Vote "YES" On Prop. 22
Frankie Bones
Diane Colson wrote in message ...
>Do not be fooled by the Homosexual liars.
>
>They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic for
20 years.
>
>They are teaching children in school that homo-sex (anal-sex) is a
legitimate and
>safe practice,which it is not. Anal sex is the main vector of transmission
of the HIV
>virus amongst the male Homosexual in the US.
Don't worry, Diane. Most of the state's voters feel the same way, and will
win at the polls tomorrow. If only this would shut them up, but it will
probably just rile up the rabble. And count on a lawsuit. When "they" don't
get "their" way, they piss and moan like the crybabies they are.
John Higdon
>> 4. Most Homosexuals will not get married anyway, even if Prop. 22
> passed.
>> most Homosexual are promiscuous by their very nature.
>
>
> Do you have a refference for this? Seriously. This issue came up
> recently (with the assertion reversed).
I thought those promoting Prop 22 were afraid that homos WOULD get married!
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 415 428 2697 | Silicon Valley, CA 95150-7648 | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
+1 408 264 4115 | From: Address Valid |
Diane Colson
They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic for 20 years.
They are teaching children in school that homo-sex (anal-sex) is a legitimate and
safe practice,which it is not. Anal sex is the main vector of transmission of the HIV
virus amongst the male Homosexual in the US.
Here are some facts about the Homosexual death-style:
1. Homosexuals account for over 90% of all American AIDS cases today.
2. Homosexual bathhouses are growing in number. This is where many Gays meet their
LUST, not love, partners and spread AIDS to each other.
3. Homosexuals support groups like NAMBLA, a sick bunch of Homosexual men recruiting
very young boys into the Homosexual death-style.
4. Most Homosexuals will not get married anyway, even if Prop. 22 passed.
most Homosexual are promiscuous by their very nature.
5. The vast majority of Homosexual engage in random, meaningless sex with each other.
marriage is the last thing on their minds.
6. Most Homosexuals have as many as ten to several hundred sex partners per year.
7. AIDS cases have not decreased in the Gay male population. In recent years, it has
increased, particularly amongst younger Gay males.
8. Most Homosexuals despise Christianity and other religions.
9. The very abnormal, queer Gay Parades across America. Need I say More ?
10. The average age at time of death for an American Gay Male is 41 Years of age.
The average age at time of death for a Straight American male is 77 Years of age
Thiers' is a culture of death, not one of life.
Vote for the culture of life- Vote "YES" on Prop. 22. March 7, 2000
vody...@my-deja.com
Diane Colson <dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
> Do not be fooled by the Homosexual liars.
>
> They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic
for 20 years.
>
> They are teaching children in school that homo-sex (anal-sex) is a
legitimate and
> safe practice,which it is not. Anal sex is the main vector of
transmission of the HIV
> virus amongst the male Homosexual in the US.
>
> Here are some facts about the Homosexual death-style:
>
> 1. Homosexuals account for over 90% of all American AIDS cases today.
>
Call for reference. I saw 30% from what I consider to be a reliable
source.
> 2. Homosexual bathhouses are growing in number. This is where many
Gays meet their
> LUST, not love, partners and spread AIDS to each other.
Again, CFR.
>
> 3. Homosexuals support groups like NAMBLA, a sick bunch of Homosexual
men recruiting
> very young boys into the Homosexual death-style.
. . .
>
> 4. Most Homosexuals will not get married anyway, even if Prop. 22
passed.
> most Homosexual are promiscuous by their very nature.
Do you have a refference for this? Seriously. This issue came up
recently (with the assertion reversed).
>
> 5. The vast majority of Homosexual engage in random, meaningless sex
with each other.
> marriage is the last thing on their minds.
Aside from the last statement, I know of evidence to support this.
However, a more rational person would simply say that homosexuals tend
to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
>
> 6. Most Homosexuals have as many as ten to several hundred sex
partners per year.
In a survey, homosexuals averaged 8 sex partners in the previous 12
months, compared to 1.2 for heterosexuals.
>
> 7. AIDS cases have not decreased in the Gay male population. In recent
years, it has
> increased, particularly amongst younger Gay males.
CFR.
>
> 8. Most Homosexuals despise Christianity and other religions.
Quite possibly. I really could care less, though.
>
> 9. The very abnormal, queer Gay Parades across America. Need I say
More ?
Never liked parades myself . . .
>
> 10. The average age at time of death for an American Gay Male is 41
Years of age.
> The average age at time of death for a Straight American male is 77
Years of age
Call for refference. I do know of the study that used obituaries in gay
magazines, but this is hardly an all-encompassing study. While it does
make an interesting glimpse into the health-hazards involved with the
'gay lifestyle,' it cannot be generalised to the entire population.
If this is the study you were reffering to, then you simply cannot say
authoritatively that the average age for death of an American Gay Male
is 41.
Geoff Matthews
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bob Fredricks
must respect the laws and contract of all the other states. Does it make the
Knight Amendment unconstitutional even if it passes? I don't know why it
wouldn't. Possibly it would mean that all the other states would have to
respect the California Knight Amendment? ?????? I need a Supreme Court
Justice to explain the clause.
Bob
Bob
Frankie Bones wrote:
> Diane Colson wrote in message ...
> >Do not be fooled by the Homosexual liars.
> >
> >They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic for
> 20 years.
> >
> >They are teaching children in school that homo-sex (anal-sex) is a
> legitimate and
> >safe practice,which it is not. Anal sex is the main vector of transmission
> of the HIV
> >virus amongst the male Homosexual in the US.
>
Bob Fredricks
must respect the laws and contract of all the other states. Does it make the
Knight Amendment unconstitutional even if it passes? I don't know why it
wouldn't. Possibly it would mean that all the other states would have to
respect the California Knight Amendment? ?????? I need a Supreme Court
Justice to explain the clause.
Bob
Frankie Bones wrote:
<< * BenjoÅ * >>
(nothing to be surprised of, seeing the kinda bitch you are).
--
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams!
Live the life you've imagined. - Thoreau -
[Message by Benjo夜
Diane Colson <dco...@homenet.org> wrote in message
news:vm89csc3pkq19b8l8...@4ax.com...
> Do not be fooled by the Homosexual liars.
>
> They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic for
20 years.
>
> They are teaching children in school that homo-sex (anal-sex) is a
legitimate and
> safe practice,which it is not. Anal sex is the main vector of transmission
of the HIV
> virus amongst the male Homosexual in the US.
>
> Here are some facts about the Homosexual death-style:
>
> 1. Homosexuals account for over 90% of all American AIDS cases today.
>
> 2. Homosexual bathhouses are growing in number. This is where many Gays
meet their
> LUST, not love, partners and spread AIDS to each other.
>
> 3. Homosexuals support groups like NAMBLA, a sick bunch of Homosexual men
recruiting
> very young boys into the Homosexual death-style.
>
> 4. Most Homosexuals will not get married anyway, even if Prop. 22 passed.
> most Homosexual are promiscuous by their very nature.
>
> 5. The vast majority of Homosexual engage in random, meaningless sex with
each other.
> marriage is the last thing on their minds.
>
> 6. Most Homosexuals have as many as ten to several hundred sex partners
per year.
>
> 7. AIDS cases have not decreased in the Gay male population. In recent
years, it has
> increased, particularly amongst younger Gay males.
>
> 8. Most Homosexuals despise Christianity and other religions.
>
> 9. The very abnormal, queer Gay Parades across America. Need I say More ?
>
> 10. The average age at time of death for an American Gay Male is 41 Years
of age.
> The average age at time of death for a Straight American male is 77
Years of age
>
Jon Seymour
>Ya know their is a clause in the US Constitution which states the each state
>must respect the laws and contract of all the other states. Does it make the
>Knight Amendment unconstitutional even if it passes? I don't know why it
>wouldn't.
It wouldn't, if anyone cared to follow the Constitution. But the
Marriage Defense Act passed in 1996 violated that constitutional
clause, and making California's Prop. 22 legal. They are still both
violations, though.
>Possibly it would mean that all the other states would have to
>respect the California Knight Amendment? ??????
Or California would have to respect gay marriages if/when they ever
happened in another state. That's the possibility that Prop. 22 seeks
to elliminate.
Jon
Robert Narsavage
epidemic, as did his successor Former President George H. Bush [ R ].
Reagan refused to provide any funding whatsoever for fighting or researching
the AIDS epidemic, and did not utter the word " AIDS " in any speech he gave
to the national audience. Bush repeated this mistake through half his
administration, finally approving funding and speaking about the increasing
pandemic in 1990 only after researchers at the NIH and the CDC discovered
that the viruses involved began showing up in the heterosexual population.
Know your American history, asshole .....................
- RJ
" Love between two consenting same sex adults ? How can the Lord mind when
there is so much hate and war in the world ? "
<vody...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8a26ni$2gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <vm89csc3pkq19b8l8...@4ax.com>,
> Diane Colson <dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
> > Do not be fooled by the Homosexual liars.
> >
> > They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic
> for 20 years.
> >
> > They are teaching children in school that homo-sex (anal-sex) is a
> legitimate and
> > safe practice,which it is not. Anal sex is the main vector of
> transmission of the HIV
> > virus amongst the male Homosexual in the US.
> >
> > Here are some facts about the Homosexual death-style:
> >
> > 1. Homosexuals account for over 90% of all American AIDS cases today.
> >
>
> Call for reference. I saw 30% from what I consider to be a reliable
> source.
>
> > 2. Homosexual bathhouses are growing in number. This is where many
> Gays meet their
> > LUST, not love, partners and spread AIDS to each other.
>
> Again, CFR.
>
> >
> > 3. Homosexuals support groups like NAMBLA, a sick bunch of Homosexual
> men recruiting
> > very young boys into the Homosexual death-style.
>
> . . .
>
> >
> > 4. Most Homosexuals will not get married anyway, even if Prop. 22
> passed.
> > most Homosexual are promiscuous by their very nature.
>
>
> Do you have a refference for this? Seriously. This issue came up
> recently (with the assertion reversed).
>
> >
> > 5. The vast majority of Homosexual engage in random, meaningless sex
> with each other.
> > marriage is the last thing on their minds.
>
> Aside from the last statement, I know of evidence to support this.
> However, a more rational person would simply say that homosexuals tend
> to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
>
> >
> > 6. Most Homosexuals have as many as ten to several hundred sex
> partners per year.
>
> In a survey, homosexuals averaged 8 sex partners in the previous 12
> months, compared to 1.2 for heterosexuals.
>
> >
> > 7. AIDS cases have not decreased in the Gay male population. In recent
> years, it has
> > increased, particularly amongst younger Gay males.
>
> CFR.
>
> >
> > 8. Most Homosexuals despise Christianity and other religions.
>
> Quite possibly. I really could care less, though.
>
> >
> > 9. The very abnormal, queer Gay Parades across America. Need I say
> More ?
>
> Never liked parades myself . . .
>
> >
> > 10. The average age at time of death for an American Gay Male is 41
> Years of age.
> > The average age at time of death for a Straight American male is 77
> Years of age
>
Spam Hater
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:17:52 GMT, "Robert Narsavage"
<AeroD...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Former President Ronald Reagan [ R ] deceived Americans about the AIDS
>epidemic, as did his successor Former President George H. Bush [ R ].
<snip>
>administration, finally approving funding and speaking about the increasing
>pandemic in 1990 only after researchers at the NIH and the CDC discovered
>that the viruses involved began showing up in the heterosexual population.
>
>Know your American history, asshole .....................
Aids has never been, and will never be, epidemic in the non drug
injecting straight community.
"AIDS Fight Skewed By Federal Campaign
Exaggerating Risks."
