defend our schools and our children.
Next, [join Concerned Women for America, contact through the web at
www.cwfa.org. This organization organizes petitions, etc.]
Finally, send a gift to help CWA fight our part of the battle (to CWA
not
BlessedCause, no affiliation)
If we act together, we can stand in the gap and halt this stealthy
assault
on our children.
I have CWA's tireless staff hitting this issue head on. We're
knocking on
doors of policymakers on Capitol Hill. We're taking the debate to the
networks, the cable TV channels, and the newspapers that shape public
opinion. And we're keeping a close eye on the evildoers to expose
them when
they make their next move.
To do all of this we need your help. Your gift today will help CWA
maintain
our powerful voice in defense of Biblical values.
More and more, the pro-family movement is turning to CWA for
leadership. If
we are unable to stand in the gap for our children, who will do it?
We know
the radical homosexual activists and all their allies intent on
corrupting
our children will not give up. They think they can lure our children
into
depravity while we sit by and do nothing.
I refuse to allow it!
Please join with me to stop this wicked agenda now.
Sincerely,
Beverly LaHaye
Founder and Chairman
PS I've learned that GLSEN now boasts a budget of 3.5 million and a
membership of more than 1,200 homosexual-activist educators. Their
mission
is to promote homosexuality and gender confusion in the schools under
any
guise that works. We must take strong, decisive action now before we
lose
our schools!
>
>And you keep lumping homosexuality in with things which are CLEARLY
>harmful, beyond all possible doubt. No person with even the slightest
>amount of common sense needs it to be explained how prostitution &
>drugs are clearly harmful.
Why don't you go into a bar where there is a motor cycle gang and
call them cocksuckers? That shouldn't be a problem unless its an
insult and there is something serioiusly wrong with it.
>
>And I'm still waiting for it to be explained how homosexuality, in &
>of itself, is a "perversion." Oh, & I'll warn you in advance: please
>don't use the tired old "reproduction" argument. I've blasted that
>one to smithereens, with the greatest of ease, on more occasions than
>I can remember, & am almost always met with utter silence by whatever
>poster I've challenged with it.
Modern art looks as though it were painted by a monkey. What do you
say to someone who thinks it is great art? How do you prove otherwise?
>
>> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
>> about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
>> the nation better.
>
>Bull, that's a sweeping generalization.
Philosphies are always general. We look at what the philosophy
does in the specific cases to see how well the philosophy holds up.
>
>> There are beaches where normal families will not go
>> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
>
>Oh, now you appear to be talking about an entirely different thing:
>sex on the beach. Wouldn't they be equally reluctant to take their
>families there if there were a bunch of heterosexuals having sex on
>the beach?
Not equally, but they would be very reluctant.
>Or is having sex on the beach not what you mean by
>"practice their perversion"? I can't imagine what ELSE you could
>mean, unless you mean mere standard displays of affection between
>persons of the same gender that are no different in the nature of the
>actual displays than publicly-accepted displays of affection between
>persons of opposite gender, such as kissing & holding hands.
If we outlawed homosexual perversion we wouldn't have to see such
sickness. That would give them away and the law would be watching
them.
>
>Nonsense. Sweeping generalization.
>
>> Their philosophy, taken to
>> its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
>> stop at the red lights.
>
>ROFL!!!! How you're getting a "logical conclusion" that way I'm sure
>I don't know. It certainly isn't a result of any sort of rational
>thinking. The reasons why people need to stop at red lights are
>blatantly obvious: there will be wrecks & people will be hurt or
>killed if they don't. There will be tremendous monetary damage done
>to many vehicles. How you could possibly equate this with an activity
>which harms not a single person on earth in the slightest I'm sure I
>don't know.
Maybe you are fortunate enough not to have encounterd libertarians
or anarchists.
>
>> Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
>> on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV.
