Homosexuality in Nature
Daniel Marler
Have yHave you ever noticed that when we talk to God, it's called
praying. But when God talks to you it's called schizophrenia?
I don't care what you've learned, God created us all-gay,
straight and in between. He doesn't make mistakes. My friend,
Jesus of Nazareth, said of Mary Magnalen "Let you who is without
sin cast the first stone." It seems as though many of us forget
that people who are Christian are all sinners in Gods' eyes.
I choose to love my fellow persons and try to turn the other
cheek. AND NOT JUDGE!
--
I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille!!
Conrad Sabatier
[ newsgroups trimmed ]
In article <5i74vv$i...@news-central.tiac.net>,
jt...@tiac.net (JTEM) writes:
> Elizabeth Kanavy <ccia.com> wrote:
>
>>Just to throw a twist in here, what about a legal threesome???
>
> Who cares?
How rude!
> Fight your fight. Just don't pretend the two issues are ever mixed. They
> are not. Strategy wise, the two issues are light years apart.
They're not really as "far apart" as you think. Both involve modifying
the legal definition of marriage. Both involve at least two same-sex
partners.
Might be interesting to pose a challenge on more than one front, actually.
A victory for either one would set a citeable precedent for the other.
--
Conrad Sabatier http://www.neosoft.com/~conrads
Conrad Sabatier
[ newsgroups trimmed ]
In article <5i8644$f...@news-central.tiac.net>,
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) writes:
> JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
>: > You want a 'special law' to be created so you can marry other men.
>:
>: Nope.
>
> Yes, you do.
>
>: > As disgusting as that is, you want it.
>:
>: Nope, loser. We (as in: "All of us here in the USA") have a constitution
>: that both defines and protects our rights. Among those "rights" is, say,
>: how a person can marry in one state, move to another state and still be
>: married.
>
> Well, deviant, just because you can convince some state that you
> can "marry" another guy, your dog, or a chair, there should still be some
> common sense left for the other states.
>
> Now this is really interesting 'cus, as even a total idiot like
>: you might be able to understand, if only one of those states says "Hey,
>: we don't believe marriage is all about genitals. We think it's about love"
>
> I love my dog. Should I be able to "marry" him, deviant?
The fact that you keep spouting this crap attempting to equate same-sex
relationships with relationships between humans and animals or inanimate
objects only serves to point up the paucity of legitimate objections.
>: Well, fuck head, one of those states did that. We don't need a new
>: definition for anything. We don't need new laws to get what we want. All
>: we need, and get this, all we need is for the PRESENT constitution of the
>: United States to be honored, to be followed. Nothing new. All we need is
>: that same old document, that one dating back to 1787, to be upheld as our
>: nation's guiding document.
>
> Well, peabrain, do you really think that the Constitution was
> written in a way so that two men could "marry"?
Well, dickbrain, if you believe the Constitution supports the notion of
equal justice for all, then what do you think?
Moron.
JTEM
Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote:
> jt...@tiac.net (JTEM) writes:
>
>> Elizabeth Kanavy <ccia.com> wrote:
>>>Just to throw a twist in here, what about a legal threesome???
>>
>> Who cares?
>
>How rude!
I thought she was rude as well.
>They're not really as "far apart" as you think. Both involve modifying
>the legal definition of marriage. Both involve at least two same-sex
>partners.
1) The marriage-between-two-people-only laws could & should best be fought
on a religious freedom argument.
1A) Gay marriage should be argued on a freedom FROM religion stand point.
The two-bit moralizing we see from opponents is nothing short of an
attempt to institutionalize personal religious beliefs.
2) Historically, marriages beyond two partners is not unusual, not even in
the United States. It's not even unheard of now, in the present day, in
other nations & cultures.
2A) True gay marriage, if it even exists now, is rare. Historically, most
references are quite old and appear in small, isolated moments.
3) Although, on the surface, marriage between more than two people might
seem an easier battle, when compared to same-gender unions, there is still
one complication over and above same-gender marriage on a social/economic
level. Two dependants cost an employer more money than one. Three health
insurance policies cost more money than two. also, two women (or men) may
have married the same man (or woman) but that is no reason for us to
assume that they ment to join themselves. There is no reason to even
assume that the two husbands/wives even get along, let alone like each
other. Inheritence is complicated. Medical decisions can be confused. Who
gets the kids in the even of a death/divorce?
3A) In many cases, same-gender marriage changes *NOTHING*. Not every
marriage law on every book makes a stement on gender. All we NEED is that
the UNLAWFUL discrimination based on gender end. One state, and only *ONE*
state, says "You know, marraige is about love, not genitals." And, in
effect, same-gender marriage is legal *EVERYWHERE*. Nothing needs to
change on the books, only those states that have (usually) long-since
decided that discrimination based on gender is wrong have to stop
discriminating. Nothing changes with same-gender marriage.
>Might be interesting to pose a challenge on more than one front,
>actually. A victory for either one would set a citeable precedent for the
>other.
I don't think so. What would make an effective argument against a limit on
the number of partners wouldn't make a great argument at all for
same-gender marriage. That, and the social/economic implications of the
two are *TOTALLY* different. There's really no comparison. Not in
strategic approach, not in reprocussions.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Nizan <nimr...@netvision.net.li> wrote:
>YES
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>The JDL (Keresh the Leech), Aruz-7, SNS and IgaLiar
>__________________________________________________________________________
>Please do your best not to send nasty e-mail to: nimr...@netvision.net.il
>__________________________________________________________________________
Gosh. It's still just as fresh as the first two dozen times you
crossposted this bullshit to all hell and back. Your parents must be truly
proud. I mean, assuming they had some other children.
Anyhow, better luck evolving next time.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Nizan <nimr...@netvision.net.li> wrote:
>__________________________________________________________________________
>The JDL (Keresh the Leech), Aruz-7, SNS and IgaLiar
>__________________________________________________________________________
>Please do your best not to send nasty e-mail to: nimr...@netvision.net.il
>__________________________________________________________________________
Okay, for him, this isn't bad. He does come across as a lot more witty
without the "YES."
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Ward Stewart
con...@neosoft.com (Conrad Sabatier) wrote:
>[ newsgroups trimmed ]
>Moron.
One might ask that he cite the constitutional law on
heterosexual marriage. The pitiful part is that when these
dismal fascists find that a document is silent they
automatically assume that the unwritten stuff must needs
support their hideous cause.
It is unpleasant as one perks along in life to find that one
has enemies, folks who do not know you, do not know anything
about you but hate you just the same. HOWEVER things perk
up when you consider that these sad creatures are running on
empty -- this issue, in historical terms, is brand new - we
have barely come to the far turn and they are sucking wind
and looking ever farther and farther afield for support --
history is moving on, things are changing and they are about
to be consigned to the scrap heap with the Klansmen, Nazis,
Flat earthers Communists and snake handlers now being
forgotten and inored.
ward
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The government was finally made to give a reason
for sex discrimination in marriage and it turned out...
there isn't one."
Evan Wolfson
Ward Stewart
con...@neosoft.com (Conrad Sabatier) wrote:
>[ newsgroups trimmed ]
>In article <5i74vv$i...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> jt...@tiac.net (JTEM) writes:
>> Elizabeth Kanavy <ccia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just to throw a twist in here, what about a legal threesome???
>>
>> Who cares?
>How rude!
>> Fight your fight. Just don't pretend the two issues are ever mixed. They
>> are not. Strategy wise, the two issues are light years apart.
>They're not really as "far apart" as you think. Both involve modifying
>the legal definition of marriage. Both involve at least two same-sex
>partners.
I would disagree -- this non-sense about altering "the legal
definition of marriage,: is a red herring - no such thing is
being proposed --
When the country club is compelled to admit Jews to
membership, have they altered the legal definition of golf?
Hardly! The grass will still be green, the wives will still
be snobby and the annual dance will still be a drunken
embarrassment.
Per Rønne
Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote:
> In article <33464D...@chaos.org>,
> Hector <Stryga...@Chaos.org> writes:
> >
> > Well, I said I was done on this one, but I must reply to this young
> > person...
>
> Awwww, idn't dat kyoot?
>
> > Voting is not first and foremost a religious concept, though. Nothing
> > "quite like" voting is necessary, as the state is free to define its own
> > legal constructs. *Marriage*, however, was a religious practice before
> > there was a government to decide it was a good thing for society, and
> > encourage it with tax laws. It would not be amenable to state
> > re-definition as including same-sex unions, even if that were logical,
> > which it isn't.
>
> Horse-puckey. The state can "define" anything it wants. Legal marriage
> is *not* a "religious concept".
>
But in Denmark [and other European countries] same gender marriages have
been legal for years. Of course, countries with undemocratic electoral
systems like Britain and the US [with one-member constituencies] don't
have them - yet.
[snip]
--
Per Erik Rønne
email: xer...@diku.dk PerR...@post2.tele.dk
homepage: http://www.diku.dk/students/xerxes
JTEM
Xich Lo <kevin_...@ccmail.turner.com> wrote:
>James Garner wrote:
>> I love my dog. Should I be able to "marry" him?
>
>Is your dog a consenting adult? I don't think so. And don't start
>pulling in that old, "If we allow homosexual marriage, we must then
>allow adult-child marriage" argument either. We are talking CONSENTING
>ADULTS. Is that too difficult a concept for you to understand?
As a matter of fact, yes, it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too
difficult a concept for him to understand.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
James Garner <da...@tiac.net> wrote:
> He's a very special dog. And he doesn't demand special rights.
You know, a dog that's your intellectual equal ain't exactly special.
John
JTEM
While flamebating, James Garner <da...@tiac.net> wrote:
Speaking of NAMBLA:
> What about them made them think, justifiably, that
>they were at that time welcome there?
How do you know what they thought? How could you know? I mean, unless...
John
JTEM
Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>As the laws are today, men can't marry men.
This is a lie of omission. As the laws are ENFORCED today, men can't marry
men.
Not every law on every book states any kind of gender requirment.
> To create laws to permit men
>to marry other men *is* creating "special laws" for homosexuals.
To ignore laws against discrimination based on gender in the case of
marriage, to attempt to make an exception, is to say that justice does not
exists.
>One guy was trying to pretend that its always been part of the
>Constituion since 1787,
Freedom? Equality? They haven't been part of the constitution?
> but when asked to provide a single case to
>back up his claim from the huge time range of 1787 to 1950 the result
>was silence.
That's because you couldn't hear the laughter.
>Get the point - its a long time for many homosexuals to get married in.
>Fact is the Constituion didn't permit homosexual marriages in 1787 and
>thats the reason we find no homosexual marriages in that huge time range.
Tell us, idiot, exactly how many statements on marriage do you find in the
U.S. constitution? Of those, how many spell out a gender requirment?
The point is, shit for brains, not every marriage law out there has a
gender requirement. The only way they ever could, at this point, is if
people CHANGED THE MARRIAGE LAWS. Oh, and they'd have to change the laws
against discrimination based on gender too. They'd have to write "special
laws" for the purpose of repressing an identified minority group. If not,
denying gay marriage is illegal AND one state refusing to recognize a gay
marriage that took place in another state (one without gender specific
marriage laws) is unconstitutional.
>You see your the one who doesn't have any ground to stand on.
You wouldn't know "ground to stand on" if it walked up to you and bit you
on the ass.
>Well I hate to break this news to you, but common sense tells many of us
>that men should not be sleeping with men.
Just the opposite. If your father slept with men the world would be all
the richer.
>Yes and there is equal treatment of all, as all Americans are under the
>same laws. You have the same right to marry as anybody else.
Just how blacks were under the same jim crow laws as everybody else.
>What you don't have the right to do is marry another man if your a man.
>And this is a law that applies equally to Americans.
Just like how everyone was under the same laws against interracial
marriage.
Loser. Asshole.
John
JTEM
Cliff Anchor (anc...@wclynx.com) wrote:
: JTEM appears to have a real problem with his own sexual identity.
: I personally couldn't care a flying pig who JTEM is married to or
: has sex with. Why should he/she concern himself/herself as to who
: others love ---unless tempted?
I've been meaning to ask:
What the hell is this guy talking about?
John
JTEM
James Garner (da...@tiac.net) wrote:
: Hey, cuteboy, you're one of the faggots who first cross-posted
: this to a Jewish newsgroup. If you'd kept the swill to your own group,
: you wouldn't have had to read truth.
In case anyone was wondering, you won't find a "James Garner" contributing
to *ANY* threads over in soc.culture.jewish or soc.culture.israel... other
than these threads which are also crossposted to
alt.politics.homosexuality.
