Fwd: [OGLPC Discussion List] Fw: The Marriage Bomb
James Nimmo
-
> Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:56:53 -0400
>
> Marriage Bomb
>
> Village Voice, July 31, 2001
> The Gay Marriage Bomb
> Richard Goldstein, Village Voice
>
> Ralph Reed, who put the Christian Coalition on
> the map, gave that
> group some surprising advice when he left it to
> become a political
> consultant in 1997. Reed urged his
> co-religionists to stop making
> repression of gay rights the centerpiece of
> their politics. His
> conservative clients -- most notably George W.
> Bush -- have done just that,
> pursuing policies that advance homophobia by
> stealth rather than statute.
> But in the past month, the Republican right has
> shown how productive an
> overtly antigay agenda can still be.
>
> First, Congress passed a law denying
> federal funds to school
> districts that withhold support from the Boy
> Scouts. Then the House passed
> a bill that exempts programs run by religious
> charities from state and local
> antidiscrimination laws. This resolution, now
> pending in the Senate, is the
> most regressive labor law since the 1950s. It
> would allow a Christian group
> that denies jobs to Jews to qualify for federal
> money. Yet the debate over
> the bill focused on homosexuals. It shows how
> far most of us are from
> understanding that gay people are canaries in
> the coal mine when it comes to
> civil rights.
>
> Now comes an attempt to amend the U.S.
> Constitution, not in order to
> expand liberty but to deny it to a whole group
> of Americans -- guess who?
> The proposed 28th Amendment would not only
> define marriage as a bond between
> a man and a woman, but deny "the legal
> incidents" of marriage to anyone
> else. On July 12, a group of conservative
> scholars and religious leaders --
> with black ministers up front -- held a press
> conference to launch what they
> expect to be a 10-year campaign. Its object is
> not just to outlaw same-sex
> marriage but to undo the rights that gay
> couples have gained.
>
> "Our view is that the clear meaning of
> not providing 'the legal
> incidents' of marriage means we cannot offer
> any rights that would be
> reserved for married couples," says Christopher
> Anders, legislative counsel
> to the American Civil Liberties Union. Local
> statutes allowing unmarried
> partners (of either sex) to share health plans,
> leases, pensions, hospital
> visits, and even the adoption of each other's
> children, would be nullified.
> This is why the ACLU calls the proposed
> amendment "a nuclear bomb." Gay
> couples are ground zero, but its impact would
> radiate across American
> society.
>
> The good news is that an amendment is
> very hard to ratify.
>
> Two-thirds of both congressional houses (or a
> constitutional convention) and
> three-quarters of the state legislatures must
> sign on before the process is
> complete. Despite overwhelming support, the
> nearly 12-year-old
> flag-desecration amendment has yet to make it
> past these hurdles. Those who
> remember that may be inclined to regard the
> marriage bomb as a paper tiger.
> But as Anders points out, "Most people have no
> idea that the
> flag-desecration amendment is still around.
> Just this week, the House
> passed it with 209 votes [nine more than
> necessary]. In the last Congress
> it failed by only two Senate votes."
>
> That's why the ACLU is now on high alert.
> "There's definitely
> activity going on around this [marriage
> amendment]," Anders says. "I got
> two calls this morning from senators asking for
> more information because
> they're starting to hear from constituents."
>
> The amendment has already run into the
> split between social
> conservatives and libertarians of the right.
> Last week, The Washington
> Times, no friend of the cohabiting masses, came
> out against it, while the
> more sectarian National Review backed it. As
> for the Bush administration,
> it is hewing to Ralph Reed's line and staying
> neutral (so far). It's
> unlikely that the amendment will be introduced
> until its sponsors have
> firmed up their support. That may take some
> doing, since this sweeping
> proposal stands in stark contrast to the almost
> sacred conservative belief
> in local control. But when it comes to gay
> rights, many conservative
> principles go out the window. And nothing
> raises the stakes like same-sex
> marriage. Here the right has broad support.
>
> Thirty-four states have passed laws that
> resemble the federal Defense
> of Marriage Act, which allows states to ignore
> Civil Union statutes like the
> one in Vermont. Voters in Alaska and Hawaii
> have amended their
> constitutions in order to overrule court
> rulings expanding marriage rights.
