Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Civil Rights Homosexuality

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Charles Joyner

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

I am starting to hear "We want Civil Rights!" from homosexuals. Haven't we
already fought that battle. I do not believe I can go somewhere, or do
something that a homosexual can not do. If civil rights means that everyone
has to fully except homosexuality I do not think that everyone will buy
that. The same goes we say we are "One Nation Under God". That is a fact in
America.

If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.

As far as "civil rights" is concerned we all have the same set of laws and
rights.

If getting to the point of everyone excepts homosexuality means
romanticizing in public then that is a different battle as I do not think
that Heterosexual romanticizing is fully excepted as well. If it means that
everyone excepts homosexual parenting. Then again I would not hold my
breath. In order to get America on line with that would not be "One Nation
Under God".

Sincerely,

Charles

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

In article <6i4sdt$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> I am starting to hear "We want Civil Rights!" from homosexuals. Haven't we
> already fought that battle.

Who is "we"?

> I do not believe I can go somewhere, or do
> something that a homosexual can not do.

Then you have not been paying attention at all.

> If civil rights means that everyone
> has to fully except homosexuality

First of all, it's ACCEPT, not "except." The right-wing religious fanatics
want to "except" homosexuals from anything public.

We don't give a damn whether or not you accept us.

We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.

> I do not think that everyone will buy
> that. The same goes we say we are "One Nation Under God". That is a fact in
> America.

No, that's a slogan.

This is a pluralistic nation whether you "accept" that fact or not.


>
> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.

The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.

>
> As far as "civil rights" is concerned we all have the same set of laws and
> rights.

Theoretically, yes. In fact, NO!


>
> If getting to the point of everyone excepts homosexuality means
> romanticizing in public then that is a different battle as I do not think
> that Heterosexual romanticizing is fully excepted as well.

How about both being either accepted or rejected equally?

> If it means that
> everyone excepts homosexual parenting. Then again I would not hold my
> breath. In order to get America on line with that would not be "One Nation
> Under God".

This Nation is not run on a slogan.

It is run by the U.S. Constitution, where the word "God" is not mentioned once.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Charles

If you are going to parade the fact that you are this stupid
abouthomosexuality and
basic human rights and the U.S., I suggest you either ask us where you are wrong
(and PAY ATTENTION!), or STOP CROSSPOSTING to alt.politics.homosexuality!!!

--
John

NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:

desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net

Charles Joyner

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

John,

I thought we were making progress. Please excuse any misspellings in the
future.

>Then you have not been paying attention at all.


What can a heterosexual do that a homosexual can't?

>First of all, it's ACCEPT, not "except." The right-wing religious fanatics
>want to "except" homosexuals from anything public.

They do not control the nation.


>We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
>and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.

>No, that's a slogan.


A slogan that has meaning

>> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
>> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
>> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
>> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.
>
>The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.


Why is this stupid. Why do you use that phrase. It is not illegal to be gay.
It is just not "excepted" by all. Neither are other things.


>Theoretically, yes. In fact, NO!


Example:___________________


>This Nation is not run on a slogan.


No, by elected Men and Women.

Charles


Rick Hodges

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

Charles Joyner wrote:
>
> I am starting to hear "We want Civil Rights!" from homosexuals. Haven't we
> already fought that battle. I do not believe I can go somewhere, or do

> something that a homosexual can not do.

Then you are very, very wrong.

> If civil rights means that everyone

> has to fully except homosexuality I do not think that everyone will buy
> that.

I don't think it does, though. I'm speaking as a straight here.

> The same goes we say we are "One Nation Under God". That is a fact in
> America.

And the First Amendment is also a fact, pal.


>
> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.

And I can just as easily make a point that blatant, government-sponsored
racism and aparthied were once legal too. Do you support going back to
that?


>
> As far as "civil rights" is concerned we all have the same set of laws and
> rights.

You are absolutely, completely wrong about that.


>
> If getting to the point of everyone excepts homosexuality means
> romanticizing in public then that is a different battle as I do not think
> that Heterosexual romanticizing is fully excepted as well.

This is a logical statement that's perfectly acceptable to gay rights
supporters (if it is true).

> If it means that
> everyone excepts homosexual parenting. Then again I would not hold my
> breath. In order to get America on line with that would not be "One Nation
> Under God".

This is completely irrelevant. You have taken a vague statement from the
Pledge of Allegiance with no legal meaning and tried to turn it into
policy. It doesn't work that way.

-Rick

Clayton Colwell

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

Charles Joyner (joy...@motorsims.com) wrote:
: I am starting to hear "We want Civil Rights!" from homosexuals. Haven't we
: already fought that battle.

Apparently not. Aren't you aware that discrimination based on sexual
orientation is legal in the majority of states in the US today?

: I do not believe I can go somewhere, or do


: something that a homosexual can not do.

See above.

: If civil rights means that everyone


: has to fully except homosexuality I do not think that everyone will buy
: that.

Neither would I, and I'm gay. However, we're talking specifically
about legal discrimination based on sexual orientation.

: The same goes we say we are "One Nation Under God". That is a fact in
: America.

Um, actually, if you are saying that we as a nation are required
to acknowledge some sort of deity, then you are utterly and
completely mistaken. If that's not what you're saying, then you're
going to have to clarify.

: If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people


: homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
: motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
: these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.

Now you're babbling. What does this have to do with discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation?

: As far as "civil rights" is concerned we all have the same set of laws and
: rights.

But, as Orwell put it, "some are more equal than others".

: If getting to the point of everyone excepts homosexuality means


: romanticizing in public then that is a different battle as I do not think
: that Heterosexual romanticizing is fully excepted as well.

Well, *that* depends on the extent of the "romanticizing". Hand-holding,
whether it be of the same or opposite genders, shouldn't be
criminalized. Heavy-duty porking on the sidewalk, whether it be
of the same or opposite genders, shouldn't be allowed (disturbing-
the-peace, impeding the flow of traffic...oh yeah, and lewd-
and-lascivious-conduct).
Of course, it would be nice if enforcement of said lewd-and-
lascivious-conduct laws were equal, regardless of the genders
involved. Sadly, opposite-sex couples are usually sent on
their way with a warning, while same-sex couples are usually
hauled in. Selective enforcement is hardly just.

: If it means that


: everyone excepts homosexual parenting. Then again I would not hold my
: breath.

Why not? Studies show that same-sex parents bring up kids
equally as well as opposite-sex counterparts.

: In order to get America on line with that would not be "One Nation
: Under God".

Well, frankly, since the USA is not a theocracy, I should hope that
we are never forced to *be* "One Nation Under God".

****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf) ********** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *

L. Michael Roberts

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

Charles Joyner wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I thought we were making progress. Please excuse any misspellings in the
> future.
>
> >Then you have not been paying attention at all.
>
> What can a heterosexual do that a homosexual can't?
>
> >First of all, it's ACCEPT, not "except." The right-wing religious fanatics
> >want to "except" homosexuals from anything public.
>
> They do not control the nation.

Yet! They are advocating a theocracy similar to Iran...


>
> >We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
> >and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.
>
> >No, that's a slogan.
>
> A slogan that has meaning
>

> >> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
> >> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
> >> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
> >> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.
> >

> >The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.
>
> Why is this stupid. Why do you use that phrase. It is not illegal to be gay.
> It is just not "excepted" by all. Neither are other things.

Gays do not seek social acceptance - we seek LEGAL RIGHTS... the same
legal rights as any other member of society so that "ALL people will be
EQUAL".

>
> >Theoretically, yes. In fact, NO!

Example:
Gays can not marry the consenting adult of thier choice,
Gays are discriminated agains ih housing,
Gays can be fired form thier job for no other reason than thier private
lives and with no legal recourse...
that's just the main points... I could go on.

Note that none of the above is an issue of acceptance... they are
issues of EQUAL rights where homosexuals seek to have the same
rights/responsibilities before the law...

>
> >This Nation is not run on a slogan.
>
> No, by elected Men and Women.

Sunject to the laws and the principals set forth in your constution and
the case-law that has built up around it.


+====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my address
+====================================================================+

thoma...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

In article <6i4sdt$m...@examiner.concentric.net>,

"Charles Joyner" <joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:
>
> I am starting to hear "We want Civil Rights!" from homosexuals. Haven't we
> already fought that battle. I do not believe I can go somewhere, or do

> something that a homosexual can not do.

Sure you can. You can do a lot of things gay people cannot do. You can get
married. You can put your life partner on you insurance plan. If your partner
should be hospitalized, you do not have to fight the hospital to have a say in
thier care. You cannot be fired for your sexual orientation. You cannot be
denied housing. No one is asking you accept gay people, but you should not
have the right to discriminate against us.


>
> As far as "civil rights" is concerned we all have the same set of laws and
> rights.

Now, that is just not true, if it were there wouldn't be an issue.


--Tom


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Rick Hodges

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

Charles Joyner wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I thought we were making progress. Please excuse any misspellings in the
> future.
>
> >Then you have not been paying attention at all.
>
> What can a heterosexual do that a homosexual can't?

Well, for instance, a heterosexual can join the Army and then tell
somebody what his sexual orientation and not get fired for it.

But in a sense you are right. Without legal protection against
discrimination based on sexual orientation, a homosexual can be fired or
refused a job just for being gay, but a hetero can be fired just for
being straight. In that perverted (no pun intended) they are "equal." In
the same way, whites could be refused a job for being white before the
Civil Rights Act. But would you say that because technically a white
could be refused a job for his race just like a black, that blacks had
equal rights and everything was fair? Of course not. That's
preposterous. Hiring by race was used exclusively against blacks, just
like hiring by sexual orientation is used against gays.

A sexual orientation discrimination law would protect everyone. It would
grant "special rights" to no one.

>
> >First of all, it's ACCEPT, not "except." The right-wing religious fanatics
> >want to "except" homosexuals from anything public.
>
> They do not control the nation.
>

> >We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
> >and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.
>
> >No, that's a slogan.
>
> A slogan that has meaning

Are we talking about "One Nation Under God"? That has no legal meaning.


>
> >> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
> >> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
> >> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
> >> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.
> >
> >The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.
>
> Why is this stupid. Why do you use that phrase. It is not illegal to be gay.

Sure it is. It's illegal to perform homosexual acts, at least. In most
states. And it's sure not supported legally the way heterosexuality is.

> It is just not "excepted" by all. Neither are other things.
>

> >Theoretically, yes. In fact, NO!
>

> Example:___________________


>
> >This Nation is not run on a slogan.
>
> No, by elected Men and Women.

You brought up the slogan.

-Rick

Mike Silverman

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

In article <6i4sdt$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> I am starting to hear "We want Civil Rights!" from homosexuals.

Have you had your ears plugged?

Gays have been demanding equal citizensship in the USA for 30 years.

> Haven't we
> already fought that battle.

The battle is being fought as we speak.

> I do not believe I can go somewhere, or do
> something that a homosexual can not do.

You can get married. You can join the Army. You can rent a house, get a
job, and sit down in a restaurant counter without being in fear of being
evicted, fired, or kicked out for who you are.

--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal

Mike Silverman

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

In article <6i4ve1$s...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> I thought we were making progress. Please excuse any misspellings in the
> future.
>
> >Then you have not been paying attention at all.
>
>
> What can a heterosexual do that a homosexual can't?

Get married. Join the Army. Rent a house, get a

Charles Joyner

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

Clayton,

Do you agree or disagree that our nation is the best in the world. Its the
best out there. Its not perfect but still the best.

:Um, actually, if you are saying that we as a nation are required


:to acknowledge some sort of deity, then you are utterly and
:completely mistaken. If that's not what you're saying, then you're
:going to have to clarify.

I believe it is my God that has made it great. You can believe what you want
to. You can even believe in nothing. I believe we are "one nation under
god". God makes it VERY clear that he does not endorse homosexual conduct.

There is no way I believe that everything bad only happens to Gays. And
please dont think I am trying to be rude. There are many problems here in
the US. Problems that really need attention. Like illiteracy, starvation,
age discrimination, drugs ect... Is it true that we all have our set of
problems. I dont think that everyone discriminates against gays. Just like
there are groups of people who discriminate against
whites/blacks/Asian/Hispanic ect..but not all people discriminate. Its not
everyone. We all have our set of problems.

I believe we all have the same rights. Some work for or against you.
Everyone has their set of problems.

Why should America recognize that homosexuals want to be heard differently
than heterosexuals. We all have the same rights. We are all the same when it
comes to rights.

Did one ever think why the World thinks homosexual acts are wrong. There are
many reasons not just biblical but medical as well.

If you say that all people dont agree with you then its true. If you say
that all people should agree with you then its not.

Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then I
get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
their set of problems.

Charles

Charles Joyner

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Silverman <cub...@cjnetworks.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.pen
tecostal,alt.christnet
To: Charles Joyner <joy...@motorsims.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Homosexuality


>Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
>http://www.turnleft.com/personal

>Get married. Join the Army. Rent a house, get a


>job, and sit down in a restaurant counter without being in fear of being
>evicted, fired, or kicked out for who you are.
>

>Mike,

Ok hear is one for you. I go into a gay bar. I do not realize it as being a
gay bar. I see two guys holding (or whatever) hands. I express my
displeasure in seeing that. I get beat up.

I rent a house and the owner is gay. I see two guys holding hands and speak
my displeasure. He evicts me.

Is that what you are talking about? Its everywhere. We all have the same
rights. And even with those rights people break the law. If being gay is
legal then you have nothing to worry about. There are laws.

Next, you are homosexual and someone threatens you (some way any way) and
you call the authorities. They do not take you that serious. guess what THEY
DO THAT TO EVERYONE. They are busy (they say). We all have the same rights
and different problems.

Charles


John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

In article <6i4ve1$s...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> I thought we were making progress. Please excuse any misspellings in the
> future.
>
> >Then you have not been paying attention at all.
>
>
> What can a heterosexual do that a homosexual can't?
>

> >First of all, it's ACCEPT, not "except." The right-wing religious fanatics
> >want to "except" homosexuals from anything public.
>
> They do not control the nation.
>
>
> >We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
> >and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.
>
>
> >No, that's a slogan.
>
>
> A slogan that has meaning
>

> >> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
> >> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
> >> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
> >> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.
> >
> >The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.
>
>
> Why is this stupid. Why do you use that phrase. It is not illegal to be gay.

> It is just not "excepted" by all. Neither are other things.

The word is "accepted", not "excepted."

You are listing articles of clothing or jewelry, which relates
to matters of taste. In the matter of motorcycles, the concern
is from citizens who pay for the hospitalization of uninsured people
injured because they did not wear a helmet.

Matters of taste are not subject to law unless they injure or offend the
community in some way.

Being a homosexual has nothing to do with taste. It is a fact of life.
What one DOES may relate to taste, but then you make the judgment.
Not before.

> >Theoretically, yes. In fact, NO!
>
>
> Example:___________________

We cannot marry each other. We cannot marry the adult, non-related,
consenting adult of our choice. Heterosexuals can.

In many states, if we perform a certain sex act, we could go to prison.
Heterosexuals performing the SAME sex act are not committing a crime.

We cannot join the military unless we hide and lie about our basic lives.
Heterosexual military can talk constantly about their sex lives, their
families, the physical attributes of their favorite movie star, who they date,
their spouses, etc.

If a homosexual does the same thing, he's booted out of the service.

A homosexual can be fired for being a homosexual, can be denied
housing if he is a homosexual, can have his children taken from him
(or her) if he or she is a homosexual.

I am sure many others here can add to that list.

>
>
> >This Nation is not run on a slogan.
>
>
> No, by elected Men and Women.

But elected men and women cannot deny the basic rights to anyone.
We do not vote for rights.

That's why we are not a democracy, but a democratic republic.

Clayton Colwell

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

Charles Joyner (joy...@motorsims.com) wrote:
: Clayton,

: Do you agree or disagree that our nation is the best in the world. Its the
: best out there. Its not perfect but still the best.

I'm pretty darn fond of it, although I have a sweet spot in
my heart for Canada as well. My personal jingoistic attitudes
are irrelevant to this discussion, though.

: :Um, actually, if you are saying that we as a nation are required


: :to acknowledge some sort of deity, then you are utterly and
: :completely mistaken. If that's not what you're saying, then you're
: :going to have to clarify.