History of Wall Street Journal Discussion
by Michael Wright
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round 1: The May 1 Article
On May 1, 1996, The Wall Street Journal published a front-page article
with the headline "AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign
Exaggerating Risks." Written by Amanda Bennet and Anita Sharpe, the
lead paragraph stated that in the summer of 1987, federal health
officials made the "fateful decision to bombard the public" with the
"terrifying message" that "anyone could get AIDS."
In the very next paragraph, the writers stated that the message was
"technically true," but "highly misleading." For most heterosexuals,
they wrote that the risk of getting stricken by AIDS from a single act
of sex was "smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning."
They also noted that the disease has remained "largely the scourge of
gay men, intravenous drug users, their sex partners, and their newborn
children."
The article described the creation of the CDC-sponsored "marketing
campaign" to spread the belief in universality of risk for AIDS. The
idea was to mobilize a high level of public support for government
funding of various AIDS programs. It was believed that such support
would be insufficient, so long as AIDS was seen as a disease primarily
of gay men and injecting drug users.
The writers observed that "scientists and anti-AIDS activists knew
that the government-nurtured fear of AIDS among upscale,
non-drug-using heterosexuals was exaggerated," but "not everyone
thought this was a bad thing. Indeed, many credited rampant fear with
achieving pro-family goals that no amount of moralizing alone could
have accomplished." [See The hidden agenda behind AIDS]
The fear campaign was also effective in achieving substantially higher
funding levels for government agencies involved with AIDS programs.
The article reported that federal funding for AIDS-related medical
research "soared from $341 million in 1987 to $655 million in 1988,
the year after the CDC's campaign began." For 1996, the figure stands
at $1.65 billion. "Meanwhile, the CDC's prevention dollars leapt from
$136 million in 1987 to $304 million in 1988; $584 million was
allocated for 1996."
Round 2: The CDC Replies
On May 21, two letters were published to defend the CDC. One was
co-signed by CDC director David Satcher and Helene Gayle, director of
the agency's Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. The other was
signed by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.
Satcher and Gayle labeled "false" the Journal's report that the CDC
had exaggerated the "danger posed by AIDS to the American public."
Further, they denied that it was possible to predict in 1987 that
there would be no massive US heterosexual epidemic in the ensuing
years:
"The story further suggests that it was possible in 1987 to predict
with confidence the ultimate course of this nation's AIDS epidemic --
predict it with such confidence, in fact, that one could dismiss as
negligible the potential threat to tens of millions of Americans. What
colossal irresponsibility that would have been, and yet your story
suggests it would have been the proper course."
The CDC officials admitted that in 1987, there were groups at
"particularly high risk" for HIV infection. "But those at highest risk
are neither readily distinguishable from the rest of the public nor
hermetically sealed off from them."
Former Surgeon General Koop echoed these sentiments. Asserting that he
was going to "set the record straight," he claimed that in 1987, "we
could not know who was or would be at risk for HIV infection."
Although he acknowledged that the HIV virus had "made inroads in the
gay community," he said there were "indications that it could spread
to other groups."
Round 3: Michael Wright's Letter
Below is the text of Michael Wright's letter published in the Wall
Street Journal on June 18.
CDC's Deceitful HIV Scare Campaign
The May 21 Letters to the Editor from CDC officials and former Surgeon
General C. Everett Koop continue to advance the CDC's campaign of
distortion and exaggeration of HIV risk.
CDC officials Satcher and Gayle suggest that in 1987 it was impossible
to know that there was no risk of a US heterosexual HIV epidemic. They
wrote that those at highest risk are not readily distinguishable from
the rest of the public. Their statements are indefensible in view of
numerous articles in scientific literature, as well as publications of
their own agency.
In December 1987, the CDC issued a publication which specifically
delineated groups at increased risk for HIV infection as follows:
exclusively homosexual males, males with infrequent homosexual
contact, injecting drug users, hemophiliacs, and other groups. The
"other" classification included heterosexual partners of persons at
high risk, heterosexuals born in Haiti and Central Africa, and blood
transfusion recipients. These groups appear to be fairly
"distinguishable" from the rest of the public. With the exception of
women who might be the sexual partners of bisexual males who conceal
their history of sex with men, it is easy for one to know whether he
is a member of one of these groups identified at risk.
Those members of the US population not belonging to any of the groups
listed above were classified by the CDC as "heterosexuals without
specific identified risk." The CDC estimated the size of this
population to be 142 million. The agency estimated that the HIV
infection rate in this group -- the vast majority of American adults
and adolescents -- was 2 in 10,000 compared to 20 to 25 percent for
homosexual males. Thus, for gay males the infection rate was 1000
times greater compared to heterosexuals outside of specific risk
groups. (Source: CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, December
18, 1987, Vol 36/No. S-6, Table 14).
Further, in April 1988 CDC officials James Allen and James Curran
published an article in which they cited several papers presented at
the 1987 Third International AIDS Conference in Washington, DC. They
also cited a publication by Nancy Padian, and thus indicated awareness
of her expertise and reputation. (Source: American Journal of Public
Health, April 1988, Vol 78/No 4, pages 381-386). How could they have
overlooked her paper, presented at the 1987 conference, in which she
demonstrated that the odds were 1000 to one against transmission of
HIV in a single act of unprotected vaginal sex between an infected
male and an uninfected female? (Source: Abstract THP.3-48:171,
presented at the Third International AIDS Conference, Washington, DC,
June 1987).
In a 1988 publication, researchers took information of this nature and
demonstrated that the odds were 5 million to one against a new HIV
infection taking place in a single act of unprotected vaginal sex
between two people who are members of that massive population which
the CDC recognized and labeled as "heterosexuals without specific
identified risk." (Source: Journal of the American Medical
Association, April 22/29, 1988, Vol. 259/No. 16, pages 2428-2432). Are
we to believe that Koop and his associates at the CDC were not capable
of figuring this out?
For brevity's sake I refrain from citing numerous other scientific
articles demonstrating the extremely low risk of HIV transmission by
means of vaginal sex. If CDC officials were unable to draw appropriate
conclusions from the available evidence, they should be held to
account for their incompetence. If they knew of this evidence (the
more likely hypothesis), then they should be held to account for the
extraordinarily dishonest, deceitful, and expensive scare campaign
they have orchestrated.
Michael Wright
Scientific Social Research
Norman, Oklahoma
Round Four: The CDC posts a mangled synopsis of Michael's Letter in
the CDC's "AIDS Daily Summary".
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with
a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall
be upon them." Leviticus 20:13
In article <38C0AD17...@northlink.com>, grandwazoo
<nos...@northlink.com> wrote:
"As I observed of bigots, sexual innuendo as means of character assassination;
manifest repression of subterior urgments."
frank w elliott jr
: History according to whom?
:
: On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:17:52 GMT, "Robert Narsavage"
: <AeroD...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:
: >Former President Ronald Reagan [ R ] deceived Americans about the AIDS
: >epidemic, as did his successor Former President George H. Bush [ R ].
: <snip>
: >administration, finally approving funding and speaking about the increasing
: >pandemic in 1990 only after researchers at the NIH and the CDC discovered
: >that the viruses involved began showing up in the heterosexual population.
: >
: >Know your American history, asshole .....................
:
: Aids has never been, and will never be, epidemic in the non drug
: injecting straight community.
It is in the in the Caribbean and in much of Africa and Asia.
Try a little thought experiment. Ban heterosexual marriage here.
Wait fifty years. The AIDS epidemic among the straight population
will be as severe here as it is in South Africa,
Peter Skaliks
On 2000-03-07 dco...@homenet.org spewed:
[ a great deal of nonsense, some of which I will address ]
Do not be fooled by ignorant fools like Diane Colson. She understands
nothing and tells lots of lies.
>They are teaching children in school that homo-sex (anal-sex) is a
>legitimate and safe practice,which it is not. Anal sex is the main
>vector of transmission of the HIV virus amongst the male Homosexual
>in the US.
There is nothing "homosexual" about anal sex. There are far more straight
people into that activity than there are gay people.
>1. Homosexuals account for over 90% of all American AIDS cases
>today.
With a ten to twenty year incubation period, AIDS cases today reflect the
conditions of ten to twenty years ago.
>2. Homosexual bathhouses are growing in number. This is where many
>Gays meet their LUST, not love, partners and spread AIDS to each
>other.
This is false. It is people like Colson who ignore that fact that the
vast bulk of the world's cases of HIV infection involve heterosexuals,
so they are definitely NOT immune, but they fuck like rabbits without
protection in the mistaken belief that they are invulnerable. The rates
of infection are reaching epidemic proportions among the American poor and
among the native populations of North America because of the ignorance
spread by arseholes like Colson.
>3. Homosexuals support groups like NAMBLA, a sick bunch of
>Homosexual men recruiting very young boys into the Homosexual
>death-style.
Recruitment is impossible, in either direction. The sexual orientation of
human beings is essentially fixed. Almost ALL cases of sexual child abuse
occur within the family. Colson and her bunch needs to clean up their own
very major problems before they pontificate about a small, relatively
insignificant group, of fewer than a thousand people.
>4. Most Homosexuals will not get married anyway, even if Prop. 22
>passed. most Homosexual are promiscuous by their very nature.
This is irrelevant. Even if you were correct, which I don't think you are,
the opportunity should be the same for all people, regardless of sexual
orientation.
>5. The vast majority of Homosexual engage in random, meaningless
>sex with each other. marriage is the last thing on their minds.
The vast bulk of heterosexual activity could be characterized the same way.
>6. Most Homosexuals have as many as ten to several hundred sex
>partners per year.
Preposterous.
>7. AIDS cases have not decreased in the Gay male population. In
>recent years, it has increased, particularly amongst younger Gay
>males.
The rate of infection has levelled off. The AIDS cases reflect conditions
during the period from 1980 - 1990.
>8. Most Homosexuals despise Christianity and other religions.
That is probably overstated, but many gay people have met individuals
like the Colsons, Boyds, Phelps, etc. of this world, who leave one with
the impression that religions are silly superstitions, not to be taken any
more seriously than one would take human garbage like the Colsons, Boyds,
Phelps, etc.
>9. The very abnormal, queer Gay Parades across America. Need I say
>More ?
Some floats in Gay Pride parades could be described as "tasteless", but then
the same is true for many Mardi Gras celebrations, and other events, where
the majority of people attending are heterosexual.
>10. The average age at time of death for an American Gay Male is 41
>Years of age.
This is complete Paul Cameron nonsense. The clueless jackass went
through gay periodicals of the pick-them-up-free-at-the-tavern
variety, and tallied the death notices, mostly younger people who
succumbed to complications of HIV. My own death, and it isn't going
to happen before age 41, will probably NOT be reported in
periodicals like Toronto's XTRA. I could use the Paul Cameron method
to do a tally at the Childrens' Hospice in Oakville, and come up
with 12 years as the life expectancy of Canadians, despite the fact
that Statistics Canada results put the figures closer to 80 years.
Peter Skaliks
Palgrave, Ontario, Canada
me
selectively quoting sections of the bible to justify their prejudice,
but just can't resist:
In the very same verse of Leviticus quoted above, it also says "if a man
commits adultury with the wife of his neighbor, both th adulterer and
the adulteress shall be put to death" Most of the people who quote this
also 'claim' to be Christians, so they should take a look at Mark
10:11-12 where it says 'whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and
marries another, she commits adultery.' So, I guess that about 50% of
the heterosexuals who marry deserve the death penalty.
Back to Leviticus. If Christians so quickly refer to chapter 20, how
can they justify ignoring the dietary laws prohibiting the eating of
shellfish and pork - they are also "abominations."