> This explains why the amendment's sponsors are
> couching it as an attempt to
> curb judicial fiat. They won't succeed in the
> short run, but what will
> happen as the world turns?
>
> It's no longer true that marriage means
> the same thing in every
> nation. Only Holland has true same-sex
> marriage, but many countries --
> including France, Germany, Portugal, Canada,
> and the Scandinavian states --
> offer some version of what the French call
> "civil solidarity pacts." And
> despite the warnings about God's wrath
> descending, there's been little
> opposition in America to employers and local
> governments offering
> domestic-partner benefits.
>
> But there are crucial incidents of
> marriage that this halfway status
> doesn't provide. Last week, the city of Tampa
> regretfully announced that it
> could not extend survivor benefits to the
> same-sex partner of a female
> police officer killed in the line of duty.
> There are gay couples who can't
> adopt each other's kids in states where only
> married people can do that?
> And what about a lesbian mother forbidden to
> see her children because she
> lives with another woman? These inequalities
> are a major reason why there
> is broad support for expanding domestic-partner
> benefits in liberal states.
> California is about to do just that. As the
> momentum builds, so will the
> backlash -- especially since more and more
> heterosexuals are choosing
> something other than marriage for at least part
> of their lives.
>
> This is the real "crisis" the
> traditionalists are trying to address
> in their usual preemptory way. The structures
> of intimacy are changing, and
> new forms are evolving to suit these
> innovations. The question is whether
> the state should subsidize marriage in the
> orthodox sense while turning its
> back on the many varieties of "reform"
> practiced by millions of cohabiting
> couples, young and old, straight and gay.
>
> The slippery slope will definitely be in
> sight if this amendment is
> ratified. Next, conservatives will go after
> no-fault divorce and other
> entitlements of the self-determined life. Yes,
> your freedom is at stake,
> but there's an even more important issue here.
> If you believe, as liberals
> do, that the main purpose of government is to
> alleviate pain, then the right
> to marry takes on a tangible urgency. Should
> couples suffer because of how
> they structure their relationships? Should
> lovers have to carry health-care
> proxies in order to visit each other in the
> hospital? Should children pay a
> price because their parents aren't wed? Or
> should these unions be codified
> in an equitable way?
>
> Some libertarians think the state should
> abandon marriage entirely,
> leaving it to religious institutions as was
> done in the Middle Ages. We can
> debate that in an alternate universe. The
> question before us now is whether
> to inhibit liberty and promote pain in the name
> of tradition. The answer,
> as Bob Dylan sang (in his pre-conservative
> days), is blowin' in the wind.
>
> 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003
> (E-Mail: edi...@villagevoice.com ) (
> http://www.villagevoice.com )
>
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0130/goldstein.php
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
--
This is message #5.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://www.queernet.org> for details.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Chief Thracian
<violad...@yahoo.com> quoted a news article:
<<
It shows how far most of us are from understanding that gay people are
canaries in the coal mine when it comes to civil rights.
>>
I humbly suggest adding Tweety-Bird to our short list of gay symbols.
So that, when the time comes (certainly by Xmas 2001) that all known
gay symbols will be outlawed, we can replace the pink triangle on our
clothing and jewelry, with that famous yellow canary from Warner
Brothers!
---picture this:
(Tweety bird w/soldier's helmet tilted on head, grenade in hand:)
"I tawt I saw a homophobic puddy tat. I did! I did!"
KABLOOEY!
---end of picture
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #32.
David Thompson
> I humbly suggest adding Tweety-Bird to our short list of gay symbols. So that,
> when the time comes (certainly by Xmas 2001) that all known gay symbols will be
> outlawed, we can replace the pink triangle on our clothing and jewelry, with that
> famous yellow canary from Warner Brothers!
Let's not stop with Tweety. The entire Warner Bros. cartoon conglomerate could
represent the various aspects of our various communities.
Foghorn Leghorn could be for the leather community given how much he likes to paddle
that dog.
