Faggot rights
Rev. Cactus Pete
Hey Nicki,
Let's see, you've cross posted this to 45 different newsgroups, the vast
majority of which deal with subject matter that has nothing to do with
your ridiculous message.
Thanks for demonstrating so much better than we EVER could, and to such
a vast audience, what an inconsequential and warped little pissant you
are. You've just done more to advance tolerance for homosexuals than
the best PR man EVER could dream up!!
Please keep up your rantings and I'll nominate you for GLAAD's "Man of
the Year" award!
Dolf
Nicholas Santoro,
What sort of 'abomination of desolation' are you to claim to represent at
God and wish upon others destruction? Let's stop pretending shall we?
When the early Christian disciplines desired 'destruction' upon the
Samaritans (who were poorly regarded amongst the Jews) they were rebuked by
Jesus as having an unholy spirit.
"And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou
that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as
Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of." [Luke 9:54-55]
Whilst I can understand that you have an obsessive hatred towards
homosexuals in general you may care to look at a greater sin and that is the
'inhumanity of humanity towards humanity' that many Christians seem to
possess in abundance.
"Neither hath Samaria [referred here to as Sodom] committed half of thy
sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast
justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done. Thou
also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that
thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than
thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast
justified thy sisters. " [Ezekiel.16.51-52]
Do I need to make it any plainer dude? Your hypocrisy is our righteousness.
And the Lord himself shall deal with you when your cup is full.
"For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even deal with thee as thou hast done,
which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant."
[Ezekiel 16.59]
Dolf Boek
janet wrote in message ...
>In article <348F24...@tci.net>, Nicholas Santoro <wise...@tci.net>
>writes
>>Ill make this short and weet!!!! Faggots and other purveyers of
>>homosexual filth have 2 rights and 2 rights only!!! GRIDS and HELL!
>>Psalm 5:5 tell is all
>
>
>Can I suggest a little look at Luke 6, 36-42?
>--
>janet
>
>Time bears away all things, even the mind....
> Virgil
Tom Goodman
>Nicholas Santoro,
>
>What sort of 'abomination of desolation' are you to claim to represent at
>God and wish upon others destruction? Let's stop pretending shall we?
>
>When the early Christian disciplines desired 'destruction' upon the
>Samaritans (who were poorly regarded amongst the Jews) they were rebuked by
>Jesus as having an unholy spirit.
>
>Dolf Boek
Dolf, you know nothing about the true meanings of God's words. You're
a self-righteous faggot supporter, who likes to point finger at those
who condemned faggotism. You pretend not have any hatred, but actually
you're the one with real hate, the hate that's disguised like wolf in
sheep skin. Leave the devil's side, and repent for your man-made
intrepretations of the Bible. You have fallen into satan's trap.
Listen to God's words, " 1John:2:15: Love not the world, neither the
things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of
the Father is not in him." That means if you love the fags, you will
go to hell with them. Read what follows 1John2:15, which quoted below
for your learning. May God have mercy on your soul.
Proverbs 28:23 He who rebukes a man will in the end gain more favor
than he who has a flattering tongue.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance
of eternal fire.
8 ?Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise
dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these,
saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 ?To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are
ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly
committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have
spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts;
and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in
admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of
the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken
before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time,
who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the
Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,
praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our
Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating
even the garment spotted by the flesh.
1John:2:15: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in
him.
1John:2:16: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and
the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but
is of the world.
1John:2:17: And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he
that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
1John:2:18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard
that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists;
whereby we know that it is the last time.
Dolf
Tom Goodman wrote:
>
>>Nicholas Santoro,
>>
>>What sort of 'abomination of desolation' are you to claim to represent at
>>God and wish upon others destruction? Let's stop pretending shall we?
>>
>>When the early Christian disciplines desired 'destruction' upon the
>>Samaritans (who were poorly regarded amongst the Jews) they were rebuked
by
>>Jesus as having an unholy spirit.
>>
>
>>Dolf Boek
>
>Dolf, you know nothing about the true meanings of God's words. You're
>a self-righteous faggot supporter, who likes to point finger at those
>who condemned faggotism.
Actually I am a Christian who tires of the hatred the other Christians
masquade as love and indifference towards others including gays, lesbians
and women.
The gospel that they purport to represent is irreconcilable with their
expressions of hatred and judgement of others. As my original post
indicated, the disciples were rebuked for expressing this same sentiment
towards the Samaritians.
Think carefully about what you are saying, people who claim to be Christians
condemning (judging and executing sentence) others--That seems to be a
contradiction in terms. The only judgement a Christian is called to do is
to discern the needs of others. To treat others as you would yourself.
Its seems the Christian church is fast becoming the Sodom of today:
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert
cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and
increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou
art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:" [Revelation
3:15-17]
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread,
and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she
strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
[Ezekiel 16:50]
> You pretend not have any hatred, but actually
>you're the one with real hate, the hate that's disguised like wolf in
>sheep skin. Leave the devil's side, and repent for your man-made
>intrepretations of the Bible. You have fallen into satan's trap.
>Listen to God's words, " 1John:2:15: Love not the world, neither the
>things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of
>the Father is not in him." That means if you love the fags, you will
>go to hell with them. Read what follows 1John2:15, which quoted below
>for your learning. May God have mercy on your soul.
>
Actually here again you are in error. Do I need to point out that
historically the church is representative of the Babylonian harlot. The
church seems to have illicit relations with the politicians and business
community of the day. The babylonian harlot is the great pretender--kinda
like the Christian version of a drag queen.
"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is
fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of
every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all
nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the
kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of
the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
[Revelation 18:2-3]
There are no exceptions to God's love and that includes gays and lesbians.
Your cup is nearly full.
Dolf Boek
Robert Schroeder
Tom Goodman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:37:20 +1100, "Dolf"
> <no-...@dolf.netlink.com.au> wrote:
>
> >There are no exceptions to God's love and that includes gays and lesbians.
> >
> >Your cup is nearly full.
> >
> >Dolf Boek
>
> many people proclaiming to be Christian but don't believe and follow
> God's words and laws. You and others who called themselves "Christian"
> but are going against God.
Matthew 22:35-40
And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him. "Teacher,
which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "You
shall love the your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and
with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. And the
second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these
two commandments deptond the whole law and the Prophets>"
Therefore, by proclaiming tolerance and love for one another,
"Christians " (as you put it) are doing as God commanded.
God know you not ! You and them are talking
> about love this and love that, but have you really believed and
> followed God's words ?
I Corinthians 13:1-10
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love,
I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift
of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have
faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. And
if I give all my possessions to feed the poor and if I deliver my body
to be burned but do not have love, it profits me none. Love is patient,
love is kind, and is not jealous, love does not brag and is not
arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not
provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice
in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.....let's read that
again....Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous, LOVE DOES
NOT BRAG AND IS NOT ARROGANT, DOES NOT ACT UNBECOMINGLY; IT DOES NOT
SEEK ITS OWN, IS NOT PROVOKED, DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A WRONG
SUFFERED, DOES NOT REJOICE IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, but rejoices in the
truth....Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things,
endures all things, Love Never fails; but if there are gifts of
prophecy, they will be done away; it there are tongues, they will cease,
if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part, and
we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will be
done away.
Have you even bother to read the Bible(God's
> words) not in skipped verses but its entirety ? If you did, you should
> had shown the correct mentality of a true Christian. I will quote few
> Bible verses to lead you and others who pretend to be Christians to
> the right path. Don't argue with the Bible, either believe it or not.
> If you don't believe the following verses, then please stop calling
> yourself Christian.
>
<"God is sending you to hell" verses snipped and replace with>
Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor
height, nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate
us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
I'm sorry Tom, I have to believe that it is you that has failed to read
the Bible in the proper context. Apparently, you seek out any verse
that points to eternal damnation, when in fact, most of the Bible is
full of "Rejoice" and "God loves you just as you are" scriptures.
Before you start judging people, you really should judge yourself.
Robert
Tom Goodman
>There are no exceptions to God's love and that includes gays and lesbians.
>
>Your cup is nearly full.
>
>Dolf Boek
Ok, here I have to do it all over again. I really don't know why so
many people proclaiming to be Christian but don't believe and follow
God's words and laws. You and others who called themselves "Christian"
but are going against God. God know you not ! You and them are talking
about love this and love that, but have you really believed and
followed God's words ? Have you even bother to read the Bible(God's
words) not in skipped verses but its entirety ? If you did, you should
had shown the correct mentality of a true Christian. I will quote few
Bible verses to lead you and others who pretend to be Christians to
the right path. Don't argue with the Bible, either believe it or not.
If you don't believe the following verses, then please stop calling
yourself Christian.
Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is
evil; cleave to that which is good.
1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in
him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust
of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of
the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that
doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through
the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are
not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors
of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in
them that do them.
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will
be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by
anointing you
Psalms 1:1 ?Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the
ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat
of the scornful.
Dolf
You've made some excellent points Tom Goodman (that is your real name isn't
it?) and I'd like to clarify:
>Ok, here I have to do it all over again. I really don't know why so
>many people proclaiming to be Christian but don't believe and follow
>God's words and laws. You and others who called themselves "Christian"
>but are going against God. God know you not ! You and them are talking
>about love this and love that, but have you really believed and
>followed God's words ?
I might ask you whether you apply those principles to yourself? Which laws
do you refer to, the 10 commandments perhaps? Well, I'm not sure where you
get your definition of sin from, perhaps you are making it up.
And if you do use the 10 commandments as the basis of your definition, then
realise there is no inclusion of homosexuality as a specific sin. But oh
while we are on the topic of adherence to God's words and laws I'd like to
remind you of the 4th commandment:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and
do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in
it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." [Exodus 20.8-11]
Now by some strange human rationalisation and logic you are going to tell me
that the Jewish Sabbath is Saturday and Christian Sabbath is Sunday. End of
story.
But I would ask you that if God no longer requires his faithful to observe
or esteem any particular day about another, that it is entirely upto us as
to which day we choose as our customary behaviour, why can we not expect the
same as to which external biological disposition we might choose to have a
sexual and loving relationship with.
Are you telling me that God demands absolute compliance on one and not the
other?
Anyways Tom, stop being so afraid that you are part woman.
> Have you even bother to read the Bible(God's
>words) not in skipped verses but its entirety ? If you did, you should
>had shown the correct mentality of a true Christian. I will quote few
>Bible verses to lead you and others who pretend to be Christians to
>the right path. Don't argue with the Bible, either believe it or not.
>If you don't believe the following verses, then please stop calling
>yourself Christian.
As a Christian I find it hard to following your logic in condeming those who
might selectively present bible versions and do the very thing yourself.
Its a tad inconsistent Tom.
Perhaps the issue here is your representation of scripture. You speak the
language of the gospel, but there is an absence of love being the primary
fruit of the Spirit.
I'm sure some would find such a view as yours enticing:
"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn
away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive
silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and
never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." [2Tim.3.5-7]
Your cup is nearly full
Dolf
Christopher W. Chase
Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote in article
<3496d969...@news.comnet.ca>...
> Ok, here I have to do it all over again. I really don't know why so
> many people proclaiming to be Christian but don't believe and follow
> God's words and laws.
All right, I can buy this.
1) But what relevance does this have for people
of other religions, like Islam, and Buddhism? Does a Muslim not
follow God's Laws?
2) What relevance does Christian doctrine have for our
secular institutions like Marriage, Civil Rights, and the like?
In a country that proclaims to treat all equally and respectfully,
it seems unfair to make policy for people of all religions and
creeds based on Christian doctrine.
3) And what relevance does this have for Lesbigays, who
are working for greater fairness from our societal institutions?
Although many Lesbigays are Christian, many are not, and again,
it seems unfair to make policy for all citizens using Christian doctrine.
> If you don't believe the following verses, then please stop calling
> yourself Christian.
And who are you to make policy regarding what is and what is not
religious belief? Do you feel the same way about social and political
policy? Do you get to be the political standard by which all are judged?
Why?
---
Christopher W. Chase
heresy.at.mailexcite.com
Tom Goodman
On 16 Dec 1997 04:43:52 GMT, "Christopher W. Chase"
<Cat...@Heresy.com> wrote:
>Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote in article
><3496d969...@news.comnet.ca>...
>
>> Ok, here I have to do it all over again. I really don't know why so
>> many people proclaiming to be Christian but don't believe and follow
>> God's words and laws.
>
>All right, I can buy this.
>
>1) But what relevance does this have for people
>of other religions, like Islam, and Buddhism? Does a Muslim not
>follow God's Laws?
What is your point ? What do these religions have to do with the
discussion ? Do you mean these religions have their own rights too ?
They do, at least in USA. Don't forget USA was originally a Christian
state, at least that's what it proclaimed. Didn't US allow these
religions to exist in the country, although these religions are evil
according to Biblical doctrines ?
>
>2) What relevance does Christian doctrine have for our
>secular institutions like Marriage, Civil Rights, and the like?
>In a country that proclaims to treat all equally and respectfully,
>it seems unfair to make policy for people of all religions and
>creeds based on Christian doctrine.
Marriage was originally a bond between a man and a woman, blessed by
God who is the creator of them. Humans have perverted marriage into a
man-made novelty, and now it has become more perverted by allowing
same sex marriage. How about a human marrying an animal, or 3 or more
people marriage, or children marrying parents ?
How much more perverted you evils will become.
Civil rights are human rights, but do not give any human the rights to
anything absurd. Should heroin be freely and legally available to the
public under civil rights ? Should pedophile be allowed to have sex
with 5 year-old children if the children consent to the that ? If you
say a 5 year-old is not mature enough to judge on his own, then what
makes you think he shouldn't have his civil rights ? If you say the 5
year-old should be allowed to have sex with a pedophile if he consents
to it, then would you allow your boy child(let's say you have one) to
do that ? Well, would you ?
Laws in US are just like laws in most other countries , their laws are
based on common sense and reasoning, nothing to do with religion. The
illegalizations of hearing, pedophilia, drug trafficking, drunk
driving, child abuse, and etc. have nothing to do with religions, they
are illegalized because of reasoning and common sense. Go to any
country without any religious influences you'd still find very much
the same laws there.
>3) And what relevance does this have for Lesbigays, who
>are working for greater fairness from our societal institutions?
>Although many Lesbigays are Christian, many are not, and again,
>it seems unfair to make policy for all citizens using Christian doctrine.
No true Christian is involved in any sexual perversions. It is clearly
stated in the Christian bible that homosexuality is evil. Those who
are into homosexuality are no Christians, like no criminals are
innocent.
So according to your way of thinking, the heroin users should have
their human rights to use as much heroin as they wish. Why should the
government control this substance and their civil rights ? Shouldn't
they be considered as minority ? Shouldn't they have their own
organization to fight for their human rights ??? Why should they be
jailed for having the substance ?
And the same goes for the pedophile, shouldn't they have their human
or civil rights to have sex with any child they wanted as long as the
child consents to it, without the child's parents consent ?
Think over the above, see if you can come to your sense.
Dolf
Tom, you mentioned that the inclusion of other religions is not irrelevent
to the topic at hand. I think you are just being your usual dismissive
self.
As for the inclusion of paedophilia, beastiality and heroin into the
argument of same sex marriages, I don't think anyone is asking for them to
be included, I certainly can't see the connection in your assumptive
diatribe. Its strange that you should speak against the inclusion and
irrelevancy and do the same yourself. Perhaps it suits your purpose not to
address the issue with clarity, consistency and consistency. Your God is a
God of reason isn't she?
Make no mistake Tom, gender and sexuality is inclusive of all humanity and
Christianity and other religions are not. I could think of no better
universal test for the regard that humanity has for one another than on the
question of gender and sexuality. There is a storm coming and many perceive
it not.
dg/mg
>What is your point ? What do these religions have to do with the
>discussion ? Do you mean these religions have their own rights too ?