Like I've always said, there's never any reason to assume that anyone is
*just* a racist, or a homophobe, or anything else for that matter. Bigots
are bigots. This guy looks like he's trying to satisfy BOTH his homophobia
and his antisemitism at the same time. how? By setting the gay men and
lesbians against the Jews over in soc.culture.israel & soc.culture.jewish.
You've been warned.
John
Ward Stewart
jt...@tiac.net (JTEM) wrote:
>James Garner <da...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> He's a very special dog. And he doesn't demand special rights.
>You know, a dog that's your intellectual equal ain't exactly special.
> John
Aloha John --
You have failed to note that the dog in question, bright
or dim, is identified by his would-be suitor as "he."
ROTFLMAO
ward
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
"When I hear them praying extra loud, I always
go out and check the lock on the smokehouse."
Harry Truman
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Eric Seright-Payne
I had wondered the same thing, JTEM, then realized that Cliff might be new
to the "information superhighway" and gotten lost in some of the past
messages that have quotes quoting quotes quoting quotes.
I interviewed Cliff about three years ago when I was writing for some
publications.
Cliff is a very nice man who found his activist voice late in life. During
his life, he led a mostly closeted life, and now is making up for it.
At one point, he was the lover of Leonard Matlovich; at a point prior to
that, he was the lover of Tom Dooley - both men distinguished themselves in
service to the United States, both were ultimately discharged from their
positions - despite public sentiment in their favor.
A few years ago, the President and Governor of California placed
prohibitive restrictions on gay rights in the military; at that point
Cliff, who had been personally appointed by the Governor to a high ranking
position within the California guard, came out of the closet, vocally, and
very publicly returned all the medals and commendations he had received.
I really do believe he just had difficulty reading who said what to whom in
a previous post.
Eric Seright-Payne
Livermore, CA
JTEM
Ward Stewart <wste...@hi.net> wrote:
>Aloha John --
>
> You have failed to note that the dog in question, bright
>or dim, is identified by his would-be suitor as "he."
That, and how it brings an all new meaning to the phrase, "Give a dog a
bone."
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Virk Shakeel
JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
: Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
:
: >Get the point - its a long time for many homosexuals to get married in.
: >Fact is the Constituion didn't permit homosexual marriages in 1787 and
: >thats the reason we find no homosexual marriages in that huge time range.
:
: Tell us, idiot, exactly how many statements on marriage do you find in the
: U.S. constitution? Of those, how many spell out a gender requirment?
Mr. JTEM I am surprised I have to explain such simple concepts to you, and
if you weren't so rude I would explain them in a much more gentle manner.
But since you insist on name calling, maybe I should show you the same
lack of respect as you show others ?
Nope. I'm not going to do it. I am going to speak to you as if you are a
human being, without name calling (even though you don't deserve it).
Your logic regarding this issue is extremely weak and I am surprised you
can't see past it. Does the Constitution directly say men can't marry
there sisters ?
Yet we can't find a single case from 1787 to 1950 in which men have been
permitted to marry there sisters.
The same holds true for men marrying men. It doesn't have to be spelled
out in so many words, and upholding prevention of men marrying men in no
way violates the Constitution.
There are thousands of illegal actions which are not spelled out word for
word in the Constituion, there is no possible way every illegal action
could have been included. The fact is the Constituion does not give the
right for men to marry men, and it NEVER intended to permit this
disgusting act.
Evidence: Not a single case from 1787 to 1950+ has ever permitted men to
marry men.
: The point is, shit for brains, not every marriage law out there has a
: gender requirement. The only way they ever could, at this point, is if
: people CHANGED THE MARRIAGE LAWS. Oh, and they'd have to change the laws
: against discrimination based on gender too.
Does your mother know you speak like this in public ?
Anyways, back to the point. Sorry I was distracted by your filthy
language.
Okay, so far I have avoided this plea of 'discrimination'. It is not
discrimination. Preventing men from marrying men is not discrimination,
just as preventing men from praticipating in womens sports such tennis,
basketball, soccer, etc.. is not discrimination.
There are clear reasons why men cannot play sports in professional or
amature womens leagues, the same for men marrying there brothers or other
men.
: >Yes and there is equal treatment of all, as all Americans are under the
: >same laws. You have the same right to marry as anybody else.
:
: Just how blacks were under the same jim crow laws as everybody else.
No they where not. There where special laws which discriminated against
blacks. Such as they where not permitted to use the same bathrooms as
whites. These where 'special laws' created to harm blacks.
: Loser. Asshole.
: John
You wrote the 2 words above and followed it up with your own name. Is
this some sort of mistake on your part ?
I suggest you clean up your filthy mouth, but that's just my
opinion. And since I am suggesting it, it will probably result in more
filth come from you, displaying to all that I fully understand how your
type work.
So go ahead prove me right. Or follow my advice and quit with the filthy
mouth.
It's your choice. ;)
Shakeel Virk
John De Salvio
> On 10 Apr 1997 05:12:59 GMT, jt...@tiac.net (JTEM) wrote:
>
> >Cliff Anchor (anc...@wclynx.com) wrote:
> >
> >: JTEM appears to have a real problem with his own sexual identity.
> >: I personally couldn't care a flying pig who JTEM is married to or
> >: has sex with. Why should he/she concern himself/herself as to who
> >: others love ---unless tempted?
> >
> >I've been meaning to ask:
> >
> >What the hell is this guy talking about?
>
> I had wondered the same thing, JTEM, then realized that Cliff might be new
> to the "information superhighway" and gotten lost in some of the past
> messages that have quotes quoting quotes quoting quotes.
> I really do believe he just had difficulty reading who said what to whom in
> a previous post.
>
> Eric Seright-Payne
> Livermore, CA
That is probably the case. Cliff IS very new to the internet, and if
he becomes as active here as he has been in regards to stomping
on Uncle Sam's bigoted brigades, then I will have to apologize.
I gave him the access info.
I am pleased to consider Cliff one of my best friends. We both
share an interesting sidelight in gay history: He broadcast live
on FM radio immediately following the raid on California Hall by
SF police in 1963 (I think?), having brought the principle participants
(victims) into the studio to do a "public affairs" broadcast -- after
locking the doors and not letting Police Chief Cahill's boys in.
I gingerly made my way out of the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village,
stepping around the prostrate body of Dave Van Ronk, who was
being beaten up by the NY cops in the first raid in June 1969.
Not knowing what historic event was actually happening, I just
quickly got to Seventh Avenue South and Christopher Street,
and took the subway home.
I did march in NY's first Gay Pride Parade in 1970, when it marched
up Sixth Avenue from Sheridan Square to Central Park. We were only
allowed the use of one traffic lane.
I think the concept has expanded somewhat, since then....
You might want to keep posted with Cliff regarding the American
Legion Alexander Hamilton Post #448, which has launched a
multi-million-dollar suit against the State American Legion for
anti-gay discrimination and fraud.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
JTEM
Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Nope. I'm not going to do it. I am going to speak to you as if you are
>a human being, without name calling (even though you don't deserve it).
Did anyone else get a laugh out of this?
John
JTEM
Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Your logic regarding this issue is extremely weak and I am surprised you
>can't see past it. Does the Constitution directly say men can't marry
>there sisters ?
Is there a compelling reason for the state to ban such marriages?
>Yet we can't find a single case from 1787 to 1950 in which men have been
>permitted to marry there sisters.
And if you think it's merely because a whole heck of a lot of people think
it immoral then, well, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.
>The same holds true for men marrying men.
Not at all. I'd condem your logic but, quite frankly, there is none.
Why is homosexual marriage not legal? Certainly not for the same reason
that a man can't marry his sister. You don't see, I know, but there are
two different reasons involved. This means that the one example does not
justify the other. Again, you don't see but there is a reason for denying
a man the right to marry his sister, and that reason has been upheld as in
the interest of the state. This is not, repeat, *NOT* the case with
same-gender marriage. Exactly the opposite. The case went to court and the
state LOST.
>It doesn't have to be spelled
>out in so many words, and upholding prevention of men marrying men in
>no way violates the Constitution.
It most certainly violates the U.S. constitution. Well, at least according
to the United States supreme Court. The state MUST HAVE a reason. It can't
simply deny access to a class of people from *ANYTHING* merely because it
feels like it.
There is no reason to deny same-gender marriage. Heterosexuals lose
nothing. Homosexuals gain nothing more than what every other citizen
already has. No "special rights" for anybody, everyone has the same access
to the benefits of marriage.
And, oh, in addition to all that, the U.S. constitution does require that
states recognize and uphold contracts made in other states, including
marriage. This means it is *UNCONSTITUTIONAL* for one state to refuse a
same-gender marriage performed in another state.
>The fact is the Constituion does not give the right for men to marry men,
>and it NEVER intended to permit this disgusting act.
The U.S. constitution was not written with the idea of protecting any
specific act in mind. It gave people like me the right to free speech -
not the specific right to claim aliens are living in Bob Dylan's shoes -
though that claim is in itself protected by my right to free speech.
Is it seeping in? Even just a little?
>Evidence: Not a single case from 1787 to 1950+ has ever permitted men to
>marry men.
How many women got to vote for president in this country before it was
permitted?
Before something happens it can be said to not happen. Is this too
difficult for you? Stop me if I'm going too fast. Before racial
segregation was struck down it was practiced every day. It's only been
about thirty years now, I guess segregation is okay? If not, I guess that
means we'll only have to wait thirty years after legalized same-gender
marriage before you're on the right side.
>Okay, so far I have avoided this plea of 'discrimination'. It is not
>discrimination. Preventing men from marrying men is not discrimination,
>just as preventing men from praticipating in womens sports such tennis,
>basketball, soccer, etc.. is not discrimination.
Could you maybe buy a dictionary?
>There are clear reasons why men cannot play sports in professional or
>amature womens leagues, the same for men marrying there brothers or other
>men.
"Marraige" is a government-recognized status. If the government owns a
professional of amature sporting team - and discriminates without a
compelling state interest - it is in violation of the United States
constitution. The state of Virginia recently had to come to terms with the
fact that it WAS in the business of discrimination on the basis of gender,
and had to stop.
Private organizations aren't governments and don't have to follow the same
rules.
Are you begining to grasp it yet? Doubtful. But, for everybody else, I'm
sure the reason why introducing "professional" or even "amature," private
sporting teams into a discussion on same-gender marriage is, at best, a
worthless strawman argument.
>: Just how blacks were under the same jim crow laws as everybody else.
>
>No they where not.
Yes they were. Idiot.
>There where special laws which discriminated against
>blacks.
There may have been (actually "were") a few laws that did discriminate,
flat out, against black people (I can't recall which but, one of the
southern states actually made it illegal for a black man to serve in
elected office... don't know if that was only for the state level
though) but the more usual (the "rule" as opposed to the "exception") was
that the laws TARGETED black people. It WAS most certainly a case where
the laws DID apply to EVERYBODY, it was how they were ENFORCED and who the
laws were overwhelmingly more likely to EFFECT that was the more common
feature.
>You wrote the 2 words above and followed it up with your own name. Is
>this some sort of mistake on your part ?
The mistake was in snipping out the gap between the two, even in a posting
where you pretend to be oh so above it all. Now that you misrepresentation
is done with, you can go back to pretending that you're above it all.
John
JTEM
Eric Seright-Payne <j...@wco.com> wrote:
>I had wondered the same thing, JTEM, then realized that Cliff might be
>new to the "information superhighway" and gotten lost in some of the
>past messages that have quotes quoting quotes quoting quotes.
Oh well, no sense in dwelling on the past. Hmmm...
Seeing how I did manage to get his attention, I mean, seeing how he
noticed me, can i ask you something? Is he cute?
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Bruce Garrett
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) specially...
JG> Homosexuals have equal rights.
Nearly half the states have laws that forbid homosexuals from
having sex with one another. No state has as yet been willing to allow
homosexuals to legally marry. Often children are taken from their
homosexual parents solely on the basis of that parent's sexual
orientation. Even a brain dead bigot like you has to know these things.
Clearly then, what you mean by homosexuals having equal rights, is that we
have all the rights you are willing to allow us to have equally, among
ourselves, but separately from you.
JG> What you want are special laws. You want more rights. You want to be
JG> able to go to someone and say: "Hey. I'm homosexual. You can't do to
JG> me what you do to anyone else, because I have sex with other men".
Grow a brain jackass. Special laws precisely what you want to
target homosexual people with. You want special laws that single us out
for special legal persecution. You want to be able to say to us, "yes we
can do to you what we don't do to anyone else because you have sex with
members of our own sex."
BTW flathead, lesbians are homosexuals too.
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ Behold, he climbs upon the mountians, skipping
upon the hills. My beloved is like a young stag...
-The Song of Solomon
Virk Shakeel
Yes. There is always compelling reasons to ban any immoral acts.
: >The same holds true for men marrying men.