>
>Oh, I get it now: yer a mere troll, who posts nonsense like this just
>for the purpose of being "controversial" or some such weird thing. No
>rational person on earth would actually believe such nonsense. We all
>know how allowing such a thing would be clearly & directly harmful to
>millions of people. Only a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the "left"
>would ever approve such a thing, as you surely must have known
>perfectly well years before you posted this article, if you have any
>common sense at all.
It's true that the belief is nonsense, but there are people who do
believe it.
>Only in the opinion of an abysmally paranoid person.
>
>> Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
>> Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
>> as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution,
>
>Please produce figures compiled by reputable researchers which show
>that any even remotely significant percentage of "leftists" are
>actually in favor of legalizing both those things. If there are such
>people, isn't it actually true that this is really a tiny vocal
>minority?
>
It is what libertarians and anarchists believe.
>> namely
>> that the state can't tell them what they can't do.
>
>The state most certainly CAN tell them what they can't do, if what
>they are attempting to do is provably harmful to others.
>
>
>Especially when the things they are prevented from doing are not
>provably harmful in even the slightest way to even a single human on
>the entire planet, much less in this specific country.
>
>
>Yes they do. Good laws that have a legitimate purpose. Not arbitrary
>laws that have no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
>
>> The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
>> freedom.
>
>And yet, strangely, I do not recall them legalizing heroin. Go
>figure.
>
>You do realize that you're talking about an entirely different
>ideology from those who merely honestly believe that there is nothing
>inherently wrong with homosexuality in & of itself, correct?
Correct
>
>So do many who honestly believe there is nothing wrong with
>homosexuality.
>
>That is not unique to leftists.
>
>
>> Because we like it.
>
>Who is "we," exactly? You made that statement in the context of
>promoting inequality between the genders in your previous article. I
>do not see that "we," as in the majority of people who live in this
>country, left, right, & every variation in between, "like" any such
>thing.
Why don't they let people vote on whether homosexual perversion
should be legal? Why not have a survey on how many people think it is
"sick".
>
>Oh, THAT part I understand, fighting for the type of nation one wants.
> The problem comes when one is fighting to preserve completely
>irrational prejudices.
>
>
>Good golly, what do you THINK I mean by the opposite sex? The same
>thing that is normally meant by that term, of course. Now you are
>pretending to be stupid.
>
>> If they sowed a vagina on a
>> football player do you thing men would be attracked to it?
>
>My, you do love descending to the depths of ridiculousness, don't you.
Not at all. I merely use extreme examples to prove the point.
>>
>> I am saying what I and many other people want.
>
>Based on an irrational prejudice.
>
>> That is all you need
>> to understand. Don't we have the right to fight for want we want?
>
>Yes, if it has a rational basis.
>
>> There is no point in talking to your kind.
>
>The same could quite reasonably be said of you.
>
>> There is only a point in
>> outnumbering and outvoting your kind.
>
>That's how the system works at present. Pray that it does not change.
> But the outnumbering & outvoting you may not find as easy as you
>think. Oh yes, it may work in the short term, but it looks like this
>particular irrational prejudice is gradually becoming less common with
>each passing year.
The wrong kind of people control the media.
Rob Mitchell
> On 18 Apr 2004 17:42:34 -0700, sorbus...@my-deja.com (Rob Mitchell)
> wrote:
>
> >Already you use loaded language. You don't simply say
> >"homosexuality," you instead insist on adding the word "perversion."
> >You have yet to demonstrate that all homosexuality, in & of itself, is
> >a "perversion."
> >
> Some people say "gay". That is loaded language.
Perhaps.
> And its obvious they
> are perverts.
That's not a refutation at all.
> >You have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality, in & of itself,
> >"corrupts" any nation on earth in the slightest.
Snip of an article about child molestation, which contains such a
mindbogglingly huge glaring omission about homosexuality that it would
be embarrassing to think anyone wouldn't have already noticed it, &
that it would need to be typed here.
I'll just skip to this part:
> Specifically, Abel's report provides data to show that, on average,
> 150.2
> boys are molested per homosexual pedophile offender, whereas only 19.8
> girls
> are molested per heterosexual pedophile offender. Incredibly,
> homosexual
> offenders admitted between 23.4 and 281.7 acts of molesting boys.