Pepe Le Pew could be for the lesbians.
The Tazmanian Devel could represent the bears.
Sylvester could be the daddy type that just doesn't get it.
Daffy Duck would represent the high-strung artiste.
Whaddaya thinK?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
This is message #40.
Chief Thracian
<david_ala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Let's not stop with Tweety. The entire Warner Bros.
>cartoon conglomerate could represent the various
>aspects of our various communities.
Well, I think it's an excellent idea, to incorporate the entire
pantheon of Looney Toons for our own Gay Agenda. After all, weren't
they all gay to begin with? (Where did they go wrong...er, straight?
Oh, yeah, Disney bought them out.)
>Daffy Duck would represent the high-strung artiste.
Hey, that's *my favorite character of all time...so quit pickin' on
him. Oh, wait a minute, I AM a high-strung artiste. That's
deth-pi-cable!
On a serious note:
I also entertain the notion of declaring Sylvester the Cat as the
Patron Saint of Neglected Children. For in my generation, and later
ones, it was his antics (and that of other Looney Toons characters),
that made us laugh, when nothing else in our broken homes and
childhood afforded us this wonderful joy, to show us that life can
indeed be good. (I chose Sylvester as representative for all Warner
Bros. cartoon characters.)
By studying their cartoons, I conclude there had to be at least *some
people working for Warner Brothers, who really cared about
children...enough to delight us and make us forget our sorrows, for a
time. It was more than a job for them; it was a calling. Bless every
one of them, for it was a mission well done.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #45.
Eric Payne
Chief Thracian wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:33:37 -0700, David Thompson
> <david_ala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Let's not stop with Tweety. The entire Warner Bros.
> >cartoon conglomerate could represent the various
> >aspects of our various communities.
>
> Well, I think it's an excellent idea, to incorporate the entire
> pantheon of Looney Toons for our own Gay Agenda. After all, weren't
> they all gay to begin with? (Where did they go wrong...er, straight?
> Oh, yeah, Disney bought them out.)
No they didn't. The Looney Toons are wholly owned by AOL (Warner Brothers).
But outside of that, WhyTF are you using terms like "gay agenda"? My gay agenda:
Wake up. Shower and personal hygiene. Work. Eat. Do Laundry/clean house. Sleep. Wake
up.
Frankly, I've read your rantings in various political newsgroups; even read your
screams of "gay discrimination!" in your little bicycle newsgroup... and let me tell
you something, asshole...
It is QUITE possible to dislike you, intently, and it has absolutely nothing to do
with you being gay.
You're simply the type of person who - if there's no controversy they can set their
sights on - will CREATE one, then scream for help afterwards. The idea of
"community" never enters your mind until AFTER you've gotten yourself in some
fracas, then expect us all to come running.
Your "ideas" as to what the gay community should do do not adhere to mine; your
calls for violence are directly opposed to the way I live my life.
You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine.
But your opinions should NEVER be put forth, publicly, as encompassing the gay
"community's" opinions. Period.
I notice how many of us went running over to your bicycle group to defend you; did
you?
Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
--
This is message #46.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>No they didn't. The Looney Toons are wholly owned by AOL (Warner Brothers).
Excuse me; thanks for clearing up this matter. AOL is, however,
another horrid monopoly that, like Disney, steamrolls over the little
guy. I boycott everything by AOL and Disney, as a political statement.
Micro$oft, too.
>But outside of that, WhyTF are you using terms like "gay agenda"?
Lighten up, sweetheart. Having a bad hair day? (Hey, at least you
*have hair!) Subtlety in humor is obviously not your forte.
>Frankly, I've read your rantings in various political newsgroups; even read your
>screams of "gay discrimination!" in your little bicycle newsgroup...
I was not screaming or ranting, dear. That sounds so much like the
ploy of homophobes, to stereotype gays who stand up for their rights,
as nellie ranters. There was a very ugly situation I confronted, and
still am, until justice is done.
>It is QUITE possible to dislike you, intently, and it has absolutely nothing to do
>with you being gay.
And everything to do with being ignorant.
>You're simply the type of person who - if there's no controversy they can set their
>sights on - will CREATE one, then scream for help afterwards.
