Tactics of Liberal Activists on this Group
Ron Nicholson
Frankly, your individual or any collective view of morality is irrelevant
to any real issue. The fact is that a constitution dictates the rights of
individual citizens. Which leaves us where...you need to show that who I
choose to love or engage in sex with, or who I choose to marry is
unconstonstitional. Or that my constititional rights should be restricted
in some way because they infringe upon your rights.
Which rights do of yours do I threaten?
Regular Guy wrote:
> <snip>
> Is there really anything wrong with:
>
> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
>
> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> daddys or two mommys.
>
> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> and 2) is the truth.
>
> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
Right from the Beginning
> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
>
> Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
Right on! When I first started reading and posting on this newsgroup, I
had no idea how far homosexuals would go to push their agenda on our
Judeo-Christian society. I was shocked at how far and how low radical
homosexual activists can and do go. Once they realize their simple minded
liberal "facts" and "evidence" won't work on a thinking person, they
resort to "homophobic", "nazi", yadda, yadda yadda.
I encourage any reasonable person who has the desire to see just how
amoral these homosexual "rights" groups are to go watch a gay parade or
march in DC sometime. What you'll see is so shocking and morally bankrupt
that it has to been viewed to be believed.
> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
A prime example of this is Rev. Billy. A coward who hides behind a fake
e-mail address and a fake name. His only job is to personally attack
and attempt to humiliate anyone who dares disagree with his satanic
religion. Sadly for him, it does nothing but show off the ignorance and
vile spewed spread at anyone who dares to stand up against the radical
homosexual agenda and movement.
> Is there really anything wrong with:
>
> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
>
> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> daddys or two mommys.
>
> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> and 2) is the truth.
Right on!
> J. Northwood
> John De Salvio
> Alex Elliot
> James Doemer
> Mike Silverman
> Speedybird
> and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> well.
These people at least attempt to carry on a decent conversation. Others
just use the old personal attack.
> Liberals - a dying breed.
Amen! Can't wait for those Cosnervative victories nov. 3!
Shawn James Haff
http://www2.gvsu.edu/~haffs
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
"Great states with good constitutions develop when most people think of
their duties and restrain their appetites. Great states sink toward their
dissolution when most people think of their privileges and induge their
appetites freely." Russell Kirk
Ron Nicholson
consistent with an entire community.
Tactics seem to be prejudice (judging the group based on individuals), using
religion or other moral codes to negate the constitutional and human rights
of other citizens.
See now, I didn't have to call anyone homophobic to make my point.
Regular Guy
who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
Certainly, that is their right.
But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
Is there really anything wrong with:
1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
daddys or two mommys.
Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
and 2) is the truth.
The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
the liberal kooks who hang out here:
J. Northwood
John De Salvio
Alex Elliot
James Doemer
Mike Silverman
Speedybird
and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
well.
Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
Andrews?
A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
Anti-Religious Left.
If it ain't right, it's wrong.
Allen James
(Regular Guy) wrote:
> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
>
> Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! That's gotta be the damn silliest
thing I've ever heard! My opinions are just that- MY DAMN OPINIONS. Nobody
tells me what to think or say on any given subject, and my fellow posters
- homo and hetero - are free to disagree with me as vehemently as they
wish. Seriously, there's no "Central Homosexual Propaganda Committee-
Internet Division" in existence.
> Certainly, that is their right.
>
> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
RELIGION?!? This is not about any alleged 'unquestionable, faith-based
belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
the same as anyone else.
> Is there really anything wrong with:
>
> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
Society is currently divided about homosexuals and our 'behavior'. Society
is not solely made up of people who agree with you.
> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> daddys or two mommys.
Again, society is divided on the subject. How, exactly, is heterosexual
marriage threatened by homosexual marriage? You have yet to answer that
question in any real way.
> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> and 2) is the truth.
Those of us who know better than to believe that society is only made up
of people who believe the way you do also know better than to 'realize'
any such silly thing.
How, exactly, do my demands to be recognized as a valuable, worthwhile
American citizen, worthy of all of the rights and responsibilities of my
citizenship, infringe upon your rights to the same exact thing? Rights are
not finite, like a bushel of apples. We're not talking about having only
enough 'fairnesses' to distribute to a small, select group of 'right
thinking folk'. There's plenty of justice to go around, so stop trying to
keep it just for you and your friends.
> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
So again, why is my insistence upon being treated like a human being and
an American citizen a 'radical' demand?
> Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> the liberal kooks who hang out here:
I'm certainly not a 'liberal'. Kook, maybe... HEY! I'm not even on the
list! How will good, right-thinking heterosexuals know not to take
anything I write seriously if you fail to list me as a member of the
"Central Homosexual Propaganda Committee- Internet Division"? Someone
might mistakenly read what I write and actually think my beliefs are valid
if you leave me off the list!
> J. Northwood
> John De Salvio
> Alex Elliot
> James Doemer
> Mike Silverman
> Speedybird
> and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> well.
Allen James
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
John Wilkinson
wrote:
>Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
>who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
I prefer to think of myself as a civil libertarian/moderate Democrat You prefer
to think of anyone who is opposed to your nonsense as a "radical homosexual
activist" because you have trouble with nuances.
>Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
>multiple responses to their posts.
THIS is your complaint? It's hardly a complaint; it's a whine. Perhaps your
opponents should take a number so as not to disturb your pleasant revery. You
don't have to respond to every post, you know. This is just silly.
> This is a coordinated attack. I
>would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
>respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
>
>Certainly, that is their right.
>
>But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
>viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
>those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
Oh, please. No one needs to "coordinate" a response to boilerplate idiocy. We've
heard it all before, ad nauseum.
>Is there really anything wrong with:
>
>1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
And here we have yet another example of your inability to understand subtle
distinctions. "Society" (as reflected by polling) does indeed hold homosexuality
(whatever that may mean) with some disdain. Yet, as pointed out by sociologist
and author Alan Wolf (not certain of the spelling of his last name) citizens
simultaneously hold fairness and civil equality in high regard, such that they
don't believe that gays and lesbians should be discriminated against.
>2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
>exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
>better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>daddys or two mommys.
You have no support for your assertion. There have been NO studies (zero ...
zilch ... nada) that test the efficacy of same-sex parents against opposite-sex
parents.
And if children already happen to live with two mommies and two daddies, you
prefer that the children in those families be denied the protections afforded by
the marriage of their parents? Yet another real-life nuance that zings over your
head.
>Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
>own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
>and 2) is the truth.
_EVERYONE'S_ perspectives are clouded by their own self-interest. It's one of
the challenges of being human. The test of an adult understanding of the world
is to compare one's self-interest against reality, and to apply broader
standards than one's interest of the moment. That's why my partner and I -- who
have no children of our own -- regularly vote to tax ourselves to support our
city's schools.
You're great with hasty generalizations and unanchored abstractions, but
terrible with specifics.
>The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
<sigh>
>Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
>the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>
>J. Northwood
>John De Salvio
>Alex Elliot
>James Doemer
>Mike Silverman
>Speedybird
>and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
>well.
Just spell my name right when you add me to the list: "John Wilkinson"
---
__ John G. Wilkinson (jw...@eskimo.com)
\/ Seattle, Washington, USA
http://www.eskimo.com/~jwilk/
John Wilkinson
Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>Right on! When I first started reading and posting on this newsgroup, I
>had no idea how far homosexuals would go to push their agenda on our
>Judeo-Christian society. I was shocked at how far and how low radical
>homosexual activists can and do go. Once they realize their simple minded
>liberal "facts" and "evidence" won't work on a thinking person, they
>resort to "homophobic", "nazi", yadda, yadda yadda.
SOME resort to that, usually in frustrated response to repetitious stupidity on
the part of some self-appointed moralist. You know as well as anyone that
flamage goes with the territory in political newsgroups. Complaining about it
just shows you've run out of even mildly interesting arguments.
>I encourage any reasonable person who has the desire to see just how
>amoral these homosexual "rights" groups are to go watch a gay parade or
>march in DC sometime. What you'll see is so shocking and morally bankrupt
>that it has to been viewed to be believed.
And if it's not "shocking" enough, you'll be more than happy to provide an
oh-so-carefully-edited tape of the "shocking" highlights, right? Gotta make
sure that any evidence of the boring normality of your fellow citizens is
carefully expunged to further the Buchananite witch hunt, eh? Stereotypes can't
be trusted to flourish on their own, after all. They must be nurtured. And Shawn
James Haff never met an anti-gay stereotype that he didn't love.
>> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
>> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
>> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
>A prime example of this is Rev. Billy. A coward who hides behind a fake
>e-mail address and a fake name. His only job is to personally attack
>and attempt to humiliate anyone who dares disagree with his satanic
>religion. Sadly for him, it does nothing but show off the ignorance and
>vile spewed spread at anyone who dares to stand up against the radical
>homosexual agenda and movement.
There's ignorance and "vile" [sic] enough to go around. Having, I can say you're
hardly in a position to cast yourself as the exemplar of reason and light.
L. Michael Roberts
>
> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
>
> would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical religeonists who hang out
in this group. They are quite simple.
Pounce on, and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them, with
multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
would not be surprised if these folks listen to the KKKristians, speak
and discuss how they will respond to anyone who would dare disagree with
their agenda.
>
> Certainly, that is their right.
>
> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
viewing reasoned debate. You are watching the same stale, old, well
refuted arguements, trotted out again and again; to be crushed with
logic and scientific data - in some case the same people have been
posting the same tired arguements for years despite reams of data
contridicting thier position. You are watching people who claim to be
heterosexuals, that are so obsessed with homosexuality, that the
majority of thier posts appear in gay newsgroups - to the point where
some have even abandoned thier children on father's day so as to post to
gay groups.... You are seeing coordinated attacks upon those of us who
dare disagree with the Religeous Reich, those who seek to make laws in
accordance with thier religeous beliefs.
>
> Is there really anything wrong with:
>
> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
Yes it is NOT imoral and this has been pointed out to you a gazillion
times.
>
> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> exclusion of homosexual relationships,
This would be a good arguement if sterile and post-menopausal couples,
who can not bear chilkdren, we not permitted to marry - OR - if the
benidits of the marriage contract only kicked in after there were
ofspring. Otherwise the arguement is sheer hyprocasy!
> given that children are much
> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> daddys or two mommys.
In your opinion... which flies in the face of the studies on the
subject.
>
> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> and 2) is the truth.
And, in reality, those of us who can think logically, who aren't
clouded by religeous dogma, can see that the constituition say "ALL are
EQUAL' and that is the goal we must strive for.
>
> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
The radical religeous findamentalists on this group will never admit
it.
>
> Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>
> J. Northwood
> John De Salvio
> Alex Elliot
> James Doemer
> Mike Silverman
> Speedybird
> and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> well.
>
> Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
> Andrews?
FYI, I am up here in Canada... with the exception of the odd E-mail and
very ocasional phone call from people on this group, I don't have any
contact with them. You make its sound like some sort of 'vast homo
conspiracy' is at work countering your religeonist propaganda when in
actual fact it's a group of indiciduals, both gay and hetero, who have
similar thinking on the issue of human rights. You make is sound like a
'pink hellicopters' version of the conspiracy theory!
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexualy transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
Jody
Regular Guy wrote in message <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>...
>The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
>
>Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
>the liberal kooks who hang out here:
[SNIP]
Damnit!
I didn't make the list _again_ this year.
Could someone please call the Gay High Command and inform them that I'm
obviously not getting the invities to the Secret Meetings nor is the Vast
Conspiracy Network keeping me informed of the latest goings on of our silent
Coup D'eat?
Thanks.
Jody
Nicole Lasher
>
> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
I don't understand what you define as "radical", Guy. Most of the
people who respond to you (with the exception of Allen) are quite "tame"
to some of us. They actually still care what you think. The "radicals"
have long since stopped debating the morality or ethics of homosexuality
with the ignorant, and have armed themselves and set about taking real
action beyond legislation.
We are a very big community.
Some are more legal and administrative types, and some are more warrior
types, and some have persuasions that run in between...but generally,
you are finding yourself arguing with the ::grin:: administrative branch
of Same-sexdom.
> Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
Um, in light of the many arguments we have had amongst ourselves, about
method of action, which "agenda" would you say that was?
As to the rest of your post, I don't care to go in circles with you over
morality or ethics. "American culture" is already one of the most
violent, backwards, and insensitive in the world, largely due to people
like you. I find any religious, Eurocentric, heterosexual (those
features combined, not separately) male lecturing on morality and
ethics, quite comical...especially when they are concerned about their
own rights being somehow violated by other people having equal rights as
they...
If they're wearing you down, then maybe you need to take a break...or
maybe you have no argument for not allowing all citizens equal rights
under the law, and you're running out of lines in that right-wing "What
to do when confronted by a homosexual" script.
~Niki
Nicole Lasher
> Damnit!
>
> I didn't make the list _again_ this year.
>
> Could someone please call the Gay High Command and inform them that I'm
> obviously not getting the invities to the Secret Meetings nor is the Vast
> Conspiracy Network keeping me informed of the latest goings on of our silent
> Coup D'eat?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jody
::accidentally dropping overstuffed notebook on my foot:: Shoot!
So noted, Jody.
::pushing button on communicator, and muttering a message in *Klingay*::
Cancel tea party. I repeat, cancel tea party. Jody missed the boat.
::giggle::
~Niki
Rasmus Neikes
NOSPAMre...@ibm.net (Regular Guy) wrote:
> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
erm... sound logic, reasoning...???
>
> Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
>
> Certainly, that is their right.
I don't know about others, but personally I don't tend to ask others about
what I should think about things... and if I do I'll just post it publicly.
The notion of 'coordinated attack' is purte nonsense. It's usenet. Any
disccussion will involve several people. I don't know why the responses of
the "radical homosexual activisits" do net get answered to in the same
fashion, but I would belive that their arguments must have some point,
because otherwise one could excpect objection...