: I believe it is my God that has made it great.

I believe that it is the hard work and vision of a great
many people who have made it great. Unfortunately, I think
it is also the exploitation of a great many people that
provided the framework for it becoming great, as well. A
checkered and complex past history, the USA has had.

: You can believe what you want


: to. You can even believe in nothing.

Why, thank you, I think. <scratching head>

: I believe we are "one nation under


: god". God makes it VERY clear that he does not endorse homosexual conduct.

Um, OK. What does this have to do with legal discrimination
based on sexual orientation?
(BTW, I must point out that it is *your* interpretation that
"God make it VERY clear [...]". Many folks have and will dispute
you on this claim.)

: There is no way I believe that everything bad only happens to Gays. And


: please dont think I am trying to be rude.

I understand that being rude is not your intention. Still, I find
it hard to grin-and-bear-it when folks tell me that their god
says that certain "special folks" should be discriminated against.

: There are many problems here in


: the US. Problems that really need attention. Like illiteracy, starvation,
: age discrimination, drugs ect... Is it true that we all have our set of
: problems.

And I don't claim that these problems don't exist, or that they
need attention as well. However, I am reading this thread
from a newsgroup called alt.politics.homosexuality; ergo, I
figure to tailor my participation to stuff that focuses on
homosexuality and politics. Just because I do so does not mean that
I have no concern for the other issues you bring up.

: I dont think that everyone discriminates against gays. Just like


: there are groups of people who discriminate against
: whites/blacks/Asian/Hispanic ect..but not all people discriminate. Its not
: everyone. We all have our set of problems.

Agreed. However, it is *not* legal to discriminate on the
basis of race. In a majority of places, it *is* legal to
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That is
a concern for me.

: I believe we all have the same rights. Some work for or against you.


: Everyone has their set of problems.

I believe that we do *not* all have the same rights, as I mention
above.

: Why should America recognize that homosexuals want to be heard differently
: than heterosexuals.

Um, how many times can I repeat it? How many ways can I reword
the same basic premise: we want the *same* rights as heterosexuals?

We're obviously talking past each other. Let's try a concrete
example, taken from an instance in real life: a straight friend
of mine was beaten by 6 guys who spent their time between blows
calling him "faggot" and "queer" and laughing. Now, this guy
wasn't even *gay*; he was merely *perceived* as being gay.
Apparently, there exists an undercurrent in this country that
makes it easier for folks to swallow that gays are somehow
deserving of beatings. Again, using Texas as a datapoint,
there have been at least 2 murders, that I know of, of gay
people where the defendants used the "he hit on me" excuse
to justify their actions. Given the verdicts (they were found
guilty, but the sentences they received were not commensurate
to the normal sentence for murder), I am convinced that the
victim's gayness was perceived, consciously or unconsciously,
as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the assailants.
Does that bother you? It bothers me.

This atmosphere of gays being subhuman (it's a harsh way
of putting it, but that's how it looks to me) is ugly and
unjust, and it needs correction.

: We all have the same rights. We are all the same when it
: comes to rights.

I'd like to think so, but I see evidence to the contrary.

: Did one ever think why the World thinks homosexual acts are wrong.

Um, actually, yes. I've thought about it. I've come to
the conclusion that, if a person finds it to be so wrong,
then they should, by all means, not do them. Considering
that homosexual acts per se do not constitute a societal
danger, I see no reason to commit societal resources to
actively shut them down.

: There are


: many reasons not just biblical but medical as well.

Medical? Another person has declared this true as well. I
would be happy to examine your evidence that medically
proves that homosexual acts are wrong.

: If you say that all people dont agree with you then its true. If you say


: that all people should agree with you then its not.

Um, OK, but that is an aside to the issue, methinks.

: Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it


: comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then I
: get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
: get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
: their set of problems.

Well, gee, if there exists a documentable problem, then don't
you think it behooves us to *correct* the problem? Why *does*
"everything happen worse" to a person with a particular trait?
Is this worse treatment right? Proper? Fair? Should it be
tolerated? Please think on that.

Clayton Colwell

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

Charles Joyner (joy...@motorsims.com) wrote:

: Ok hear is one for you. I go into a gay bar. I do not realize it as being a


: gay bar. I see two guys holding (or whatever) hands. I express my
: displeasure in seeing that. I get beat up.

Question: how often does this happen? Serious question, especially
in comparison to the number of beatings and killings of gay
people at the hands of straightfolk.

: I rent a house and the owner is gay. I see two guys holding hands and speak


: my displeasure. He evicts me.

Again, how often does this happen, in comparison to the opposite
occurring?

: Is that what you are talking about? Its everywhere. We all have the same
: rights. And even with those rights people break the law. If being gay is


: legal then you have nothing to worry about. There are laws.

And, amazingly enough, it is *legal* to discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation in the vast majority of places in
this country. Ergo, you are wrong in thinking that laws
protect gays on that score.

: Next, you are homosexual and someone threatens you (some way any way) and


: you call the authorities. They do not take you that serious. guess what THEY

: DO THAT TO EVERYONE. They are busy (they say). We all have the same rights
: and different problems.

Matters of degree and perspective, sir. See above.

(stone in focus)

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

>Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
>comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then I
>get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
>get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
>their set of problems.


hmm.. i find it amusing that thou, white Christian american, can say
something like this... i'll tell you all what... i'm white... yep... i'm
also Christian... and i'll tell you blacks/gays/women/ect. are discriminated
against every single day, and i refuse to take it as "their own set of
problems"...

don't tell me that you turn cops eyes when you stand on a corner waiting for
someone... or that you get labeled "fag" or "nigger" or some other tag
because you are a white Christian american... you know nothing about
discrimination, and never will...

so don't act like you know what happens... don't act like everyone else is
just as free as you are, white Christain american... 'cos i live with a
black man and i know i can do things he cannot... i can sit on the corner
without the cops stopping us... i can drive down the street... so just go
back to thine white life, and if you don't have anything constructive to
say, shut up...

- PLUR
- (stone in focus)
- cdmc 4:20
- ><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> -= Personal Space =-
<>
<> primary: qu...@mines.missouri.org
<> secondary: cdmc_...@hotmail.com
<> move over bacon, here's something meatier!
<> "i did not blow my head off in seattle" - tricky
<> i support jack irons!
<>
<> Hit List
<> --------------------------
<> Five Star Tickets
<> Domino
<> All Trolls
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Mike Silverman

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

In article <6i5kg8$f...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> Did one ever think why the World thinks homosexual acts are wrong. There are


> many reasons not just biblical but medical as well.

Medical reasons?

Why don't you try telling us just what they are, Doctor. Please be
specific and have citations to back you up.

--

Mike Silverman

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

In article <6i5lb8$h...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> Ok hear is one for you. I go into a gay bar. I do not realize it as being a
> gay bar. I see two guys holding (or whatever) hands. I express my
> displeasure in seeing that. I get beat up.
>

> I rent a house and the owner is gay. I see two guys holding hands and speak
> my displeasure. He evicts me.
>

> Is that what you are talking about?

If a civil rights law protecting sexual orientation were passed, all of
this would be illegal -- these laws protect both straights and gays.

It's time YOU learned a thing or two.

DRS

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

Charles Joyner wrote in message <6i4sdt$m...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>I am starting to hear "We want Civil Rights!" from homosexuals. Haven't we
>already fought that battle. I do not believe I can go somewhere, or do
>something that a homosexual can not do. If civil rights means that everyone

>has to fully except homosexuality I do not think that everyone will buy
>that. The same goes we say we are "One Nation Under God". That is a fact in
>America.


This document details legal discrimination against homosexuals in Australia
but I believe you'll find the situation similar in the US:

Title : Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships:
: Where to from Here?
Author : Stevie Clayton
Organisation : Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW)
Keywords : lesbian rights, gay rights, sexual orientation
Abstract : Clayton believes that regulations, policies and
: practices which give preference to couples are the most far
: reaching area of discrimination against gay men and
: lesbians. This is because they almost invariably only
: recognise heterosexual marriage-like relationships and
: because they impact things which impact on almost every
: area of life and death. This article examines these
: areas of discrimination affecting gay men and lesbians.
: They include the areas of the legal status of homosexual
: relationships; adoption, guardianship and conception of
: children; immigration and taxation concerns.
: After considering the areas of discrimination, Clayton
: looks at the options for future action and identifies
: difficulties within both heterosexual and homosexual
: stances, and within the legislation.
Citation : E Law - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law,
: Vol 3, No 3, (September 1996)
ISSN : 1321-8247
Filename : clayton.txt
Ftp location : www.murdoch.edu.au/pub/elaw/issues/v3n3/
File size : 28K
File type : Document
File format : ASCII
Contact : elaw-e...@central.murdoch.edu.au
Copyright : E Law and author; details on the web page

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships: Where to from Here?

Stevie Clayton
Co-convenor, Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW)


Introduction

1. It may seem like a strange title 'Where to from here?', because really
we are starting at ground-zero and have an incredibly long way to go,
but at the same time we have progressed enormously in the last five
years. In terms of actual legislative reform, only the ACT has made
any progress but in terms of societal attitudes, which are a necessary
precursor to legislative reform, society is becoming increasingly
accepting of gay men & lesbians, more aware that we actually have
meaningful relationships, and appalled at the discrimination we
experience.

2. The title also suggests several obvious questions which are in fact at
the heart of the matter Where are we at now? Where do we want to get
to? How do we get there? These are questions which gay men & lesbians
throughout the world are grappling with right now and which may well
have different answers in different situations.

Where are we at now in Australia?

3. Generally speaking few pieces of legislation in Australia single out
gay men & lesbians for discrimination. In fact there are few which
even mention lesbians and the main ones which overtly discriminate
against. gay men are the Crimes Acts in each State.

4. Parts of the criminal codes dealing with issues like age of consent
have been written in such a way as to include lesbians with
heterosexuals and only single out gay men for special, and usually
harsher treatment.

5. This is not to suggest that gay men & lesbians are not discriminated
against in education, employment, provision of goods and services etc
because of our sexuality but that such discrimination, whilst being
wide-spread and systemic, is generally not legally sanctioned.

6. The areas where we continue to be legally discriminated against as
individuals tend to be the same areas where all single people are
discriminated against in preference for couples or the few areas of
exemption in anti-discrimination acts such as independent schools and
religious bodies,

7. These acts, regulations, policies and practices which give preference
to couples are the largest and most far reaching area of
discrimination we suffer. And that's for two reasons: firstly, they
almost invariably only recognise heterosexual 'marriage-like'
relationships; and, secondly, they cover things which impact on almost
every aspect of our lives and deaths. They do not say lesbians & gay
men are not includes but they use definitions of husband/wife, de
facto spouse, partner, defendant etc which only apply to a
heterosexual relationship.

What types of legislation are we talking about?

8. There are many gay men & lesbians, (and solicitors) who really have no
idea about the extent of the discrimination experienced by people in
same-sex relationships, or about the shear volume of legislation which
makes our relationships invisible. Many of them have never had
recourse to the law; or have never had a lover unconscious in
hospital; or die of a terminal illness; or had a relationship
breakdown that ended in court. It is easy for people in such
situations to think that we are better off not having our
relationships recognised. After all, who wants the state interfering
in their relationship. The problem is that the state already does
interfere, its just that some of us have been lucky enough not to have
been impacted by it ... yet!

9. There are several publications which go through in detail the
different types of legislation and, if you can get hold of them, I
would particularly recommend 'Lesbians and the Law' a joint
publication of the Women's Legal Resources Centre and the Gay &
Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) put out in 1991 but unfortunately still
current. 'The Bride Wore Pink 1994' from the GLRL's Lesbian & Gay
Legal Rights Service, and the GLRL's more recent papers: 'Legal
Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships' and 'Superannuation and
Same-Sex Relationships'.

10. Whilst the actual names of the various Acts vary from State to State,
the types of legislation occur almost uniformly across the country.

1. Legal Status

11. The law through the Federal Marriage Act or State-based de facto
legislation confers a certain legal status on heterosexual
relationships from which various rights & responsibilities flow.
Neither of these are available to gay men or lesbians so our
relationships are essentially made invisible by the law.

12. The one exception to this is the ACT which passed a Domestic
Relationships Act in 1994 which deals with property and financial
distribution on the breakdown of a relationship and was the first
piece of legislation in Australian to give equal standing to gay &
lesbian relationships.

13. Queensland does not have a de facto relationships act but, prior to
the last election there was a proposal to hand over responsibility for
de facto relationships to the Family Law Court. The now Government is
yet to act on this proposal.

14. Likewise, Victoria does not have a 'de facto relationships act' per se
but it does recognise heterosexual de facto relationships in a whole
range of legislation.

15. The Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act and State-based
anti-discrimination acts protect heterosexuals against discrimination
on the basis of marital status but at law, our marital status is
always 'single' so we are not afforded this protection.

16. A case before the NSW Equal Opportunity Commission in 1965 in which
two gay male couples complained because QANTAS would not put them on
the married couples roster, established the precedent that, when
discriminated against because of our relationships, we could not
complain under either the homosexual or marital status provisions.

17. A 1995 case against NIB Health Fund in NSW was successful in forcing
the Fund to accept a gay male couple and their child for family
membership but the case was argued on the definition of 'dependant'
not 'spouse' and so has only really provided a 'backdoor' avenue to
recognition of our relationships. It is interesting to note, however,
that this new definition of dependency as being more than just
financial and including co-dependency, is being picked-up on in other
arenas.

2. Death of a Partner

18. A heterosexual partner of someone who dies automatically has certain
rights. Lesbian or gay male partners do not:

a. Disposal of the body

Decisions about funeral arrangements, organ donation, postmortems
even what happens to the ashes after a cremation are made by the
executor of the estate or the 'senior available next of kin'
which excludes same-sex partners.

b. Inquests

Relatives have a right to request that an inquest be held with a
jury. 'Relative' does not include a gay or lesbian partner.

c. The estate

There are acts in each State which provide for family members to
receive shares of the estate including a significant proportion
for the surviving spouse. These provisions do not include
same-sex partners.

Again, the one exception is the ACT which passed legislation in
1996 giving equal standing to same-sex relationships in the event
of one partner dying intestate.

The 'Family Provision Act' does allow same-sex partners to
challenge the estate distribution but not as recognised partners
and only if they can pass dependency and cohabitation tests that
are not imposed an heterosexuals.

d. Victims Compensation

If a person dies from an act of violence, compensation ran be
paid to 'close relatives', this does not include a same-sex
partner. The same goes for the 'Compensation to Relatives Act
which provides for damages for economic loss if someone died as a
result of another's negligence.

3. Incapacity of a partner

19. If a heterosexual person becomes unable to handle their own affairs,
and they don't have a legal guardian, their partner automatically
becomes the 'person responsible'. A gay o . r lesbian partner has to
apply for appointment as their partners guardian before they can make
decisions about things like medical treatment.

4. Ending a Relationship

20. Distribution of property and financial matters on the breakdown of a
relationship can be resolved under the' 'Family Law Act' for married
couples or State-based de facto legislation (where it exists), for
other heterosexual couples.

21. The Family Law Act also provides for counselling and mediation.

22. Gay or lesbian couples have to go to the expense and added difficulty
of pursuing such matters as Civil Claims, where our relationships are
treated as legal contracts and without the counselling and mediation
provided in the Family Law Court.

23. Heterosexual couples who end a relationship and transfer property do
not have to pay stamp duty whilst gay or lesbian couples do.

5. Criminal Law

24. In deciding whether or not to grant bail a court has to consider the
protection of 'close relatives' this does not include a partner of the
same sex.

25. A heterosexual spouse cannot be compelled to give evidence in relation
to communications between spouses. And courts are compelled in certain
circumstances to give protection to spouses and family. Neither of
these provisions apply to same-sex partners.

6. Children

a. Adoption

Acts covering the adoption of children generally provide for
'stranger' adoption by married couples, and in some special needs
cases by heterosexual de facto couples and individuals. These
acts do not recognise same-sex relationships.