If you study my many articles on Usenet, and my writings on my
website, you'll see that all the issues I bring up, directly confront
both tacit and blatant, homophobia. You seem to have no sense of the
issue of tacit bigotry, only those that hit you on the head. Subtlety
in politics is obviously not your forte.
>Your "ideas" as to what the gay community should do do not adhere to mine; your
>calls for violence are directly opposed to the way I live my life.
Where have I called for violence? Please site any messages where I
have proposed violence...that is *not a matter of clear and simple
self defense. I doubt you'll find any.
>I notice how many of us went running over to your
>bicycle group to defend you; did you?
>Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Oh, I noticed alright. Nothing goes by me that is important to take
account of. The Day of Reckoning is right around the corner. Eric, you
are truly a "Payne".
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #47.
Eric Payne
Chief Thracian wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:10:18 -0700, Eric Payne <jeric...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >No they didn't. The Looney Toons are wholly owned by AOL (Warner Brothers).
>
> Excuse me; thanks for clearing up this matter. AOL is, however,
> another horrid monopoly that, like Disney, steamrolls over the little
> guy. I boycott everything by AOL and Disney, as a political statement.
> Micro$oft, too.
>
> >But outside of that, WhyTF are you using terms like "gay agenda"?
>
> Lighten up, sweetheart. Having a bad hair day? (Hey, at least you
> *have hair!) Subtlety in humor is obviously not your forte.
Sure do, at 42. A full head of thick brown hair, studded with cowlicks.
No humor? Every day, I'm confronted with those who insist there IS a gay agenda in the
schools, in the government, in the workplace... and people should just be left alone to
hate fags. Every day, I have to convince more than one person there is no "gay agenda,"
just as there's no "straight agenda." Then along comes another faggot who publicly
states he wants to "subvert" a corporate product FOR the "gay agenda."
>
>
> >Frankly, I've read your rantings in various political newsgroups; even read your
> >screams of "gay discrimination!" in your little bicycle newsgroup...
>
> I was not screaming or ranting, dear. That sounds so much like the
> ploy of homophobes, to stereotype gays who stand up for their rights,
> as nellie ranters. There was a very ugly situation I confronted, and
> still am, until justice is done.
Ah, Ezekiel, your USEnet postings - especially in alt.politics.homosexuality speak for
themselves. You have (and do) rant and scream and have called for an "armed uprising."
Go to Google... do an advanced search; it's all there.
>
>
> >It is QUITE possible to dislike you, intently, and it has absolutely nothing to do
> >with you being gay.
>
> And everything to do with being ignorant.
Ah.. people who dislike you are ignorant? Of what? Your stunning personality? I know you
only through your postings... where EVERYTHING that has somehow slighted you is some
overt act of homophobia. Your past postings, as both Ezekiel and your present persona,
show that, repeatedly. It used to be, couldn't even pull new headers in
alt.politics.homosexuality without getting a few postings (and if one only pulled new
headers once a day - a LOT of postings) making some new accusation of homophobia, where
none existed.
You did it here, recently, in your comments about "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood." After
admitting you, yourself, had never seen this chidren's program, you still pronounced him
guilty of homophobia because in all his years on the air, he had never singled out gays
to be his "neighbor."
You choose to look at life as exclusionary. That's your right. I choose not to.
>
>
> >You're simply the type of person who - if there's no controversy they can set their
> >sights on - will CREATE one, then scream for help afterwards.
>
> If you study my many articles on Usenet, and my writings on my
> website, you'll see that all the issues I bring up, directly confront
> both tacit and blatant, homophobia. You seem to have no sense of the
> issue of tacit bigotry, only those that hit you on the head. Subtlety
> in politics is obviously not your forte.
Your idea of "tacit bigotry" is if someone doesn't specifically single out some group
for inclusion. As I said, above, you choose to see exclusion where the majority of
people wouldn't... now if there was a specific group mentioned for inclusion and none
mentioned for exclusion, that would be tacit bigotry, as the statement could be viewed
as a "this group only" need apply. If there is specific exclusion, that is blatant and
overt bigotry.