I'll freely admit that I can't cite any sources at the moment, but I
know for a fact that I've read figures very different from this from
multiple sources. I also know quite well that the vast majority of
times I have heard of child molestation in the media, it has involved
a men molesting girls.
Not that there might still not be something to this story. But one
might consider some factors which might explain this. One might
wonder, for example, if society's strictures against homosexuality
weren't so virulent, that gay men would not chose such an outlet so
often. It might be rather difficult to develop more "legitimate"
adult relationships when the world is telling you that what you're
doing is wrong.
This is still not a very good condemnation of homosexuality in & of
itself, & your production of this story is at best only a
demonstration of pedophilic homosexuality, which I'll certainly agree
is a perversion without the slightest hesitation, though I say
precisely the same thing about heterosexual pedophilia. This still
leaves millions of homosexual men who have never once engaged in any
sort of pedophilia, so once again you have utterly failed to
demonstrate how strictly adult homosexuality is a "perversion."
Whether or not more homosexual men than heterosexual men are
pedophiles is not the point.
And then there's that gigantic glaring omission. Can you guess what
it is? Surely it is so incredibly obvious to you that you will think
of it within just a few seconds of reading my article, & will need no
hints whatsoever from me or anyone else.
> >> which states-- If it
> >> harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
> >> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within.
> >
> >Oh? That "poison" is...what, exactly? When a given activity does
> >indeed harm no one on earth in the slightest, how is that bad in any
> >way?
>
> http://www.blessedcause.org/Militant%20Intent.htm
> GAY MILITANT INTENT: OUR KIDS
>
> From Concerned Women From America
> by Beverly LaHaye
Oh my. This one's a good deal more radically vitriolic &
paranoid-dementional than the last one. Let's skip to the sentence
which says it all:
> We know
> the radical homosexual activists and all their allies intent on
> corrupting
> our children will not give up.
Yeppers, *radical* homosexual activists. If there's much truth at all
to anything this woman says, here's the key to it: a tiny, tiny, tiny
minority of homosexuals, virtually identical to the tiny extremist
minorities in practically every ideology in all of human history, may
possibly be trying to "corrupt" children.
I've not seen a shred of solid evidence that even as much as 1% of
homosexuals worldwide support such views.
> >And you keep lumping homosexuality in with things which are CLEARLY
> >harmful, beyond all possible doubt. No person with even the slightest
> >amount of common sense needs it to be explained how prostitution &
> >drugs are clearly harmful.
>
> Why don't you go into a bar where there is a motor cycle gang and
> call them cocksuckers? That shouldn't be a problem unless its an
> insult and there is something serioiusly wrong with it.
Which doesn't address what I said in the slightest. That it is
*perceived* as an insult has to do with irrational views on
homosexuality: it is those views, rather than homosexuality in & of
itself, which might cause me to be attacked in that situation.
> >And I'm still waiting for it to be explained how homosexuality, in &
> >of itself, is a "perversion." Oh, & I'll warn you in advance: please
> >don't use the tired old "reproduction" argument. I've blasted that
> >one to smithereens, with the greatest of ease, on more occasions than
> >I can remember, & am almost always met with utter silence by whatever
> >poster I've challenged with it.
>
> Modern art looks as though it were painted by a monkey. What do you
> say to someone who thinks it is great art? How do you prove otherwise?
Not a very good analogy at all, since this is not an *activity* which
is being evaluated for its harmfulness, or lack of it.
> >> There are beaches where normal families will not go
> >> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
> >
> >Oh, now you appear to be talking about an entirely different thing:
> >sex on the beach. Wouldn't they be equally reluctant to take their
> >families there if there were a bunch of heterosexuals having sex on
> >the beach?
>
> Not equally, but they would be very reluctant.
Indeed. Very close to equally, I'd suspect. And why not absolutely
equally? Perhaps simply because of society's irrational prejudices?