:
: Not at all. I'd condem your logic but, quite frankly, there is none.
:
: Why is homosexual marriage not legal?
: Certainly not for the same reason
: that a man can't marry his sister. You don't see, I know, but there are
: two different reasons involved.
The point is simple. You have a problem with people marrying their
sisters, but you don't have a problem with men marrying men.
There both disgusting acts, but you seem to think one is okay. Therefore
you try to come up with reasons for why it is okay for men to marry men.
It is obvious you don't like this comparison. Yet you continuously try to
compare a man marrying a woman to a man marrying a man, as if it is the
same thing. It's not.
: This means that the one example does not
: justify the other.
Thanks you very much. One does not justify the other. Men marrying women
does not justify men marrying men.
: Again, you don't see but there is a reason for denying
: a man the right to marry his sister,
Your getting closer. There are reasons to prevent a man from marrying his
sister, makes sense. Now take it one step further...
: and that reason has been upheld as in
: the interest of the state. This is not, repeat, *NOT* the case with
: same-gender marriage.
Yes there is a clear difference. Not as big of a difference as man
marrying woman, compared to two men marrying each other, but there is a
difference.
Your almost there.
: There is no reason to deny same-gender marriage.
Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act, worse
then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
It is so immoral, and so disgusting and it in no way is benifical to
society. Participating in such activities will no doubt have determental
effects on ones health and soul.
To openly permit this in society, will no doubt have negative effects on
that society. There is no doubt that permitting this openly will have a
determental effect on society as a whole. And no, we don't need to
experience this to see if it will happen. You don't need to stick your
nose in a sewer to know it stinks.
Has any society which openly practiced homosexuality every survived ?
Look at the history, we find great civilizations in virtually all parts of
the world and none to my knowledge practiced homosexuality openly. Either
all societies in all parts of the world have always agreed it was wrong,
or any society which did decide to permit homosexuality openly quickly
became a society of the past.
History is clearly against you.
: Heterosexuals lose nothing.
On the surface heterosexuals lose nothing by permitting men to marry their
sisters, or even their dogs. But if these immoral acts are permitted the
society will suffer, and eventually everybody will suffer.
Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality that
has ever survived ?
Just one.
Shakeel Virk
JTEM
Eric Bohlman <eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
> A lying, worthless piece of shit, James Garner (da...@shell1.tiac.net)
>wrote:
>: Now, since you speak of honesty, I will ask the question again.
>: Why were they welcomed for such a long time there, and why did they
>: expect to be so welcomed?
>
>Why on earth do you think that the fact that they marched meant that they
>were generally welcomed?
Silly, it's just like how the veterans in Boston WELCOMED gay men and
lesbians with OPEN ARMS to the St. Patrick's day parade.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Fine if that's the way you see it. But we are talking about creating new
>"special laws", just for homosexuals, and this *is* what they are lookig
>for.
Let's take it *real* slow for you....
Not. Every. Marriage. Law. States. A. Gender. Requirement.
Is there any danger at all that you might grasp this? Not every marriage
law states a gender requirement. Get it?
We don't want "special laws" to be written. We don't need "special laws"
to be written. Many laws, right now, already do not exclude same-gender
marriages. The only way they could is if people *CHANGED* the laws. You
know, inacted *special* legislation, made "special laws," for the purpose
of excluding gay men and lesbians from marriage.
Under the U.S. constitution, a state has to recognize a legal contract
made in another state - including a marriage contract. That's how someone
in California can, oh, decide on a Las Vegas wedding. You probably didn't
know, Las Vegas is in Nevada and not California.
No special laws. No new laws.
John
Scott Carpenter
On 11 Apr 1997 20:48:17 GMT, 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel)
coughed up a hairball, then mumbled:
>Has any society which openly practiced homosexuality every survived ?
It's been a long time since anyone dragged out this choice little non
sequitur.
Has any civilization that practiced *anything* ever survived? I mean,
let's face it, kids. You can ask the same question (and it makes an
equal amount of sense) to ask "Has any society which openly practiced
christianity every survived ?" or "Has any society which openly
practiced the Jewish faith every survived ?" No, they're all gone,
therefore they didn't survive.
If you're trying to establish some kind of causal relationship, it's
much easier to link open homosexuality with the powerful, expanding
periods of Rome. Then those damned xians showed up, and everything
went to hell in a hand basket.
>Look at the history, we find great civilizations in virtually all parts of
>the world and none to my knowledge practiced homosexuality openly.
As if your knowledge was the end-all and be-all of history.
>Either
>all societies in all parts of the world have always agreed it was wrong,
>or any society which did decide to permit homosexuality openly quickly
>became a society of the past.
Not the case. See Roman civilization. Rome didn't start crumbling
till the xians showed up.
>History is clearly against you.
*You* are clearly against us. History is neither for or against
anything, it's just history.
>On the surface heterosexuals lose nothing by permitting men to marry their
>sisters, or even their dogs. But if these immoral acts are permitted the
>society will suffer, and eventually everybody will suffer.
Care to back this opinion up with some facts, Pookie?
>Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality that
>has ever survived ?
Give me an example of one society that has survived, period.
Scott Carpenter
On 12 Apr 1997 02:10:45 GMT, jt...@tiac.net (JTEM) coughed up a
hairball, then mumbled:
>We don't want "special laws" to be written. We don't need "special laws"
>to be written. Many laws, right now, already do not exclude same-gender
>marriages. The only way they could is if people *CHANGED* the laws. You
>know, inacted *special* legislation, made "special laws," for the purpose
>of excluding gay men and lesbians from marriage.
Oh hell, don't say that. The fundies will start bitching about the
special laws that are being passed right now for us, and what are we
bithing about? <sigh>
Rod Swift
3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) writes:
>The same holds true for men marrying men. It doesn't have to be spelled
>out in so many words, and upholding prevention of men marrying men in no
>way violates the Constitution.
Don't you know the 14th amendment?
Equal protection states that all people must be equally treated
before the law. Claiming that *ALL* men have the same rights,
and *ALL* women have the same rights, but those rights are
different is a case of SEPARATE BUT EQUAL -- which the Supreme
Court has found to be inherently unequal.
Simply put, equal protection means (for example) black people can
and should be able to do what white people can do. It also means
men should be able to do what women can do. Women can marry men.
Men cannot.
Equal protection has been violated.
Further, the US Constitution guarantees FREEDOM of RELIGION.
Some religions allow same-gender marriage, and have done so for
decades. The failure to sanction these marriages with access to
SECULAR marriage laws is religious discrimination and also
probably unequal protection.
Rod "...or don't you believe in your own constitution, and it's
guarantee of liberty and equality?" Swift :)
--
| ... ..... | Email: r...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t |The Christian Right is neither| * |
Rod Swift
3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) writes:
>Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act, worse
>then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
I never knew that the desire to roll around in dog crap was
possibly genetically-linked...
Rod "...ho ho ho!" Swift :)
JTEM
Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
>: Is there a compelling reason for the state to ban such marriages?
>
>Yes. There is always compelling reasons to ban any immoral acts.
So I guess you believe that Satan Worshipping is *NOT* an immoral act.
It's legal, it's protect by our laws and our consitution and, hey, it's
even tax exempt. To this you would add "Morally right."
I mean, that, or there something other than morality involved here. So,
pea brain, are you a liar, and it ain't simply about feeling concerning
morality, or is their a huge gaping hole in your argument?
>: Why is homosexual marriage not legal?
>: Certainly not for the same reason
>: that a man can't marry his sister.
>: You don't see, I know, but there are
>: two different reasons involved.
>
>The point is simple. You have a problem with people marrying their
>sisters, but you don't have a problem with men marrying men.
Apparently the point isn't quite as simple as it has been represented.
That is, seeing how you've completely missed it.
The courts found what they believe to be compelling reasons to ban
marriages between close relations, in this country. In Hawaii, the court
found no reason to ban same-sex marriage. None. On a purely religious
stance, sure, some people can claim that same-gender relationships are
immoral. But so what? Those some people, going by those same religious
beliefs, can claim that raising a child Jewish, or Moslem is also immoral
- as it is turning a childs back on Jesus. Doesn't matter, people's
ideas of morals really don't factor in. Satan worshipping? Definitely
Immoral! It's worshipping the very source of evil, the enemy of God.
Again, doesn't matter. Ideas on what is and is not moral, regardless of
how popular, just don't ever factor in.
What does factor in?
Whether or not something conflicts with the rights of another. Is stealing
illegal because it is viewed as immoral? No. It is viewed as immoral,
true, but it is illegeal because it denies the victim of his/her personal
property. I guess that's what people like you can't understand.
Homosexuality doesn't involve you. Nope. It's none of your business.
>There both disgusting acts,
There's nothing at all disgusting about homosexuality. Nothing.
>but you seem to think one is okay.
One of us has to do some thinking and, as you've proven that you can't, I
guess it had to be me.
>It is obvious you don't like this comparison.
You've got me wrong, I do like it. You're showing what an idiot you are
and I enjoy that. There were no parallels between the two and, as you
can't grasp that, it demonstrates how stupid you honestly are.
> Yet you continuously try to
>compare a man marrying a woman to a man marrying a man, as if it
>is the same thing. It's not.
But it is the same thing. Both do it for the same reason. Both have no
impact on you, do not involve you.
>: Again, you don't see but there is a reason for denying
>: a man the right to marry his sister,
>
>Your getting closer. There are reasons to prevent a man from marrying his
>sister, makes sense. Now take it one step further...
Two steps. There are two more steps to go, three in all.
1) There is a reason to deny a man the right to marry his sister.
2) It has been proven in a court of law that there is no reason to deny a
man the right to marry another man.
3) The two issues are not linked in any way. The reasons given for
banning the one could not be used to justify the banning of the other.
>: and that reason has been upheld as in
>: the interest of the state. This is not, repeat, *NOT* the case with
>: same-gender marriage.
>
>Yes there is a clear difference.
Duh.
>: There is no reason to deny same-gender marriage.
>
>Yes there is.
Not at all.
> Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act, worse
>then rooling around in dog crap.
I wouldn't know. I've never "rooled" (rolled?) around in dog crap. What
made you do it?
> And I am not exagerating.
Of the two, which do you have more experience with?
>It is so immoral, and so disgusting and it in no way is benifical to
>society.
Using your arguement, we must conclude that Satan worshipping IS moral and
IS a benefit to society.
>To openly permit this in society, will no doubt have negative effects on
>that society.
So when you're not too busy rolling around in dog shit, and openly
worshipping Satan, what do you do for fun?
>Has any society which openly practiced homosexuality every survived ?
Yes.
>Look at the history, we find great civilizations in virtually all parts
>of the world and none to my knowledge practiced homosexuality openly.
But you even say, "to my knowledge." Ignorance is not now and never will
be equal to evidence.
>History is clearly against you.
Actually, my -dog-shit-ralling-and-Satan-worshipping idiot, no it is not.
homosexuality WAS openly practiced in both ancient Greece and Rome. Um, in
case you didn't know (and, let's face it, you most like didn't), both
those civilizations lasted far longer than ours has been around.
>: Heterosexuals lose nothing.
>
>On the surface heterosexuals lose nothing by permitting men to marry
>their sisters, or even their dogs.
Actually, moron, the courts disagree with you complete on marraige between
brothers and sisters and, quite frankly, I don't view you as a better
authority than them.
As for marriage between a man and dog, well, any child could, after a
brief lesson on the facts, tell you how clearly (remeber that word?
Earlier you thought you knew what it meant and even used it) tell you that
you are wrong.
Marriage is a contract. A contract REQUIRES informed consent. If we did
away with informed consent, making it legal to marry a dog, then anyone in
society could be held to the terms of a contract though they clearly (see
my previous remarks) did not and could not consent.
A person could be gotten drunk, or drugged, only to then sign away their
wealth. As is, right now, such a contract could never be enforced. It
would be struck down by the courts. Why? Because a person can't give
consent when in such an incapacited state. Society would clearly (see
above) be harmed by your "right" to enter a contract with an
unconsenting other party. Though, the way you misunderstand things,
consent has nothing to do with contracts. See? This is why you are such a
moron.
>Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality
>that has ever survived ?
>
>Just one.
1) Define "society"
2) Define "survived"
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Rod Swift <r...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) writes:
>>Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act,
>>worse then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
>
>I never knew that the desire to roll around in dog crap was
>possibly genetically-linked...
The question I still want answered is, of the two, which one does he have
the most experience with?
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
John De Salvio
In article <5im82h$9...@knot.queensu.ca>, 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk
Shakeel) wrote:
> Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act, worse
> then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
YOUR COMMENTS are worse than rolling around in dog crap.
Your comment is your own perverted opinion, not based on any
civil law. Which, by the way, is what we are talking about.