In NSW there have been cases of lesbians being allowed to adopt
but one partner has had to apply as an individual,

Adoption of a partner's child in a heterosexual relationship is
covered by the 'Family Law Act' and is almost automatic. It only
covers opposite-sex partners.

b. Guardianship & Custody

In the absence of a court order both biological parents are
regarded as guardians and as having joint custody.

Gay men & lesbians can be granted custody of their children and
it is now rare to see the Family Law Court discriminating against
gay or lesbian parents. But same-sex co-parents have no legal
standing ie cannot make decisions about medical treatment,
schooling etc unless the court gives them joint custody and that
has to be consented to by both biological parents in most cases.

c. Conception

The law provides that if a child is conceived in a heterosexual
marriage or de facto relationship the male partner has the rights
and responsibilities of a parent. If conceived by donor
insemination a child does not legally have a father, but this can
be altered by an acknowledgment in writing from the donor.

In neither case does a same-sex partner have any legal standing.

7. Employment

a. Superannuation

Super schemes often pay a higher rate of benefit on retirement if
there is a heterosexual spouse, And most pay a death benefit or
spouse's pension to the surviving spouse. Few schemes recognise
same-sex partners.

b. Employee Benefits

Many employers provide benefits such as payment of relocation
expenses but in most companies, these apply only to heterosexual
partners.

c. Workers' Compensation

Both Federal and State compensation law's allow for compensation
to dependents if someone dies as a result of a work-related
injury. Both use definitions of husband, wife, family etc which
exclude same-sex Partners.

8. Health Insurance

26. Until recently most Health Funds failed to recognise same-sex
relationships. In 1995, a gay male couple successfully complained to
the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board about the refusal of NIB Health Fund
to grant them family membership. NIB has appealed this decision and
the case has yet to be heard. In the interim they will not be granting
other same-sex couples family membership.

9. Taxation

27. A heterosexual couple can claim a dependent spouse rebate or
housekeeper's allowance but this is not available to same-sex couples.
The same goes for various tax concessions such as those around
superannuation.

10. Social Security

28. This is one of the very few areas where failure to recognise our
relationships actually provides for preferential treatment and
therefore is one of the most contentious in any discussion of legally
recognising same-sex relationships, Because we are regarded as
individual units by DS; one of a couple can get benefits including
Supporting Parents Benefit while the other is employed or both can
receive the single rate of benefit which amounts to more than the
married rate.

11. Immigration

29. From 1 July 1995 the Migration Regulations have provided for gay men
and lesbians to sponsor a partner from overseas under similar
conditions to those applying to heterosexual couples.

30. If your partner is already in Australia you have to prove that the
relationship has existed for at least 6 months and your partner will
be granted a temporary visa for 2 years. If you are still together
after 2 years they *will be* granted permanent residency. If your
partner is overseas when you apply, and you can prove that you have
been in a relationship for at least 6 months they will be granted
permanent residency in Australia.

31. The bad news is that the new Immigration Minister has announced his
intention to change the rules for heterosexuals applying from overseas
to bring them in line with on-shore applications ie 2 year temporary
residency, and this will undoubtedly flow on to the Interdependency
Regulations which impact on us.

What are the options available to us for recognition?

32. Having considered the areas of discrimination being experienced, there
are obviously several avenues open to us for future action, all of
which create both benefits and dilemmas. Do we want to have our
relationships recognised by the law at all? Some say 'no', but we
believe that the majority of lesbians and gay men say yes.

33. If. we do want them recognised, what form should that recognition
take? Do we simply want to be included in existing legislation with
all of its problems or do we want something new and different? If we
go for something different will it leave us as third class citizens
behind married couples and heterosexual de factos? How politically
feasible would it be to get something different anyway?

34. There is certainly no consensus in the gay & lesbian community on the
way forward, and nor will there ever be. Attempting to get consensus
within the gay & lesbian community is like trying to get a 'yes' vote
at a referendum. Lesbians and gay men come from all walks of life and
are so varied that they will never all agree on anything. Having said
that, we still need to make every effort to determine what the
majority want and we believe that we have clone that in NSW. Still, it
is worth considering all of the options:

1. Maintain the status quo

35. We could choose to do nothing, leave things the way they are and just
find ways around the law when and where we can.

36. This approach is most often favoured by two particular groups in the
community:

a. Those who like to be alternative, underground, outside of
society. Legal recognition threatens their whole image of how
they and other lesbians fit (or not) into the broader community.

b. Those who feel strongly that they do not want the law interfering
in their relationships. Which, of course, it already does, but in
a uniformly negative way.

37. The problems with this approach are that there are not always ways
around the areas of discrimination and for those who care about
equality, it doesn't help.

2. Seek new and different legislation

38. We could seek new legislation dealing only with same-sex relationships
which doesn't repeat the perceived problems of the existing de facto
legislation eg a 'Registered Partnerships Act'.

39. This type of legislation is preferred by people who want to make the
choice about whether or not to have their relationships included
within the ambit of legislation,

40. This approach is most often argued for by people who own property and
want to ensure that their partner doesn't get their hands on it in the
event of the relationship breaking down, and usually with the argument
that a 'De facto Relationships Act is needed by women in heterosexual
relationships because of the inherent power imbalance but that
same-sex relationships are based on equality.

41. To that argument I have to say: 'dream off'. It is simply not true.
One only has to look at the high rate of domestic violence in the
community to realise that inequality exists in our relationships too.

42. The problems with this approach are:

i. The overseas experience has been that people simply don't
register in large numbers either because they are opposed to a
concept so like marriage, or they live in areas where they are in
fear of outing themselves, or they just never get around to it
and the relationship breaks down, then it is too late.

ii. We would be asking the Government to enact legislation that
doesn't just give us equality but puts us in a privileged
position over heterosexual couples and this is unlikely to be
agreed to in any political climate.

iii. We would be trying to introduce a third piece of legislation
dealing with relationships, which would undoubtedly be number 3
in the hierarchy.

43. Whilst it would resolve many of the problems it would still give out
the message that gay & lesbian relationships are third rate.

3. Marriage

44. We could go straight for amending the Marriage Act. In our
consultation process, it was generally as you got further out of the
inner-city that more people preferred this approach, but with what
appears to be a boom in commitment ceremonies at the moment there may
now be greater support for this option.

45. There are, of course, those who are violently opposed to this option
as just mimicking the worst of heterosexual relationships and who
don't want to see our relationships defined in those terms.

46. The other obvious problems with this approach are:

i. It would at least require an amendment to Federal legislation and
the Federal Government is more conservative than many State
Governments, certainly more conservative than the current NSW
Government.

ii. There is some debate about whether such a change would in fact
require constitutional amendment which would necessitate a
referendum with little chance of success.

iii. It would still exclude probably the majority of lesbians and gay
men who would simply not take up such an option.

iv. Finally, the very mention of gay marriage provokes an emotional
response in the general population much different to that
generated by any discussion of legal recognition and would almost
undoubtedly lead to a strong backlash against the gay & lesbian
community.

4. Inclusion in existing de facto legislation

47. This means inclusion of gay & lesbian relationships, in all of the
pieces of legislation in each State which assign particular rights or
obligations to couples.

48. This is the approach favoured by the majority of lesbians and gay men
consulted by the GLRL in formulating our position. So what are the
pros and cons of such an approach?

49. Pros:

o Financial benefits during the relationship
o Protection for the weaker partner on the break down of the
relationship cheaper mechanisms for resolving disputes
o Same-sex relationships would be recognised as equal to
heterosexual de facto relationships
o Partners would have access to enforceable cohabitation and
separation agreements
o Access to the Family Law Court for counselling, mediation etc
where there are children involved
o It is likely that all dispute resolution concerning de facto
relationships will ultimately be transferred to the Family Court
and we would be included
o We would have access to the marital status provisions of
anti-discrimination legislation.

50. Cons:

o Agreements cost money and the courts can still override them
o Can the judiciary really understand our relationships?
o It may be difficult and costly to prove that a relationship did
or did not exist
o Do we want our relationships compared to marriage?
o The ultimate impact on DSS payments
o It won't include people in long-term relationships who don't
cohabit.

51. This last point can be resolved by States replacing existing de facto
relationships acts with legislation Mirroring the ACT Domestic
Relationships Act which recognises a broader range of relationships
and does not require cohabitation.

5. Significant Personal Relationships

52. In part to cover relationships where people don't live together, but
also to include a broader range of relationships, we could also
propose amendments to some particular pieces of legislation to
recognise 'significant personal relationships'.

53. The sort of legislation where you might include this broader
definition are victims' compensation, Coroners' Acts, compensation to
relatives and workers' compensation.

54. So the answer to the 'where do we want to get to?' question is: the
same legal standing, within the same pieces of legislation, as
heterosexual relationships but we want to see all relevant legislation
amended to include a broader range of relationships irrespective of
someone's sexuality.

How far have we come?

55. Obviously there is still a long way to go but at least there are some
glimmers of hope:

o The ACT is the only State which gives any form of legal
recognition of same-sex relationships.

o The Labor Opposition in SA attempted to change to their 'de facto
Relationships Act' to include same-sex relationships but were
defeated.

o The NSW Government has promised to move on some form of legal
recognition in their first term in office and it is likely to
happen in September 1996.

o The Federal Government has indicated they are willing to at least
examine discrimination in the area of superannuation and have
instituted a Senate Inquiry into sexuality discrimination.

Where to from here?

56. The legal recognition of same-sex relationships will be the most
significant change for lesbians and gay men in recent times, not just
because it requires major legislative reform or because it changes
laws which impact on our daily lives, but because it will change both
the way society looks; at us and the way that we look at ourselves. As
long as society can say to us 'We don't legally recognise your
relationships because they don't really exist or of no importance' we
will continue on some level to view ourselves in the same way.

57. The problem is that to change laws we have to be able to convince
sufficient numbers of politicians both that the changes we are asking
for are fair and just, and that the majority of people in society
support that change. The only way to do this is to have prominent
people, opinion leaders in society speak out about the injustice of
the current system and in support of legislative reform; to have
supportive articles in the media to help educate the people and sway
public opinion; to produce articles and discussion papers; and to have
active lobbying organisations in every State arguing for reform.

58. Most importantly we need to have people in the legal system who
understand the issues, who will challenge the current laws and who
have the courage to make rulings which dispense justice rather than
simply applying the rules.

--

Beware of the Spam-Dog

J. Michael Phillips

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:24:56 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com> wrote:

>Charles Joyner wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> I thought we were making progress. Please excuse any misspellings in the
>> future.
>>
>> >Then you have not been paying attention at all.
>>
>> What can a heterosexual do that a homosexual can't?
>>
>> >First of all, it's ACCEPT, not "except." The right-wing religious fanatics
>> >want to "except" homosexuals from anything public.
>>
>> They do not control the nation.
>

> Yet! They are advocating a theocracy similar to Iran...

Well, of COURSE!!! ANY group will try to wield as much political
power as it can. YOU try to wield as much political power as YOU can
- does it really surprise you that opposition will try to as well?


>>
>> >We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
>> >and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.
>>
>> >No, that's a slogan.
>>
>> A slogan that has meaning
>>
>> >> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
>> >> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
>> >> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
>> >> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.
>> >
>> >The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.
>>
>> Why is this stupid. Why do you use that phrase. It is not illegal to be gay.
>> It is just not "excepted" by all. Neither are other things.
>

> Gays do not seek social acceptance - we seek LEGAL RIGHTS... the same
>legal rights as any other member of society so that "ALL people will be
>EQUAL".

In all fairness - if you're going to blast him for using "except"
instead of "accept," it is only fair that I point out that the period
should be place inside the quotation marks . . . :)

Also, in all fairness, it is readily apparent (at least here, in the
"People's Republic of Washington") that SOME (probably not most) gays
are not seeking EQUAL rights, but PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. I have no
peoblem with equal rights, but I have a real problem with preferential
treatment.


>
>>
>> >Theoretically, yes. In fact, NO!
>
>Example:

> Gays can not marry the consenting adult of thier choice,

HUH? This is not so in most places.

> Gays are discriminated agains ih housing,

YOu REALLY ought to move to Washington State - at least West of the
mountains . . .

> Gays can be fired form thier job for no other reason than thier private
>lives and with no legal recourse...

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. If the ONLY reason they are fired is
their ORIENTATION - they have legal recourse. If, on the other hand,
it is their BEHAVIOUR - then it is entirely possible that they OUGHT
to have been fired.

> that's just the main points... I could go on.
>
> Note that none of the above is an issue of acceptance... they are
>issues of EQUAL rights where homosexuals seek to have the same
>rights/responsibilities before the law...
>
>>

>> >This Nation is not run on a slogan.
>>
>> No, by elected Men and Women.
>

> Sunject to the laws and the principals set forth in your constution and
>the case-law that has built up around it.

*sigh* Whose interpretation are we to accept? And why?


J. Michael Phillips

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:35:23 -0400, Rick Hodges
<rick....@aopala.org> wrote:

***snip***


>>
>> As far as "civil rights" is concerned we all have the same set of laws and
>> rights.
>

>You are absolutely, completely wrong about that.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. He is absolutely right about that. The
LAW does not read:
"You cannot be discriminated against, UNLESS, OF COURSE YOU'RE
HOMOSEXUAL"

Obfuscation to the contrary notwithstanding, we all have the same
rights. PERIOD!

***snip***

>> If it means that
>> everyone excepts homosexual parenting. Then again I would not hold my

>> breath. In order to get America on line with that would not be "One Nation
>> Under God".
>


>This is completely irrelevant. You have taken a vague statement from the
>Pledge of Allegiance with no legal meaning and tried to turn it into
>policy. It doesn't work that way.

Correct, the PHRASE is from the Pledge, but he considers it to be a
self-evident truth. It seems that he considers it to be the way we
OUGHT to run the country.


J. Michael Phillips

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

On 28 Apr 98 23:23:17 GMT, er...@bga.com (Clayton Colwell) wrote:

>Charles Joyner (joy...@motorsims.com) wrote:
>
>: Ok hear is one for you. I go into a gay bar. I do not realize it as being a
>: gay bar. I see two guys holding (or whatever) hands. I express my
>: displeasure in seeing that. I get beat up.
>

>Question: how often does this happen? Serious question, especially
>in comparison to the number of beatings and killings of gay
>people at the hands of straightfolk.

Having been attacked for being gay (and I'm NOT!) I can tell you that
it's not pleasant. I have gone to 5-6 gay bars with gay friends here
in the Seattle area (thought they tended to disavow knowledge of my
being when I sang with the Karaoke :) And I've only been menaced
once by gays. It wasn't pleasant from that end either.
>
>: I rent a house and the owner is gay. I see two guys holding hands and speak


>: my displeasure. He evicts me.
>

>Again, how often does this happen, in comparison to the opposite
>occurring?

Man - you REALLY have to move to the Seattle-Tacoma area . . . people
PREFER renting to gays here . . . (stereotypes of femininity and all)


>
>: Is that what you are talking about? Its everywhere. We all have the same
>: rights. And even with those rights people break the law. If being gay is
>: legal then you have nothing to worry about. There are laws.
>
>And, amazingly enough, it is *legal* to discriminate on the
>basis of sexual orientation in the vast majority of places in
>this country.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit! Call the NAACP, or almost ANY activist
group - they would LOVE to get their hands on the situation you
describe here.

>Ergo, you are wrong in thinking that laws
>protect gays on that score.

Bullshit! The LAW protects everyone the same. What I've seen happen
many times is that someone's behaviour is unacceptable in a work
situation, and they get fired - and they cry "foul!" When
complimentary behavoiur from a straight would have resulted in
termination as well. There's a HUGE difference between:
1. I'm gay, but I do my job well and keep personal matters seperate
from work matters, and
2. Sure, I'm gay, and I behave like a "flaming faggot" and pinch
other employees' butts all the time.


>
>: Next, you are homosexual and someone threatens you (some way any way) and
>: you call the authorities. They do not take you that serious. guess what THEY
>: DO THAT TO EVERYONE. They are busy (they say). We all have the same rights
>: and different problems.
>
>Matters of degree and perspective, sir. See above.

*yawn*

J. Northwood

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:46:37 GMT, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael
Phillips) wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:24:56 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
><News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com> wrote:

>> Yet! They are advocating a theocracy similar to Iran...