> >Or is having sex on the beach not what you mean by
> >"practice their perversion"? I can't imagine what ELSE you could
> >mean, unless you mean mere standard displays of affection between
> >persons of the same gender that are no different in the nature of the
> >actual displays than publicly-accepted displays of affection between
> >persons of opposite gender, such as kissing & holding hands.
>
> If we outlawed homosexual perversion we wouldn't have to see such
> sickness. That would give them away and the law would be watching
> them.
Ah, perhaps I'm getting what you mean better now, or what you're
saying without knowing it. Homosexual pedophilia would certainly be a
homosexual perversion, so yes, homosexual perversion should be
outlawed. Oh, but wait: it already is outlawed. ;-)
Oh dear, so what other homosexual perversion could you be talking
about. Oh yes, having sex in public places, like beaches. If
homosexuals are doing that, then that is certainly a homosexual
perversion.
Oh no, but wait: that's already outlawed too. ;-)
In fact, the heterosexual equivalents of both of those are also
already outlawed.
So where does that leave us with homosexual perversions that haven't
been outlawed yet.
Sex between 2 consenting adults, in the privacy of their own home?
That's going to experience some serious Constitutional difficulty if
we try to outlaw that, methinks.
And extremely few people believe that sex between 2 consenting adults
counts as anything within light-years of a "perversion."
Ah, but of course, that's it! The irrational double-standard. When
it's 2 adults of the same gender, even though we can't see it occur, &
it is no more "flaunted" than private sex between heterosexual adults,
it "bothers" us. It "disgusts" us. We think that just because we
don't "like" it, we get to tell people that they can't do it, even
though when they do it, it
doesn't
affect
us
in the slightest tangible way.
I cannot stand okra. I think it tastes like Slime Incarnate. By the
reasoning of many, since I find the idea of eating okra personally
repugnant, I have the right to prevent others from eating it, even
outside of my presence.
Still waiting, & waiting, & waiting, & waiting, for someone, anyone,
to explain precisely how 2 adult persons of the same gender engaged in
a permanent monogamous relationship harms even a single living thing
on earth in the slightest way.
Pedophilia, oh yes, indeed yes. Indisputably harmful to children.
Homosexual, or heterosexual pedophilia, it makes no difference.
Indisputably harmful.
The permanent monogamous adult homosexual relationship is
harmful...how, exactly? It is a "perversion"...how, exactly?
Oh yes, it is quite true that in my previous article I did not specify
the parameters of adult, permanence, & monogamy. Yet these too are
part of homosexuality. It is not all composed of child molesters, not
by a long shot.
And there's still that huge glaring omission to deal with.
You'll be dealing with it in the very next reply you post to me, I
presume?
> >> Their philosophy, taken to
> >> its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
> >> stop at the red lights.
> >
> >ROFL!!!! How you're getting a "logical conclusion" that way I'm sure
> >I don't know. It certainly isn't a result of any sort of rational
> >thinking. The reasons why people need to stop at red lights are
> >blatantly obvious: there will be wrecks & people will be hurt or
> >killed if they don't. There will be tremendous monetary damage done
> >to many vehicles. How you could possibly equate this with an activity
> >which harms not a single person on earth in the slightest I'm sure I
> >don't know.
>
> Maybe you are fortunate enough not to have encounterd libertarians
> or anarchists.
Wow, that was a substantive reply to the issues I raised...not.
> >> Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
> >> on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV.
> >
> >Oh, I get it now: yer a mere troll, who posts nonsense like this just
> >for the purpose of being "controversial" or some such weird thing. No
> >rational person on earth would actually believe such nonsense. We all
> >know how allowing such a thing would be clearly & directly harmful to
> >millions of people. Only a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the "left"
> >would ever approve such a thing, as you surely must have known
> >perfectly well years before you posted this article, if you have any
> >common sense at all.
>
> It's true that the belief is nonsense, but there are people who do
> believe it.