>They do, at least in USA. Don't forget USA was originally a Christian
>state, at least that's what it proclaimed. Didn't US allow these
>religions to exist in the country, although these religions are evil
>according to Biblical doctrines ?
Last time I checked my history books, there was one document upon
which all our laws are based and tested. That document is not the
Bible, and its not the 10 Commandments. It's called the Constitution
of the United States. Funny thing is that I can't find any
declaration that the United States is or was intended to be a
Christian Nation. Christianity certainly was not the only religion
in the world and I doubt seriously that our founding fathers were
unaware of that fact.
They did however, write this little passage into the Bill of Rights.
First Ammendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
How do you explain the lack of such a declaration in the document that
outlines purpose and supreme law of the land?
Oh, I'll grant you that the majority of the people that were here in
1776 called themselves Christians. But you need to understand that
religious tolerance was what this country was founded on, not
Christianity. When you get right down to it, the majority of people
who came to the New World did not come here for religious reasons.
They came for socio-economic reasons. Those that did flee religious
persecution came here so that they could worship as they pleased, not
so they could build a nation based on their religious beliefs. These
people seemed sensible in that respect. After all, what good is
religious freedom if it isn't extended to all citizens?
>Marriage was originally a bond between a man and a woman, blessed by
>God who is the creator of them.
Marriage as it existed originally is neither here nor there. You show
your failings as a history buff in that sentence. All societies,
including those that existed without the "benefits" of your particular
religious beliefs, had various systems of marriage.
> Humans have perverted marriage into a
>man-made novelty, and now it has become more perverted by allowing
>same sex marriage. How about a human marrying an animal, or 3 or more
>people marriage, or children marrying parents ?
I daresay that interspecies marriage is a non issue. When the animals
are able to present their case for marriage, I'll be more than happy
to listen.
On the other hand, there are numerous examples of men having many
wives in the Old Testament, and they did so with God's blessing.
I guess he changed his mind?
>How much more perverted you evils will become.
You don't have the knack for melodrama, so why don't you leave it to
people qualified.
>Civil rights are human rights, but do not give any human the rights to
>anything absurd.
Oh really? Would I not be perfectly within my rights as a citizen to
start a religion that said we could only where plaids and stripes and
worship a large iceberg lettuce by making dogs jump for bits of
pickled pig's brains?
Pretty absurd, huh? But I have every right to do so if I choose and
if other's wanted to follow me in my absurdity, they could.
>Should heroin be freely and legally available to the
>public under civil rights ?
Yes it should as a matter of fact. A person has the right to live
their life as they see fit. It is not my life and I haven't the right
to tell them that they can't waste it (and that waste is purely
subjective).
> Should pedophile be allowed to have sex
>with 5 year-old children if the children consent to the that ? If you
>say a 5 year-old is not mature enough to judge on his own, then what
>makes you think he shouldn't have his civil rights ?
Simple human developmental psychology and a red herring.
>Laws in US are just like laws in most other countries , their laws are
>based on common sense and reasoning, nothing to do with religion.
Oh really? How about blue laws?
The
>illegalizations of hearing, pedophilia, drug trafficking, drunk
>driving, child abuse, and etc. have nothing to do with religions, they
>are illegalized because of reasoning and common sense. Go to any
>country without any religious influences you'd still find very much
>the same laws there.
Some yes, some no. Drug trafficking is a subjective kind of term.
Alcohol is a drug. That's a fact. It's a substance which when used
as it is meant to be used is intoxicating. Therefore, any place
which sells, distributes, or makes alcoholic beverages is a drug
trafficker. It's a fact. It's not illegal, but its drug trafficking
nonetheless. You act as though there is some kind of distinction
between being addicted to alcohol and being addicted to heroin.
>No true Christian is involved in any sexual perversions. It is clearly
>stated in the Christian bible that homosexuality is evil. Those who
>are into homosexuality are no Christians, like no criminals are
>innocent.
That's your interpretation. Care to tell the millions of Anglicans,
Lutherans, and a host of other denominations that they aren't true
Christians?
And who the hell do you think you are to say who's a true Christian
and who isn't? I don't recall any verse in the bible that indicated
Tom Goodman was the judge of what Christianity is or isn't.
>
>So according to your way of thinking, the heroin users should have
>their human rights to use as much heroin as they wish. Why should the
>government control this substance and their civil rights ? Shouldn't
>they be considered as minority ? Shouldn't they have their own
>organization to fight for their human rights ??? Why should they be
>jailed for having the substance ?
Simple. They shouldn't be. It's been proven that prohibition is an
exercise in futility. All we've done is lock people up who we catch
and created an incredibly powerful and dangerous black market by
trying to make these substances illegal.
>
>And the same goes for the pedophile, shouldn't they have their human
>or civil rights to have sex with any child they wanted as long as the
>child consents to it, without the child's parents consent ?
Different issues altogether. Children simply aren't capable of taking
care of themselves. However, once they reach a suitable level of
experience and physical maturity, they are the masters of their own
destiny and I don't give a rat's ass what they do with their freedom
as long as it doesn't infringe on mine.
mj
Captain Ned of The Raging Queen
> On 16 Dec 1997 04:43:52 GMT, "Christopher W. Chase"
> <Cat...@Heresy.com> wrote:
> >
> >1) But what relevance does this have for people
> >of other religions, like Islam, and Buddhism? Does a Muslim not
> >follow God's Laws?
>
> discussion ? Do you mean these religions have their own rights too ?
> They do, at least in USA. Don't forget USA was originally a Christian
> state, at least that's what it proclaimed.
Sorry...that has been repeatedly refuted and shown to be a crock.
Won't repeat that here again....just do a news search in this
group over the past few weeks for "Magenta" and see how
this line of argument quickly falls.
No country gets to make its laws simply on its "supposed"
moral heritage. Not unless that moral heritage is
correct. If murder was part of a country's "moral heritage",
then it would still be wrong, and immoral to legally sanction.
Please don't become a Moral Relativist. It's about
as un-Christian as one can get.
> Didn't US allow these
> religions to exist in the country, although these religions are evil
> according to Biblical doctrines ?
Part of my point. As a secular nation founded on libertarian
political principles, members of all religions are granted
equal access to legal and civil institutions, even if a majority
of Christians think its evil....this is proof of my point, not
yours.
> Marriage was originally a bond between a man and a woman, blessed by
> God who is the creator of them.
You sidestepped the question. Regardless of its religious implications,
Marriage also has a anthropological and humanistic history. If
you don't want to call SSM a "Christian Marriage," fine. Nobody's
asking you to do that. The problem arises when you codify a
particular religion's truth claims into law such that everybody who
is Not a member of a religion still has to follow it. If the Law also
has a valid secular basis, then fine. But not on a religious basis
alone. That's not fair to members of other faiths.
> Humans have perverted marriage into a
> man-made novelty, and now it has become more perverted by allowing
> same sex marriage.
A fine doctrine for a religion, but not for a secular institution that
Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and Taoists also have to live
with.
Again, why should others have to live by your particular
religious law? Why can't the members of each faith simply
practice more restrictive habits of their choosing, while
allowing secular law/reason to determine a broader range
of activity for those who aren't religious?
> How about a human marrying an animal, or 3 or more
> people marriage, or children marrying parents ?
Animals and children can't consent. Period. End Of Story.
No religion necessary. Secular reason is enough.
As far as multiple person marriages...I can see no valid
secular reason for prohibiting them. I suspect that
they wouldn't be very popular, because its tough enough
to get two people to agree on dinner, much less more.....
> Civil rights are human rights, but do not give any human the rights to
> anything absurd. Should heroin be freely and legally available to the
> public under civil rights ?
Irrelevant. The Legalization and Distribution of Addictive
Substances is not the topic at hand. This is a separate
issue and deserves to be treated on its own merits.
> Should pedophile be allowed to have sex
> with 5 year-old children if the children consent to the that ?
> If you
> say a 5 year-old is not mature enough to judge on his own, then what
> makes you think he shouldn't have his civil rights ?
Children cannot give informed consent to sexual activity for
a variety of reasons, all of which I've already posted for another
thread and won't repeat here. Try searching under DejaNews for
posts entitled "Re:Test, Who's a Homophobe" written by
me within 2 months in this NG. You'll find it quickly.
No religion necessary, secular reason suffices for all cases
of this situation.
> If you say the 5
> year-old should be allowed to have sex with a pedophile if he consents
> to it, then would you allow your boy child(let's say you have one) to
> do that ? Well, would you ?
No, because no child can give informed consent to sexual
activity (see above)
No religion necessary, secular reason suffices for all cases
of this situation.
> Laws in US are just like laws in most other countries , their laws are
> based on common sense and reasoning, nothing to do with religion.
Except when it comes to SSM, which you have not given one
secular reason against.
> >3) And what relevance does this have for Lesbigays, who
> >are working for greater fairness from our societal institutions?
> >Although many Lesbigays are Christian, many are not, and again,
> >it seems unfair to make policy for all citizens using Christian
doctrine.
>
> No true Christian is involved in any sexual perversions. It is clearly
> stated in the Christian bible that homosexuality is evil. Those who
> are into homosexuality are no Christians, like no criminals are
> innocent.
Since this is a Political group (a.p.h) and not a Biblical Discussion
forum,
I'll let that go. That's fine for religious belief....since Lesbigays
who profess to be Christians are doing so by choice. Even so,
you still have not given a reason to prohibit SSM on civil or legal
grounds.
To make it easier, I'll phrase the question for you outright:
When the State refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples on the basis of the gender makeup of the participants alone,
is that a case of illegal gender discrimination or not?
If not. why not.
I'm talking about secular, government recognized marriage here,
however perverted you may find that. So no religious reasons allowed.
[snip]
--
Christopher W. Chase
heresy.at.mailexcite.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
_________________________________________
Abusive E-Mails will be posted and forwarded to
Your ISP and Mine. Abusive Postings will
not be forwarded, however, they
will be graded. ;-)
You have been warned.
_________________________________________
ME
>mj
>
Excellent point. That's why Maryland is called the "free State."
The Calverts (MD's founders) where Roman Catholic but they allowed all
religions to be practiced in the state.
Too bad there aren't more like them today!
ME
Diedrich G. Kohl
[soc.motss deleted]
On Wed 1997/12/17 01:48:42 GMT, in <34982f6a...@news.comnet.ca>
Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
> Laws in US are just like laws in most other countries , their laws are
> based on common sense and reasoning, nothing to do with religion. The
> illegalizations of hearing, pedophilia, drug trafficking, drunk
> driving, child abuse, and etc. have nothing to do with religions, they
> are illegalized because of reasoning and common sense. Go to any
> country without any religious influences you'd still find very much
> the same laws there.
By admitting that the laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs,
you have just destroyed your own argument against same-sex marriage.
The "common sense" laws you cite all protect citizens against harm
from others or having their rights infringed upon by others. You have
no such comparable argument against same-sex marriage. Therefore you
are left with nothing more than your religious beliefs, which you
have just disqualified yourself as a basis for laws.
Does this mean the debate is over?
--Rick
Ward Stewart
comme...@headquarter.com (Tom Goodman) wrote:
>~On 16 Dec 1997 04:43:52 GMT, "Christopher W. Chase"
>~<Cat...@Heresy.com> wrote:
>~>Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote in article
>~><3496d969...@news.comnet.ca>...
>~>
>~>> Ok, here I have to do it all over again. I really don't know why so
>~>> many people proclaiming to be Christian but don't believe and follow
>~>> God's words and laws.
>~>
>~>All right, I can buy this.
>~>
>~>1) But what relevance does this have for people
>~>of other religions, like Islam, and Buddhism? Does a Muslim not
>~>follow God's Laws?
NOT your God, not by a long chalk!
>~What is your point ? What do these religions have to do with the
>~discussion ? Do you mean these religions have their own rights too ?
>~They do, at least in USA. Don't forget USA was originally a Christian
>~state, at least that's what it proclaimed.
Could you tell us where this was *proclaimed* in the constitution or
in the founding documents?
>~Marriage was originally a bond between a man and a woman, blessed by
>~God who is the creator of them.
Another assertion -- utterly irrelevant to the proceedings of a
secular society. Irrelevant to matters of CIVIL law.
Humans have perverted marriage into a
>~man-made novelty, and now it has become more perverted by allowing
>~same sex marriage. How about a human marrying an animal, or 3 or more
>~people marriage, or children marrying parents ?
>~How much more perverted you evils will become.
>~Civil rights are human rights, but do not give any human the rights to
>~anything absurd.
Clearly these civil rights you are so fretful about give you the right
to say absurd things!
It also grants me the right, when you and your fellow Klansmen compare
me to pedophyles, arsonists, the incestuous -- the whole ugly litany
--to label you a liar an ignoramus and a damn fool to boot!
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that
he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be restricted by
prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors -- if THEY
wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must demonstrate
the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ABRAHIM
Diedrich G. Kohl <dri...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<19971217151411$dri...@news.bctel.ca>...
>
>
> On Wed 1997/12/17 01:48:42 GMT, in <34982f6a...@news.comnet.ca>
> Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
>
> >delete
>
Can any homosexual Christian or Lesbian prove any part of the bible that
allow same sex marriage ?
owhi...@hotmail.com
> Marriage was originally a bond between a man and a woman, blessed by
> God who is the creator of them. Humans have perverted marriage into a
> man-made novelty, and now it has become more perverted by allowing
> same sex marriage.
Tommy Boy, you haven't been reading your bible! Marriage was not
invented by God. At least not the "bond" kind. Solomon had seven hundred
wives and three hundred concubines. Isn't that perverted?
According to noted historian John Boswell, for the majority of premodern
societies, the institution of marriage was first and foremost a means of
aquiring wealth as well as a property arrangement. Its emotional and
sexual aspects were secondary. Only much later did the Church (that
would be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox ones) begin officially ascribing
sacramental meaning to marriage. And when they did, it included rites,
performed by priests, of same-sex marriage.
Boswell concluded his study on this subject ("Same-Sex Unions in
Pre-modern Europe" (New York: Villard Books, 1994) with this observation:
Rocognizing that many--probably most--earlier Western societies
institutionalized some form of romantic same-sex union gives us a much
more accurate view of the immense variety of human romantic relationships
and social responses to them than does the prudish pretense that such
"unmentionable" things never happened.
Sincerely,
Oscar Whitman
"All of us are in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"
-O. Wilde
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
L. Michael Roberts
We are not discussing the religeous implications of same sex marrage.
Each church/belief system is entitled to choose it's own rules in that
regard [after all, religeon is a choice].
We are discussing Civil/legal aspects of marriage and the state is
religeously neutral so no religeous arguements can be allowed to sway
the state from granting EQUAL rights to ALL.
+====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove '0spam' from my address
+====================================================================+
law...@pacbell.net
ABRAHIM wrote:
>
> Diedrich G. Kohl <dri...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <19971217151411$dri...@news.bctel.ca>...
> >
> >
> > On Wed 1997/12/17 01:48:42 GMT, in <34982f6a...@news.comnet.ca>
> > Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
> >
> > >delete
> >
> Can any homosexual Christian or Lesbian prove any part of the bible that
> allow same sex marriage ?
The Bible? What's the bible got to do with it? We're discussing a
matter of civil law here. The bible indeed. Might as well ask what the
New York Times has to say on the subject.
Dolf
Thank-you to all those who contributed to this discussion. It seems
apparent from those discourses that the assumptions made by Nicholas Santoro
alias Tom Goodman are false by telling lies.
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all LIARS, shall have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." [Revelation 21.8]
"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
menstealers, for LIARS, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" [1Timonthy 1:10]
Hey Tom, isn't it time you repented otherwise you might be burning in hell
like the rest of us you attempt to put there?