>
>
> >Your "ideas" as to what the gay community should do do not adhere to mine; your
> >calls for violence are directly opposed to the way I live my life.
>
> Where have I called for violence? Please site any messages where I
> have proposed violence...that is *not a matter of clear and simple
> self defense. I doubt you'll find any.
Ah, Ezekiel, you're going to try to say you never posted a message along the lines of
(and I'm paraphrasing here) "gays should take arms and rebel against their oppressors"?
It's all there in alt.politics.homosexuality. There are also enough people in this
newsgroup/e-mail list who are aware of your past postings, aren't there? Heck, our
moderator even publicly stated, not very long ago, he was aware of your past postings
and calls for violence. Have you forgotten so soon?
>
>
> >I notice how many of us went running over to your
> >bicycle group to defend you; did you?
>
> >Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
>
> Oh, I noticed alright. Nothing goes by me that is important to take
> account of.
Oh? You noticed that no one thought you initiating a conversation that led the other
party to using an epithet against you thought that to be homophobic? Do you see the true
importance in that, or are you just saving that up as another "hurt" and example of
"tacit bigotry"? I read the thread; I also read further than you obviously wished anyone
to... to a posting, after the use of the epithet, where the poster apologized for using
that epithet and stated he had written in anger, having felt provoked by you.
> The Day of Reckoning is right around the corner. Eric, you are truly a "Payne".
<Yawn>Gee. What an original come-back. Let's see... I'm 42... I wonder how many times
I've heard/seen variations of "Payne"/"Pain"?
How erudite.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
--
This is message #50.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
<<
No humor? Every day, I'm confronted with those who insist there IS a
gay agenda in the schools, in the government, in the workplace... and
people should just be left alone to hate fags.
>>
Sorry, but you did not prove your point. I used the phrase "gay
agenda" facetiously...as many other gays do, when joking. You are
picking at non-issues in order to attack me, because I don't suit your
conservative, hetero-ass-licking notions.
Besides which: What political group doesn't have an agenda? "Agenda"
is not a dirty word...yet you seem to accept that as the initial
premise; thus run around claiming we DON'T have an agenda. We
certainly do: which is to defend our struggles for equality...and
that's a Good Thing. The Christian Right has their agenda, women's
rights movement has theirs, African Americans have theirs, and so on.
<<
Then along comes another faggot who publicly states he wants to
"subvert" a corporate product FOR the "gay agenda."
>>
You're wrong there: I'm no "faggot". YOU might like to think of
yourself as one, and that's fine with me, for you're doing a good job
of convincing me.
<<
Ah, Ezekiel, your USEnet postings - especially in
alt.politics.homosexuality speak for themselves. You have (and do)
rant and scream and have called for an "armed uprising."Go to
Google... do an advanced search; it's all there.
>>
Well, you take two words out of context...which is quite convenient
for bolstering your weak case against me. I am all for taking up arms
against a hostile society, as an act of self defense and civil
dissent. After all, many women these days arm themselves with mace or
handguns...and for damned good reason. Do you care to attack them for
desiring to make their lives a little safer, in this violent society?
And why would you contribute to the notion that gays should never,
ever, resist violent attacks with anything other than verbal reuttals,
lobbying, and voting.
I am also warning gays that we need to unite, and organize against a
likely holocaust against us. So tell me: how does one do this without
forming our own army, or militia...fully armed? All my suggestions to
bear arms come from a philosophy of aggressive retaliation as a result
of violent attacks that continue, and only promise to erupt into a
real civil war.
You still have not proven via quoting my own articles--IN
CONTEXT--that I propose any form of violence, other than in self
defense against a genuine threat to one's life and limb.
>Ah.. people who dislike you are ignorant?
So far, that seems to be the case...because not one hateful person has
come up with any intelligent, rational reason for being so mad at me.
>Of what? Your stunning personality?
Jealousy of my talents often are the reason.
>You did it here, recently, in your comments about "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood." After
>admitting you, yourself, had never seen this chidren's program, you still pronounced him
>guilty of homophobia because in all his years on the air, he had never singled out gays
>to be his "neighbor."