NOT your vile opinion - which you are entitled to have. Everyone
is entitled to make a complete fool of him or herself without fear of
recrimination.
>
> It is so immoral, and so disgusting and it in no way is benifical to
> society. Participating in such activities will no doubt have determental
> effects on ones health and soul.
On WHOSE "health and soul"? You MUST demonstrate that is will
be provable to be uniquely detrimental to one's health, and you must NOT
debate the issue of one's soul in civil marriage. This debate is occurring
in a democratic republic, and YOUR religion has no say in it. Period.
>
> To openly permit this in society, will no doubt have negative effects on
> that society.
PROVE IT.
Demonstrate the COMPELLING REASON.
Just saying so doesn't cut it by a long shot.
> There is no doubt that permitting this openly will have a
> determental effect on society as a whole.
Obviously, since I and my millions of gay brothers and sisters are a part of
society as a whole, there is considerable doubt it will be detrimental.
> And no, we don't need to
> experience this to see if it will happen. You don't need to stick your
> nose in a sewer to know it stinks.
All you are doing is an emotional rant, having NOTHING to do with
civil law or fact. Keep your argument in your church, where we promise
not to demand that we get married there.
>
> Has any society which openly practiced homosexuality every survived ?
YES. All of them, until reasons having NOTHING to do with homosexuality
caused their downfalls.
>
> Look at the history, we find great civilizations in virtually all parts of
> the world and none to my knowledge practiced homosexuality openly.
Demonstrating vividly how little knowledge you have.
> Either
> all societies in all parts of the world have always agreed it was wrong,
PROVE it, motormouth. Cite the evidence for each society.
> or any society which did decide to permit homosexuality openly quickly
> became a society of the past.
PROVE it, motormouth. Cite the evidence for each society where
homosexuality was the principle cause for the downfall of that society.
> History is clearly against you.
In your mind only. Your knowledge of history is almost as bad as
your knowledge of human sexuality, which appears to be nil.
>
> : Heterosexuals lose nothing.
Heterosexuals lose nothing by allowing homosexuals to marry.
Show EVIDENCE to the contrary.
> On the surface heterosexuals lose nothing by permitting men to marry their
> sisters, or even their dogs. But if these immoral acts are permitted the
> society will suffer, and eventually everybody will suffer.
The stupidity of this argument has been demonstrated over and over
and over again, by all sorts of people considerably more intelligent and
rational than you.
> Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality that
> has ever survived ?
Any society not run by a religious despot that exists today. Forbidding
homosexuality is like forbidding trees. The only way to end homosexuality
is to end childbirth.
>
> Just one.
All the Scandinavian countries. All of Western Europe.
All of the Western Hemisphere. All of the Southern Hemisphere.
Need I go on?
Bruce Garrett
3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel)
>> There is no reason to deny same-gender marriage.
VS> Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act,
VS> worse then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
Animus. Have you read Evans V. Romer yet?
Once upon a time, sodomy was defined in some nations as having sex
with foreigners and members of certain ethnic and religious groups. Not so
coincidentally, they were also the suspect classes of those nations.
Prejudice has a way of acting to keep the outcast, outcast. But it's all
still nothing more then animus.
VS> It is so immoral, and so disgusting and it in no way is benifical to
VS> society.
Animus.
VS> To openly permit this in society, will no doubt have negative effects
VS> on that society.
Animus.
VS> There is no doubt that permitting this openly will have a determental
VS> effect on society as a whole.
Animus.
VS> You don't need to stick your nose in a sewer to know it stinks.
Animus.
VS> Has any society which openly practiced homosexuality every survived ?
Animus.
VS> But if these immoral acts are permitted the society will suffer, and
VS> eventually everybody will suffer.
Animus.
VS> Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality
VS> that has ever survived ?
Give me an example of one that didn't, that did. This is a bogus
argument, because no societies that were thriving at the beginning of
recorded human history are with us now.
Animus. It's all you have against us Virk. But then it's all you
probably have room for.
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ New Skywatcher story posted
Ward Stewart
r...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Rod Swift) wrote:
>3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) writes:
>>Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act, worse
>>then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
>I never knew that the desire to roll around in dog crap was
>possibly genetically-linked...
Not ROLL but ROOL -- an obscure derivation from the
Icelandic meaning (approximatly) the endless prolongation of
false and silly arguments --
ward
>Rod "...ho ho ho!" Swift :)
>--
>| ... ..... | Email: r...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au | ******* |
>| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
>| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
>| R o d S w i f t |The Christian Right is neither| * |
*************************************************
Considering the ten commandments we were informed as to the
truth according to BB>
"Bearing false witness has to do with presenting false
witness in a court of law against an accused."
"Remember the trial of Jesus where numerable false
witnesses arose agianst Him." (?)
Buddy Baudouin April '97
John Lawrence Rutledge
In article <5im82h$9...@knot.queensu.ca>,
Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Look at the history, we find great civilizations in virtually all parts of
>all societies in all parts of the world have always agreed it was wrong,
>became a society of the past.
>
You clearly don't know history. From Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd
edition, Worth Publishing: New York, 1987, page 225:
About a third of the societies included in the cross-
cultural samples totally forbid homosexuality, or
sexual orientation toward the same sex. ... In the
remaining societies, homosexual behavior is tolerated,
approved, and occasionally required.
You also might remember the ancient Greeks. The developed concepts
like math, democracy, philosophy and such. They were into pedastry.
In temples of Aphrodite, you could find male template prostitutes.
Many of the Cannanite fertility cults also had male template
prostitutes. The temple of Venus in Corinth was famous for being the
biggest sex temple during the time of Jesus. One could find many
male prostitutes there. Homosexuality was common in the Middle East
until Christianity and Islam wipe it out.
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| | "If only it were a modern document, with |
| John Lawrence Rutledge | a smart index and hyper links stretching |
| Research Assistant | all through the world data net. It was |
| Distributed Multimedia | terribly frustrating to flip back and |
| Systems Lab | forth between the pages and crude flat |
| Computer Science Department | illustrations that never even moved. Nor |
| UMass - Lowell | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins. |
| 1 University Ave. | It completely lacked a feel for sound. |
| Lowell, MA 01854 | "Most baffling of all was the problem |
| | new words... In normal text you'd only |
| | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the |
| jrut...@cs.uml.edu | definition would pop up just below." |
| http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg | from David Brin's _Earth_ |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
Virk Shakeel
Rod Swift (r...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
: 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) writes:
:
: >Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act, worse
: >then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
:
: possibly genetically-linked...
Neither has homosexuality been proven to be genetically-linked.
Yes I know there have been claims made. But no direct scientific evidence
has proven homosexuality is a genetic disorder.
Studies that did suggest this genetic-link have been criticized on several
points:
1) Misuse of statistical data.
2) Faliure to define the trait under study.
3) Bias in the selection of cases and controls.
4) Inadequate sample sizes.
No "homosexual-gene" has been found.
Why don't you wait until scientists actually prove this theory to be true,
before suggesting it ?
Shakeel Virk
Virk Shakeel
JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
: Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
:
: >JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
: >: Is there a compelling reason for the state to ban such marriages?
: >
: >Yes. There is always compelling reasons to ban any immoral acts.
:
: So I guess you believe that Satan Worshipping is *NOT* an immoral act.
Okay, I can admit when I make an error. I should have said all immoral acts
should be discouraged instead of banned. Thanks for pointing that out JTEM.
: I mean, that, or there something other than morality involved here. So,
: pea brain, are you a liar, and it ain't simply about feeling concerning
: morality, or is their a huge gaping hole in your argument?
Nope, just a minor error, and although you are rude, and extremely
uncivilized, I do appreciate it you pointing it out.
Although you might not believe this, I try very hard to be open-minded, and
say what I truly believe to be the truth. If you show me why my beliefs are
wrong, then I am always open to change them.
I don't want to judge you, but when I bring points foward that are against
what you believe you make personal attacks against me, rather then the
argument being presented. This suggests you are not very open-minded, but
maybe this observation is not correct.
: Apparently the point isn't quite as simple as it has been represented.
: That is, seeing how you've completely missed it.
No I understand the point, but simply disagree with it.
: > Yet you continuously try to
: >compare a man marrying a woman to a man marrying a man, as if it
: >is the same thing. It's not.
:
: But it is the same thing. Both do it for the same reason. Both have no
: impact on you, do not involve you.
Again you fell back from where you started. Men marrying there sisters has
no direct impact on me, and it also doesn't involve me. They might also get
married for the same reasons as men marrying men.
So your argument seems to fit both men marrying men, and men marrying there
sisters.
: >Your getting closer. There are reasons to prevent a man from marrying his
: >sister, makes sense. Now take it one step further...
:
: Two steps. There are two more steps to go, three in all.
:
: 1) There is a reason to deny a man the right to marry his sister.
Not good enough. Give me the reasons, and I bet they apply equally to men
marrying men.
: 2) It has been proven in a court of law that there is no reason to deny a
: man the right to marry another man.
So if it is proven in some other 'court of law' that there is reasons, you
will admit you are wrong ?
I doubt you will. So why put emphasis on the decision of one court and
ignore the rest ?
: 3) The two issues are not linked in any way. The reasons given for
: banning the one could not be used to justify the banning of the other.
You fail to give reasons for why men can't marry there brothers or sisters.
If you would give some you would see they apply equally to men marrying men.
Go ahead. Give 2 or 3, if that's too many then just give 1.
: I wouldn't know. I've never "rooled" (rolled?) around in dog crap. What
: made you do it?
Do you have to do it to know its disgusting ?
Weak logic to stay the least.
Shakeel Virk
JTEM
In article <33658ca9...@n3.idirect.com>,
>Perhaps you did not get my point.
>
>If all are gay, the birth rate on this planet will
>drop significantly. A lot of problem will be
>solved. Bah, Bah...
Actually, I doubt we'd see a significant drop - least not here in the west
were the birth rate can be (and, for the most part, is) contained by birth
control.
Gay people are socialized pretty much like everyone else. Just because
someone is gay is no reason to assume that they don't want a child or,
heck, a big family for that matter. Right now, straight people already do
have the option of only reproducing by choice, even as they enjoy an
active sex life. Not much would change.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
[Everything snipped, as it does not answer the REAL question]
>: 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) writes:
>: >Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act,
>: >worse then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
Come on, you've dragged this out long enough. Of the two you speak of,
which do you have the most experience with?
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
John De Salvio
In article <5irqf1$g...@knot.queensu.ca>, 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk
Shakeel) wrote:
> No "homosexual-gene" has been found.
Which, to you, then means no such gene exists?
>
> Why don't you wait until scientists actually prove this theory to be true,
> before suggesting it ?
Why don't you stop trying to flatten the earth?
Why don't you presume us innocent until proven guilty?
It's the American Way.
John A. Stanley
>: 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) writes:
>:
>: >Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act, worse
>: >then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
>: I never knew that the desire to roll around in dog crap was
>: possibly genetically-linked...
>
>Neither has homosexuality been proven to be genetically-linked.
>
>Yes I know there have been claims made. But no direct scientific evidence
>has proven homosexuality is a genetic disorder.
[...]
>Why don't you wait until scientists actually prove this theory to be true,
>before suggesting it ?
Why do you refer to homosexuality as a disorder when the scientific
and medical communities do not? You're hardly one to comment about
scientific accuracy.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
"Hey! You got your razor in my wager!"
JTEM
Virk Shakeel <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
>: So I guess you believe that Satan Worshipping is *NOT* an immoral act.
>
>Okay, I can admit when I make an error. I should have said all immoral acts
>should be discouraged instead of banned. Thanks for pointing that out JTEM.
Society has the right to discourage anything it damn well please - from
abortion to pre-martial sex. It does not have the right to
institutionalize a majority's beliefs within *OUR* government.
>Although you might not believe this, I try very hard to be open-minded,
>and say what I truly believe to be the truth. If you show me why my beliefs
>are wrong, then I am always open to change them.
Showing you why your beliefs are wrong is quite easy. You seem to think we
should all believe them as well. This is your error.
>I don't want to judge you, but when I bring points foward that are
>against what you believe you make personal attacks against me, rather
>then the argument being presented.
How do you think the average, hardline Catholic would feel if I went into
a Catholic newsgroup and attacked sex without birth control as immoral and
worse than rolling around in dog shit?
>This suggests you are not very open-minded, but
>maybe this observation is not correct.
Perhaps you should give *SERIOUS* thought as to 1) why you're here, 2)
exactly what you believe you might contribute that hasn't already been
said and refuted a thousand times before and 3) why your beliefs deserve
to be elevated into law while mine, for example, should be dismissed?
The point is, in a free society, the law must be equal. Human rights, to
exist at all, must belong to everybody. Anything less and they are not
rights but, rather, privileges that may be revoked at any time. These are
simple, in fact, *basic* concepts and yet you deny them.