A few, yes. Not to be taken seriously by any rational person, of
course.
> >> Because we like it.
> >
> >Who is "we," exactly? You made that statement in the context of
> >promoting inequality between the genders in your previous article. I
> >do not see that "we," as in the majority of people who live in this
> >country, left, right, & every variation in between, "like" any such
> >thing.
>
> Why don't they let people vote on whether homosexual perversion
> should be legal? Why not have a survey on how many people think it is
> "sick".
I think that's already been done. Homosexual pedophilia is already
outlawed, as is heterosexual pedophilia. It is only the pedophilic
aspect of homosexuality which you have demonstrated to be a
perversion, & the very article you produced demonstrates brilliantly
that only a minority of homosexuals are involved with pedophilia in
any way.
It's that huge glaring omission again.
So homosexuality, in & of itself, as I originally said, which would of
course be basically the same thing as the majority of homosexuals,
still has not been demonstrated to be a "perversion" at all.
Perhaps you'd like to try again?
> >> There is only a point in
> >> outnumbering and outvoting your kind.
> >
> >That's how the system works at present. Pray that it does not change.
> > But the outnumbering & outvoting you may not find as easy as you
> >think. Oh yes, it may work in the short term, but it looks like this
> >particular irrational prejudice is gradually becoming less common with
> >each passing year.
>
> The wrong kind of people control the media.
Oh, this has little to do with the media, I assure you. It has a good
deal more to do with simple common sense: more & more people will
simply come to realize that a permanent adult homosexual monogamous
relationship does not harm even a single living thing on the entire
planet in the slightest definable way.
You've certainly not presented even the most meager shred of evidence
to the contrary.
Mike Smith
>
> mindbogglingly huge glaring omission about homosexuality that it would
> be embarrassing to think anyone wouldn't have already noticed it, &
> that it would need to be typed here.
>
> I'll just skip to this part:
>
> > Specifically, Abel's report provides data to show that, on average,
> > 150.2
> > boys are molested per homosexual pedophile offender, whereas only 19.8
> > girls
> > are molested per heterosexual pedophile offender. Incredibly,
> > homosexual
> > offenders admitted between 23.4 and 281.7 acts of molesting boys.
>
> I'll freely admit that I can't cite any sources at the moment, but I
> know for a fact that I've read figures very different from this from
> multiple sources. I also know quite well that the vast majority of
> times I have heard of child molestation in the media, it has involved
> a men molesting girls.
>
> Not that there might still not be something to this story. But one
> might consider some factors which might explain this. One might
> wonder, for example, if society's strictures against homosexuality
> weren't so virulent, that gay men would not chose such an outlet so
> often. It might be rather difficult to develop more "legitimate"
> adult relationships when the world is telling you that what you're
> doing is wrong.
more children is that they have much easier access to boys than girls.
Parents generally prefer women looking after their girls than men,
for obvious reasons. There are strict controls, and you don't get
many males looking after Girl Guides for example. Male childminders
are almost non-existent. Dykes tend to prefer adults for some reason.
Arse bandits who target little boys are usually priests, scout
masters, choir masters, sports coaches, etc. They have unlimited
access to large numbers of boys once they've gained the required
trust. It's so easy for them.
Tranquilo
Mike
neptune3
wrote:
>
>Perhaps.
>
>>That's not a refutation at all.
>
>Snip of an article about child molestation, which contains such a
>mindbogglingly huge glaring omission about homosexuality that it would
>be embarrassing to think anyone wouldn't have already noticed it, &
>that it would need to be typed here.
>
>I'll just skip to this part:>
>
>Oh my. This one's a good deal more radically vitriolic &
>paranoid-dementional than the last one. Let's skip to the sentence
>which says it all:
>
>> We know
>> the radical homosexual activists and all their allies intent on
>> corrupting
>> our children will not give up.