>
> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
i.e. make sure you figure out which half is arguing reasonable. I would say I
do, but so would anyone else... I think it should be easy to figure out for
anyone. Again, I object to being classified as part of any 'us' or 'them' if
that includes being accused of 'coordinated attacks'.
>
> Is there really anything wrong with:
>
> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
No. But as it has been pointed out several times it simlpy does not matter
what a part of the society regards as moral or immoral. Morals do genreally
not invovle reasonably arguments.
>
> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> daddys or two mommys.
There is a lot wrong with that. The support of heterosexual marriage should be
out of the question in this argument, I think. People who want to engage in a
same-sex marriage do usually not want to engage in a heterosexual marriage, so
the two ocould easily exist with each other.
Why is it a 'given' that "children are much better off with a man and a woman
as mommy and daddy, rather than two daddys or two mommys"?
>
> Of course not.
And that was - I assume - a logical argument to conclude that:
And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> and 2) is the truth.
???
>
> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
>
> Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> the liberal kooks who hang out here:
again, referring to one's oponents as 'kooks' is part of a logical arguemnt,
right?
>
> J. Northwood
> John De Salvio
> Alex Elliot
> James Doemer
> Mike Silverman
> Speedybird
> and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> well.
looks as if you got eight for the price of seven...
Rasmus.
-- There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
chronicler's mind. (D. Adams)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
cub...@cjnetworks.com
> Is there really anything wrong with:
>
> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
Yes, because this belief is then used to deny homosexuals their constitutional
rights.
> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> daddys or two mommys.
Yes, because doing so violates the human and constitutional rights of
homosexuals.
> Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>
> J. Northwood
> John De Salvio
> Alex Elliot
> James Doemer
> Mike Silverman
> Speedybird
I'm the first one to respond! I'm number one, I'm number one!!! (does victory
dance)
> Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
> Andrews?
He's still here, Mr. Andrews.
--
Mike Silverman -- cub...@cjnetworks.com
http://www.turnleft.com/personal/
Mr. Horrible
>
> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
Anyone who confuses tactics with ideology is a fool.
>
> Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
So alot of people disagree with you, and they say so.
>
> Certainly, that is their right.
Yes. So why are you complaining? If you can't take the heat...
>
> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
So ignore the responses you consider unreasonable and debate the ones you do.
>
> Is there really anything wrong with:
For the record, now you've switched from tactics to substance. They are
different.
>
> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
No, though whether you can claim this statement is true is subject to debate.
>
> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> daddys or two mommys.
This is a highly controversial issue. Yet when alot of people disagree with you,
you whine about it?
>
> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> and 2) is the truth.
I'm straight. I disagree with you. So you're attempt to claim that everyone who
disagrees with you is clouded by self-interest has failed. Next.
>
> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
>
> Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>
> J. Northwood
> John De Salvio
> Alex Elliot
> James Doemer
> Mike Silverman
> Speedybird
> and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> well.
What about me?
>
> Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
> Andrews?
>
> A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
> nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
> Anti-Religious Left.
Fine. I'm not a member of the anti-religious left. Does that make my views
worthy in your mind? Feel free to debate me.
Mr. H
cub...@cjnetworks.com
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> Right on! When I first started reading and posting on this newsgroup, I
> had no idea how far homosexuals would go to push their agenda on our
> Judeo-Christian society.
I know what you mean! The nerve of those homosexuals, asking for "fairness"
and "eqaul rights" -- I mean, can you imagine American citizens asking for
such crazy stuff? If homosexuals get rights, soon everyone will want them. At
this point, some liberal loony will probably demand that we end slavery and
grant women the right to vote. Damn liberals.
> I encourage any reasonable person who has the desire to see just how
> amoral these homosexual "rights" groups are to go watch a gay parade or
> march in DC sometime. What you'll see is so shocking and morally bankrupt
> that it has to been viewed to be believed.
I know what you mean, brother. I attended a gay parade once, and was shocked
at all the perverted groups that were marching. They had Parents of Gays, a
bunch of churches, and (this might shock you) groups of gay policement and
doctors. If these sickos weren't bad enough, there were also groups like the
ACLU there. Will this perversion ever end?
Mike Silverman
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> Right on! When I first started reading and posting on this newsgroup, I
> had no idea how far homosexuals would go to push their agenda on our
> Judeo-Christian society.
I know what you mean! The nerve of those homosexuals, asking for
"fairness" and "eqaul rights" -- I mean, can you imagine American citizens
asking for such crazy stuff? If homosexuals get rights, soon everyone will
want them. At this point, some liberal loony will probably demand that we
end slavery and grant women the right to vote. Damn liberals.
> I encourage any reasonable person who has the desire to see just how
> amoral these homosexual "rights" groups are to go watch a gay parade or
> march in DC sometime. What you'll see is so shocking and morally bankrupt
> that it has to been viewed to be believed.
I know what you mean, brother. I attended a gay parade once, and was
shocked at all the perverted groups that were marching. They had Parents
of Gays, a bunch of churches, and (this might shock you) groups of gay
policement and doctors. If these sickos weren't bad enough, there were
also groups like the ACLU there. Will this perversion ever end?
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
James Doemer
cub...@cjnetworks.com wrote in message
<6vfsfs$3r4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
:In article <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>,
: NOSPAMre...@ibm.net (Regular Guy) wrote:
:
:
:> Is there really anything wrong with:
:>
:> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
:
:Yes, because this belief is then used to deny homosexuals their
constitutional
:rights.
:
:> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
:> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
:> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
:> daddys or two mommys.
:Yes, because doing so violates the human and constitutional rights of
:homosexuals.
:
:
:> Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
:> the liberal kooks who hang out here:
:>
:> J. Northwood
:> John De Salvio
:> Alex Elliot
:> James Doemer
:> Mike Silverman
:> Speedybird
:I'm the first one to respond! I'm number one, I'm number one!!! (does
victory
:dance)
:
I didn't see the original post, but I'm proud to be on the list!!
:
:He's still here, Mr. Andrews.
:
:
John De Salvio
> Regular Guy wrote:
> >
> > Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> > who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
>
> Anyone who confuses tactics with ideology is a fool.
> >
> > Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> > multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> > would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> > respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
>
> So alot of people disagree with you, and they say so.
> >
> > Certainly, that is their right.
>
> Yes. So why are you complaining? If you can't take the heat...
> >
> > But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> > viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> > those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
>
> So ignore the responses you consider unreasonable and debate the ones you do.
> >
> > Is there really anything wrong with:
>
> For the record, now you've switched from tactics to substance. They are
> different.
> >
> > 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
>
> No, though whether you can claim this statement is true is subject to debate.
> >
> > 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> > exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> > better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> > daddys or two mommys.
>
> This is a highly controversial issue. Yet when alot of people disagree
with you,
> you whine about it?
> >
> > Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> > own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> > and 2) is the truth.
>
> I'm straight. I disagree with you. So you're attempt to claim that
everyone who
> disagrees with you is clouded by self-interest has failed. Next.
> >
> > The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
> >
> > Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> > the liberal kooks who hang out here:
> >
> > J. Northwood
> > John De Salvio
> > Alex Elliot
> > James Doemer
> > Mike Silverman
> > Speedybird
> > and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> > well.
>
> What about me?
> >
> > Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
> > Andrews?
> >
> > A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
> > nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
> > Anti-Religious Left.
>
> Fine. I'm not a member of the anti-religious left. Does that make my views
> worthy in your mind? Feel free to debate me.
Debate?
DEBATE???
You must be joking.
Regurgitated Guy doesn't know how to debate.
>
> Mr. H
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
John De Salvio
Neikes<rasmus...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>,
> NOSPAMre...@ibm.net (Regular Guy) wrote:
> > Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> > who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
>
> erm... sound logic, reasoning...???
>
> >
> > Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> > multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> > would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> > respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
> >
> > Certainly, that is their right.
>
> I don't know about others, but personally I don't tend to ask others about
> what I should think about things... and if I do I'll just post it publicly.
Same here. I never e-mail any of the regulars here. I always respond to
posts with posts.
> The notion of 'coordinated attack' is purte nonsense. It's usenet. Any
> disccussion will involve several people. I don't know why the responses of
> the "radical homosexual activisits" do net get answered to in the same
> fashion, but I would belive that their arguments must have some point,
> because otherwise one could excpect objection...
>
> >
> > But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> > viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> > those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
>
> i.e. make sure you figure out which half is arguing reasonable. I would say I
> do, but so would anyone else... I think it should be easy to figure out for
> anyone. Again, I object to being classified as part of any 'us' or 'them' if
> that includes being accused of 'coordinated attacks'.
Of course, what he won't acknowledge is the coordinated attacks of such
organizations as Focus on the Family, Christian Coalition, Family Research
Council, Traditional Values Coalition, the Eagle Forum and others who set up
phone and fax trees to bombard Congress with hundreds of thousands of
anti-homosexual messages containing threats against the Republican politicians
who fail to follow their demands, any time there is proposed legislation that
might grant everyone EQUAL rights on the basis of their sexual orientation.
But a dozen people on the internet has his undies in a bunch.
Poor baybeeeee!
>
> >
> > Is there really anything wrong with:
> >
> > 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
>
> No. But as it has been pointed out several times it simlpy does not matter
> what a part of the society regards as moral or immoral. Morals do genreally
> not invovle reasonably arguments.
>
> >
> > 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> > exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> > better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> > daddys or two mommys.
>
> There is a lot wrong with that. The support of heterosexual marriage should be
> out of the question in this argument, I think. People who want to engage in a
> same-sex marriage do usually not want to engage in a heterosexual marriage, so
> the two ocould easily exist with each other.
>
> Why is it a 'given' that "children are much better off with a man and a woman
> as mommy and daddy, rather than two daddys or two mommys"?
>
>
> >
> > Of course not.
>
> And that was - I assume - a logical argument to conclude that:
>
> And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> > own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> > and 2) is the truth.
>
> ???
>
> >
> > The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
> >
> > Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> > the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>
> again, referring to one's oponents as 'kooks' is part of a logical arguemnt,
> right?
>
> >
> > J. Northwood
> > John De Salvio
> > Alex Elliot
> > James Doemer
> > Mike Silverman
> > Speedybird
> > and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> > well.
>
> looks as if you got eight for the price of seven...
>
> Rasmus.
>
> -- There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
> chronicler's mind. (D. Adams)
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
John De Salvio
shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
> In article <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
> (Regular Guy) wrote:
>
> > Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> > who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
> >
> > Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> > multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> > would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> > respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! That's gotta be the damn silliest
> thing I've ever heard! My opinions are just that- MY DAMN OPINIONS. Nobody
> tells me what to think or say on any given subject, and my fellow posters
> - homo and hetero - are free to disagree with me as vehemently as they
> wish. Seriously, there's no "Central Homosexual Propaganda Committee-
> Internet Division" in existence.
We HAVE noticed your absence at the meetings...
John De Salvio
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Regular Guy wrote:
>
> > Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> > who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
> >
> > Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> > multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> > would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> > respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
> Right on! When I first started reading and posting on this newsgroup, I
> had no idea how far homosexuals would go to push their agenda on our
> Judeo-Christian society. I was shocked at how far and how low radical
> homosexual activists can and do go. Once they realize their simple minded
> liberal "facts" and "evidence" won't work on a thinking person, they
> resort to "homophobic", "nazi", yadda, yadda yadda.
>
> I encourage any reasonable person who has the desire to see just how
> amoral these homosexual "rights" groups are to go watch a gay parade or
> march in DC sometime. What you'll see is so shocking and morally bankrupt
> that it has to been viewed to be believed.
>
> > But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> > viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> > those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
> A prime example of this is Rev. Billy. A coward who hides behind a fake
> e-mail address and a fake name.
You mean, just like Regular Guy, to whom you are responding here?
> > J. Northwood
> > John De Salvio
> > Alex Elliot
> > James Doemer
> > Mike Silverman
> > Speedybird
> > and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> > well.
> These people at least attempt to carry on a decent conversation. Others
> just use the old personal attack.
Gee, I feel honored... sort of....
NAAAH.
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
Regular Guy <NOSPAMre...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
>multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
>would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
>respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
This is ludicrous. Regular, do you honestly believe that Ward
and I discuss the points I will make? Half the time I'm getting yelled
at by liberal gay socialists, and the other half by "conservative"
Christian socialists, so I don't think it's too likely I'm being
supported by either camp. (Though Ward never came up with this kind of
a whine, so I quite understandably have more respect for him than you)
>Is there really anything wrong with:
>1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
This is one of those words that I don't really understand:
"society." If you mean, do I agree that individuals should be able
to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, without having to
worry about being arrested or fined for morally condemning others,
then I think I agree with you. I personally see nothing wrong with
homosexuality, but that's because I'm an Objectivist right now, so
I'm not very concerned with others' private behavior.
>2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
>exclusion of homosexual relationships,
You can feel free to support whatever unions you like, as
long as you don't interfere with the right of others to enter freely
into contracts. In other words, you don't have to think of a gay
couple as married, as long as you don't prevent them from being
married in the eyes of the state.
> given that children are much
>better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>daddys or two mommys.
While this may be true, surely you don't believe a child is
not better off with two daddys or two mommies than he is in an
orphanage or with a succession of foster parents; do you?
>Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
>own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
>and 2) is the truth.
I can't claim to not be clouded by self-interest. I am a land
owner. And because I own land, I have an interest in defending and
preserving my right to do as I please on my own property. I suppose if
I didn't own anything and never would, I might want the big bad
government do step in and whup up on people I don't like (which would be
Christians in my case, not gays). But since I do, I have to tell you
that any attempt you make to stop me from using my property as I wish or
enter into contracts I wish is treason against my sovereign self (since
every man and every woman is sovereign, and we create governments to
protect our sovereignty by mutual defense, rather than to violate it).
>Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
>the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>J. Northwood
>John De Salvio
>Alex Elliot
>James Doemer
>Mike Silverman
>Speedybird
>and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
>well.
Why didn't I make your list, Regular? Is it because I'm not
liberal? And is that the same reason I can't seem to get a response
out of you?
>A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
>nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
>Anti-Religious Left.
You meant to say, you're a member of the Religious Left, didn't
you? That bunch of kooks that wants me to selflessly sacrifice my
liberty and property to the coming theocracy? Hey, if God wants to
rule this country, He can start by paying some damn taxes. Taxation
without representation is tyrrany, but representation without taxation
is just as bad. A huge golden meteor, big enough to pay off our national
debt, would do just fine, in case He's reading this. I remain,
-Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
P.S. Regular: I'm sending a courtesy copy of this by e-mail. If you
don't want me to do so in future, please let me know.
Alex Elliott
: Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
: multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
: would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
: respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
There's a difference between a "coordinated attack" and a consensus
of opinion. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean
that more than one person won't agree with it.
: Is there really anything wrong with:
: 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
In my part of the country, society does not have this view.
: Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
: own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
: and 2) is the truth.
: The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
But (1) is not the truth where I live. My state has a sexual orientation
non-discrimination law. My state as a sexual orientation hate crimes law.
My state has a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public
schools. My state has several openly gay elected officials. My state
has openly gay school teachers and school administrators. My state's
Senators and Representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, are all
pro-gay. My state has not had a local DOMA passed in the state
legislature. The largest protestant denomination in my state ordains
openly gay ministers. My state allows adoption by gay parents. My state
has no gay ghettos because gay people can live just about anywhere openly.
In my state, gay rights is *not* a radical liberal issue - almost
everyone, liberals and conservatives both, agrees on it.
It's not just Connecticut, either. There's a lot of infighting going on
right now in gay political groups in Massachusetts and New York because
they can't decide whether to endorse the pro-gay Democrats or the pro-gay
Republicans.
It may not be this way in your state, but just wait - it will be.
It wasn't this way in the northeast just fifteen years ago, but
it is now. It's a sign of your desperation that you're seeing
conspiracies and "coordinated attacks" on your posts here.
: Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
: the liberal kooks who hang out here:
It's kind of amusing that when I checked the group today, there were in
fact seven responses, although they weren't all from the people you have
listed.
: Alex Elliot
You might at least have the decency to spell my name correctly.
Alex.
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Alex Elliott
Yale University Physics Department
New Haven, CT, USA
email: ell...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
WWW: http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~elliott
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Bryant Brandon
@Regular Guy wrote in message <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>...
@
@>The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
@>
@>Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
@>the liberal kooks who hang out here:
@
@
@[SNIP]
@
@Damnit!
@
@I didn't make the list _again_ this year.
@
@Could someone please call the Gay High Command and inform them that I'm
@obviously not getting the invities to the Secret Meetings nor is the Vast
@Conspiracy Network keeping me informed of the latest goings on of our silent
@Coup D'eat?
@
@Thanks.
@
@Jody
Ooh, sounds serious. I hope you at least got a toaster. If not
there'll be hell to pay.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
Bryant Brandon
@Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
@who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
@
@Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
@multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
@would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
@respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
@
@Certainly, that is their right.
First point: You are not improtant enough to warrant a conspiracy.
Second point: we're not coordinated anough to have one.
@But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
@viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
@those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
I don't have a religion by your definition, so I'm pretty much excluded
by that, huh?
@Is there really anything wrong with:
@
@1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
Yes, because it doesn't exist. You've been told many times that most
folks just don't give a shit.
@2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
@exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
@better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
@daddys or two mommys.
Yes, also because it's untrue. It's been proven quite conclusively
that children raised by homosexual couples are as safe and well-developed
as children raised by heterosexual couples.
@Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
@own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
@and 2) is the truth.
Are. And no, they are not teh truth. If it's true, then you should be
able to come up with a few cites from reputable scientific organizations
(this excludes NARTH et al) demonstrating that homosexuals cannot raise
children and that society does indeed vire homosexuals as "bad." If you
do that, you'll win.
@The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
Well, I'm a radical heterosexual, so I can do whatever the fuck I want,
right?
@Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
@the liberal kooks who hang out here:
@
@J. Northwood
@John De Salvio
@Alex Elliot
@James Doemer
@Mike Silverman
@Speedybird
@and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
@well.
Well, gee whiz, Todd. You forgot me even though I verbally beat the
hell out of you the last time you were here. I feel so loved....
@Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
@Andrews?
Why don't you ask him?
Bryant Brandon
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
@On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Regular Guy wrote:
@> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
@> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
@> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
@A prime example of this is Rev. Billy. A coward who hides behind a fake
@e-mail address and a fake name. His only job is to personally attack
@and attempt to humiliate anyone who dares disagree with his satanic
@religion. Sadly for him, it does nothing but show off the ignorance and
@vile spewed spread at anyone who dares to stand up against the radical
@homosexual agenda and movement.
[...]
@These people at least attempt to carry on a decent conversation. Others
@just use the old personal attack.
Hmm, first you respond to an anonymous poster (who is likely Todd
Andrews) and point out that Rev. Billy is an amoral SOB because he doesn't
use his real name. Then you go off on a mild rant about how awful he is.
Then you bitch about personal attacks made by other people in the group.
Do you see now why you have to stay at home alone on weekends? (hint:
it's because you're a hypocrite and nobody likes you)
cub...@cjnetworks.com
ell...@pantheon.yale.edu (Alex Elliott) wrote:
> But (1) is not the truth where I live. My state has a sexual orientation
> non-discrimination law. My state as a sexual orientation hate crimes law.
> My state has a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public
> schools. My state has several openly gay elected officials. My state
> has openly gay school teachers and school administrators. My state's
> Senators and Representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, are all
> pro-gay. My state has not had a local DOMA passed in the state
> legislature. The largest protestant denomination in my state ordains
> openly gay ministers. My state allows adoption by gay parents. My state
> has no gay ghettos because gay people can live just about anywhere openly.
> In my state, gay rights is *not* a radical liberal issue - almost
> everyone, liberals and conservatives both, agrees on it.
Just curious, but why hasn't any gay couples in CT tried to get married?
Sounds like your state is ripe for such a suit, with a decent shot at victory?
--
Mike Silverman -- cub...@cjnetworks.com
http://www.turnleft.com/personal/
--
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mr. Horrible
>
> In article <361B68...@nospam.org>, "Mr. Horrible" <m...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > Regular Guy wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > different.
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > This is a highly controversial issue. Yet when alot of people disagree
> with you,
> > you whine about it?
> > >
> >
> everyone who
> > disagrees with you is clouded by self-interest has failed. Next.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John De Salvio
> > > Alex Elliot
> > > James Doemer
> > > Mike Silverman
> > > Speedybird
> >
> > What about me?
> > >
> > > Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
> > >
> > > A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
> > > nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
> > > Anti-Religious Left.
> >
> > worthy in your mind? Feel free to debate me.
>
> Debate?
>
> DEBATE???
>
> You must be joking.
>
> Regurgitated Guy doesn't know how to debate.
I know. But you have to wrestle someone to prove he can't wrestle. (No
Greco-Roman wrestling for him, of course).
Mr. H
> >
> > Mr. H
Ezekiel Krahlin
Lloyd Olson) wrote:
>>1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
>I personally see nothing wrong with
>homosexuality, but that's because I'm an Objectivist right now, so
>I'm not very concerned with others' private behavior.
It's your word "but" that alarms me. If you were other than an
objectivist, would you then be homophobic? Many Christians do not deem
homosexuality a sin, either...only the stupid ones...just as do the
stupid atheists, paganists, Jews, Muslims, ad nauseum.
>>2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
>>exclusion of homosexual relationships,
>
> You can feel free to support whatever unions you like, as
>long as you don't interfere with the right of others to enter freely
>into contracts. In other words, you don't have to think of a gay
>couple as married, as long as you don't prevent them from being
>married in the eyes of the state.
But this KKKristian form of dogma regards you as sinful if you *refuse
to denigrate and bash gay people. They have created a religion of
blood and violence. In this case, do you really think they should be
allowed to practice what they preach? Will we soon have a religion
just for murderers, rapists, and pedophiles? This is precisely where
the religious reich is headed...and their new religion of hate is
almost completely established and entrenched in the Amerikan
Konstitution. Prepare yourself for battle...gird your loins and all
that...for here comes one humongous civil war down the pike!
>> given that children are much
>>better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>>daddys or two mommys.
>
> While this may be true, surely you don't believe a child is
>not better off with two daddys or two mommies than he is in an
>orphanage or with a succession of foster parents; do you?
Why do *you, a so-called objectvist, agree with a right-wing
homophobe, that children are better off with a straight couple for
parents, instead of a gay couple? There are numerous incidents of
severe child abuse, rape, and pedophilia, among our "family values"
heterocentered families. Ergo, hetero parents per se are no more
better at parenting, than a single parent, or gay parents. Likewise,
some foster homes are wonderful places to raise children.
> I can't claim to not be clouded by self-interest. I am a land
>owner. And because I own land, I have an interest in defending and
>preserving my right to do as I please on my own property.
Property ownership is antithetic to the evolution of our nation into
its fulfillment as a democracy. Don't forget that even *your property
is not really yours...assuming you are a non-Native American...who are
the real owners of our land. We live here still, by the good graces
and compassion of Native Americans...who could, with just a snap of
their fingers, drive us all off their continent. But we are children
still, with things to learn...so the gracious natives have permitted
us to live here, and even tolerate our abuse to the land and its
original people, until said time we finally grow up, spiritually.
---
I cum like a thief in the night!
The Final Testament, a Bible by and for Gays only:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
Rev. Billy
>In article <6vg1vv$847$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
> ell...@pantheon.yale.edu (Alex Elliott) wrote:
>> But (1) is not the truth where I live. My state has a sexual orientation
>> non-discrimination law. My state as a sexual orientation hate crimes law.
>> My state has a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public
>> schools. My state has several openly gay elected officials. My state
>> has openly gay school teachers and school administrators. My state's
>> Senators and Representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, are all
>> pro-gay. My state has not had a local DOMA passed in the state
>> legislature. The largest protestant denomination in my state ordains
>> openly gay ministers. My state allows adoption by gay parents. My state
>> has no gay ghettos because gay people can live just about anywhere openly.
>> In my state, gay rights is *not* a radical liberal issue - almost
>> everyone, liberals and conservatives both, agrees on it.
>Just curious, but why hasn't any gay couples in CT tried to get married?
>Sounds like your state is ripe for such a suit, with a decent shot at victory?
It's in the planning. Some history of the CT Gay Rights movement. A
quiet one, but New England is so conservative, it has those wild old
ideas, individual liberty, and the government keeping out of people's
lives. CT's gay rights laws were passed in 1992 (approx.) after the
State's Catholic Church removed it's objections. The state's first gay
adoption was in 1975, if it's not illegal, it's O.K. was used. And the
state has continued quietly to allow gays to adopt. Admittedly not Gay
COUPLES yet, but that's on the way.
The state Gay marriage anti-DOMA statute is in the works.
Billy
(formerly from CT)
Risqilly - http://www.risqilly.org/
J. Northwood
Krahlin) wrote:
>Many Christians do not deem
>homosexuality a sin, either...only the stupid ones...just as do the
>stupid atheists, paganists, Jews, Muslims, ad nauseum.
Atheists wouldn't consider _anything_ a "sin", lad, and Pagans (not
"paganists") on the whole have a wider view of personal responsibility
than sin and redemption.
Rev. Billy
>had no idea how far homosexuals would go to push their agenda on our
>Judeo-Christian society. I was shocked at how far and how low radical
>homosexual activists can and do go. Once they realize their simple minded
>liberal "facts" and "evidence" won't work on a thinking person, they
>resort to "homophobic", "nazi", yadda, yadda yadda.
Your correct, we shouldn't call you a nazi, but it's faster than
typing "Far right wing, white supremacist, who thinks Hitler had some
good ideas, and thinks the Jews and Homosexuals are plotting against
him".
>I encourage any reasonable person who has the desire to see just how
>amoral these homosexual "rights" groups are to go watch a gay parade or
>march in DC sometime. What you'll see is so shocking and morally bankrupt
>that it has to been viewed to be believed.
Horse poo ! I think you took an extra right turn and ended up in
congress.
>> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
>> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
>> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
Co-ordinated attacks.. hahahaha.. you really need to get back into
therapy.
>A prime example of this is Rev. Billy. A coward who hides behind a fake
>e-mail address and a fake name.
Sorry Haff-Witt, my pages are in every header and most sig's, you
should know, you've visited them a couple times.
(so your lying again)
> His only job is to personally attack
>and attempt to humiliate anyone who dares disagree with his satanic
>religion.
Now your calling Christianity a "Satanic" religion. Your true colors
are showing through again.
>Sadly for him, it does nothing but show off the ignorance and
>vile spewed spread at anyone who dares to stand up against the radical
>homosexual agenda and movement.
Radical ? Well, I guess from the view of someone (YOU) who's pages
have links that lead to the Klan and the like.
Bet you miss having Pat Buchanan's pages down for their pre-2000 white
wash. You could visit Bat Pukeanan's pages to reminisce.
http://www.risqilly.org/pukeanan/
>"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
Webster's - Tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or
practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.
- Probably impossible for you to consider.
Risqilly - http://www.risqilly.org/
oldfa...@my-dejanews.com
>Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
Excuse me for pointing out the blatently obvious here, but this is
an worldwide newsgroup!!! That means there's people of different
religions, different politics, and even different countries!!!! (Yes,
that's right- other countries *outside* the US!!!!)