Dolf
Dolf
Well I think the answer to your questions lies in part to whether Christians
can first of all prove that women are anything else but equal to men. That
the bible does not support the sub-ordination, subversion or subjugation of
women. For that matter anyone.
If there is no difference between men and women on an equality level then a
person may well have a right to choose which ever gender they want to have a
relationship with. And then I'll be prepared to take the argument from
their.
So over to you. Prove to us from a Christian perspective that women are not
equal and that the bible supports gender destinction.
Dolf Boek
ABRAHIM wrote in message <01bd0b47$545852e0$9737...@tmnet.tm.net.my>...
Ward Stewart
"ABRAHIM" <fat...@tm.net.my> wrote:
>~Diedrich G. Kohl <dri...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
>~<19971217151411$dri...@news.bctel.ca>...
>~>
>~>
>~> On Wed 1997/12/17 01:48:42 GMT, in <34982f6a...@news.comnet.ca>
>~> Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
>~>
>~> >delete
>~>
>~Can any homosexual Christian or Lesbian prove any part of the bible that
>~allow same sex marriage ?
In other words, ANYTHING that is not specificaly permitted in the
BAbble must be considered as forbidden.
This nonsense would not wash, not even with the flat-earthers.
lac...@webtv.net
In article <34976b0a...@news2.ibm.net>,
That's correct. Let me also add that we don't allow children to vote,
drive, buy or drink alcohol, smoke, play the lottery, wear real tattos,
live in their own apartment or be employed (except for some paper
delivery for children over 12) no matter how much children or their
parents consent to them. So the Fundementalist Christians should stop
using this red herring of comparing childrens rights with adults rights,
it's not going to work.
> However, once they reach a suitable level of
> experience and physical maturity, they are the > masters of their own destiny and I don't give
> a rat's ass what they do with their freedom
> as long as it doesn't infringe on mine.
>
> mj
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Harobed Nosnivel
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:55:02 -0800, law...@pacbell.net wrote:
>ABRAHIM wrote:
>>
>> Diedrich G. Kohl <dri...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
>> <19971217151411$dri...@news.bctel.ca>...
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed 1997/12/17 01:48:42 GMT, in <34982f6a...@news.comnet.ca>
>> > Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >delete
>> >
>> Can any homosexual Christian or Lesbian prove any part of the bible that
>> allow same sex marriage ?
>
>The Bible? What's the bible got to do with it? We're discussing a
>matter of civil law here. The bible indeed. Might as well ask what the
>New York Times has to say on the subject.
I believe the the New York Times is for it. ;)
Deborah
dig...@pacbell.net
Stay Aware! Stay Active!
Gay/Lesbian Issues Resource & Information Guide
http://gaylesissues.miningco.com
Coronal
ABRAHIM wrote:
>
> Diedrich G. Kohl <dri...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <19971217151411$dri...@news.bctel.ca>...
> >
> >
> > On Wed 1997/12/17 01:48:42 GMT, in <34982f6a...@news.comnet.ca>
> > Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
> >
> > >delete
> >
> Can any homosexual Christian or Lesbian prove any part of the bible that
> allow same sex marriage ?
Whether or not the Bible OKs same-sex marriage is irrelevant. We are
pursuing civil marriage.
Ward Stewart
Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
>~> Can any homosexual Christian or Lesbian prove any part of the bible that
>~> allow same sex marriage ?
Some sensible person replied --
>~Whether or not the Bible OKs same-sex marriage is irrelevant. We are pursuing civil marriage.
I see that this thread is spammed all over the place -- Are there no
voices on 'alt.christnet' 'religion.misc' who recognize the mischief
of this fool Goodman, recognize the damage that this hatemonger soes
ro Christianity?
Is no one able to remember the mischief wrought by Father Coghlin --
the damage done by Jiommie Swaggert?
ward
***********************************************************
"I am constantly mystified by this notion of "disagreeing"
with homosexuality -- not unlike disagreeing with Tuesday --
like it or not, every seven days, there it is -- TUESDAY.
uncle ward
***********************************************************
Ward Stewart
Just a little bulletin from our steady advance, here in Hawaii, toward
freedom and equality for ALL the citizens --
Yesterday, Dec. 19, Hawaii's Supreme Court issued a Summary
Disposition Order that upheld a lower court ruling concerning 8
legislators who wanted to be co-defendants with the state of Hawaii in
the court case Baehr v. Miike (the same gender marriage case).
This suit had been brought as an apeal from Judge Chang's decision --
it was pressed by Jay Sekulov, Pat Robertson's lead lawyer, an
apostate Jew who really ought to know better.
What this means is that the Hawaii Supreme court is clearing the decks
and doing the paper-work in preparation for finally issuing an opinion
on Judge Chang's decision.
Last week Gays were permitted to adopt in New Jersey and now this
encouraging progress from Hawaii. Truly, same-gender marriage is an
idea whose time has come.
Libertarius
In <67hqbo$d...@nuhou.aloha.net> wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart) writes:
>
>
>Just a little bulletin from our steady advance, here in Hawaii, toward
>freedom and equality for ALL the citizens --
>
>
>Yesterday, Dec. 19, Hawaii's Supreme Court issued a Summary
>Disposition Order that upheld a lower court ruling concerning 8
>legislators who wanted to be co-defendants with the state of Hawaii in
>the court case Baehr v. Miike (the same gender marriage case).
>
>This suit had been brought as an apeal from Judge Chang's decision --
>it was pressed by Jay Sekulov, Pat Robertson's lead lawyer, an
>apostate Jew who really ought to know better.
>
>What this means is that the Hawaii Supreme court is clearing the decks
>and doing the paper-work in preparation for finally issuing an opinion
>on Judge Chang's decision.
>
>
>
>Last week Gays were permitted to adopt in New Jersey and now this
>encouraging progress from Hawaii. Truly, same-gender marriage is an
>idea whose time has come.
>
>ward
>
is contrary to the principles of liberty. But to call a
same-sex relationship a "marriage" is ridiculous. You might as
well redefine the meaning of "husband" and "wife".
The words "marriage" and "to marry" come from Latin "maritus",
meaning a HUSBAND. "Marriage" is an act of a WOMAN taking a
MAN as a HUSBAND, and the MAN taking the WOMAN as WIFE. Any
other use of these words is plain stupid.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Apuleius
comme...@headquarter.com (Tom Goodman) wrote to and
== On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:49:06 +1100, "Dolf"
== <no-...@dolf.netlink.com.au> wrote:
==
== >Dolf Boek
==
== Dolf, you know nothing about the true meanings of God's words. You're
== a self-righteous faggot supporter, who likes to point finger at those
== who condemned faggotism. You pretend not have any hatred, but actually
==
== Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in
== like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
== strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance
== of eternal fire.
== 8 ?Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise
== dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
==
I find it very interesting that you leave out relevant passages of
Jude. Had you paid attention to it, you would have found that Jude
said what happened at Sodom was the same as what the angels of Genesis
6 did. (KJV says "even as" NIV says "in a similar way" the Greek says
"in the like manner".)
What the angels did in Genesis was come down to earth and have sex
with the human women. That is the "strange flesh" the mixing of human
flesh with angel flesh. And if you accept that the Sodom story was an
attempted sexual attack, which is not at all clear and free of
ambiguity, then it too is an attempt to mex human flesh with angel
flesh. And that "strange flesh" is what the two incidents have in
common. What Jude is condemning, therefore is NOT homosexuality, but
the attempt to mix angel flesh with human flesh, which is why he
equates the Genesis 6 story with the Genesis 19 story, one
heterosexual, one allegedly homosexual. If you know anything of the
elementary rules of logic, you know that since the two cases are of
different sexuality, it is not the sexuality they have in common, but
the angel-human mixing, which is the same in both cases.
(Refer to Genesis 6:2, and Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 to show that
the Hebrew term in Genesis 6:2 clearly refers to angels.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
That's all, folks.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Apuleius
You've left out the critical verses of Roman 1. I'll bet you don't
even know what Paul's talking about in the chapter.
== Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through
== the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
== themselves:
== 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
== the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
== 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
== their women did change the natural use into that which is against
== nature:
== 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
== burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
== which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
== their error which was meet.
== 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
== God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are
== not convenient;
== 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
== covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
== malignity; whisperers,
== 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors
== of evil things, disobedient to parents,
== 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural
== affection, implacable, unmerciful:
== 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
== things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in
== them that do them.
==
== James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
== friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will
== be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
==
== Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
== therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by
== anointing you
==
== Psalms 1:1 ?Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the
== ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat
== of the scornful.
==
==
Ward Stewart
att...@ix.netcom.com (Libertarius) wrote:
>~In <67hqbo$d...@nuhou.aloha.net> wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart) writes:
>~>
>~>
~>Just a little bulletin from our steady advance, here in Hawaii,
toward
~>freedom and equality for ALL the citizens --
>~>
>~>
~>Yesterday, Dec. 19, Hawaii's Supreme Court issued a Summary
~>Disposition Order that upheld a lower court ruling concerning 8
~>legislators who wanted to be co-defendants with the state of Hawaii
in
~>the court case Baehr v. Miike (the same gender marriage case).
~>
~>This suit had been brought as an apeal from Judge Chang's decision
-- it was pressed by Jay Sekulov, Pat Robertson's lead lawyer, an
apostate Jew who really ought to know better.
>~>
~>What this means is that the Hawaii Supreme court is clearing the
decks and doing the paper-work in preparation for finally issuing an
opinion on Judge Chang's decision.
>~>
~>Last week Gays were permitted to adopt in New Jersey and now this
encouraging progress from Hawaii. Truly, same-gender marriage is an
idea whose time has come.
>~>
~>ward
>~>
>~===>Any objection to two people forming a contractual relationship
>~ is contrary to the principles of liberty. But to call a
>~ same-sex relationship a "marriage" is ridiculous. You might as
>~ well redefine the meaning of "husband" and "wife".
>~ The words "marriage" and "to marry" come from Latin "maritus",
>~ meaning a HUSBAND. "Marriage" is an act of a WOMAN taking a
>~ MAN as a HUSBAND, and the MAN taking the WOMAN as WIFE. Any
>~ other use of these words is plain stupid.
>~ Libertarius
>~ *DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
And, don't confuse a dictionary root with any other meaning --
dictionaries, even the most detailed - will reveal antique roots and
multiple meanings for many words -- they are, however, records of
USAGE and as such are written in sand,
I can see from the above that you feel yorself to be opposed to
same-gender marriage -- it might be well for you to try and think up
some substantial reason for this opposition, either that or give it
up.
Be reminded that we are dealing witrh CIVIL marriage a CIVIL contract
moniored and licensed by the SECULAR authorities. NOTHING in the
world to do with your haverings over the word marriage.
dion...@infinet.com
Tom Goodman (comme...@headquarter.com) said:
Behold once more a "Christian" editing God's word to say what he wants
Him to say instead of what He said:
}Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through
}the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
}themselves:
Let us start at the begining of the paragraph:
19 Because that which may be
known of God is manifest in
them; for God hath shewed [it]
unto them. 20 For the invisible
things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are
made, [even] his eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse: 21 Because that,
when they knew God, they
glorified [him] not as God, neither
were thankful; but became vain in
their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened. 22
Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools, 23 And
changed the glory of the
uncorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and
to birds, and fourfooted beasts,
and creeping things. 24
Wherefore God also gave them
up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to
dishonor their own bodies
between themselves:
}25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
}the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
}26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
}their women did change the natural use into that which is against
}nature:
}27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
}burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
}which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
}their error which was meet.
} 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
}God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are
}not convenient;
}29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
}covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
}malignity; whisperers,
}30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors
}of evil things, disobedient to parents,
}31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural
}affection, implacable, unmerciful:
}32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
}things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in
}them that do them.
Beware the "Christian" who misrepresents and twists the word of God.
He'll tryto get you to believe that straight idol worshippers were
actually queer, when in reality it was straights who were turned into
homosexuals for daring to violate the First Commandment.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">My Web Pages</a>
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Consider this proposed story line for a movie: A gril's wealthy foster
mother dabbles in the occult. She hires someone to kill the daughter out
of jealousy. The girl escapes and lives in rural isolation with seven men.
The foster mother, who now believes herself to be a witch, tracks down the
poor girl and makes two more attempts to finish her off; which ultimately
end with the girl in a drug-induced coma. Mother meets her own end in a
terrifying chase scene wherein wild animals drive her over a cliff. The
girl is rescued by a stranger who makes amorous advances while she is
unconscious.
Although one would expect that this plot would raise the hackles of
religious fundamentalists, it is exactly the kind of entertainment they
themselves say that they prefer!
Libertarius
~ is contrary to the principles of liberty. But to call a
~ same-sex relationship a "marriage" is ridiculous. You might as
~ well redefine the meaning of "husband" and "wife".
>
>>~ The words "marriage" and "to marry" come from Latin "maritus",
>>~ meaning a HUSBAND. "Marriage" is an act of a WOMAN taking a
>>~ MAN as a HUSBAND, and the MAN taking the WOMAN as WIFE. Any
>>~ other use of these words is plain stupid.
>
>>~ Libertarius
>>~ *DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
>
>And, don't confuse a dictionary root with any other meaning --
>dictionaries, even the most detailed - will reveal antique roots and
>multiple meanings for many words -- they are, however, records of
>USAGE and as such are written in sand,
>
>I can see from the above that you feel yorself to be opposed to
>same-gender marriage -- it might be well for you to try and think up
>some substantial reason for this opposition, either that or give it
>up.
>
>Be reminded that we are dealing witrh CIVIL marriage a CIVIL contract
>moniored and licensed by the SECULAR authorities. NOTHING in the
>world to do with your haverings over the word marriage.
>
>ward
===>You should learn to read, first of all. I said:
===>Any objection to two people forming a contractual relationship
is contrary to the principles of liberty. But to call a
same-sex relationship a "marriage" is ridiculous. You might as
well redefine the meaning of "husband" and "wife".
I am neither opposing nor favoring "same gender" relationships.
That is not up to me, nor should it be up to anyone else.
That is strictly the business of the individuals involved.
I merely stated that calling it "marriage" is ridiculous
nonsense. You might as well call "white" "black", "night" "day",
or rename the Earth and call it Pluto from here on, if words mean
nothing to you.
One more thing: consensual relationships between adult individuals
are not a matter for the State to sanction. You are endowed with
inalienable rights, among which are your right to your own life,
the right to exercise your liberty, and your right to pursue your
own happiness. Any government that is not there "to secure these
rights" is an illegitimate government.
Libertarius
Elwin Bullard II
On 21 Dec 1997 08:59:01 GMT, dion...@infinet.com () wrote:
>Tom Goodman (comme...@headquarter.com) said:
>
>Behold once more a "Christian" editing God's word to say what he wants
>Him to say instead of what He said:
Why do ya'll continue to try and argue with the christian nuts?
In the US we do *not* have to live up to the standards or by the rules
of any one religion.
The constitution allows for religious freedom.
Freedom to practice what you beleive and freedom from being forced to
practice what someone else beleives.
You cannot change a mind that has been closed by the greatest scam
ever perpertrated by man on man...Organized Religion.
Sure it may have been about a *god* at one point but for most of
recorded history religion has been about the personalities of the men
in charge of the church.
I have a real hard time believing that Jehovah orderd/condoned the
Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. Evil done by man in the name of
god.
Some real nice faith ya'll have out there.
Rev. Billy
att...@ix.netcom.com (Libertarius) wrote:
>>>~ The words "marriage" and "to marry" come from Latin "maritus",
>>>~ meaning a HUSBAND. "Marriage" is an act of a WOMAN taking a
>>>~ MAN as a HUSBAND, and the MAN taking the WOMAN as WIFE. Any
>>>~ other use of these words is plain stupid.
marita (f) wife
maritus (m) husband
Neither word has any connection to the "act" of what gender someone is
marrying. Several Roman Emperors married members of the same sex (as
did several Popes).