>
>Yeppers, *radical* homosexual activists. If there's much truth at all
>to anything this woman says, here's the key to it: a tiny, tiny, tiny
>minority of homosexuals, virtually identical to the tiny extremist
>minorities in practically every ideology in all of human history, may
>possibly be trying to "corrupt" children.
>
>I've not seen a shred of solid evidence that even as much as 1% of
>homosexuals worldwide support such views.
>
>Which doesn't address what I said in the slightest. That it is
>*perceived* as an insult has to do with irrational views on
>homosexuality: it is those views, rather than homosexuality in & of
>itself, which might cause me to be attacked in that situation.
>
>>
>> Modern art looks as though it were painted by a monkey. What do you
>> say to someone who thinks it is great art? How do you prove otherwise?
>
>Not a very good analogy at all, since this is not an *activity* which
>is being evaluated for its harmfulness, or lack of it.
I say its a great analogy. What you are saying is nonsense to normal
people.
>
>Indeed. Very close to equally, I'd suspect. And why not absolutely
>equally? Perhaps simply because of society's irrational prejudices?
>
>
>Ah, perhaps I'm getting what you mean better now, or what you're
>saying without knowing it. Homosexual pedophilia would certainly be a
>homosexual perversion, so yes, homosexual perversion should be
>outlawed. Oh, but wait: it already is outlawed. ;-)
>
>Oh dear, so what other homosexual perversion could you be talking
>about. Oh yes, having sex in public places, like beaches. If
>homosexuals are doing that, then that is certainly a homosexual
>perversion.
>
>Oh no, but wait: that's already outlawed too. ;-)
>
>In fact, the heterosexual equivalents of both of those are also
>already outlawed.
>
>So where does that leave us with homosexual perversions that haven't
>been outlawed yet.
>
>Sex between 2 consenting adults, in the privacy of their own home?
>
>That's going to experience some serious Constitutional difficulty if
>we try to outlaw that, methinks.
Liberals simply make an amendment if they have problems with the
Constitution.
>
>And extremely few people believe that sex between 2 consenting adults
>counts as anything within light-years of a "perversion."
You may not know it from watching TV but its a lot more than that.
>
>Ah, but of course, that's it! The irrational double-standard. When
>it's 2 adults of the same gender, even though we can't see it occur, &
>it is no more "flaunted" than private sex between heterosexual adults,
>it "bothers" us. It "disgusts" us. We think that just because we
>don't "like" it, we get to tell people that they can't do it, even
>though when they do it, it
>
>doesn't
>
>affect
>
>us
>
>in the slightest tangible way.
>
>I cannot stand okra. I think it tastes like Slime Incarnate. By the
>reasoning of many, since I find the idea of eating okra personally
>repugnant, I have the right to prevent others from eating it, even
>outside of my presence.
We could take a vote on whether okra should be outlawed. But not
enough people are nauseated by it. If a lot of people were nauseated
by it we should outlaw it.
>
>Still waiting, & waiting, & waiting, & waiting, for someone, anyone,
>to explain precisely how 2 adult persons of the same gender engaged in
>a permanent monogamous relationship harms even a single living thing
>on earth in the slightest way.
It makes a lot of living things nauseated.
>
>Pedophilia, oh yes, indeed yes. Indisputably harmful to children.
>Homosexual, or heterosexual pedophilia, it makes no difference.
>Indisputably harmful.
>
>The permanent monogamous adult homosexual relationship is
>harmful...how, exactly? It is a "perversion"...how, exactly?
>
>Oh yes, it is quite true that in my previous article I did not specify
>the parameters of adult, permanence, & monogamy. Yet these too are
>part of homosexuality. It is not all composed of child molesters, not
>by a long shot.
>
>And there's still that huge glaring omission to deal with.
>
>You'll be dealing with it in the very next reply you post to me, I
>presume?
>
>> Maybe you are fortunate enough not to have encounterd libertarians
>> or anarchists.
>
>Wow, that was a substantive reply to the issues I raised...not.
>
>
>A few, yes. Not to be taken seriously by any rational person, of
>course.