So any talk of conspiracy theories involving "radical homosexual
activisits" are going to look, to people outside your very narrow
circle, like a the ravings of a complete madman!!!!
>[...] They are quite simple.
>
>Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
>multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
>would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
>respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
Oh for flips sake!!!!! It might surprise you know this, but this is
*USENET* and you're posting on a "contraversial" political subject,
so of course you're going to get quite a few responses!!!!! If you're
not prepared to back up your opinions with any debate whatsoever,
then you must be a very weak-willed person!!!!! And as for blaming
it on a "coordinated attack", well, perhaps you ought to watch less
episodes of "The X-Files", Mr Paranoid!!!
>[...] Certainly, that is their right.
>
>But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
>viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
>those of us who dare disagree with their religion. [...]
^^^^^^^^
Religion?!?!?!?!?!??!?! And what religion would this be?!?!??!
You think this is some religious war?!?!?!? You really are a bit
of a kook aren't you?!??!
Anyway you don't need to tell me about "not viewing reasoned
debate"!!!! I've only been on here a few months, and I'm already
getting really fed up of the tired old arguments that kooks such
as yourself spout like a flippin' broken record!!!!! As far as I
can see, all that seems to be argued is:
1) "Homosexuals are the same as paedophiles!!!" (This gets
completely disproved pretty quickly!!!)
2) The Bible says it's wrong!!!!" (Most people go: "The Bible is
not the law"!!!!)
3) "It's not natural!!!!" (This gets disproved pretty quickly!!!)
4) "Homosexuals can be cured!!!" (This gets disproved pretty
quickly!!!)
5) Some incomprehensible scatological nonsense usually featuring
one or all of the words: "fags", "blood", "faeces", "semen",
"gerbil". (Most people go: "Yawn"!!!!!)
6) "I am right-wing, and you are 'liberal', and therefore I am
completely right, and you are completely wrong!!!!!!" (Most
people laugh at the sadcase, especially if they're from
outside the US!!!!)
And I notice someone's already predicted your next move in a debate
(ie the "buick" argument), so you're hardly an original thinker
yourself!!!!!!
>Is there really anything wrong with: [.. Snip! ..]
Oh for feck's sake- what do you think people have been debating
with your for the past few days!??!?! And now you're flippin'
complaining *because* they're debating it with you?!?!?! Come on-
are you really telling us your point of view cannot stand up to
a little debate?!??!
>[...] Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
>own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) [...]
Totally clouded by self-interest!??!?! And you're totally untainted
by any interests?!??!?! After all, you're the one who's defining
the debate in terms of a very narrow right-wing view of US-centric
politics!!!! I'd say that kind of smacks of someone who is totally
clouded by self interest...
> [...] realize that 1) and 2) is the truth.
>
>The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
What about the heterosexuals who support equal rights for
homosexuals, Mr "Blinkers"?!??!?
Anyway, this whole post from you seems to be an admission that you
know you can't win the debate, and therefore are trying to turn
this inevitable defeat into some kind of twisted victory!!!! Instead
of attempting to "win" by debate, you're attempting to "win" merely
by disagreeing with someone!!!! Well, your attempts to rationalise
your rapidly shrinking fantasy world are not going to convice me,
mate!!!! You've lost the argument, and virtually admitted as
such in your post!!!!!!
>Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
>the liberal kooks [...]
As opposed to not-so-liberal kooks!??!?!
>[...] who hang out here:
>
>J. Northwood
>John De Salvio
>Alex Elliot
>James Doemer
>Mike Silverman
>Speedybird
>and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
>well.
>
>Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
>Andrews?
Really, this is so transparent!!!!! You're daring the above people
to reply to you, and then if one or two of them do, you'll say "Oh
woe!!! This is the Radical Liberal Homosexual Agenda attacking me
again!!!! See?!?!? They disagree with me?!?!?! (That's means I
win!!!!!)" You really are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land!!!!!
"Regular Guy"?!?!? Where I come from, you'd be regarded as a
regular nutcase!!!!!!!
Old Fart!
John De Salvio
> John De Salvio wrote:
> >
> > In article <361B68...@nospam.org>, "Mr. Horrible" <m...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Regular Guy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> > > > who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
> > >
> > > Anyone who confuses tactics with ideology is a fool.
> > > >
> > > > Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> > > > multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> > > > would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> > > > respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
> > >
> > > So alot of people disagree with you, and they say so.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly, that is their right.
> > >
> > > Yes. So why are you complaining? If you can't take the heat...
> > > >
> > > > But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> > > > viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> > > > those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
> > >
> > > So ignore the responses you consider unreasonable and debate the
ones you do.
> > > >
> > > > Is there really anything wrong with:
> > >
> > > For the record, now you've switched from tactics to substance. They are
> > > different.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
> > >
> > > No, though whether you can claim this statement is true is subject
to debate.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> > > > exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> > > > better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> > > > daddys or two mommys.
> > >
> > > This is a highly controversial issue. Yet when alot of people disagree
> > with you,
> > > you whine about it?
> > > >
> > > > Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> > > > own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> > > > and 2) is the truth.
> > >
> > > I'm straight. I disagree with you. So you're attempt to claim that
> > everyone who
> > > disagrees with you is clouded by self-interest has failed. Next.
> > > >
> > > > The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
> > > >
> > > > Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> > > > the liberal kooks who hang out here:
> > > >
> > > > J. Northwood
> > > > John De Salvio
> > > > Alex Elliot
> > > > James Doemer
> > > > Mike Silverman
> > > > Speedybird
> > > > and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
> > > > well.
> > >
> > > What about me?
> > > >
> > > > Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
> > > > Andrews?
> > > >
> > > > A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
> > > > nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
> > > > Anti-Religious Left.
> > >
> > > Fine. I'm not a member of the anti-religious left. Does that make my views
> > > worthy in your mind? Feel free to debate me.
> >
> > Debate?
> >
> > DEBATE???
> >
> > You must be joking.
> >
> > Regurgitated Guy doesn't know how to debate.
>
> I know. But you have to wrestle someone to prove he can't wrestle. (No
> Greco-Roman wrestling for him, of course).
Certainly not!
It's difficult to wrestle when you can't keep a straight face.
Right from the Beginning
> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> >Right on! When I first started reading and posting on this newsgroup, I
> >had no idea how far homosexuals would go to push their agenda on our
> >Judeo-Christian society. I was shocked at how far and how low radical
> >homosexual activists can and do go. Once they realize their simple minded
> >liberal "facts" and "evidence" won't work on a thinking person, they
> >resort to "homophobic", "nazi", yadda, yadda yadda.
>
> Your correct, we shouldn't call you a nazi, but it's faster than
> typing "Far right wing, white supremacist, who thinks Hitler had some
> good ideas, and thinks the Jews and Homosexuals are plotting against
> him".
Chuckle. . .typical personal attack from a radical homosexual against
anyone who dares to question his tatics or beliefs.
> >> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> >> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> >> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
>
> Co-ordinated attacks.. hahahaha.. you really need to get back into
> therapy.
I didn't write this billy boy.
> >A prime example of this is Rev. Billy. A coward who hides behind a fake
> >e-mail address and a fake name.
>
> Sorry Haff-Witt, my pages are in every header and most sig's, you
> should know, you've visited them a couple times.
> (so your lying again)
Lying about what? That your a coward who hides under the name Rev.
Billy? Sorry billy boy, that's hard core fact, not a lie.
> > His only job is to personally attack
> >and attempt to humiliate anyone who dares disagree with his satanic
> >religion.
>
> Radical ? Well, I guess from the view of someone (YOU) who's pages
> have links that lead to the Klan and the like.
Laugh. . oh I have links that lead to the Klan do I? Another lie and
personal attack from the coward.
> Bet you miss having Pat Buchanan's pages down for their pre-2000 white
> wash. You could visit Bat Pukeanan's pages to reminisce.
> http://www.risqilly.org/pukeanan/
The only white wash that we are going to see in 98 is to liberalism and
we'll see that again in 2000 with a Republican White House and
Congress
Shawn James Haff
http://www2.gvsu.edu/~haffs
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
"Great states with good constitutions develop when most people think of
their duties and restrain their appetites. Great states sink toward their
dissolution when most people think of their privileges and induge their
appetites freely." Russell Kirk
Scott Taylor
Jody wrote:
> Regular Guy wrote in message <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>...
>
> >The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
> >
> >Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> >the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Damnit!
>
> I didn't make the list _again_ this year.
>
> Could someone please call the Gay High Command and inform them that I'm
> obviously not getting the invities to the Secret Meetings nor is the Vast
> Conspiracy Network keeping me informed of the latest goings on of our silent
> Coup D'eat?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jody
I'll get right on it, Jody.
-Scott
Rev. Billy
>Chuckle. . .typical personal attack from a radical homosexual against
>anyone who dares to question his tatics or beliefs.
Yet you continue to attack people in Gay groups, where you spend ALOT
of time lurking.
DejaNews Author Profile
There are 1506 unique messages by Right from the Beginning
<ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu>:
(numbers may be slightly skewed by cross-postings)
Number of Messages Forum
772 alt.politics.homosexuality
98 alt.sports.football.pro.detroit-lions
64 alt.sports.basketball.nba.det-pistons
63 alt.homosexual
55 rec.music.artists.queensryche
54 alt.censorship
40 alt.sports.football.pro.miami-dolphins
39 talk.abortion
34 alt.christnet
33 talk.politics.misc
28 alt.atheism
25 talk.politics.guns
24 alt.society.generation-x
15 alt.society.liberalism
13 alt.sports.college.michigan
12 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
9 alt.education.student.government
8 alt.bible
8 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.det-redwings
6 alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
6 rec.org.mensa
4 alt.politics.equality
4 alt.sex.homosexual
4 alt.society.civil-liberty
4 rec.sport.football.pro
3 alt.nuke.the.USA
3 alt.politics
3 alt.sex.bestiality
3 alt.sports.football.pro.chicago-bears
3 rec.sport.hockey
3 soc.culture.british
2 alk.abortion
2 alt.conspiracy
2 alt.current-events.usa
2 alt.discrimination
2 alt.feminism
2 alt.pagan
2 alt.politics.usa.republican
2 alt.religion.christian
2 alt.sports.football.pro
2 alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers
2 alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots
2 rec.sport.tennis
1 alt.abortion.inequity
1 alt.binaries.pictures.nudism
1 alt.christnet.sex
1 alt.fan.dan-quayle
1 alt.journalism.gay-press
1 alt.mens-rights
1 alt.music.dream-theater
1 alt.politics.democrats.d
1 alt.politics.sex
1 alt.politics.white-power
1 alt.sex.voyeurism
1 alt.sports.baseball.detroit-tigers
1 alt.sports.basketball.nba.nj-nets
1 alt.sports.basketball.nba.wash-bullets
1 alt.sports.football.pro.buffalo-bills
1 alt.sports.football.pro.denver-broncos
1 alt.sports.football.pro.phoe-cardinals
1 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.que-nordiques
1 alt.teens.gay
1 milw.general
1 misc.immigration.usa
1 rec.sport.basketball.pro
1 soc.veterans
1 va.general
Denial is difficult, huh closet case? Do you get a "woodie" lurking in
the gay groups ???
You deny white supremacist views, deny claiming Jew an Homosexual
"plots" against you and you RR goose step boys ?? Then post it all the
time... And you worship Pat Buchanan & David Duke ????
>Lying about what? That your a coward who hides under the name Rev.
>Billy? Sorry billy boy, that's hard core fact, not a lie.
Again, my pages are listed in the headers of all my posts, and the
sig's of most, as you know, having visited them. You like to clip the
truth and leave your twisted little Haff-truths.
>> >and attempt to humiliate anyone who dares disagree with his satanic
>> >religion.
You forgot to answer why you call Christianity "Satanic"! You are an
agent of hate, division, and your posts are antichristian.
"Today, my friends, many people who love Jesus Christ are sadly
following traditional Christian dogma which does not have a firm
foundation in the Bible. Have you ever wondered how a God who is Love
would send people to hell to burn forever and ever? Even after 1
billion years of torment in hell, even Hitler would have his due. But,
according to traditional Christian dogma, his tourment is just
beginning. Have you ever pressed your pastor as to why you attend
church on Sunday instead of the Bible Sabbath day(Saturday)? "
-Haff-Witt
Conrad Sabatier
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
[ nothing worth quoting ]
Before I killfile you, I'd like to leave you with a thought to ponder
(myself, I really don't care what the answer is):
What do you get out of doing this?
Regular Guy
>In article <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>,
>Regular Guy <NOSPAMre...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>>Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
>>multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
>>would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
>>respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
>
> This is ludicrous. Regular, do you honestly believe that Ward
>and I discuss the points I will make? Half the time I'm getting yelled
>at by liberal gay socialists, and the other half by "conservative"
>Christian socialists, so I don't think it's too likely I'm being
>supported by either camp. (Though Ward never came up with this kind of
>a whine, so I quite understandably have more respect for him than you)
Probably not. I said "wouldn't be surprised."
>
>>Is there really anything wrong with:
>
>>1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
>
> This is one of those words that I don't really understand:
>"society." If you mean, do I agree that individuals should be able
>to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, without having to
>worry about being arrested or fined for morally condemning others,
>then I think I agree with you. I personally see nothing wrong with
>homosexuality, but that's because I'm an Objectivist right now, so
>I'm not very concerned with others' private behavior.
>
What I mean by society is a general understanding of Americans. If
you would like it mathematically/statistically, I would say that a
majority of Americans do see it as immoral.