Diedrich G. Kohl
On Wed 1997/12/17 23:56:10 GMT, in <01bd0b47$545852e0$9737...@tmnet.tm.net.my>
ABRAHIM <fat...@tm.net.my> wrote:
> Diedrich G. Kohl <dri...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <19971217151411$dri...@news.bctel.ca>...
>> On Wed 1997/12/17 01:48:42 GMT, in <34982f6a...@news.comnet.ca>
>> Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
>>
>> >delete
>>
> Can any homosexual Christian or Lesbian prove any part of the bible
> that allow same sex marriage ?
Can any heterosexual Christian or straight woman (actually, anybody
at all will do) refute the actual point made? We are talking about
CIVIL marriage, not RELIGIOUS marriage, and Goodman demolished his
OWN religious arguments against same-sex CIVIL marriage by admitting
that CIVIL laws have "nothing to do with religion".
Evidently you can't; and so far, neither has anyone else. That must
be why you had to snip and ignore the entire contents and respond
with a non sequitur.
Care to try again? Here is the content unsnipped:
On Wed 1997/12/17 01:48:42 GMT, in <34982f6a...@news.comnet.ca>
Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote:
Apuleius
att...@ix.netcom.com (Libertarius) wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
==
== The words "marriage" and "to marry" come from Latin "maritus",
== meaning a HUSBAND. "Marriage" is an act of a WOMAN taking a
== MAN as a HUSBAND, and the MAN taking the WOMAN as WIFE. Any
== other use of these words is plain stupid.
==
== Libertarius
== *DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
The New Merriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary:
"marriage: a close union."
Now that's just plain stupid.
Then there's the just plain stupid Oxford English Dictionary:
"marriage: an intimate union."
Not to forget just plain stupid Thomas Hardy in his Ethelbertis, "In
which of the cases do you consider the marriage of verse and tune to
have been most successful?"
How about equally stupid Will Shakespeare?
"Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment."
Of course the main meaning of marriage is man and wife, for example
Sidney Webb said "Marriage is the waste-paper basket of the emotions."
And some just plain stupid people even apply marriage to people who
aren't married. Mary Wollstonecraft said that "When a man seduces a
woman, it should, I think, be termed a left-handed marriage."
Apuleius
att...@ix.netcom.com (Libertarius) wrote to and == >
== ===>Any objection to two people forming a contractual relationship
== is contrary to the principles of liberty. But to call a
== same-sex relationship a "marriage" is ridiculous. You might as
== well redefine the meaning of "husband" and "wife".
The original meaning of "husband" was a "peasant owning his own house
and land, freeholder, franklin, yeoman." It comes from a verb meaning
"to dwell, have a household." It was matched by an Old Norse word
"'husbondi,' a man of rank in his capacity as head or master of the
household."
"Husband" was also applied to one who tilled the soil, though that has
been replaced today by "husbandman." Just check the verb form of the
word in any dictionary.
So, you see, "husband" originally had nothing to do with marriage.
==
== The words "marriage" and "to marry" come from Latin "maritus",
== meaning a HUSBAND. "Marriage" is an act of a WOMAN taking a
== MAN as a HUSBAND, and the MAN taking the WOMAN as WIFE. Any
== other use of these words is plain stupid.
==
== Libertarius
== *DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diedrich G. Kohl
On Sun 1997/12/21 08:59:01 GMT, in <67ilol$n...@news1.infinet.com>
dion...@infinet.com <dion...@infinet.com> wrote:
: And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
:
: Consider this proposed story line for a movie: A gril's wealthy foster
: mother dabbles in the occult. She hires someone to kill the daughter out
: of jealousy. The girl escapes and lives in rural isolation with seven men.
: The foster mother, who now believes herself to be a witch, tracks down the
: poor girl and makes two more attempts to finish her off; which ultimately
: end with the girl in a drug-induced coma. Mother meets her own end in a
: terrifying chase scene wherein wild animals drive her over a cliff. The
: girl is rescued by a stranger who makes amorous advances while she is
: unconscious.
:
: Although one would expect that this plot would raise the hackles of
: religious fundamentalists, it is exactly the kind of entertainment they
: themselves say that they prefer!
Well, provided that it isn't the evil DISNEY version, I presume?
--Rick
Ian McKinney
Dolf wrote:
> As for the inclusion of paedophilia, beastiality and heroin into the
> argument of same sex marriages, I don't think anyone is asking for them to
> be included, ...........
Not yet, but they'll get to it. You can bet on it! I recall when all the fags
wanted was to be free from harrassment. Now they want to force the rest of us to
accept homosexuality as the moral equivalent of hetrosexuality and to have homo
"marriages." Given that track record, why shouldn't we expect the sex perverts
will be demanding the decriminalization of child molesting?
--
Regards,
Ian McKinney
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Rep. David Duke
http://www.duke.org
Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
http://www.stormfront.org
Mankind Quarterly
http://www.mankind.org/
British National Party
http://www.bnp.net
National Vanguard Books
http://www.natvan.com
Ernst Zundel-Free Speech Advocate
http://www.webcom.com/~zundel/english/
Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library
http://www.ddc.net/ygg
Heritage Front-Internet Broadcasts
http://alpha.ftcnet.com/~freedom/
Fourteen Word Press
http://www.nidlink.com/~fourteenwords/
Tom Goodman
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through
J. Northwood
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 22:26:25 -0500, Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Dolf wrote:
>
>> As for the inclusion of paedophilia, beastiality and heroin into the
>> argument of same sex marriages, I don't think anyone is asking for them to
>> be included, ...........
>
>Not yet, but they'll get to it. You can bet on it! I recall when all the fags
>wanted was to be free from harrassment. Now they want to force the rest of us to
>accept homosexuality as the moral equivalent of hetrosexuality and to have homo
>"marriages." Given that track record, why shouldn't we expect the sex perverts
>will be demanding the decriminalization of child molesting?
Well, considering the heterosexual male perverts--not that I'm
necessarily including you in their ilk, unless there's something
you're hiding, and there probably is--have consistently called for the
right to have sex with underage virgin females, watch two women making
love so they can get their underdeveloped rocks off and insist on
their weekend fuckmarriages in Vegas be given moral equivalency to
homosexual marriage, I don't see where you have a leg--long or
short--on which to stand.
Besides, most pedophiles are heterosexual, dork.
dsg5
Whoever started this thread may have a point . . .
It's much simpler just to live in sin.
However, there are responsibility-minded people amongst us with piles of
$$$ and other assets to dispose of during gay couple's break-ups and when
one passes on . . . I s'pose it's a good idea for these responsible types
to have some sort of legal agreement set up to handle those
inevitabilities, eh?
--dsg
Lee
-=>
-=>
-=>Dolf wrote:
-=>
-=>> As for the inclusion of paedophilia, beastiality and heroin into the
-=>> argument of same sex marriages, I don't think anyone is asking for them to
-=>> be included, ...........
-=>
-=>Not yet, but they'll get to it. You can bet on it! I recall when all the fags
-=>wanted was to be free from harrassment. Now they want to force the rest of us to
-=>accept homosexuality as the moral equivalent of hetrosexuality and to have homo
-=>"marriages." Given that track record, why shouldn't we expect the sex perverts
-=>will be demanding the decriminalization of child molesting?
Words of "wisdom" from a racist. LOL Of course your kind said the
same thing about civil rights to blacks.
Victoria "Lee"
For address go here: http://scican.net/~haxton/address.html
an...@pacbell.net
Re Mr. McKinney's blatherings, (quoted below)
In fact Ian, Given the fact that upwards of 98% of pedophiles are
heterosexual men, one could more reasonably expect that they would be
the group promoting the legalization of child molestation.
Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I notice that you claim to
represent David Duke and the Nationalist White Stormfront among others,
could you tell us a little about what what we might expect these white
supremacists and neo-nazis might be demanding, since you might at least
have some knowledge of THEIR agendas.
One more quick thing, Ian, No one, I repeat, no one wants to be morally
equivalent to YOU. We are morally superior to you. Always were and
always will be.
Ian McKinney wrote:>
> Not yet, but they'll get to it. You can bet on it! I recall when all the fags
> wanted was to be free from harrassment. Now they want to force the rest of us to
> accept homosexuality as the moral equivalent of hetrosexuality and to have homo
> "marriages." Given that track record, why shouldn't we expect the sex perverts
> will be demanding the decriminalization of child molesting?
> --
> Regards,
> Ian McKinney
> Western Imperative Network
> http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
>
> Rep. David Duke
> http://www.duke.org
>
> Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
> http://www.stormfront.org
>Ian McKinney wrote:
>
Ian McKinney
an...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Re Mr. McKinney's blatherings, (quoted below)
>
> In fact Ian, Given the fact that upwards of 98% of pedophiles are
> heterosexual men, one could more reasonably expect that they would be
> the group promoting the legalization of child molestation.
>
You're basically in the same category in that you stand for placing your degenerate
sexual behavior on the same moral and social level as that of normal sex relationships
between men and women. As far as I'm concerned, pedophiles should be gassed.
Nonetheless, it remains a fact that many homosexual organizations lobby to have the
age of consent lowered. In that area they are in league with the pedophiles.
Look, I am willing to tolerate homosexuals to the extent that they recognize their
sexual proclivities are something abnormal, the way an alcoholic understands he has a
problem. What I refuse to accept is this faggot political agenda that demands we
recognize faggotry as "normal" and deserving of the identical status as
hetrosexuality.
> Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I notice that you claim to
> represent David Duke and the Nationalist White Stormfront among others,
> could you tell us a little about what what we might expect these white
> supremacists and neo-nazis might be demanding, since you might at least
> have some knowledge of THEIR agendas.
>
I can 't speak for Duke or Stormfront. If you want to know their agendas, then go to
their websites. I can only speak for the Western Imperative Network. What exactly do
you want to know? I will try and answer.
> One more quick thing, Ian, No one, I repeat, no one wants to be morally
> equivalent to YOU. We are morally superior to you. Always were and
> always will be.
>
That's really funny, since probably 80% of the people I presently work with are pretty
open about their racial views and there's no denying they are more or less pro-White.
However, I presently know of no person who thinks queers are ok; would ever want to be
thought of as being gay, or would want their children to grow-up to be gay. In
contrast to that, I know many, many people who WOULD NOT want their kids to marry
outside their race.
--
Regards,
Ian McKinney
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Rep. David Duke
http://www.duke.org
Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
http://www.stormfront.org
Mankind Quarterly
an...@pacbell.net
Re: Mr Ian McKinney's letter (quoted below)
Dear Mr. McKinney, Thank you EVER so much, but you tolerance of
homosexuals will not be required. As you correctly point out, when
compared to you and the other members of the groups you list in your
letter, neo-nazis, white supremacists, and David Duke, we are indeed
above "normal". As to your final point, I've already conceded that we
can never be identical, we'll have to settle for superior.
Be assured that should we ever require your tolerance, we'll call you.
Don't call us.
> Ian McKinney wrote:
snip>
> Look, I am willing to tolerate homosexuals to the extent that they recognize their
> sexual proclivities are something abnormal, the way an alcoholic understands he has a
> problem. What I refuse to accept is this faggot political agenda that demands we
> recognize faggotry as "normal" and deserving of the identical status as
> hetrosexuality.
Dolf
Tom, you have demonstrated a capacity to continue to post the same texts,
make inane comments. I really don't think you can be taken seriously.
Your clearly compost Tom
Dolf
dg/mg
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:20:51 -0500, Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net>
wrote:
>You're basically in the same category in that you stand for placing your degenerate
>sexual behavior on the same moral and social level as that of normal sex relationships
>between men and women. As far as I'm concerned, pedophiles should be gassed.
>Nonetheless, it remains a fact that many homosexual organizations lobby to have the
>age of consent lowered. In that area they are in league with the pedophiles.
Name these organizations that are lobbying to lower the age of
consent. You made the claim, now back it up.
>
>That's really funny, since probably 80% of the people I presently work with are pretty
>open about their racial views and there's no denying they are more or less pro-White.
That's not really funny....that's really racist.
>However, I presently know of no person who thinks queers are ok; would ever want to be
>thought of as being gay, or would want their children to grow-up to be gay. In
>contrast to that, I know many, many people who WOULD NOT want their kids to marry
>outside their race.
Why would you expect to find tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals
in a group that is "pro-white"? Racism goes hand in hand with other
kinds of ignorance.
mj
Ian McKinney
Ward Stewart wrote:
> I can see from the above that you feel yorself to be opposed to
> same-gender marriage -- it might be well for you to try and think up
> some substantial reason for this opposition, either that or give it
> up.
>
Why should we permit such a thing? Society has no vested interest in
same-sex "marriages." Real marriages are encouraged for the obvious reason
that such unions produce children. No society can survive without new
people.
Homosexual couplings produce nothing, and therefore aren't deserving of
encouragement.
Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
do. That's no accident.
Why don't you fags just admit your desparation to have your degenerate
lifestyle, (deathstyle) legitimized? Do the whole world a favor and accept
the fact that you have a problem just like and alcoholic does.
If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
would be longer than forty-three.
--
Regards,
Ian McKinney
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Rep. David Duke
http://www.duke.org
Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
http://www.stormfront.org
Mankind Quarterly
L. Michael Roberts
Ian McKinney wrote:
>
> Ward Stewart wrote:
>
> > I can see from the above that you feel yorself to be opposed to
> > same-gender marriage -- it might be well for you to try and think up
> > some substantial reason for this opposition, either that or give it
> > up.
> >
>
> Why should we permit such a thing? Society has no vested interest in
> same-sex "marriages." Real marriages are encouraged for the obvious reason
> that such unions produce children. No society can survive without new
> people.
So you would be in favour of revolking the marriage licenses of serile
heterosexual couples and marriages where one partner is post-menopausal
- after all these marriages can not produce children.
Gay marriages do produce children. There is a lesbian couple that
posts here that has a 13 year old son... several gay men I know have
fathered and are supporting children.
>
> Homosexual couplings produce nothing, and therefore aren't deserving of
> encouragement.
Gay couples produce the same sort of economic benifits [taxes,
mortgages, insurance, etc] as hetero couples. Gay couples can also
provide the 'benefit' of children to society - I am not sure this is
such a great 'benefit' in our overpopulated and plouted world.
>
> Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
> do. That's no accident.
Wrong! The world does not end at the 49th paralell. Just a little
north of that you will find a society [Canada] where EQUAL rights for
ALL, including gays, are enshrined in most provincial constutions and
the federal Charter of Rights'. In Europe [Holland, Scadanavian
countries, Iceland, Greenland and more] all have EQUAL rights for gays
including the right to legally recognised marriages.
It is the myopic Americans who are [typically] out of step with the
rest of the world. Good lord man; you have not even adopted the metric
system!!!
>
> Why don't you fags just admit your desparation to have your degenerate
> lifestyle, (deathstyle) legitimized? Do the whole world a favor and accept
> the fact that you have a problem just like and alcoholic does.
I don't have a problem with being gay, my family and friends don't have
a problem with it, my peers in my industry don't have a problem with it,
the stores I spend thousands of dollars at anually don't have a problem
with it. Apparently the ony one who does have a problem with me being
gay it is you.
Perhaps you need to re-think why you have a problem with me being
treaded the same [on a legal basis] as you? Dosen't the American
constution say somthing about 'ALL men being born EQUAL'? Why do you
want to promote the continued inequality of some segments of society?
>
> If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
> would be longer than forty-three.
An you found this figure where? Can you please provide a cite/quote to
the relavant source?
+====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove '0spam' from my address
+====================================================================+
Robert Schroeder
Tom, you really need to stop.