Finally, Chapter 19 of Leviticus states "you shall not hate your brother
in your heart; but you shall reason with your neighbor lest you bear sin
because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against
the sons of your own people, but shall love your neighbor as yourself."
It's fine to follow the bible, but in my view, it's not ok to just pick
out one little passage to justify your mean spiritedness and ignore the
rest.
John Higdon
> It's fine to follow the bible, but in my view, it's not ok to just pick
> out one little passage to justify your mean spiritedness and ignore the
> rest.
It's not only not OK, it is specifically forbidden:
"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit
any of these abominations..." (Lev. 18:26)
"Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, the ye commit not any one of these
abominable customs..." (Lev. 18:30)
"Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes..." (Lev. 19:37)
Now...what about Fabric Mixers?
Stan Rothwell
Bob Fredricks <ro...@ioc.net> wrote in message
news:38C4B621...@ioc.net...
> Ya know their is a clause in the US Constitution which states the each
state
> must respect the laws and contract of all the other states.
Oh yeah? Try telling that to people who have been
granted permits to carry concealed weapons from
other states. BTW, a marriage certificate does
not necessarily constitute a contract, but an official
recognition from the state regarding the status of
those individuals.
Stan
Ward Stewart
>I know it does absolutely no good to point out the foolishness of people
>selectively quoting sections of the bible to justify their prejudice,
>but just can't resist:
>
>In the very same verse of Leviticus quoted above, it also says "if a man
>commits adultury with the wife of his neighbor, both th adulterer and
>the adulteress shall be put to death" Most of the people who quote this
>also 'claim' to be Christians, so they should take a look at Mark
>10:11-12 where it says 'whoever divorces his wife and marries another
>commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and
>marries another, she commits adultery.' So, I guess that about 50% of
>the heterosexuals who marry deserve the death penalty.
>
>Back to Leviticus. If Christians so quickly refer to chapter 20, how
>can they justify ignoring the dietary laws prohibiting the eating of
>shellfish and pork - they are also "abominations."
>
>Finally, Chapter 19 of Leviticus states "you shall not hate your brother
>in your heart; but you shall reason with your neighbor lest you bear sin
>because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against
>the sons of your own people, but shall love your neighbor as yourself."
>
>It's fine to follow the bible, but in my view, it's not ok to just pick
>out one little passage to justify your mean spiritedness and ignore the
>rest.
Clearly they are suffering from a recurrence of that dread delusional
disorder --
LEVITICOSIS
LEVITICOSIS BECOMES EPIDEMIC by Leon Satterfield And the Lord spake
unto Moses, saying, "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a
diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed;
neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
- Leviticus 19:19
Of all the bizarre events that marked the end of the millennium, the
most traumatic, state historians now agree, was the Great Leviticosis
Epidemic that swept through Nebraska during the last two months of
1999. "Massteria," some called it, echoing the term coined by Prof.
Harold Hill to describe the widespread conviction that playing pool
would destroy the youth of River City.
But others said "Leviticosis" was a genuine psychic epidemic, the
result of a toxic obsession with the book of Leviticus - only a
short section of Leviticus in more virulent cases - to the exclusion
of all other writ, holy or otherwise.
It all started, theologians believe, in mid-November, 1999, when a
liberal denomination, noted for tolerance, defrocked one of its
ministers for officiating at the marriage of a couple wearing
garments mingled of linen and woollen
."It's true that we are a liberal denomination noted for our
tolerance," said a spokesman for the church, "but our duty was
clear. We had to defrock the Rev. Jimmy Creche because he showed no
respect for church authority - and no respect for God's wish that
linen and woollen not be mingled."
The Rev. Creche was unrepentant. He said he would continue
conducting union ceremonies for any couple who asked him to, no
matter what fabrics were mingled in their garments. He even said
that the swaddling clothes of the baby Jesus could have been mingled
of linen and woollen.
Outside the church where the trial was held, the Rev. Fred Yelps and
members of his Topeka church, The Tabernacle of Leviticus Uber Alles,
held up signs proclaiming that "God Hates Fabric-Mixers,"
Fabric-Mixers Are Burning in Hell," and "Fabric-Mixers Make us Sick
to Our Stomachs."
Why, a reporter asked the Rev. Yelps, did he choose Fabric-Mixing as
the priority sin of all those God warns Moses against in Leviticus?
Why not cross-breeding cattle or hybridizing seed corn? "Is it,"
the reporter asked pointedly, "because, as some have said, you have
a phobia about Fabric-Mixing?" "Don't be silly," the Rev. Yelps
explained. "The rules against cross-breeding cattle and hybridizing
seed corn are just little jokes God was playing on Moses. And I
don't have no stinking phobias about no stinking Fabric-Mixers!"
But the Great Leviticosis Epidemic of 1999, like all else in the
state, didn't get really serious until it involved the Nebraska
football team. It started when an assistant coach said on his radio
program that he once hated Fabric-Mixers. He used to call them
"fops," he said, and he wanted to beat them up. But now that he's
been converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, he said, "I just love
Fabric-Mixers to pieces. Of course they'll still have to burn in
hell. It's in Leviticus."
The assistant coach was a fine assistant coach and full of good
cheer most of the time. He often went to youth groups to warn them
away from alcohol and drug abuse, but one of the youths said, "the
next thing you know he's talking about Fabric-Mixing. He's got a
thing about Fabric-Mixing."
Cornhusker team members said his thing about Fabric-Mixing didn't
get in the way of his coaching.
"Oh, sure," said one nose-guard, "he lets us know that Fabric-Mixing
is a sin because Leviticus says it is, and he lets us know that
Fabric-Mixers will burn in hell. But he doesn't make the
Fabric-Mixers on the team uncomfortable."
But other players raised disturbing questions. "Do we want a coach
preaching to us?" asked an anonymous junior tight end from Spalding.
"Do we want a preacher calling plays?"
But by the time the team left Lincoln in December to go to the bowl
game, most of the defensive unit was far gone in Leviticosis,
convinced that Fabric-Mixing is not only a serious sin but an
Abomination. They were absolutely repelled by it. The very mention of
Fabric-Mixing gave them the fantods. And that's when an assistant
coach for the bowl opponent had a brilliant idea. He planted a story
in the press that his team's quarterbacks, running backs, wingbacks,
tight ends, and split ends had all decided to wear new uniforms in
the bowl game. Uniforms mingled of linen and woollen.
The Cornhusker defense was aghast. In fear of contaminating their
souls by getting Fabric-Mixer cooties, they refused to touch the
taboo uniforms. They refused to touch the taboo uniforms even when
the wearers of the uniforms had the ball and were running toward the
goal line.
The result was that the Huskers lost the game, 178-49. And as any
Nebraskan could have predicted, that ended, among other things, the
Great Leviticosis Epidemic of 1999.
--------------------
Lincoln English Professor Leon Satterfield writes to salvage clarity
from his confusion. His column appears on alternate Mondays.
-----------------------------------------------------
"One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life,
That word is love."
Sophocles
-----------------------------------------------------
Stan Rothwell
<< * BenjoÅ * >> <fama...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:Ob$qI4Bi$GA.314@net025s...
> Angry because your man left you for a hot guy?
> (nothing to be surprised of, seeing the kinda bitch you are).
Funny how the homosexual militants always accuse
OTHERS of being hateful and mean-spirited... :O|
Anyway, PROP 22 IS PASSING!!!
> --
> Go confidently in the direction of your dreams!
> Live the life you've imagined. - Thoreau -
> [Message by BenjoÅ ]
>
> Diane Colson <dco...@homenet.org> wrote in message
> news:vm89csc3pkq19b8l8...@4ax.com...
> > Do not be fooled by the Homosexual liars.
> >
> > They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic
for
> 20 years.
> >
> > They are teaching children in school that homo-sex (anal-sex) is a
> legitimate and
> > safe practice,which it is not. Anal sex is the main vector of
transmission
> of the HIV
> > virus amongst the male Homosexual in the US.
> >
> > Here are some facts about the Homosexual death-style:
> >
> > 1. Homosexuals account for over 90% of all American AIDS cases today.
> >
> > 2. Homosexual bathhouses are growing in number. This is where many Gays
> meet their
> > LUST, not love, partners and spread AIDS to each other.
> >
> > 3. Homosexuals support groups like NAMBLA, a sick bunch of Homosexual
men
> recruiting
> > very young boys into the Homosexual death-style.
> >
> > 4. Most Homosexuals will not get married anyway, even if Prop. 22
passed.
> > most Homosexual are promiscuous by their very nature.
> >
> > 5. The vast majority of Homosexual engage in random, meaningless sex
with
> each other.
> > marriage is the last thing on their minds.
> >
> > 6. Most Homosexuals have as many as ten to several hundred sex partners
> per year.
> >
> > 7. AIDS cases have not decreased in the Gay male population. In recent
> years, it has
> > increased, particularly amongst younger Gay males.
> >
> > 8. Most Homosexuals despise Christianity and other religions.
> >
> > 9. The very abnormal, queer Gay Parades across America. Need I say More
?
> >
> > 10. The average age at time of death for an American Gay Male is 41
Years
> of age.
> > The average age at time of death for a Straight American male is 77
> Years of age
> >
John Higdon
> Anyway, PROP 22 IS PASSING!!!
So, you think you will wake up in the morning and all the queers in
California will be gone or suddenly silent?
How DO you register disappointment?
Stan Rothwell
John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
news:B4EADA1C.16DC1%no-...@netninny.org...
> in article 8a44hn$lct$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Anyway, PROP 22 IS PASSING!!!
>
> So, you think you will wake up in the morning and all the queers in
> California will be gone or suddenly silent?
No, I expect the "queers" (not the majority of gay
people) will always look for a way to get "in your
face" about something... Those gay people that
feel no need to make a political issue about their
sex lives will do their best to live in peace with most
straight people (who will try to do likewise). I'm
certainly not out to start a holy war with my gay
neighbors; they don't make me endorse their
agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
to live their private lives as they see fit...
>
> How DO you register disappointment?
Were you expecting that something as common
sense and straightforward as 22 would be rejected
by the voters? You definitely are reality challenged.
Stan
John Higdon
> they don't make me endorse their
> agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
> to live their private lives as they see fit...
Except, of course, for those legal benefits only available to the chosen
orientation.
> Were you expecting that something as common
> sense and straightforward as 22 would be rejected
> by the voters? You definitely are reality challenged.
Not at all. Homos comprise the last of the acceptable discrimination targets
and there are plenty of people who love the idea of getting in a nice,
blameless, anonymous slap to SOME group. Add to those the non-thinkers who
fell for all the family/children/morality BS.
For all I care, you can be as bigoted as you like and express that bigotry
as loudly as you like. But there are many people who will not stop until
they can enjoy the same advantages under law that you do.
Stan Rothwell
> in article 8a477g$kor$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > they don't make me endorse their
> > agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
> > to live their private lives as they see fit...
>
> Except, of course, for those legal benefits only available to the chosen
> orientation.
Nothing stops you from drawing up a will so your
partner can inherit your estate. You can visit your
partner in a hospital as well. In addition, I have
no opposition to partners writing up domestic
contracts. Marriage, however, defines the
union of a man and a women. Sorry you don't
get it...
Stan Rothwell
John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
news:B4EAE21F.16DCD%no-...@netninny.org...
> in article 8a477g$kor$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > they don't make me endorse their
> > agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
> > to live their private lives as they see fit...
>
> Except, of course, for those legal benefits only available to the chosen
> orientation.
You want to write up a legal contract to
cover your domestic partnership, go
ahead... why is it necessary to distort and
degrade the concept of marriage to do it...