True
>
>I think that's already been done. Homosexual pedophilia is already
>outlawed, as is heterosexual pedophilia. It is only the pedophilic
>aspect of homosexuality which you have demonstrated to be a
>perversion, & the very article you produced demonstrates brilliantly
>that only a minority of homosexuals are involved with pedophilia in
>any way.
>
>It's that huge glaring omission again.
>
>So homosexuality, in & of itself, as I originally said, which would of
>course be basically the same thing as the majority of homosexuals,
>still has not been demonstrated to be a "perversion" at all.
>
>Perhaps you'd like to try again?
>
>Oh, this has little to do with the media, I assure you. It has a good
>deal more to do with simple common sense: more & more people will
>simply come to realize that a permanent adult homosexual monogamous
>relationship does not harm even a single living thing on the entire
>planet in the slightest definable way.
>
>You've certainly not presented even the most meager shred of evidence
>to the contrary.
Homosexual perversion is like the modern art, very ugly. Maybe we
can't prove it to the other side if they can't see that. But they want
their ideas taught in the schools and their ideas to win in country.
We should stop them from making this a ugly, sickening, nauseating,
country.
Rob Mitchell
I'm assuming that by "queer perverts" you mean "male homosexual
perverts." I'll certainly agree that *anyone* who molests a child,
man or woman, gay or straight, is a pervert. As for the why, think
about it: males in general, heterosexual & homosexual, seem to be more
eager for immediate sexual gratification than females in general,
homosexual or heterosexual. The obvious reason that male
heterosexuals don't often molest boys under their charge is that they
aren't interested in them; were it girls under their charge the
results might be rather different.
> Parents generally prefer women looking after their girls than men,
> for obvious reasons.
Exactly.
> There are strict controls, and you don't get
> many males looking after Girl Guides for example.
Precisely.
> Male childminders
> are almost non-existent. Dykes tend to prefer adults for some reason.
Isn't it more accurate to say that females in general, gay or
straight, are generally less likely to indulge in immediate sexual
gratification?
> Arse bandits who target little boys are usually priests, scout
> masters, choir masters, sports coaches, etc. They have unlimited
> access to large numbers of boys once they've gained the required
> trust. It's so easy for them.
Yeppers.
I'm still waiting, however, to see anything which comes within
light-years of "proof" that anything more than a tiny minority of all
homosexuals worldwide, which of course includes both genders equally,
have ever even once in their lives molested a child. Unless it is
proven to be the majority, homosexuality in & of itself is not to
blame.
Rob Mitchell
> On 19 Apr 2004 21:26:23 -0700, sorbus...@my-deja.com (Rob Mitchell)
> wrote:
>
> >Still waiting, & waiting, & waiting, & waiting, for someone, anyone,
> >to explain precisely how 2 adult persons of the same gender engaged in
> >a permanent monogamous relationship harms even a single living thing
> >on earth in the slightest way.
>
> It makes a lot of living things nauseated.
*splorf*
That's one of the silliest responses you've made yet.
It is, of course (duh), not the relationship in & of itself which is
creating that reaction, but rather the irrational prejudice against
such a relationship on the part of the person experiencing that
reaction which is causing the "nausea." And that's hardly an example
of tangible "harm."
Care to give a *logical* answer this time?
> >A few, yes. Not to be taken seriously by any rational person, of
> >course.
>
> True
Exactly. Now you're being logical. Sad that you did not apply the
same values of logic above.
> >I think that's already been done. Homosexual pedophilia is already
> >outlawed, as is heterosexual pedophilia. It is only the pedophilic
> >aspect of homosexuality which you have demonstrated to be a
> >perversion, & the very article you produced demonstrates brilliantly
> >that only a minority of homosexuals are involved with pedophilia in
> >any way.
> >
> >It's that huge glaring omission again.
> >
> >So homosexuality, in & of itself, as I originally said, which would of
> >course be basically the same thing as the majority of homosexuals,
> >still has not been demonstrated to be a "perversion" at all.