>>2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
>>exclusion of homosexual relationships,
>
> You can feel free to support whatever unions you like, as
>long as you don't interfere with the right of others to enter freely
>into contracts. In other words, you don't have to think of a gay
>couple as married, as long as you don't prevent them from being
>married in the eyes of the state.
>
I would actually have no problem with religions providing ceremonies
recognizing a homosexual union, as long as the government stays out of
it. Specifically, as long as the governmental (read: societal) view
is of marriage as between a man and a woman.
>> given that children are much
>>better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>>daddys or two mommys.
>
> While this may be true, surely you don't believe a child is
>not better off with two daddys or two mommies than he is in an
>orphanage or with a succession of foster parents; do you?
>
Of course, each situation is different. Two mommies may be better
than a mommy and a daddy in specific situations. I am speaking in
generalities. Unfortunately public policy must almost always deal in
generalities.
>>Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
>>own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
>>and 2) is the truth.
>
> I can't claim to not be clouded by self-interest. I am a land
>owner. And because I own land, I have an interest in defending and
>preserving my right to do as I please on my own property. I suppose if
>I didn't own anything and never would, I might want the big bad
>government do step in and whup up on people I don't like (which would be
>Christians in my case, not gays). But since I do, I have to tell you
>that any attempt you make to stop me from using my property as I wish or
>enter into contracts I wish is treason against my sovereign self (since
>every man and every woman is sovereign, and we create governments to
>protect our sovereignty by mutual defense, rather than to violate it).
>
You're not a member of the radical homosexual lobby, from what I can
see.
>>Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
>>the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>
>>J. Northwood
>>John De Salvio
>>Alex Elliot
>>James Doemer
>>Mike Silverman
>>Speedybird
>>and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
>>well.
>
> Why didn't I make your list, Regular? Is it because I'm not
>liberal? And is that the same reason I can't seem to get a response
>out of you?
>
Didn;'t notice you before, Rev. And you don't seem to be a kook,
either.
>>A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
>>nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
>>Anti-Religious Left.
>
> You meant to say, you're a member of the Religious Left, didn't
>you? That bunch of kooks that wants me to selflessly sacrifice my
>liberty and property to the coming theocracy? >Hey, if God wants to
>rule this country, He can start by paying some damn taxes. Taxation
>without representation is tyrrany, but representation without taxation
>is just as bad. A huge golden meteor, big enough to pay off our national
>debt, would do just fine, in case He's reading this. I remain,
> -Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
> Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
>
Cute, Rev. :)
>P.S. Regular: I'm sending a courtesy copy of this by e-mail. If you
>don't want me to do so in future, please let me know.
A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
Anti-Religious Left.
If it ain't right, it's wrong.
Liberals - a dying breed.
rep...@honors.montana.edu
ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> On 7 Oct 1998 15:20:15 GMT, rep...@rupert.honors.montana.edu (Rev. E.
> It's your word "but" that alarms me. If you were other than an
> objectivist, would you then be homophobic? Many Christians do not deem
> homosexuality a sin, either...only the stupid ones...just as do the
> stupid atheists, paganists, Jews, Muslims, ad nauseum.
I don't know whether I would be homophobic or not. Scratch that --
I would have no fear of homosexuals nor a desire to see them stripped of
their property at gunpoint. I might find it "wrong" in the sense that
it is damaging to self, just because God says so, in the absence of any
evidence to indicate such; because it seems that that's what religion
is all about -- taking the word of a most likely fictional entity in
spite of the evidence of your senses.
In other words, if I could be induced to worship the god of the
Jews and Christians, I'd probably have a real problem with homosexuality.
And wearing mixed fabric. And eating pork. And cutting my beard. And
using the courts (Christians are not supposed to sue one another, after
all). But I can't imagine what would make me want to do such a foolish
thing.
> >>2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> >>exclusion of homosexual relationships,
> > You can feel free to support whatever unions you like, as
> >long as you don't interfere with the right of others to enter freely
> >into contracts. In other words, you don't have to think of a gay
> >couple as married, as long as you don't prevent them from being
> >married in the eyes of the state.
> But this KKKristian form of dogma regards you as sinful if you *refuse
> to denigrate and bash gay people. They have created a religion of
> blood and violence. In this case, do you really think they should be
> allowed to practice what they preach?
Absolutely not. I have a right to tell you that I don't recognize
your marriage (hell, I do this with people I know who have been married
too many times), but not to actively interfere with your life or property.
>>[it may be true that het couples make better parents]
> Why do *you, a so-called objectvist, agree with a right-wing
> homophobe, that children are better off with a straight couple for
> parents, instead of a gay couple?
I'm not sure I agree with him; some research indicates that having
at least one parent of each sex is important, other research indicates it
isn't. I gave him this point because I thought it more interesting to
debate the relevance of a "heterosexual parenting advantage" than its
existance. In other words, I don't agree.
> > I can't claim to not be clouded by self-interest. I am a land
> >owner. And because I own land, I have an interest in defending and
> >preserving my right to do as I please on my own property.
> Property ownership is antithetic to the evolution of our nation into
> its fulfillment as a democracy.
Democracy is the notion that the majority is always right... It
allows the majority to rob and kill the minority.
But I must ask: How are we going to work this without property
ownership. In other words, if I am barred from enjoying the fruits
of my labor -- if any wealth I create is taken from me and given to
others -- why should I work? What is the incentive? And by what
right is it taken?
> Don't forget that even *your property
> is not really yours...assuming you are a non-Native American...who are
> the real owners of our land. We live here still, by the good graces
> and compassion of Native Americans...who could, with just a snap of
> their fingers, drive us all off their continent. But we are children
> still, with things to learn...so the gracious natives have permitted
> us to live here, and even tolerate our abuse to the land and its
> original people, until said time we finally grow up, spiritually.
Well, this is true in a sense. What was done during colonization
was a travesty, but I'm not sure what there is to be done about it. I'm
pretty sure that eliminating all private property is a bad idea, though.
I remain,
-Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
P.S. Something that people forget: National Socialism started with
demands for affordable housing and medical care, with socialization of
industry, and with gun control. All individuals are better off when
government is smaller.
P.P.S. Here's an exercise in political philosophy: The State is the
agent of its electors. In other words, the State can not rightfully
weild any power that its electors do not already have as human beings.
In its most basic conception, the state protects the life, liberty, and
property of its citizens; it is a sort of mutual protection club. And
it does so rightfully, since all humans possess a right to defend their
own life, liberty, and property with deadly force. (Any action taken by
the state involves the threat of deadly force; if you break the law,
you go to jail, if you run when they try to arrest you, you get shot --
compliance is gained with the threat of death)
Since the state is the agent of its electors, and since the state
uses deadly force or the threat thereof whenever it acts, the state may
only rightfully take those actions which would be morally justified if
individuals did them. This is easy: theft should be illegal because I
have a moral right to kill a man in order to prevent him from taking my
property. Sodomy ought not be illegal because I have no right to kill
a man for sucking a dick in his own house (and if I suggested that I
have such a right, I would be labelled a psychopath, and rightfully so).
Socialism is wrong because I have to right to kill a man to take *his*
house for myself (or to give to another).
Ron Nicholson
Every year more and more people see the unfairness of denying equal rights.
Could we say that when we have a majority of society supporting marriage that
includes same sex couples that you'll jump on board?
L. Michael Roberts
AhHa!!! Now we know where he gets those ideas about marrying fido...
<snip balance>
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexualy transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Regular Guy wrote:
>>
>> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
>> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
>
>Anyone who confuses tactics with ideology is a fool.
>>
>> Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
>> multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
>> would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
>> respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
>
>So alot of people disagree with you, and they say so.
>>
>> Certainly, that is their right.
>
>Yes. So why are you complaining? If you can't take the heat...
>>
>> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
>> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
>> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
>
>So ignore the responses you consider unreasonable and debate the ones you do.
>>
>> Is there really anything wrong with:
>
>For the record, now you've switched from tactics to substance. They are
>different.
>>
>> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
>
>No, though whether you can claim this statement is true is subject to debate.
>>
>> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
>> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
>> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>> daddys or two mommys.
>
>This is a highly controversial issue. Yet when alot of people disagree with you,
>you whine about it?
>>
>> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
>> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
>> and 2) is the truth.
>
>I'm straight. I disagree with you. So you're attempt to claim that everyone who
>disagrees with you is clouded by self-interest has failed. Next.
>>
>> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
>>
>> Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
>> the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>>
>> J. Northwood
>> John De Salvio
>> Alex Elliot
>> James Doemer
>> Mike Silverman
>> Speedybird
>> and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime in as
>> well.
>
>What about me?
>
>Mr. H
What about ME -- here I have been striving for months and months to be
as offensive as possible to R.G. rhymes with tree, thinks like
cobblerock, and I find myself iomitted from his shit-list.
ward
=================================================
"Gays have learned whining from blacks" -Cinque
=================================================
Ward Stewart
>
> You can feel free to support whatever unions you like, as
>long as you don't interfere with the right of others to enter freely
>into contracts. In other words, you don't have to think of a gay
>couple as married, as long as you don't prevent them from being
>married in the eyes of the state.
R.G offered:
>
>> given that children are much
>>better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>>daddys or two mommys.
Rev Lloyd added:
>
> While this may be true, surely you don't believe a child is
>not better off with two daddys or two mommies than he is in an
>orphanage or with a succession of foster parents; do you?
First an agreement with his utterly fallacious assumption that
same-gender parenting is inherently inferior and then followed by a
non-sequitur. Same gender parenting in a loving home is
NOT SECOND BEST! It is just as good as and this proposition was proven
in trial before Judge Chang here in Honolulu. The homophobes failed
to prevail on ANY of their malicious assertions -- their witnesses
were invalidated by the words of their OWN mouths --
Ward Stewart
Salvio) wrote:
>In article <shrapnel-071...@azathoth-10.d.enteract.com>,
>shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
>
>> In article <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
>> (Regular Guy) wrote:
>>
>> > Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
>> > who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
>> >
>> > Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
>> > multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
>> > would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
>> > respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
>>
>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! That's gotta be the damn silliest
>> thing I've ever heard! My opinions are just that- MY DAMN OPINIONS. Nobody
>> tells me what to think or say on any given subject, and my fellow posters
>> - homo and hetero - are free to disagree with me as vehemently as they
>> wish. Seriously, there's no "Central Homosexual Propaganda Committee-
>> Internet Division" in existence.
>
>We HAVE noticed your absence at the meetings...
AND, oddly enough, we have been quite able to contain our grief at
your absence.
JayTeeFL
In article <6vhl6v$e5l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, rep...@honors.montana.edu
addresses the idiot(tm) that refers to itself as regular guy:
*snippage*
hi, repoman,
you seem to be belaboring under the misguided notion that you can engage the
idiot(tm) that refers to itself as regular guy in a debate, using logic, reason
and accepted methods of proof in order to state your case.
don't be fooled; the idiot(tm) that refers to itself as regular guy has no
interest in debate, understanding, or even of convincing a single reader of
this newsgroup of it's (admittedly bizarre) opinion.
the idiot(tm) is only here because it is a forum for it to repeat it's
hate-filled, bigotry-motivated agenda, ad infinitum until it gets bored; it
will then assume another usenet persona and do exactly the same thing. it will
*then* resurface with this pseudonym and start the entire process over again.
do yourself (and bandwidth) a favor; if you are genuinely interested in the
idiot(tm) that refers to itself as regular guy's opinion, do a dejanews search
on it's pseudonym. read the first ten articles or so. the following two plus
thousand articles will simply be repitition of the first ten.
or, if you want, here is the condensed version, and you won't even have to get
your hands dirty:
"bible. icky. perverts. bestiality. bible. romans. bible. bestiality.
necrophelia. bible."
that pretty much sums up everything the idiot(tm) that refers to itself as
regular guy has to say.
prince jace <---- was, at one time, actually entertained by the idiot(tm) that
refers to itself as regular guy, but hey, i have caught this act a few times
already. now i just pity it.
http://members.aol.com/jayteefl/
"we're one, but we're not the same...we get to carry each other..."
ital...@hotmail.com
> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
This, coming from a someone who posts 'A basis of coexistence' to a newsgroup
of narrow scope rather than present such a proposal for legislation and
discussion in a forum larger than this one.
Yeah. Right.
> Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
> multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
> would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
> respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
Poor babyyyyyy!
Whether you believe it or not, I only know these posters by what they post,
not by any other means or interaction. But if what you said were true, do you
actually expect us to believe you feel intimidated by such a tiny group of
people?
> Certainly, that is their right.
Affirmative.
> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> Is there really anything wrong with:
>
> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
Actually, secular society doesn't view homosexuality as immoral. And to those
who are called by their religion to consider homosexual behaviour as immoral,
I have no objections as long as that view does not interfere with my right to
'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.
> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> daddys or two mommys.
>
> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> and 2) is the truth.
>
> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
If anyone against homosexual marriage is able to provide something other than
the old strawman arguments presented above, I'll address each of those issues.
(1) and (2) above have already been answered satisfactorily, even if you don't
like the answer.
> Just watch. There will be about seven responses to this post, from
> the liberal kooks who hang out here:
>
> J. Northwood, John De Salvio, Alex Elliot, James Doemer, Mike Silverman,
> Speedybird, and, of course, the ever-so-lovely Conrad Sabatier will chime
> in as well. Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me
> Todd Andrews?
Replace 'kooks' with 'communists' and folx might believe Eugene McCarthy has
been reincarnated on usenet. '...making a list.... checking it twice...'.
Sheesh.
--
Steve Giammarco
David Whitt
In article <6vhdpk$c8g$1...@dolphin.neosoft.com>,
Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.98100...@river.it.gvsu.edu>,
>
>Before I killfile you, I'd like to leave you with a thought to ponder
>(myself, I really don't care what the answer is):
>
>What do you get out of doing this?