>
> > Were you expecting that something as common
> > sense and straightforward as 22 would be rejected
> > by the voters? You definitely are reality challenged.
>
> Not at all. Homos comprise the last of the acceptable discrimination
targets
> and there are plenty of people who love the idea of getting in a nice,
> blameless, anonymous slap to SOME group.
You don't think that having a couple of guys prancing
around demanding to get "married" is NOT a slap to
those with particular religious and cultural beliefs?
Get a life...
> Add to those the non-thinkers who
> fell for all the family/children/morality BS.
The fact of the matter is that marriage evolved
to reinforce concepts as monogamy, fidelity,
and repsonsibility for one's offspring. The state
chooses to recognize these unions for the legal
reason that they can hold parties responsible
in terms of property and guardianship issues.
Homosexual unions are formed for reasons
different than the above... If you wish to
form some type of domestic partnership with
the same sex, be my guest, but since it does
not fulfill the same purpose as marriage, why
pretend it does? Apples and oranges here
(or maybe bananas in your case, who knows?).
>
> For all I care, you can be as bigoted as you like and express that bigotry
> as loudly as you like. But there are many people who will not stop until
> they can enjoy the same advantages under law that you do.
Yep, it's all bigotry by evil nasty religious wackos...
Sorry, but this atheist/agnostic sees no logic in your
desire for same-sex marriage as well... Only in
California would we NEED to have this type of
debate, as it seems pretty damn clear to the rest
of the world what marriage is supposed to be... :O(
Stan
Stan Rothwell
John Wilkinson <john...@home.com> wrote in message
news:nh9bcs0fihnsutk5e...@4ax.com...
> In alt.politics.homosexuality, <8a477g$kor$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
> >> in article 8a44hn$lct$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >>
> >> > Anyway, PROP 22 IS PASSING!!!
> >>
> >> So, you think you will wake up in the morning and all the queers in
> >> California will be gone or suddenly silent?
> >
> >No, I expect the "queers" (not the majority of gay
> >people) will always look for a way to get "in your
> >face" about something... Those gay people that
> >feel no need to make a political issue about their
> >sex lives will do their best to live in peace with most
> >straight people (who will try to do likewise). I'm
> >certainly not out to start a holy war with my gay
> >agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
> >to live their private lives as they see fit...
>
Trying to jump on the same victimization
bandwagon, huh??? :Oo
Stan
John Higdon
> Nothing stops you from drawing up a will so your
> partner can inherit your estate.
Not if my family has better lawyers (which it does).
> You can visit your
> partner in a hospital as well.
Not if the hospital has an established policy of "family members only". Not
if his family says "no non-family members".
> In addition, I have
> no opposition to partners writing up domestic
> contracts. Marriage, however, defines the
> union of a man and a women. Sorry you don't
> get it...
No, I couldn't find the stone tablets. And even if I could, they should bear
no weight in civil law.
John Higdon
> You want to write up a legal contract to
> cover your domestic partnership, go
> ahead... why is it necessary to distort and
> degrade the concept of marriage to do it...
If a legal contract was "equal to marriage", then it would be marriage by
definition. Since it is not equal, then a class of people are deprived equal
protection under the law.
> You don't think that having a couple of guys prancing
> around demanding to get "married" is NOT a slap to
> those with particular religious and cultural beliefs?
> Get a life...
Ignoring your cheap debating trick by the denigrating use of the word
"prancing", the answer is "no". No one would be required or expected to
change his belief in any way. Oh, I have a life--a very good one and I
expect to make it even better.
> The fact of the matter is that marriage evolved
> to reinforce concepts as monogamy, fidelity,
> and repsonsibility for one's offspring.
No, I think if you really check, you will find that it originated as a ploy
in the upper classes to manipulate distribution of property. Nice try,
though.
> The state
> chooses to recognize these unions for the legal
> reason that they can hold parties responsible
> in terms of property and guardianship issues.
An impossibility in the case of same sex couples?
> Homosexual unions are formed for reasons
> different than the above...
Is that right? You have some stereotypes to share?
> If you wish to
> form some type of domestic partnership with
> the same sex, be my guest, but since it does
> not fulfill the same purpose as marriage, why
> pretend it does?
Would you care to elaborate? Do we deny marriage to mixed couples who do not
fulfill these "purposes"? Do we annul marriages that subsequently fail to
meet these "purposes"? Why not?
> Apples and oranges here
> (or maybe bananas in your case, who knows?).
Do you REALLY lack the intellectual horsepower to conduct a discussion of
issues without cheap insults?
> Yep, it's all bigotry by evil nasty religious wackos...
> Sorry, but this atheist/agnostic sees no logic in your
> desire for same-sex marriage as well... Only in
> California would we NEED to have this type of
> debate, as it seems pretty damn clear to the rest
> of the world what marriage is supposed to be... :O(
Thanks. I know when the other side has run out of legitimate argument when
it all comes down to "everyone just KNOWS how it is supposed to be".
John Higdon
> Trying to jump on the same victimization
> bandwagon, huh??? :Oo
On the contrary. I think you are going to find the percentage of "uppity
homos" on the increase. The "homos are just fine as long as we don't have to
know they exist" isn't cutting it anymore.
Stan Rothwell
> in article 8a4992$5d2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > You want to write up a legal contract to
> > cover your domestic partnership, go
> > ahead... why is it necessary to distort and
> > degrade the concept of marriage to do it...
>
> If a legal contract was "equal to marriage", then it would be marriage by
> definition. Since it is not equal, then a class of people are deprived
equal
> protection under the law.
No, they are not.... EVERYONE has the right to
marry a (willing) member of the opposite sex,
and EVERYONE is prohibited from marrying
a member of the same sex.
No discrimination here... case closed.
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> In alt.politics.homosexuality, <8a48nj$djh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
> >> in article 8a477g$kor$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >>
> >> > agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
> >> > to live their private lives as they see fit...
> >>
chosen
> >> orientation.
> >
> >partner can inherit your estate.
>
>
>
> 1) The will be taxed heavily, even if the partners shared equally in its
> creation over the years.
Sounds like a good argument for cutting
taxes across the board... Perhaps gays
shouldn't be so enthusiastic about
so much social spending by Liberals... :O)
>
> 2) Unlike married spouses, unmarried partners MUST create wills and other
> documents to even gain partial protections. They MUST be more informed,
> more legally and financially astute, and better able to afford the advice
> of counselors.
Married people should do so as well, to
protect their own interests.
>
> >You can visit your
> >partner in a hospital as well.
>
> Anyone want to guess how long it will take before some anti-gay zealot
goes
> to court, citing Prop. 22 as a mandate to overturn the d.p. provisions?
Ah, yes, the old "scare tactic" approach to
suggest something that isn't there... by that
same token, you suppose that letting gay
teachers in school will promote homosexuality?
Funny how you can't have arguments like
this both ways... :O|
>
> >In addition, I have
> >no opposition to partners writing up domestic
> >contracts.
>
> You just oppose extending the full set of rights and responsibilities
> contained in the marriage statutes. Do you expect to be thanked your
> magnanimity?
You planning on having children??? :Oo
>
> > Marriage, however, defines the
> >union of a man and a women. Sorry you don't
> >get it...
>
> We get it, Rothwell. You haven't even begun doing your homework, much less
> passing your proficiency exam.
Sorry YOU don't get it...
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> in article 8a49br$q0o$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Trying to jump on the same victimization
> > bandwagon, huh??? :Oo
>
> On the contrary. I think you are going to find the percentage of "uppity
> homos" on the increase. The "homos are just fine as long as we don't have
to
> know they exist" isn't cutting it anymore.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Y'all going to have a riot/tantrum up in
Frisco because you didn't get your
way at the polls??? :Oo
Stan
John Higdon
wrote:
>> You can visit your
>> partner in a hospital as well.
>
> Anyone want to guess how long it will take before some anti-gay zealot goes
> to court, citing Prop. 22 as a mandate to overturn the d.p. provisions?
I was recently discussing this with some friends who have been together for
many, many years. They have drawn up financial and medical powers of
attorney etc., etc., at a cost of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Even
so, if one of the partners were to be taken by ambulance to a hospital that
does not have those documents on file (e.g. Valley Medical) rather than
their "regular hospital" (Stanford Medical Center), the other partner would
very well be denied access, nor would he be heard regarding his other half's
care. He would literally have to go home, get the executed documents and
return--during which time his partner might very well have passed away.
Naturally, it is impractical if not impossible to have the necessary
domestic partner documents on file with every hospital or other institution
that might question the relationship.
It is one thing to sit back in an armchair and say "those fags can draw up
whatever documents they like" and it is quite another to be faced with the
reality of an alternative relationship in a hetero-centric society.
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 415 428 2697 | Silicon Valley, CA 95150-7648 | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
+1 408 264 4115 | Email Address Valid |
John Higdon
> No, they are not.... EVERYONE has the right to
> marry a (willing) member of the opposite sex,
> and EVERYONE is prohibited from marrying
> a member of the same sex.
So it is a gender-based discrimination. That is fine--have it your way.
> No discrimination here... case closed.
Not so fast. Gender discrimination is very much a protected-class violation.
John Higdon
> Sounds like a good argument for cutting
> taxes across the board... Perhaps gays
> shouldn't be so enthusiastic about
> so much social spending by Liberals... :O)
Is it even remotely possible for you to refrain from lapsing into
stereotypes? I happen to be a registered Republican who is very, very much
against taxing and spending. Now if the government could stop arbitrarily
restricting legal relationships on the basis of sex...
> Married people should do so as well, to
> protect their own interests.
Married couples don't have to produce notarized copies of those documents if
a spouse gets hit by a bus and is taken to a hospital.
> Ah, yes, the old "scare tactic" approach to
> suggest something that isn't there... by that
> same token, you suppose that letting gay
> teachers in school will promote homosexuality?
How does one "promote homosexuality"? One is either inclined or he is not.
No amount of "promotion" changes that. You are rapidly proving yourself to
be sufficiently uninformed as to be beneath my interest radar. I don't like
to fight unarmed opponents.
> You planning on having children??? :Oo
Actually, no. Some of my friends have them, however. I'll listen to that
argument when you propose that we annul marriages of childless couples.
John Higdon
> Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
> Y'all going to have a riot/tantrum up in
> Frisco because you didn't get your
> way at the polls??? :Oo
Not all of us are the big dumb bunnies you seem to think we are. I suspect
that you are going to see some more ballot propositions and, more
importantly, some very interesting cases before the courts.
John Higdon
wrote:
> Having just witnessed an appellate court decision in my state citing this
> state's anti-same-sex-marriage statute as authority for refusing to allow
> the surviving partner of a 28 year relationship to intestate inheritance,
> I'm well aware of the precedent that such laws set for court action.
>
> Not a "scare tactic." Experience.
Indeed. I have seen this happen and it is gut-wrenching. Two people live
together as one for many, many years--decades, in fact. To them, the
relationship is as natural as any storybook marriage. All of their resources
are shared, but for practical and legacy reasons, major property items are
in the name of one of them.
Then one of them dies. Extended family members who have never expressed the
slightest interest in "the old geez" suddenly swoop down and start
ransacking the house for valuables. Someone comes forth and decides that the
best way to divvy up the spoils is to sell the house and distribute the
proceeds (maybe even send some kids to college). The other partner is tossed
out on his ass.
I watched a Showtime movie earlier this week that was almost too close to
home. It should have been required viewing for those who don't think that
crap like Prop 22 has any negative effect. Of course it has negative effect,
and that is why it is there. There has been no secret in the press about its
origin or intent and why its author inflicted it on a segment of the
population. The Mormon and Catholic churches have adopted it for their own
anti-gay purposes, and that certainly does not cleanse it or give it real
respectability.
nobody
>
> in article 8a4992$5d2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > You want to write up a legal contract to
> > cover your domestic partnership, go
> > ahead... why is it necessary to distort and
> > degrade the concept of marriage to do it...