Everytime you use scripture to condemn "fags" you end up condemning
yourself.
God is much bigger than your narrow mind and heartless soul.
Robert
Robert Schroeder
Ian McKinney wrote:
>
> Ward Stewart wrote:
>
> > I can see from the above that you feel yorself to be opposed to
> > same-gender marriage -- it might be well for you to try and think up
> > some substantial reason for this opposition, either that or give it
> > up.
> >
>
> Why should we permit such a thing? Society has no vested interest in
> same-sex "marriages." Real marriages are encouraged for the obvious reason
> that such unions produce children. No society can survive without new
> people.
>
diversity...and you want to suppress it?
And because society grants marriage rights to homosexuals, it does not
mean that everyone will run and marry someone of their own sex. This is
the strawman of the radical riech...I mean right. Not everyone is
homosexual (thank goddess!!!)
> Homosexual couplings produce nothing, and therefore aren't deserving of
> encouragement.
>
So, are you going to take away the rights of straight couples that are
infertile? I mean, they produce nothing, and therefore aren't
deserving....
> Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
> do. That's no accident.
>
Oh really?? Norway, Sweden, Denmark....all of them now allow same-sex
marriages. The European Commonwealth is moving towards legalizing
same-sex marriages. Its all a matter of justice, and that's no
accident.
> Why don't you fags just admit your desparation to have your degenerate
> lifestyle, (deathstyle) legitimized? Do the whole world a favor and accept
> the fact that you have a problem just like and alcoholic does.
Why don't you admit that hate kills? And get help. Bigotry, being an
illness, can be cured.
>
> If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
> would be longer than forty-three.
And the average "faggot life span" is longer than forty-three. And
someone should really stop reading that crap that Paul Cameron puts
out. After all, every professional organization that he belonged to
kicked him out, stripped him of his credintials and has proven over and
over that he is a fraud.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ian McKinney
> Western Imperative Network
> http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
>
> Rep. David Duke
> http://www.duke.org
Oh, no wonder, let's see, David Duke....member, KKK
>
> Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
> http://www.stormfront.org
>
SWN....nazi white supremeists.....
> Mankind Quarterly
> http://www.mankind.org/
Such a lovely name...but such a hateful little group!!!!
Hate breeds hate. Break the chain. Get a heart, Get a life....
Harobed Nosnivel
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:46:31 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<news...@LaserFX.0spam.com> wrote:
>Ian McKinney wrote:
>> If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
>> would be longer than forty-three.
>
> An you found this figure where? Can you please provide a cite/quote to
>the relavant source?
This phony stat has been bandied about for a few years. Some clueless
non-statistician grabbed the obituaries from a gay magazine during the
height of AIDS deaths and averaged out the ages of the men in the
obits.
Not only ghoulish, but needless to say, skewed in terms of legitimate
statistics.
Deborah
dig...@pacbell.net
Stay Aware! Stay Active!
Gay/Lesbian Issues Resource & Information Guide
http://gaylesissues.miningco.com
Lee
-=>> Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
-=>> do. That's no accident.
Now who was that guy that the British government is about to knight?
Hummm. Let's see what is his name?
It's absolutely amazing to me that Elton John will be knighted in
England and we in this country are trying to decide if homosexuals
have rights! On top of that Americans spout off about being a free
nation!
Ian McKinney
Lee wrote:
-=>> Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
-=>> do. That's no accident.Now who was that guy that the British government is about to knight?
Hummm. Let's see what is his name?It's absolutely amazing to me that Elton John will be knighted in
England and we in this country are trying to decide if homosexuals
have rights! On top of that Americans spout off about being a free
nation!
Just because England sinks into utter degeneracy doesn't mean we have to
do the same.
--
Regards,
Ian McKinney
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Rep. David Duke
http://www.duke.org
Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
http://www.stormfront.org
Mankind Quarterly
Ian McKinney
Speedbyrd wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 13:51:06 -0500, Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>
> >Why should we permit such a thing? Society has no vested interest in
> >same-sex "marriages." Real marriages are encouraged for the obvious reason
> >that such unions produce children. No society can survive without new
> >people.
> >
> >Homosexual couplings produce nothing, and therefore aren't deserving of
> >encouragement.
> >
> >Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
> >do. That's no accident.
> >
> >Why don't you fags just admit your desparation to have your degenerate
> >lifestyle, (deathstyle) legitimized? Do the whole world a favor and accept
> >the fact that you have a problem just like and alcoholic does.
> >
> >If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
> >would be longer than forty-three.
>
> You're a slimebag of the worst kind. It's people like you from the Dark
> Ages that wear sheets and burn crosses. You ought to be ashamed of
> yourself. You have no right to decide who should be together in love and
> you haven't a clue as to life expectancy, etc.
Blah, blah, blah! Classic Liberal whining.
> Where do you set yourself
> up as judge as to who has to "produce".
I realize you don't like it, but it's just a fact of life. Nonetheless, it
remains there's no fundamental common good served by these so-called "same-sex
marriages." You only promote it in an attempt to legitamize your unnatural
behavior. Sorry Bud, we ain't buying. You can dress it up all you want, but it's
still degeneracy - pure and simple.
> Are we doing so well with the
> people we have now, that we need more?
Need more people? Jeez! You hetro-hating little fag!
> Narrow people like you make me
> puke!
Yeah, like chemo-therapy makes a cancer cell puke.
Ian McKinney
Speedbyrd wrote:
> Free only as long as you think along the same lines as Middle America.
> Well, piss on that noise! Gays are here to stay and the day will come with
> they will have all the rights as the other side.
You have the same rights as anyone else. Quit whining. You're just a sissy.
Rev. Billy
Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>Just because England sinks into utter degeneracy doesn't mean we have to do the
>same.
NICKie/Phelps... your so tranparent !!!
Rev. Billy
Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>>Why should we permit such a thing? Society has no vested interest in
>>same-sex "marriages."
"We"... who gave you the Crown ??.. (closet Queens are sooo
boring)....
>>Real marriages are encouraged for the obvious reason
>>that such unions produce children. No society can survive without new
>>people.
Like there are not enough ??? (not counting YOUR type).. so humans
need to breed more ??? Heavens to Betsy White we shouldn't progress in
civilization, just breed until the planet "pukes".
>> >Homosexual couplings produce nothing, and therefore aren't deserving of
>> >encouragement.
Just nice people,... but as YOU have no comprehension of that Fred....
>>Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
>>do. That's no accident.
Your at it again Fred ! So any "sane" society should.. who made you
God ?? DAMN.. you just broke the commandments (again).. go to hell,
do not pass go (or wind) and do not collect $200.
#2 .. no accident.. God's will !!!
PLEASE put down the bottle and take your prescription !!!
Christians... who needs them.. for 2000 years the world has been
subject to their hate and killing, time to let that pack of rats pass.
No more inquisitions, no more burning at the stake, the Druid Church
loves and worships only the one true God.
Fred/Ian has shown us the way away from the X-ian Nazis !!
Ward Stewart
Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>~Ward Stewart wrote:
>~> I can see from the above that you feel yorself to be opposed to
>~> same-gender marriage -- it might be well for you to try and think up
>~> some substantial reason for this opposition, either that or give it
>~> up.
>~>
>~Why should we permit such a thing? Society has no vested interest in
>~same-sex "marriages." Real marriages are encouraged for the obvious reason
>~that such unions produce children. No society can survive without new
>~people.
On the absolute contrary, American society has a great interest, a
VITAL interest in treating all the citizens EQUALLY -- this is the
promise of the founding documents and it is being gradually realized.
As far as survival without children -- it is your belief that human
beings are about to vanish by reason of a minority of the citizens not
having children.?
The real problem is quite otherwise -- we are increasing global
population at an enourous rate and will, sooner rather than later,
find ourselves out of the necessary resources.
>~Homosexual couplings produce nothing, and therefore aren't deserving of
>~encouragement.
They produce love -- and in abounding measure -- legalizing,
recognizing these arrangements will encourage stability in our social
arrangements.
>~Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
>~do. That's no accident.
People have long had a taste for persecuting those who are percieved
as being "different."
>~Why don't you fags just admit your desparation to have your degenerate
>~lifestyle, (deathstyle) legitimized? Do the whole world a favor and accept
>~the fact that you have a problem just like and alcoholic does.
We do, indeed, have a problem -- Homophobes, hatemongers, Klansmen
and neo-nazis are our problem. Actually these creeps are everyone's
problem!
>~If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
>~would be longer than forty-three.
Paul Cameron rears his fake statistics once again -- you do realize
that he has been disbarred from practice as a psyuchologist, not for
his views, but for having falsified other peoples research -- the man
is a nut-case, a liar, and crooked to boot.
ward
>~--
>~Regards,
>~Ian McKinney
>~Western Imperative Network
>~http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
>~Rep. David Duke
>~http://www.duke.org
>~Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
>~http://www.stormfront.org
>~Mankind Quarterly
>~http://www.mankind.org/
>~British National Party
>~http://www.bnp.net
>~National Vanguard Books
>~http://www.natvan.com
>~Ernst Zundel-Free Speech Advocate
>~http://www.webcom.com/~zundel/english/
>~Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library
>~http://www.ddc.net/ygg
>~Heritage Front-Internet Broadcasts
>~http://alpha.ftcnet.com/~freedom/
>~Fourteen Word Press
>~http://www.nidlink.com/~fourteenwords/
Why an I not surprised to see that you are posting over a list of
fascist organizations? You have omitted the Aryan Nation and the KKK!
w
_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who
has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has
intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_
Ward Stewart
dig...@pacbellDELETE.net (Harobed Nosnivel) wrote:
>~On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:46:31 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
>~<news...@LaserFX.0spam.com> wrote:
>~>Ian McKinney wrote:
>~>> If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
>~>> would be longer than forty-three.
>~>
>~> An you found this figure where? Can you please provide a cite/quote to
>~>the relavant source?
>~This phony stat has been bandied about for a few years. Some clueless
>~non-statistician grabbed the obituaries from a gay magazine during the
>~height of AIDS deaths and averaged out the ages of the men in the
>~obits.
The "statician" weas one Dr. Paul Cameron -- now disbarred from
clinical practice by reason of his dishonesty.
He made his living for a time testifying as an "expert witness" in
anti-homosexual court proceedings. He has acquired so rank an odor
that this has dried up on him.
You might look in one of the search engines for further information --
it will astonish you.
He also generated the "statistical fact" that Lesbians were seventeen
times to die in automobile accidents than were straight women. This
howler was put into testimony here in Hawaii and was laughed out of
the room. The hearing was in the matter of employnment protection for
gay/lesbian citizens and the obvious counclusion was that IF he uis
rightt the [poor lesbians need their jobs in order to purchase new
cars -- it was a scream.
ward
Ward Stewart
Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>~--------------AA51DA05AA54DE8AF3868813
>~Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>~Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>~Lee wrote:
>~> -=>> Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality, and virtually all
>~> -=>> do. That's no accident.
>~>
>~> Now who was that guy that the British government is about to knight?
>~> Hummm. Let's see what is his name?
>~>
>~> It's absolutely amazing to me that Elton John will be knighted in
>~> England and we in this country are trying to decide if homosexuals
>~> have rights! On top of that Americans spout off about being a free
>~> nation!
>~>
>~Just because England sinks into utter degeneracy doesn't mean we have to do the
>~same.
>~--
>~Regards,
>~Ian McKinney
Yes Indeed, is it a great misfortune that the poor degenerate British
were not rescued by your fascist friends in the second world war --
THAT would have settled their Jew-loving hash!
ward
>~Western Imperative Network
>~http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
>~Rep. David Duke
>~http://www.duke.org
>~Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
>~http://www.stormfront.org
>~Mankind Quarterly
>~http://www.mankind.org/
>~British National Party
>~http://www.bnp.net
>~National Vanguard Books
>~http://www.natvan.com
>~Ernst Zundel-Free Speech Advocate
>~http://www.webcom.com/~zundel/english/
>~Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library
>~http://www.ddc.net/ygg
>~Heritage Front-Internet Broadcasts
>~http://alpha.ftcnet.com/~freedom/
>~Fourteen Word Press
>~http://www.nidlink.com/~fourteenwords/
>~--------------AA51DA05AA54DE8AF3868813
>~Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>~Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>~<HTML>
>~<BODY TEXT="#000000" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" LINK="#FFCC00" VLINK="#6293DF" ALINK="#FF0000">
>~
>~<P>Lee wrote:
>~<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>-=>> Actually, any sane society should suppress homosexuality,
>~and virtually all
>~<BR>-=>> do. That's no accident.
>~<P>Now who was that guy that the British government is about to knight?
>~<BR>Hummm. Let's see what is his name?
>~<P>It's absolutely amazing to me that Elton John will be knighted in
>~<BR>England and we in this country are trying to decide if homosexuals
>~<BR>have rights! On top of that Americans spout off about being a
>~free
>~<BR>nation!
>~<BR><A HREF="http://scican.net/~haxton/address.html"></A> </BLOCKQUOTE>
>~Just because England sinks into utter degeneracy doesn't mean we have to
>~do the same.
>~<BR>--
>~<BR>Regards,
>~<BR>Ian McKinney
>~<BR>Western Imperative Network
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/">http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/</A>
>~<P>Rep. David Duke
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.duke.org">http://www.duke.org</A>
>~<P>Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.stormfront.org">http://www.stormfront.org</A>
>~<P>Mankind Quarterly
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.mankind.org/">http://www.mankind.org/</A>
>~<P>British National Party
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.bnp.net">http://www.bnp.net</A>
>~<P>National Vanguard Books
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.natvan.com">http://www.natvan.com</A>
>~<P>Ernst Zundel-Free Speech Advocate
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.webcom.com/~zundel/english/">http://www.webcom.com/~zundel/english/</A>
>~<P>Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.ddc.net/ygg">http://www.ddc.net/ygg</A>
>~<P>Heritage Front-Internet Broadcasts
>~<BR><A HREF="http://alpha.ftcnet.com/~freedom/">http://alpha.ftcnet.com/~freedom/</A>
>~<P>Fourteen Word Press
>~<BR><A HREF="http://www.nidlink.com/~fourteenwords/">http://www.nidlink.com/~fourteenwords/</A>
>~<BR>
>~</BODY>
>~</HTML>
>~--------------AA51DA05AA54DE8AF3868813--
Alan Paul Dombrausky
L. Michael Roberts wrote in message <34A015...@LaserFX.0spam.com>...
>Ian McKinney wrote:
>>
>> Ward Stewart wrote:
>
> So you would be in favour of revolking the marriage licenses of serile
>heterosexual couples and marriages where one partner is post-menopausal
>- after all these marriages can not produce children.
> Gay marriages do produce children. There is a lesbian couple that
>posts here that has a 13 year old son... several gay men I know have
>fathered and are supporting children.
>
Are you saying these children were the outcome of a homosexual relationship?
Pardon me If I don't believe that -- it really is "stupid". My bet is that
a hetersexual act brougt about the conception. and this being the case,
these are then bisexuals rather than homosexuals.
By the way, have they made any progress in isolating a gene that causes
homosexuality?
Ward Stewart
Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>~Blah, blah, blah! Classic Liberal whining.
>~I realize you don't like it, but it's just a fact of life. Nonetheless, it
>~remains there's no fundamental common good served by these so-called "same-sex
>~marriages." You only promote it in an attempt to legitamize your unnatural
>~behavior. Sorry Bud, we ain't buying. You can dress it up all you want, but it's
>~still degeneracy - pure and simple.
The only transparent "fact" available here is that you are some sort
of self-deluded Nazi --
Kill File Time
ward
L. Michael Roberts
Apparently you have never heard of the Turkey baster and other more
rigerous AI methods.
>
> By the way, have they made any progress in isolating a gene that causes
> homosexuality?