Seeing as how this thread is posted in a.p.h., a better question would be
what do *you* get out of doing this?
-David Whitt
Kilamofo
Newsgroup.
Conrad Sabatier
Out of doing what? Arguing with impossibly disingenuous people? Not very
much, I'm afraid, which is why lately I'm filtering more and more of this
stuff.
If you meant something else, please advise.
James Doemer
Generally Gay haters will cross post to totally irrelevant
news groups in order to draw other gay haters into the fray,
and to make it look like gays are irresponsible.. Sorry
that has happened...
Kilamofo wrote in message <6vib3a$9...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
:I don't even want to know how THIS string got into the Detroit Lions
:Newsgroup.
:
:
Mr. Horrible
So if you wake up tomorrow and are given certain evidence that a
majority of Americans have changed their minds and now find it moral,
would you concede?
The question is not whether a majority finds it immoral. The question is
whether we should give a damn.
>
> >>2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> >>exclusion of homosexual relationships,
> >
> > You can feel free to support whatever unions you like, as
> >long as you don't interfere with the right of others to enter freely
> >into contracts. In other words, you don't have to think of a gay
> >couple as married, as long as you don't prevent them from being
> >married in the eyes of the state.
> >
>
> I would actually have no problem with religions providing ceremonies
> recognizing a homosexual union, as long as the government stays out of
> it. Specifically, as long as the governmental (read: societal) view
> is of marriage as between a man and a woman.
>
> >> given that children are much
> >>better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> >>daddys or two mommys.
> >
> > While this may be true, surely you don't believe a child is
> >not better off with two daddys or two mommies than he is in an
> >orphanage or with a succession of foster parents; do you?
> >
>
> Of course, each situation is different. Two mommies may be better
> than a mommy and a daddy in specific situations. I am speaking in
> generalities. Unfortunately public policy must almost always deal in
> generalities.
Why?
We could use "generalities" to justify banning all kinds of
marriages. Between partners whose age is far apart, between partners of
different religion or race, between partners who disagree on whether or
not to have children or how many, between partners who the state simply
thinks won't succeed in marriage. Would you support those?
Mr. H
(snippage)
Dog Boy
Kilamofo <Kila...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<6vib3a$9...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
> I don't even want to know how THIS string got into the Detroit Lions
> Newsgroup.
>
I agree 100% with that. Stop the cross posting or take it to e-mail please.
DB
Bruce Garrett
TA> Wanted to point out the tactics of the radical homosexual activisits
TA> who hang out in this group. They are quite simple.
Deja voux all over again. Say...didn't you post this article
about a year or so ago, when you gave us all the reasons why you weren't
going to debate us?
TA> Whatever happened to Garret whathisname, who always called me Todd
TA> Andrews?
Two t's hon...and I'm busy with another kook right now...
---
-Garrett Whatshisname \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ Religion is what you are willing to live by.
What you want the people next door to live by
is politics.
Right from the Beginning
>
> Generally Gay haters will cross post to totally irrelevant
> news groups in order to draw other gay haters into the fray,
> and to make it look like gays are irresponsible.. Sorry
> that has happened...
Nice try. This was the pro-gay Rev. Billy who decided to cross post. I
sure didn't include this in here.
>
> Kilamofo wrote in message <6vib3a$9...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
> :I don't even want to know how THIS string got into the Detroit Lions
> :Newsgroup.
> :
> :
John De Salvio
(Regular Guy) wrote:
A radical homosexual lobby is one that shows lack of taste in decor.
Most homosexal lobbies have good taste, and therefore are not radical.
The multiplex cinemas being thrown up across the country lack taste.
Their lobbies are not homosexual.
Mike Silverman
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, James Doemer wrote:
>
> >
> > Generally Gay haters will cross post to totally irrelevant
> > news groups in order to draw other gay haters into the fray,
> > and to make it look like gays are irresponsible.. Sorry
> > that has happened...
> Nice try. This was the pro-gay Rev. Billy who decided to cross post. I
> sure didn't include this in here.
Is a pro gay kind of the same thing as a pro football player?
Is there a league?
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
Lawrence Allen Kuiper
Mike Silverman
Lawrence Allen Kuiper <kui...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> Please explain the relevance of this thread to Detroit Lions football.
Barry Sanders' college roommate's cousin's brother was gay.
JayTeeFL
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.98100...@river.it.gvsu.edu>,the haff
wit <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, James Doemer wrote:
>
>>
>> Generally Gay haters will cross post to totally irrelevant
>> news groups in order to draw other gay haters into the fray,
>> and to make it look like gays are irresponsible.. Sorry
>> that has happened...
>Nice try. This was the pro-gay Rev. Billy who decided to cross post. I
>sure didn't include this in here.
well, it did serve the purpose of reminding me that detroit does indeed have an
nfl team...although i am fairly well convinced any of the big three florida
college teams could beat them 2 outta 3 games...
prince jace <---- bleeds orange and blue and roots for the semiholes and even
the canes when they are not playing his gators...
JayTeeFL
In article <cubsfan-0810...@163.176.20.93>, cub...@cjnetworks.com
(Mike Silverman) writes:
>Is a pro gay kind of the same thing as a pro football player?
>Is there a league?
i am sure there is, mike, but most of us prefer to maintain our amateur status
in order to compete in the olympics...
prince jace <---- hasnt decided yet if that quip is funny but plans to post it
anyway
Mr. Horrible
>
> In article <361c5232....@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
> (Regular Guy) wrote:
>
>
> Most homosexal lobbies have good taste, and therefore are not radical.
I don't know about that. I've seen a few of you gay guys' lobbies (or as you
call them, foyers, pronounced "foyay") and some of them are pretty chintzy.
Faux leopardskin floors? A life-size nude Errol Flynn statue, complete with
fake pubic hair? Color me shocked, girlfriend. [big fat :)]
>
> The multiplex cinemas being thrown up across the country lack taste.
>
> Their lobbies are not homosexual.
Except when "Beaches" is playing.
Mr. H
(a straight sympathizer having fun)
Rev. Billy
>> Generally Gay haters will cross post to totally irrelevant
>> news groups in order to draw other gay haters into the fray,
>> and to make it look like gays are irresponsible..
>Nice try. This was the pro-gay Rev. Billy who decided to cross post. I
>sure didn't include this in here.
>> Kilamofo wrote in message <6vib3a$9...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>> :I don't even want to know how THIS string got into the Detroit Lions
>> :Newsgroup.
We can see his sincerety in the continued cross posting.
Haff's hate posts against the Religious and minorities are well known.
These right-wing nuts will go to any lengths to propagate their
agenda.
Blessed be,
In the Lord's Service,
Rev. Billy
Risqilly - http://www.risqilly.org/
John De Salvio
> John De Salvio wrote:
> >
> > In article <361c5232....@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
> > (Regular Guy) wrote:
> >
> > > You're not a member of the radical homosexual lobby, from what I can
> > > see.
> >
> > A radical homosexual lobby is one that shows lack of taste in decor.
> >
> > Most homosexal lobbies have good taste, and therefore are not radical.
>
> I don't know about that. I've seen a few of you gay guys' lobbies (or as you
> call them, foyers, pronounced "foyay") and some of them are pretty chintzy.
> Faux leopardskin floors? A life-size nude Errol Flynn statue, complete with
> fake pubic hair? Color me shocked, girlfriend. [big fat :)]
WHERE, pray tell, is THAT Foyey?
If there is a nude statue of Errol Flynn, you KNOW it's a dusty old joint.
James Doemer
Right from the Beginning wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, James Doemer wrote:
>
>>
>> Generally Gay haters will cross post to totally irrelevant
>> news groups in order to draw other gay haters into the fray,
>> that has happened...
>Nice try. This was the pro-gay Rev. Billy who decided to cross post. I
>sure didn't include this in here.
>
Sorry bud, but this seems to be your cross post...
Right from the Beginning
>
> Right from the Beginning wrote in message ...
> >On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, James Doemer wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Generally Gay haters will cross post to totally irrelevant
> >> news groups in order to draw other gay haters into the fray,
> >> and to make it look like gays are irresponsible.. Sorry
> >> that has happened...
> >Nice try. This was the pro-gay Rev. Billy who decided to cross post. I
> >sure didn't include this in here.
> >
>
> Sorry bud, but this seems to be your cross post...
Wrong again buddy! I Billy was the first one to cross post this to the
Lions newsgroup. But of course, blindness to the truth is your trademark.
Tom Pospeshil
>
>Generally Gay haters will cross post to totally irrelevant
>news groups in order to draw other gay haters into the fray,
>and to make it look like gays are irresponsible.. Sorry
>that has happened...
Somebody's being irresponsible, (and dishonest) and the paper trail is in
black and white, or whatever colors you choose for your screen.
It looks like:
Right From the Beginning ticked off some people in some gay or religion
discussion group(s) and Rev. Billy was apparently so upset he went to the
trouble of searching for every post this guy ever made, and cross-posted to
at least one of them (Detroit Lions), probably more, most likely to
embarrass him.
All I can say is WE DON'T CARE. We don't know this guy as anything other
than a Lion fan, and seeing as the team is 1-4 right now, we have more
important things to worry about than who's moral/political views are ticking
who
off. If we're not going to get at least a good Lewinski joke out of it, we
simply don't care.
Please, take it back where it started.
Ward Stewart
>In article <6vg1vv$847$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
> ell...@pantheon.yale.edu (Alex Elliott) wrote:
>
>> But (1) is not the truth where I live. My state has a sexual orientation
>> non-discrimination law. My state as a sexual orientation hate crimes law.
>> My state has a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public
>> schools. My state has several openly gay elected officials. My state
>> has openly gay school teachers and school administrators. My state's
>> Senators and Representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, are all
>> pro-gay. My state has not had a local DOMA passed in the state
>> legislature. The largest protestant denomination in my state ordains
>> openly gay ministers. My state allows adoption by gay parents. My state
>> has no gay ghettos because gay people can live just about anywhere openly.
>> In my state, gay rights is *not* a radical liberal issue - almost
>> everyone, liberals and conservatives both, agrees on it.
>
>
>Just curious, but why hasn't any gay couples in CT tried to get married?
>
>Sounds like your state is ripe for such a suit, with a decent shot at victory?
If I may presume to answer from five-thousand miles away -- there are
such matters in train in Alaska (active), Vermont, Maine, Colorado
and, I suspect, Connecticut -- the council of wisdom would be to not
expend great monies and energy in fighting a battle which may soon be
won for you on other battle-fields.
There is a real possibility that we may lose here in Hawaii and I
would fully expect to see the baton snatched up in several other
states.
This is an idea whose time has come -- how else ex[plain the hysteria
of the fundies?
ward
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit
political convenience. Like Martin, I don't believe you can
stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."
--Coretta Scott King
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allen
>In article <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>,
>Regular Guy <NOSPAMre...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>>Pounce and wear down any person who dare disagrees with them with
>>multiple responses to their posts. This is a coordinated attack. I
>>would not be surprised if these folks speak and discuss how they will
>>respond to anyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.
>
> This is ludicrous. Regular, do you honestly believe that Ward
>and I discuss the points I will make? Half the time I'm getting yelled
>at by liberal gay socialists, and the other half by "conservative"
>Christian socialists, so I don't think it's too likely I'm being
>supported by either camp. (Though Ward never came up with this kind of
>a whine, so I quite understandably have more respect for him than you)
Lloyd,
If you disagree with the likes of the fundie-right, it's inevitable
that at some point you be accused of being a part of the
VAST, LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY
Just please go along with it and try not to disagree before you are
personally believed to be the Antichrist.
Allen
---------------------------
afb...@HATESPAMhotmail.com
Address fudged to foil spam-bots. Take out the HATESPAM for correct address.
Eric Bohlman
: On 7 Oct 1998 15:20:15 GMT, rep...@rupert.honors.montana.edu (Rev. E.
: Lloyd Olson) wrote:
: >
: > While this may be true, surely you don't believe a child is
: >not better off with two daddys or two mommies than he is in an
: >orphanage or with a succession of foster parents; do you?
: First an agreement with his utterly fallacious assumption that
: same-gender parenting is inherently inferior and then followed by a
: non-sequitur. Same gender parenting in a loving home is
: NOT SECOND BEST! It is just as good as and this proposition was proven
: in trial before Judge Chang here in Honolulu. The homophobes failed
: to prevail on ANY of their malicious assertions -- their witnesses
: were invalidated by the words of their OWN mouths --
Lloyd's "while this may be true..." is what's known in debate as a
stipulation; it means "for the purposes of this argument, let's pretend
that you've prevailed on this point because now we're going to see if the
rest of your argument logically follows from it."
Lloyd's point is that *even if* children were better off with
opposite-sex parents, the children raised by same-sex parents in legal
marriages would *not* have been raised by opposite-sex parents if
same-sex marriages weren't legal. Either 1) they'd never have been born
(if the same-sex parents used a surrogate or sperm donor) or 2) they'd
be living in non-family circumstances like orphanages or foster homes (if
the same-sex parents adopted them). Thus the whole issue is a red
herring (actually, I think the underlying premise is that refusing to
recognize same-sex marriage will somehow drive gay men and lesbians into
opposite-sex marriages, where they'll procreate).
Bryant Brandon
<big...@provide.net> wrote:
@Sorry bud, but this seems to be your cross post...
I hate to side with Inception, but it does appear as if Billy was the
x-poster.