>
> If a legal contract was "equal to marriage", then it would be marriage by
> definition. Since it is not equal, then a class of people are deprived equal
> protection under the law.
>
> > around demanding to get "married" is NOT a slap to
> > those with particular religious and cultural beliefs?
> > Get a life...
>
> Ignoring your cheap debating trick by the denigrating use of the word
> "prancing", the answer is "no". No one would be required or expected to
> change his belief in any way. Oh, I have a life--a very good one and I
> expect to make it even better.
>
> > The fact of the matter is that marriage evolved
> > to reinforce concepts as monogamy, fidelity,
> > and repsonsibility for one's offspring.
>
> No, I think if you really check, you will find that it originated as a ploy
> in the upper classes to manipulate distribution of property. Nice try,
> though.
Interesting POV. Do you have a cite or some other data to support your
position?
> --
> John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | http://www.anntec.com/
> +1 415 428 2697 | Silicon Valley, CA 95150-7648 | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
> +1 408 264 4115 | From: Address Valid |
nobody
>
> in article 8a4b3n$p7$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > No, they are not.... EVERYONE has the right to
> > marry a (willing) member of the opposite sex,
> > and EVERYONE is prohibited from marrying
> > a member of the same sex.
>
> So it is a gender-based discrimination. That is fine--have it your way.
>
> > No discrimination here... case closed.
>
> Not so fast. Gender discrimination is very much a protected-class violation.
I could agree with your position if females were allowed to marry each
other and males were not. Here, the restrictions are the same for both
sexes.
John Higdon
> I could agree with your position if females were allowed to marry each
> other and males were not. Here, the restrictions are the same for both
> sexes.
Hmm...sort of reminds me of the argument supporting the prohibition against
mixed race marriage. "It isn't racial discrimination; it applies to both
races equally." The Supremes didn't buy it.
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 415 428 2697 | Silicon Valley, CA 95150-7648 | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
+1 408 264 4115 | Email Address Valid |
John Higdon
> John Higdon wrote:
>>
>> in article 8a4992$5d2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>>> The fact of the matter is that marriage evolved
>>> to reinforce concepts as monogamy, fidelity,
>>> and repsonsibility for one's offspring.
>>
>> No, I think if you really check, you will find that it originated as a ploy
>> in the upper classes to manipulate distribution of property. Nice try,
>> though.
>
> Interesting POV. Do you have a cite or some other data to support your
> position?
No, I don't have a reference. It was something I remember from school. So
let us have it your way. If "marriage evolved to reinforce concepts as
monogamy, fidelity, and responsibility for one's offspring" why does that
not apply to same-sex couples? The raising of children is very much a part
of many gay relationships.
It is axiomatic that in any discussion of homosexuality someone invariably
talks about promiscuity, but then they are aghast at the idea of allowing
gay people to utilize an institution that "evolved to reinforce concepts as
monogamy, fidelity, and responsibility..."
nobody
>
> in article 38C5CE1C...@nowhere.com, nobody wrote:
>
> > I could agree with your position if females were allowed to marry each
> > other and males were not. Here, the restrictions are the same for both
> > sexes.
>
> Hmm...sort of reminds me of the argument supporting the prohibition against
> mixed race marriage. "It isn't racial discrimination; it applies to both
> races equally." The Supremes didn't buy it.
Good thing this is not a racial NG. Then I'd feel compelled to respond
point on ;-)
The fact is, an interracial union can create children. If for some
reason the reverse were true, I think the decision would've gone the
other way.
nobody
> >>> The fact of the matter is that marriage evolved
> >>> to reinforce concepts as monogamy, fidelity,
> >>> and repsonsibility for one's offspring.
> >>
> >> No, I think if you really check, you will find that it originated as a ploy
> >> in the upper classes to manipulate distribution of property. Nice try,
> >> though.
> >
> > Interesting POV. Do you have a cite or some other data to support your
> > position?
>
> No, I don't have a reference. It was something I remember from school. So
> let us have it your way. If "marriage evolved to reinforce concepts as
> monogamy, fidelity, and responsibility for one's offspring" why does that
> not apply to same-sex couples? The raising of children is very much a part
> of many gay relationships.
I was more curious than anything else. I think that during the marriage
'evolution', it was assumed that "offspring" were the product of the two
partners of the marriage. This being before the sky rocketing divorce
rates, OOW children and the children of gays in denial.
> It is axiomatic that in any discussion of homosexuality someone invariably
> talks about promiscuity,
I don't believe I used the word "promiscuity" in this thread
> but then they are aghast at the idea of allowing
> gay people to utilize an institution that "evolved to reinforce concepts as
> monogamy, fidelity, and responsibility..."
...and producing children.
Not aghast, just disagree.
John Higdon
> The fact is, an interracial union can create children. If for some
> reason the reverse were true, I think the decision would've gone the
> other way.
They used to claim, with a straight face, that the children of mixed race
parentage would be, themselves, unable to procreate.
Much is made about marriage as a vehicle to produce and raise children. This
is a highly important factor. I am, however, unable to discern how enabling
gay marriages in any way prevents, detracts from, hinders, corrupts,
distorts, or desecrates those who enter into marriage for whatever reason
they choose. Whatever anyone thinks about the purpose of marriage, allowing
a new subset of people to participate does not interfere in any way.
Many married-with-children couples have said to me, "We don't see how
letting gay people get married is going to affect our home in any way. No
one told us we had to make any changes in the way we live or the way we
bring up our children."
John Higdon
> John Higdon wrote:
>> It is axiomatic that in any discussion of homosexuality someone invariably
>> talks about promiscuity,
>
> I don't believe I used the word "promiscuity" in this thread
No, but "someone" did.
>> but then they are aghast at the idea of allowing
>> gay people to utilize an institution that "evolved to reinforce concepts as
>> monogamy, fidelity, and responsibility..."
>
> ...and producing children.
Children can be produced in many ways other than missionary sex. That is an
archaic issue. The important part is the RAISING of children. I will agree
that the ideal is a mother and father, but even in "normal" marriages there
is less than the ideal at hand.
BTW, procreation is either essential to marriage or it is not. If it is,
then why don't we ban marriage for couples who, for whatever reason, are
unable to have children. If it is not essential, why do you and others
constantly bring it up?
To quote another participant in this thread, "You can't have it both ways."
Bill Lindemann
> Do not be fooled by the Homosexual liars.
>
> They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic for 20 years.
> <remainder of diatribe snipped>
Thank you for confirming what we've been saying all along -- that
Prop 22 isn't about "protecting" anything that straights already
have. It's about bashing gays. Your post can be summed up as
"I hate gays and I want to hurt them however I can". That about
sums up Prop. 22 as well, and gives the lie to the denials that
Pete Knight and all his cronies have been saying all along.
Prop 22 IS about attacking gays. You've just confirmed that. Thank
you for admitting what your side's true agenda is.
-Bill
Bill Lindemann
> Aids has never been, and will never be, epidemic in the non drug
> injecting straight community.
Then why do I always hear your side moaning about the danger
of "Homos spreading AIDS". Either it does or it doesn't spread
to the straight community. Make up your mind.
-Bill
Bill Lindemann
> I know it does absolutely no good to point out the foolishness of people
> selectively quoting sections of the bible to justify their prejudice,
> but just can't resist:
>
> In the very same verse of Leviticus quoted above, it also says "if a man
> commits adultury with the wife of his neighbor, both th adulterer and
> the adulteress shall be put to death" Most of the people who quote this
> also 'claim' to be Christians, so they should take a look at Mark
> 10:11-12 where it says 'whoever divorces his wife and marries another
> commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and
> marries another, she commits adultery.' So, I guess that about 50% of
> the heterosexuals who marry deserve the death penalty.
>
> Back to Leviticus. If Christians so quickly refer to chapter 20, how
> can they justify ignoring the dietary laws prohibiting the eating of
> shellfish and pork - they are also "abominations."
>
> Finally, Chapter 19 of Leviticus states "you shall not hate your brother
> in your heart; but you shall reason with your neighbor lest you bear sin
> because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against
> the sons of your own people, but shall love your neighbor as yourself."
>
> It's fine to follow the bible, but in my view, it's not ok to just pick
> out one little passage to justify your mean spiritedness and ignore the
> rest.
Look. The Bible was *written* to justify mean spiritedness, at least
the Old Testament was. Just read all the passages about "smiting"
one's enemies. All the warfare chronologies. All the harsh and violent
language, particularly about things like the horrid moral depravity
of eating animals without cloven hoofs, or wearing blended fabrics.
When someone starts quoting the Bible as absolute law in everything
it says, I immediately know what they're saying is "I'm small-minded
and have no sense of perspective, and I like taking my frustrations
out on others". Then I ignore them.
-Bill
John Higdon
> Prop 22 IS about attacking gays. You've just confirmed that. Thank
> you for admitting what your side's true agenda is.
I have much more respect for someone who just comes right out with "I hate
fags" and doesn't spew all this bullshit about "preserving this" and
"sanctifying that". It is a lot easier to know your enemy when he is in
uniform than when he skulks around with "the majority of homos are OK; it is
just the militant ones that are dangerous". Gawd, if I had a nickel for
every time I heard that crap in the sixties when it was applied to blacks.
I have never been an activist before, but watching this sanctimonious legal
fag bashing that we called an election has been an inspiration. It was
obvious from the very beginning that Prop 22 was a gratuitous stealth slap
at gay people, but to hear these pseudo-religious twits still
mumble-mouthing about how it isn't meant as discrimination against gay
people (the only people affect by it) is infuriating.
It would have been more honest and ingenuous for the "Yes on 22" signs to
have said "Stop Fags/Yes on 22" or "If you Hate Fags vote Yes on 22". That
is the way I'm going to view the houses in my neighborhood that had signs up
these past few weeks.
So much for the illusion that I live in a nice neighborhood.
John Higdon
> Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones who have
> to pay your medical bills. That's why we don't want you spreading AIDS. We
> couldn't care less if you shriveled up and died from the shit if we didn't
> have to pay for you medical care until you died and then most often get
> stuck with the cost to bury your stupid ass too!
Now there's a person who knows where he stands. His numbers are wrong, but
he at least knows he hates fags. I can deal with that. These people will
always be with us, and we know not to waste any time on them.
> It's not that we wan't to spoil your sex life -- It's a matter of
> economics, Bill! Your promiscuity just cost too fucking much!
He knows all fags are promiscuous and he'll be damned if he would allow
anything to change that situation. It is amazing any of us can keep our
hairdressing appointments after doing two or three dozen people a night!
John Higdon
> When someone starts quoting the Bible as absolute law in everything
> it says, I immediately know what they're saying is "I'm small-minded
> and have no sense of perspective, and I like taking my frustrations
> out on others". Then I ignore them.
On the contrary--those folks are the most fun. I LOVE someone who starts
railing on homosexuality based upon the Bible.
Especially Fabric Mixers! (Christers are the most notorious of Fabric
Mixers.) They are even into such abominations as polyester and cotton.
Disgraceful. But as much as I offer them brotherly love in their sins, I
know deep in my heart that they have to burn in hell. Hey, it isn't me
talking--it's the LORD!
John Wilkinson
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
>news:B4EADA1C.16DC1%no-...@netninny.org...
>> in article 8a44hn$lct$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> > Anyway, PROP 22 IS PASSING!!!
>>
>> So, you think you will wake up in the morning and all the queers in
>> California will be gone or suddenly silent?