+====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
Rev. Billy
"Alan Paul Dombrausky" <du...@dev.nul> wrote:
>By the way, have they made any progress in isolating a gene that causes
>homosexuality?
>
where you "catch" it.
Ward Stewart
no....@my.mailbox (Rev. Billy) wrote:
>~"Alan Paul Dombrausky" <du...@dev.nul> wrote:
>~>By the way, have they made any progress in isolating a gene that causes
>~>homosexuality?
>~>
>~Of course, we've know about it for years, we're just not telling you
>~where you "catch" it.
Nature versus Nurture ia an absolutly endless argument and will not be
solved in THIS contentious fourum.
As for the specific genetic markers, no they have not bee found -- but
then the markers for left-handedness and curly hair have not been
found either.
It is my suspicion that when the puzzle of the genome is finally
unraveled MANY such links will be found and that sexual orientation
will be amongst them.
This opinion is not simply an article of faith, nor is it plucked out
of thin air or religious belief. There is substantial agreement with
this opinion of mine from:
The American Medical Associaiton
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychoanalytic Association
The Church of Rome
The clear majority of scientists who are concerned with the quesiton
and
The absolute majority of homosexuals themselves, after all, who
should know better?
Ian McKinney
Ward Stewart wrote:
> Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>
>
> >~Why should we permit such a thing? Society has no vested interest in
> >~same-sex "marriages." Real marriages are encouraged for the obvious reason
> >~that such unions produce children. No society can survive without new
> >~people.
>
> On the absolute contrary, American society has a great interest, a
> VITAL interest in treating all the citizens EQUALLY -- this is the
> promise of the founding documents and it is being gradually realized.
>
The Founding Fathers didn't believe in the kind of equality you're talking
about.
> As far as survival without children -- it is your belief that human
> beings are about to vanish by reason of a minority of the citizens not
> having children.?
>
No, but that collectively we would derive no benefit from these so-called fag
"marriages."
> The real problem is quite otherwise -- we are increasing global
> population at an enourous rate and will, sooner rather than later,
> find ourselves out of the necessary resources.
The population problem exists only among non-whites. If you're worried, then
blame them.
> They produce love -- and in abounding measure -- legalizing,
> recognizing these arrangements will encourage stability in our social
> arrangements.
>
I don't care about your love for your homo partner. I get nothing from it, so why
should I be forced to give you tax breaks, etc?
> People have long had a taste for persecuting those who are percieved
> as being "different."
>
No, I didn't say persecute. Only that persons should be dissuaded from thinking
homosexuality is normal.
> We do, indeed, have a problem -- Homophobes, hatemongers, Klansmen
> and neo-nazis are our problem. Actually these creeps are everyone's
> problem!
>
"Homophobe", what a joke! I'm not afraid of homosexuals anymore than I'm afraid
of the flu virus. It's just that I don't want either to become more common.
--
Regards,
Ian McKinney
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Rep. David Duke
http://www.duke.org
Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
http://www.stormfront.org
Mankind Quarterly
http://www.mankind.org/
British National Party
http://www.bnp.net
National Vanguard Books
http://www.natvan.com
Ernst Zundel-Free Speech Advocate
http://www.webcom.com/~zundel/english/
Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library
Dionisio
> Why do ya'll continue to try and argue with the christian nuts?
Why not? Ever considered the entertainment value? They haven't.
> Freedom to practice what you beleive and freedom from being forced to
> practice what someone else beleives.
And debate fosters that sentiment? Don't think so.
> You cannot change a mind that has been closed by the greatest scam
> ever perpertrated by man on man...Organized Religion.
And one definately can't do it by NOT trying.
Tom Goodman
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:14:29 GMT, dig...@pacbellDELETE.net (Harobed
Nosnivel) wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:46:31 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
><news...@LaserFX.0spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Ian McKinney wrote:
>>> If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
>>> would be longer than forty-three.
>>
>> An you found this figure where? Can you please provide a cite/quote to
>>the relavant source?
AIDS Cases by Groups, U.S. Through June 1996, (CDC
Data)
Category
Number %
Men who have sex with men 274,192 50.0
Injecting drug use 137,753 25.1
Heterosexual 44,980 8.2
MSM/IDU 35,218 6.4
Hemophilia 4,280 1.0
Blood Product Recipient 7,684 1.4
Pediatric Cases 7,181 1.3
Undetermined 36,814 6.7
Total 548,102
Over 75 percent of AIDS infections result from homosexual activity or
drug use and only two percent result from blood transfusions.
All over American society people are working to discourage
smoking, toxic pollution and high fat diets for the simple reason that
they reduce human life expectancy. Yet none of these threats reduces
life
expectancy as much as homosexual conduct. Why are all the TV
programs on AIDS victims eager to evade the real issue - that liberal
values and loose lifestyles are overwhelming contibutors to the
epidemic? Why do ads encourage abstinence from alcohol, smoking and
fatty foods, but not from the primary aberrant behaviors that
contribute
to this disease?
There is only one safe way to remain healthy in the midst of a sexual
revolution. It is to abstain from intercourse until marriage, and then
wed
and be faithful to an uninfected partner. It is a concept that was
widely
endorsed in society until the 1960s. Since then, a "better idea" has
come
along ... one that now threatens the entire human family.
AIDS is the first disease in history to be endowed with civil
rights by the government.
Health laws prevent anyone with such diseases as hepatitus from
working in a restaurant, yet those with AIDS may do so. To bar them,
which common sense would demand, is forbidden as "discrimination,"
even though it means sure death to those who, as a result of this
insane
policy, may accidentally contract the HIV virus.
In the first HIV-discrimination case brought by the federal
government, an administrative law judge ruled that a hospital
can't restrict the work of a pharmacist infected with the virus
that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The
hospital sought to bar the HIV-infected pharmacist from
preparing intravenous solutions for patients. Applying the
heaviest sanctions under the law the judge ruled hospitals that
discriminate against HIV infected employees face a cutoff of
all federal funding, including Medicaid and Medicare
reimbursements.
The cornerstone of public health's effort to deal with venereal
disease historically has been reportability in confidence to local
health
authorities and then contact tracing for those that are infected. But
the
homosexual network in America has such clout that in effect they've
stood the health care systems in many of the states on their head,
which
has prevented this policy of reportability and contact tracing for HIV
carriers.
Long before 1985, when AIDS researcher Robert Gallo
patented the HIV antibody blood test, fag activists and leaders
of the AIDS lobby began to demand that the tests only be used
to test blood bank specimens rather than used to screen the
general population. Members of the AIDS lobbies then
convinced state legislators to enact laws prohibiting
identification of those infected with HIV. They convinced
lawmakers to make a distinction between HIV infection and
AIDS, the end-stage of infection.
Since HIV infection was not considered an infectious disease,
like AIDS, it did not need to be traced or reported to the CDC
like AIDS had been since 1981. Consequently, laws were
passed in every state prohibiting doctors without written or
informed consent from routinely using HIV blood tests and
reporting test results to health officials.
In 1985, California passed a law which fined physicians
up to $10,000 plus a year in prison if they violated
confidentiality in regards to a patient testing positive for
HIV. This meant, for example, that no doctor could alert
any of his staff about a patient's HIV status prior to
surgery or treatment without breaking the law.
The AIDS crisis is supported by an entire movement that has taken a
disease that could have been controlled by normal health standards
and,
by politicizing it, made it into a killer epidemic. Because it was the
homosexual community which brought it to crisis proportions and
because of the misinformation the homosexual lobby has persuaded the
government and media to disseminate - AIDS enjoys a status never
before granted to a highly contagious and deadly disease. Incredibly,
instead of being treated like the fatal plague it is, AIDS has become
a
civil right that gives those carrying it a privileged status and even
the
prerogative to keep their infection secret.
It is absolutely contrary to common sense to say that a virus has
civil
rights, but that's what the government has done. So we are treating a
deadly disease differently from any other pandemic in history and
denying the magnitude of the contagion involved for fear of offending
the delicate sensibilities of those who suffer from it. Instead of
following medically approved practices for limiting exposure and
warning others of potential risks, we are allowing it to spread
throughout the population.
Dr. Lorraine Day says, "Our public health agencies were set up
by your money and my money to track and control contagious
diseases and to protect the uninfected. With this disease, it is
the other way around."[Lorraine Day, M.D., AIDS: What the
Government Isn't Telling You]
It seems the government has been more concerned about being
"politically correct" with fag sensitivities and appeasing certain
interest
groups than telling the medical truth and protecting the public.
Rather,
Clinton appointees like Health and Human Services Secretary Donna
Shalala promotes the homosexual AIDS agenda like never before.
AIDS Misinformation
In the early days of the epidemic, the infectious-disease experts
told
health-care workers that they could not get AIDS through
needlesticks or from contact with the body fluids of an AIDS
patient.
The public was told by the experts that blood transfusions did not
pass on the virus. Dr. Day writes: "It took 14,000-16,000 victims
with HIV from transfusions to get the authorities to admit that
death was being kept refrigerated and frozen in blood bank
inventories and that, maybe, it was time to test."[Lorraine Day,
M.D., AIDS: What
the Government Isn't Telling You]
Through sex/AIDS education courses, the government is telling
children and teens that latex condoms will protect them. Yet
research shows that 30 percent of tested condoms allowed the AIDS
virus to be transmitted.
The government says students can't be infected through contact
sports, such as football or basketball, yet, two soccer players
were
recently infected through blood injuries incurred in competition.
The government says children can't catch AIDS by coming into
contact with saliva, sweat, or tears. But Dr. Day cites a U.S.
government study that shows the HIV virus can live outside the
body in air and water.
"The general public stance," says Day, "is that this virus
can't transmit
via kissing, through sharing of utensils, by shaking hands or
via aerosols.
One risks professional lynching, practically, if one suggests
mosquitoes,
bedbugs, ticks or flies... The truth is no one has done the
proper
studies."
Researchers have documented a case in which the AIDS virus was
passed from one child to another living in the same house.
Sexual
intercourse and contaminated hypodermic needles, the usual
modes of
transmission of the AIDS virus were ruled out in this case.
"AIDS virus passed
between children," THE WICHITA EAGLE, December 5, 1993.
A Texas burglar with AIDS is serving a 99-year prison term for
attempted murder for spitting at a prison guard. Two appeals
courts
have rejected his clemency pleas.
So it is recognized that spitting on someone could transmit
AIDS, yet the government and fag Rights advocates persist in
the fiction that AIDS poses no health hazard to the general
public.
A study of 5,200 obituaries over five years, in 16 homosexual
newspapers, plus dozens of other studies, show that homsexual conduct
reduces life expectancy by 30 years.
The average age of homosexual men dying with AIDS is 39.
The average age of fags dying of all other causes is 41.
Only one percent of men who practice homosexual sex lives to be
65 or older.
fag men are three times more likely to have alcohol or drug abuse
problems. This leads to an increase in heart, lung and liver
failure as
well as an increase in accidental deaths.
Homosexuals are 14 times more likely to have had syphilis, and 23
times more likely to contract venereal diseases and thousands of
times more likely to contract AIDS.
Lesbians are 19 times more likely than heterosexual women to have
had syphilis; twice as likely to suffer from genital warts; and
four
times as likely to have scabies.
In San Francisco, America's most openly fag city, the rate of
infectious Hepatitus A is twice the national average.
Their suicide rate is 60 times as high as the general population.
AIDS is the most politicized disease mankind has ever known.
Special interest groups have helped subvert the health care policies
we
have in place - good policies that should apply to all diseases. We
need
to return to traditional medical and public health procedures
historically
used to control other infectious diseases. In this approach the
responsiblity to diagnose and monitor the spread of HIV infection is
again placed on the medical and public health communities.
Tom Goodman
Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and
the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and
believe the gospel.
Tom Goodman
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:37:55 GMT, Hous...@CatHouse.com (Speedbyrd)
wrote:
>Well, piss on that noise! Gays are here to stay and the day will come with
>they will have all the rights as the other side.
The fags' pedophile buddies are saying the same thing.
Tom Goodman
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:34:21 GMT, Hous...@CatHouse.com (Speedbyrd)
wrote:
>people we have now, that we need more? Narrow people like you make me
>puke!
fags like you make the whole world puke.
Rev. Billy
Merry Christmas Tom Goodman
May the Peace and Love of God be with you.
Rev. Billy
Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>I don't care about your love for your homo partner. I get nothing from it, so why
>should I be forced to give you tax breaks, etc?
Merry Christmas Fred !
L. Michael Roberts
Tom Goodman wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:34:21 GMT, Hous...@CatHouse.com (Speedbyrd)
> wrote:
>
> >people we have now, that we need more? Narrow people like you make me
> >puke!
>
> fags like you make the whole world puke.
>
> Tom Goodman
Merry Chritmass Tom. May the peace and love of God be with you in this
festive season.
Ward Stewart
Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
After a few quick choruses of the Horst Wessel Leid -- our little
parlor nazi clicked his heels and offered the following comments --
>~Ward Stewart wrote:
>~> Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>~>
>~>
>~> >~Why should we permit such a thing? Society has no vested interest in
>~> >~same-sex "marriages." Real marriages are encouraged for the obvious reason
>~> >~that such unions produce children. No society can survive without new
>~> >~people.
>~>
>~> On the absolute contrary, American society has a great interest, a
>~> VITAL interest in treating all the citizens EQUALLY -- this is the
>~> promise of the founding documents and it is being gradually realized.
>~>
>~The Founding Fathers didn't believe in the kind of equality you're talking
>~about.
As if you would have the remotest clue as to the intentions of the
Founding Fathers. ONE thing is sure that they wrote a series of
dicumentsa which make it exceedingly unlikely that we will ever be
taken over by fascist scum like you.
>~> As far as survival without children -- it is your belief that human
>~> beings are about to vanish by reason of a minority of the citizens not
>~> having children.?
>~>
>~No, but that collectively we would derive no benefit from these so-called fag
>~"marriages."
You are simply wrong -- thet YOU perceive no value is neither
surprising nor significant.
>~> The real problem is quite otherwise -- we are increasing global
>~> population at an enourous rate and will, sooner rather than later,
>~> find ourselves out of the necessary resources.
>~The population problem exists only among non-whites. If you're worried, then
>~blame them.
No need for me to "blame" the non-whites -- you folks are way ahead of
me!
>~> They produce love -- and in abounding measure -- legalizing,
>~> recognizing these arrangements will encourage stability in our social
>~> arrangements.
>~>
>~I don't care about your love for your homo partner. I get nothing from it, so why
>~should I be forced to give you tax breaks, etc?
Since you are unaware of the tax law -- at present there is a
"marriage penalty." MArriage will cost additional taxes to a two
income family, straight or gay.
>~> People have long had a taste for persecuting those who are percieved
>~> as being "different."
>~>
>~No, I didn't say persecute. Only that persons should be dissuaded from thinking
>~homosexuality is normal.
What if not persecute -- last time you creeps siezed the initiative we
had Dachau and Sobibor -- what did you have in mind this time?
>~> We do, indeed, have a problem -- Homophobes, hatemongers, Klansmen
>~> and neo-nazis are our problem. Actually these creeps are everyone's
>~> problem!
>~>
>~"Homophobe", what a joke! I'm not afraid of homosexuals anymore than I'm afraid
>~of the flu virus. It's just that I don't want either to become more common.
You, fail to understand the Greek roots and how they7 work in the
language. The definition of homophobe (you could look it up) is an
IRRATIONAL fear OR dislike for homosexuals.
You qualify quite nicely --
key...@ix.netcom.com
comme...@headquarter.com (Tom Goodman) wrote:
because Americans have their heads up their butts when it comes to
real sex education and have blinders on when it comes to sex topics,
hence no condom ads.