Society has the right to look down on men that cheat on their wives. It
does not have the right to deny such men their vote. If voting is a right
then it belongs to all of us. Anything else, anything less, and it is not
a right but a privilege. Society can view homosexuality any damn way it
pleases. It can be uncomfortable around us, stare when it sees us holding
hands, but it can't take away or deny a right.
>Again you fell back from where you started. Men marrying there sisters
>has no direct impact on me, and it also doesn't involve me. They might
>also get married for the same reasons as men marrying men.
Again, the courts disagree with you. They claim to have found compelling
reasons for banning such marriages. If you would care to review any and
all challenges to such laws, if any, and argue that more recent
rulings/precidents would/could offer a chance for reversal then, by all
means, do so. Even then you'd be wasting your time. You see, we already
have a *SUCCESSFUL* challenge to the discrimination based on gender in the
marriage laws, were no such case exists for close relations. Either way,
you're comparing apples and oranges.
I might find it easier to take you seriously if you didn't run off on
these irrelevant asides.
>So your argument seems to fit both men marrying men, and men marrying
>there sisters.
Only because your opinion doesn't seem to involve reality. It's a fact
that the same-gender marriage ban HAS BEEN successfully challanged in a
court of law. In other words, the court found no compelling reason to
continue the ban. This is not the case with marriage between close
relations. The two issues are not linked. Well, only within your own
imagination. Stick with the facts, as they have and are occuring, not what
you believe makes sense to you personally.
>: 1) There is a reason to deny a man the right to marry his sister.
>
>Not good enough. Give me the reasons, and I bet they apply equally to
>men marrying men.
I'm not a defender/opponent of close relation marriage. It's not an issue
I care about. The courts in this nation did see a difference between the
two. Others, here, in this thread and others, have gone into detail on the
specific reasons for the courts feelings.
What you seem to be telling me is the two issues are linked, as far as
you're concerned, and they will remain that way unless I personally
educate you on the matter. Well, baby, sweetheart, I'm not going to
educate you on marriage between close relations. It's not my concern. And,
besides, you are the one that demands that there has to be a link so, by
all means, as the burden is on you, PROVE to us the two must be linked,
despite the fact that one has been successfully challenged while the other
has not.
>You fail to give reasons for why men can't marry there brothers or
>sisters. If you would give some you would see they apply equally to men
>marrying men.
You sound like a broken record.
>: I wouldn't know. I've never "rooled" (rolled?) around in dog crap. What
>: made you do it?
>
>Do you have to do it to know its disgusting ?
Don't start with the cheap revisionism. You made a value judgment. You
claimed that rolling around in dog crap was more disgusting than
homosexual sex. I want to know how you came about this conclusion, what
facts you based it on.
>Weak logic to stay the least.
You should have put this at the begining. You know, as a warning.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Tina L. Vaughn
Virk Shakeel wrote:
>
> Rod Swift (r...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
> : 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) writes:
> :
> : >Yes there is. Men sleeping with men is an outright disgusting act, worse
> : >then rooling around in dog crap. And I am not exagerating.
> :
> : I never knew that the desire to roll around in dog crap was
> : possibly genetically-linked...
>
> Neither has homosexuality been proven to be genetically-linked.
>
> Yes I know there have been claims made. But no direct scientific evidence
> has proven homosexuality is a genetic disorder.
>
> points:
>
> 1) Misuse of statistical data.
> 2) Faliure to define the trait under study.
> 3) Bias in the selection of cases and controls.
> 4) Inadequate sample sizes.
>
>
> before suggesting it ?
>
anything about anybody else or what it feels like to be anything, much
less, human!!!???
Lizard
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5F0416763DAB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Has any society which openly practiced homosexuality every survived ?
>
> Look at the history, we find great civilizations in virtually all parts of
> the world and none to my knowledge practiced homosexuality openly. Either
> all societies in all parts of the world have always agreed it was wrong,
> or any society which did decide to permit homosexuality openly quickly
> became a society of the past.
>
> History is clearly against you.
Um, I beg your pardon. Rome, the single greatest empire to exist in
civalization until America, allowed homosexuality.
> : Heterosexuals lose nothing.
>
> On the surface heterosexuals lose nothing by permitting men to marry their
> sisters, or even their dogs. But if these immoral acts are permitted the
> society will suffer, and eventually everybody will suffer.
Those acts are of dire biological danger. Why are you so bothered by a
couple of rump rangers surfing each other chocolate highways in the
privacy of their own home? Why is it that you would want to limit the
sanctifying union of two souls under the eyes of god to opposite sexes.
It's persons like you who selectively discriminate against homosexuals
using pseudo-intellectual arguements which alienate them from church,
community, and society, and place them outside the mainstream. Gays are
not freaks until people like you corner them into freakness. They are
not flaming queens until people like you corner them into flaming
queen-hood. If you accept that they have a different, perhaps
disagreeable, but different lifestyle, and move beyond that, I'm sure
you'll find many members of the gay commmunity who you can feel
comfortable calling "friend".
> Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality that
> has ever survived ?
>
> Just one.
Give me one example of a civilization which perished because
homosexuality caused social disintegration? Face the music, knob jockeys
have been with mankind as long as there have been organs which
facilitate sex.
Live and let live....
--------------5F0416763DAB
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="graphicsig.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="graphicsig.html"
Content-Base: "file:///C|/Program%20Files/Netscape/Na
vigator/Program/graphicsig.html"
<BASE HREF="file:///C|/Program Files/Netscape/Navigator/Program/graphicsig.html">
<html>
<body>
<p align=left>
<img align=right src="http://www2.coastalnet.com/~t7v3u3jv/images/Mozilla.gif">
<font face="Calli-No,Geneva, Helvetica">
The Lizard
<br>
<a href="http://www2.coastalnet.com/~t7v3u3jv/index.html">The Lizardrome</a>
<br>
<h5>
If you are lame enough to use Microsoft Internet Explorer, go to the
</h5>
<a href="http://www2.coastalnet.com/~t7v3u3jv/index2.html">wuss page</a>
<br>
</p>
</font>
--------------5F0416763DAB--
Ligand
Virk Shakeel wrote:
> =
> Neither has homosexuality been proven to be genetically-linked.
____________________________________________________
Here is some 'evidence':
(1) Homosexual behavior has been induced in Drosophilla by genetic
alteration.
Klemens F. Stoertkuhl et al, Science, 2/10/95, V.267, pp. 791-92, and
902-905 =
( http://www.gene.com/ae/WN/SU/bisexual_fruit_flies.html )
(2) A linkage between sexual orientation and genes has been discovered
(on Chromosome Xq28).
"Researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the University
of Colorado at Boulder, and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical
Research in Boston have reported new results that support and extend a
previous finding of a genetic link for sexual orientation in some men...
The current work examined a new set of selected families and showed that
male- male pairs of homosexual siblings had the same DNA markers for a
region of the X chromosome, (Xq28), more often than expected by chance.
The DNA sharing results, which were not significantly different from
those reported in a l993 study reported in Science, were confirmed by
showing that heterosexual brothers usually had different DNA markers
than their gay siblings"
Dean H. Hamer et al, Nature Genetics, Volume 11 November 1995 and D. H.
Hamer et al, Science (1993), 261, no. 5119, pp. 321=AD27
( http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cancernet/400032.html )
(3) Epidemiological studies have shown that brothers with the same
genetic mother are twice as likely to be homosexual. =
(4) Pathological studies of brain tissues in homosexual and heterosexual
men have revealed structural differences in the corpus callosum and
pineal gland. =
____________________________________________________
> Yes I know there have been claims made. But no direct scientific evide=
nce
> has proven homosexuality is a genetic disorder.
Wrong -- See the studies, else reword your second sentence.
FYI -- No medical or psychological group considers homosexuality to be a
disorder.
____________________________________________________
> Studies that did suggest this genetic-link have been criticized on seve=
ral
> points:
> =
> 1) Misuse of statistical data.
> 2) Faliure to define the trait under study.
> 3) Bias in the selection of cases and controls.
> 4) Inadequate sample sizes.
I assume that your points above comprise YOUR definition of what
compromises "direct scientific evidence"? You should give references
(to journal articles) if you are going to make such claims. Also, get
your house in order on points 1-4!
Point #1 is a misnomer -- Data are statistically analyzed, passing a
series of tests and prescribed confidence intervals. Are you alleging
improper statistical analysis? Point #2 is an oxymoron. Point #3 is
wrong -- Science and Nature are the two most prestigious scientific
journals in the WORLD (meaning highly scrutinized peer review). As for
Point #4, inadequate by whose definition?
____________________________________________________
> No "homosexual-gene" has been found.
See (1) and (2) above...
____________________________________________________
> Why don't you wait until scientists actually prove this theory to be tr=
ue,
> before suggesting it ?
By your above statement, you have revealed your ignorance of the
scientific process. A theory cannot ever be proven true, only untrue. =
There are many data which indicate a genetic linkage to homosexuality. =
This is not to say that it is inherited, but heritable -- there are both
genetic and environmental factors:
"...the growing understanding that the interaction of genes and
environment is much more complicated than the simple 'violence genes'
and 'intelligence genes' touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed
appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the
increased belief in genetics' effects on behavior. The same data that
show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of
non-genetic factors."
Mann C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689
Wayne E. Barlow
|> > Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality that
|> > has ever survived ?
|> >
|> > Just one.
The bonobo society in Zaire has been surviving just fine. Homosexuality
is used as a means of conflict resolution and stress relief. Please,
see Frans de Waal's _Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape_, California University
Press, 1997.
--
Regards, -- Standard Disclaimer
Wayne.
Ward Stewart
Lizard <t7v3...@coastalnet.comREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>Those acts are of dire biological danger. Why are you so bothered by a
>couple of rump rangers surfing each other chocolate highways in the
>privacy of their own home? Why is it that you would want to limit the
>sanctifying union of two souls under the eyes of god to opposite sexes.
>It's persons like you who selectively discriminate against homosexuals
>using pseudo-intellectual arguements which alienate them from church,
>community, and society, and place them outside the mainstream. Gays are
>not freaks until people like you corner them into freakness. They are
>not flaming queens until people like you corner them into flaming
>queen-hood. If you accept that they have a different, perhaps
>disagreeable, but different lifestyle, and move beyond that, I'm sure
>you'll find many members of the gay commmunity who you can feel
>comfortable calling "friend".
>
>> Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality that
>> has ever survived ?
>>
>> Just one.
>Give me one example of a civilization which perished because
>homosexuality caused social disintegration? Face the music, knob jockeys
>have been with mankind as long as there have been organs which
>facilitate sex.
>Live and let live....
Greatly inclined to agree--
However, that "rump-ranger' stuff was gratuitously offensive
and hardly germaine to your point -- carelessly hateful and
offensive.
As for the survival of societies which do or do not condone
homosexuality the evidence points to ALL societies as being
susceptible to time and history -- sex was the very least
of Rome's problems -- Christianity within and Huns without
did them in -
Perhaps the greatest of them all was Hadrian, Hadrian's wall
still divides britain and represents the absolute flowering
of Rome -- its moment of administrative and colonial apex.
Hadrian was accompanied everywhere by his lover Antinous --
he even had his picture stamped on the money minted in his
reign. This is the same Hadrian who build the most enduring
of all classical buildings -- the Pantheon -- STILL qorgeous
and virtually ibtact after nearly two millennia. His tomb
still stands in the middle of Rom and has been re-named the
Castel StAngelo, impressibe and still in use!
NOT the last gasp of dying civilization but it's
culmination.
ward
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I hope I live to see the day when we won't have any public
schools. The churches will have taken them over again and
Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
- Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979
Mark Evans
JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
:
: Gay people are socialized pretty much like everyone else. Just because
: someone is gay is no reason to assume that they don't want a child or,
: heck, a big family for that matter. Right now, straight people already do
: have the option of only reproducing by choice, even as they enjoy an
: active sex life. Not much would change.
The flip side of the coin is that just becuase someone is heterosexual
it should not be assumed that they want any children, marriage, monogamy,
etc. Just as there are "straight acting" gays it's quite likely that there
will be plenty of straight people who would prefer "gay" lifestyles,
etc.
Mark Evans
Wayne E. Barlow (w...@spiderman.unx.dec.com) wrote:
:
: |> > Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality that
: |> > has ever survived ?
: |> >
: |> > Just one.
: The bonobo society in Zaire has been surviving just fine. Homosexuality
: is used as a means of conflict resolution and stress relief. Please,
As is heterosexuality, as is incest, in these apes.
: see Frans de Waal's _Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape_, California University
: Press, 1997.