>
>No, I expect the "queers" (not the majority of gay
>people) will always look for a way to get "in your
>face" about something... Those gay people that
>feel no need to make a political issue about their
>sex lives will do their best to live in peace with most
>straight people (who will try to do likewise). I'm
>certainly not out to start a holy war with my gay
>neighbors; they don't make me endorse their
>agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
>to live their private lives as they see fit...
Yes, Massa.
---
John and Dave -- 30 years together,
but still strangers before the law.
-jw...@eskimo.com
-www.eskimo.com/~jwilk
John Wilkinson
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
>news:B4EAE21F.16DCD%no-...@netninny.org...
>> in article 8a477g$kor$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> > they don't make me endorse their
>> > agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
>> > to live their private lives as they see fit...
>>
>> Except, of course, for those legal benefits only available to the chosen
>> orientation.
>
>Nothing stops you from drawing up a will so your
>partner can inherit your estate.
What Mr. Rothwell doesn't know or doesn't care about:
1) The will be taxed heavily, even if the partners shared equally in its
creation over the years.
2) Unlike married spouses, unmarried partners MUST create wills and other
documents to even gain partial protections. They MUST be more informed,
more legally and financially astute, and better able to afford the advice
of counselors.
>You can visit your
>partner in a hospital as well.
Anyone want to guess how long it will take before some anti-gay zealot goes
to court, citing Prop. 22 as a mandate to overturn the d.p. provisions?
>In addition, I have
>no opposition to partners writing up domestic
>contracts.
You just oppose extending the full set of rights and responsibilities
contained in the marriage statutes. Do you expect to be thanked your
magnanimity?
> Marriage, however, defines the
>union of a man and a women. Sorry you don't
>get it...
We get it, Rothwell. You haven't even begun doing your homework, much less
passing your proficiency exam.
---
John Wilkinson
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>John Wilkinson <john...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:nh9bcs0fihnsutk5e...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.politics.homosexuality, <8a477g$kor$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
>> >news:B4EADA1C.16DC1%no-...@netninny.org...
>> >> in article 8a44hn$lct$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Anyway, PROP 22 IS PASSING!!!
>> >>
>> >> So, you think you will wake up in the morning and all the queers in
>> >> California will be gone or suddenly silent?
>> >
>> >No, I expect the "queers" (not the majority of gay
>> >people) will always look for a way to get "in your
>> >face" about something... Those gay people that
>> >feel no need to make a political issue about their
>> >sex lives will do their best to live in peace with most
>> >straight people (who will try to do likewise). I'm
>> >certainly not out to start a holy war with my gay
>> >neighbors; they don't make me endorse their
>> >agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
>> >to live their private lives as they see fit...
>>
>> Yes, Massa.
>
>Trying to jump on the same victimization
>bandwagon, huh??? :Oo
Just stating the obvious, Stanley.
John Wilkinson
Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote:
>in article 8a49br$q0o$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Trying to jump on the same victimization
>> bandwagon, huh??? :Oo
>
>On the contrary. I think you are going to find the percentage of "uppity
>homos" on the increase. The "homos are just fine as long as we don't have to
>know they exist" isn't cutting it anymore.
Stanley clearly prefers his house Niggers over them uppity field Niggers.
[Note: The use of the word "Nigger" is used here as an historical analogy.
When writing in all other contexts, I use the terms "African-American" or
"Black," or the term preferred by the referent of the term. This note is
offered in advance of the possible claim by Mr. Rothwell that I am a
racist. End disclaimer.]
John Wilkinson
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
>news:B4EAEC83.16DDB%no-...@netninny.org...
>> in article 8a4992$5d2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> > You want to write up a legal contract to
>> > cover your domestic partnership, go
>> > ahead... why is it necessary to distort and
>> > degrade the concept of marriage to do it...
>>
>> If a legal contract was "equal to marriage", then it would be marriage by
>> definition. Since it is not equal, then a class of people are deprived
>equal
>> protection under the law.
>
>No, they are not.... EVERYONE has the right to
>marry a (willing) member of the opposite sex,
>and EVERYONE is prohibited from marrying
>a member of the same sex.
>
>No discrimination here... case closed.
What is it about guys that can't grasp the simple historical notion that
freedom without autonomy isn't freedom at all? "Freedom" on someone else's
terms isn't worthy of the term.
John Wilkinson
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>John Wilkinson <john...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:8cbbcs8daaoaktcdq...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.politics.homosexuality, <8a48nj$djh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
>> >news:B4EAE21F.16DCD%no-...@netninny.org...
>> >> in article 8a477g$kor$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > they don't make me endorse their
>> >> > agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
>> >> > to live their private lives as they see fit...
>> >>
>> >> Except, of course, for those legal benefits only available to the
>chosen
>> >> orientation.
>> >
>> >Nothing stops you from drawing up a will so your
>> >partner can inherit your estate.
>>
>> What Mr. Rothwell doesn't know or doesn't care about:
>>
>>
>> 1) The will be taxed heavily, even if the partners shared equally in its
>> creation over the years.
>
>Sounds like a good argument for cutting
>taxes across the board... Perhaps gays
>shouldn't be so enthusiastic about
>so much social spending by Liberals... :O)
The issue is equal access to the laws, whatever they might be. Nice try at
dodging the issue.
>> 2) Unlike married spouses, unmarried partners MUST create wills and other
>> documents to even gain partial protections. They MUST be more informed,
>> more legally and financially astute, and better able to afford the advice
>> of counselors.
>
>Married people should do so as well, to
>protect their own interests.
Please review my sentences above, and note the word "must."
>
>>
>> >You can visit your
>> >partner in a hospital as well.
>>
>> Anyone want to guess how long it will take before some anti-gay zealot
>goes
>> to court, citing Prop. 22 as a mandate to overturn the d.p. provisions?
>
>Ah, yes, the old "scare tactic" approach to
>suggest something that isn't there... by that
>same token, you suppose that letting gay
>teachers in school will promote homosexuality?
Having just witnessed an appellate court decision in my state citing this
state's anti-same-sex-marriage statute as authority for refusing to allow
the surviving partner of a 28 year relationship to intestate inheritance,
I'm well aware of the precedent that such laws set for court action.
Not a "scare tactic." Experience.
>Funny how you can't have arguments like
>this both ways... :O|
>
>>
>> >In addition, I have
>> >no opposition to partners writing up domestic
>> >contracts.
>>
>> You just oppose extending the full set of rights and responsibilities
>> contained in the marriage statutes. Do you expect to be thanked your
>> magnanimity?
>
>You planning on having children??? :Oo
A significant proportion of same-sex couples do care for children, but NO
mixed-sex couple is subject to such scrutiny before applying for a marriage
license.
>> > Marriage, however, defines the
>> >union of a man and a women. Sorry you don't
>> >get it...
>>
>> We get it, Rothwell. You haven't even begun doing your homework, much less
>> passing your proficiency exam.
>
>Sorry YOU don't get it...
You don't have a legal, constitutional, experiential, moral, or historical
leg to stand on.
Letao
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> You don't think that having a couple of guys prancing
> around demanding to get "married" is NOT a slap to
> those with particular religious and cultural beliefs?
> Get a life...
Since when does yours or theirs get to supercede mine in relation to the
law?
Might taken your own advice, Sparky.
--
Safe journey,
Letao
djs...@yahoo.com
Jowysiren
>You want to write up a legal contract to
>cover your domestic partnership, go
>ahead... why is it necessary to distort and
>degrade the concept of marriage to do it...
But they're not degrading or distorting the concept of marriage....all they are
doing is being formally united, that is all.....
You don't think that having a couple of guys prancing
>around demanding to get "married" is NOT a slap to
>those with particular religious and cultural beliefs?
>Get a life...
It is not...only people who can't stand the idea of homosexuals getting married
would consider it a slap in the face...
Kania
>Yep, it's all bigotry by evil nasty religious wackos...
>Sorry, but this atheist/agnostic sees no logic in your
>desire for same-sex marriage as well...
They love each other...they want to be together.....all they want are the same
privlages that straights enjoy, that is all...
<snip>what marriage is supposed to be... :O(
You sound so callous........
Kania
Jowysiren
>marry a (willing) member of the opposite sex,
>
No homosexual would willingly marry someone of the opposite sex...the only time
a gay person would ever do so would to use the person as a shield or if they
are unsure of their sexuality...unless you don't mind the opposite sex being
treated that way...
>and EVERYONE is prohibited from marrying
>a member of the same sex.
It's wrong to do that....it's wrong to devalue a couple just because they are
same sexed....
Kania
Jowysiren
>homos" on the increase. The "homos are just fine as long as we don't have to
>know they exist" isn't cutting it anymore.
Neither is "homos are just fine so long as they remain beneath us."
Kania
Peter Skaliks
On 2000-03-07 nob...@nowhere.com said:
>The fact is, an interracial union can create children.
That was _exactly_ the reason that interracial marriage was opposed.
People of that time had a hangup about racial purity.
>If for some reason the reverse were true,
That children could create interracial unions??? That doesn't make sense.
>I think .....
This is conjecture unsupported by evidence.
Peter Skaliks
Palgrave, Ontario, Canada
John Wilkinson
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>John Higdon wrote:
>>
>> in article 38C5CE1C...@nowhere.com, nobody wrote:
>>
>> > I could agree with your position if females were allowed to marry each
>> > other and males were not. Here, the restrictions are the same for both
>> > sexes.
>>
>> Hmm...sort of reminds me of the argument supporting the prohibition against
>> mixed race marriage. "It isn't racial discrimination; it applies to both
>> races equally." The Supremes didn't buy it.
>
>Good thing this is not a racial NG. Then I'd feel compelled to respond
>point on ;-)
>
>The fact is, an interracial union can create children. If for some
>reason the reverse were true, I think the decision would've gone the
>other way.
Oh, for gawd sake. Are any of you people ever able to follow a premise to
its conclusion?
I before E
N. D. LEED <ndl...@tinian.org> wrote in message
news:38d8fffa...@news.fdn.com...
> to pay your medical bills. That's why we don't want you spreading AIDS. We
> couldn't care less if you shriveled up and died from the shit if we didn't
> have to pay for you medical care until you died and then most often get
> stuck with the cost to bury your stupid ass too!
>
> economics, Bill! Your promiscuity just cost too fucking much!
>
> >
>
>
I'm going to start a new initiative for the next California election which
will place a $0.50 surtax on all enemas and butt plugs. Meathead has
inspired me beyond my wildest dreams.
Craig K. Gowens
> Bob Fredricks <ro...@ioc.net> wrote in message
> news:38C4B621...@ioc.net...
> > Ya know their is a clause in the US Constitution which states the each
> state
> > must respect the laws and contract of all the other states.
>
> Oh yeah? Try telling that to people who have been
> granted permits to carry concealed weapons from
> other states.
A state cannot license you to carry a concealed weapon in a location
outside its jurisdiction. All other states must recognize the concealed
weapons pewrmit as an official document of the issuing state, just as
they must recognize a driver's license, birth ceritifcate, death
certificate, divorce decree, child custody decree, etc.
> BTW, a marriage certificate does
> not necessarily constitute a contract,
That's right. The couple has to actually marry after they get the
license. Then itys a contract.
> but an official
> recognition from the state regarding the status of
> those individuals.
Their status is a couple engaged in a mutually agreed to contract
that cannot be dissolved except by breach by one of the parties or
assent of atleast one of the parties.
Craig K. Gowens
Bill Lindemann
> in article 38C5FA9E...@ix.netcom.com, Bill Lindemann wrote:
>
> > Prop 22 IS about attacking gays. You've just confirmed that. Thank
> > you for admitting what your side's true agenda is.