>Well, of COURSE!!! ANY group will try to wield as much political
>power as it can. YOU try to wield as much political power as YOU can

Not really. Demanding equal rights is not "wielding political power".

>- does it really surprise you that opposition will try to as well?

>> Gays do not seek social acceptance - we seek LEGAL RIGHTS... the same


>>legal rights as any other member of society so that "ALL people will be
>>EQUAL".

>In all fairness - if you're going to blast him for using "except"
>instead of "accept," it is only fair that I point out that the period
>should be place inside the quotation marks . . . :)

Well, that depends on the discipline and the use of the quotation
marks. <g> Yeah, I'm a pedant.

>Also, in all fairness, it is readily apparent (at least here, in the
>"People's Republic of Washington") that SOME (probably not most) gays
>are not seeking EQUAL rights, but PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. I have no
>peoblem with equal rights, but I have a real problem with preferential
>treatment.

In what respect are homosexuals in Washington State seeking
preferential treatment?

It's an honest question -- I'm not "flaming" you, just really curious.

>>Example:
>> Gays can not marry the consenting adult of thier choice,

>HUH? This is not so in most places.

Really?

Where in America is same-sex marriage legal? Moreover, thanks to
DOMA, what's to prevent one state from saying it _is_ legal and
another from saying it's _not_?

>> Gays are discriminated agains ih housing,

>YOu REALLY ought to move to Washington State - at least West of the
>mountains . . .

It even happens in Washington State. I can give you a number of cases
that have happened here in Oregon.

>> Gays can be fired form thier job for no other reason than thier private
>>lives and with no legal recourse...

>Pure, unadulterated bullshit. If the ONLY reason they are fired is
>their ORIENTATION - they have legal recourse. If, on the other hand,
>it is their BEHAVIOUR - then it is entirely possible that they OUGHT
>to have been fired.

Wrong.

Sexual Orientation is not a protected category. Sexual Orientation is
not covered under the EEOC's guidelines. On a National level,
homosexuals have no recourse. On a city-by-city level, yes, there are
non-discrimination ordinances in place. On a state-by-state level,
no. There aren't. There is _no_ legal recourse for employment
termination due to Sexual Orientation.

Second point: If it's sexual behavior in the _workplace_ then I
support the employment termination of heterosexual or homosexual. If
it's sexual behavior outside of the workplace, then as long as it's
between consenting adults of either sex or any orientation I don't
care.

>> that's just the main points... I could go on.

You left out the Boy Scouts --
A purportedly private organization, yet one that
accepts public monies, meets in public schools,
is supported by the U.S. Military and funds from
charitable organizations, and practices blatant
discrimination.

What about the Military?
Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the witch-hunts have
increased and the number of discharges has risen
each year.

Homosexuals must lie or evade questioning in order
to remain "honorably" within the military.

What about child custody?
In the last ten years there have been over two dozen
high-profile instances of homosexuals having children
(biological) removed from their homes because the
parent was homosexual.

Employment, Housing and Marriage issues aside, there is also no legal
recourse for a homosexual denied credit due to his orientation, and
there are a number of incidences reported in the last year both on
this newsgroup and in "mainstream" media sources of homosexuals told
to leave a store or restaurant simply because they're homosexual.

Sorry, but it happens, and calling it "[P]ure, unadulterated bullshit"
doesn't change the facts.


**********************************************

Occasionem cognosce

**********************************************
* LEGAL DISCLAIMER *
**********************************************
* The opinions expressed herein are entirely *
* those of the author, and are neither meant *
* to represent, nor do they represent, the *
* opinion(s) of his employer. *
**********************************************

J. Northwood

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:57:58 GMT, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael
Phillips) wrote:

>Pure, unadulterated bullshit. He is absolutely right about that. The
>LAW does not read:
>"You cannot be discriminated against, UNLESS, OF COURSE YOU'RE
>HOMOSEXUAL"

You're right.

It also provides _no_ protection whatsoever for Sexual Orientation.

Race, Religion (a lifestyle choice), Sex, Nationality. The big four.
In some circumstances, age is added.

Want the full gamut of everything that's included in various
categories?

Race, Color, National Origin, Religion, Sex, Age, Disability,
Veteran’s Status and Marital Status.

Tell me something: where is Sexual Orientation in the previous list?

>Obfuscation to the contrary notwithstanding, we all have the same
>rights. PERIOD!

Not in terms of access to and protection within employment, not in
terms of marriage, not in terms of access to and protection within
civil service, not in terms of protection of the custody of children,
not in terms of access to and protection within rental facilities, not
in terms of access to credit . . .

< snip >

>Correct, the PHRASE is from the Pledge, but he considers it to be a
>self-evident truth. It seems that he considers it to be the way we
>OUGHT to run the country.

And I'm happy for him. The point is, though, that there are far more
than Christians in this nation. I'm sorry he doesn't like that FACT.

J. Northwood

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:18:28 GMT, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael
Phillips) wrote:

< snip >

>Pure, unadulterated bullshit! Call the NAACP, or almost ANY activist
>group - they would LOVE to get their hands on the situation you
>describe here.

The NAACP couldn't do a damn thing about it.

For that matter, neither could the EEOC.

Sexual Orientation is not a protected class, and discrimination
against non-protected classes is legal.

>>Ergo, you are wrong in thinking that laws
>>protect gays on that score.

>Bullshit! The LAW protects everyone the same.

Bullpucky. The LAW does not.

>What I've seen happen
>many times is that someone's behaviour is unacceptable in a work
>situation, and they get fired - and they cry "foul!" When
>complimentary behavoiur from a straight would have resulted in
>termination as well. There's a HUGE difference between:

< snip >

Sure there is, and I agree that there is that difference.

Unfortunately, regardless of _behavior_, Sexual Orientation is enough
of a qualifier to allow discrimination.

Rasmus Neikes

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

In article <6i5lb8$h...@examiner.concentric.net>,
"Charles Joyner" <joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Silverman <cub...@cjnetworks.com>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.pen
> tecostal,alt.christnet
> To: Charles Joyner <joy...@motorsims.com>
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Civil Rights Homosexuality
>
> >Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
> >http://www.turnleft.com/personal
>
> >Get married. Join the Army. Rent a house, get a
> >job, and sit down in a restaurant counter without being in fear of being
> >evicted, fired, or kicked out for who you are.
> >
> >Mike,
>
> Ok hear is one for you. I go into a gay bar. I do not realize it as being a
> gay bar. I see two guys holding (or whatever) hands. I express my
> displeasure in seeing that. I get beat up.
>

I go to a circus and express my displeasure in seeing clowns... please! The
difference is that there is actually a NEED for gay bars, so that gays can go
out and at least limit the fear of being beaten up. If a gay couple, however,
goes to a 'normal' bar, they might just get beaten up simply for holding
hands, whereas I doubt you'd getr beaten up in a gay bar for holding hands
with a member of thew opposite sex...


> I rent a house and the owner is gay. I see two guys holding hands and speak
> my displeasure. He evicts me.

Again, it's not a comparable situation, since you _complain_ whereas gays just
get beaten up...

>
> Is that what you are talking about? Its everywhere. We all have the same


> rights. And even with those rights people break the law. If being gay is
> legal then you have nothing to worry about. There are laws.

Are you sure you still think the situations are the same to begin with?


>
> Next, you are homosexual and someone threatens you (some way any way) and
> you call the authorities. They do not take you that serious. guess what THEY
> DO THAT TO EVERYONE. They are busy (they say). We all have the same rights
> and different problems.
>

> Charles
>
>

Rasmus.

Rasmus Neikes

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

In article <6i5kg8$f...@examiner.concentric.net>,

"Charles Joyner" <joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:
>
> Clayton,
>
> Do you agree or disagree that our nation is the best in the world. Its the
> best out there. Its not perfect but still the best.

I disagree. First of all, it's not _my_ nation; and secondly I don't think
that such general statemnts are very useful. How many other nations -
specifiacly - do you know to make such judgements, anyways? :)

>
> :Um, actually, if you are saying that we as a nation are required
> :to acknowledge some sort of deity, then you are utterly and
> :completely mistaken. If that's not what you're saying, then you're
> :going to have to clarify.
>

> I believe it is my God that has made it great. You can believe what you want
> to. You can even believe in nothing. I believe we are "one nation under


> god". God makes it VERY clear that he does not endorse homosexual conduct.

Those are your belives. But as you just said, one should be allowed to belive
otherwise, so in how far should your belives be made the law?

>
> There is no way I believe that everything bad only happens to Gays. And

> please dont think I am trying to be rude. There are many problems here in


> the US. Problems that really need attention. Like illiteracy, starvation,

> age discrimination, drugs ect... Is it true that we all have our set of
> problems. I dont think that everyone discriminates against gays. Just like


> there are groups of people who discriminate against
> whites/blacks/Asian/Hispanic ect..but not all people discriminate. Its not

> everyone. We all have our set of problems.

When posting in aph it is somewhat safe to assume that the matters discussed
are concerned with the discrimination against homosexuals. Also, yuor choice
of examples is interesting. There are -or could be- illiterate homosexuals,
hungry gays, those taking drugs. Gays are white/ black/ Asian or Hispanic.
They also are Jewish or Christian. A Jew will hardly be a Christian and I have
yet to see a black person who is white...


>
> I believe we all have the same rights. Some work for or against you.

> Everyone has their set of problems.


>
> Why should America recognize that homosexuals want to be heard differently

> than heterosexuals. We all have the same rights. We are all the same when it
> comes to rights.

No one asked to be heared differently...???

>
> Did one ever think why the World thinks homosexual acts are wrong. There are
> many reasons not just biblical but medical as well.

Yes, and I can't find one reason which actually makes sense. Please state your
medical evidence for the above assumption. 'Biblical reasons' have nothing to
do with 'the world' as such, as the bible does not apply to quite a few people
outh there...

>
> If you say that all people dont agree with you then its true. If you say
> that all people should agree with you then its not.

All people should grant the same right to all other people though.

>
> Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
> comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then I
> get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
> get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has

> their set of problems.

Clayton Colwell

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

J. Michael Phillips (wiz...@eskimo.com) wrote:

: On 28 Apr 98 23:23:17 GMT, er...@bga.com (Clayton Colwell) wrote:

: >Charles Joyner (joy...@motorsims.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Ok hear is one for you. I go into a gay bar. I do not realize it as being a


: >: gay bar. I see two guys holding (or whatever) hands. I express my
: >: displeasure in seeing that. I get beat up.

: >
: >Question: how often does this happen? Serious question, especially


: >in comparison to the number of beatings and killings of gay
: >people at the hands of straightfolk.

: Having been attacked for being gay (and I'm NOT!) I can tell you that
: it's not pleasant.

Curious. I would have thought that such an incident might
give you an insight into a debilitating atmosphere that is
far-too-present in US society -- one that would attack a
person for being *perceived* as gay.

: I have gone to 5-6 gay bars with gay friends here


: in the Seattle area (thought they tended to disavow knowledge of my
: being when I sang with the Karaoke :) And I've only been menaced
: once by gays. It wasn't pleasant from that end either.

And I'm sorry that you were menaced. Gay people shouldn't have
_carte blanche_ to attack straight people.

: >: I rent a house and the owner is gay. I see two guys holding hands and speak


: >: my displeasure. He evicts me.
: >

: >Again, how often does this happen, in comparison to the opposite
: >occurring?

: Man - you REALLY have to move to the Seattle-Tacoma area . . . people
: PREFER renting to gays here . . . (stereotypes of femininity and all)

Um, we're talking about eviction based on sexual orientation.
Nice to know that Seattle's cool about renting to gayfolk, though,
should I ever move there.

: >: Is that what you are talking about? Its everywhere. We all have the same
: >: rights. And even with those rights people break the law. If being gay is


: >: legal then you have nothing to worry about. There are laws.

: >
: >And, amazingly enough, it is *legal* to discriminate on the


: >basis of sexual orientation in the vast majority of places in
: >this country.

: Pure, unadulterated bullshit! Call the NAACP, or almost ANY activist


: group - they would LOVE to get their hands on the situation you
: describe here.

Um, activist groups have done exactly that in cases of termination
of jobs based on sexual orientation, cases in which the plaintiff
was told "Sorry, dude, but it's legal to discriminate on that
basis."

You might want to check out some of the testimony given by
folks in Congressional hearings on the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA). Follow the URL
<http://www.hrc.org/issues/leg/enda/index.html>, click
on the Hearings link, then read some of the testimonials
from folks who have been discriminated against for their
sexual orientation.

: >Ergo, you are wrong in thinking that laws


: >protect gays on that score.

: Bullshit! The LAW protects everyone the same.

As many times as you want to cry "Bullshit!" or deny it,
you are incorrect in stating that THE LAW protects everyone
the same.

Taken from <http://www.hrc.org/issues/leg/enda/endafact.html>:

"a Detroit postal worker who was harassed and beaten at work
because of his perceived sexual orientation and was told by
a federal court that, although he had clearly suffered
discrimination, 'homosexuality is not an impermissible
criteria (sic) on which to discriminate' under Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Dillon v. Frank, 959 F2d
403 (6th Cir. 1992)"

: What I've seen happen


: many times is that someone's behaviour is unacceptable in a work
: situation, and they get fired - and they cry "foul!" When
: complimentary behavoiur from a straight would have resulted in
: termination as well.

And I don't want to see that happen any more than you do. What
you fail to realize is that, in a great many instances, the
gay person who was fired had already been doing an exemplary
job. Heavens, haven't you heard the testimonies about the
fine service records and many decorations of soldiers who
have been drummed out of the military for being gay? Haven't
you heard of the infamous Cracker Barrel case, where the owners
declared point-blank that they didn't want any gay people working
for them and then proceeded to seek out and fire any gay
employees, regardless of their efficacy and competence
as employees?

: There's a HUGE difference between:
: 1. I'm gay, but I do my job well and keep personal matters seperate


: from work matters, and
: 2. Sure, I'm gay, and I behave like a "flaming faggot" and pinch
: other employees' butts all the time.

Well, *duh*. Sexual harassment is never acceptable. But what
of this "flaming faggot" stuff -- are you telling me that it
would be permissible to fire a somewhat-effeminate straight
man, just because he exhibits some stereotypically-gay man-
nerisms? Are you *that* petty?

Are you going to fire straight employees who wear wedding
rings or have pictures of sweeties on their desk for not
keeping their personal matters separate from work matters?

: >: Next, you are homosexual and someone threatens you (some way any way) and


: >: you call the authorities. They do not take you that serious. guess what THEY

: >: DO THAT TO EVERYONE. They are busy (they say). We all have the same rights


: >: and different problems.
: >
: >Matters of degree and perspective, sir. See above.

: *yawn*

Gee, what a humanitarian you are. Does injustice have to affect you
*directly* for you to have concern? Feh.

(That reminds me of an incident in Austin, TX that I have
first-hand experience on. Some years back, the area just
outside Oilcan Harry's, a local gay bar, had been plagued by
a number of gaybashings. Despite my and others' efforts to
stop the attacks, we never got any city or police support
until after a straight person leaving a nearby restaurant
was attacked. *Then* it became a problem worth noting.)

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

In article <6i5lb8$h...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Silverman <cub...@cjnetworks.com>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.pen
> tecostal,alt.christnet
> To: Charles Joyner <joy...@motorsims.com>
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Civil Rights Homosexuality
>
>
> >Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
> >http://www.turnleft.com/personal
>
> >Get married. Join the Army. Rent a house, get a
> >job, and sit down in a restaurant counter without being in fear of being
> >evicted, fired, or kicked out for who you are.
> >
> >Mike,
>

> Ok hear is one for you. I go into a gay bar. I do not realize it as being a
> gay bar. I see two guys holding (or whatever) hands. I express my
> displeasure in seeing that. I get beat up.

Unless YOU were being a jerk, the two guys were being jerks.

You can prosecute for assault and battery.

So what's the relevancy?

If there were protection based on sexual orientation in that state, and they
not only beat you up but also insulted your orientation in the process,
you then have a hate crime. It can add from one to five years to a sentence
depending on the state.


>
> I rent a house and the owner is gay. I see two guys holding hands and speak
> my displeasure. He evicts me.