> >
> >Perhaps you'd like to try again?
> >
> >Oh, this has little to do with the media, I assure you. It has a good
> >deal more to do with simple common sense: more & more people will
> >simply come to realize that a permanent adult homosexual monogamous
> >relationship does not harm even a single living thing on the entire
> >planet in the slightest definable way.
> >
> >You've certainly not presented even the most meager shred of evidence
> >to the contrary.
>
> Homosexual perversion is like the modern art, very ugly.
Yes, homosexual pedophilia (the only aspect of homosexuality you have
yet to demonstrate to be anything within light-years of a
"perversion"), just like heterosexual pedophilia, is very ugly. Since
you have only given pedophilic examples to support your argument, I
will now assume that whenever you say "homosexual perversion" you are
meaning "homosexual pedophilia," until you demonstrate conclusively
that the majority of homosexuals worldwide engage in any activity
whatsoever which causes tangible harm to even a single other creature
on earth. Until you do, you obviously are only talking about a
minority, & thus not addressing homosexuality in general in the
slightest.
neptune3
wrote:
>> It makes a lot of living things nauseated.
>
>*splorf*
>
>That's one of the silliest responses you've made yet.
>
>It is, of course (duh), not the relationship in & of itself which is
>creating that reaction, but rather the irrational prejudice against
>such a relationship on the part of the person experiencing that
>reaction which is causing the "nausea." And that's hardly an example
>of tangible "harm."
>
>Care to give a *logical* answer this time?
>
>
>Exactly. Now you're being logical. Sad that you did not apply the
>same values of logic above.
>
>Yes, homosexual pedophilia (the only aspect of homosexuality you have
>yet to demonstrate to be anything within light-years of a
>"perversion"), just like heterosexual pedophilia, is very ugly. Since
>you have only given pedophilic examples to support your argument, I
>will now assume that whenever you say "homosexual perversion" you are
>meaning "homosexual pedophilia," until you demonstrate conclusively
>that the majority of homosexuals worldwide engage in any activity
>whatsoever which causes tangible harm to even a single other creature
>on earth. Until you do, you obviously are only talking about a
>minority, & thus not addressing homosexuality in general in the
>slightest.
Homosexual perversion is like the modern art, very ugly. Maybe we
Southside of Scotland
At least we agree on something. Homosexual perversion, in the form of
homosexual paedophilia, is ugly, in exactly the same way that
heterosexual perversion is ugy. It has no place in society.
However, I wish that I had been told at school that I was normal,
instead of being labelled a pervert, as you seem to want to do to
children that are born homosexual. I realise that that is a tough
concept for you to grasp, but have a conversation with anybody that is
homosexual and that is what they will tell you. There is no choice in
the matter, the only choice is to lie to ones self, and do you really
think that the world would be a happier place if you have however many
people walking around lying ?
One effect of preaching to homosexual youngsters in the way that you
do is to make them depressed. It is a known fact that homosexual
teenagers are more likely to commit suicide. Their blood is on your
hands, and the hands of people who preach in the way that you do.
Don't you think that it is about time that you grew up, accepted that
this is something that is natural and, therefore, isn't going to go
away. It's been tried, even Hitler had a go. How does it feel to be in
the same league as him ?
chiefthracian
> Most violent homophobes are gay or bisexual themselves
Wait a minute. That is NOT true. MOST homophobes ARE heterosexual.
SOME homophobes ARE closet cases. To claim,however, that MOST
homophobes ARE gay or bisexual, is to trivialize the horror of
homophobia, by taking the responsibility for this crime OUT of the
hands of the real oppressors: heterosexual supremacists...and putting
it into the hands of our own queer community. Talk about ultimate
scapegoating! Damned if we do, damned if we don't!
Other than this IMPORTANT distinction which you have misconstrued, I
totally agree with your well-written analysis.
--
Vote for Zeke in oh-oh-four,
Or brown shirts will
Bang down your door!
www.gay-bible.org/index.html#prez