>
> I have much more respect for someone who just comes right out with "I hate
> fags" and doesn't spew all this bullshit about "preserving this" and
> "sanctifying that". It is a lot easier to know your enemy when he is in
> uniform than when he skulks around with "the majority of homos are OK; it is
> just the militant ones that are dangerous". Gawd, if I had a nickel for
> every time I heard that crap in the sixties when it was applied to blacks.
>
> I have never been an activist before, but watching this sanctimonious legal
> fag bashing that we called an election has been an inspiration. It was
> obvious from the very beginning that Prop 22 was a gratuitous stealth slap
> at gay people, but to hear these pseudo-religious twits still
> mumble-mouthing about how it isn't meant as discrimination against gay
> people (the only people affect by it) is infuriating.
>
> It would have been more honest and ingenuous for the "Yes on 22" signs to
> have said "Stop Fags/Yes on 22" or "If you Hate Fags vote Yes on 22". That
> is the way I'm going to view the houses in my neighborhood that had signs up
> these past few weeks.
>
> So much for the illusion that I live in a nice neighborhood.
Hmm. Maybe our side played too nice and that's why we lost
this one. One of the more useful political tactics used by the
"big boys" in politics is to spread literature that appears to
support the opposition, but does it in such repulsive terms that
the effect is to build support for one's own cause. This technique
has been used countless times by the major political parties, so
it's hardly a fringe technique.
So, given that, maybe WE should have been the ones putting up
signs saying "Stop Fags/YES on 22".
-Bill
Bill Lindemann
> I'm going to start a new initiative for the next California election which
> will place a $0.50 surtax on all enemas and butt plugs. Meathead has
> inspired me beyond my wildest dreams.
My heart goes out to all the poor, constipated elders and children
who will be hurt by your proposed tax. But I guess it's just in keeping
with the American Rambo mentality, "beat down the weak -- they're
easy targets".
-Bill
I before E
nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:38C5DE16...@nowhere.com...
> I was more curious than anything else. I think that during the marriage
> 'evolution', it was assumed that "offspring" were the product of the two
> partners of the marriage. This being before the sky rocketing divorce
> rates, OOW children and the children of gays in denial.
>
Marriage guaranteed the rights of inheritance for their progeny. Bastards
could not make legal claim of their biological father's property upon his
death.
Anybody have any idea how the Hutus and Tutsis handle a situation like this?
Bill Lindemann
> Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones who have
> to pay your medical bills. That's why we don't want you spreading AIDS. We
> couldn't care less if you shriveled up and died from the shit if we didn't
> have to pay for you medical care until you died and then most often get
> stuck with the cost to bury your stupid ass too!
>
> It's not that we wan't to spoil your sex life -- It's a matter of
> economics, Bill! Your promiscuity just cost too fucking much!
Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones
who continue to inflate my health insurance costs by their uncontrolled
breeding. Do you know how much a delivery with an obstetrician
costs these days? Not to mention all the dental and medical bills for
the little tyke once he is born -- vaccinations, fillings, tonsil removal,
etc. And then there's the jail time so many het men have to do,
when they slap their old lady around a bit to keep her in line, that we
`have to pay for.
It's not that I want to spoil your sex life, or interfere in your personal,
private decision to beget children and take responsibility for their
upkeep. It's a matter of economics. Your breeding just costs too
damn much!
-Bill
Bill Lindemann
> Bob Fredricks <ro...@ioc.net> wrote in message
> news:38C4B621...@ioc.net...
> > Ya know their is a clause in the US Constitution which states the each
> state
> > must respect the laws and contract of all the other states.
>
> Oh yeah? Try telling that to people who have been
> granted permits to carry concealed weapons from
> other states. BTW, a marriage certificate does
> not necessarily constitute a contract, but an official
> recognition from the state regarding the status of
> those individuals.
>
> Stan
Straw man argument. A permit from a state is not a contract
between two parties. You might just as well complain that the
governor of Texas, who has the right to control state agencies
in Texas, is being treated unfairlly because California won't
let him control our state agencies. One state does not have to
recognize the *laws* of another, either. If New York passed a
law allowing its citizens for legally carry marijuana with them,
California would have no obligation to honor that law. However,
if XYZ Corp. in New York signed a contract with ABC corp in New
York, and the California office of ABC tried to cheat XYZ, then XYZ
has the right to sue under California law, and California must honor
that New York contract.
Comprende?
-Bill
Bill Lindemann
> Angry because your man left you for a hot guy?
> (nothing to be surprised of, seeing the kinda bitch you are).
> --
> Go confidently in the direction of your dreams!
> Live the life you've imagined. - Thoreau -
> [Message by BenjoÅ ]
Ah, so Benjo believes in living "the life you've imagined" --
unless of course you happen to be a fag, in which case
you deserve to catch AIDS and die, or if that doesn't happen
then maybe Benjo and his buddies will just beat you to
death.
-Bill
Bill Lindemann
> No, I expect the "queers" (not the majority of gay
> people) will always look for a way to get "in your
> face" about something... Those gay people that
> feel no need to make a political issue about their
> sex lives will do their best to live in peace with most
> straight people (who will try to do likewise). I'm
> certainly not out to start a holy war with my gay
> neighbors; they don't make me endorse their
> agenda, and I don't interfere with their efforts
> to live their private lives as they see fit...
Though you do seem to expect all the people of the state,
which *includes* gay people, to get involved in recognizing
and supporting YOUR private relationship decisions.
-Bill
David Kaye
" Hmm. Maybe our side played too nice and that's why we lost
" this one. [....]
Our side, the side of righteousness, always plays too nice.
I suggested to the No on 22 group that they run ads stating that the
ballot measure was a Mormon church move to make California into a
church-state, and to expose how much money the Mormon church was spending
on this campaign. Perhaps ending with the tagline, "After the Mormons take
over the government, they'll be taking over your lives. Vote No on 22."
I also suggested that Prop 22 be portrayed as an anti-fairness initiative.
Neither of these suggestions got so much as an email reply.
--
(C) 2000 The first proposed name for the
David Kaye state of Colorado was "Idaho"
dk at wco.com
John DeSalvio
<no-...@netninny.org> wrote:
> in article 8a44hn$lct$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Anyway, PROP 22 IS PASSING!!!
>
> So, you think you will wake up in the morning and all the queers in
> California will be gone or suddenly silent?
>
> How DO you register disappointment?
Simple.
You go to the county Registrar of Disappointments and fill out the forms.
There's l also a $15 fee...
--
For my correct e-mail address, please post request and your e-mail address.
John De Salvio
Dana Phillips
"N. D. LEED" wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:18:10 -0800, Bill Lindemann <w...@ix.netcom.com> --
> wrote:
>
> >Spam Hater wrote:
> >
> >> Aids has never been, and will never be, epidemic in the non drug
> >> injecting straight community.
> >
> >Then why do I always hear your side moaning about the danger
> >of "Homos spreading AIDS". Either it does or it doesn't spread
> >to the straight community. Make up your mind.
>
> Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones who have
> to pay your medical bills. That's why we don't want you spreading AIDS. We
> couldn't care less if you shriveled up and died from the shit if we didn't
> have to pay for you medical care until you died and then most often get
> stuck with the cost to bury your stupid ass too!
As a heterosexual I am concerned with pain and suffering of all individual and
am not a cold hearted bastard who simply looks at the cost. Please do not
speak for all heterosexual. You can speak for the cold hearted ones if you
choose as I have no say in their little group.
>
>
> It's not that we wan't to spoil your sex life -- It's a matter of
> economics, Bill! Your promiscuity just cost too fucking much!
>
> >-Bill
> >
--
"Some have brains, and some haven't," Pooh says, "and there it is."
Dana Phillips
Bill Lindemann wrote:
> "N. D. LEED" wrote:
>
> > Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones who have
> > to pay your medical bills. That's why we don't want you spreading AIDS. We
> > couldn't care less if you shriveled up and died from the shit if we didn't
> > have to pay for you medical care until you died and then most often get
> > stuck with the cost to bury your stupid ass too!
> >
> > It's not that we wan't to spoil your sex life -- It's a matter of
> > economics, Bill! Your promiscuity just cost too fucking much!
>
> Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones
> who continue to inflate my health insurance costs by their uncontrolled
> breeding. Do you know how much a delivery with an obstetrician
> costs these days? Not to mention all the dental and medical bills for
> the little tyke once he is born -- vaccinations, fillings, tonsil removal,
> etc. And then there's the jail time so many het men have to do,
> when they slap their old lady around a bit to keep her in line, that we
> `have to pay for.
>
> It's not that I want to spoil your sex life, or interfere in your personal,
> private decision to beget children and take responsibility for their
> upkeep. It's a matter of economics. Your breeding just costs too
> damn much!
ROTFLMAO
Andres64
<libera...@netcommander.com> wrote:
Bill Lindemann wrote:
LOL. Excellent reply.
N. D. LEED => For I am a bear of very little brain and long words
bother me.
-- Winnie the Pooh
--
Sincerely,
Andres (#1624)
You always have a choice.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dawn Wilson
David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote in message
news:SBox4.524$FM....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
Stan Rothwell
Letao <Le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in message
news:Letao-22D447....@news.ne.mediaone.net...
> In article <8a4992$5d2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Stan Rothwell"
> <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > around demanding to get "married" is NOT a slap to
> > those with particular religious and cultural beliefs?
> > Get a life...
>
> law?
Marriage is not your institution to 'evolve', just as
I would have no right to force you to modify your
Gay Pride Parades to accomodate the 'straight'
agenda...
Evolve your OWN institutions, not those of
normal people...
>
> Might taken your own advice, Sparky.
Sorry, but it's not 'sparky', so put your nitrates
and your rubber toys away... :O(
Stan Rothwell
John Higdon <no-...@netninny.org> wrote in message
news:B4EAF37B.16DF0%no-...@netninny.org...
> in article 8a4bem$taf$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
> > Y'all going to have a riot/tantrum up in
> > Frisco because you didn't get your
> > way at the polls??? :Oo
>
> Not all of us are the big dumb bunnies you seem to think we are. I suspect
> that you are going to see some more ballot propositions and, more
> importantly, some very interesting cases before the courts.
And the fact that you probably ARE going to make
a big stink about this will make you the laughingstock
of the nation... no problem; Jay Leno could use some
fresh material... :O)
Stan
Greg Lind
So could you, bud. Your arguments are so dated.
Wake up and smell the millenium.
- greg
John Higdon
> Marriage is not your institution to 'evolve', just as
> I would have no right to force you to modify your
> Gay Pride Parades to accomodate the 'straight'
> agenda...
Gay Pride Parades are not defined in or carry the force of civil law.
> Evolve your OWN institutions, not those of
> normal people...
If you are an example of "normal"...
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 415 428 2697 | Silicon Valley, CA 95150-7648 | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
+1 408 264 4115 | Email Address Valid |
John Higdon
> And the fact that you probably ARE going to make
> a big stink about this will make you the laughingstock
> of the nation... no problem; Jay Leno could use some
> fresh material... :O)
I do not live to avoid ridicule; I look for results. If the price of
equitable and fair laws is ridicule, so be it. Results over appearance.
XristOS
>
> Diane Colson wrote:
>
> > Do not be fooled by the Homosexual liars.
> >
> > They have deceived American society about the Homosexual AIDS epidemic for 20 years.
> > <remainder of diatribe snipped>
>
> Thank you for confirming what we've been saying all along -- that
> Prop 22 isn't about "protecting" anything that straights already
> have. It's about bashing gays. Your post can be summed up as
> "I hate gays and I want to hurt them however I can". That about
> sums up Prop. 22 as well, and gives the lie to the denials that
> Pete Knight and all his cronies have been saying all along.