>There is only one safe way to remain healthy in the midst of a sexual
>revolution. It is to abstain from intercourse until marriage, and then
>wed
>and be faithful to an uninfected partner. It is a concept that was
>widely
>endorsed in society until the 1960s. Since then, a "better idea" has
>come
>along ... one that now threatens the entire human family.
then let's let gays marry.
1st their homosexual, now their "fags" I see your slip
It is protection from heterosexual persecution in the 1st place that
made the status of this virus different, so judging from your post,
It' s a good thing!
>It is absolutely contrary to common sense to say that a virus has
>civil
>rights, but that's what the government has done. So we are treating a
>deadly disease differently from any other pandemic in history and
>denying the magnitude of the contagion involved for fear of offending
>the delicate sensibilities of those who suffer from it. Instead of
>following medically approved practices for limiting exposure and
>warning others of potential risks, we are allowing it to spread
>throughout the population.
It's a gay thing, that was the attitude at first and fueled by right
wing "christians". Policy laged behind logic. It was not until people
were infected by transfussions that we got moving on prevention and
cure.
> AIDS Misinformation
>
>
1996 NIH funding for Aids research=$1.4 billion
1996 NIH funding for Cancer research=$2.3 billion
Can anyone see the corolation between lack of funding, permissive
lifestyles and fatality?
It's good to be heterosexual and live in the U.S.
Ken P.
In article <67tscd$a...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>, key...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> 1996 NIH funding for Aids research=$1.4 billion
> 1996 NIH funding for Cancer research=$2.3 billion
>
> Can anyone see the corolation between lack of funding, permissive
> lifestyles and fatality?
> It's good to be heterosexual and live in the U.S.
Cancer affects many times more (blameless) people than AIDS.
AIDS is largely preventable by abstaining from sodomy. The further
spread of AIDS could also be prevented by publicly identifying AIDS
carriers. Of course, such solutions are violently opposed by sodomite
activists.
Question authority,
Ken P.
an...@pacbell.net
Ken P. goosestepped and spewed:
> AIDS is largely preventable by abstaining from sodomy. The further
> spread of AIDS could also be prevented by publicly identifying AIDS
> carriers. Of course, such solutions are violently opposed by sodomite
> activists.
>
> Question authority,
>
> Ken P.
> Western Imperative Network
> http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
And after you've "publicly identified" these people? Then what?
Surely you and your pathetic little weekend nazis have a "final
solution" in mind. You guys would be hysterical if you weren't so
pitiful.
Lee
On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:30:02 -0500, ke...@usaor.net (Ken P.) wrote:
-=>AIDS is largely preventable by abstaining from sodomy. The further
-=>spread of AIDS could also be prevented by publicly identifying AIDS
-=>carriers. Of course, such solutions are violently opposed by sodomite
-=>activists.
Recently several young women contracted the AIDS virus from one man
who was aware that he carried the virus and yet had sex with several
young girls and women.
Of the thousands of women who get AIDS few (if any) of them got it by
homosexuality, but by heterosexual contact.
AIDS babies do not get AIDS via homosexual contact.
Thousands of people get the AIDS virus by sharing needles.
Too many teenagers are going to die from ignorance. They are being
told that HIV is only a homosexual problem and are ignoring safeguards
that may end up costing them dearly. AIDS can be and is transmitted
heterosexually.
Victoria "Lee"
For address go here: http://scican.net/~haxton/address.html
Ward Stewart
key...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>~comme...@headquarter.com (Tom Goodman) wrote:
>~>On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:14:29 GMT, dig...@pacbellDELETE.net (Harobed
>~>Nosnivel) wrote:
>~>>On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:46:31 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
>~>><news...@LaserFX.0spam.com> wrote:
>~>>
>~>>>Ian McKinney wrote:
>~>>>> If homosexuality was such a wonderful thing, the average faggot lifespan
>~>>>> would be longer than forty-three.
>~>>>
>~>>> An you found this figure where? Can you please provide a cite/quote to
>~>>>the relavant source?
>~> AIDS Cases by Groups, U.S. Through June 1996, (CDC
>~> Data)
>~> Category
>~>
>~> Number %
>~> Men who have sex with men 274,192 50.0
>~> Injecting drug use 137,753 25.1
>~> Heterosexual 44,980 8.2
>~> MSM/IDU 35,218 6.4
>~> Hemophilia 4,280 1.0
>~> Blood Product Recipient 7,684 1.4
>~> Pediatric Cases 7,181 1.3
>~> Undetermined 36,814 6.7
>~>
>~> Total 548,102
>~>
A big block of statistics -- in spite of the lead in there is NO
REFERENCE to the enpty notion that homosexuals are dying at an average
age of 43 -- NONE
The poster is either stupid or dishonest -- perhaps both.
>~> AIDS is the first disease in history to be endowed with civil
>~> rights by the government.
UTTER NONSENSE -- !!
>~>Health laws prevent anyone with such diseases as hepatitus from
>~>working in a restaurant, yet those with AIDS may do so.
If you actually knew anything al all about HIV and its transmission
you would be aware that it is simply NOT spread by the sort of
contact that is involved in restaraunts -- repeat NOT.
Oner of the leading lights of our local homophobe community had his
restaraunt closed down a couple of years ago because he resolutely
declined to obey the state law and offer equal access to employment to
gays.
He said, amongst other stupid things, "they might cut themselves and
bleed in the salad." His customers hearing these words stayed away in
droves -- they speak to conditions in his kitchens too bizarre to be
imagined -- the rule an ANY kitchen is that no-one bleed in the salad
-- this was also supposed to be v vegetarian "health-food" restaraunt.
To bar them,
>~>which common sense would demand, is forbidden as "discrimination,"
>~>even though it means sure death to those who, as a result of this
>~>insane
>~>policy, may accidentally contract the HIV virus.
We permit crazy people like you to drive automobiles -- a FAR greater
risk to the population.
>~> In the first HIV-discrimination case brought by the federal
>~> government, an administrative law judge ruled that a hospital
>~> can't restrict the work of a pharmacist infected with the virus
>~> that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The
>~> hospital sought to bar the HIV-infected pharmacist from
>~> preparing intravenous solutions for patients. Applying the
>~> heaviest sanctions under the law the judge ruled hospitals that
>~> discriminate against HIV infected employees face a cutoff of
>~> all federal funding, including Medicaid and Medicare
>~> reimbursements.
Quite right -- pharmacists are not supposed to bleed into IV solutions
as they are prepared -- nor sneeze, nor spit. It is simply not done
in the better pharmacies.
>~>The cornerstone of public health's effort to deal with venereal
>~>disease historically has been reportability in confidence to local
>~>health
They have not previously dealt with a retro-virus -- be reminded that
with Gonorrhea one is symptomatic in two or three days after infection
-- with HIV the "silent" period is up to decades. The only place
where this was tried (and failed) was in Castro's Cuba.
>~>authorities and then contact tracing for those that are infected. But
How the hell would one "trace" contacts that are up to ten years old?
>~>the
>~>homosexual network in America has such clout that in effect they've
>~>stood the health care systems in many of the states on their head,
>~>which
>~>has prevented this policy of reportability and contact tracing for HIV
>~>carriers.
Utter non-sense!
>~> Long before 1985, when AIDS researcher Robert Gallo
>~> patented the HIV antibody blood test, fag activists and leaders
>~> of the AIDS lobby began to demand that the tests only be used
>~> to test blood bank specimens rather than used to screen the
>~> general population. Members of the AIDS lobbies then
>~> convinced state legislators to enact laws prohibiting
>~> identification of those infected with HIV. They convinced
>~> lawmakers to make a distinction between HIV infection and
>~> AIDS, the end-stage of infection.
Since, at the time, there was NO treatment there was NO point in such
testing -- the advice ot the gay community and to the rest of the
population was to treat EACH new partner as if both you and he were
infected.
snip
>~> AIDS Misinformation
>~> In the early days of the epidemic, the infectious-disease experts
>~>told
>~> health-care workers that they could not get AIDS through
>~> needlesticks or from contact with the body fluids of an AIDS
>~> patient.
>~> The public was told by the experts that blood transfusions did not
>~> pass on the virus.
This is simply NOT THE CASE, in spite of wehat the nut-case Dr. Day
may write or claim such things simply were NOT said.
Dr. Day writes: "It took 14,000-16,000 victims
>~> with HIV from transfusions to get the authorities to admit that
>~> death was being kept refrigerated and frozen in blood bank
>~> inventories and that, maybe, it was time to test."[Lorraine Day,
>~>M.D., AIDS: What
>~> the Government Isn't Telling You]
>~> Through sex/AIDS education courses, the government is telling
>~> children and teens that latex condoms will protect them. Yet
>~> research shows that 30 percent of tested condoms allowed the AIDS
>~> virus to be transmitted.
>~> The government says students can't be infected through contact
>~> sports, such as football or basketball, yet, two soccer players
>~>were
>~> recently infected through blood injuries incurred in competition.
>~> The government says children can't catch AIDS by coming into
>~> contact with saliva, sweat, or tears. But Dr. Day cites a U.S.
>~> government study that shows the HIV virus can live outside the
>~> body in air and water.
Dr Day is a paranoiac -- the very essence of venereal diseases, all of
them, is that they can only be transmitted by fresh intimate contact.
That Gonococci or Spirochetes or even Viri can be kept alive in
various cultures does NOT sapeak to their transmissibility on
door-knobs or toilet seats! Simply not the way the thing works.
>~> "The general public stance," says Day, "is that this virus
>~>can't transmit
>~> via kissing, through sharing of utensils, by shaking hands or
>~>via aerosols.
>~> One risks professional lynching, practically, if one suggests
>~>mosquitoes,
>~> bedbugs, ticks or flies... The truth is no one has done the
>~>proper
>~> studies."
>~> Researchers have documented a case in which the AIDS virus was
>~> passed from one child to another living in the same house.
A CASE, one case -- well, hot spit!
>~>Sexual
>~> intercourse and contaminated hypodermic needles, the usual
>~>modes of
>~> transmission of the AIDS virus were ruled out in this case.
>~>"AIDS virus passed
>~> between children," THE WICHITA EAGLE, December 5, 1993.
>~> A Texas burglar with AIDS is serving a 99-year prison term for
>~> attempted murder for spitting at a prison guard. Two appeals
>~>courts
>~> have rejected his clemency pleas.
More hysteria, founded on nothing!
>~> So it is recognized that spitting on someone could transmit
>~> AIDS, yet the government and fag Rights advocates persist in
>~> the fiction that AIDS poses no health hazard to the general
>~> public.
It is recognizeed that a Texas Judge thought so -- pwerhaps NOY the
very highest scientific verification.
>~>A study of 5,200 obituaries over five years, in 16 homosexual
>~>newspapers, plus dozens of other studies, show that homsexual conduct
>~>reduces life expectancy by 30 years.
Utter nonsense and entirely untrue--
This clap-trap was the production of a "scientist" named Paul Cameron,
a monomaniac obsessed with homosexcuality to the extent that he has
been disbarrred from his professional societies by reason, not of his
views, but because he falsified research done by others.
Be reminded that this is the same dreary quack wlho has told us that
"scientific research" has determined that lesbian women were seventeen
times more likely to die in automobile accidents than were straight
women.
>~> The average age of homosexual men dying with AIDS is 39.
This may or may not be true
>~> The average age of fags dying of all other causes is 41.
This is absolutly false!
>~> Only one percent of men who practice homosexual sex lives to be
>~> 65 or older.
false!
>~> fag men are three times more likely to have alcohol or drug abuse
>~> problems. This leads to an increase in heart, lung and liver
>~>failure as
>~> well as an increase in accidental deaths.
>~> Homosexuals are 14 times more likely to have had syphilis, and 23
>~> times more likely to contract venereal diseases and thousands of
>~> times more likely to contract AIDS.
>~> Lesbians are 19 times more likely than heterosexual women to have
>~> had syphilis; twice as likely to suffer from genital warts; and
>~>four
>~> times as likely to have scabies.
>~> In San Francisco, America's most openly fag city, the rate of
>~> infectious Hepatitus A is twice the national average.
>~> Their suicide rate is 60 times as high as the general population.
>~>
>~>AIDS is the most politicized disease mankind has ever known.
This may well be true -- TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND Americans had died of
AIDS before Ronald Reagan saw fit to mention the matter in public.
C'mon Tom -- you can cut and paste from better sources than this!
ward
"There is only one law and that is love.
Only love can conquer death."
Buddha
Graeme Dunnett
What a load of unenlightened crap!! I have found that most of the anti-gay
sentiments come from USA. Through the newspapers and magazines, overall, I
find Americans to be narrow-minded, bigotted, uneducated, self-centred,
culturally insensitive. They have the gall to try and run the world, and do
so with double standards so transparent. Grow up as a nation!!!!!!
Graeme
Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote in article
<34bab130...@news.idirect.com>...
an...@pacbell.net
Graeme Dunnett wrote:
>
> What a load of unenlightened crap!! I have found that most of the anti-gay
> sentiments come from USA. Through the newspapers and magazines, overall, I
> find Americans to be narrow-minded, bigotted, uneducated, self-centred,
> culturally insensitive. They have the gall to try and run the world, and do
> so with double standards so transparent. Grow up as a nation!!!!!!
> Graeme
lobotomize the nutcases like Fred Phelps and his cult of snake chuckers,
our silly constitution protects their right to orally fertilize the
web. Rest assured that we have inserted a plank in the 1998 GAY AGENDA,
to address this shortcoming.
PS: Love to Betty & Phil, and tell her the tiara didn't fit so I'm
sending it back.
Paul Vienneau
Ian McKinney wrote:
> Dolf wrote:
>
> > As for the inclusion of paedophilia, beastiality and heroin into the
>
> > argument of same sex marriages, I don't think anyone is asking for
> them to
> > be included, ...........
>
> Not yet, but they'll get to it. You can bet on it! I recall when all
> the fags
> wanted was to be free from harrassment. Now they want to force the
> rest of us to
> accept homosexuality as the moral equivalent of hetrosexuality and to
> have homo
> "marriages." Given that track record, why shouldn't we expect the sex
> perverts
> will be demanding the decriminalization of child molesting?
as a straight guy, i shouldn't have to tell you this, but the majority
of pedos are heterosexual males. and it proves *nothing* about you and
me as individuals or a group, just as if you were correct
re:gays&pedophilia.
> --
> Regards,
> Ian McKinney
> Western Imperative Network
> http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
>
> Rep. David Duke
> http://www.duke.org
>
> Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
> http://www.stormfront.org
>
> Mankind Quarterly
> http://www.mankind.org/
>
> British National Party
> http://www.bnp.net
>
> National Vanguard Books
> http://www.natvan.com
>
> Ernst Zundel-Free Speech Advocate
> http://www.webcom.com/~zundel/english/
>
> Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library
> http://www.ddc.net/ygg
>
> Heritage Front-Internet Broadcasts
> http://alpha.ftcnet.com/~freedom/
>
> Fourteen Word Press
> http://www.nidlink.com/~fourteenwords/
ugh
Bob Fredricks
I don't have the right to marry my long time companion and benefit from the civil
privileges granted to oposite sex couples.
Bob
Ian McKinney wrote:
> Speedbyrd wrote:
>
> > Free only as long as you think along the same lines as Middle America.
> > Well, piss on that noise! Gays are here to stay and the day will come with
> > they will have all the rights as the other side.
>
> You have the same rights as anyone else. Quit whining. You're just a sissy.
Eric Bohlman
Graeme Dunnett <gjd...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
: What a load of unenlightened crap!! I have found that most of the anti-gay
: sentiments come from USA. Through the newspapers and magazines, overall, I
: find Americans to be narrow-minded, bigotted, uneducated, self-centred,
: culturally insensitive. They have the gall to try and run the world, and do
: so with double standards so transparent. Grow up as a nation!!!!!!