Mark Evans
John De Salvio (des...@monitor.net) wrote:
: In article <5irqf1$g...@knot.queensu.ca>, 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk
: Shakeel) wrote:
:
: > No "homosexual-gene" has been found.
:
: Which, to you, then means no such gene exists?
: >
: > Why don't you wait until scientists actually prove this theory to be true,
: > before suggesting it ?
:
: Why don't you stop trying to flatten the earth?
:
: Why don't you presume us innocent until proven guilty?
:
: It's the American Way.
Actually it isn't always the case, IMHO Americans should come
clean about their countries human rights record.
JTEM
Mark Evans <ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The flip side of the coin is that just becuase someone is heterosexual
>it should not be assumed that they want any children, marriage, monogamy,
>etc.
True, but what I was responding to was pretty much limited to
reproduction. I wasn't saying that "everybody wants to have kids" I was
saying "everybody THAT DOES want to have kids would still want to have
them."
>Just as there are "straight acting" gays it's quite likely that there
>will be plenty of straight people who would prefer "gay" lifestyles,
>etc.
1) There is no such thing as a "straight acting" homosexual, unless you
are refering to those that are actively seeking to conceal their
orientation. Oh. That's a fancy way of saying "lie." Though, clearly, the
term "straight acting" is often used by basket cases who, drowning in
internalized homophobia, desperately attempt to create a distinction
between themselves and all the people who are no less "gay" or "gay
acting" than themselves.
2) There is no such thing as a so-called "gay lifestyle."
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Paul J. Ready
?????? Something specific you are refering to ??????
For that matter, how does the one statement follow from the other?
Pretty much every stupid and bad thing the US government has
done on the human rights issue has made the evening news or
the history books. We have kicked the natives off their land
and butchered many of the tribes, we have slavery in our past,
and after that there were the Jim Crow laws. We rounded up
Asian-americans in WWII and put them in concentration camps.
Women struggled a long time for their rights, as have other
groups... and they continue to struggle. It's pretty much
a matter of public record, and things get cleaned up over the
years. At the start of the "rights" struggle we were at the
front of the pack, since then we have fallen behind some.
I say we have come clean, or as clean as anyone has, and
the dirty laundry is right out in the open.
There are another set of issues that we don't consider rights
here, at least not now. We still have the death penalty, some
call that a human rights violation, I don't. Personally I think
that all of the specific language in our laws should be generalized
and the whole thing could go in a few sweeping measures.
If you want to talk about things that various hicks do to people
do on their own, that's not a part of a country's human rights
record, that's simply crime, and another issue entirely.
(hicks here in a general sense, whether a white redneck in the midwest
or a black inner city gang member or some other degenerate doesn't matter)
Mark Evans
JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
:
: Mark Evans <ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:
:
: >Just as there are "straight acting" gays it's quite likely that there
: >will be plenty of straight people who would prefer "gay" lifestyles,
: >etc.
:
: 1) There is no such thing as a "straight acting" homosexual, unless you
: are refering to those that are actively seeking to conceal their
: orientation. Oh. That's a fancy way of saying "lie." Though, clearly, the
Here it is understood to mean monogamous cohabiting, and is used
in personal ads. YMMV
Conrad Sabatier
In article <5jn0ms$3...@leasion.demon.co.uk>,
Really? You mean, like:
SWM seeks SWF interested in pursuing the gay lifestyle?
--
Conrad Sabatier http://www.neosoft.com/~conrads
Xich Lo
JTEM wrote:
> 1) There is no such thing as a "straight acting" homosexual, unless you
> are refering to those that are actively seeking to conceal their
> orientation.
I'm am a very out gay man, but I don't flaunt my sexuality. It is not a
case of concealing it. It is a case of not needing to have it be the
single identity in my life. Being gay is only part of who I am. To me,
the term "straight acting" means non-flagrant. In the case of men, it
usually refers to more masculine men who, unless they actually told
somebody they were gay, would probably be perceived by their friends and
family as straight. There is NOTHING wrong with this. You seem to be
condemning people for who they are. I am not a flaming queen. Some gay
men are. That's fine. If that means I am "straight acting," that's
fine, too. It doesn't mean I'm trying to hide anything.
> 2) There is no such thing as a so-called "gay lifestyle."
Here I would exchange lifestyle with the word culture, because there is
indeed a gay culture, just as there is a straight culture, a white
culture, an African-American culture. What needs to be made clear is
that these cultural identities are only part of who any particular
individual is. A person can be gay, African-American and a Republican.
All of the things indicate cultural identities within one person. So
there is a gay culture.
JTEM
Mark Evans <ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JTEM (jt...@tiac.net) wrote:
>: 1) There is no such thing as a "straight acting" homosexual, unless
>: you are refering to those that are actively seeking to conceal their
>: orientation. Oh. That's a fancy way of saying "lie." Though, clearly,
>: the
>
>Here it is understood to mean monogamous cohabiting, and is used
>in personal ads. YMMV
Exactly my point. People who use the term "straight acting" are in fact
self-loathing queers that have bought, wholesale, into the stereotypes.
"It's not that the stereotypes are wrong, all these negative things
I've been brought up hearing about gay men & lesbians, it's that I'm an
*exception* to the rule."
John(thinking: We should be careful not to let the bodies of the
homophobes pile up TOO high in front of the wall. We need to save some
room for these self-hating, back-stabbing cowards)
JTEM
I'd like to take a moment to add my voice to the many that have already
complained about these frigging *E-MAIL* copies of usenet posting. I mean,
damn MAKE UP YOUR MIND! Do you want an e-mail reply or a usenet
discussion? Pick one. One.
Xich Lo <KALK...@aol.com> wrote:
>JTEM wrote:
>> 1) There is no such thing as a "straight acting" homosexual, unless
>> you are refering to those that are actively seeking to conceal their
>> orientation.
Okay, it's like this:
You're gonna get the short-n-sweet 'cus I already answered you in e-mail.
The fact is, you *CAN* *NOT* *HAVE* "straight acting," as opposed to
[something], unless there is a [something].
Did you catch that? Let me put it another way...
There is no reason to create a DISTINCTION ("straight" acting) *unless*
you need a DISTINCTION. Is this getting though to you?
YOU HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT THAT BUYS INTO ALL THE FRIGGING STEREOTYPES IN
ORDER TO FIND "STRAIGHT ACTING" THE LEAST BIT USEFUL.
Was that too subtle? You can't be "straight acting" unless, and this is
important, *unless* you are _not_ "gay acting."
Well, boobie, gay people are as different from each other as straights are
different from themselves. In fact, about the only thing *anybody* in
either group has in common, with someone else form the same group, now
hold on to your hat, is their ATTRACTIONS.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Hector
> >: 1) There is no such thing as a "straight acting" homosexual, unless
> >: you are refering to those that are actively seeking to conceal their
> >: the
> >
> >Here it is understood to mean monogamous cohabiting, and is used
> >in personal ads. YMMV
>
> Exactly my point. People who use the term "straight acting" are in fact
> self-loathing queers that have bought, wholesale, into the stereotypes.
>
> "It's not that the stereotypes are wrong, all these negative things
> I've been brought up hearing about gay men & lesbians, it's that I'm an
> *exception* to the rule."
>
> John(thinking: We should be careful not to let the bodies of the
> homophobes pile up TOO high in front of the wall. We need to save some
> room for these self-hating, back-stabbing cowards)
"Backstabbing"???? Hey, there's right where I'd put my finger on the
whole issue... this guy feels that if some gay individual decides to
keep his preferences to himself, for whatever personal reason, which I
thought he was allowed to do in America, he is not just 'self-loathing'
(how on earth does the writer know?), but somehow betraying *him*! Hey
buddy, whose damn life is it, anyway? It seems that some gays feel that
every other gay is their personal political property. Not just gays, by
the way: this is exactly where group politics has led us: if a black kid
studies hard in school, gets good grades, stays out of gangs, gets a
scholarship, a good job on merit and so on and on, whites have to stand
in line to hate him if they're so inclined... the other blacks are right
there first calling him a sellout! To me he's a human, doing and minding
his own business. Let him live -- He's not *yours*!!
I just *can't wait* to see who the he** argues against *this*...
Hector
-------------------------------------
Note: Return address is bogus as an anti-spam precaution.
E-mail received by invitation only.
---------------------------------
>
> --
> JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
----
Xich Lo
JTEM wrote:
>
> I'd like to take a moment to add my voice to the many that have already
> complained about these frigging *E-MAIL* copies of usenet posting. I mean,
> damn MAKE UP YOUR MIND! Do you want an e-mail reply or a usenet
> discussion? Pick one. One.
Geez. Chill out. I do that as a courtesy. I like getting the direct
email because I can't check the newsgroup every day. I post to the
newsgroup so that the discussion can remain public. It's not a big
deal. I've been doing this for over two years, and your's is the only
complaint I've ever had.
As for your response, do me a favor and stop calling me names. It's not
exactly condusive to civil discussion. Also, I think there's something
wrong with your caps lock.
As for your comments, yes all gay people are different from each other,
just as all heterosexual people are. But there are distinctions,
whether you like it or not. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having any
trouble getting equal rights. There is a gay culture, again whether you
like it or not. It is a more openly sexual culture than heterosexual
culture (and I'm not saying that's good or bad). It spends much more
time than the heterosexual culture in defining itself by its sexuality.
Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, and I'm not
buying into any or selling out to any media stereotypes.
Allen F. Bagwell
Original poster's identity lost....
>|> > Give me an example of one society that openly permitted homosexuality that
>|> > has ever survived ?
>|> >
>|> > Just one.
Oh, the United States and many other modern countries. I don't see
any evidence that they've ceased to exist.
Here's a tickler for you....
How many *extinct* societies that have ever permitted and promoted
heterosexuality are still around today?
Not one.
Allen Bagwell
Allen F. Bagwell
On 25 Apr 1997 02:17:11 GMT, jt...@tiac.net (JTEM) wrote:
>I'd like to take a moment to add my voice to the many that have already
>complained about these frigging *E-MAIL* copies of usenet posting. I mean,
>damn MAKE UP YOUR MIND! Do you want an e-mail reply or a usenet
>discussion? Pick one. One.
>
>
>Xich Lo <KALK...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>JTEM wrote:
>>> 1) There is no such thing as a "straight acting" homosexual, unless
>>> you are refering to those that are actively seeking to conceal their
>>> orientation.
>
>Okay, it's like this:
>
>You're gonna get the short-n-sweet 'cus I already answered you in e-mail.
>The fact is, you *CAN* *NOT* *HAVE* "straight acting," as opposed to
>[something], unless there is a [something].
>
>Did you catch that? Let me put it another way...
>
>There is no reason to create a DISTINCTION ("straight" acting) *unless*
>you need a DISTINCTION. Is this getting though to you?
But Xich and Mark haven't created any distinction. "Straight acting"
is a common cultual term of distinguishing a non-flamboyant homosexual
from a flamboyant one. The wording may be unfortunate and misleading,
in which case if you have a politically-correct alternative you're
more than welcome to suggest it and use it. But only a large amount
of people going along with that usage will bring about a cultural
shift in language.
>YOU HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT THAT BUYS INTO ALL THE FRIGGING STEREOTYPES IN
>ORDER TO FIND "STRAIGHT ACTING" THE LEAST BIT USEFUL.
Doubtful. The term is used glibly by many. More likely you have a
heightened sensitivity to the phrase.
>Was that too subtle? You can't be "straight acting" unless, and this is
>important, *unless* you are _not_ "gay acting."
Are you denying that there are gay people who affect behavior
generally only used by gay people with the purpose of calling
attention to their sexuality?
Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with this per se. I do,
however, think it is more to attract the attention of straight people
(thus earning the label "gay acting") than other gays, because it
isn't necessary for gays to act as such in order to identify one
another.
I personally find flamboyant gay people to be a bit boring, mostly
because I interpret my gay identity as simply a part of my life and
personality, critical to who I am but really no big deal. Why then
should I be so fascinated with someone who draws attention to it
*constantly* when I live with it every day of my life?
>Well, boobie, gay people are as different from each other as straights are
>different from themselves.
I whole-heartedly agree.
>In fact, about the only thing *anybody* in
>either group has in common, with someone else form the same group, now
>hold on to your hat, is their ATTRACTIONS.
Hold on to your hat... I can pee standing up just like any straight OR
gay man can.
Allen Bagwell
JTEM
Xich Lo <KALK...@aol.com> wrote:
>Geez. Chill out. I do that as a courtesy.
In what way/shape/form do you feel it is courteous?
>As for your comments, yes all gay people are different from each other,
>just as all heterosexual people are. But there are distinctions,
>whether you like it or not.
What are they?
> If there weren't, we wouldn't be having any
>trouble getting equal rights.