>
> Prop 22 IS about attacking gays. You've just confirmed that. Thank
> you for admitting what your side's true agenda is.
>
Prop 22 is about making sure that if same sex marriages are ever
legalized in *another* state, they will not be recognized in California.
Robert Narsavage
don't have a problem with my taxes going towards paying for YOUR medical
bills. And also - last time I checked, I thought we were a UNITED States Of
America, and not a DIVIDED States Of America.
Besides, I am part of a 10% demographic, not a 4%. Get over it, sweetie !!
- RJ
" Love between two consenting same sex adults ? How could the Lord mind
when there is so much hate and war in the world ? "
N. D. LEED <ndl...@tinian.org> wrote in message
news:38d8fffa...@news.fdn.com...
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:18:10 -0800, Bill Lindemann <w...@ix.netcom.com> --
> wrote:
>
> >Spam Hater wrote:
> >
> >> Aids has never been, and will never be, epidemic in the non drug
> >> injecting straight community.
> >
> >Then why do I always hear your side moaning about the danger
> >of "Homos spreading AIDS". Either it does or it doesn't spread
> >to the straight community. Make up your mind.
>
> Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones who have
> to pay your medical bills. That's why we don't want you spreading AIDS. We
> couldn't care less if you shriveled up and died from the shit if we didn't
> have to pay for you medical care until you died and then most often get
> stuck with the cost to bury your stupid ass too!
>
> It's not that we wan't to spoil your sex life -- It's a matter of
> economics, Bill! Your promiscuity just cost too fucking much!
>
> >-Bill
> >
>
Robert Narsavage
Bill Lindemann <w...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38C60F72...@ix.netcom.com...
> "N. D. LEED" wrote:
>
> > Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones who
have
> > to pay your medical bills. That's why we don't want you spreading AIDS.
We
> > couldn't care less if you shriveled up and died from the shit if we
didn't
> > have to pay for you medical care until you died and then most often get
> > stuck with the cost to bury your stupid ass too!
> >
> > It's not that we wan't to spoil your sex life -- It's a matter of
> > economics, Bill! Your promiscuity just cost too fucking much!
>
> Heterosexuals (read - 96% of the working population) are the ones
> breeding. Do you know how much a delivery with an obstetrician
> costs these days? Not to mention all the dental and medical bills for
> the little tyke once he is born -- vaccinations, fillings, tonsil removal,
> etc. And then there's the jail time so many het men have to do,
> when they slap their old lady around a bit to keep her in line, that we
> `have to pay for.
>
> It's not that I want to spoil your sex life, or interfere in your
personal,
> private decision to beget children and take responsibility for their
> upkeep. It's a matter of economics. Your breeding just costs too
> damn much!
>
>
>
Robert Narsavage
Dana Phillips <libera...@netcommander.com> wrote in message
news:38C66C67...@netcommander.com...
Fenris
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Marriage is not your institution to 'evolve', just as
> I would have no right to force you to modify your
> Gay Pride Parades to accomodate the 'straight'
> agenda...
>
> Evolve your OWN institutions, not those of
> normal people...
Define "normal."
Some cultures have found it useful to prescribe same-sex unions for a
particular period in life; a few have even made heterosexuality the
exception.
> > Might taken your own advice, Sparky.
>
> Sorry, but it's not 'sparky', so put your nitrates
> and your rubber toys away... :O(
Healthy heterosexuals don't carry on the way you do. Get some help.
--
To e-mail me replace "spamsucks" with "azstarnet.com"
Stan Rothwell
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-0D097F...@news.postop.org...
> In article <8a4bcb$6kp$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Stan Rothwell"
> <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Anyone want to guess how long it will take before some anti-gay
> > > zealot goes to court, citing Prop. 22 as a mandate to overturn the
> > > d.p. provisions?
> >
> > Ah, yes, the old "scare tactic" approach to suggest something that
> > isn't there...
>
> But it is there; it's happened in states where the equivalent of prop 22
> has been enacted.
WHAT has happened? Evidence, please.. :O|
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> John Higdon wrote:
> >
> > in article 8a4b3n$p7$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > No, they are not.... EVERYONE has the right to
> > > marry a (willing) member of the opposite sex,
> > > and EVERYONE is prohibited from marrying
> > > a member of the same sex.
> >
> > So it is a gender-based discrimination. That is fine--have it your way.
> >
> > > No discrimination here... case closed.
> >
> > Not so fast. Gender discrimination is very much a protected-class
violation.
>
> I could agree with your position if females were allowed to marry each
> other and males were not. Here, the restrictions are the same for both
> sexes.
You obviously are more astute than the rest, seeing
that you differentiated GENDER from BEHAVIOR.
Let's see how long it takes the rest of them to get it...
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> in article 8a61hv$otm$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Marriage is not your institution to 'evolve', just as
> > I would have no right to force you to modify your
> > Gay Pride Parades to accomodate the 'straight'
> > agenda...
>
>
> > normal people...
>
Well, I'm obviously a bit quicker to get it
than most in ba.politics... :O)
Stan
Stan Rothwell
Fenris <tto...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message
news:ttowne-0803...@dialup001ip076.tus.azstarnet.com...
>
> > Marriage is not your institution to 'evolve', just as
> > I would have no right to force you to modify your
> > Gay Pride Parades to accomodate the 'straight'
> > agenda...
> >
> > normal people...
>
Biologically correct. I'd ask you what part
of that you DON'T understand, but based
on your reaction, it's pretty apparent... :O)
Stan
Stan Rothwell
Greg Lind <gsl...@home.com> wrote in message news:38c68a71.7873071@news...
> >> in article 8a4bem$taf$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
> >> > Y'all going to have a riot/tantrum up in
> >> > Frisco because you didn't get your
> >> > way at the polls??? :Oo
> >>
> >> Not all of us are the big dumb bunnies you seem to think we are. I
suspect
> >> that you are going to see some more ballot propositions and, more
> >> importantly, some very interesting cases before the courts.
> >
> >a big stink about this will make you the laughingstock
> >of the nation... no problem; Jay Leno could use some
> >fresh material... :O)
> >
>
> So could you, bud. Your arguments are so dated.
You guys really think this is a bellwether issue?
How about focusing on issues like the reckless
promiscuity that is killing gay men? Sorry,
buddy, but it's not a bunch of mean-spirited
straights that are the biggest threat to you...
Stan
Man
will change anything in the gay community? If so, what would it be? M
XristOS wrote in message <38C6A6...@earthlink.net>...
John Higdon
> Not if you are claiming status as a homosexual. Four percent at the most
> and many neutral parties who pay attention to such things say as few as one
> percent is closer to the real number. You are indeed a minority among
> minorities. I imagine that there are almost as many Pillsbury Dough-Boys as
> there are homosexuals (and they have a legitimate means of reproducing <G>)
If one percent of the population can cause the angst that seems to exist
among a significant percentage of the remainder, I'm impressed. Why is
anyone afraid of a 1% counter-culture? Obviously, there is no strength in
those numbers.
Either your number is a little short, or there are plenty of non-gays who
see the validity of the cause. It is one or the other.
John Higdon
> You miss the point. It's not a question of heterosexual normalcy. As a man,
> your homosexual tendencies manifested by your desire to have sex with other
> men is considered by most humans to be "abnormal." Does that clear up the
> confusion for you?
It isn't abnormal to me. I don't necessarily assume that others have more
validity in their opinions than I do. What, exactly, makes "most humans" an
authority? Numbers? Before Galileo's time was the earth actually flat?
> BTW - Please don't trot out the monkeys and the rest of the circus animals
> for us again. We seen that show and have come to the conclusion that while
> they are cute, animals are just not humans.
Huh? I'm missing your cleaver allegorical reference somewhere.
Patent_Worm
Bob Fredricks <ro...@ioc.net> wrote in message
news:38C4B621...@ioc.net...
> Ya know their is a clause in the US Constitution which states the each
state
> must respect the laws and contract of all the other states. Does it make
the
> Knight Amendment unconstitutional even if it passes? I don't know why it
> wouldn't. Possibly it would mean that all the other states would have to
> respect the California Knight Amendment? ?????? I need a Supreme Court
> Justice to explain the clause.
>
By the same logic, the Knight Amendment must be respected by states that
permit gay marriage, thus rendering such laws unconstitutional (if any of
such laws existed, which they don't).
John Higdon
> Call it what you will, but it looks more like sour grapes on corn flakes to
> me.
People who get things done learn from their mistakes.
> Accept it -- You lost "FAIR AND SQUARE!"
Who lost what? What has changed?
> The resulting condition was
> brought about through legitimate and legal legislative procedure.
What condition is that? Same sex marriage has exactly the same legal status
today that it did yesterday. What I got was a reading on either the bigotry
or the gullibility of the voters in this state.
> It is the
> will of the people. Should the government at the behest of any minority,
> see fit to try to run rough-shod over the legal and morally correct
> legislative actions of the citizens then that government's days are
> numbered.
The "will of the majority" is still subject to the Constitution. The courts
have yet to rule.
> So said the founding fathers - So say the people! You should
> never forget that the smallest of all minorities is the individual citizen
> and the collective decision of a majority of the citizens is a decision
> made by the smallest minority.
So are you saying that the majority is entitled to and capable of erasing
any individual's human rights? Are you saying that it is right and proper
for the majority to tyrannize a minority?
We'll see.
Patent_Worm
Man <ch...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:scdgg9k...@corp.supernews.com...
> **Just curious, what does prop. 22 really prevent? Are you suggesting it
> will change anything in the gay community? If so, what would it be? M
It changes absolutely nothing but maintains the status quo.
Clay Colwell
> in article 38c7ac3e...@news.fdn.com, N. D. LEED wrote:
>> You miss the point. It's not a question of heterosexual normalcy. As a man,
>> your homosexual tendencies manifested by your desire to have sex with other
>> men is considered by most humans to be "abnormal." Does that clear up the
>> confusion for you?
> It isn't abnormal to me. I don't necessarily assume that others have more
> validity in their opinions than I do. What, exactly, makes "most humans" an
> authority? Numbers? Before Galileo's time was the earth actually flat?
Ostensibly, he means "statistically abnormal", but he's heavily
counting on the negative connotation of "abnormal" -> "wrong".
>> BTW - Please don't trot out the monkeys and the rest of the circus animals
>> for us again. We seen that show and have come to the conclusion that while
>> they are cute, animals are just not humans.
> Huh? I'm missing your cleaver allegorical reference somewhere.
He's obviously referring to the following song-and-dance:
1) anti-gay person claims gayness is "unnatural" because "animals
don't do it" (making the implicit argument that "unnatural"
things should never be countenanced)
2) pro-gay person notes that a good number of animal species *do*
exhibit homosexual behavior
3) anti-gay person abandons original argument and responds,
"But we're *better* than animals!", trying to distract
from the fact that said anti-gay person brought up animals
first
-- Clay
John Higdon
> You obviously are more astute than the rest, seeing
> that you differentiated GENDER from BEHAVIOR.
Gender is not defined by behavior. Two straight men are as prohibited from
marrying as two gay men. The prohibition is gender-defined, not
behavior-defined. The fact that two straight men probably wouldn't want to
get married to each other is irrelevant.
> Let's see how long it takes the rest of them to get it...
Yes, let's see.
John Higdon
> Biologically correct. I'd ask you what part
> of that you DON'T understand, but based
> on your reaction, it's pretty apparent... :O)
What are the limits on biological correctness in terms of physical
functions, motor ability, blood chemistry, hormone levels, sensory acumen,
etc., etc.? Do you only take one factor into consideration?
Man
Patent_Worm wrote in message <8a6hnq$1djg$1...@news.aros.net>...