If there is no protection based on sexual orientation in your city or state,
then, as the saying goes, you're S.O.L.

If there was protection based on sexual orientation, you could sue.

> Is that what you are talking about? Its everywhere. We all have the same
> rights. And even with those rights people break the law. If being gay is
> legal then you have nothing to worry about. There are laws.

But there are laws against homosexuals that are not against heterosexuals.
Check out the many different legal definitions for "sodomy." How it is
defined in one state may be completely different in the next state.

Even when one state defines sodomy as "oral sex", prosecution only
occurs against homosexuals. Why?

Because there is no protection based on sexual orientation.

>
> Next, you are homosexual and someone threatens you (some way any way) and
> you call the authorities. They do not take you that serious. guess what THEY
> DO THAT TO EVERYONE. They are busy (they say). We all have the same rights
> and different problems.

The unfortunate thing about your comment is that it is true.
The more unfortunate thing is that it happens much more to minorities.

If there is no protection based on sexual orientation, then tough for the person
being threatened. In my state (California) I can press charges via
Citizen's Arrest
for violation of Penal Code 415.3: Speech that may incite violence.

But I have to file the charge. The police don't. All they will do is take
the person
into custody for the duration of filing the complaint -- the paperwork.

There are several criminal codes that relate to threats and intimidation.
If a peace officer fails to take a report is such an instance, he can be held
accountable by his superiors. Any future act done in light of the threat
where the police failed to act opens the jurisdiction to litigation.

In my county, I am on the Human Rights Commission. We work together with
the sheriff's department. Sexual orientation IS a protected class. We encourage
anyone to file a complaint for any hate crimes as well as hate incidents, hate
vandalism, hate graffiti, etc. But this applies to ALL the protected classes.

We are currently holding seminars on how business people and their
employees can deal with hate incidents.

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

In article <354684c3...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wiz...@eskimo.com (J.
Michael Phillips) wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:24:56 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
> <News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com> wrote:
>

> >Charles Joyner wrote:
> >>
> >> John,
> >>
> >> I thought we were making progress. Please excuse any misspellings in the
> >> future.
> >>
> >> >Then you have not been paying attention at all.
> >>
> >> What can a heterosexual do that a homosexual can't?
> >>
> >> >First of all, it's ACCEPT, not "except." The right-wing religious fanatics
> >> >want to "except" homosexuals from anything public.
> >>
> >> They do not control the nation.
> >

> > Yet! They are advocating a theocracy similar to Iran...
>
> Well, of COURSE!!! ANY group will try to wield as much political
> power as it can. YOU try to wield as much political power as YOU can

> - does it really surprise you that opposition will try to as well?
> >>

> >> >We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
> >> >and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.
> >>
> >> >No, that's a slogan.
> >>
> >> A slogan that has meaning
> >>
> >> >> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
> >> >> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and
riding a
> >> >> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
> >> >> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both
legal.
> >> >
> >> >The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Why is this stupid. Why do you use that phrase. It is not illegal to
be gay.
> >> It is just not "excepted" by all. Neither are other things.
> >

> > Gays do not seek social acceptance - we seek LEGAL RIGHTS... the same
> >legal rights as any other member of society so that "ALL people will be
> >EQUAL".
>
> In all fairness - if you're going to blast him for using "except"
> instead of "accept," it is only fair that I point out that the period
> should be place inside the quotation marks . . . :)

I did not "blast" him, I corrected him.... twice.

And the other typo is just that -- a typo -- a rapid transposition.
You are correct about where the period should be.

> Also, in all fairness, it is readily apparent (at least here, in the
> "People's Republic of Washington") that SOME (probably not most) gays
> are not seeking EQUAL rights, but PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

Could you cite where some gays are seeking preferential treatment?

Have they initiated legislative process to seek preferential treatment?

> I have no
> peoblem with equal rights, but I have a real problem with preferential
> treatment.
> >
> >>

> >> >Theoretically, yes. In fact, NO!
> >

> >Example:
> > Gays can not marry the consenting adult of thier choice,
>
> HUH? This is not so in most places.

We're talking civil marriages, not church weddings.


>
> > Gays are discriminated agains ih housing,
>
> YOu REALLY ought to move to Washington State - at least West of the
> mountains . . .

I know that there are many communities that do not discriminate, but
those are just local protections. I live in a state with such protection.


>
> > Gays can be fired form thier job for no other reason than thier
private
> >lives and with no legal recourse...
>
> Pure, unadulterated bullshit. If the ONLY reason they are fired is
> their ORIENTATION - they have legal recourse.

ONLY if the particular jurisdiction has sexual orientation as a protected
class. Most communities in the country do not.

> If, on the other hand,
> it is their BEHAVIOUR - then it is entirely possible that they OUGHT
> to have been fired.

No one is disputing that.

Alex Elliott

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

Charles Joyner (joy...@motorsims.com) wrote:

: I believe it is my God that has made it great. You can believe what you want


: to. You can even believe in nothing. I believe we are "one nation under
: god". God makes it VERY clear that he does not endorse homosexual conduct.

The UCC (United Church of Christ) would disagree with you. They not
only are open and affirming to homosexuals, they were also the first
mainstream Christian denomination in the U.S. to ordain openly gay and
lesbian ministers. (The UCC's predecessor, the Congregational church,
was the first to ordain blacks and women and was a major force in the
Abolitionist movement. I believe this is not unrelated to their stance
on gays.)

In case you're not familiar with the UCC, it's the largest Protestant
denomination in New England and, as the direct descendent of the Pilgrims
and the Puritans (who merged in the 1800's to form the Congregational
church), is arguably the oldest American denomination. If you're talking
real, traditional, American Christianity dating back in a continuous line
to when "in God we trust" was coined, UCC is about as good as you're
going to get.

Alex.

>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Alex Elliott
Yale University Physics Department
New Haven, CT, USA

email: ell...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
WWW: http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~elliott
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

In article <6i5kg8$f...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> Clayton,
>
> Do you agree or disagree that our nation is the best in the world. Its the
> best out there. Its not perfect but still the best.
>

> :Um, actually, if you are saying that we as a nation are required
> :to acknowledge some sort of deity, then you are utterly and
> :completely mistaken. If that's not what you're saying, then you're
> :going to have to clarify.
>

> I believe it is my God that has made it great. You can believe what you want
> to. You can even believe in nothing. I believe we are "one nation under
> god". God makes it VERY clear that he does not endorse homosexual conduct.

If God makes it "VERY clear," then who do so many theologians and
biblical scholars disagree?


>
> There is no way I believe that everything bad only happens to Gays.

Is anyonesaying here? I haven't seen it.

> And
> please dont think I am trying to be rude. There are many problems here in
> the US. Problems that really need attention. Like illiteracy, starvation,
> age discrimination, drugs ect...

"age discrimination, etc." AARP fights against age discrimination.
There are many jurisdictions that protect people based on age.
Are you saying that gays should not fight discrimination against them?

If so, then why not?


> Is it true that we all have our set of
> problems. I dont think that everyone discriminates against gays.

Again, no one is saying that.

But the major source for anti-gay discrimination is conservative religious
people and organizations that actively promote legislation to PREVENT
homosexuals from fair and equal housing, employment, etc.

> Just like
> there are groups of people who discriminate against
> whites/blacks/Asian/Hispanic ect..

They are federally protected.

> but not all people discriminate. Its not
> everyone. We all have our set of problems.

I fail to see your point.
>
> I believe we all have the same rights.

We are all ENTITLED to the same rights. We DON't all HAVE them.

You have the right to marry the consenting non-blood-related adult
that you love. Homosexuals dfo not have that right. And the Supreme
Court declared marriage as a "basic human right," without qualification.

> Some work for or against you.

How to some "rights" work against us? By law, rights end where
harm to another begins.

> Everyone has their set of problems.
>
> Why should America recognize that homosexuals want to be heard differently
> than heterosexuals.

Excuse me? What do you mean by "heard differently"?

> We all have the same rights. We are all the same when it
> comes to rights.
>

How much did those rose-colored glasses cost?

> Did one ever think why the World thinks homosexual acts are wrong. There are
> many reasons not just biblical but medical as well.


Oh, please. We've been through that faulty argument too often to
bother with it again.

We are not talking about sex acts here. We are talking about basic
human rights.

>
> If you say that all people dont agree with you then its true. If you say
> that all people should agree with you then its not.

Whether all people agree or not that homosexuals should have the
SAME rights and protections as heterosexuals, matters not.

They can THINK or BELIEVE what they want. But when they ACT to
prevent the exercise of inalienable rights, they will be fought in the
courts and on the streets.


>
> Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
> comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then I
> get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
> get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
> their set of problems.

What drivel.

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

In article <cubsfan-2804...@dv149s11.lawrence.ks.us>,
cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) wrote:

> In article <6i5kg8$f...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
> <joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:
>
> > Did one ever think why the World thinks homosexual acts are wrong. There are
> > many reasons not just biblical but medical as well.
>

> Medical reasons?
>
> Why don't you try telling us just what they are, Doctor. Please be
> specific and have citations to back you up.

Any bets that we get to see the Family Research Council, NARTH,
and Paul Cameron sanctified again?

Alex Elliott

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

J. Michael Phillips (wiz...@eskimo.com) wrote:

: > Gays do not seek social acceptance - we seek LEGAL RIGHTS... the same


: >legal rights as any other member of society so that "ALL people will be
: >EQUAL".

: In all fairness - if you're going to blast him for using "except"
: instead of "accept," it is only fair that I point out that the period
: should be place inside the quotation marks . . . :)

In American English, yes. British English puts the period outside the
quotation marks. In an international forum such as this, I'm not sure
whether you can really enforce one as correct over the other.

: Also, in all fairness, it is readily apparent (at least here, in the


: "People's Republic of Washington") that SOME (probably not most) gays

: are not seeking EQUAL rights, but PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. I have no


: peoblem with equal rights, but I have a real problem with preferential
: treatment.

Can you give us an example of this preferential treatment being sought?

zoe wilfong

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to


On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, J. Northwood wrote:

>
> >Also, in all fairness, it is readily apparent (at least here, in the
> >"People's Republic of Washington") that SOME (probably not most) gays
> >are not seeking EQUAL rights, but PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. I have no
> >peoblem with equal rights, but I have a real problem with preferential
> >treatment.
>

> In what respect are homosexuals in Washington State seeking
> preferential treatment?
>
> It's an honest question -- I'm not "flaming" you, just really curious.
>

Exactly. Someone please enumerate what these alledged 'special rights'
are that gays are seeking.

zoe


zoe wilfong

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to


On 28 Apr 1998, Charles Joyner wrote:

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Silverman <cub...@cjnetworks.com>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.pen
> tecostal,alt.christnet
> To: Charles Joyner <joy...@motorsims.com>
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Civil Rights Homosexuality
>
>
> >Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
> >http://www.turnleft.com/personal
>
> >Get married. Join the Army. Rent a house, get a
> >job, and sit down in a restaurant counter without being in fear of being
> >evicted, fired, or kicked out for who you are.
> >
> >Mike,
>
> Ok hear is one for you. I go into a gay bar. I do not realize it as being a
> gay bar. I see two guys holding (or whatever) hands. I express my
> displeasure in seeing that. I get beat up.

First of all Charles, nobody cares whether you *like* homosexuality or
not. It's none of your fucking business so keep your opinions to
yourself. Suppose I witness any of the following:

Women with big bleached hair.
Men with bald heads and gotees.
People driving expensive status symbol foreign cars.
A het couple with seven kids.
Someone listening to rap music.
People hanging out in bars, drinking, smoking, gambling.
People wasting time and money in church.

I don't *like* any of the above things, but as long as those people are
not doing anything to me, IT'S NONE OF MY F-ING BUSINESS, so why would I
go up to them and start telling them how much I personally don't like x,
y, and z????? Get a clue Charles, other people have a right to do things
that you don't like, as long as they are not hurting anybody. And they
have the right to exercise the same rights that all other people have.

zoe


DRS

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

Alex Elliott wrote in message <6i7qgm$ah6$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>...

[...]

>In American English, yes. British English puts the period outside the
>quotation marks. In an international forum such as this, I'm not sure
>whether you can really enforce one as correct over the other.


That's not what I was taught. And it's called a 'full stop'...

Ward Stewart

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

On 28 Apr 1998 12:17:05 EDT, "Charles Joyner" <joy...@motorsims.com>
wrote:

>John wrote:
>
>>We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
>>and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.
>
>
>>No, that's a slogan.
>
>
>A slogan that has meaning
>
>>> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
>>> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and riding a
>>> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not comparing
>>> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both legal.
>>
>>The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.
>
>
>Why is this stupid. Why do you use that phrase. It is not illegal to be gay.
>It is just not "excepted" by all. Neither are other things.
>
>

>>This Nation is not run on a slogan.
>>
>No, by elected Men and Women.

>Charles

And by LAW -- this law protects the rights of unpopular minorities
from the malice of the majority.

Since you find yourself opposing the republic and advocating for a
return to populist forms you will, one can only suppose, give up on
women's right to choose abortion ---

I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?

ward


--------------------------------------

Ward and George
forty-one years together
but still,
strangers before the law

--------------------------------------

Ward Stewart

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

On 28 Apr 1998 18:16:40 EDT, "Charles Joyner" <joy...@motorsims.com>
wrote:

>Clayton,


>
>Do you agree or disagree that our nation is the best in the world. Its the
>best out there. Its not perfect but still the best.
>
>:Um, actually, if you are saying that we as a nation are required
>:to acknowledge some sort of deity, then you are utterly and
>:completely mistaken. If that's not what you're saying, then you're
>:going to have to clarify.
>
>I believe it is my God that has made it great. You can believe what you want
>to. You can even believe in nothing. I believe we are "one nation under
>god". God makes it VERY clear that he does not endorse homosexual conduct.

And, our constitution and bill of rights make it very clear indeed
that we are a SECULAR republic -- your beliefs, biblical or otherwise,
are a nearly total irrelevance.


>There is no way I believe that everything bad only happens to Gays. And


>please dont think I am trying to be rude. There are many problems here in

I have no idea whether or not you are trying to be rude -- the fact of
the matter is that you ARE rude, rude indeed!

The assumption that I am something just a little less than human and
therefore not entitled to human rights, just a little less than a
citizen and therefore not entitled to civil rights is well beyond the
usual meaning of the word "rude."

>the US. Problems that really need attention. Like illiteracy, starvation,

>age discrimination, drugs ect... Is it true that we all have our set of
>problems. I dont think that everyone discriminates against gays. Just like


>there are groups of people who discriminate against

>whites/blacks/Asian/Hispanic ect..but not all people discriminate. Its not


>everyone. We all have our set of problems.

Your point being?

>
>I believe we all have the same rights. Some work for or against you.


>Everyone has their set of problems.

Indeed -- we do ALL have the same rights -- it is the recognition of
these rights that is being denied.

>
>Why should America recognize that homosexuals want to be heard differently

>than heterosexuals. We all have the same rights. We are all the same when it
>comes to rights.

Please to explain this "heard differently." Do not be afraid to be
specific.


>
>Did one ever think why the World thinks homosexual acts are wrong. There are
>many reasons not just biblical but medical as well.

Majority opinion is irrelevant in matters of civil rights here as are
"biblical" considerations. The "medical" reasons you claim might be
germane -- please to specify them. Please explain why it is that the
AMA does not recognize them.

>If you say that all people dont agree with you then its true. If you say
>that all people should agree with you then its not.

This is entirely meaningless -- there is no need whatsoever for ALL
people to "agree" with me -- there IS a need in out republic for ALL
people to be treated equally, to stand equal before the law.


>
>Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
>comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then I
>get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
>get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
>their set of problems.

>Charles

Perhaps true -- what is your point -- since one group is treated
unfairly, ALL groups must submit without complaint to the same
mis-treatment? Surely not!

ward


>
>
>

_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_

"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
_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_/*\_

John Rutledge

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <6i5kg8$f...@examiner.concentric.net>,

Charles Joyner <joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:
>Clayton,
>Do you agree or disagree that our nation is the best in the world. Its the
>best out there. Its not perfect but still the best.