So are you a racist too? Or are you going to take a look at the long, hard
struggle for civil rights fought by black Americans and say it was
because... "Well, you know, they really ARE different."
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Hector <Stryga...@Chaos.org> wrote:
>"Backstabbing"????
Two more punctuation marks and you'd have to post from AOL.
>Hey, there's right where I'd put my finger on the
>whole issue...
But that's not going to stop you from missing it, now is it?
>this guy feels that if some gay individual decides to
>keep his preferences to himself,
Let's rest here for a moment, shall we?
The subject was "straight acting." Do you recall? That is what I was
responding to and, as you may be aware, you then responded to me. So,
putting it all together, we can plainly see that you were responding to my
response to "straight acting."
Can we all agree on the subject at hand? Good. 'Cus, you see, it would
appear that you somehow got the mistaken impression that straights tend to
"keep" their "preferences" to themselves. Well, baby, just what the fuck
have you been smoking? Straights don't do this, not ever. They are
*ALWAYS* more than happy to inflict their *sexual* *identity* on ANY
hapless passer-by without so much as a hint of hesitation or regret.
They'll tell you about their boyfriend or girlfriend, their husband or
their wife, who they think is attractive, who they "wouldn't fuck with
*your* dick*." My God, you just can't get these people to shut the fuck
up. Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap and, you guessed it, yap some
more. They're *constantly* shoving their sexuality in your face.
In fact, if there is one single trait that is distinctly "gay," or "gay
acting," it's keeping your sexuality to yourself.
>buddy, whose damn life is it, anyway? It seems that some gays feel that
>every other gay is their personal political property.
For those really slow readers:
You. Can't. Be. "straight acting." Unless. You. Are. Not. "Gay acting."
You. Can't. Use. Stereotypes. To. Identify. Yourself. Unless. You. See.
Some. Truth. In. The. Stereotypes.
The stereotypes are all quite homophobic. Quite. You'd have to be a
self-loathing queer to buy into them.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Allen F. Bagwell <abag...@ups.edu> wrote:
>But Xich and Mark haven't created any distinction. "Straight acting"
>is a common cultual term of distinguishing a non-flamboyant homosexual
>from a flamboyant one.
I find it difficult to believe that you couldn't recognize the inherent
racism in a sub-group of black man that desribed themselves as "white
acting," and even saw value in it.
"But all I mean is that I don't take drugs and I have a steady
job. It's a cultural term, nothing racist."
It's bullshit. There's something very, *very*, *VERY* wrong with the idea
of a gay man describing himself as, or in search of, a "straight" acting
queer.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Steve Kalbach
JTEM <jt...@tiac.net> wrote in article <5js061$4...@news-central.tiac.net>...
I would say that you are all right. The words "straight acting", for some,
could infer that those persons are still uncomfortable or are ashamed of
their sexuality. On the other hand, for others it identifies the qualities
in a partner, i.e.. BUTCH, they admire or they find attractive. It has
been my observation that both connotations are used in our culture.
Regards,
Steven E. Kalbach
Ward Stewart
jt...@tiac.net (JTEM) wrote:
>Xich Lo <KALK...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Geez. Chill out. I do that as a courtesy.
>In what way/shape/form do you feel it is courteous?
YOU are the one complaining so bitterly with all the cap
locks and flourishes -- what is so outrageously discourteous
that it invited such dudgeon?
I frequently miss stuff which is in the regular voluminous
posting and presume that others may do likewise -- if what I
have to say is something that I wish (perhaps out of
courtesy) the recipient to get I post it in e-mail as well.
SO WHAT?
ward
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Two are better than one; because they have a good reward
for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up
his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth;
for he hath not another
to help him up.
Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how
can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him,
two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not
quickly broken.
Ecclesiastes 4:9 (et seq.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nstn...@fox.nstn.ca
On 26 Apr 1997 jtem said:
>For those really slow readers:
>You. Can't. Be. "straight acting." Unless. You. Are. Not. "Gay
>acting."
>You. Can't. Use. Stereotypes. To. Identify. Yourself. Unless. You.
>See. Some. Truth. In. The. Stereotypes.
>The stereotypes are all quite homophobic. Quite. You'd have to be a
>self-loathing queer to buy into them.
I have to agree with you there. The term "straight acting" is meaningless
since there are significantly more heterosexual men who affect the
"flaming queen" mannerisms than there are gay men with those mannerisms.
While I have no problem with people who affect these mannerisms, it would
be inaccurate to say that these mannerisms are characteristic of gay men.
There is as much diversity in the gay community as in any other.
Peter Skaliks
Toronto, Ontario
`[1;36;40mNet-Tamer V 1.02.2 - Registered
JTEM
Steve Kalbach <xkal...@yhomemail.com> wrote:
>I would say that you are all right. The words "straight acting", for
>some,
"All."
>could infer that those persons are still uncomfortable or are ashamed of
>their sexuality.
They bought into the stereotypes, wholesale.
> On the other hand, for others it identifies the qualities
>in a partner, i.e.. BUTCH, they admire or they find attractive.
If you "Admire" *butch* then you say, "I'm looking for a butch guy." But
that's not what they say, now is it? "Butch" isn't what they admire,
value.
> It has been my observation that both connotations are used in our
>culture.
Of course, that's really only a point *if* you're sauing internalized
homophobia isn't also part of this supposed "culture."
John
JTEM
Ward Stewart <wste...@hi.net> wrote:
>YOU are the one complaining so bitterly with all the cap
>locks and flourishes -- what is so outrageously discourteous
>that it invited such dudgeon?
My biggest problem with it is that it's not always obvious when someone is
both posting & e-mailing responses. If I had known I would have merely
written back asking that he no longer do so. But I didn't know and, as a
result, responded to the exact. same. thing. twice.
Given the circumstances, I did & do prefer the *public* usenet exchange
over a private e-mail conversation.
>SO WHAT?
Like quite a few people around here, I get enough junk mail already. I
don't need an e-mail copy of an article, not ever. If it's something that
warrents a response then the article will get one. If it doesn't then,
well, e-mailing me a copy isn't going to suddenly make it more
interesting. It's not. Period.
If you seriously want a response *from* *me*, for whatever reason you've
got, then perhaps posting your comments/argument to usenet isn't the best
idea you could have come up with. I mean, if it's me you want to
debate/exchange ideas with, write me directly and don't post it. Why? 'Cus
I'm going to choose the public usenet exchange over the private e-mail
conversation every time.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Diedrich G. Kohl
In article <5ju3o5$7...@news-central.tiac.net>
JTEM <jt...@tiac.net> wrote
about CC'ing e-mail copies of Usenet reply posts:
>My biggest problem with it is that it's not always obvious when
>someone is both posting & e-mailing responses. [...]
I don't feel especially strongly about the issue, but you do have a
practical point, now that I think about it.
Most people don't send e-mail copies, so if I see something in my in-
box I tend to think it's a private message; sometimes it isn't clear
from the content that it's an automatically-generated copy. If I
recognize the subject as a newsgroup posting, that doesn't necessarily
distinguish it either, because typically people will use the same
subject title in a private e-mail about a newsgroup thread. If I
already happen to have seen the content as a newsgroup article, I know
which it is, but it's a toss-up which one I might encounter first.
OTOH, I guess some people do appreciate getting them -- probably
especially the ones who write "Please send e-mail replies because I
don't often get a chance to read the newsgroup"! (I don't have a lot
of sympathy for them, though -- like, how much trouble is it to check
a newsgroup for a while after you've posted something to see what
replies there are?! You have to dial up your ISP to check news, but
you don't to get your e-mail?)
While we're onto things that bug us, don't you hate it when you get
those stupid spam e-mails from "Mike" or "Barbara" with misleading
subjects that make you think they might possibly be a personal e-mail?
--Rick,
no CC sent
JTEM
Diedrich G. Kohl <dri...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>While we're onto things that bug us, don't you hate it when you get
>those stupid spam e-mails from "Mike" or "Barbara" with misleading
>subjects that make you think they might possibly be a personal e-mail?
You mean, do I dislike it even more than the usual spams? Yeah. Although
it's only rarely been the case where I just sort of flashed the name and
actually thought it was from someone I knew.
When I think about, what really bugs me about the folks that try to make
their spams look like personal e-mail is, well, they *must* know how the
average person feels about these spams. I mean, why else would they do it?
They know the average person doesn't like the spams, it pisses us off, so
they throw in a name, a bit of contrived friendliness and, well, and these
idiots think we'll suddenly enjoy these spams? In a very real sense, their
actions are telling us that they know spamming in ineffective and yet here
they are doing it.
John
Posted & e-mailed. Um, just kidding.
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Xich Lo
JTEM wrote:
> >As for your comments, yes all gay people are different from each other,
> >just as all heterosexual people are. But there are distinctions,
> >whether you like it or not.
>
> What are they?
Gay people, for one, generally have sex with people of their own
gender. Gosh, didn't you know that? That, in and of itself, makes a
gay perception of the world very different from the heterosexual
perception of the world. It puts a different spin on gay art, gay
music, gay writing, etc. That, in essence, means that there is a gay
culture, just as there is an African-American culture, an Asian culture,
etc. It all has to do with how people with a single common trait view
the world.
> > If there weren't, we wouldn't be having any
> >trouble getting equal rights.
>
> So are you a racist too? Or are you going to take a look at the long, hard
> struggle for civil rights fought by black Americans and say it was
> because... "Well, you know, they really ARE different."
In many ways African-Americans are different from caucasians, and in
many ways they are the same. There are many cultural differences
between the two, and that cannot be denied. I am NOT a racist and I am
completely incensed that you would try to make me sound like one.
You're trying to say that everyone is diverse, which is true. But there
are also undeniable similarities among most members of a single group.
It is often these similarities (blown out of proportion) that cause
stereotypes to form. I'm not saying stereotypes are a good thing, but
they almost always arise from a commonality within a group of people.
They are then exagerrated until they become uglier and uglier.
What I am saying in my comments that you attempted to twist into racism
is that if gays as a group were completely like everyone else in the
country, equal rights would not be an issue.
JTEM
Xich Lo <KALK...@aol.com> wrote:
>Gay people, for one, generally have sex with people of their own
>gender. Gosh, didn't you know that?
Gay people, just like straight people, generally have sex with those they
are attracted to. Gosh, didn't you know that?
Or, if you really must, we can break it up into smaller sub-groups. I
know, we can pigeonhole going by *WHO*, what type of person, they are
attracted towards.
We'll put everyone that has a thing for blonds, oh, over here. Those that
like tall? We'll put them over there. And, hey, everyone that's into...
> That, in and of itself, makes a
>gay perception of the world very different from the heterosexual
>perception of the world.
That they're both attracted towards SOME people and that attraction often
results in a desire for physical, sexual contact? Gosh, we really are
different.
>> So are you a racist too? Or are you going to take a look at the long,
>> hard struggle for civil rights fought by black Americans and say it was
>> because... "Well, you know, they really ARE different."
>
>In many ways African-Americans are different from caucasians, and in
>many ways they are the same. There are many cultural differences
>between the two, and that cannot be denied. I am NOT a racist and I am
>completely incensed that you would try to make me sound like one.
I didn't, you did. I took your argument and applied to along racial lines.
Now, there's either something wrong with your argument or you're a liar
who's feigning hurt at the sight of the racist implications of his own
argument.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JAMESELR1
I think I once read that homosexuality is natural if the species is
overpopulated. Has anyone else heard that? It has something to do with
propagation of the species? or survival or , i don't know! ;-)
J.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 13 Apr 1997 23:32:49 GMT, 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel)
said:
>Yes I know there have been claims made. But no direct scientific evidence
>has proven homosexuality is a genetic disorder.
Homosexuality, if it turns out to be linked genetically, does not make
it a disorder or disease. Eye color is genetically linked. As is
hair color, nose shape, body type, ad infinitum. I believe that a
tendency towards homosexuality is most likely genetically caused.
This tendency may or may not manifest...but when it does, it is a
normal variation of the human experience, not a disease.
It makes a lot of sense to me that homosexuality most likely has its
genetic background...just as does (most likely) heterosexuality. From
as far back as I can remember (that's to age 3), I have always been
attracted to those of the same sex as myself...and have always felt
very comfortable and normal about that.
Of course, some people still believe the old myth that men become gay,
due to a weak father and strong mother in early childhood. If true,
then one must also define heterosexuals as those who were raised with
a strong father and a weak mother! In other words: a hetero was not
loved enough by his mother, so he seeks that female approval by
chasing after women.
---
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://www.geocities.com/~ezekiel_k/
ejkr...@juno.com
Virk Shakeel
Ezekiel Krahlin (ChiefT...@Athenia.com) wrote:
: On 13 Apr 1997 23:32:49 GMT, 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel)
: said:
:
: >Yes I know there have been claims made. But no direct scientific evidence
: >has proven homosexuality is a genetic disorder.