Mr. Rogers is culpable of not educating children as to the "normalcy"
of homosexuality...just like most other kiddie shows. Just because he
toes the status quo, does not make this acceptable. In Nazi Germany,
many shows (radio, theater, etc.) preached bigoted ideas against
Jews...so I guess one couldn't single out a lone show, and accuse it
of spreading bigotry. After all, the majority would threaten to crush
you!
And yes, I have watched several of his shows, and was absolutely
disgusted by the boring pap that emanated there.
There is no sane excuse, IMO, for hiding the truth about gays in
children shows...considering how serious is the matter of homophobia
in our society...even worse than racism was prior to the 1960's.
Children's shows began to educate their viewers to the normalcy of
African Americans, at that time. Yet there seems to be COMPLETE
RESISTANCE to do same on behalf of gays. That is unforgiveable, and
will soon demand a high karmic price for such willful sabotage of our
community.
>You choose to look at life as exclusionary. That's your right. I choose not to.
I exclude homophobia, and I can perceive how it runs a thread in every
aspect of Amerikan culture. You are too witless to grasp this,
yourself.
>Your idea of "tacit bigotry" is if someone doesn't specifically single out some group
>for inclusion. As I said, above, you choose to see exclusion where the majority of
>people wouldn't...
Because the majority of people think being gay friendly does not
include challenging our present forms of entertainment to cease
perpetrating heterocentric dogma. Our movie theaters are nothing more
than heterocentric indoctrination centers...where all plots are thinly
veiled excuses to brainwash our youth. Many heteros who believe they
are free of homophobia, are only fooling themselves. They have reached
one plateau, which is good...but they don't care to realize there's
another steep climb to reach that final plateau. But most don't bother
to get there...they prefer to tell activists like me to shut up,
instead. Similar to Lincoln's freeing the slaves; yet he remained
stubbornly convinced that black folks were intellectually and
spiritually inferior to whites. That was an important plateau we
reached (freeing slaves), but he needed to go further, to the next
plateaus (true equality).
>Ah, Ezekiel, you're going to try to say you never posted a message along the lines of
>(and I'm paraphrasing here) "gays should take arms and rebel against their oppressors"?
That is the only form of "violence" I promote: self defense. I
certainly do not preach non-violence at any cost, like Quakers. Yet
you would condemn a gay person from using a gun against an attacker
with clear intent to bludgeon him to death? I doubt you'd condemn a
woman for doing same against a potential rapist.
>Heck, our moderator even publicly stated, not very long ago, he
>was aware of your past postings and calls for violence. Have
>you forgotten so soon?
He's only a moderator, not God. Nonetheless, I responded to that
matter, at that time...making absolutely clear what form of
violence--in self defense--I am speaking about. You are merely
stirring up the hash, as if there were anything new to get from
it...counting on the short memories of certain members, and of new
members, who are not familiar with my history of messages.
So I reiterate: I am all for brutally bashing back, at one who starts
doing this to you. Yes, this is violence, but in self defense. How
dare you intimidate our gay brothers into fearing an act of defense
that would save more lives in our community? You are the one, who is
encouraging gays to suffer further violence upon us, as if this were
our divinely chosen lot in life.
>Oh? You noticed that no one thought you initiating a conversation that led the other
>party to using an epithet against you thought that to be homophobic?
No one discussed it, so I can't see where you come off as having any
insight to this matter. I was only putting on public record, a
homophobic incident in another group, here in Gay Mecca. I find that
Usenet is very handy for keeping records, that cost the reporter
nothing in so doing, except a little effort in writing it down. I
believe more gays should do this...for the time will come for our own
Nuremburg Trials, where we will seek out our worst enemies, and
imprison or kill them. Keeping records on the Internet (via Usenet,
for one) will facilitate this.
><Yawn>Gee. What an original come-back. Let's see... I'm 42... I wonder how many times
>I've heard/seen variations of "Payne"/"Pain"?
Well, Payne you any attention is sure a waste of time. I got better
things to do. Bye, loser. You've only Payne-ted yourself into a
corner, while giving me the prize to walk home with.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #64.