It's the best in the world because the US is a free nation, not
because it is a Christian nation. Being a free nation is
incompatable with being a Christian nation.

>:Um, actually, if you are saying that we as a nation are required
>:to acknowledge some sort of deity, then you are utterly and
>:completely mistaken. If that's not what you're saying, then you're
>:going to have to clarify.
>
>I believe it is my God that has made it great. You can believe what you want
>to. You can even believe in nothing. I believe we are "one nation under
>god". God makes it VERY clear that he does not endorse homosexual conduct.

The US is not "one nation under God". That is just propaganda from
the religious right. The phrase "under God" was not even part of
the orginal Pledge of Allegiance. The original pledge only
promised "one nation with liberty and justice for all." Christian
groups compaigned hard to add the phrase "under God" because they
want everyone to believe the US is a Christian nation. Similarly,
Christians groups have been compaigning hard for over 200 years to
make everyone believe that the US is a Christian nation.

However, there is one problem with calling the US "one nation
under God" and that problem is the US Constitution. Three
specifics stand out making it impossible to call the US a
Christian Nation. First, the total lack of any mention of God or
even Jesus. This lack of mentioning the final authority of
Christianity means there is absolutely no requirement that any laws
have any Christian basis whatsoever. This lack of God and any
requirements we have to Him is very unChristian.

Second, Article VI states "no religious test shall ever be required
as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States." Non-Christains have to be allowed to hold office, any
office. The Founding Fathers clearly wanted people of every
religion, including Satan worshippers, to be able to hold office
include the Presidency. How can the US be a nation under God if
it allows godless people to control it?

Third, and most problematic, is the First Amendemnt. This
Amendment violates the First Commandment. Walter Berns, "Religion
and the Founding Principles", _The_Moral_Foundation_of_the_American_
_Republic_, 3rd edition, ed. Robert H. Horwitz, University of
Virginia Press: Charlottesville Virginia, 1986, page 211:

If the Founders had intended to establish a Christian
commonwealth (and, under the circumstances, it would
not have been any other variety of religious common-
wealth) it was remiss of them - indeed, sinful of
them - not to have said so and to have acted accordingly.
... The first of Madison's Amendments, proposed in
response to the demands of the states for a bill of
rights, was a declaration insisting not that all
derives from God, but "that all power is originally
vested in and consequently derives from the people."
Instead of speaking of man's duties to God and to each
other, the spoke - and again in this first of the
proposed amendments - of man's indubitable, unalienable,
and indefensible rights, including their right to
freely acquire and use property.

On page 215 Berns go on to state:

Instead of establishing religion, the Founders established
religious freedom, and the principle of religious freedom
derives from a non-religious source. Rather than presupposing
a Supreme Being, the institutions they established presuppose
the rights of man, which were discovered by Hobbes and Locke
to exist prior to all government - in the state of nature to
be precise. To secure these rights, men must leave the state
of nature which they do by giving their consent to the civil
government. Nevertheless, the rights presuppose the state
of nature, and the idea of the state of nature is
incompatible with Christian doctrine. According to
Christian doctrine, "the first and great commandment" is
to love God, and the second, which is like unto it, is to
love one's neighbor as oneself. In the state of nature,
however, man is not obliged to love anyone, but merely to
preserve himself and, what is more to the point, "to preserve
the rest of mankind [only] when his own preservation comes
not in competition." [John Locke, _Two_Treatises_of_
_Government_, book 2, section 6.]

The very concept of fundamental rights, which is the foundation for
US law, is a rejection of the authority of of God. How can one
call the US "one nation under God" when its highest laws reject
the authority of God?

>Did one ever think why the World thinks homosexual acts are wrong. There are
>many reasons not just biblical but medical as well.

The World doesn't think homosexual act are wrong. From Ian Robertson,
_Sociology_, 3rd edition, Worth Publishing: New York, 1987, page 225:

About a third of the societies included in the cross-
cultural samples totally forbid homosexuality, or
sexual orientation toward the same sex. ... In the
remaining societies, homosexual behavior is tolerated,
approved, and occasionally required.

Only a minority of cultures have had a problem with homosexuality.
Also, the medical community has not thought that homosexuality is
a disorder for over 20 years. They realized there was no
scientific evidence that homosexuality causes harm.

+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| | "If only it were a modern document, with |
| John Lawrence Rutledge | a smart index and hyper links stretching |
| Research Assistant | all through the world data net. It was |
| Distributed Multimedia | terribly frustrating to flip back and |
| Systems Lab | forth between the pages and crude flat |
| Computer Science Department | illustrations that never even moved. Nor |
| UMass - Lowell | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins. |
| 1 University Ave. | It completely lacked a feel for sound. |
| Lowell, MA 01854 | "Most baffling of all was the problem |
| | new words... In normal text you'd only |
| | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the |
| jrut...@cs.uml.edu | definition would pop up just below." |
| http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg | from David Brin's _Earth_ |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Charles Joyner

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

John Rutledge,

Ok. There was a company called Burgers. It started as a Burger company. They
made a large plate that said "we will provide the best burgers in the
world". The owner decided he would expand his business all over the world.
He realized that not everyone liked burgers but his idea for a food chain
would still stand.

So now he made all kinds of food to fit the many mouths he would feed. He
makes pizza, omelets, you name it he makes it, but still provides the best
burgers in the world.. The company takes off. He adds new employees
presidents, vice presidents, and a full staff. He has taken his company to
thousands of employees.

Now time has passed. He retires and the company still stands. They later
expand to make grocery stores, supermarkets, and food production.

Someone comes along to another and says "they make the best burgers in the
world". The other says "no thats a slogan". The other says "thats a slogan
with meaning. It founded his company".

One Nation Under God

Charles

JC Cooper

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

Ward Stewart wrote in message <355340fc...@news.hi.net>...
>On 28 Apr 1998 12:17:05 EDT, "Charles Joyner" <joy...@motorsims.com>
>wrote:
>


Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the promotion of
un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a persons
butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?

If you should experience the rare phenomenon of finding
that what I said is incorrect, please notify your nearest
government groupie organization. I will, however, exercise
my right to invoke Executive Excuse.

JC Cooper
Mayor
Gnat Flats, Texas


Rick Hodges

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

Another guy walks up and sees the sign. He says "You don't make the
best burgers in the world, I do!" And he files a lawsuit. The suit is
thrown out of court. Why? Because the term has no LEGAL meaning.

Same with "One Nation Under God." It may mean something, but not what
you want it to. Sorry.

-Rick

Rick Hodges

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

When you find a single person on this group that's ever suggested
anything remotely like this, let us know.

You so love the strawman. Who's evading now? Are you sure YOU'RE not
secretly gay (like me -- oops, cat's out of the bag).

-Rick

JC Cooper

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

John Rutledge wrote in message <6ia0pk$jjm$1...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>...


Are you saying that the "creator" referred to is not meant to be God? I am
not real sure, but I think the supreme court disagreed with you on that one.
And no, I don't know the case but I would bet my caps lock key that it is
there somewhere if you are interested enough to check.

Mike Silverman

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <6ia4k7$rce$1...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
<gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:


> Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the promotion of
> un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a persons
> butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?

How about: "Do you approve of a law banning discrimination against gay people?"

The fact that you trot out dog-earned pornographic prose every time
someone threatens your point of view exposes you as a idiot, or a pervert
(or both).

--

Clayton Colwell

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

JC Cooper (gnatjc...@wcnet.net) wrote:

: Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the promotion of
: un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a persons
: butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?

Oh my, who's doing *that*?
Oh wait, that's what you think homosexuality *is*.

It's on par with thinking that heterosexuality is having someone stick
their penis up a woman's butt, then her vagina, and then putting
it in her mouth.

Man, I'm glad that critical thinking isn't a job requirement for
Mayor of Gnat Falls. Otherwise, it'd be time for a recall.

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <6ia4i7$6...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joy...@motorsims.com> wrote:

> John Rutledge,
>
> Ok. There was a company called Burgers. It started as a Burger company. They
> made a large plate that said "we will provide the best burgers in the
> world". The owner decided he would expand his business all over the world.
> He realized that not everyone liked burgers but his idea for a food chain
> would still stand.
>
> So now he made all kinds of food to fit the many mouths he would feed. He
> makes pizza, omelets, you name it he makes it, but still provides the best
> burgers in the world.. The company takes off. He adds new employees
> presidents, vice presidents, and a full staff. He has taken his company to
> thousands of employees.
>
> Now time has passed. He retires and the company still stands. They later
> expand to make grocery stores, supermarkets, and food production.
>
> Someone comes along to another and says "they make the best burgers in the
> world". The other says "no thats a slogan". The other says "thats a slogan
> with meaning. It founded his company".
>

> One Nation Under God


One minor problem with your cute analogy.

THE founding document of our country is the U.S. Constitution.

Do tell me where you find the word "God" in it anywhere?

The document that led to our founding of this country is the
Declaration of Independence. It was a list of grievances to
King George III.

In the very first paragraph, Mr. Jefferson calls upon the king
to recognize the rights that "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God entitle them..."


No Judeo-Christian God anywhere in that statement.

Mother Nature. Our Creator.

Many different religions and beliefs hold different deities
as "Creator." Jefferson recognized that.

You apparently don't.

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <6ia4k7$rce$1...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
<gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:

> Ward Stewart wrote in message <355340fc...@news.hi.net>...

> >On 28 Apr 1998 12:17:05 EDT, "Charles Joyner" <joy...@motorsims.com>
> >wrote:
> >

> Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the promotion of
> un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a persons
> butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?

Ever notice that it is the Christians who come into alt.politics.homosexuality
to talk about sex; and that the homosexuals here don't talk about it much?

I wonder what their obsessive preoccupation with other people's
sex lives is all about?

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <6iaote$k...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joyner@**motorsims.com> wrote:

> >Ever notice that it is the Christians who come into
> alt.politics.homosexuality
> >to talk about sex; and that the homosexuals here don't talk about it much?
> >
> >I wonder what their obsessive preoccupation with other people's
> >sex lives is all about?
> >
> >--
> >John
> >

> I wonder if there are major porn advertisements on
> alt.politics.homosexuality? Everyday. I wonder if the porn companies make
> major dollars for advertising there?

First of all, porn advertisers don't pay a dime to get on the newsgroups.

Second of all, the huge (and I mean HUGE) majority are straight porn
pushers, and they spam it to any newsgroup with the three letters
s-e-x in that sequence in a name.
>
> I do agree this is not the place for sex talk.


We all agree.

zoe wilfong

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to


On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, JC Cooper wrote:

> >I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
> >before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?
> >
> >ward
>
>
> Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the promotion of
> un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a persons
> butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?
>

C'mon Jc, you know all decent straight people would vote against such an
abomination as you mentioned. That wouldn't stop them from doing it,
though, so why bother?

zoe


Mike Silverman

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <3548b...@feed1.realtime.net>, er...@bga.com (Clayton Colwell)
wrote:

> Man, I'm glad that critical thinking isn't a job requirement for
> Mayor of Gnat Falls. Otherwise, it'd be time for a recall.

Why, he still has the full support of both the hog and the sow.

Charles Joyner

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

>Ever notice that it is the Christians who come into
alt.politics.homosexuality
>to talk about sex; and that the homosexuals here don't talk about it much?
>
>I wonder what their obsessive preoccupation with other people's
>sex lives is all about?
>
>--
>John
>
I wonder if there are major porn advertisements on
alt.politics.homosexuality? Everyday. I wonder if the porn companies make
major dollars for advertising there?

I do agree this is not the place for sex talk.

Charles

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <cubsfan-3004...@163.176.20.93>,
cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) wrote:

> In article <6ia4k7$rce$1...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
> <gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:
>
>

> > Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the promotion of
> > un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a persons
> > butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?
>

> How about: "Do you approve of a law banning discrimination against gay
people?"
>
> The fact that you trot out dog-earned pornographic prose every time
> someone threatens your point of view exposes you as a idiot, or a pervert
> (or both).

I also do not know of anyone who does what he describes.

He must be all alone in that act.

John De Salvio

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <6ia8lh$s9b$2...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
<gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:

> John Rutledge wrote in message <6ia0pk$jjm$1...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>...

> Are you saying that the "creator" referred to is not meant to be God?

First of all, you are referring to the Declaration of Independence,
which is not a founding legal document of the United States.

It is a declaration of severance from Great Britain. And TJ was very clear
in not attaching any specific deity to the "Creator" (Nature or Nature's God,
as he put it).

> I am
> not real sure, but I think the supreme court disagreed with you on that one.

The Supreme Court? What case?

If you are referring to the Trinity Decision (1892), you are barking up the
wrong tree.

The only thing that the Trinity decision confirmed was that there was
a majority of Christians in the United States, and that there would be no
encroachments on employment for United States citizens if Trinity Church
in New York sought to hire a rector from England.

The decision also cautioned that the United States was to give the same
full rights and freedoms to all other religions.

It did NOT declare the United States to be "a Christian Nation," much
to the consternation of some religious groups that think otherwise.

> And no, I don't know the case but I would bet my caps lock key that it is
> there somewhere if you are interested enough to check.

NOW you have the case.

Look it up, and read the entire decision, including its admonishment
to consider the "spirit of the law."

Fenris

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

In article <cubsfan-3004...@163.176.20.93>,
cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) quoted "JC
Cooper"<gnatjc...@wcnet.net>:

> > Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the promotion of
> > un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a persons
> > butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?

Could you clarify whose penis and which mouth? I'm not sure what you
describe is even possible for most men.

--
Legitimate e-mailers (not spammers) should remove the "spam.sucks" and replace it with "azstarnet" in my address.

Charles Joyner

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

Mike Silverman wrote in message ...

>
>The fact that you trot out dog-earned pornographic prose every time
>someone threatens your point of view exposes you as a idiot, or a pervert
>(or both).
>

>--
>Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
>http://www.turnleft.com/personal

Mike,
I am not trying to be rude but that makes no sense. I keep reading trying to
figure out that that means.

If it means that homosexuals (or in particular certain people who have that
orientation and post here) always go to the defense when someone makes a
statement then you are correct.

Charles

Charles Joyner

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

Ward,

>This is entirely meaningless -- there is no need whatsoever for ALL
>people to "agree" with me -- there IS a need in out republic for ALL
>people to be treated equally, to stand equal before the law.

Is equal having a police officer come to you and take his time with you and
listen to all you have to say pat you on the back and wash your windows?
That would be equal right? Because that happens to all people that are
heterolsexual. We have it so much better. We do not have any problems with
law officers or bad people beating us up or people stealing from us. Its
just much better not being gay, right?

>>
>>Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
>>comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then
I
>>get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
>>get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
>>their set of problems.
>>Charles
>
>Perhaps true -- what is your point -- since one group is treated
>unfairly, ALL groups must submit without complaint to the same
>mis-treatment? Surely not!
>
>ward

What you need to realize is WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU HAPPENS TO THE REST OF US!
If you feel you get pulled over more for being gay, we feel we get pulled
over because he does not like me or the way we looked at him. If you say I
did not get a fair shake on some (anything) deal and the straight person did
could it be he was more prepared? He had something better to offer. Or in
your world because he is gay he should automaticly get treated by some
imaginary straight standard.


Charles

Mike Silverman

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <6icti5$n...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joyner@**motorsims.com> wrote:


> What you need to realize is WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU HAPPENS TO THE REST OF US!
> If you feel you get pulled over more for being gay, we feel we get pulled
> over because he does not like me or the way we looked at him.

The difference is that gays are an identifiable class of people...if the
cop pulls you over because he doesn't like the way you look, he is
discriminating against YOU, for no reason, just randomness.

If he pulls me over because I am gay, or black, he is doing so because he
is prejudices against an entire class/group of people, not because he is
just randomly pissed at me personally.

Mike Silverman

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <6icsdk$l...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joyner@**motorsims.com> wrote:

> Mike Silverman wrote in message ...
>
> >
> >The fact that you trot out dog-earned pornographic prose every time
> >someone threatens your point of view exposes you as a idiot, or a pervert
> >(or both).

> Mike,


> I am not trying to be rude but that makes no sense. I keep reading trying to
> figure out that that means.
>
> If it means that homosexuals (or in particular certain people who have that
> orientation and post here) always go to the defense when someone makes a
> statement then you are correct.