You just fell into the same trap that Paul Cameron, the professional data
falsifier who concocted the bogus lifespan figures in the original
article, did. American newspapers and magazines tell you next to nothing
about the ordinary lives of Americans, because ordinary people's everyday
lives aren't newsworthy. The seamier side of American life *is*
newsworthy, as seamy things tend to be, and therefore it gets
disproportionally displayed in the media.
key...@ix.netcom.com
ke...@usaor.net (Ken P.) wrote:
>In article <67tscd$a...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>, key...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>> 1996 NIH funding for Aids research=$1.4 billion
>> 1996 NIH funding for Cancer research=$2.3 billion
>>
>> Can anyone see the corolation between lack of funding, permissive
>> lifestyles and fatality?
>> It's good to be heterosexual and live in the U.S.
>Cancer affects many times more (blameless) people than AIDS.
cancer is mutation caused largely by unhealthy lifestyles,(no
excersize,fatty diet,smoking and working around carcenogens).
The ones who got it thru genes are the only blameless ones,(like
transfusion victims of Aids), and we have an effective treatment for
cancer.
>AIDS is largely preventable by abstaining from sodomy. The further
>spread of AIDS could also be prevented by publicly identifying AIDS
>carriers. Of course, such solutions are violently opposed by sodomite
>activists.
>Question authority,
Question authority indeed! Ignorence is largely preventable thru
education. AIDS is largely perventable by abstaining from unprotected
sex,hetro or gay,unsafe i.v. drug use and keeping the blood supply
safe.
As to public id of aids victims,it is reported to the CDC;They just
don't tatoo victims foreheads like you would like, for good reason.
The violent anti-sodomite breaders would kill them or at best
warehouse them for life oh wait; thats what is happening; never mind!
It's good to be heterosexual in America!
>Ken P.
Ian McKinney
Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:30:02 -0500, ke...@usaor.net (Ken P.) wrote:
>
> -=>AIDS is largely preventable by abstaining from sodomy. The further
> -=>spread of AIDS could also be prevented by publicly identifying AIDS
> -=>carriers. Of course, such solutions are violently opposed by sodomite
> -=>activists.
>
> Recently several young women contracted the AIDS virus from one man
> who was aware that he carried the virus and yet had sex with several
> young girls and women.
>
Braindead White sluts got AIDS from a Nigger dope dealer is what happened.
> Of the thousands of women who get AIDS few (if any) of them got it by
> homosexuality, but by heterosexual contact.
>
Most of that hetrosexual AIDS among Whites is due to two things:
Sex with non-whites.
Sex with drug users.
Heterosexual, drug-free, Whites have a ultra-low incidence of AIDS.
> Too many teenagers are going to die from ignorance. They are being
> told that HIV is only a homosexual problem and are ignoring safeguards
> that may end up costing them dearly. AIDS can be and is transmitted
> heterosexually.
>
All White teenagers should be warned against the deadly AIDS dangers of
homosexuality, drugs, and racemixing. Forget all the other liberal bullshit.
--
Regards,
Ian McKinney
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Rep. David Duke
Rev. Billy
Why even BOTHER to try to talk to this guy, quite an impressive list
of references he posts! He's such a racist twisted wannabe Nazi it's
far over the border into psychosis!
Ian McKinney <i...@usaor.net> wrote:
>All White teenagers should be warned against the deadly AIDS dangers of
>homosexuality, drugs, and racemixing. Forget all the other liberal bullshit.
>Regards,
>Ian McKinney
>Western Imperative Network
>http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
>Rep. David Duke
>http://www.duke.org
>Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page
>http://www.stormfront.org
>Mankind Quarterly
>http://www.mankind.org/
>British National Party
>http://www.bnp.net
>National Vanguard Books
>http://www.natvan.com
>Ernst Zundel-Free Speech Advocate
>http://www.webcom.com/~zundel/english/
>Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library
>http://www.ddc.net/ygg
>Heritage Front-Internet Broadcasts
>http://alpha.ftcnet.com/~freedom/
>Fourteen Word Press
>http://www.nidlink.com/~fourteenwords/
*Instead try:*
http://www.hatewatch.org/
HateWatch is a web based organization that monitors the growing and
evolving threat of hate group activity on the Internet.
Chip
Ian McKinney wrote in message <34A3D17E...@usaor.net>...
>
>
>Lee wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:30:02 -0500, ke...@usaor.net (Ken P.) wrote:
>>
>> -=>AIDS is largely preventable by abstaining from sodomy. The further
>> -=>spread of AIDS could also be prevented by publicly identifying AIDS
>> -=>carriers. Of course, such solutions are violently opposed by sodomite
>> -=>activists.
>>
>> Recently several young women contracted the AIDS virus from one man
>> who was aware that he carried the virus and yet had sex with several
>> young girls and women.
>>
>
>Braindead White sluts got AIDS from a Nigger dope dealer is what happened.
>
>
I live and minister in Chautauqua County where this incident recently took
place and came to light. I find your bigoted, hate-filled statement
offensive and vulgar. These young women are not "braindead" or "sluts."
Mr.. Williams, the young man who infected them, has an severe, untreated
emotional handicap.
Usually an attack like this is from someone who fits the description and is
labeling themselves by attacking others. "Thou protestesth too much."
If you don't have anything useful or intelligent to say, don't say
anything...otherwise your ignorance and lack of education will show.
Remember this: It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to
open your mouth and prove that it is true.
molahS,
Chip
P. Schouten
Ken P. wrote:
> In article <67tscd$a...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>, key...@ix.netcom.com
>
> says...
>
> > 1996 NIH funding for Aids research=$1.4 billion
> > 1996 NIH funding for Cancer research=$2.3 billion
> >
> > Can anyone see the corolation between lack of funding, permissive
> > lifestyles and fatality?
> > It's good to be heterosexual and live in the U.S.
>
> Cancer affects many times more (blameless) people than AIDS.
>
> AIDS is largely preventable by abstaining from sodomy. The further
> spread of AIDS could also be prevented by publicly identifying AIDS
> carriers. Of course, such solutions are violently opposed by sodomite
>
> activists.
>
> Question authority,
>
> Ken P.
>
> Western Imperative Network
> http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
AIDS is not caused biy homosexual behaviour, by sodomy!. It is caused
by having sexual contact with a person that is carrying the disease.
Groups with much promiscuity have more chance to be infected. In Africa
- we know - is more promiscuity than elsewhere and there are more
HIV-infected people: men, women and children.Many homosexuals have
contact with only one partner and so among them was the first explosion.
Piet Schouten.
Rev. Billy
>>> Recently several young women contracted the AIDS virus from one man
>>> who was aware that he carried the virus and yet had sex with several
>>> young girls and women.
>>Braindead White sluts got AIDS from a Nigger dope dealer is what happened.
>I live and minister in Chautauqua County where this incident recently took
>place and came to light. I find your bigoted, hate-filled statement
>offensive and vulgar. These young women are not "braindead" or "sluts."
>Mr.. Williams, the young man who infected them, has an severe, untreated
>emotional handicap.
>Usually an attack like this is from someone who fits the description and is
>labeling themselves by attacking others. "Thou protestesth too much."
Don't take it seriously, these "two" individuals are from the same
cloth, with a big twisted cross on it. Note the similar
address/posting hosts ?
They are just trying to play "good Nazi" "Bad Nazi" for us, and
attempt to make the "good nazi" look acceptable.
They are actually part of:
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Western Imperative Network
A white supremacist, neo-nazi group, wanna see some REAL weirdo sick
stuff, take a look at that web page !! (turn off you cookies) They
spell out just how to post and cause division and try to put out the
lies they love. They adamantly deny being Nazi, and claim that's just
an attempt to discredit they. But take a look... all that id missing
is the twisted cross and the name. The Ian McKinney one runs the
site/"cell".
Rev. Billy
"Chip" <ch...@epix.net> wrote:
>>Ian McKinney wrote in message <34A3D17E...@usaor.net>...
>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:30:02 -0500, ke...@usaor.net (Ken P.) wrote:
>>> Recently several young women contracted the AIDS virus from one man
>>> who was aware that he carried the virus and yet had sex with several
>>> young girls and women.
>>Braindead White sluts got AIDS from a Nigger dope dealer is what happened.
>I live and minister in Chautauqua County where this incident recently took
>place and came to light. I find your bigoted, hate-filled statement
>offensive and vulgar. These young women are not "braindead" or "sluts."
>Mr.. Williams, the young man who infected them, has an severe, untreated
>emotional handicap.
>Usually an attack like this is from someone who fits the description and is
>labeling themselves by attacking others. "Thou protestesth too much."
Don't fall for this "guy"(s)'s tactics, note the similar posting hosts
and addresses? They are from:
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Western Imperative Network
A white supremacist group, and are just playing "Good nazi" -"Bad
nazi" to try to get the "lesser of evils" accepted. Read the site (Ian
McKinney runs it). It gives their whole "agenda" of how they and thier
"cells" can fight in the newsgroups, spread the hate, and separate the
races to promote the cause. It's as Nazi as it gets without the
twisted cross and the name. It's quite possible "Ian" & "Ken" are the
same person too, it'd fit the style. Lots of links to Nazi and KKK
sites available there too !
Ian McKinney
P. Schouten wrote:
> AIDS is not caused biy homosexual behaviour, by sodomy!. It is caused
> by having sexual contact with a person that is carrying the disease.
> Groups with much promiscuity have more chance to be infected.
So you admit it's caused by behavior. Well then, it should be a simple
matter of preventing the behavior, ie promiscuous sex. So instead of wasting
billions of everyone else's money for a cure, we'd be better off if you'd
just control your sexual urges. Sowhy can't you just do that? Or is there
something about the fag lifestyle which is in conflict with that? Maybe
that's why whenever people advise abstinance, the fags go berserk. They
don't want to hear that!
--
Regards,
Ian McKinney
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Rep. David Duke
Robert Schroeder
Chip wrote:
> I live and minister in Chautauqua County where this incident recently took
> place and came to light. I find your bigoted, hate-filled statement
> offensive and vulgar. These young women are not "braindead" or "sluts."
> Mr.. Williams, the young man who infected them, has an severe, untreated
> emotional handicap.
>
> Usually an attack like this is from someone who fits the description and is
> labeling themselves by attacking others. "Thou protestesth too much."
>
> anything...otherwise your ignorance and lack of education will show.
>
> Remember this: It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to
> open your mouth and prove that it is true.
>
> molahS,
> Chip
Chip,
Thank you for your even-handed response to this particular incident.
Unfortunately, more and more of our young people are falling victim to
this type of bigotry.
However, I am a little curious about your defense of Mr Williams. While
the only exposure I have had to this case is via the media, I had no
idea that he was "emotionally disturbed". And even if he is, I still
think that he needs to face the penalty, to the fullest extent of the
law. Ignorance is no excuse. And I wonder, had this been a gay man,
would your response be the same? I hope so, but still, I wonder.
Again, thank you for your response...
Robert
Chip
Robert Schroeder wrote in message <34A44C...@swbell.net>...
>Thank you for your even-handed response to this particular incident.
>Unfortunately, more and more of our young people are falling victim to
>this type of bigotry.
>
>However, I am a little curious about your defense of Mr Williams. While
>the only exposure I have had to this case is via the media, I had no
>idea that he was "emotionally disturbed". And even if he is, I still
>think that he needs to face the penalty, to the fullest extent of the
>law. Ignorance is no excuse. And I wonder, had this been a gay man,
>would your response be the same? I hope so, but still, I wonder.
>
>Again, thank you for your response...
>
>Robert
Robert,
Mr.. Williams has bi-polar (manic-depressive) and also schizophrenia. He
was in treatment but due to no insurance was not medicated or treated (as I
understand it....this is NOT firsthand knowledge.)
Yes, he still needs to accept the consequences of his actions.....that of
willingly (he did keep accurate records of who he infected) infecting
others.
His sexual orientation...or any persons sexual orientation has nothing to do
with this tragedy. These young women are victims...just as many people are
victims whether heterosexual, bi-sexual, asexual or homosexual. THIS IS NOT
AN ISSUE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!
I will make it quite clear how I feel: AIDS and HIV is NOT, NOT, NOT a
curse that was given by God to punish homosexuals.
The gay population has suffered long over this issue and it breaks my heart.
Being gay is not about AIDS. AIDS is not about being gay. It's about time
that all people stop their "ostrich syndrome"...that is, get their head out
of the sand. Ignorance is one of our biggest enemies.
molahS,
Chip
Ian McKinney
Chip wrote:
> >Braindead White sluts got AIDS from a Nigger dope dealer is what happened.
> >
> >
>
> I live and minister in Chautauqua County where this incident recently took
> place and came to light. I find your bigoted, hate-filled statement
> offensive and vulgar. These young women are not "braindead" or "sluts."
>
They traded sex for drugs with a Black dope dealer, that obviously makes them
both braindead and sluts. Any decent, race-conscious, White girl would have
nothing to do with the likes of him. Race education would have saved all those
girl's lives. Now, because of liberal brainwashing, they will die miserable
deaths. I'm certainly not happy about that, but if anything good comes out of
it, it should be the lesson to the rest of the school's girls that race-mixing
can lead to death. Also I wonder where were the parents and school officials who
for months allowed this piece of garbage to hang around the school yard enticing
these girls?
> Mr.. Williams, the young man who infected them, has an severe, untreated
> emotional handicap.
>
The man is a piece of garbage.
> Usually an attack like this is from someone who fits the description and is
> labeling themselves by attacking others. "Thou protestesth too much."
>
All I know is that dozens of White girls will die because of people like you.
And here you are still making excuses for this negro animal.
Ian McKinney
The so-called "Rev." Billy wrote:
> They are actually part of:
> http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
> Western Imperative Network
>
Wow, you're a smart one! We only list our website in our sigs, obviously it took
you a while to notice it.
> A white supremacist, neo-nazi group, wanna see some REAL weirdo sick
> stuff, take a look at that web page !! (turn off you cookies) They
> spell out just how to post and cause division and try to put out the
> lies they love. They adamantly deny being Nazi, and claim that's just
> an attempt to discredit they. But take a look... all that id missing
> is the twisted cross and the name. The Ian McKinney one runs the
> site/"cell".
The fact remains that those AIDS cases in NY are a direct result of disgusting
Christians like yourself and that other preacher. Are you satisfied with the
fruits of your evil labor? Dozens of girls will die because of your preaching
against "racism."
It's because of people like you that I stopped being a Christian.
Robert Schroeder
Chip wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> Mr.. Williams has bi-polar (manic-depressive) and also schizophrenia. He
> was in treatment but due to no insurance was not medicated or treated (as I
> understand it....this is NOT firsthand knowledge.)
>
> Yes, he still needs to accept the consequences of his actions.....that of
> willingly (he did keep accurate records of who he infected) infecting
> others.
>
> His sexual orientation...or any persons sexual orientation has nothing to do
> with this tragedy. These young women are victims...just as many people are
> victims whether heterosexual, bi-sexual, asexual or homosexual. THIS IS NOT
> AN ISSUE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!
>
> I will make it quite clear how I feel: AIDS and HIV is NOT, NOT, NOT a
> curse that was given by God to punish homosexuals.
>
> The gay population has suffered long over this issue and it breaks my heart.
> Being gay is not about AIDS. AIDS is not about being gay. It's about time
> that all people stop their "ostrich syndrome"...that is, get their head out
> of the sand. Ignorance is one of our biggest enemies.
>
> molahS,
> Chip
Chip,
I thought this might be the case, and I apologize for questioning your
motives behind this post, but when you get bashed over and over and over
and over, not only via the newsgroups, but thru e-mail, TV, radio,
churches....well, I think you understand.
Thanks again!
Robert