Shawn's origonal post:
-------
Path: river.it.gvsu.edu!haffs
From: Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Tactics of Liberal Activists on this Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:13:47 -0400
Organization: Grand Valley State University
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.95.98100...@river.it.gvsu.edu>
References: <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>
<Pine.HPP.3.95.98100...@river.it.gvsu.edu>
<361fe71e...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: river.it.gvsu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: news.gvsu.edu 907809091 1146 148.61.1.16 (8 Oct 1998 01:11:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ne...@news.gvsu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Oct 1998 01:11:31 GMT
In-Reply-To: <361fe71e...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>
Xref: news-f.iadfw.net alt.politics.homosexuality:290018
-------
Billy's reply:
-------
Path: elnws01.ce.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: no....@my.mailbox (Rev. Billy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sports.football.pro.detroit-lions
Subject: Re: Tactics of Haff-Witt Activists
Organization: http://www.risqilly.org/
Message-ID: <361c14c...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>
References: <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>
<Pine.HPP.3.95.98100...@river.it.gvsu.edu>
<361fe71e...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>
<Pine.HPP.3.95.98100...@river.it.gvsu.edu>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 113
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 01:40:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.131.145.94
X-Trace: elnws01.ce.mediaone.net 907810790 24.131.145.94 (Wed, 07 Oct 1998
20:39:50 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 20:39:50 CDT
Xref: news-f.iadfw.net alt.politics.homosexuality:290024
alt.sports.football.pro.detroit-lions:25512
-------
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
Ward Stewart
>
>In article <cubsfan-0810...@163.176.20.93>, cub...@cjnetworks.com
>(Mike Silverman) writes:
>
>>Is a pro gay kind of the same thing as a pro football player?
>>Is there a league?
>
>i am sure there is, mike, but most of us prefer to maintain our amateur status
>in order to compete in the olympics...
Not to forget the long-haul marathon!
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
"The law in its majestic equality forbids the
rich as well as the poor from stealing bread,
begging and sleeping under bridges."
Anatole France
-----------------------------------------------------
L. Michael Roberts
X-posters aye usually gutless cowards and thus use the "X-noarchive"
command so that thier x-posting is not archived. Anyone have access to
a non DejaNews archive?
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexualy transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
Alex Elliott
: Just curious, but why hasn't any gay couples in CT tried to get married?
: Sounds like your state is ripe for such a suit, with a decent shot at victory?
I honestly don't know why it hasn't been tried. I suspect that at the
moment, anyone who feels tempted to go through the legal battle is just
waiting for the Hawaii case to be resolved. It's probably a lot easier
to get an existing out-of-state marriage recognized and allow new ones
based on that precedent than it is to start from ground zero.
Another factor is that there really isn't that much gay political
activism here in CT. Since things are pretty comfortable, people
aren't very organized and used to screaming about things. Oppression
breeds activism.
[Halfway Humorous Hint to Homophobes: If you really want to end
homosexual activism, just grant us equal civil rights. I guarantee
that we'll pretty much disappear into the background and be pretty
much indistinguishable from the rest of the population.]
Alex.
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Alex Elliott
Yale University Physics Department
New Haven, CT, USA
email: ell...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
WWW: http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~elliott
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Ward Stewart
wrote:
I may have mis-spoken -- However, I would prefer in this odd medium to
see this sort of stipulation phrased in the form "even if this were
true," rather than the, to me, equivocal, "while this may be true."
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
Eric Bohlman <eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Lloyd's "while this may be true..." is what's known in debate as a
>stipulation; it means "for the purposes of this argument, let's pretend
>that you've prevailed on this point because now we're going to see if the
>rest of your argument logically follows from it."
[more explanation]
Thanks, Eric. You saw exactly what I was trying to say (and
you said it better). I remain,
-Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
rep...@honors.montana.edu
> What I mean by society is a general understanding of Americans. If
> you would like it mathematically/statistically, I would say that a
> majority of Americans do see it as immoral.
In other words, "There's more of us than of you." Okay.
> I would actually have no problem with religions providing ceremonies
> recognizing a homosexual union, as long as the government stays out of
> it. Specifically, as long as the governmental (read: societal) view
> is of marriage as between a man and a woman.
But you just said, society is only the majority of citizens, not
the government. If we ask the government to enforce with guns (because
really, the only tool government has is the gun) the tastes or preferences
of the majority, we can't claim to respect individual liberty at all.
Now, for the issue of gay marriage. What is legal marriage? A
contract involving sharing of assets and liability and powers of attorney,
and a set of rules for dealing with the dissolution of the contract. In
order to enter into a contract, I need only have clear title to the
goods I am promising. So, to whom do the assets in a marriage belong?
Obviously, the individuals becoming married. To whom does the authority
represented by powers of attorney belong? Equally obviously, to the
individuals getting married. Since you have to stake in it, you have
no right to claim it is an invalid contract. (unless you want to claim
that you own my house or car, that you have a right to my income, that
you have a right to decide what sort of medical care I receive)
> Of course, each situation is different. Two mommies may be better
> than a mommy and a daddy in specific situations. I am speaking in
> generalities. Unfortunately public policy must almost always deal in
> generalities.
You didn't answer my point. If you stop gay adoption (which is what
we're talking about, unless you want to force lesbians to undergo tubal
ligations at the point of a gun), these kids are not going to be adopted
by het couples. They won't be adopted *period* -- there is a glut of
kids up for adoption and there has been for many years.
> > You meant to say, you're a member of the Religious Left, didn't
> >you? That bunch of kooks that wants me to selflessly sacrifice my
> >liberty and property to the coming theocracy? >Hey, if God wants to
> >rule this country, He can start by paying some damn taxes. Taxation
> >without representation is tyrrany, but representation without taxation
> >is just as bad. A huge golden meteor, big enough to pay off our national
> >debt, would do just fine, in case He's reading this. I remain,
> Cute, Rev. :)
I'm dead serious, Regular. If you want to act as though you own my
property, then pony up some cash for it. If your God wants to tell me
what to do, he can damn well start paying for the privilege.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JayTeeFL
In article <361d858b...@news.oz.net>, afb...@HATESPAMhotmail.com (Allen)
writes:
>Just please go along with it and try not to disagree before you are
>personally believed to be the Antichrist.
that would be absurd.
everyone knows the antichrist lives in a walkup on the upper, upper east side
in nyc, and is completely impotent at this time due to crack addiction.
prince jace <---- calls it the upper, upper east side cuz "spanish harlem"
makes no sense
Bryant Brandon
News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com wrote:
@Bryant Brandon wrote:
@>
@> Shawn's origonal post:
@> -------
@> Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.95.98100...@river.it.gvsu.edu>
@>
@> Billy's reply:
@> -------
@> Message-ID: <361c14c...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>
@> References: ... <Pine.HPP.3.95.98100...@river.it.gvsu.edu>
@
@ X-posters aye usually gutless cowards and thus use the "X-noarchive"
@command so that thier x-posting is not archived. Anyone have access to
@a non DejaNews archive?
It was directly off my newsfeed, not Deja News. You can confirm this
by looking at the pieces of header I left intact here. Shawn's post had
no Followup-To: field.
Ward Stewart
Lloyd Olson) wrote:
Aloha Rev --
I would STILL prefer a usage that did not contain what can be (and
will be) read as validation.
Let me try it on from another direction --
"All Jews are greedy and rich!"
"While this may be true, statistics will demonstrate otherwise."
ward
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Ward and George
42 years together,
yet strangers
before the law.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Allen James
(Regular Guy) wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:03:11 -0600, shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen
> James) proclaimed:
>
> >> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> >> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> >> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
> >
> >RELIGION?!? This is not about any alleged 'unquestionable, faith-based
> >belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
> >one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
> >neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
> >the same as anyone else.
>
> Rights which you already enjoy.
Bah. Foo. I am not permitted to marry the person of my choice. You are.
Ergo, we are treated differently.
> >
> >
> >> Is there really anything wrong with:
> >>
> >> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
> >
> >Society is currently divided about homosexuals and our 'behavior'. Society
> >is not solely made up of people who agree with you.
>
> Society doesn't agree 100% about anything.
YOU'RE the one who waved 'society' around as a huge, monolithically
anti-homosexual mass of same-thinkers, Mr. Haff. Which is it then? Does
society unanimously reject homosexuals as you stated earlier, or is
society deeply divergent in its attitudes concerning same?
>> >
> >
> >
> >> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> >> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> >> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> >> daddys or two mommys.
> >
> >Again, society is divided on the subject. How, exactly, is heterosexual
> >marriage threatened by homosexual marriage? You have yet to answer that
> >question in any real way.
>
> Heterosexual marriage, because of the benefits it provides to society,
> is sanctioned and rewarded. Homosexual "marriage," which provides no
> such benefits, isn't.
1. What benefits do you allege society gains from any two given
heterosexuals getting married? G'head, trot out some hooey about breeding
being the highest goal of humanity....
2. How does society lose a damn thing if two given homosexuals get
married? G'head, trot out a pack of hooey about AIDS and taxes, or a pack
of hooey about 'weakening societys morals'. Pfah. A lifelong commitment
between loving adults IN NO WAY harms society.
>
> >
> >
> >> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> >> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> >> and 2) is the truth.
> >
> >Those of us who know better than to believe that society is only made up
> >of people who believe the way you do also know better than to 'realize'
> >any such silly thing.
> >
> >How, exactly, do my demands to be recognized as a valuable, worthwhile
> >American citizen, worthy of all of the rights and responsibilities of my
> >citizenship, infringe upon your rights to the same exact thing? Rights are
> >not finite, like a bushel of apples. We're not talking about having only
> >enough 'fairnesses' to distribute to a small, select group of 'right
> >thinking folk'. There's plenty of justice to go around, so stop trying to
> >keep it just for you and your friends.
>
> You already have all the rights that I do.
I cannot marry the person of my choice. You can.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
> >
> >So again, why is my insistence upon being treated like a human being and
> >an American citizen a 'radical' demand?
>
> Insistence upon that which is already the reality? Your point?
I am prohibited from marriage, I am prohibited from volunteering to risk
my life in the defense of my country, in many states I can be jailed for
consensual physical acts with a willing adult partner, in many states I am
prohibited from adopting children, I can be fired for being homosexual, I
can be refused housing for being homosexual.....
It is not YET reality that I am given the same rights as you. It will
inevitably be so, but I will whoop and holler about the unfairness and
inequity until then.
Allen James
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
Mike Silverman
> On Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:03:11 -0600, shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen
> James) proclaimed:
>
> >> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> >> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> >> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
> >
> >RELIGION?!? This is not about any alleged 'unquestionable, faith-based
> >belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
> >one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
> >neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
> >the same as anyone else.
>
> Rights which you already enjoy.
Homosexuals currently do not enjoy many of the rights heterosexual enjoy
in the USA.
> Heterosexual marriage, because of the benefits it provides to society,
> is sanctioned and rewarded. Homosexual "marriage," which provides no
> such benefits, isn't.
1. Same-sex marriage would provide the same benefits to society straight
"marriage" does
2. Marriage is a right. It doesn't exist "for the benefit of society."
Mike Silverman
(Regular Guy) wrote:
> No, for simplicity, we simply leave marriage as it is. It works quite
> well, thank you.
It does? Then why the 50% divorce rate?
Regular Guy
James) proclaimed:
>> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
>> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
>> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
>
>RELIGION?!? This is not about any alleged 'unquestionable, faith-based
>belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
>one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
>neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
>the same as anyone else.
Rights which you already enjoy.
>
>
>> Is there really anything wrong with:
>>
>> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
>
>Society is currently divided about homosexuals and our 'behavior'. Society
>is not solely made up of people who agree with you.
Society doesn't agree 100% about anything.
>
>
>
>> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
>> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
>> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>> daddys or two mommys.
>
>Again, society is divided on the subject. How, exactly, is heterosexual
>marriage threatened by homosexual marriage? You have yet to answer that
>question in any real way.
Heterosexual marriage, because of the benefits it provides to society,
is sanctioned and rewarded. Homosexual "marriage," which provides no
such benefits, isn't.
>
>
>> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
>> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
>> and 2) is the truth.
>
>Those of us who know better than to believe that society is only made up
>of people who believe the way you do also know better than to 'realize'
>any such silly thing.
>
>How, exactly, do my demands to be recognized as a valuable, worthwhile
>American citizen, worthy of all of the rights and responsibilities of my
>citizenship, infringe upon your rights to the same exact thing? Rights are
>not finite, like a bushel of apples. We're not talking about having only
>enough 'fairnesses' to distribute to a small, select group of 'right
>thinking folk'. There's plenty of justice to go around, so stop trying to
>keep it just for you and your friends.
You already have all the rights that I do.
>
>
>
>> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
>
>So again, why is my insistence upon being treated like a human being and
>an American citizen a 'radical' demand?
Insistence upon that which is already the reality? Your point?
A proud member of the dreaded Religious Right, who enjoys
nothing more than beating up (verbally) on those of the dreaded
Anti-Religious Left.
If it ain't right, it's wrong.
Liberals - a dying breed.
Regular Guy
proclaimed:
>>
>> What I mean by society is a general understanding of Americans. If
>> you would like it mathematically/statistically, I would say that a
>> majority of Americans do see it as immoral.
>
>So if you wake up tomorrow and are given certain evidence that a
>majority of Americans have changed their minds and now find it moral,
>would you concede?
No, because I would continue to believe that society is better of with
the status quo.
>
>The question is not whether a majority finds it immoral. The question is
>whether we should give a damn.
>>
>> >>2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
>> >>exclusion of homosexual relationships,
>> >
>> > You can feel free to support whatever unions you like, as
>> >long as you don't interfere with the right of others to enter freely
>> >into contracts. In other words, you don't have to think of a gay
>> >couple as married, as long as you don't prevent them from being
>> >married in the eyes of the state.
>> >
>>
>> I would actually have no problem with religions providing ceremonies
>> recognizing a homosexual union, as long as the government stays out of
>> it. Specifically, as long as the governmental (read: societal) view
>> is of marriage as between a man and a woman.
>>
>> >> given that children are much
>> >>better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>> >>daddys or two mommys.