:
: Homosexuality, if it turns out to be linked genetically, does not make
: it a disorder or disease. Eye color is genetically linked. As is
: hair color, nose shape, body type, ad infinitum.
I never said if something is genetically linked it must be a disorder.
I said no evidence exists to prove homosexuality is genetically linked.
If it is genetically linked then I would say it is a genetic disorder,
because it is harmful to society and the individual IMHO. That's just my
opinion so their is little use in arguing against it.
Fact is, there is no proof for a genetic link which causes to men to sleep
with each other.
: I believe that a
: tendency towards homosexuality is most likely genetically caused.
And I believe it is not genetically caused.
: It makes a lot of sense to me that homosexuality most likely has its
: genetic background...just as does (most likely) heterosexuality.
What about murderers ? Would you classify their behavior as genetically
linked ? Maybe they have a tendency to want to murder ?
How about robbers ? Maybe they have a tendency to steal ?
A tendency to want to do something, is far different then actually going
out and doing it. Individuals have a choice to do things, they might have
a greater tendency then others to do certain things, but the actions
cannot be blamed on their genes.
: From
: as far back as I can remember (that's to age 3), I have always been
: attracted to those of the same sex as myself...and have always felt
: very comfortable and normal about that.
So what ? Most of my friends are male, and have been ever since I can
remember. In fact boys best friends are more often then not boys, and
girls best friends are girls more often then not.
: Of course, some people still believe the old myth that men become gay,
: due to a weak father and strong mother in early childhood. If true,
: then one must also define heterosexuals as those who were raised with
: a strong father and a weak mother!
Homosexual behavior is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of
reasons, to seek personal vain desires might be one of these reasons.
Just as Murder is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of reasons.
Just as Smoking is an act, and is carried out for a variety of reasons.
Just as Swimming is an act, and is carried out for a variety of reasons.
Don't look for excuses to shift the responsibilty to genetics, lack of
father, etc.. etc..
Shakeel Virk
Mange Grrrl
Virk Shakeel (3s...@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote:
: If it is genetically linked then I would say it is a genetic disorder,
: because it is harmful to society and the individual IMHO. That's just my
: opinion so their is little use in arguing against it.
harmful to society how? it may be an opinion, but i would hope that you
base your opinions on some sort of logic or fact. otherwise, they could
be considered delusions.
**********************************************************************
Mange Grrrl, wa#435
ejo...@gl.umbc.edu
"it's a small world and it smells funny
i'd buy another if it wasn't for the money"
- The Sisters of Mercy, "Vision Thing"
**********************************************************************
Ward Stewart
3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) wrote:
With his usual grace and wisdom --
~If it is genetically linked then I would say it is a genetic
disorder,
~because it is harmful to society and the individual IMHO. That's
just my
~opinion so their is little use in arguing against it.
In other words YOUR unreasoning prejudices are sacrasanct, not to be
considered, never to be altered --
SNIP
~A tendency to want to do something, is far different then actually
going
~out and doing it. Individuals have a choice to do things, they might
have
~a greater tendency then others to do certain things, but the actions
~cannot be blamed on their genes.
In other words, so that you can continue to hold your odd notions of
what is and what is not right, so that YOU may sleep comfortabli *I*
must needs lead a celebate life. I must give up on the comforts and
human warmth of sexuality so that your delusions may be preserved.
No thank you!
snip
~Homosexual behavior is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of
~reasons, to seek personal vain desires might be one of these reasons.
~Just as Murder is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of
reasons.
Hardly fair to compare my 40 years of harmony with George to murder!
~Just as Smoking is an act, and is carried out for a variety of
reasons.
Smoking is, indeed, an act -- HOWEVER the particular chemistry which
determines that one person will become addicted and the next person
not is entirely another matter!
~Just as Swimming is an act, and is carried out for a variety of
reasons.
~Don't look for excuses to shift the responsibilty to genetics, lack
of
~father, etc.. etc..
I shift NOTHING -- I am proud, damned proud of what I have made of my
life, what we have made of our lives -- I am particularly proud of
myself when I consider that our excellent lives were led in the face
of a continual barrage of hatefulness and judgemental bull-shit from
the Shakeel Virks of the world.
ward
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Feminism "...encourages women to leave their husbands, kill
their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and
become lesbians."
-- Pat Robertson.
E. Paul Payne
Virk Shakeel wrote:
>
> Homosexual behavior is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of
> reasons, to seek personal vain desires might be one of these reasons.
>
> Just as Murder is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of reasons.
>
> Just as Smoking is an act, and is carried out for a variety of reasons.
>
> Just as Swimming is an act, and is carried out for a variety of reasons.
>
> Don't look for excuses to shift the responsibilty to genetics, lack of
> father, etc.. etc..
>
> Shakeel Virk
If you own a dictionary, you may want to look up the word,
"homosexuality." You will discover that it is NOT an act (a verb,) it is
a state of being (a noun.)
I have a friend who is a homosexual, yet he is a virgin. What reason do
you have for his state-of-being? Before you answer, remember that he has
not had sex yet, so you cannot comment on action.
--
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2068/
Mange Grrrl
Virk Shakeel (3s...@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote:
: Homosexual behavior is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of
: reasons, to seek personal vain desires might be one of these reasons.
and there are other reasons, and they are the same ones that apply to
carrying out heterosexual behavior. the main reason is that a person is
attracted to another person. any sexual behavior can range from an
expression of love and deep caring for another person to just a way of
getting off. in some instances, these sexual acts are wonderful and
positive and in other instances they can be harmful.
but that has nothing to do with the sexes of the people involved. it's
true for people of all orientations.
Randy Melton
3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) wrote:
[snip]
>Homosexual behavior is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of
>reasons, to seek personal vain desires might be one of these reasons.
>Just as Murder is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of reasons.
>Just as Smoking is an act, and is carried out for a variety of reasons.
>Just as Swimming is an act, and is carried out for a variety of reasons.
Just as posting a bigoted messages is an act, eh Shakeel? And I'm
sure you have a variety of reasons.
Randy Melton
Shakeel Virk
Mange Grrrl wrote:
>
> Virk Shakeel (3s...@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote:
>
> : Homosexual behavior is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of
> : reasons, to seek personal vain desires might be one of these reasons.
>
> carrying out heterosexual behavior.
Mange Grrrl, try to remember what I was replying too. I was stating
that homosexual behavior is not the direct result of genetics, it is a
choice which based on a variety of reasons. You apparently agree with
this and further add the reasons are the same as heterosexual behavior.
So I don't think we are disagreeing on the main point, which is
homosexual behavior is an active decision made by the individual, and is
not the direct result of genetics. ie. it is not the same as being born
with white skin or being born left handed.
Shakeel Virk
Audil Virk
E. Paul Payne wrote:
>
> Virk Shakeel wrote:
>
> >
> > Homosexual behavior is an act, and it is carried out for a variety of
> > reasons, to seek personal vain desires might be one of these reasons.
> If you own a dictionary, you may want to look up the word,
> "homosexuality." You will discover that it is NOT an act (a verb,) it is
> a state of being (a noun.)
If you want to re-read what I wrote you will find that I never used the
noun "homosexuality", I said and I quote "homosexual behavior".
"Homosexual behavior" is an act as I originally said, so don't be so
quick to tell me that I need a dictionary, when it is you who is not
reading very carefully.
And even if I did make that tiny error, which I didn't, why are you so
interested in pointing out these minor errors ? As long as you
understand what is being said, then you shouldn't place such great
emphasis on such minor points.
I think understanding the point being made is more important then
looking for minor errors, be it spelling, grammer, or even mistaking a
verb as a noun.
But remember that I did not even make the mistake, it was you who
misread. :)
Shakeel Virk
Mange Grrrl
Shakeel Virk (3s...@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote:
: Mange Grrrl, try to remember what I was replying too. I was stating
: that homosexual behavior is not the direct result of genetics, it is a
: choice which based on a variety of reasons. You apparently agree with
: this and further add the reasons are the same as heterosexual behavior.
: So I don't think we are disagreeing on the main point, which is
: homosexual behavior is an active decision made by the individual, and is
: not the direct result of genetics. ie. it is not the same as being born
: with white skin or being born left handed.
homosexual and heterosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice. the underlying
homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual ORIENTATION is NOT a choice. i do
not know for sure that it is genetic, though research is certainly
suggesting that it is at least partially genetic. but if it is not
genetic, that does not mean that it is a choice. there are other possible
determinants.
George M. Carter
Audil Virk <au...@aracnet.net> wrote:
>If you want to re-read what I wrote you will find that I never used the
>noun "homosexuality", I said and I quote "homosexual behavior".
>"Homosexual behavior" is an act as I originally said, so don't be so
>quick to tell me that I need a dictionary, when it is you who is not
>reading very carefully.
Having sex with someone of the same or opposite sex. One may choose to
or not. So what?
>I think understanding the point being made is more important then
>looking for minor errors, be it spelling, grammer, or even mistaking a
>verb as a noun.
What is the point?
George M. Carter
JTEM
Audil Virk <au...@aracnet.net> wrote:
>"Homosexual behavior" is an act as I originally said,
What act? Describe it please. Let us know what it is you're fantasizing
over.
>so don't be so quick to tell me that I need a dictionary, when it is you
>who is not reading very carefully.
This is rich. You refuse to tell us what you've dreamed up & labeled
"homosexual behavior," much less compared & contrasted it to "heterosexual
behavior" or "bisexual behavior" (I mean, damn, you'd think he could be
just a little more specific), and now you're claiming that the problem is
that other people just aren't reading you carefully enough? Jeeze,
shithead, seek help!
>I think understanding the point being made is more important then
>looking for minor errors, be it spelling, grammer, or even mistaking a
>verb as a noun.
Big picture. Are you ready? Here it comes...
You. Haven't. Done. Anything. But. Spew Cheap. Rhetoric.
No "minor" error, one whopping big mistake.
>But remember that I did not even make the mistake, it was you who
>misread. :)
I tells ya, this guy's a hoot.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Mange Grrrl <ejo...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>homosexual and heterosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice. the underlying
>homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual ORIENTATION is NOT a choice.
What I want to know is what this twit has in (for lack of a better word)
"mind" when he says "homosexual behavior," as well as how this so-called
behavior differs from, say, "heterosexual" or "bisexual" behavior.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
JTEM
Shakeel Virk <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>I was stating
>that homosexual behavior is not the direct result of genetics,
Desribe this "homosexual behavior." Point out how it differs from
"heterosexual behaviors" and "bisexual behaviors."
> it is a
>choice which based on a variety of reasons.
What is "it"? You've yet to tell us what you've worked yourself into a
lather fantasizing about.
>So I don't think we are disagreeing on the main point, which is
>homosexual behavior is an active decision made by the individual,
You've yet to define this "homosexual behavior," let alone compare &
contrast it to "heterosexual behavior" or "bisexual bevahior," so how can
anyone agree or disagree with you?
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 15:32:15 +0000, Xich Lo <KALK...@aol.com> said:
>JTEM wrote:
>
>> 1) There is no such thing as a "straight acting" homosexual, unless you
>> are refering to those that are actively seeking to conceal their
>> orientation.
>
>I'm am a very out gay man, but I don't flaunt my sexuality. It is not a
>case of concealing it. It is a case of not needing to have it be the
>single identity in my life. Being gay is only part of who I am. To me,
>the term "straight acting" means non-flagrant.
Many straights are extremely flagrant about their sexuality...they'll
even go so far as to bash and mutilatie another male that is presumed
to be homosexual, just to "prove" how masculine, i.e. "straight
acting" they are!
So "straight acting" implies a very vigilante effort to establish
oneself as a pussy-fucker par excellence. He is constantly strutting
about lke the cock 'o the walk, with all sorts of flagrant behavior
that identifies himself as unquestionably heterosexual.
Perhaps "normal acting" or "male acting" is a better term than
"straight acting". After all, what picture comes to your mind over
the term "gay acting"? If an effeminate male does, then you are
stereotyping. You are accepting a definition of "straight acting"
that is a stereotype: assuming "straight" is equivalent with "normal"
and "unobtrusive". So, by that definition, straight people have a
monopoly on behavior that is classified as normal, preferable, and a
measure of acceptable etiquette, by which to compare all others.
Ergo, "gay acting" is extreme, not preferred, and a gross breach of
social etiquette.
Even the word "straight" is offensive to gays, for the opposite of
"straight" is "crooked". (Of course, the opposite of "gay" is "sad",
and that's how most straights are, anyway: sad cases.)
---
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!