We are trying to have a serious political/social debate, and when people
come barging in writing detailed pornographic, and lurid descriptions of
alleged sex acts, it is NOT relevant to the discussion at hand.

I find people who do that no better than the random sex spammers that
USENET is plagued with.

L. Michael Roberts

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to
> >I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
> >before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?
> >
> >ward
>
> Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the promotion of
> un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a persons
> butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?

About as emotionally loaded as asking the question "Do you approve of
the promotion of firearms ownership such as allowing middle school
children access to high powered guns as in Jonesborough AK?" Try
putting that to a vote of the general public....

BTW... Heterosexuals indulge in "un-natural" sex acts "..such as having


someone stick their penis up a persons butt and then putting it in their

mouth". Acording to recent studies, 25% of heterosexuals engauge in
this behaviour - making it a predominantly heterosexual act as heteros
outnumber gays 90-1 [or 95-1 or 99-1 depending on who's figures you
believe] so there are far more heteros doing this than gays.

+====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my address
+====================================================================+

Rick Hodges

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

Charles Joyner wrote:
>
> Ward,
> >This is entirely meaningless -- there is no need whatsoever for ALL
> >people to "agree" with me -- there IS a need in out republic for ALL
> >people to be treated equally, to stand equal before the law.
>
> Is equal having a police officer come to you and take his time with you and
> listen to all you have to say pat you on the back and wash your windows?
> That would be equal right? Because that happens to all people that are
> heterolsexual. We have it so much better. We do not have any problems with
> law officers or bad people beating us up or people stealing from us. Its
> just much better not being gay, right?
>
> >>
> >>Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
> >>comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then
> I
> >>get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
> >>get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
> >>their set of problems.
> >>Charles
> >
> >Perhaps true -- what is your point -- since one group is treated
> >unfairly, ALL groups must submit without complaint to the same
> >mis-treatment? Surely not!
> >
> >ward
>
> What you need to realize is WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU HAPPENS TO THE REST OF US!
> If you feel you get pulled over more for being gay, we feel we get pulled
> over because he does not like me or the way we looked at him.

Fine. So you agree that this type of treatment is unfair, right?

Let's go on to the next step.

True, we can't legislate everything. We can't pass a law preventing policemen from
pulling over people because they look at them funny.

But there are times when we can and should make laws like this. When an injustice
(and you have agreed that it is an injustice, haven't you) is so large and so
pervasive, it should be legislated. A real fine example is racial discrimination. I
know very few people who think banning racial discrimination is a mistake. And if you
tried to claim you (assuming you're white) suffer the same treatment as a black,
you'd get laughed off this newsgroup.

So the question is, is discrimination based on sexual orientation so bad, so unfair,
and so common that we should legislate against it?

I think I'm on pretty solid ground in saying yes. Heck, just look around this
newsgroup for evidence of that.

-Rick

Mike Silverman

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <6id3kj$26u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Rob...@isoc.net wrote:

> I would like to state my view on homosexuality.
>
> First Homosexuality IS a sin.

Thank you so much for sharing your uninformed opinion.

That, plus 50 cents, will buy you a USA Today.

Rasmus Neikes

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <6icti5$n...@examiner.concentric.net>#1/1,

"Charles Joyner" <joyner@**motorsims.com> wrote:
>
> Ward,
> >This is entirely meaningless -- there is no need whatsoever for ALL
> >people to "agree" with me -- there IS a need in out republic for ALL
> >people to be treated equally, to stand equal before the law.
>
> Is equal having a police officer come to you and take his time with you and
> listen to all you have to say pat you on the back and wash your windows?
> That would be equal right? Because that happens to all people that are
> heterolsexual. We have it so much better. We do not have any problems with
> law officers or bad people beating us up or people stealing from us. Its
> just much better not being gay, right?

You're just not getting it, are you? Or do you not want to?

>
> >>
> >>Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
> >>comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then
> I
> >>get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
> >>get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
> >>their set of problems.
> >>Charles
> >
> >Perhaps true -- what is your point -- since one group is treated
> >unfairly, ALL groups must submit without complaint to the same
> >mis-treatment? Surely not!
> >
> >ward
>
> What you need to realize is WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU HAPPENS TO THE REST OF US!
> If you feel you get pulled over more for being gay, we feel we get pulled

> over because he does not like me or the way we looked at him. If you say I
> did not get a fair shake on some (anything) deal and the straight person did
> could it be he was more prepared? He had something better to offer. Or in
> your world because he is gay he should automaticly get treated by some
> imaginary straight standard.
>
> Charles
>
>

Only that it is illegal if it happens to 'the rest of us', whereas it is not
illegal to fire somone because they're gay. That has nothing to do with
availability of official forces, etc. It is about having the same rights. The
implementation of those rights will only become a questions once those rights
are established.

Another problem are probably people assuming there would be a special world
for gays... there's not! Which is why 'the rest of us' should deal with them
in a fair way, don't you think?

Rasmus.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

John De Salvio

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <6icti5$n...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
<joyner@**motorsims.com> wrote:

> Ward,
> >This is entirely meaningless -- there is no need whatsoever for ALL
> >people to "agree" with me -- there IS a need in out republic for ALL
> >people to be treated equally, to stand equal before the law.
>
> Is equal having a police officer come to you and take his time with you and
> listen to all you have to say pat you on the back and wash your windows?
> That would be equal right? Because that happens to all people that are
> heterolsexual. We have it so much better. We do not have any problems with
> law officers or bad people beating us up or people stealing from us. Its
> just much better not being gay, right?
>
> >>

> >>Homosexuals say everything happens worse if you are a homosexual when it
> >>comes to the law. I believe everyone says that. (If I have long hair then
> I
> >>get pulled over more//If I have a tattoo on my forehead I get harassed//I
> >>get stopped because I am black/white/Hispanic/Asian ect..//everyone has
> >>their set of problems.
> >>Charles
> >
> >Perhaps true -- what is your point -- since one group is treated
> >unfairly, ALL groups must submit without complaint to the same
> >mis-treatment? Surely not!
> >
> >ward
>
> What you need to realize is WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU HAPPENS TO THE REST OF US!

One minor problem here.

The FBI acknowledged this year that the second highest hate-based assault
rate occurs against homosexuals. Blacks are at the top of the list.

Where do you fit in, Charlie?

John De Salvio

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <6id3kj$26u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Rob...@isoc.net wrote:

> I would like to state my view on homosexuality.
>
> First Homosexuality IS a sin.


That's nice.

Now take your religious beliefs OFF alt.POLITICS.homosexuality.

We don't give a damn WHAT you believe. But f you keep
crossposting your religious dogma, be prepared.

We here are frankly fed up with the whole lot of you busybodies.

John De Salvio

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <6icr9m$m9n$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, "DRS"
<simp...@removethis.tig.com.au> wrote:

> John De Salvio wrote in message ...
>
> [...]


>
> >> > Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the
> promotion of
> >> > un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a
> persons
> >> > butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?
>
>

> [...]


>
> >I also do not know of anyone who does what he describes.
> >
> >He must be all alone in that act.
>
>

> He must be awfully flexible.

It's his vow of obedience.

Someone told him to go f--k himself.

Mike Silverman

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <desalvo-0105...@rp25.pm.monitor.net>,

des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote:


> The FBI acknowledged this year that the second highest hate-based assault
> rate occurs against homosexuals. Blacks are at the top of the list.
>
> Where do you fit in, Charlie?

He probably fantisizes about finding a black gay man.

DRS

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

John De Salvio wrote in message ...

[...]

>> > Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the
promotion of
>> > un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a
persons
>> > butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?


[...]

>I also do not know of anyone who does what he describes.
>
>He must be all alone in that act.


He must be awfully flexible.

--

Beware of the Spam-Dog

J. Michael Phillips

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:42:43 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
wrote:

***snip***


>
>I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
>before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?

Your implication?


J. Michael Phillips

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:32:21 -0900, zoe wilfong
<zcw...@silver.sdsmt.edu> wrote:

***snip***
>
>First of all Charles, nobody cares whether you *like* homosexuality or
>not. It's none of your fucking business so keep your opinions to
>yourself. Suppose I witness any of the following:
>
>Women with big bleached hair.

We're pressing for legislation that will make this illegal.
Hopefully, it will pass in the '98 session, so we can force them to
wear their hair differently . . .

>Men with bald heads and gotees.

This one is an ammendment to the original "big blonde hair" bill.
Again, we hope to get this passed in '98 . . .

>People driving expensive status symbol foreign cars.

Well, I kinda hope to be driving one myself someday, so I don't have a
problem with this one . . .

>A het couple with seven kids.

AAK! CALL ZPG, QUICK! :)

>Someone listening to rap music.

We should be allowed to kill these people . . .

>People hanging out in bars, drinking, smoking, gambling.

Is this an all-or-nothing one? 'Cause if it's any ONE of the three,
we could ALL be in trouble . . .

>People wasting time and money in church.

Well, there's no accounting for taste . . .
>
>I don't *like* any of the above things, but as long as those people are
>not doing anything to me, IT'S NONE OF MY F-ING BUSINESS, so why would I
>go up to them and start telling them how much I personally don't like x,
>y, and z?????

But you just did!!!
Also consider: There's a HUGE difference between someone asking your
opinion of big-haired-blondes, and you telling them you think it looks
rediculous, and stopping every big-haired-blonde you see and being
nasty to them.

>Get a clue Charles, other people have a right to do things
>that you don't like, as long as they are not hurting anybody. And they
>have the right to exercise the same rights that all other people have.

Correct. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to not be
offended. But by the same token, Charles has the right to NOT like
X,Y, or Z and voice his opinion.

On the other hand, YOU have the right to disagree and tell him so.
It's a 2-way street.


Scruffy van Piebles

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

Follow-ups set to alt.politics.homosexuality

On Fri, 01 May 1998 13:17:56 -0600, Rob...@isoc.net wrote:

>I would like to state my view on homosexuality.
>

Go ahead, we're all ears!

>
>First Homosexuality IS a sin.
>

However, Second, Third and Fourth Homosexuality is all right.

>
>Homosexuality is a perversion of the ability for a love between a man and a
>woman. God gave us the ability of this type of love, and abusing it is an
>obvious sin.
>

It's nowhere near as obvious as this troll.

>
>However, the Jesus said "Judge not lest ye be judged." and "May the one of you
>that has not sinned throw the first stone."
>

"[T]he Jesus"? How are we supposed to tell them apart?

>
>The fact is that we shouldn't persecute homosexuals. What they do in the
>privacy of their own home, being sinful as it is, is none of our business. I
>there are many sins many teenagers are guilty of that we should take care of
>

Like hideous grammar?

>
>ranging from un-christianlike behavior in the halls of school
>

How about "un-christianlike behavior" in political news groups?

>
> to sins as bad
>as fornication between people as young as 12! I think we need to look at
>ourselves before we start pointing fingers at people like homosexuals. The
>fact is that we are all sinners and we need to realize that before we go
>accusing people of being "condemmed to hell" or "abominations"
>

Like you just did? You're obviously trolling for flames, so here's
one:

If you stop eating shit, maybe you'll stop barking at the moon!

Scruffy


L. Michael Roberts

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

Rob...@isoc.net wrote:
>
> I would like to state my view on homosexuality.
>
> First Homosexuality IS a sin.
> Homosexuality is a perversion of the ability for a love between a man and a
> woman. God gave us the ability of this type of love, and abusing it is an
> obvious sin.
>
> However, the Jesus said "Judge not lest ye be judged." and "May the one of you
> that has not sinned throw the first stone."
>
> The fact is that we shouldn't persecute homosexuals. What they do in the
> privacy of their own home, being sinful as it is, is none of our business. I
> there are many sins many teenagers are guilty of that we should take care of
> ranging from un-christianlike behavior in the halls of school to sins as bad

> as fornication between people as young as 12! I think we need to look at
> ourselves before we start pointing fingers at people like homosexuals. The
> fact is that we are all sinners and we need to realize that before we go
> accusing people of being "condemmed to hell" or "abominations"

Thank you for your kind comments *however* this is not a religeous
discussion group... hense it's name alt.POLITICS.homosexuality.... the
subjects under discussion are SECULAR, CIVIL and POLITICAL items....
Please remove a.p.h from your headers

zoe wilfong

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to


On 30 Apr 1998, Charles Joyner wrote:

>
> Someone comes along to another and says "they make the best burgers in the
> world". The other says "no thats a slogan". The other says "thats a slogan
> with meaning. It founded his company".
>
> One Nation Under God
>

I'm glad we agree that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the one true god.
There may be hope for you yet, charles.

zoe

John De Salvio

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

In article <354a65ba....@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wiz...@eskimo.com (J.
Michael Phillips) wrote:

The implication that the majority of the American people are FOR
better gun control -- not against guns -- but for gun control as good
as driving license requirements.

JC Cooper

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

Fenris wrote in message ...


>In article <cubsfan-3004...@163.176.20.93>,
>cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) quoted "JC
>Cooper"<gnatjc...@wcnet.net>:
>

>> > Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the
promotion of
>> > un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a
persons
>> > butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?
>

>Could you clarify whose penis and which mouth? I'm not sure what you
>describe is even possible for most men.
>


One thing you have to admit about homosexuals. They have the most uncanny
way of deflecting "STRAIGHT" answers. They either resort to name calling, am
to am not arguments, or diversion/deflection/evasion. And they wonder why no
one pays any credence to them.

I answered the question asked of me, now why not try to answer the one I
asked?

If you should experience the rare phenomenon of finding
that what I said is incorrect, please notify your nearest
government groupie organization. I will, however, exercise
my right to invoke Executive Excuse.

JC Cooper
Mayor
Gnat Flats, Texas


sal...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

In article <6if6c5$6ve$5...@news1.iamerica.net>#1/1,

"JC Cooper" <gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Fenris wrote in message ...
> >In article <cubsfan-3004...@163.176.20.93>,
> >cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) quoted "JC
> >Cooper"<gnatjc...@wcnet.net>:
> >
> >> > Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the
> promotion of
> >> > un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a
> persons
> >> > butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?
> >
> >Could you clarify whose penis and which mouth? I'm not sure what you
> >describe is even possible for most men.
> >
>
> One thing you have to admit about homosexuals. They have the most uncanny
> way of deflecting "STRAIGHT" answers. They either resort to name calling, am
> to am not arguments, or diversion/deflection/evasion. And they wonder why no
> one pays any credence to them.


they sound like republicans.

salty

> I answered the question asked of me, now why not try to answer the one I
> asked?
>
> If you should experience the rare phenomenon of finding
> that what I said is incorrect, please notify your nearest
> government groupie organization. I will, however, exercise
> my right to invoke Executive Excuse.
>
> JC Cooper
> Mayor
> Gnat Flats, Texas
>
>

JC Cooper

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

J. Michael Phillips wrote in message
<354a6384....@eskinews.eskimo.com>...

But a homosexual has the right to not hire me because I don't like
homosexuals but I don't have that right and can be in big trouble if I
refuse to hire a homosexual because *I* don't like *them*.

Fenris

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

In article <6if6c5$6ve$5...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
<gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:

> One thing you have to admit about homosexuals. They have the most uncanny
> way of deflecting "STRAIGHT" answers. They either resort to name calling, am
> to am not arguments, or diversion/deflection/evasion. And they wonder why no
> one pays any credence to them.

> I answered the question asked of me, now why not try to answer the one I
> asked?

It was a stupid question. I don't know anyone who does what you described,
but if it's something you want to do, I figure that's your business.

L. Michael Roberts

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

JC Cooper wrote:
>
> Fenris wrote in message ...
> >In article <cubsfan-3004...@163.176.20.93>,
> >cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) quoted "JC
> >Cooper"<gnatjc...@wcnet.net>:
> >
> >> > Would you be willing to put the question "do you approve of the
> promotion of
> >> > un-natural sex acts such as having someone stick their penis up a
> persons
> >> > butt and then putting it in their mouth" to a vote by the public?
> >
> >Could you clarify whose penis and which mouth? I'm not sure what you
> >describe is even possible for most men.
> >
>
> One thing you have to admit about homosexuals. They have the most uncanny
> way of deflecting "STRAIGHT" answers. They either resort to name calling, am
> to am not arguments, or diversion/deflection/evasion. And they wonder why no
> one pays any credence to them.
>
> I answered the question asked of me, now why not try to answer the one I
> asked?