>> >
>> > While this may be true, surely you don't believe a child is
>> >not better off with two daddys or two mommies than he is in an
>> >orphanage or with a succession of foster parents; do you?
>> >
>>
>> Of course, each situation is different. Two mommies may be better
>> than a mommy and a daddy in specific situations. I am speaking in
>> generalities. Unfortunately public policy must almost always deal in
>> generalities.
>
>Why?
>
>We could use "generalities" to justify banning all kinds of
>marriages. Between partners whose age is far apart, between partners of
>different religion or race, between partners who disagree on whether or
>not to have children or how many, between partners who the state simply
>thinks won't succeed in marriage. Would you support those?
No, for simplicity, we simply leave marriage as it is. It works quite
well, thank you.
>
>Mr. H
>
>(snippage)
J. Northwood
Guy) wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:03:11 -0600, shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen
>James) proclaimed:
>>RELIGION?!? This is not about any alleged 'unquestionable, faith-based
>>belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
>>one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
>>neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
>>the same as anyone else.
>Rights which you already enjoy.
You cannot be disemployed due to your lifestyle choice, yet he can be
disemployed due to an innate characteristic -- where's the "right" in
that?
< snip >
>Heterosexual marriage, because of the benefits it provides to society,
>is sanctioned and rewarded. Homosexual "marriage," which provides no
>such benefits, isn't.
Marriage -- be it between opposite- or same-sex partners, provides the
same benefits of stability and social development. In issues of child
raising, same- and opposite-sex marriages are equally as powerful a
force for natal development, with one caveat -- the same-sex couples
tend to raise children that are less biased.
< snip >
>>How, exactly, do my demands to be recognized as a valuable, worthwhile
>>American citizen, worthy of all of the rights and responsibilities of my
>>citizenship, infringe upon your rights to the same exact thing? Rights are
>>not finite, like a bushel of apples. We're not talking about having only
>>enough 'fairnesses' to distribute to a small, select group of 'right
>>thinking folk'. There's plenty of justice to go around, so stop trying to
>>keep it just for you and your friends.
>You already have all the rights that I do.
The right not to be disemployed, evicted, have property seized, stay
with a loved one in a hospital and so forth -- those rights?
Do tell.
< snip >
>>So again, why is my insistence upon being treated like a human being and
>>an American citizen a 'radical' demand?
>Insistence upon that which is already the reality? Your point?
Tell us again how having inequal rights is really equal.
Please.
JayTeeFL
In article <shrapnel-101...@hezron-8.d.enteract.com>,
shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) writes:
>It is not YET reality that I am given the same rights as you. It will
>inevitably be so, but I will whoop and holler about the unfairness and
>inequity until then.
i add my voice to that shout.
perhaps if the chorus becomes loud enough...
prince jace <---- will be marginally happy if we can just become loud enough to
drown out the nazi rhetoric of the buchananites
Rasmus Neikes
NOSPAMre...@ibm.net (Regular Guy) wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:03:11 -0600, shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen
> James) proclaimed:
>
> >> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> >> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
> >
> >belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
> >one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
> >neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
> >the same as anyone else.
>
> Rights which you already enjoy.
In a way, yes. But both you and homosexuals have more rights than are
currently given to them; and whilst you might not care about this it doesn't
mean that those rights are all granted.
> >> Is there really anything wrong with:
> >>
> >> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
> >
> >Society is currently divided about homosexuals and our 'behavior'. Society
> >is not solely made up of people who agree with you.
>
> Society doesn't agree 100% about anything.
Why then did you bring up the view of society, if at the same time you agree
that there is no such thing in principle?
> >> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> >> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> >> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> >> daddys or two mommys.
> >
> >Again, society is divided on the subject. How, exactly, is heterosexual
> >marriage threatened by homosexual marriage? You have yet to answer that
> >question in any real way.
>
> Heterosexual marriage, because of the benefits it provides to society,
> is sanctioned and rewarded. Homosexual "marriage," which provides no
> such benefits, isn't.
1. You did NOT answer the qustion. 2. You fail to clarify those 'benefits'
that a heterosexual marriage is - in your eyes- providing to society and that
a homosexual marriage would not provide in an equal way. 3. You are
forgetting that marriage is a human right (UDHR,Art16.1, adopted by the UN on
10 December 1948 and accepted/signed by the USA) and thus _cannot_ be granted
or denied with reference to the resulting utility to a state, society or any
sub-group or individual. It is an undebatable right!
> >> Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
> >> own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
> >> and 2) is the truth.
> >
> >Those of us who know better than to believe that society is only made up
> >of people who believe the way you do also know better than to 'realize'
> >any such silly thing.
> >
> >How, exactly, do my demands to be recognized as a valuable, worthwhile
> >American citizen, worthy of all of the rights and responsibilities of my
> >citizenship, infringe upon your rights to the same exact thing? Rights are
> >not finite, like a bushel of apples. We're not talking about having only
> >enough 'fairnesses' to distribute to a small, select group of 'right
> >thinking folk'. There's plenty of justice to go around, so stop trying to
> >keep it just for you and your friends.
>
> You already have all the rights that I do.
True, but neither has all the rights that they should have. Just because you
don't care doesn't mean others wouldn't.
> >> The radical homosexuals on this group will never admit it.
> >
> >So again, why is my insistence upon being treated like a human being and
> >an American citizen a 'radical' demand?
>
> Insistence upon that which is already the reality? Your point?
It is not a reality. This point has been argued for quite a few times now. You
have not yet come up with an opposing argument.
Rasmus.
-- There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
chronicler's mind. (D. Adams)
Ron Nicholson
> On Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:03:11 -0600, shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen
> James) proclaimed:
>
> >> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> >> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> >> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
> >
> >RELIGION?!? This is not about any alleged 'unquestionable, faith-based
> >belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
> >one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
> >neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
> >the same as anyone else.
>
> Rights which you already enjoy.
>
> >
> >
> >> Is there really anything wrong with:
> >>
> >> 1) Society's continued view of homosexual behaviour as immoral.
> >
> >Society is currently divided about homosexuals and our 'behavior'. Society
> >is not solely made up of people who agree with you.
>
> Society doesn't agree 100% about anything.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> 2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
> >> exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
> >> better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
> >> daddys or two mommys.
> >
> >Again, society is divided on the subject. How, exactly, is heterosexual
> >marriage threatened by homosexual marriage? You have yet to answer that
> >question in any real way.
>
> Heterosexual marriage, because of the benefits it provides to society,
> is sanctioned and rewarded. Homosexual "marriage," which provides no
> such benefits, isn't.
Which benefits do heterosexual marriage provide that homosexual marriage can't,
specifically?
JayTeeFL
In article <6vpjl6$j13$9...@news-1.news.gte.net>, jmno...@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J.
Northwood) writes:
>Tell us again how having inequal rights is really equal.
two legs good, four legs bad.
or is that doubleplusungood?
prince jace <---- always gets his orwell references confused
J. Northwood
>In article <6vpjl6$j13$9...@news-1.news.gte.net>, jmno...@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J.
>Northwood) writes:
>>Tell us again how having inequal rights is really equal.
>two legs good, four legs bad.
Not according to R.G. -- remember, he's the one that wants to marry a
slightly bilious dachshund.
Mike Silverman
jmno...@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J. Northwood) wrote:
I thought he had the hots for his Chevy?
Allen James
(Regular Guy) wrote:
> On 10 Oct 1998 23:46:03 -0500, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
> proclaimed:
>
> >In article <36252f51...@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
> >(Regular Guy) wrote:
> >
> >> No, for simplicity, we simply leave marriage as it is. It works quite
> >> well, thank you.
> >
> >It does? Then why the 50% divorce rate?
>
> Sin.
>
Ah, how...... simplistic. What, pray, is 'sin'? Do you shave? Do you eat
lobster? SINNER. VILE, AND A PERPETRATOR OF ABOMINATIONS BEFORE THE LORD.
I guess, if A and B are married, and A keeps wearing clothing made of
mixed fibers, divorce is inevitable, eh?
Regular Guy
proclaimed:
>In article <36252f51...@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
>(Regular Guy) wrote:
>
>> No, for simplicity, we simply leave marriage as it is. It works quite
>> well, thank you.
>
>It does? Then why the 50% divorce rate?
Sin.
>
>--
>Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
>http://www.turnleft.com/personal
Regular Guy
Brandon) proclaimed:
>In article <361ddf35....@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
>@2) Society's continued support of heterosexual marriage to the
>@exclusion of homosexual relationships, given that children are much
>@better off with a man and a woman as mommy and daddy, rather than two
>@daddys or two mommys.
>
> Yes, also because it's untrue. It's been proven quite conclusively
>that children raised by homosexual couples are as safe and well-developed
>as children raised by heterosexual couples.
Gee, if you can define what "safe and well-developed" means in
clinical terms, perhaps I'll give some credence to these "studies."
>
>@Of course not. And, in reality, those of us who aren't clouded by our
>@own self-interest (read - radical homosexual lobby) realize that 1)
>@and 2) is the truth.
>
> Are. And no, they are not teh truth. If it's true, then you should be
>able to come up with a few cites from reputable scientific organizations
>(this excludes NARTH et al) demonstrating that homosexuals cannot raise
>children
Um, I never said that homosexuals cannot raise children. I did say
that children are generally better off with a mother and a father
rather than a father and father or mother and mother.
> and that society does indeed vire homosexuals as "bad."
Um, I don't see homosexuals as "bad." I see them as sinners, as I see
myself a sinner. Their sin is no worse (or better) than my sin.
THat being said, I'm not going to pretend that my sin isn't a sin, any
more than I'm going to say that homosexual behaviour isn't a sin.
Regular Guy
proclaimed:
>In article <36242e7e...@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
>(Regular Guy) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:03:11 -0600, shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen
>> James) proclaimed:
>>
>> >> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
>> >> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
>> >> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
>> >
>> >RELIGION?!? This is not about any alleged 'unquestionable, faith-based
>> >belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
>> >one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
>> >neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
>> >the same as anyone else.
>>
>> Rights which you already enjoy.
>
>Homosexuals currently do not enjoy many of the rights heterosexual enjoy
>in the USA.
Name one.
>
>> Heterosexual marriage, because of the benefits it provides to society,
>> is sanctioned and rewarded. Homosexual "marriage," which provides no
>> such benefits, isn't.
>
>1. Same-sex marriage would provide the same benefits to society straight
>"marriage" does
Your opinion.
>
>2. Marriage is a right. It doesn't exist "for the benefit of society."
>
Yes, Marriage is a right. However, a relationship between a man and a
man cannot, by definition, be marriage. Therefore, any discussion of
a marriage between a same-sex couple is irrelevant, because a marriage
between a same-sex couple is a logical impossibility.
J. Northwood
J. Northwood
Guy) lied:
>On Wed, 07 Oct 1998 10:56:48 -0600, theg...@airmail.net (Bryant
>Brandon) proclaimed:
>> Yes, also because it's untrue. It's been proven quite conclusively
>>that children raised by homosexual couples are as safe and well-developed
>>as children raised by heterosexual couples.
>Gee, if you can define what "safe and well-developed" means in
>clinical terms, perhaps I'll give some credence to these "studies."
You were given over sixty cites and studies within the last year. If
you're so focused on remaining dense when facts come into play,
there's nothing more that can be done for you.
< snip >
>> Are. And no, they are not teh truth. If it's true, then you should be
>>able to come up with a few cites from reputable scientific organizations
>>(this excludes NARTH et al) demonstrating that homosexuals cannot raise
>>children
>Um, I never said that homosexuals cannot raise children. I did say
>that children are generally better off with a mother and a father
>rather than a father and father or mother and mother.
Yes. You've said that this is your opinion.
And you've been told, and given cites and studies to prove, that this
is not necessarily the case.
>> and that society does indeed vire homosexuals as "bad."
>Um, I don't see homosexuals as "bad." I see them as sinners, as I see
>myself a sinner. Their sin is no worse (or better) than my sin.
>THat being said, I'm not going to pretend that my sin isn't a sin, any
>more than I'm going to say that homosexual behaviour isn't a sin.
In _your_ particular belief system.
Ron Nicholson
> On 10 Oct 1998 23:46:00 -0500, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
> proclaimed:
>
> >In article <36242e7e...@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
> >(Regular Guy) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:03:11 -0600, shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen
> >> James) proclaimed:
> >>
> >> >> But, to you folks who may just be tuning in, realize that you are not
> >> >> viewing reasoned debate. You are watching coordinated attacks upon
> >> >> those of us who dare disagree with their religion.
> >> >
> >> >RELIGION?!? This is not about any alleged 'unquestionable, faith-based
> >> >belief system'. I argue about equal rights for homosexuals because I am
> >> >one, and am just as valid and worthwhile a human being as my heterosexual
> >> >neighbors. I'm arguing about my right to exist, and my right to be treated
> >> >the same as anyone else.
> >>
> >> Rights which you already enjoy.
> >
> >Homosexuals currently do not enjoy many of the rights heterosexual enjoy
> >in the USA.
>
> Name one.
I've answered this several times -- sex.
SCOTUS ruled in 46 that people have the right to non-procreative sex.
The law still read that all LEGALLY performed marriages are to be recognized in
all jurisdiction. DOMA is evidence that the definition wasn't clearly defined.
RavensHeart
Guy) wrote:
>On 10 Oct 1998 23:46:03 -0500, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
>proclaimed:
>
>>In article <36252f51...@news3.ibm.net>, NOSPAMre...@ibm.net
>>(Regular Guy) wrote:
>>
>>> No, for simplicity, we simply leave marriage as it is. It works quite
>>> well, thank you.
>>
>>It does? Then why the 50% divorce rate?
>
>Sin.
How simplistic.