He was trying to point out, in a sublte way, that a large number of
heterosexual men [25% to be precise] also stick thier penises into
recturms and then also stick them into mouths... he was trying to point
out that your lurid sexual questions applies to more heterosexuals than
homosexuals...
Nevers ceases to amaze me that phobes and phundies are always the ones
who bring sex into these discussions.... one can go weeks without seeing
a sexual reffence from the gays who post to a.p.h regularly.... but the
phundies/phobed can't seem to keep thier minds of gay sex/behaviour.

L. Michael Roberts

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

The answer is quite simple... call your representative aqnd petition
the congress for sexual orientation to be grounds for
non-discrimination... this solves the problem completely :)

JC Cooper

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

Fenris wrote in message ...

>In article <6if6c5$6ve$5...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
><gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:
>

>> One thing you have to admit about homosexuals. They have the most uncanny
>> way of deflecting "STRAIGHT" answers. They either resort to name calling,
am
>> to am not arguments, or diversion/deflection/evasion. And they wonder why
no
>> one pays any credence to them.
>
>> I answered the question asked of me, now why not try to answer the one I
>> asked?
>

>It was a stupid question. I don't know anyone who does what you described,
>but if it's something you want to do, I figure that's your business.
>

And the DEAD beat goes on.

If you should experience the rare phenomenon of finding
that what I said is incorrect, please notify your nearest
government groupie organization. I will, however, exercise

my right to invoke Executive Excuse. And the DEAD beat
goes on and on and on and on.

J. Michael Phillips

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

On Sat, 02 May 1998 06:16:45 -0700, des...@monitor.net (John De
Salvio) wrote:

>In article <354a65ba....@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wiz...@eskimo.com (J.
>Michael Phillips) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:42:43 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
>> wrote:
>>
>> ***snip***
>> >
>> >I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
>> >before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?
>>
>> Your implication?
>
>The implication that the majority of the American people are FOR
>better gun control -- not against guns -- but for gun control as good
>as driving license requirements.

Hmmm . . . it seems that each time studies are done, the determinant
is HOW the questions are asked. Most Americans prefer letting honest
people own guns.

J. Michael Phillips

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

On Sat, 2 May 1998 09:55:13 -0500, "JC Cooper"
<gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:

***snip***


>>
>
>But a homosexual has the right to not hire me because I don't like
>homosexuals but I don't have that right and can be in big trouble if I
>refuse to hire a homosexual because *I* don't like *them*.

I don't think that's any more accurate than what they are saying here.
If you can deomnstrate that the only reason you weren't hired is that
you're straight, you have a suit on your hands, too. It is a 2-way
street.


>
>If you should experience the rare phenomenon of finding
>that what I said is incorrect, please notify your nearest
>government groupie organization. I will, however, exercise
>my right to invoke Executive Excuse.
>

Ward Stewart

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

On Sat, 02 May 1998 00:16:23 GMT, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael
Phillips) wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:42:43 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
>wrote:
>
>***snip***
>>
>>I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
>>before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?
>
>Your implication?

I was referring to your clear assertion that constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms cannot be abrogated by a simple majority of the
voters -- I also STRONGLY suspect that the American Public, given a
chance to severely restrict access to guns would quickly do so.

ward


----------------------------------------------------------------
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels
and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass,
or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and
understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and
though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
and have not charity, I am nothing."

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,
and though I give my body to be burned, and have not
charity, it profiteth me nothing."
Corinthians

-------------------------------------------------------

Fenris

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

In article <6ig2ju$cs0$7...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
<gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:

> And the DEAD beat goes on.

The mayor of Gnat Brains must be off his meds.

L. Michael Roberts

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

J. Michael Phillips wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 May 1998 06:16:45 -0700, des...@monitor.net (John De
> Salvio) wrote:
>
> >In article <354a65ba....@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wiz...@eskimo.com (J.

> >Michael Phillips) wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:42:43 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ***snip***
> >> >
> >> >I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
> >> >before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?
> >>
> >> Your implication?
> >
> >The implication that the majority of the American people are FOR
> >better gun control -- not against guns -- but for gun control as good
> >as driving license requirements.
>
> Hmmm . . . it seems that each time studies are done, the determinant
> is HOW the questions are asked. Most Americans prefer letting honest
> people own guns.

That of course begs the question as to how we can find honset people in
the USA..

zoe wilfong

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to


On Sat, 2 May 1998, J. Michael Phillips wrote:
> >
> >I don't *like* any of the above things, but as long as those people are
> >not doing anything to me, IT'S NONE OF MY F-ING BUSINESS, so why would I
> >go up to them and start telling them how much I personally don't like x,
> >y, and z?????
>
> But you just did!!!

Please. I did not address those comments to persons in the offending
category, for the purpose of letting them know what I didn't like about
them. The only reason I did it was to make the point that it *shouldn't*
be done. I thought that was obvious.

> Also consider: There's a HUGE difference between someone asking your
> opinion of big-haired-blondes, and you telling them you think it looks
> rediculous, and stopping every big-haired-blonde you see and being
> nasty to them.

That's my point. i'm not the one who suggested that I thought it would
be perfectly appropriate for me to start stopping every person I see and
telling them what I personally don't like about them.

>
> >Get a clue Charles, other people have a right to do things
> >that you don't like, as long as they are not hurting anybody. And they
> >have the right to exercise the same rights that all other people have.
>
> Correct. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to not be
> offended. But by the same token, Charles has the right to NOT like
> X,Y, or Z and voice his opinion.

Yes, and I 'have the right' to give the finger to every person i see
driving a car with a 'Jezus' bumbersticker. I am not questioning a
person's 'right to not like' or 'right to voice opinions;' I am saying
that at certain times it's not really appropriate or helpful.


> On the other hand, YOU have the right to disagree and tell him so.
> It's a 2-way street.
>

The flip side here is that while I personally do not find
heterosexuality appealing, I would never presume to go up to some
straight person who was minding their own business and not hurting
anybody, and launch into an unsolicited diatribe about how disgusting I
find heterosexuality to be, and how I plan to exercise my 'right' to
deny straights their civil rights. It's called respecting the lives of
other people.

zoe


John De Salvio

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

In article <354b9692....@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wiz...@eskimo.com (J.
Michael Phillips) wrote:

> On Sat, 02 May 1998 06:16:45 -0700, des...@monitor.net (John De
> Salvio) wrote:
>
> >In article <354a65ba....@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wiz...@eskimo.com (J.
> >Michael Phillips) wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:42:43 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ***snip***
> >> >
> >> >I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
> >> >before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?
> >>
> >> Your implication?
> >
> >The implication that the majority of the American people are FOR
> >better gun control -- not against guns -- but for gun control as good
> >as driving license requirements.
>
> Hmmm . . . it seems that each time studies are done, the determinant
> is HOW the questions are asked. Most Americans prefer letting honest
> people own guns.

Which does not contradict what I said.

John De Salvio

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

In article <6ifdfj$8be$4...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
<gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:

> But a homosexual has the right to not hire me because I don't like
> homosexuals

If there is no law protecting one on the basis of sexual orientation, yes.

If no such law is in place, the answer is no, he does not have that right.

> but I don't have that right and can be in big trouble if I
> refuse to hire a homosexual because *I* don't like *them*.

Only if there is a law in place protecting people on the basis of
sexual orientation.

What the bigots refuse to acknowledge is that laws protecting
people on the basis of sexual orientation protect all four sexual
orientations: homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual.

The Christian Coalition goes out of its way to make sure people
DO NOT see this distinction, as is evidenced in the recent fiasco
in the state of Maine, where the voters shot themselves in the foot.

JTEM

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

John De Salvio (des...@monitor.net) wrote:

: Vile maggot, <gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:
: > But a homosexual has the right to not hire me because I don't like
: > homosexuals
:
: If there is no law protecting one on the basis of sexual orientation, yes.
: If no such law is in place, the answer is no, he does not have that
: right.

Not exactly. "Heterosexual" and "bigot" are not the same thing at all. You
can legally not hire someone because they have a bad attitude, stupid
ideas or because you think they might be disruptive and not get along with
other folks in the office.

: > but I don't have that right and can be in big trouble if I


: > refuse to hire a homosexual because *I* don't like *them*.
:
: Only if there is a law in place protecting people on the basis of
: sexual orientation.

This is true.

John


--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET

zoe wilfong

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to


On Sat, 2 May 1998, JC Cooper wrote:

> >
> >>Get a clue Charles, other people have a right to do things
> >>that you don't like, as long as they are not hurting anybody. And they
> >>have the right to exercise the same rights that all other people have.
> >
> >Correct. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to not be
> >offended. But by the same token, Charles has the right to NOT like
> >X,Y, or Z and voice his opinion.
> >

> >On the other hand, YOU have the right to disagree and tell him so.
> >It's a 2-way street.
> >
>

> But a homosexual has the right to not hire me because I don't like

> homosexuals but I don't have that right and can be in big trouble if I


> refuse to hire a homosexual because *I* don't like *them*.


What a load of bullshit.. There is no federal law against discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation. As far as I know there is also not
one in Texas. Are you saying that your very own Gnat flats prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? I doubt it. How do
you presume that any one could get you in trouble if you didn't hire
someone who was gay? Details please. Vague pronouncements of ignorance
are not very convincing.


zoe


John De Salvio

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

In article <354d30d4...@news.netins.net>, fancypants4@yahoo!.com
(Aaron) wrote:

> des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote in
> alt.religion.christian-teen...:


>
> >In article <6ifdfj$8be$4...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
> ><gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:
>
> >What the bigots refuse to acknowledge is that laws protecting
> >people on the basis of sexual orientation protect all four sexual
> >orientations: homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual.
>

> Hmmm, asexual? That's a new one to me. What is it?

No inclination or attraction to either sex.

J. Michael Phillips

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

On Sat, 02 May 1998 23:48:20 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 May 1998 00:16:23 GMT, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael


>Phillips) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:42:43 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
>>wrote:
>>
>>***snip***
>>>
>>>I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
>>>before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?
>>
>>Your implication?
>

>I was referring to your clear assertion that constitutionally
>guaranteed freedoms cannot be abrogated by a simple majority of the
>voters -- I also STRONGLY suspect that the American Public, given a
>chance to severely restrict access to guns would quickly do so.

Then you suspect incorrectly. The CLEAR majority supports the right
of a person to keep and bear arms - more than most local laws will
allow.

J. Michael Phillips

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

On Sat, 2 May 1998 12:48:44 -0900, zoe wilfong
<zcw...@silver.sdsmt.edu> wrote:

***snip***
>


>Yes, and I 'have the right' to give the finger to every person i see
>driving a car with a 'Jezus' bumbersticker. I am not questioning a
>person's 'right to not like' or 'right to voice opinions;' I am saying
>that at certain times it's not really appropriate or helpful.
>

Well said. It is neither appropriate nor helpful MOST of the time.


>
>> On the other hand, YOU have the right to disagree and tell him so.
>> It's a 2-way street.
>>

>The flip side here is that while I personally do not find
>heterosexuality appealing, I would never presume to go up to some
>straight person who was minding their own business and not hurting
>anybody, and launch into an unsolicited diatribe about how disgusting I
>find heterosexuality to be, and how I plan to exercise my 'right' to
>deny straights their civil rights. It's called respecting the lives of
>other people.

Again, well said. It is important to respect the rights of others.
Sometimes people make assumptions, and call others on the carpet for
what they ASSUME about people. This was done to me in this forum for
their PRESUMPTION that I wanted to prevent gays from marrying. Why
they would WANT to is beyond me - the laws and the tax structure
punish marriage, but if that's what they want, why shouldn't they be
allowed to marry? Some folks tried to stop ME from marrying, and I
didn't appreciate it either. I can only ASSUME that a gay couple who
wants to marry doesn't appreciate it when someone tells them that THEY
shouldn't/can't marry.


Aaron

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote in
alt.religion.christian-teen...:

>In article <6ifdfj$8be$4...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
><gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:

>What the bigots refuse to acknowledge is that laws protecting
>people on the basis of sexual orientation protect all four sexual
>orientations: homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual.

Hmmm, asexual? That's a new one to me. What is it?

Christo et Ecclesiae,
Aaron †

*****************************************************
"My concern is not whether God is on our side;
my great concern is to be on God's side."
-- Abraham Lincoln
*****************************************************
Christi cruz est mea lux
*****************************************************
Delete the exclamation point from my e-mail address to reply
via e-mail

L. Michael Roberts

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

Aaron wrote:
>
> des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote in
> alt.religion.christian-teen...:
>
> >In article <6ifdfj$8be$4...@news1.iamerica.net>, "JC Cooper"
> ><gnatjc...@wcnet.net> wrote:
>
> >What the bigots refuse to acknowledge is that laws protecting
> >people on the basis of sexual orientation protect all four sexual
> >orientations: homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual.
>
> Hmmm, asexual? That's a new one to me. What is it?

If you have no desire for sex with anyone of any gender you are
asexual!

Charles Joyner

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

John De Salvio wrote in message ...
>In article <6icti5$n...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Charles Joyner"
><joyner@**motorsims.com> wrote:
>
>One minor problem here.
>
>The FBI acknowledged this year that the second highest hate-based assault
>rate occurs against homosexuals. Blacks are at the top of the list.
>
>Where do you fit in, Charlie?
>
>--
>John
>
John,

I fit into the part where most everything that happens to one happens to
another. Now, to be perfectly honest I have never been beaten up. But like
many I know people who have.

My point still stands yes?

Charles

tonijvr

unread,
May 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/8/98
to

Guys I am not gay and I don't wish to be. Look God loves you but HATES
WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO YOURSELVES. HE DIDN'T MAKE ADAM AND STEVE HE MADE
ADAM AND EVE.
He did so for a purpose. Man cannot have children so why have sex as if
they can? You choose to be a homosexual. The bible says that in the last
days (In Romans somewhere) God will give men over to their perversed minds
and man will lay with man and so will woman lay with woman. Don't you
think that if God wanted it that way He would have made it that way?
TONI

EMAIL TON...@DBN.ISCORLTD.CO.ZA

Ward Stewart <wste...@hi.net> wrote in article
<355340fc...@news.hi.net>...
> On 28 Apr 1998 12:17:05 EDT, "Charles Joyner" <joy...@motorsims.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John wrote:
> >
> >>We DEMAND to be treated equally in all respects concerning the rights
> >>and responsibilities of human beings. Nothing less, nothing more.
> >
> >
> >>No, that's a slogan.
> >
> >
> >A slogan that has meaning
> >
> >>> If this is true (which I believe it is) then according to many people
> >>> homosexuality is not fully excepted. Neither are nose rings, and
riding a
> >>> motorcycle without a helmet. Let me say up front that I am not
comparing
> >>> these subjects as being equal. I am making a point. They are both
legal.
> >>
> >>The point is pretty stupid on its face. Totally irrelevant.
> >
> >
> >Why is this stupid. Why do you use that phrase. It is not illegal to be
gay.
> >It is just not "excepted" by all. Neither are other things.
> >
> >
> >>This Nation is not run on a slogan.
> >>
> >No, by elected Men and Women.
> >Charles
>
> And by LAW -- this law protects the rights of unpopular minorities
> from the malice of the majority.
>
> Since you find yourself opposing the republic and advocating for a
> return to populist forms you will, one can only suppose, give up on
> women's right to choose abortion ---

>
> I wonder if you would be quite so quick to put our present gun-madness
> before the public in a referendum on gun ownership?
>

> ward
>
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> Ward and George
> forty-one years together
> but still,
> strangers before the law
>
> --------------------------------------
>

Chad Lautner

unread,
May 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/8/98
to

On 8 May 1998 12:34:37 GMT, "tonijvr" <ton...@dbn.iscorltd.co.za>
wrote:
<A bunch of irrelevant stuff>

Toni,
Crossposting to 9 separated newgroups is an Abomination.

Then again you're trolling.

This post has been brought to you by the letter Q
and by the number 8

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages