Any same-sex marriage opposition?
Jack of Hearts
Christopher Beattie wrote:
>
> Charles G. Peckham wrote:
> >
> > *************************************************************************
> > Excuse me, but who are you to tell someone who they can and can't marry?
> > And how could it possibly effect you if a man married a man or a woman
> > married a woman. How would it hurt you. Grow up and realize that no one
> > knows all.
>
> Marriage, as western society defines it, is a specific set of
> conditions where a specific number of people of specific genders
> create a mutual pair bond with each other. Traditionally this
> was a lifetime bond, but in secular society that has long gone
> out of fashion.
>
> Let us further speculate on the arbitary removal of the gender
> restriction. If one man can marry one man, why can not one man
> marry one woman and one man, or one man marry 20 women, or 20
> women marry 20 men who in turn are married to each other,
> and all the various combinations therein?
Invalid argument. By that logic, I could say that having minorities in
elected positions is wrong because then they will want more and more
public offices and eventually a politician is going to end up
controlling everything.
> Why not throw all the rules out and consider the cohabitation
> of any number of people a valid marriage?
I don't see what is wrong with say, a threesome marrage, but that's not
the point. See above.
> Unforunately, there are many religions which define a stricter
> definition of marriage. Who for example, should define "marriage"
> the church or the state? (Since the church on the average has
> been around longer than the state, I would suggest that the state
> not the change their terms, call them common pair bonds if you
> must.)
Actually I hear that the concept of marrage originated as a *gift* of
one land owners daughter to a man so that that man could inherit the
land or form a bond between two land owners.
> --
> | _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
> | /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
> | / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
> | /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
> | |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
--
The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the
road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and
I have never regretted having chosen it. --Albert Einstein
http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/freethink.html
To reply via E-mail the E-ddress is ju...@centuryinter.net
#482 anxiously awaits your drivel. (^;
Cassidy Vare
[alt.america, alt.anarchism, talk.abortion, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
alt.christnet, talk.christianity, alt.apocalypse] trimmed.
In article <5jgfrq$k4e$1...@news.ptd.net>, bu...@postoffice.ptd.net (RyteSyde)
wrote:
>
> Amen john1
>
> I agree with your position whole-heartedly and may I add it isn't
> so much homo's themselves that the 'religious reich' ,(as Ward calls it),
> are against...it is the perversions many of them take part it...but more
> then that, it is their very effective agenda to incorperate their
> perversions into mainstream population using grade school as their
> medium.
>
> Buzz
1) Please document *ONE* instance of gays using schools to "incorporate"
their "perversions" into mainstream population.
2) Who are you calling "mainstream population"? I am heterosexual and
really have no interest in being lumped together with you and your allies.
--
Cassidy Vare, #247
hey Jupiter
nothings been the same
so are you gay
are you blue
thought we both could use a friend
to run to
-Tori Amos, hey Jupiter
To reply by email remove the capital X's from the address above. (to prevent commercial bulk-mail)
Diane Mathews
Newsgroups trimmed.
In article <opzpunx...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Kirk Heck writes:
>
> Kirk> Bottom line: Homosexuality is immoral in the eye of god and the eye of man.
>
>Not in the eyes of many men.
>
>Any god or gods have nothing to do with civil law,
>so that is irrelevant.
Those who don't use the Bible in cafeteria-style "Christianity"
will also note that what homosexuality might have been evil in
the Bible isn't as evil as most heterosexual relationships.
And yet somehow het. relationships are "moral"...
In the eyes of some gods homosexuality isn't immoral.
In the eyes of many people homosexuality isn't immoral, as
Andrew said.
And, as Andrew also said, god(s) don't define civil law.
The relationship between any given code of morality and
law isn't rock-solid either.
--
FSDM #0.1/2 Komrade Snapperhead, 2nd Mate
My opinions; not my employer's opinions.
Fetus
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>
> Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Jeffrey> No it doesn't . It treats them the same. Men may not marry men, or
>
> >Nope, a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman.
> >That is not the same.
>
> It is not discrimantion based upon your sex. It is discrimination
> based upon what you want to do. Definetly not the same thing.
>
Unfortunately (for you- I think it's just great), your argument was
rejected by the Supreme Court in 1967. The Commonwealth of VIrginia
argued that their antimiscegenation law, which forbade blacks from
marrying whites, was nondiscriminatory, since both whites and blacks
were not allowed to marry each other. THe Supreme Court said no, that
obviously discriminated against both races based on "what they wanted to
do"- racial classifications arer almost always constitutionally infirm.
Sex classifications are not subject to quite so high a standard, but the
government still has to show that the classification is substantially
related to an important governmental interest. And since the right to
marriage is involved, actually, you can argue that restrictions on
marriage have to be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
(the same strict standard for evaluating racial classifications).
So your argument fails, Bowers v. Hardwick will probably be overturned
in the next 10-15 years, eliminating all sodomy laws, and I think we'll
see gay marriage in most states within the next 20 years or so.
Fetus
Matt Pillsbury
Trim alt.america, alt.kill.the.whales, talk.christianity,
alt.apocalypse, alt.culture.internet, alt.culture.usenet, alt.evil,
alt
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 22:41:19 +0200, Jeanne <Lj...@hava.edu> wrote:
>Dana Orgovan wrote:
>> > > Marriage can be demonstrated to be just as sinfull.
>> > > in the book genesis you will find that lot went to sodom&gomorrah and every man in that city was gay, and lot tried to give the men there his virgin daughters, and they refused the women and stated that they wanted the men that was in lot's house (not knowing they were angels sent by God to destroy the city, for being perverted). As you read, you will find that God destroyed that entire city because of homosexuality
>> > alo...@infi.net
>> And it didn't work and God hasn't tried that again.
>Are you sure? What about AIDS?
Yeah, God must really have it in for those straight Africans and
hemophiliacs as well. Are you Christian Identity?
______________________________________________________________________
Matt Pillsbury "It is impossible to distinguish
Matthew_...@brown.edu historical accident from the axiomatic
basis of the universe"-T.H. Huxley
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Fetus <fe...@inow.com> wrote:
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Jeffrey> No it doesn't . It treats them the same. Men may not marry men, or
>>
>> >Nope, a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman.
>> >That is not the same.
>>
>> It is not discrimantion based upon your sex. It is discrimination
>> based upon what you want to do. Definetly not the same thing.
>>
>Unfortunately (for you- I think it's just great), your argument was
>rejected by the Supreme Court in 1967. The Commonwealth of VIrginia
>argued that their antimiscegenation law, which forbade blacks from
>marrying whites, was nondiscriminatory, since both whites and blacks
>were not allowed to marry each other. THe Supreme Court said no, that
>obviously discriminated against both races based on "what they wanted to
>do"- racial classifications arer almost always constitutionally infirm.
Define "black" and "white". At what level of "blackness" did it
become impossible to marry a "white". How did you determine the
racial ancestry of each pariticipant. Race and sex are not the same
thing.
>Sex classifications are not subject to quite so high a standard, but the
>government still has to show that the classification is substantially
>related to an important governmental interest. And since the right to
>marriage is involved, actually, you can argue that restrictions on
>marriage have to be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
>(the same strict standard for evaluating racial classifications).
>So your argument fails,
In your opinion of course. You have yet to demonstrate how the
continuum between races matches the polarization of sex.
>Bowers v. Hardwick will probably be overturned
>in the next 10-15 years, eliminating all sodomy laws, and I think we'll
>see gay marriage in most states within the next 20 years or so.
What about same-sex marriage?
JSL
Crnival1
>> Most AIDS victims are heterosexual (or non-sexual - ie. children).
>
>Not in the US, moron.
> They're homos and drug addicts. The children
>that have AIDS here contract it from tainted blood tranfusions or are
>born afflicted because the drug addict mother is infected.
I think the real point is that most NEW cases of AIDS are among
heterosexuals, to be exact heterosexual, young females in the US. The
falasy that only "bad" people get AIDS should be dead by now but there are
still plenty out there who are homophobic enough to insist this beyond the
actuality of the diseases progress. BTW children can get AIDS from their
mothers, that is true, but remember that there had to be a father in the
picture and he could have very well been the infected one. Homosexuals
and drug addicts have plenty of people giving them condoms and needles and
the rise of the drug in their population has slowed. It is the people who
think that only homosexuals and drug addicts have AIDS who are stupid
enough to think that they are beyond needing protection in sex. I cannot
wait unitl one of those televangelists secretaries gives them AIDS and see
how their tune changes then.
Carnival1 #4
-Life is a carnival-of sorts.
"I like turning, especially 'round" Eeyore
Should I change my name to Carnival4?
cb
Please read this entire posting before moving on. I'll start by
saying that I don't have any stories of people I know that have made
money
with the plan that will follow. I just stumbled on to another persons
posting
and decided to give it some thought.
You may or may not have seen these postings before. At first
itsounds
immediatly like a scam to part you from your hard earned dollars.PLEASE!
put
aside you doubts for a moment. I am a hard working individual from a
suberb
of Houston, Texas. I work long hours at a local small company. I'm not
out to
scam anybody, I'm just trying to get in on what looks like a way to make
some
extra money without hurting anybody. If everyone who gets involved in
the
plan plays honestly and puts a little faith in strangers around the
world, we
all could stand to make alot of money easily.
Ok, here's how it works. Below is a list of 5 names and
addreses.Mine
is #5. What you must do is send 1 (thats one ), dollar to each person on
that
list. Please don't leave me now!! I know, this is the part that sounds
bad.
But please read on.
Now what you do is compose a letter like this, of your own. Take
the
1st name off the list and put your name and address in the number 5
slot. You
then post your letter in at least 200 Newsgroups. I plan to post this in
at
least 1000 Newsgroups. The more you post, the better chance you have of
people reading and responding to your letter.
You've probably figured out how I stand to make money. It works
the
same for you. When you post your letter, my name moves to #4. Now my
name is
out there my original 1000 times plus your minimum 200 times. If only
one
person, think about it, one person out of the potentialy millions of
people
that could see our letters, responds to each letter, thats $1200.00 for
me, $
200.00 for you. Now when someone responds to your letter, you are #4 and
I am
#3. You can see how many times our names and address could be out on the
net
in no time. The more people respond,the more dough rolls in. It could
snowball into a very lot of money.
Sooner or later the InterNet will be flooded with so many of
these
letters it just won't work anymore. But with 30 to 50 thousand new
subscribers every day, it should take a long time before this plan wears
out.
One thing I almost forgot to mention. Along with your dollar you
must
include a piece of paper thats says " PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR MAILINGLIST
".
This is a very important step. This in effect creates a business that
you are
getting paid for. You are getting a dollar to add all people who
respond, to
your " mailing list ". This makes the whole thing legal. And remember to
claim the extra income on your taxes. As long as Uncle Sam gets his cut,
he'll be less likely to to try to ban this plan from the InterNet.
Like I said, I don't know if this will work or not, but I mailed
my 5
dollars yesterday, so somebody is making money off me. I figured what
the
hell, if I get nothing from this, I just won't smoke for a few days,
there's
my 5 bucks right there. Below is your list. I'm D.L. Opperman,
#5 on the list. You will notice
my address is a PO Box, and so are some of the others. This is not so I
can
hide my real address. This is in case this works, my mailbox at home
wouldn't
handle the volume. Call it wishful thinking, I'll call it optimism. (
even
though I think I spelled it wrong )
Well here ya go, thanks for being paitient, good luck to us all,
and
post away.
1. B.K.
12 Chasemont Ct.
Baltimore, MD
21209
2. P.G.
P.O. Box 340286
Columbus, OH
43235
3.R.M.
Box 28
Cardwell, Mt.
59721
4. J.A.
2401 W24th St. # 301
Greeley, Co.
80631
5. C.B.
4206 Billingsley
Houston,Texas
77009
P.S. I've seen in other letters that the 200 minimum is very
important.
I'm not sure how important, but like I said earlier, the more the
better.
Also, if 200 or 1000 seems like a lot to post...it is, But after a few
it
gets easier and each post should take only 30 seconds or so. Spend a few
hours a day for a week or so and you should be able to post 1000...no
problem. After you compose your letter, don't forget to save it before
you
post it, that way you don't have to type the whole letter 1000 times!!
The only thing you have to do is pick a news group, add a catchy
subject,
and hit the post button. One more thing, I just want to stress the fact
that
I am not out to scam anybody. I have not disguised my name or Email
address.
If you want to wait a few weeks and Email me, I'll be more than happy to
let
you know how things are going. But remember, until people like you
start
sending dollars and posting letters, nothing is going to happen for
anyone.
stufnten
On 28 Apr 1997, Adrian wrote:
> >How about me and my sister as well?
>
> Why not? The Roman Emporers were at it all the time.
> Keep it in the family =)
Dude, that invoked some imagery I could definitely have gone without.
stufnten, Toby
Kaufman will suffer
Fetus
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>
Fetus wrote:
> >>
> >Unfortunately (for you- I think it's just great), your argument was
> >rejected by the Supreme Court in 1967. The Commonwealth of VIrginia
> >argued that their antimiscegenation law, which forbade blacks from
> >marrying whites, was nondiscriminatory, since both whites and blacks
> >were not allowed to marry each other. THe Supreme Court said no, that
> >obviously discriminated against both races based on "what they wanted to
> >do"- racial classifications arer almost always constitutionally infirm.
>
> Define "black" and "white". At what level of "blackness" did it
> become impossible to marry a "white". How did you determine the
> racial ancestry of each pariticipant. Race and sex are not the same
> thing.
Most southern states had laws that said a person was "black" if even one
of their great-great-grandparents was black. I suppose birth
certificates, family Bibles (people recorded family info in them), and
the like were used. And most of the south was small-toan and rural, so i
suppose most people just knew who was "black" and who was "white."
Lousiana, I believe, still has such laws in effect, which has resulted
in white people being classified as "black." Of course, "passing"
occurred, but that didn't invavlidate the classification. It just meant
some people found ways to defraud the authorities- it would be like a
man marrying a convincing transvestite.
>
> >So your argument fails,
>
> In your opinion of course.
Or the opinion of anyone with an understanding of constitutional law.
You have yet to demonstrate how the
> continuum between races matches the polarization of sex.
I just did. I didn't think I had to , but I you obviously don't know
much about U.S. history. Whether the classification is created based on
an amorphous idea like race or a fairly fixed (not completely-there are
transsexuals) one like sex doesn't really matter. It's discriminatory to
prevent consenting adults from marrying.
>
> >Bowers v. Hardwick will probably be overturned
> >in the next 10-15 years, eliminating all sodomy laws, and I think we'll
> >see gay marriage in most states within the next 20 years or so.
>
> What about same-sex marriage?
Very funny. <groan>. Yes, in modern parlance, "gay" usually means
"homosexual" or "same-sex." I see your vocabulary matches your knowledge
of law and current events- they're about 35 years behind the times...
Fetus
Adrian
> Jeffrey Scott Linder spake thusly :-
>Alan Miles <ami...@interport.net> wrote:
>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>
>>> It does not apply to ALL straight couples. I straight man cannot
>>> marry a straight man. Just as a gay man may not marry a gay man.
>>Dear,
>>A straight man wouldn't marry a man.
><<Time Warp Device Engaged>>
>Son, I say Son, a white woman wouldn't want to marry a black man.
>Doncha see?
>>It is idiotic to claim that this
>>prohibition justifies the legal ban against gay couples marrying.
>So much for the 14th amendment.
>>Further, you fail to say why a straight man may not marry a man if they
>>both choose so. Liberty demands that individuals should do as they
>>wish.
>How about me and my sister as well?
Why not? The Roman Emporers were at it all the time.
Keep it in the family =)
--
__ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
-------------------- http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Remove "SPAM" when replying via email ** ]
--
"Even the deepest of minds may think shallow thoughts."
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Fetus <fe...@inow.com> wrote:
So you would have no problems if I wish to marry my sister or mother
then? RIght?
>>
>> >Bowers v. Hardwick will probably be overturned
>> >in the next 10-15 years, eliminating all sodomy laws, and I think we'll
>> >see gay marriage in most states within the next 20 years or so.
>>
>> What about same-sex marriage?
>Very funny. <groan>. Yes, in modern parlance, "gay" usually means
>"homosexual" or "same-sex." I see your vocabulary matches your knowledge
>of law and current events- they're about 35 years behind the times...
So what about same-sex marriage? Will the new law allow straight men
to marry straight men? Brothers to marry brothers? Fathers to marry
sons? Mothers to marry daughters?
JSL
Jack of Hearts
Rush Limbahhh group snipped. Those are the last people fit to hold an
argument.
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> Fetus <fe...@inow.com> wrote:
> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >Fetus wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately (for you- I think it's just great), your argument was
>>>> rejected by the Supreme Court in 1967. The Commonwealth of VIrginia
>>>> argued that their antimiscegenation law, which forbade blacks from
>>>> marrying whites, was nondiscriminatory, since both whites and
>>>> blacks were not allowed to marry each other. THe Supreme Court said >>>> no, that obviously discriminated against both races based on "what >>>> they wanted to
>>>> do"- racial classifications arer almost always constitutionally >>>> infirm.
>>> Define "black" and "white". At what level of "blackness" did it
>>> become impossible to marry a "white". How did you determine the
>>> racial ancestry of each pariticipant. Race and sex are not the same
>>> thing.
>> Most southern states had laws that said a person was "black" if even >> one
>> of their great-great-grandparents was black. I suppose birth
>> certificates, family Bibles (people recorded family info in them),
>> and the like were used. And most of the south was small-toan and
>> rural, so i suppose most people just knew who was "black" and who was >> "white."
>> Lousiana, I believe, still has such laws in effect, which has
>> resulted in white people being classified as "black." Of course,
>> "passing" occurred, but that didn't invavlidate the classification. >> It just meant some people found ways to defraud the authorities- it >> would be like a man marrying a convincing transvestite.
{snip}
>>> You have yet to demonstrate how the continuum between races matches >>> the polarization of sex.
>> I just did. I didn't think I had to , but I you obviously don't know
>> much about U.S. history. Whether the classification is created based
>> on an amorphous idea like race or a fairly fixed (not completely- >> there are
>> transsexuals) one like sex doesn't really matter. It's discriminatory >> to prevent consenting adults from marrying.
> So you would have no problems if I wish to marry my sister or mother
> then? Right?
Go right ahead. It's none of my buisness, just as the marrage of two
other people is none of yours. I fear for any children you might have
however...
>>>> Bowers v. Hardwick will probably be overturned
>>>> in the next 10-15 years, eliminating all sodomy laws, and I think >>>> we'll see gay marriage in most states within the next 20 years or >>>> so.
>>> What about same-sex marriage?
>> Very funny. <groan>. Yes, in modern parlance, "gay" usually means
>> "homosexual" or "same-sex." I see your vocabulary matches your >> knowledge of law and current events- they're about 35 years behind >> the times...
> So what about same-sex marriage? Will the new law allow straight men
> to marry straight men?
Boys and girls, can you see what is wrong with that statement? If they
are getting married, chances are they AREN'T STRAIGHT. If such an event
should occur anyhow, how does that make that "worse" than regular same
sex marrage?
> Brothers to marry brothers?
If they so choose.
> Fathers to marry sons?
Quite cryptic, but it could happen.
Mothers to marry daughters?
Ooooh, kinky. ;^)
> JSL
-- Jack of Hearts
The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the
road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and
I have never regretted having chosen it. --Albert Einstein
http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/freethink.html
To reply via E-mail the E-ddress is ju...@centuryinter.net
#482 anxiously awaits your drivel. ;^)
Michael Alexander
> >>> It does not apply to ALL straight couples. I straight man cannot
> >>> marry a straight man. Just as a gay man may not marry a gay man.
I was kind of hoping that Bill Clinton would offer Colon Powell the
job of first lady. Hillary wasn't arrested and Bill managed to win
without Colon, so maybe it worked out for the best.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> Fetus <fe...@inow.com> wrote:
>> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> >Fetus wrote:
>{snip}
Well then, I can counter with the arguement that I would fear for any
children that same sex couples might adopt.
>>>>> Bowers v. Hardwick will probably be overturned
>>>>> in the next 10-15 years, eliminating all sodomy laws, and I think >>>> we'll see gay marriage in most states within the next 20 years or >>>> so.
>>>> What about same-sex marriage?
>>> Very funny. <groan>. Yes, in modern parlance, "gay" usually means
>>> "homosexual" or "same-sex." I see your vocabulary matches your >> knowledge of law and current events- they're about 35 years behind >> the times...
>> So what about same-sex marriage? Will the new law allow straight men
>> to marry straight men?
>Boys and girls, can you see what is wrong with that statement? If they
>are getting married, chances are they AREN'T STRAIGHT.
So now that law should have a statistical element? Well, same-sex
marriages would make up such a small percentage of marriages as to
make them unnoticable so therefor why allow them?
>If such an event
>should occur anyhow, how does that make that "worse" than regular same
>sex marrage?
>> Brothers to marry brothers?
>If they so choose.
>> Fathers to marry sons?
>Quite cryptic, but it could happen.
>Mothers to marry daughters?
>Ooooh, kinky. ;^)
If you don't object to same-sex sibling marriages then do you object
to opposite-sex sibling marriages?
JSL
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
>> >> >So your argument fails,
>> >>
>> >> In your opinion of course.
>>
>> >Or the opinion of anyone with an understanding of constitutional law.
>>
>> > You have yet to demonstrate how the
>> >> continuum between races matches the polarization of sex.
>>
>> >I just did. I didn't think I had to , but I you obviously don't know
>> >much about U.S. history. Whether the classification is created based on
>> >an amorphous idea like race or a fairly fixed (not completely-there are
>> >transsexuals) one like sex doesn't really matter. It's discriminatory to
>> >prevent consenting adults from marrying.
>>
>> So you would have no problems if I wish to marry my sister or mother
>> then? RIght?
>Personally? I find it a little sick. But if you want to, I wouldn't
>interfere.
>> >>
>> >> >Bowers v. Hardwick will probably be overturned
>> >> >in the next 10-15 years, eliminating all sodomy laws, and I think we'll
>> >> >see gay marriage in most states within the next 20 years or so.
>> >>
>> >> What about same-sex marriage?
>>
>> >Very funny. <groan>. Yes, in modern parlance, "gay" usually means
>> >"homosexual" or "same-sex." I see your vocabulary matches your knowledge
>> >of law and current events- they're about 35 years behind the times...
>>
>> So what about same-sex marriage? Will the new law allow straight men
>> to marry straight men?
>Absolutely. Otherwise it would be discriminatory.
>> Brothers to marry brothers? Fathers to marry
>> sons? Mothers to marry daughters?
>Same sex marriage would not invalidate existing incest laws. If you'd
>like to marry your brother or your dad you are quite welcome to pursue
>having those laws changed.
What law would have to be changed? Are you saying that there are
incest laws preventing a father from marrying his son, or two brothers
to marry? Or is it only the same-sex restrictions. If that
restrictions is lifted then what is to prevent such marriages?
JSL
Papa Budge
Wayne Walton wrote:
>I personally don't think Gays as a group should ever have existed. I don't
>mean this just to be mean or say I hate gays, it just seems to me that
>there is no evolutionary reason. Evolution only causes for one reason, to
>help a species continue to exist.
Wayne, take this advice from a friend: forget about evolution.
Nothing is going anywhere -- all is here. Things are changing, certainly,
but there is no evolution. Things are moving, certainly, but nothing is
going higher and nothing is left behind as lower. Drop those categories.
And dropping them you will immeidately be entering into a new world.
Suddenly you will find friendship with trees (not to mention homosexuals),
because they are no longer lower. Suddenly you will find a great affinity
with birds, because they are no longer lower. Suddenyl you will look into
the eyes of your dog, and you will find a Buddha there too. Then the sheer
joy of it is infinite. You will look into the eyes of your woman, or your
male lover, and a Buddha is hiding there too.
--papa budge
------------
"Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything:
That's how the light gets in."
--lc
"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
--jc
govoni
> -- js
> ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
> js...@accessone.com ~ Joseph Sparacio and Richmond Tracy
>
> "America, I'm putting my queer shoulder to the wheel."
> -- Allen Ginsbergbullshit !!!!!!!!!!!
govoni
the count
Papa Budge wrote:
> Wayne Walton wrote:
> >I personally don't think Gays as a group should ever have existed. I don't
> >mean this just to be mean or say I hate gays, it just seems to me that
> >there is no evolutionary reason. Evolution only causes for one reason, to
> >help a species continue to exist.
> Wayne, take this advice from a friend: forget about evolution.
actually, i recall reading somewhere, quite some time ago, that
homosexuality is nature's form of population control - two people
of the same sex can't reproduce by themselves, so it fulfills
their emotional and sexual needs without increasing the overall
population.
how valid that thesis is i have no idea, but at least it sounds
plausible.
--
"The gods themselves struggle in vain against stupidity." - Schiller
JSRT
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> incest laws preventing a father from marrying his son, or two brothers
> to marry?
Currently, neither sibling marriages nor parent-child marriages are
lawful, regardless of gender. Currently, same sex marriage is not
lawful (we'll see what happens in Hawaii).
Making same sex marriage lawful does not invalidate any existing incest
laws with regard to marriage.
What's so hard to understand?
> Or is it only the same-sex restrictions. If that
> restrictions is lifted then what is to prevent such marriages?
See above. It is not lawful for siblings to marry each other or parents
to marry their children.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
What restriction does a brother-brother marriage fall under now?
>> Or is it only the same-sex restrictions. If that
>> restrictions is lifted then what is to prevent such marriages?
>See above. It is not lawful for siblings to marry each other or parents
>to marry their children.
When and if same-sex marriage is "legalized" what is to prevent a
father/son marriage?
JSL
JSRT
Right now neither incestuous nor same sex marriages are lawful. Take
your pick.
> >> Or is it only the same-sex restrictions. If that
> >> restrictions is lifted then what is to prevent such marriages?
>
> >See above. It is not lawful for siblings to marry each other or parents
> >to marry their children.
>
> When and if same-sex marriage is "legalized" what is to prevent a
> father/son marriage?
The same rules which now prevent fathers from marrying daughters.
-- js
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
js...@accessone.com ~ Joseph Sparacio and Richmond Tracy
"If I had it all to do over again, I would do it just the same.
Except this time I'd be a lot nastier."
Jeffrey Scott Linder
JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>
>> JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> >>
>> >> JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fetus <fe...@inow.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Fetus wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
[ deletia]
>> When and if same-sex marriage is "legalized" what is to prevent a
>> father/son marriage?
>The same rules which now prevent fathers from marrying daughters.
So much for the 14th amendment then huh? Some men may marry men but
not others. Isn't that what gays are protesting? Some men may marry
but others can't?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
> Jeffrey> JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >> Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >>>
> >>> JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Fetus <fe...@inow.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >Fetus wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >>
> Jeffrey> [ deletia]
> >>> When and if same-sex marriage is "legalized" what is to prevent a
> father> son marriage?
> >> The same rules which now prevent fathers from marrying daughters.
> Jeffrey> So much for the 14th amendment then huh? Some men may marry men but
> Jeffrey> not others. Isn't that what gays are protesting? Some men may marry
> Jeffrey> but others can't?
>No, as you well know, the issue is that women can marry men
>but men cannot marry men.
>Why do you have to stoop to intellectual dishonest on this
>topic? I do not see signs of it in your other posting.
No. The point was that some men can marry men but other men can't
marry men. It would seem to me that they are not being treated
equally under the law. They are all consenting adults. What's the
problem?
JSL
Agent Fear 008
First off, there is only one God, and he is Jehovah. Second, bite me.
Third, being a fag is a sin in the Bible. Population is already
controlled by diseases and gangs so there. I oppose same-sex marriages.
Most fags are going to Hell.
g i s d a
Xich Lo <KALK...@aol.com> wrote:
>Stoby wrote:
>> Num said! Either you do not beleive in God or you agree that gay
>> people should be killed.
>>
>> I'm not arguing, I'm just showing that there are two choices and you MUST
>> choose ONE!
>I believe in God. I am gay. Must I then kill myself? Gosh, and I
>thought suicide was a truly horrendous crime against God. Not only
>that, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is one of the Ten Commandments. So must I
>then live my life as a lie? Gosh, "Thou Shalt Not Lie" made it into the
>original Ten Commandments.
>Trying to follow every single law in the Bible is impossible, and
>there's no two ways about it. So I prefer to live the way God wants me
>to live, with honesty and love. I really wish others could do the
>same. The world would be a much happier place. If God hates gays, then
>leave it to God to deal with that. But I don't believe God hates
>homosexuals or loving homosexual unions, no matter what one can infer
>from the Bible (which says NOTHING against loving homosexual
>relationships).
READ THE DAMN BOOK!!! I know, it is long and can be boring as hell,
but READ IT!!!
>And by the way, I don't HAVE to choose either of your little choices. I
>am a free person, and God gave me free will. You CANNOT dictate to me
>what my choices are.
If you accept the Judeo-Christian Bible as the authoritative word of
the one and only omnipotent God, then yes, you should kill yourself.
And don't forget all other men that you have had sex with. It's there
in the Bible, several times. Of course, believing in a god and
believing in the Bible are two different things. And I'm not
suggesting that you kill yourself, as I believe in neither, and see
nothing morally wrong with homosexuality.
Headers trimmed (I remembered for once...)
Danny
(remove spaces in email address to reply)
"I told you not to be stupid, you moron!"- Ben Stern
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <Pine.LNX.3.91.970503...@jasper.knox.net> Agent
---------
Hahaha! Aren't fundamentalist zealots fun? Let's say your
premise is correct and homosexuals are, in fact, going to
hell; did it ever occur to you that they might not be happy
in your _god's_ idea of "heaven". If you are correct, I, for
one, (a white bread heterosexual woman) will be happy to wear
red, sprout horn, and share my time in a warmer enviornment
with the gay crowed, if they'll have me.
Lefty
js...@accessone.com
In article <5ka3g1$aoq$3...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>
>
> JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >>
> >> JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> JSRT <js...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Fetus <fe...@inow.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Fetus wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> [ deletia]
>
> >> When and if same-sex marriage is "legalized" what is to prevent a
>
> >The same rules which now prevent fathers from marrying daughters.
>
No different than things are right now.
I and most other advocates for same sex marriage are not interested in
changing existing incest laws. If you are interested in pursuing that
fight, be my guest.
JS
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Christine A. Owens
Agent Fear 008 wrote:
>
> First off, there is only one God, and he is Jehovah.
You HAVE heard of freedom of religion?
> Third, being a fag is a sin in the Bible.
No, homosexual acts are defined as sinful. However, if one doesn't believe
the Bible to be an Authority, this is irrelevant.
Chris Owens
stufnten
On Sat, 3 May 1997, Agent Fear 008 wrote:
> First off, there is only one God, and he is Jehovah.
Hah! If it weren't for the IPU (pbuhp) yhwh would still be stuck in her
deadend job washing stellar dishes in the cosmic Boston Pizza. She's just
lucky the IPU had an opening for a second rate idol for the ignorant
mortals.
> Second, bite me.
A little kinky for a homophobe, aren't you?
> Third, being a fag is a sin in the Bible.
Really? Take that to heart, and stop eating pork and shellfish. And watch
what kind of suits you wear.
> Population is already
> controlled by diseases and gangs so there.
Erm. So you'd like to reduce the numbers of homosexuals and increase the
number of gang members...? I suppose this is all a part of yhwh's Grand
Plan?
> I oppose same-sex marriages.
I oppose anchovies on pizzas. Doesn't make them evil.
> Most fags are going to Hell.
1) By the edicts of your own myth, so are you, damned by your own hatred.
2) There is no hell.
stufnten, Toby
Kaufman will suffer
Ich weiss keinen besseren Lebenszweck als am Grossen und Unmoeglichen zu
Grunde zu gehen - FNietzsche
Tim McGaughy
In alt.atheism Agent Fear 008 <just...@jasper.knox.net> wrote:
> First off, there is only one God, and he is Jehovah. Second, bite me.
> Third, being a fag is a sin in the Bible. Population is already
> controlled by diseases and gangs so there. I oppose same-sex marriages.
Your brain is rather smooth.
gill...@weber.com
True Christian love. If this is how Christ and His Church think, I want
no part of it. I have always known these Christians to be defensive,
arrogant, ignorant and hateful. Now I know it to be true. Thanks,
dude.
Fetus
I oppose same-sex marriages.
> > Most fags are going to Hell.
>
> Your brain is rather smooth.
Naw-he's just having trouble dealing with his own homosexuality.
Most guys like him come screaming out of the closet later in life.
Fetus
Tom
First off, I beg forgivness for this cross posting... I have no idea where
to send this to get to the Leo I am seeking. I hate crosses as much as
you all... I apologize.
Now, Leo, to talk of "severe and undesirable impact[s] on ... credibility"
is useless when you make such a foolish and obvious generalization as
"'homosexual men' frequently prey on young boys." I know many gay men and
am bisexual myself (none of us, nor any of our friends are pedophiles),
and although it is possible that you have stated a fact, it is doubtful
that your use of "frequently" would not also suit the number of "straight"
men that seek young boys.
As to the original question... I don't believe that a male family member
molesting a younger male family member is acting in a heterosexual manner.
At least not by definition. Both are male. And although it is
undoubtedly against the young one's will, it is still a homosexual
situation. But rather than assign such an act a sexual orientation, a
broader catagory takes presidence: pedophila. It doesn't matter wether
the child is male or female, the act is still defined as pedophila.
And again to the confused person that claims gay men frequently prey on
small boys (Leo)... wisen up, else you are bound to continue making a fool
of yourself. Can we please end this thread now?? The struggle is
pointless, and I am tired of deleting such nonsense.
<snip~~~~>
> >> I am curious. If a male family member has sex with a male child of the
> >> family, it is a heterosexual act, yet if an adult male who is not a
> >> family member has sex with the same male child it is a homosexual act?
> >> Please explain this conflict.
> >The difference is between pedophiles and homosexuals. Homosexuals have
> >sex with people their own age or adults. Pedophiles will ALWAYS choose
> >someone under the age of 17.
> A pure and absolute lie! Homosexual propaganda and a shameless attempt to
> hide the truth..."homosexual men" frequently prey on young boys.
> You should remind yourself from time to time that you are not addressing
> "know nothing, fools". To forget it and post something as you have here,
> has a severe and undesirable impact on your credibility.
Lizard
Shaddyup
slyd...@ix.netcom.com
Fetus <Fe...@inow.com> wrote:
>Naw-he's just having trouble dealing with his own homosexuality.
>Most guys like him come screaming out of the closet later in life.
>
>Fetus
Uh-huh. Sure. Everyone who objects to a particular form of behavior
reverts to that behavior later in life. Right. Yeah. This is just
thoughtless rationalization.
Leo Mauler
1..@..9 wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 May 1997 20:45:53 -0700, Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net> wrote:
>
> >*Dot* wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I am curious. If a male family member has sex with a male child of the
> >> family, it is a heterosexual act, yet if an adult male who is not a
> >> family member has sex with the same male child it is a homosexual act?
> >>
> >> Please explain this conflict.
> >
> >The difference is between pedophiles and homosexuals. Homosexuals have
> >sex with people their own age or adults. Pedophiles will ALWAYS choose
> >someone under the age of 17.
>
> A pure and absolute lie! Homosexual propaganda and a shameless attempt to
> hide the truth..."homosexual men" frequently prey on young boys.
I haven't run into a single homosexual man who wanted someone really
young, like heterosexual men want girls in their teens as sexual
partners. The homosexual guys I know all want mature men as dates,
partners, and "husbands", not some immature kid who doesn't know the
first thing about being an adult.
It's not a lie, let alone an "absolute" lie. I'm betting that you'll
find a higher percentage of heterosexuals as pedophiles or child
molestors (or, gasp, BOTH! :),
than homosexuals, who tend to want more than some scruffy kid when
looking for someone to relate to intimately. They want a nice body on
him, but they, unlike heterosexuals, are also after a guy with a BRAIN
and MATURITY. Two things often lacking in boys, having once been one...
:)
In any case, societal pressure is bad enough on homosexuals. To
actively invite further antagonism by "preying" on young boys is even
stupider, almost as stupid as the concept that homosexuality is a
"choice" rather than "something you can't change about yourself."
> You should remind yourself from time to time that you are not addressing
> "know nothing, fools". To forget it and post something as you have here,
> has a severe and undesirable impact on your credibility.
Oh, I know I'm not talking to people who "know-nothing". The part about
fools, on the other hand, is debatable. :)
--
Never do this at home. Look how easily it killed this sig.
/\ ___/\ ___/\ _____________________________________________
\/ \/ \/ gi...@tfs.net (Remove xx to answer)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
Leo Mauler
loki wrote:
>
> >>You might want to study some history and anthropology. There have been any number of
> >>societies tht had mechanisms for handling homosexuality without it causing social
> >>collapse.
> >
> >Study some history, indeed. Right before empires crumble the fags
> >always come out of the closet.
>
> Unless you are suggesting some sort of cause and effect argument, what
> is the point of this comment? And if you are suggesting that one
> causes the other, how can you intelectually make that arguement?
I'm reminded of the ancient Greeks--which, incidentally, is why we now
have the vernacular "going Greek"--who had the general attitude that all
men were homosexuals and some of them just decided to breed. Their
homosexual army divisions were the best they had in combat, which makes
the ban on homosexuals all the more funny from the perspective of
"making the Armed Forces better". :)
Rome had methods of handling homosexuality in peaceable,
equality-oriented ways (basically, it was "who cares what they do with
their time?"). Incidentally, it took ramming the homosexuals into the
closet before Rome fell: Rome fell AFTER becoming Christian, and was
firmly Christian when its Empire crumbled.
Victoria Lee
Leo Mauler wrote:
> Their
> homosexual army divisions were the best they had in combat, which makes
> the ban on homosexuals all the more funny from the perspective of
> "making the Armed Forces better". :)
Actually the military isn't banning homosexuals in the Armed Forces -
that's impossible. You can't look at someone and tell they're gay.
There are, were, and always will be gays in the military. What the
military does ban is openly gay people in the Armed Forces.
--
Lee - Indiana - Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty.
Keith Doyle
In article <3372151f...@nntp.netcruiser>,
<slyd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Victoria Lee <N...@MORE.SPAMS> wrote:
>
> But the basis for
>my belief is that the human species was designed for two sexes; both
>required for continued survival of the species. Men are supposed to be
>attracted to women and women are supposed to be attracted to men. That's
>how our equipment is supposed to work. If you drove a convertible and
>every time you turned on the radio, the top went down you'd get the car
>fixed wouldn't you? But what's wrong with it? The top goes up and down as
>designed. The radio plays as it should, right? The problem is, they don't
>do it when they're supposed to. This is how I feel about homosexuality.
>I don't care that someone else is gay just like I don't care is someone
>else has a problem with their convertible top (unless that person whnes to
>me about it all the time). But don't try to sell me your car by telling me
>it was designed so the radio on off switch controls the convertible top.
The question is what should be done about it. If the owner of the convertible
is comfortable with its operation the way it is, who are you to tell him
he should get it fixed? Who are you to consider it broken? And in fact, who
are you to claim it even CAN be fixed? Does biblidolatry somehow give people
the right to make that sort of claim?
The erroneous assumption I see here repeatedly, is the assumption that
gender is always black and white. In reality, there are several different
components to gender. There's one's genetic gender (what kind of genes
they have), one's morphological gender (what gender one appears to be),
one's fertility gender based on fertility (plumbing), one's psychological
self image gender (what gender one considers him or herself to be) and
one's sexual attraction gender (what gender or genders one is sexually
attracted to). There are hormonal components, and there may be other
components as well. These different components to gender are not always
in synchronization, and in fact, these components can be gender ambiguous.
Genetically, XXY chromosome individuals and the like are to some degree
gender ambiguous. Morphology, self image, and sexual attraction can be
gender ambiguous as well.
And in fact, even fertility can, in rare cases, be gender ambiguous. For
example, I found a reference in a '40s medical book of a case of an individual
described by the physician, where on one side of the patient's body were found
testes, and on the other, ovaries. Unfortunately, the physician did not
determine the genetic gender or fertility of either the testes or ovaries, but
in any event, it is an example of a certain degree of ambiguity and the potential
for individuals to exist who may be completely gender ambiguous.
And there are plenty of examples of sexual ambiguities in other species.
There is the species of fish where a female transforms into a male if
the "alpha" male dies, in order to take his place and fertilize the
other females.
Some of you seem to want to define "normal" strictly based on the
majority characteristics. Of course, this is how certain white people
thought about minorities in years past (perhaps still). It is the classic
Social Darwinist approach-- homosexuals, minorities, and the handicapped
are abnormal and need to be "fixed." Any attempt to argue that someone
else may have a right to the reasonable pursuit of happiness within the
context of his own circumstances is to be derided.
In the USA, the legal definition of gender seems to be based strictly
on plumbing, independent of fertility or any other factors. I make
this statement based on the fact that if one gets a sex-change operation
one is then legally considered the other gender and can marry a person
of the new "opposite" sex. It seems to me merely a matter of time before
either a homosexual couple marries via sex-change and then makes a case
out of the legal pressures that had been placed on them to do so in order
to marry. And merely a matter of time before an individual who is in
some ways gender ambiguous challenges the legal definition of gender,
claiming that he or she is in fact a gender other than that which the
government legally considers him or her to be. How long before a
homosexual couple makes the case that they are actually of different
sexes (supported by gender ambiguities) despite the fact that they both
are legally considered the same gender based on their plumbing? Who
should decide just how gender is determined anyway?
Keith Doyle
(remove underbars from reply address to e-mail)
Toby
On Fri, 9 May 1997, Wm James wrote:
> >> >The difference is between pedophiles and homosexuals. Homosexuals have
> >> >sex with people their own age or adults. Pedophiles will ALWAYS choose
> >> >someone under the age of 17.
>
> Are you saying that a person cannot be a pedohile and a homosexual?
Pedophilia is not on the same psychological plane as homosexuality or
heterosexuality.
> How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
> prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
> ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
Source?
> Also, if homosexuals only want brains and maturity for close
> relationships, please explain the bath houses, the truck stop
> encounters, the holes in the peep shows, ect..., ect...
And naturally all of these things are exclusive to homosexuals.... Not
that you'd have a source.
> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
> spread so fast over such a short time.
Multiple sexual encounters? How do you know these exist?
Unless, of course, you're speaking from first hand experience....
> Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
> facts show otherwise.
Facts? You misspelled: "fictitious shit I make up as I go along".
--
stufnten, Toby
Wm James
>> >The difference is between pedophiles and homosexuals. Homosexuals have
>> >sex with people their own age or adults. Pedophiles will ALWAYS choose
>> >someone under the age of 17.
Are you saying that a person cannot be a pedohile and a homosexual?
>It's not a lie, let alone an "absolute" lie. I'm betting that you'll
>find a higher percentage of heterosexuals as pedophiles or child
>molestors (or, gasp, BOTH! :),
>than homosexuals, who tend to want more than some scruffy kid when
>looking for someone to relate to intimately. They want a nice body on
>him, but they, unlike heterosexuals, are also after a guy with a BRAIN
>and MATURITY. Two things often lacking in boys, having once been one...
How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
Also, if homosexuals only want brains and maturity for close
relationships, please explain the bath houses, the truck stop
encounters, the holes in the peep shows, ect..., ect...
These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
spread so fast over such a short time.
Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
facts show otherwise.
William R. James
Steve Kalbach
Wm James <sp...@here.not> wrote in article
<33734e18...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>...
: Are you saying that a person cannot be a pedohile and a homosexual?
I don't believe that was the intent of the persons statement. However,
there are many who post here that have attributed pedophilia as an
identifying characteristic of homosexuals. Clearly, there are pedophiles
in both heterosexual and homosexual populations regardless of the
percentages.
: How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
: prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
: ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
:
: Also, if homosexuals only want brains and maturity for close
: relationships, please explain the bath houses, the truck stop
: encounters, the holes in the peep shows, ect..., ect...
: These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
: spread so fast over such a short time.
:
: Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
: facts show otherwise.
:
Generalizations again that identify the behaviors of some individuals. I
am a homosexual and I do not frequent bath houses, truck stops, peep shows
and parks. For me, it is something that I do not want to do. Nor do I
have sexual encounters any more frequently than any of my heterosexual
friends do. In fact, it has been a good long time--beings that I am single
and uninvolved--since I had any sexual contact with anyone. Your right in
that multiple UNPROTECTED sexual encounters helped spread HIV fast. It has
also contributed to the spread of Herpes Complex and a host of other STDs
as well. However, diseases don't pick and choose their hosts based on
their sexual orientation.
Regards,
loki
>>It's not a lie, let alone an "absolute" lie. I'm betting that you'll
>>find a higher percentage of heterosexuals as pedophiles or child
>>molestors (or, gasp, BOTH! :),
>>than homosexuals, who tend to want more than some scruffy kid when
>>looking for someone to relate to intimately. They want a nice body on
>>him, but they, unlike heterosexuals, are also after a guy with a BRAIN
>>and MATURITY. Two things often lacking in boys, having once been one...
>
>How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
>prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
>ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
Is this statement based on a verifiable source, or personal research?
Loki
Wm James
>Generalizations again that identify the behaviors of some individuals. I
>am a homosexual and I do not frequent bath houses, truck stops, peep shows
>and parks. For me, it is something that I do not want to do. Nor do I
>have sexual encounters any more frequently than any of my heterosexual
>friends do. In fact, it has been a good long time--beings that I am single
>and uninvolved--since I had any sexual contact with anyone. Your right in
>that multiple UNPROTECTED sexual encounters helped spread HIV fast. It has
>also contributed to the spread of Herpes Complex and a host of other STDs
>as well. However, diseases don't pick and choose their hosts based on
>their sexual orientation.
>
>Regards,
>
You are correct. Diseases are not intelligent, but some activitiy
creates more suitable environments for the spred of some diseases.
Anal sex is the most dangerous. This is true for heterosexuals also,
however. since it is a great deal more difficult for a female to pass
HIV to a male than for a male to pass it to a female ( because of the
fluid transfer ), even with multiple partners, heterosexual sex is a
great deal safer.The same is true for most other diseases, hepetitis
is a good example.
There is little protection to protected sex. Condum failure is high
enough that unless you have sex only a few times in your life, you
will have a number of failures.
The only safe sex is monogomy. This is rare enough in the heterosexual
community, and much more rare in the homosexual community.
William R. James
Wm James
>> Are you saying that a person cannot be a pedohile and a homosexual?
>
>Pedophilia is not on the same psychological plane as homosexuality or
>heterosexuality.
Did I saw that it was? The post to which I replied suggested that
homosexual pedophiles did not exist.
>
>> How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
>> prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
>> ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
>
>Source?
Police reports
>> Also, if homosexuals only want brains and maturity for close
>> relationships, please explain the bath houses, the truck stop
>> encounters, the holes in the peep shows, ect..., ect...
>
>And naturally all of these things are exclusive to homosexuals.... Not
>that you'd have a source.
Police reports, Centers for Disease Control, ect...
( I never said that they were exclusive, you did. Although has anyone
ever heard of, or seen a female in the above cases. If sexual activity
is taking place, and all present are of the same sex, logic would
indicate that it is of a homosexual nature.)
>> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
>> spread so fast over such a short time.
>
>Multiple sexual encounters? How do you know these exist?
Three letters... H.I.V.
I guess that San Fransisco's bath houses were only to insure personal
hygene of the homosexuals?
>Unless, of course, you're speaking from first hand experience....
Alas, there it is. The first thing homosexuals do when confronted with
logic for which they have no rational argument. Attaching their own
perversions to others. Congradulations, it took you several sentences
to resort to it.
>> Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
>> facts show otherwise.
>
>Facts? You misspelled: "fictitious shit I make up as I go along".
And here, folks, is the second thing. Name calling.
Thank you for proving my case once again.
>--
>stufnten, Toby
>Ich weiss keinen besseren Lebenszweck als am Grossen und Unmoeglichen zu
>Grunde zu gehen - FNietzsche
>
William R. James
Gary Fee
Thank you for this thoughtful, courteous and well-reasoned post. It is
this sort of posting that can raise these discussions from the gutter,
where they now reside.
Leo Mauler
Wm James wrote:
> >> Also, if homosexuals only want brains and maturity for close
> >> relationships, please explain the bath houses, the truck stop
> >> encounters, the holes in the peep shows, ect..., ect...
> >
> >And naturally all of these things are exclusive to homosexuals.... Not
> >that you'd have a source.
>
> Police reports, Centers for Disease Control, ect...
> ( I never said that they were exclusive, you did. Although has anyone
> ever heard of, or seen a female in the above cases. If sexual activity
> is taking place, and all present are of the same sex, logic would
> indicate that it is of a homosexual nature.)
And, of course, for some magical reason, non-penetrative sex between
homosexuals spreads HIV? Peep holes do not spread HIV, unless you are
making the naive and erroneous claim that HIV can be spread by a touch?
(hint: HIV is killed when exposed to AIR. DietCoke is another good
anti-HIV disinfectant).
> >> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
> >> spread so fast over such a short time.
> >
> >Multiple sexual encounters? How do you know these exist?
>
> Three letters... H.I.V.
By that reasoning a woman who gets HIV from her promiscuous husband must
have also had multiple sexual encounters with strangers, encounters she
doesn't seem to remember.
> I guess that San Fransisco's bath houses were only to insure personal
> hygene of the homosexuals?
The bath houses were shut down, by homosexuals, right after the AIDS
epidemic began. I don't see any similar activity taking place in Las
Vegas brothels for the heterosexuals.
> >Unless, of course, you're speaking from first hand experience....
>
> Alas, there it is. The first thing homosexuals do when confronted with
> logic for which they have no rational argument. Attaching their own
> perversions to others. Congradulations, it took you several sentences
> to resort to it.
Seems to me you're engaging in such specific statements that you must be
encountering some special population of homosexuals the rest of us have
no contact whatsoever with.
Personally, I've had a lot of contact with homosexuals, none of it
sexual, in various situations, and I don't see homosexuals behaving in
such a continuously promiscuous manner like you seem to suggest. They
get tested, use condoms and lubricant--the lubricant part being
forgotten by most heterosexuals to keep condoms from breaking--when they
engage in risky sex, and generally engage in non-risky sex, such as
mutual masturbation.
Your statements either are from the perspective of someone who knows
only superficial data, most of it pretty darned old, and has created a
vivid fantasy world to villify homosexuals in. And you can still prove
me wrong by quoting something real, like having actually talked to
homosexuals or something, instead of believing everything you read in
the papers (hint: once a paper told us "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" :).
> >> Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
> >> facts show otherwise.
> >
> >Facts? You misspelled: "fictitious shit I make up as I go along".
> And here, folks, is the second thing. Name calling.
> Thank you for proving my case once again.
Well, you could always provide some kind of data other than police
reports and CDC data which back up your claims of knowing anything at
all about homosexuality.
Otherwise, it quite honestly sounds like you're making it all up as you
go along.
--
Never do this at home. Look how easily it killed this sig.
/\ ___/\ ___/\ _____________________________________________
\/ \/ \/ gi...@tfs.net
Leo Mauler
Wm James wrote:
>
> >> >The difference is between pedophiles and homosexuals. Homosexuals have
> >> >sex with people their own age or adults. Pedophiles will ALWAYS choose
> >> >someone under the age of 17.
>
Yes. Pedophiles lust for children. Homosexuals lust for men. There is
a difference between men and boys.
NAMBLA, i.e., pedophiles, oppose same-sex marriage. Homosexuals support
it.
> >It's not a lie, let alone an "absolute" lie. I'm betting that you'll
> >find a higher percentage of heterosexuals as pedophiles or child
> >molestors (or, gasp, BOTH! :),
> >than homosexuals, who tend to want more than some scruffy kid when
> >looking for someone to relate to intimately. They want a nice body on
> >him, but they, unlike heterosexuals, are also after a guy with a BRAIN
> >and MATURITY. Two things often lacking in boys, having once been one...
>
> How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
> prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
> ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
If society actually bothered to treat young homosexual men as human
beings, they might not have such low self-esteem that leads them into
quick sexual relationships. You're blaming them for being abused.
In any case, even heterosexual men prefer prostitutes under the age of
25. People over the age of 25 tend to develop the need for
relationships rather than just sex, which is risky business if you say
the wrong thing during an encounter.
> Also, if homosexuals only want brains and maturity for close
> relationships, please explain the bath houses, the truck stop
> encounters, the holes in the peep shows, ect..., ect...
> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
> spread so fast over such a short time.
>
> Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
> facts show otherwise.
Oh, sure, compare promiscuity to monogamy!
Are you trying to claim that homosexuals are promiscuous ONLY while
heterosexuals are monogamous ONLY?
The truth of the matter is that homosexuals can be monogamous just as
often as heterosexuals, and do not need multiple partners. Nor do they
want them, usually.
And the other truth is that the male heterosexual is encouraged to be
promiscuous in our society.
The facts state that the heterosexuals are passing HIV much faster
through their populations than the homosexuals. Apparently the
homosexuals have gotten the message already that monogamy and
non-pentration sex is the way to go. A pity the heterosexuals haven't
got the same kind of intelligence nor the same kind of realization of
their own mortality.
Notice I said "close" relationships, not "one-night stands". Any
person, given a choice, will want a younger prostitute, but they are
more likely to want a long-term relationship with a mature individual
than with some kid barely out of their teens.
I find it interesting that you consider heterosexual promiscuity to be
"deviant behavior" while you consider homosexual promiscuity to be
"normal". Both sides are made up of people with the same ideals and
attitudes, which change with age and maturity.
Some heterosexuals and homosexuals don't mature right away; some
heterosexuals and homosexuals do mature right away. Whether they're
homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with it.
Leo Mauler
Papa Budge wrote:
>
> slyd...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > It depends on the perspective. The physiology of sex is designed for
> > procreation.
>
> Nonsense. The design features for men make it much easier to get it on
> with one's own hand than to try to attract a mate, woo her, and talk her
> into having one's baby.
>
> > If you drove a convertible and
> > every time you turned on the radio, the top went down you'd get the car
> > fixed wouldn't you? But what's wrong with it? The top goes up and down as
> > designed. The radio plays as it should, right? The problem is, they don't
> > do it when they're supposed to. This is how I feel about homosexuality.
>
> this: you like to drive a Buick, so you think everybody should be driving
> Buicks. You need to pull off the road; there are just too many
> Lamborghini's closing fast behind you.
And, to take the analogy off the deep end, he's afraid that the
Lamborghinis are coming to gove him a "rear-end collision". :)
Well, he can rest easy, because "Lamborghini owners" [a] wouldn't WANT
to scratch their "paint jobs" on a "Buick", [b] they're much better
"drivers" than "Buick drivers", and [c] they have much better
"equipment" to drive safely than "Buicks". :)
They're much too busy racing along to find other Lamborghini owners to
bother with him!
And just because they want to be on the same "auto insurance" shouldn't
bug a Buick owner, its not going to raise the rates on Buick insurance
policies or anything.
Well, I can't think of any way to stretch the car metaphor any
farther... :)
Matt Pillsbury
On Sat, 10 May 1997 23:15:18 GMT, sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>
>>Generalizations again that identify the behaviors of some individuals. I
>>am a homosexual and I do not frequent bath houses, truck stops, peep shows
>>and parks. For me, it is something that I do not want to do. Nor do I
>>have sexual encounters any more frequently than any of my heterosexual
>>friends do. In fact, it has been a good long time--beings that I am single
>>and uninvolved--since I had any sexual contact with anyone. Your right in
>>that multiple UNPROTECTED sexual encounters helped spread HIV fast. It has
>>also contributed to the spread of Herpes Complex and a host of other STDs
>>as well. However, diseases don't pick and choose their hosts based on
>>their sexual orientation.
>>Regards,
>You are correct. Diseases are not intelligent, but some activitiy
>creates more suitable environments for the spred of some diseases.
>Anal sex is the most dangerous. This is true for heterosexuals also,
>however. since it is a great deal more difficult for a female to pass
>HIV to a male than for a male to pass it to a female ( because of the
>fluid transfer ), even with multiple partners, heterosexual sex is a
>great deal safer.The same is true for most other diseases, hepetitis
>is a good example.
No, actually, lesbian sex is the safest.
>There is little protection to protected sex. Condum failure is high
>enough that unless you have sex only a few times in your life, you
>will have a number of failures.
That's as a contraceptive, not a prophylactic. Furthermore, it is an
*annual* failure rate, not a per-use failure rate.
>The only safe sex is monogomy. This is rare enough in the heterosexual
>community, and much more rare in the homosexual community.
Document or retract.
______________________________________________________________________
Matt Pillsbury "It is impossible to distinguish
Matthew_...@brown.edu historical accident from the axiomatic
basis of the universe"-T.H. Huxley
Wm James
>>
>> > If you drove a convertible and
>> > every time you turned on the radio, the top went down you'd get the car
>> > fixed wouldn't you? But what's wrong with it? The top goes up and down as
>> > designed. The radio plays as it should, right? The problem is, they don't
>> > do it when they're supposed to. This is how I feel about homosexuality.
>>
>> I think a better car metaphor for your feelings about homosexuality is
>> this: you like to drive a Buick, so you think everybody should be driving
>> Buicks. You need to pull off the road; there are just too many
>> Lamborghini's closing fast behind you.
>
The brakes don't work so you say it is normal and demand to drive
on the streets with everyone else. You then claim that those who
don't like to be on the road with you are bigoted brake-o-phobes.
As people start dying in accdents, you say that auto accidents
are everyones problem and they are dying because they aren't
practicing "safe driving" by wearing helments, crash suits, and
using belts and air bags. You then lobby for special rights and
protection for others who beleive that their brake malfunctions
are "normal". You demand that they do not descriminate, so thay
must drive on the same roads with you and even let you join the
carpool. Since many of your loved ones (also non-brakers) are
either already injured or at high risk of injury, you lobby for
laws to force your employers insurance plan to pay their health
care, and taxpayer funding for auto accident treatment research.
If any disagrees with you at any step, you flame them, call them
names, and do your best to discredit them and shut them up.
William R. James
Wm James
>And, of course, for some magical reason, non-penetrative sex between
>homosexuals spreads HIV? Peep holes do not spread HIV, unless you are
>making the naive and erroneous claim that HIV can be spread by a touch?
>(hint: HIV is killed when exposed to AIR. DietCoke is another good
>anti-HIV disinfectant).
Right. It says so on the lable.
>> >> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
>> >> spread so fast over such a short time.
>> >Multiple sexual encounters? How do you know these exist?
>>
>> Three letters... H.I.V.
>
>By that reasoning a woman who gets HIV from her promiscuous husband must
>have also had multiple sexual encounters with strangers, encounters she
>doesn't seem to remember.
Multiple homosexual encounter spred the disease over the country
at a very high rate. The per-capita infection rate in San
Fransisco is a great deal higher than in, for example, Salt lake
City. Do you REALLY think this is a coincidence? Are you that
ignorant of reality?
>> I guess that San Fransisco's bath houses were only to insure personal
>> hygene of the homosexuals?
>
>The bath houses were shut down, by homosexuals, right after the AIDS
>epidemic began. I don't see any similar activity taking place in Las
>Vegas brothels for the heterosexuals.
They were finally shut down, BY THE LAW, after a number of
attempts, and several years. The homosexuals cried homophobia,
bigotry, and percecution all the way.
>> >Unless, of course, you're speaking from first hand experience....
>>
>> Alas, there it is. The first thing homosexuals do when confronted with
>> logic for which they have no rational argument. Attaching their own
>> perversions to others. Congradulations, it took you several sentences
>> to resort to it.
>
>Seems to me you're engaging in such specific statements that you must be
>encountering some special population of homosexuals the rest of us have
>no contact whatsoever with.
There it is again!
>Personally, I've had a lot of contact with homosexuals, none of it
>sexual, in various situations, and I don't see homosexuals behaving in
>such a continuously promiscuous manner like you seem to suggest. They
>get tested, use condoms and lubricant--the lubricant part being
>forgotten by most heterosexuals to keep condoms from breaking--when they
>engage in risky sex, and generally engage in non-risky sex, such as
>mutual masturbation.
I have known and know a number of homosexuals as well. Most are
in most ways, likeable working people like anyone else. In fact,
I would say that they tend to be more friendly and eiser to get
along with than the average person. I have no problem with them
personally. I simply state that the lifestyle is quite hazardous
and self destructive.
Allow me to use this example.
The buisness I am in requirs me to sometimes go into people's
homes. One group of homosexuals, who share a home, are good
customers. They are likeable people who have always been very
friendly and have never been a problem in any way. They, like
many people, have several exotic birds, who they keep in a
sunroom attached to the house. I wasn't sure of their
homosexuality until one day when I had occasion to walk through
the sunroom. The things those birds said were enough to make
anyones skin crawl! Most people with birds capable of speach do
not teach the birds to say thing like that.
One of them died from AIDS about two years ago. I have no idea
if any of the others are infected, although I suspect that all
are. This kind of situation is incredably difficult to find in
the heterosexual community.
>Your statements either are from the perspective of someone who knows
>only superficial data, most of it pretty darned old, and has created a
>vivid fantasy world to villify homosexuals in. And you can still prove
>me wrong by quoting something real, like having actually talked to
>homosexuals or something, instead of believing everything you read in
>the papers (hint: once a paper told us "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" :).
I have vilified no one, only stated the facts. As fo talking to
homosexuals, I have. Are you stating that anyone who disagrees
with homosexuals has never talked to any? Besides, no statistical
anylasis can come from talking to someone. Testamonials are used
to sell all sorts of snake oil. I only offer the above example as
one situation of a group of people who seem normal for
illustration.
>Well, you could always provide some kind of data other than police
>reports and CDC data which back up your claims of knowing anything at
>all about homosexuality.
The police reports are the only acurate data regarding statistics
in prrostition, which was the question.
The CDC is the best source of data regarding disease statistics,
which was the other question.
Do you have better statistical sources?
>Otherwise, it quite honestly sounds like you're making it all up as you
>go along.
Statistics, without regard to Mark Twain, do not lie.
William R. James SA#306
Wm James
>No, actually, lesbian sex is the safest.
True, no argument here. Unless you consider masterbation "sex".
It isn't normal, but it is, in fact, the safest.
>>There is little protection to protected sex. Condum failure is high
>>enough that unless you have sex only a few times in your life, you
>>will have a number of failures.
>
>That's as a contraceptive, not a prophylactic. Furthermore, it is an
>*annual* failure rate, not a per-use failure rate.
Wrong. there is no way to calculate the anual rate with any
acuracy at all. The rate applise to the number of times used. Not
the number per year.
>>The only safe sex is monogomy. This is rare enough in the heterosexual
>>community, and much more rare in the homosexual community.
>
>Document or retract.
If two uninfected people have sex only with each other, they will
not be at any risk of sexually transmitted disease. If one is
infected, the disease may be transmitted to the other, but no
further. Unless you beleive that it is just as easily transmitted
to other, which would make it other than sexually transmitted.
Is documentation required for the logically obvious?
William R. James SA#306
Wm James
>>How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
>>prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
>>ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
>
>Is this statement based on a verifiable source, or personal research?
>
>Loki
Once again you prove my point.
I guess that the only rational thing one can do without rational
argument is to try and drag others down to your level.
Statical data is available at your local police dept.
William R. James
SA#306
Wm James
>> Are you saying that a person cannot be a pedohile and a homosexual?
>
>Yes. Pedophiles lust for children. Homosexuals lust for men. There is
>a difference between men and boys.
So, are you saying that male childern who were molested by adult
males were molested by heterosexuals? Do you realize how obsurd
that is?
>NAMBLA, i.e., pedophiles, oppose same-sex marriage. Homosexuals support
>it.
Marrige to children is another issue. Besides, it would reduce
their stock.
>If society actually bothered to treat young homosexual men as human
>beings, they might not have such low self-esteem that leads them into
>quick sexual relationships. You're blaming them for being abused.
Children tend to be cruel to anyone different. The same can be
said for any child who is not like the other children. If you are
so concerned, why not try and treat their abnormality?
>In any case, even heterosexual men prefer prostitutes under the age of
>25. People over the age of 25 tend to develop the need for
>relationships rather than just sex, which is risky business if you say
>the wrong thing during an encounter.
True, but the relatively older women often do well. The same
cannot be said for the homosexual prostitutes. One curious note:
I have no idea why, but you never see any lesbian prostitutes.I
guess that they must exist, but I have never read anything about
them. If someone has any data, please post it.
>> Also, if homosexuals only want brains and maturity for close
>> relationships, please explain the bath houses, the truck stop
>> encounters, the holes in the peep shows, ect..., ect...
>> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
>> spread so fast over such a short time.
>>
>> Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
>> facts show otherwise.
>
>Oh, sure, compare promiscuity to monogamy!
Well, is it not a valid comparison. That WAS part of the point!
>Are you trying to claim that homosexuals are promiscuous ONLY while
>heterosexuals are monogamous ONLY?
I never said that. Promiscuity results in higher risk in both the
hetero and homo communities. But it is a greater problem in the
homosexual community, and the mechanics make the disease risk
very much higher in the homosexual community even if the
promiscuity rates were the same.
>The truth of the matter is that homosexuals can be monogamous just as
>often as heterosexuals, and do not need multiple partners. Nor do they
>want them, usually.
Yes they can be. However they rarely are. Even if they were, the
risk would still be higher unless half of them decided never to
accept body fluids form anyone. and anal sex dropped to the same
proportions as in the heterosexual community.
>And the other truth is that the male heterosexual is encouraged to be
>promiscuous in our society.
Yes, and in spite of that HIV infection is still a great deal
less. Why do you think that is?
>The facts state that the heterosexuals are passing HIV much faster
>through their populations than the homosexuals.
You have been paying too much attention to your own propaganda.
This is simply not the case according to the CDC.
> Apparently the
>homosexuals have gotten the message already that monogamy and
>non-pentration sex is the way to go.
It has slowed a lot.
> A pity the heterosexuals haven't
>got the same kind of intelligence nor the same kind of realization of
>their own mortality.
Except for the drug users, who don't care anyway, It is still not
a big problem in the heterosexual community.
>Notice I said "close" relationships, not "one-night stands". Any
>person, given a choice, will want a younger prostitute, but they are
>more likely to want a long-term relationship with a mature individual
>than with some kid barely out of their teens.
While larglely true, people who rent prostitutes are not looking
for relationships.
>I find it interesting that you consider heterosexual promiscuity to be
>"deviant behavior" while you consider homosexual promiscuity to be
>"normal". Both sides are made up of people with the same ideals and
>attitudes, which change with age and maturity.
Yes, but "normal" means the norm in the community. Although
monogamy occures in the homosexual lifestyle, is is not the norm.
It is the norn in the heterosexual community. I discount one ore
two affairs over a lifetime in either community. I'm talking
about lifestyle.(Habitual)
>Some heterosexuals and homosexuals don't mature right away; some
>heterosexuals and homosexuals do mature right away. Whether they're
>homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with it.
True, but irrelevant
William R. James SA#306
Toby
On Sat, 10 May 1997, Wm James wrote:
> Did I saw that it was? The post to which I replied suggested that
> homosexual pedophiles did not exist.
Fair enough.
> >Source?
> Police reports
From? Any particular city? Any particular year? How did you come across
these?
[snip]
> >> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
> >> spread so fast over such a short time.
> >
> >Multiple sexual encounters? How do you know these exist?
>
> Three letters... H.I.V.
And the existence of the virus proves exactly... what?
[snip]
> Alas, there it is. The first thing homosexuals do when confronted with
> logic for which they have no rational argument. Attaching their own
> perversions to others. Congradulations, it took you several sentences
> to resort to it.
I'm a heterosexual. I don't see why you would assume otherwise.
> >> Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
> >> facts show otherwise.
> >
> >Facts? You misspelled: "fictitious shit I make up as I go along".
> And here, folks, is the second thing. Name calling.
> Thank you for proving my case once again.
Name calling? It seemed a reasonable interpretation of your post.
Might I add that none of this has anything to do with the morality of
homosexuality?
John De Salvio
In article <33857665...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not wrote:
> If two uninfected people have sex only with each other, they will
> not be at any risk of sexually transmitted disease.
The same applies to gay people. If two homosexuals who are HIV negative
decide to only have sex with each other, they will not be at any risk
of sexually transmitted disease.
It happens a lot, although most right wing anti-homosexual people
refuse to consider that possibility.
They refuse to believe the statistics that show the rate of HIV
infection among homosexuals is declining, while the rate among
heterosexuals is going up. Go to the stats of the CDC and WHO.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
John De Salvio
In article <338778a7...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not wrote:
> >>How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
> >>prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
> >>ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
> >
> >Is this statement based on a verifiable source, or personal research?
> >
> >Loki
>
> Once again you prove my point.
>
> I guess that the only rational thing one can do without rational
> argument is to try and drag others down to your level.
How is the response dragging you down? It was a legitimate question.
Did YOU do any research, or DID YOU locate reliable statistics?
>
> Statical data is available at your local police dept.
And what is available from local police departments is the rate of
arrests for prostitution. Younger people get arrested much more
frequently than older prostitutes because of lack of savvy.
YOU didn't cite any source for such statistics (reports, dates, surveys, etc.)
If you check the ads for male prostitutes (escorts) in the San Francisco
area, you will find that the great majority are 25 to 30 years old. Some
are older, some are younger.
Don't forget: ALL the "older" prostitutes were once younger.
So what point, precisely, did you prove?
That you are offended easily; that you misconstrue statements easily.
And that you really don't do much research.
loki
On Sat, 10 May 1997 23:15:18 GMT, sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>
>>Generalizations again that identify the behaviors of some individuals. I
>>am a homosexual and I do not frequent bath houses, truck stops, peep shows
>>and parks. For me, it is something that I do not want to do. Nor do I
>>have sexual encounters any more frequently than any of my heterosexual
>>friends do. In fact, it has been a good long time--beings that I am single
>>and uninvolved--since I had any sexual contact with anyone. Your right in
>>that multiple UNPROTECTED sexual encounters helped spread HIV fast. It has
>>also contributed to the spread of Herpes Complex and a host of other STDs
>>as well. However, diseases don't pick and choose their hosts based on
>>their sexual orientation.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>You are correct. Diseases are not intelligent, but some activitiy
>creates more suitable environments for the spred of some diseases.
>Anal sex is the most dangerous. This is true for heterosexuals also,
>however. since it is a great deal more difficult for a female to pass
>HIV to a male than for a male to pass it to a female ( because of the
>fluid transfer ), even with multiple partners, heterosexual sex is a
>great deal safer.The same is true for most other diseases, hepetitis
>is a good example.
Are you suggesting that a heterosexual woman who engages in anal sex
with multiple partners is safer than a homosexual man who does the
same?
Or that an an unprotected homosexual man who (ahem) enters that region
on an infected homosexual man is in any more danger than a
heterosexual man who takes a heterosexual woman that way?
Please continue.
Loki
loki
>>>The only safe sex is monogomy. This is rare enough in the heterosexual
>>>community, and much more rare in the homosexual community.
>>
>>Document or retract.
>infected, the disease may be transmitted to the other, but no
>further. Unless you beleive that it is just as easily transmitted
>to other, which would make it other than sexually transmitted.
>
>Is documentation required for the logically obvious?
Perhaps we interpretted the question differently, but I thought that
you were being asked to documment that instances of promescuity were
greater in the homosexual community than in the straight one.
Loki
loki
Hardly. It is you who does not understad, or engage in a life
style-but rather than accept it and saying to each his own, you try to
condem that life style as being abnormal, deny basic human rights to
the people who are in it, and draw faulty analogies claiming that
people who engage in that lifestyle are a danger to society.
It was not homosexuals who invented the terms "faggot" and "dyke". It
is not homosexuals who argue that their lifestyle is responsible for
the spread oof AIDS. (and before you respond, bear in mind that there
are more reported cases of members of the LA Lakers contacting the HIV
virus than lesbians. Yet no one says that basketball spreads AIDS).
It is heterosexuals who would deny homosexuals to put a picture of
their signifigant other on their desk at work, or hold hands while
walking through the park on a Sunday afternoon, sneak a kiss on the
lips in a public place, or form a lifelong commitment through
marriage. Yet these are all activities the heterosexuals would claim
were indicative of good family values were they engaged in by other
heterosexuals.
No sir, I am afraid that your analogy is flawed and your last comment
is a cast of the pot calling the kettle black.
Loki
loki
>The only safe sex is monogomy. This is rare enough in the heterosexual
>community, and much more rare in the homosexual community.
We can probably agree that while marriage does not guarantee monogamy,
it at least promptes and encourages it. True? If that is the case, why
are you not championing for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry?
Loki
Matt Pillsbury
On Sun, 11 May 1997 07:42:32 GMT, sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>>No, actually, lesbian sex is the safest.
>True, no argument here. Unless you consider masterbation "sex".
>It isn't normal, but it is, in fact, the safest.
So what? It's safer. We aren't talking about what's normal here. Who
gives a damn about "normal"?
>>>There is little protection to protected sex. Condum failure is high
>>>enough that unless you have sex only a few times in your life, you
>>>will have a number of failures.
>>That's as a contraceptive, not a prophylactic. Furthermore, it is an
>>*annual* failure rate, not a per-use failure rate.
>Wrong. there is no way to calculate the anual rate with any
>acuracy at all. The rate applise to the number of times used. Not
>the number per year.
For contraceptives? That is quite wrong. They take a number of women
that use a given form of contraception. They see how many of them get
pregnant over the course of a year. You don't really think that women
get pregnant 1 out of 20 times when they use a condom?! That would
mean it isn't any better than no contraception at all!
>>>The only safe sex is monogomy. This is rare enough in the heterosexual
>>>community, and much more rare in the homosexual community.
>>Document or retract.
>If two uninfected people have sex only with each other, they will
>not be at any risk of sexually transmitted disease. If one is
>infected, the disease may be transmitted to the other, but no
>further. Unless you beleive that it is just as easily transmitted
>to other, which would make it other than sexually transmitted.
Non-sequitor. What does this have to do with whether gay people are
monogamous? Currently, heterosexual women are contracting AIDS more
quickly than homosexual men.
Also note that HIV can, in fact, be transmitted by non-sexual means.
Intravenous drug users have always been the highest risk group.
>Is documentation required for the logically obvious?
What, that gay people are more promiscuous? No, I don't accept your
prejudices as gospel.
Wm James
>In article <33857665...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not wrote:
>
>> If two uninfected people have sex only with each other, they will
>> not be at any risk of sexually transmitted disease.
>
>The same applies to gay people. If two homosexuals who are HIV negative
>decide to only have sex with each other, they will not be at any risk
>of sexually transmitted disease.
The statement was regarding the post that requested verification
of the fact that the only safe sex was monogomy. Heterosexual sex
was the subject. If you read the rest of the post, you would
have noticed this.
>It happens a lot, although most right wing anti-homosexual people
>refuse to consider that possibility.
It is no where near the norm and you know it.
>They refuse to believe the statistics that show the rate of HIV
>infection among homosexuals is declining, while the rate among
>heterosexuals is going up. Go to the stats of the CDC and WHO.
The rate of new infections is declining a little in the
homosexual community. It could be argued that it is getting
close to the saturation point.
The only real growth in the heterosexual community is among the
drug users, and females who have sex with drug users and women
who have sex with bisexuals.
William R. James SA#306
Victoria Lee
Wm James wrote:
>
> You then lobby for special rights and protection for others who beleive that their > brake malfunctions are "normal".
1) The not just to die serving this country in the military, but the
right to say you're gay while doing it. There IS, ALWAYS was, and
ALWAYS will be gays in the military. That has NEVER been the issue.
The issue is the right to say you're gay.
2) The right to visit someone who you have shared your life with if they
are in a hospital.
3) The right to know that what you and someone else have accumilated
through your working together over many years will pass on to that other
person after you die without long, hard court battles.
4) The right to not only pay taxes but have your tax money come back to
you and your loved one in the form benefits reflective of other American
citizens.
5) The right to NOT be driven from a job, home that you had for many
years because someone found out what you did in your bedroom with
another consenting adult.
6) The right to live their lives in peace from bigots.
> Since many of your loved ones (also non-brakers) are either already injured or at high > risk of injury, you lobby for laws to force your employers insurance plan to pay their > health care
You said the key phrase: your employers
> and taxpayer funding for auto accident treatment research.
ROFLOL - Grow up! Homosexuals have been paying taxes for YEARS. No one
can be so naive as to believe that they haven't! They have been paying
taxes since the tax system was started so why shouldn't they have some
of the benefits?
--
Lee - Indiana - Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty.
Please take up complaints about cross-posting with the originator of
this thread, while I do try to trim headers I am not responsible for the
headers or the original poster.
Spams are illegal in the US and unwelcome everywhere.
Michael Wright
There was a really lovely misrepresentation on "NBC Ightly Ews with Om
Rokaw" the other night about the "alarming increase in HIV/AIDS among
the nation's Senior Citizens."
The CDC reported that HIV was on the rise in the 55 and up population,
almost entirely among aging gay men. However, NBC decided to put an
totally different spin on the story, reasoning that since the CDC
DINN'T say ENTIRELY aging gay men, there had to be a hetero out there
they could use on camera. And, of course, they found her.
Only once in the In Depth *report* did *aging gay men* get noticed,
and it was The Dreaded "Although". The sentence in question was :
"Although the CDC report indicated almost all of the increase was in
aging gay men, many senior citizens are.....(blah blah Bob Loblaw)
It was a 4 minute story, but only 6 seconds were devoted to the
principal finding. Typical of the Spin Doctoring of the *mainstream*
media.
Michael
Jeff Barlow
In article <33857665...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not wrote:
> >>The only safe sex is monogomy. This is rare enough in the heterosexual
> >>community, and much more rare in the homosexual community.
> >Document or retract.
> If two uninfected people have sex only with each other, they will
> not be at any risk of sexually transmitted disease. If one is
> infected, the disease may be transmitted to the other, but no
> further. Unless you beleive that it is just as easily transmitted
> to other, which would make it other than sexually transmitted.
I think that he was refering to your assertion that monogamy was rare in
the homosexual community.
Document or retract, and then tie that back into the subject of this thread
and tell us why gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be encouraged or given
incentive to enter into a commited, stable, monogamous relationship like
marriage.
> Is documentation required for the logically obvious?
When you make blanket statements like that, yes, otherwise you are simply
giving us your opinion on the subject, and as was proven by Baehr v. Lewin,
your opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans..
> William R. James SA#306
Jeff Barlow
--
Note: Above return address is incorrect!
John De Salvio
In article <33761c2b...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 1997 06:30:48 -0800, des...@monitor.net (John De
> Salvio) wrote:
>
> >In article <33857665...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not wrote:
> >
> >> If two uninfected people have sex only with each other, they will
> >> not be at any risk of sexually transmitted disease.
> >
> >The same applies to gay people. If two homosexuals who are HIV negative
> >decide to only have sex with each other, they will not be at any risk
> >of sexually transmitted disease.
> >It happens a lot, although most right wing anti-homosexual people
> >refuse to consider that possibility.
> It is no where near the norm and you know it.
No, I'm sorry I DON'T "know it." Perhaps you would like to back up your
claim with some veifiable facts?
I live in a community that is possibly 35 percent homosexual, and most
of the people are in monogamous relationships.
> >They refuse to believe the statistics that show the rate of HIV
> >infection among homosexuals is declining, while the rate among
> >heterosexuals is going up. Go to the stats of the CDC and WHO.
> The rate of new infections is declining a little in the
> homosexual community. It could be argued that it is getting
> close to the saturation point.
You're going to have to explain that to the estimated 80 to 90 percent
of the homosexual population that does NOT have AIDS.
At what percentage do we reach "saturation"?
>
> The only real growth in the heterosexual community is among the
> drug users, and females who have sex with drug users and women
> who have sex with bisexuals.
You are dangerously ignorant in this area. Don't just look at inner
city data in the U.S.
Look worldwide, where much of the incidents of AIDS is contracted
the standard hetrerosexual way.
Leo Mauler
Wm James wrote:
>
> >> Are you saying that a person cannot be a pedohile and a homosexual?
> >
> >Yes. Pedophiles lust for children. Homosexuals lust for men. There is
> >a difference between men and boys.
> So, are you saying that male childern who were molested by adult
> males were molested by heterosexuals? Do you realize how obsurd
> that is?
No, what I'm saying is, lets do it more slowly...pedophiles...that is,
people who want to have S-E-X with C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N...lust for
C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N. Homosexuals...that is, people who want to have
relationships with M-E-N, do not want to have S-E-X with
C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N. See what I'm saying? Pedophiles are not homosexuals,
they are, to coin an entirely new word, pedosexual. To put it another
way, heterosexual and homosexual describe which sets of adults you want
to have sex with, while pedophile says you only want to have sex with
children and do not particularly enjoy sex with adults.
> >NAMBLA, i.e., pedophiles, oppose same-sex marriage. Homosexuals support
> >it.
>
> Marrige to children is another issue. Besides, it would reduce
> their stock.
It does, however, point out an important distinction between
P-E-D-O-P-H-I-L-E-S and H-O-M-O-S-E-X-U-A-L-S.
> >If society actually bothered to treat young homosexual men as human
> >beings, they might not have such low self-esteem that leads them into
> >quick sexual relationships. You're blaming them for being abused.
>
> Children tend to be cruel to anyone different. The same can be
> said for any child who is not like the other children. If you are
> so concerned, why not try and treat their abnormality?
What is there to treat? Your assertion of "treating their abnormality"
is rather like saying "why not give sight to someone genetically blind?"
The attitudes need to be changed, not the homosexuals. There is no
"treatment" for homosexuality, because that is who they ARE. Changing
it can only be done through forcing them to deny who they ARE, like
trying to convince a person genetically blind from birth that they can
actually see.
> >In any case, even heterosexual men prefer prostitutes under the age of
> >25. People over the age of 25 tend to develop the need for
> >relationships rather than just sex, which is risky business if you say
> >the wrong thing during an encounter.
>
> True, but the relatively older women often do well. The same
> cannot be said for the homosexual prostitutes.
True, but the older women need to be especially skilled and/or get
plastic surgery in order to remain in business. Like any other
prostitute past the age of 25.
> One curious note:
> I have no idea why, but you never see any lesbian prostitutes.I
> guess that they must exist, but I have never read anything about
> them. If someone has any data, please post it.
You don't see them because women aren't as sex-driven as men. Men want
to push forward to the sex issue; women can wait it out, especially when
their partner is also a woman.
For men, sex is enough of an issue that prostitution thrives. For
women, sex between women is something that might come up in a
relationship after both parties are comfortable with each other.
> >> Also, if homosexuals only want brains and maturity for close
> >> relationships, please explain the bath houses, the truck stop
> >> encounters, the holes in the peep shows, ect..., ect...
> >> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
> >> spread so fast over such a short time.
> >>
> >> Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
> >> facts show otherwise.
> >
> >Oh, sure, compare promiscuity to monogamy!
>
> Well, is it not a valid comparison. That WAS part of the point!
No, it is not a valid comparison! You are making the claim that
heterosexuals are capable of monogamy as well as promiscuity, while
homosexuals are only capable of promiscuity!
> >Are you trying to claim that homosexuals are promiscuous ONLY while
> >heterosexuals are monogamous ONLY?
>
> I never said that. Promiscuity results in higher risk in both the
> hetero and homo communities. But it is a greater problem in the
> homosexual community, and the mechanics make the disease risk
> very much higher in the homosexual community even if the
> promiscuity rates were the same.
But you have the erroneous opinion that homosexual "monogamy" is very
similar to heterosexual "promiscuity". The mechanics are identical in
both communities: some of them are promiscuous, most of them are
monogamous. You hear about the truck stops and the peep holes and the
forest meetings because they make the news; the couples who exist in the
majority simply want to be left alone with each other.
In any case, the mechanics of the heterosexual community actually make
transmission much more possible than in the homosexual community. Anal
sex is not as prevalent in the homosexual community as it may well have
been in the San Francisco bath houses, with the current trend of
emphasis on mutual masturbation, oral sex with condoms, and so forth.
Low-risk behaviors.
The heterosexual community, on the other hand, is focused mightily on
penetrative sex, both penile-vaginal and penile-anal, during which there
are increased chances of HIV transmission since penetrative sex is
usually carried out without enough lubrication to ensure that no genital
tissues are rubbed raw or ripped, exposing genital fluids to open blood
vessels. Add to this the discouragement of masturbation of both
heterosexual genders and the encouragement of heterosexual males to have
as many conquests as possible, and you get the rates of HIV infection
rising higher than in the homosexual community.
> >The truth of the matter is that homosexuals can be monogamous just as
> >often as heterosexuals, and do not need multiple partners. Nor do they
> >want them, usually.
>
> Yes they can be. However they rarely are.
This kind of statement makes you either naive or blatantly lying. All
you can use as "proof" are specific news reports of promiscuous
activity. Since homosexuals are not allowed to post legal marriage
licenses in court, you never hear about them. The average homosexual
male realizes that multiple partners spells trouble, unlike the average
heterosexual male, and so you have either complete monogamy in
homosexual males, or serial monogamy in homosexual males.
> Even if they were, the
> risk would still be higher unless half of them decided never to
> accept body fluids form anyone. and anal sex dropped to the same
> proportions as in the heterosexual community.
Actually its lower now. Homosexuals got the message that they were
mortal, and dropped out of most of the high-risk behaviors.
Heterosexuals still assume that HIV is a "gay disease" and continue to
engage in high risk behaviors including penile-vaginal sex and anal sex
as primary methods of sexual activity.
> >And the other truth is that the male heterosexual is encouraged to be
> >promiscuous in our society.
>
> Yes, and in spite of that HIV infection is still a great deal
> less. Why do you think that is?
Statistics, please. Heterosexual populations are growing much faster
than homosexual populations in terms of HIV infections, while HIV
infections in homosexual populations are leveling out (i.e., someone got
the message, and he isn't heterosexual).
> >The facts state that the heterosexuals are passing HIV much faster
> >through their populations than the homosexuals.
>
> You have been paying too much attention to your own propaganda.
> This is simply not the case according to the CDC.
Again, quotes a little younger than ten years old, please.
> > A pity the heterosexuals haven't
> >got the same kind of intelligence nor the same kind of realization of
> >their own mortality.
>
> Except for the drug users, who don't care anyway, It is still not
> a big problem in the heterosexual community.
Mostly because no one actually bothers to think about it in the
heterosexual community!
> >Notice I said "close" relationships, not "one-night stands". Any
> >person, given a choice, will want a younger prostitute, but they are
> >more likely to want a long-term relationship with a mature individual
> >than with some kid barely out of their teens.
>
> While larglely true, people who rent prostitutes are not looking
> for relationships.
Which is true for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and the bigger
industry is the heterosexual prostitution industry.
> >I find it interesting that you consider heterosexual promiscuity to be
> >"deviant behavior" while you consider homosexual promiscuity to be
> >"normal". Both sides are made up of people with the same ideals and
> >attitudes, which change with age and maturity.
>
> Yes, but "normal" means the norm in the community. Although
> monogamy occures in the homosexual lifestyle, is is not the norm.
Statistics, please. Your assumptions seem largely based on the attitude
that because they cannot get legally married, they must not be
monogamous.
> It is the norn in the heterosexual community. I discount one ore
> two affairs over a lifetime in either community. I'm talking
> about lifestyle.(Habitual)
And so am I. Lifestyles are identical in both communities.
> >Some heterosexuals and homosexuals don't mature right away; some
> >heterosexuals and homosexuals do mature right away. Whether they're
> >homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with it.
>
> True, but irrelevant
Not quite. Maturity is the mark of someone who chooses monogamy over
promiscuity.
Jeff Barlow
In article <338778a7...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not wrote:
> >>How, then, do explain the prostitution buisness? Heterosexual
> >>prostitutes frequently are underage women, but the norm is between the
> >>ages of 20 -35. Homosexual male prostitutes are rarely over 25.
> >
> >Is this statement based on a verifiable source, or personal research?
> >
> >Loki
>
> Once again you prove my point.
>
> I guess that the only rational thing one can do without rational
> argument is to try and drag others down to your level.
>
> Statical data is available at your local police dept.
The proper, most rational, and most logical thing to do to prove your point
would be to actually provide these sources instead of asking others to go
and search for them themselves at the "local police dept". Which, by the
way, probably wouldn't be able to provide statistically valid figures for
the entire country anyway.
Jack of Hearts
Wm James wrote:
>
>> No, actually, lesbian sex is the safest.
> True, no argument here. Unless you consider masterbation "sex".
> It isn't normal, but it is, in fact, the safest.
I'm sure if you ever watched lesbian sex you would consider that sex.
Masterbation is perfectly normal. Lots of creatures do it, such as
monkeys and elephants.
>>> There is little protection to protected sex. Condum failure is high
>>> enough that unless you have sex only a few times in your life, you
>>> will have a number of failures.
>> That's as a contraceptive, not a prophylactic. Furthermore, it is an
>> *annual* failure rate, not a per-use failure rate.
> Wrong. there is no way to calculate the anual rate with any
> acuracy at all. The rate applise to the number of times used. Not
> the number per year.
>>>The only safe sex is monogomy. This is rare enough in the
>>> heterosexual community, and much more rare in the homosexual >>> community.
Really? Where does it say that? Provide a poll if you have to.
>> Document or retract.
> If two uninfected people have sex only with each other, they will
> not be at any risk of sexually transmitted disease. If one is
> infected, the disease may be transmitted to the other, but no
> further. Unless you beleive that it is just as easily transmitted
> to other, which would make it other than sexually transmitted.
Where's the document in that assertion?
> Is documentation required for the logically obvious?
Yes, because you may be the only one that understands that logic. That
might not neccesarily make your logic wrong, but stating it without
proper explination/documentation makes you look like you're full of it.
> William R. James SA#306
-- Jack
The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the
road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and
I have never regretted having chosen it. --Albert Einstein
http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/freethink.html
Before you listen to another speech:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1956/mind-control.html
To reply via E-mail the E-ddress is ju...@centuryinter.net
#482 anxiously awaits your drivel. ;^)
Victoria Lee
Michael Wright wrote:
>
> There was a really lovely misrepresentation on "NBC Ightly Ews with Om
> Rokaw" the other night about the "alarming increase in HIV/AIDS among
> the nation's Senior Citizens."
>
> The CDC reported that HIV was on the rise in the 55 and up population,
> almost entirely among aging gay men. However, NBC decided to put an
> totally different spin on the story, reasoning that since the CDC
> DINN'T say ENTIRELY aging gay men, there had to be a hetero out there
> they could use on camera. And, of course, they found her.
Michael,
What's your point? I think that it's about time that the heterosexual
community realized they too are at risk.
tomi...@vegas.infi.net
On 1997-05-11 hax...@scican.net said:
>Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.christnet,talk.
>christianity,alt.atheism
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
>Xref: news.infi.net talk.abortion:30063 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:58902
>alt.christnet:48184 alt.atheism:65921 Wm James wrote:
>> You then lobby for special rights and protection for others who
>beleive that their > brake malfunctions are "normal". Special
>rights - well, let's see.
1) The not just to die serving this
>country in the military, but the right to say you're gay
while >doing it. There IS, ALWAYS was, and ALWAYS will be
gays in the >military. That has NEVER been the issue. The
issue is the right to >say you're gay.
You have that right. I am surprised that those who deny you that
right would continue to serve themselves. I hear that
recfruitment is down and the military is having a problem in that
area. From my own experience in two wars I believe exactly as
you do. I wish that that rule had been in effect then, that gays
identified themselves. It would have eliminated my having to
wonder. I could immediately decided with whom I would not
associate. I find it strange that others do not see this same
benefit in the proposed supporting of your right to say you are
gay. I would even go further and insist you inform feellow
troopers you are gay.
2) The right to visit someone who you have shared
>your life with if they are in a hospital.
Definitely. And without any reference to time. One night would
be sufficient to put the right.
>3) The right to know that what you and someone else have
>thraccumilated ough your working together over many years
>othwill pass on to that er person after you die without long,
>othhard court battles.
Well, now, This would require me to agree you have a spouse. I
assume you are speaking about social security. Any other wealth
you accumulated together is not barred from distribution by will
and probate. this would be subject to some legislation since it
is not a constitutional right or established in the laws
concerning social security. Politics. Convince enough people
and you will get it.
>4) The right to not only pay taxes but have your tax money come
>back to you and your loved one in the form benefits reflective of
>other American citizens.
Doubling up here. 3 is moot if you were only referring to wealth
outside the system of government benefits. If you and a partner
have built of wealth, there is no bar I know of that keeps you
from willing it one another, or being beneficiaries on insurance
policies, etc. There may be special laws barring it in a
particular case, such as obligations to a prior entity under
decree, or children, etc. But that is not general and would not
apply to a discussion about rights.
As for what you cover in 4) that is put in place by legislation
and is subject to many reuslting statutes. Politics. Go get the
votes, wehther citizens or judges. There is success in Hawaii, I
think. Only 49 states to go; but they are counteracting by what
their citizens feel.
>5) The right to NOT be driven from a job, home that you had
>yeafor many rs because someone found out what you did in your
>anobedroom with ther consenting adult.
Not possible. But there is a right for employers to cease and
desist employment if they feel you do not project the image they
wish because it may be detrimental to their business. We might
see this with the show, 'Ellen.' If the ratings are lousy is the
network obligated to keep it going; and would that be 'forcing'
DeGeneris out of her job? I don't believe I care to see the
market dictated to.
>6) The right to live their lives in peace from bigots.
Never knowingly had anything to do with a homosexual or lesbian
so I could not have disturbed your peace. That is why I say you
would probably thrive better in a country of your own.
>> Since many of your loved ones (also non-brakers) are either
>already injured or at high > risk of injury, you lobby for
>>Ylaws to ou said the key phrase: your employers and
>autaxpayer funding for to accident treatment research. ROFLOL
>ha- Grow up! Homosexuals ve been paying taxes for YEARS. No
>beone can be so naive as to lieve that they haven't! They
>tahave been paying taxes since the x system was started so
>bewhy shouldn't they have some of the nefits? --
They do, as precribed by law. Saying that you pay taxes does
not, ipso facto, define other aspects of law. You are talking
about definition changes you wish to have without going through
the submission to the total population.
There is no denial of defined benefits to homosexuals or their
kith and kin. There is a statutory limitation due to the
definition of 'spouse,' and that is all. If two gays live
togetherf and they both work or have worked, they will both get
benefits under the law whever appropriate. If the father of a
gay dies, the gay offspring gets all the benefits any other child
would get, including benefits to age 22 if in school.
The only instance is when you live with another gay who has never
worked in his life, if he is disabled, for example, he cannot be
awared disability benefits under the mantle of your contributions
to Social Security. this is because in the Social Security laws,
'spouse' is not defined to include a male for a male or a female
for a female. That is not a denial of what all citizens get, it
is an exclusion based upon the law as it is written.
You have recourse and it is quite evidence all gays know about
this since the efforts to get this changed are concerted. And no
one can deny your right to lobby all you like. But until you can
get it all stamped with an imprimatur of either legislation or
judicial legislation or executive order, and get people not to
revolt in the end, that's life.
As I say, when and if you succeed, then there is the issue for
those who oppose to decide what their next step is. For even if
you get the law passed to allow what you wish, it would not be
the end of the issue, I don't believe. Human beings are just not
that way. It would be just as it is in Bosnia. Tito kept the
lid on for 50 years. When it came off, it ended up we have to
keep troops there. And when they are gone, the strife will
resume. Human beings are a variety of believers in a
multiplicity of concepts, and often they are worth fighting and
dying for in the minds of the participants. And the spectators,
no matter how they may deplore the results, will never, ever
affect the outcome.
I believe a much better course would be to petition for
separation, say to Hawaii; they are most receptive to all your
beliefs. Certainly you have the combined brains and abilities to
do super well, particuarly without the drag of Buicks.
Unless there is something more you want: acceptance of your
actions as a peer among all others? Now that is another thing,
something which cannot be statutorily imposed. I think the other
man and myselfsef are saying that you will never be accepted in
certain social groupings.
If this is not so, then there is not a bigot in the world who can
harm you.
tomitire
Net-Tamer V 1.09 Beta - Registered
tomi...@vegas.infi.net
On 1997-05-10 sp...@dev.null said:
>Lamborghinis are coming to gove him a "rear-end collision". :)
>Well, he can rest easy, because "Lamborghini owners" [a] wouldn't
>WANT to scratch their "paint jobs" on a "Buick", [b] they're much
>better "drivers" than "Buick drivers", and [c] they have much better
>"equipment" to drive safely than "Buicks". :)
>They're much too busy racing along to find other Lamborghini owners
>to bother with him!
>And just because they want to be on the same "auto insurance"
>shouldn't bug a Buick owner, its not going to raise the rates on
>Buick insurance policies or anything.
>Well, I can't think of any way to stretch the car metaphor any
>farther... :)
I agree with your view. But why would you want to be on the same
insurance? The only reason would be to piggyback on a successful
aspect of car ownership. If you are better drivers, it seems
foolish to wish to associate with the less-able drivers and
increase your risk. Your altruism is suspect; better to have
your own insurance and control your own risk rate and
liabilities, even establish your own government. After all,
governments only remain total entities while a group supports the
results.
Recognition of the government is what you want. Separate and
form a new government. Other cultures will be doing the same
thing eventually. The recent farce in Texas is symptomatic. And
in the case of Texas, it is the only state which came into the
Union with a written contract that it could disengage itself from
the Union.
And there is a legal way of doing all this: A constitutional
convention. I do believe the time is coming, what with all the
problems that diversity is presenting, and despite the efforts of
government to throw away our freedom, that it just might be
possible that the time will come the states will vote for a
constitutional convention. Then the country can legally break up
into all its parts.
Or we can live under the gun, soldiers on every corner, under
terrorism because all are not as altruistic as youjrself. But,
then, there is a breakup, merely a different manifestation of it.
tomi...@vegas.infi.net
On 1997-05-11 lo...@midtown.net(loki) said:
>Hardly. It is you who does not understad, or engage in a life
>style-but rather than accept it and saying to each his own,
>you try to condem that life style as being abnormal, deny
>basic human rights to the people who are in it, and draw
>faulty analogies claiming that people who engage in that
>lifestyle are a danger to society.
'rather than accept . . . ' as if that is the only alternative.
The best and most successful approach I have ever heard of in
this confrontation is what occurred in the instance of the St.
Patrick's Day Parade in Boston a couple of years ago. the gays
insisted they be granted a right to participate in somewhich
which the majority did not wish their company. It was
essentially a social event, the last bastion under the law for
any group to exclude those with whom they do not wish to
associate regardless of the reason.
Those who ran the parade simply shut down the parade. It is a
demonstration of a simple fact: the right claimed by the gays
existed only as long as their was an entity from who one would
demand a right. No parade, no right to march it that parade.
You can have your own parade, but any right you had with regard
to association with me in a social event by statute disappeared
in the black hole of the nonevent.
As for denying human rights, every country has laws. You can
abide by them, protest, get them changed. But if the law exists,
then there is no right.
As for considering anyone a danger to society, that is a
judgment, as valid as any gay judging he is not a danger to
society. That will not obviate the right a citizen to take
precautions against anything or anyone he considers to be a
danger to himself or the society around him within the
constraints of law. If I do not associate with gays as a
precaution to my own well-being, perceived or real, that is
simply an exercise of a person consideration. In my opinion,
this is the real thorn in the side of gays. Otherwise, I cannot
see where they would have any bitch.
It was not homosexuals who invented the terms "faggot" and
>"dyke".
There is no law against it. You are requesting kindness and
consideration under law. Doesn't work that way. You are
seeking to proscribe another's right to choice of speech. You
will not succeed without a severe struggle.
It is not homosexuals who argue that their lifestyle is
>responsible for the spread oof AIDS. (and before you respond,
>bear in mind that there are more reported cases of members of
>the LA Lakers contacting the HIV virus than lesbians.
This is of no importance in my own personal view. I do not have
to live with the statistical picture. And since I seem to avoid
it quite easily by judicious activities, who gets HIV is not a
problem in my life or that of my wife.
I think it is statisticians who have added more to the concept
that the homosexual lifestyle has added to the proclivity for
getting HIV than anything I could have done.
If there is any cause stemming from homsexuals, I wold say it is
more likely the bisexual.
Yet no one says that
>basketball spreads AIDS). It is heterosexuals who would deny
>homosexuals to put a picture of their signifigant other on their
>desk at work,
My goodness! That has occurred even with regard to others in my
day. It really didn't bother me. I was not out to advertise the
beauty of my wife or the brilliance of my judgment. And I had a
copy in my wallet, many pictures.
Maybe no one wishes to look at your significant other since it is
a man, like yourself; or a woman, like yourself. Maybe the boss
doesn't want you sitting there, ga-gaing and mooning over your
significant other.
Maybe he doesn't wish to advertise he was forced to hire a gay.
or hold hands while walking through the park on a
>Sunday afternoon, sneak a kiss on the lips in a public place, or
>form a lifelong commitment through marriage.
And so touching. Which one am I supposed to fight alongside when
the stuff hits the fan? Or both. Not that I object to knowing.
Information is power. I know whom to avoid.
Yet these are all
>activities the heterosexuals would claim were indicative of
>good family values were they engaged in by other
>heterosexuals.
I don't think it is so much lack of approval in a moral sense.
It is simply an inability to ever relate to the disparity in any
manner of approval physically. I watch to guys exchanging
kisses, I have a systemic revoltpassionate and reaction. Who
claim that sexual proclivities aknows, if they're genetic, then my
repugnance might be genetic, also. This is not going to lead me
to want to live or associate with you any more than now. It is
all choice. I do not live or associate with others who practice
sexual activities which I consider to be repugnant. Since I
have always managed to work in a situation where my abilities
enabled me to work for whom I wished on an individual basis, I
also could specifically not work for anyone in that same
category, a luxury many others do not have.
revulsion
Of course, there are many other categories of human beings with
whom I never associate, so I am bigot, I suppose, without any
bigotry over whom I act bigoted.
K. Knopp
In article <3375cd2e...@news.midtown.net>, lo...@midtown.net (loki) wrote:
<SNIP>
> Hardly. It is you who does not understad, or engage in a life
> style-but rather than accept it and saying to each his own, you try to
It is you who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "tolerance", as
opposed to "acceptance".
> condem that life style as being abnormal, deny basic human rights to
> the people who are in it, and draw faulty analogies claiming that
> people who engage in that lifestyle are a danger to society.
Opinion.
> It was not homosexuals who invented the terms "faggot" and "dyke". It
But it is they who celebrate such terms and gratefully refer to themselves
as "queer".
> is not homosexuals who argue that their lifestyle is responsible for
> the spread oof AIDS. (and before you respond, bear in mind that there
> are more reported cases of members of the LA Lakers contacting the HIV
> virus than lesbians. Yet no one says that basketball spreads AIDS).
I believe that you are pushing a point. Very few females get HIV period.
I believe you can find that it has something to do with anal sex. More gay
men have it then lesbians or straight women.
> It is heterosexuals who would deny homosexuals to put a picture of
> their signifigant other on their desk at work, or hold hands while
> walking through the park on a Sunday afternoon, sneak a kiss on the
Yep. I supported the anti-picture, holding hands, sneaking a kiss
legislature that was proposed in the last session of congress.
Bwhahahahaha!!!!
> lips in a public place, or form a lifelong commitment through
> marriage. Yet these are all activities the heterosexuals would claim
> were indicative of good family values were they engaged in by other
> heterosexuals.
It has something to do with raising families. Given that homosexuals aren't
capable of raising families without artificial means, and that even in
doing so, they are robbing their child of a opposite sex parent (which
research has shown is very important in child development), there is little
reason for society to give benefits for such a situation to take place.
There is nothing stopping homosexuals now from getting "married", they just
don't get the benefits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete the "ha." from my adress to reply via e-mail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Savard
des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote:
>Look worldwide, where much of the incidents of AIDS is contracted
>the standard hetrerosexual way.
Although a man can pass HIV to a woman with only slightly less efficiency than
an active partner can pass it to a passive partner in anal sex, (and even that
is because lesions caused by previous gonhorrea infections affect the stats) for
a woman to pass it to a man is unlikely, although not entirely impossible.
Factors such as female genital mutilation, a different variant of HIV, make the
situation in Africa different from that in the U.S..
John Savard
Toby
On 11 May 1997, Patrick Graham wrote:
> I think homosexuality (And Feminism) are destroying America..
Rather than, say, poverty, crime and such? Oh, wait, of course, feminism
and homosexuality are *responsible* for crime and poverty. How blind I
have been.
> I believe that by saying homosexuality is right you have
> lowered the standard of morality by which many people use to
> measure what is right and what is wrong=85
Wrong. In so doing one has discarded an antiquated, irrational morality
for a rational one.
> What's to stop an even more decadent person from dropping that=20
> standard another notch to pedophilia???=20
[snip etc]
Slippery slope, logical fallacy.
> Homosexuals don't seem to have any self regulating morality.
And you don't seem to have any self-regulating sentience.
Do you know any homosexuals? Or are you just assuming?
> That opens the door to every thing, including murder and
> cannibalism.. Like Jeffery Daumer...
Brains open the door to thought, which leads to science, which leads to
people using atomic bombs. Detonating atomic bombs isn't nice. So,
mandatory lobotomies for everyone! Oh, except the ruling few, who shall be
heterosexual, umm... blond hair, blue eyes, at least 6 ft tall... with
dimples.
Would that satisfy your indignant morality?
--=20
Toby
On Sun, 11 May 1997, Wm James wrote:
> The rate of new infections is declining a little in the
> homosexual community. It could be argued that it is getting
> close to the saturation point.
No, it is because homosexuals are aware of the dangers and take
precautionary measures.
Unless you have stats which show stds to be at 100%.
> The only real growth in the heterosexual community is among the
> drug users, and females who have sex with drug users and women
> who have sex with bisexuals.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
--
Shell
A bunch of newsgroups were summarily excised, but of course I do not
know the poster's newsgroup so...
John Savard wrote:
> Although a man can pass HIV to a woman with only slightly less efficiency than
> an active partner can pass it to a passive partner in anal sex, (and even that
> is because lesions caused by previous gonhorrea infections affect the stats) for
> a woman to pass it to a man is unlikely, although not entirely impossible.
You make it sound as if a woman passing HIV to a man is *nearly
impossible.* I believe it is true that it is *less likely* that a man
will be infected by a woman than vice versa, but the likelihood does not
approach zero by a loooooong shot.
> Factors such as female genital mutilation, a different variant of HIV, make the
> situation in Africa different from that in the U.S..
What? female genital mutilation is a different variant of HIV?
Oh, you mean that you think that there are two reasons why the situation
in Africa is different...a) female genital mutilation and b) a different
strain of HIV.
Y'know, the numbers involved in female genital mutilation in Africa are
not all that high. It is by no means universal even in those nations
where it *is* practiced, and that is not the majority of nations in
Africa. Moreover, the mutilation generally makes sex painful. That is
the reason it is done. I beg leave to doubt that women to whom sex is
painful, and in fact (according to your theory) bloody, are likely to
have sex very often with anyone,let alone in sufficient numbers to skew
any stats.
I dunno about a different strain of HIV in Africa. I spose it's
possible, though I have not seen any such thing anywhere else but in
your post. Are you saying that...you are in no danger of contracting
HIV, because you are a heterosexual male not living in Africa? Because
that would be incorrect.
Shell
Victoria Lee
tomi...@vegas.infi.net wrote:
>
> On 1997-05-11 hax...@scican.net said:
>
> That has NEVER been the issue. The issue is the right to >say you're gay.
"You have that right."
Really? Considering that I am a very happily married hetero I think
your answer is a bit silly.
> 2) The right to visit someone who you have shared
> >your life with if they are in a hospital.
>
"Definitely. And without any reference to time. One night would be
sufficient to put the right."
Is that the way you feel about your spouse?
> >3) The right to know that what you and someone else have
> >thraccumilated ough your working together over many years
> >othwill pass on to that er person after you die without long,
> >othhard court battles.
>
"Well, now, This would require me to agree you have a spouse."
Gee, my dear husband thinks he's a spouse and I think I'm his wife, a
spouse. But frankly I don't care if you agree he's a spouse or not.
> >4) The right to not only pay taxes but have your tax money come
> >back to you and your loved one in the form benefits reflective of
> >other American citizens.
>
"If you and a partner have built of wealth, there is no bar I know of
that keeps you
from willing it one another, or being beneficiaries on insurance
policies, etc."
You do like to assume things don't you?
> >5) The right to NOT be driven from a job, home that you had
> >yeafor many rs because someone found out what you did in your
> >anobedroom with ther consenting adult.
"Not possible."
Really? Elderly people, certain minorities, women all can not be fired
just because they are elderly, certain minorities, and women.
"We might see this with the show, 'Ellen.' If the ratings are lousy is
the network obligated to keep it going; and would that be 'forcing'
DeGeneris out of her job?"
DUH! The rating were lousy in the first place and I wondered if they
didn't do the "coming out" show because of the ability to gracefully get
out of continueing the show?
> >6) The right to live their lives in peace from bigots.
"Never knowingly had anything to do with a homosexual or lesbian so I
could not have disturbed your peace."
There you are assuming again.
"That is why I say you would probably thrive better in a country of your
own." I am in my country and so are thousands of gays and I hope they
all stay.
j
Victoria Lee <hax...@scican.net> wrote:
>Michael Wright wrote:
>> The CDC reported that HIV was on the rise in the 55 and up population,
>> almost entirely among aging gay men. However, NBC decided to put an
>> totally different spin on the story, reasoning that since the CDC
>> DINN'T say ENTIRELY aging gay men, there had to be a hetero out there
>> they could use on camera. And, of course, they found her.
>What's your point? I think that it's about time that the heterosexual
>community realized they too are at risk.
There is a big difference between being "at risk" and being
*likely* to contract a disease. While everyone is "at risk"
for HIV infection (OK, maybe 2% with no CD4 gene aren't)
only busy gay men, needle-sharing IV druggies and career
prostitutes are especially *likely* to get HIV. By analogy,
while all drivers are "at risk" of suffering an auto accident,
it's the DRUNK drivers who are far, far more *likely* to be
involved in a mishap.
Attempting to make those *un-likely* to contract HIV
believe that they are, in fact, *likely* to do so is
purest propaganda. The goals are obvious - to panic
the masses so they will demand that "something be
done immediately" about HIV. The masses, deluded into
believing that they are pretty-damn-sure to get HIV
are supposed to demand govt-sponsored health care,
hospices and for researchers to be pulled off other
projects. And finally, the masses are supposed to
embrace homosexuals and junkies as fellow sufferers
rather than to see them as the primary vectors of
the disease.
Quite frankly, gawdawful lies about HIV are NOT
a good thing ... and the "masses" have already
figured out the propaganda angle. And no, they
aren't gonna buddy up with homosexuals.
Unfortunately, there is a big difference between
demanding increased research and the rate at which
scientific research can proceed. Huge amounts of time
and resources are already being spent on HIV - it's
every biologists favorite disease. Alas, putting ten
or a hundred times as many researchers and dollars into
the equation may not have much effect on how quickly
treatments and cures are realized. Indeed, funding
a dozen semi-unqualified "researchers" for every one
who is really good at their job just slows things
down since everyone now has to wade through a dozen
times as many reports which are essentially crap.
It was random fate that popular forms of gay sex,
and the "gay lifestyle" of the 70s/80s happened
to prove especially condusive to the spread of
HIV. Indeed, HIV may have remained confined to
a few isolated areas and burned itself out had
it existed a couple of centuries ago. Well, it
exists NOW - in a transportation-intensive age -
and found an excellent environment for reproduction.
Them's the breaks. Five hundred years ago, it was
syphillis, TB and smallpox which each found
good reproductive environments.
It's not the *fault* of gays and junkies that they
got HIV ... who could have known ... but they
remain the *likely* ones to get it today and for
the forseeable future. The "great hetero HIV
plague" never materialized. It is evil to deceive
people into believing it will. If such fabrications
are acceptable, then *any* fabrication is acceptable -
even the rantings of screw-loose theocrats who want
all gays to be punished for their "sin". One lie
deserves another.
-j
Pat Winstanley
In article <5l8ahi$e...@news.atlantic.net>, j <jma...@iu.net> writes
> Attempting to make those *un-likely* to contract HIV
> believe that they are, in fact, *likely* to do so is
> purest propaganda. The goals are obvious - to panic
> the masses so they will demand that "something be
> done immediately" about HIV. The masses, deluded into
> believing that they are pretty-damn-sure to get HIV
> are supposed to demand govt-sponsored health care,
> hospices and for researchers to be pulled off other
> projects. And finally, the masses are supposed to
> embrace homosexuals and junkies as fellow sufferers
> rather than to see them as the primary vectors of
> the disease.
Hate to tell you this, but if you have sex with anyone at all they might
be carrying the HIV virus if they have had *one* sexual encounter before
in their lives.
All it needs is for one person to contract the virus, and then sleep
with (say) half a dozen others over a year or so (not an unrealistic sex
life for an older teenager or young adult), and each person in that
spreading chain can infect the next. All it takes, in fact, is for each
person to have sex twice, each time with different people. If they are
infected from the first intercourse then they can pass it on in the
second. And if the second included a first time for the other partner,
and they become infected, they can pass it on in their second encounter.
Ever heard of chain letters?
Every heterosexual who is sexually active is, these days, at risk just
as much as every homosexual who is sexually active... and in many parts
of the world the risk is immesurably higher for heterosexuals!
WAKE UP!!!!!!!
Pat Winstanley
tomi...@vegas.infi.net
On 1997-05-12 hax...@scican.net said:
>Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.christnet,talk.
>christianity,alt.atheism
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
>Xref: news.infi.net talk.abortion:30420 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:59637
tomi...@vegas.infi.net
On 1997-05-12 hax...@scican.net said:
>"Definitely. And without any reference to time. One night
>would be sufficient to put the right."
>Is that the way you feel about your spouse?
This does not compute.
>"If you and a partner have built of wealth, there is no bar I know
>of that keeps you
>from willing it one another, or being beneficiaries on insurance
>policies, etc."
>You do like to assume things don't you?
Don't see the assumption. Is there some kind of wealth you have
built up which you cannot will to anyone you wish? I have never
heard of that legal bar.
>"Not possible."
>Really? Elderly people, certain minorities, women all can
>not be fired just because they are elderly, certain
>minorities, and women. "We might see this with the show,
>'Ellen.' If the ratings are lousy is the network obligated
>to keep it going; and would that be 'forcing' DeGeneris out
>of her job?"
Hvew never watched Ellen. Now that she is out I know I never
will. And that is the way it should be; the market place.
I do't think the network has any obligation, in that regard, to
do any more than the contract with DeGeneris outlines. Idon't
think anyone but the public would 'force' her out of any work.
>DUH! The rating were lousy in the first place and I wondered
>if they didn't do the "coming out" show because of the
>ability to gracefully get out of continueing the show?
I am not sure what you are arguing with me about this. I have
written in the past that the show was in 40th place, one season
short of syndiation worthiness, and both the syndication network,
Lifetime, and the network she is contracted with are now owned by
Disney. Without the extra year, the syndication value is almost
nil for advertising. It was worked out well in advance of the
publicity workup. It's business. But her as an example of some
gay being forced out of a job -- that is not a job, that is a
contract. I never got a salary in my own career so I worked
based on my worth. I know of a gay man who worked in my own
profession and I can assure you no one shoved him out, simply
because he was good at his work. I don't think being kicked
around on the job is a real problem, at least not from the POV of
being shoved around. A herring of some sort, IMO>
I hope you do not feel you are speaking with somone who is gay.
>> >6) The right to live their lives in peace from bigots.
>"Never knowingly had anything to do with a homosexual or lesbian so
>I could not have disturbed your peace."
>There you are assuming again.
Oh? You feel I have some obligation to associate with someone?
Are your little feeling hurt? Is that why I am assuming, you have
not been included enough? I have heard many gays say they just
want to be left alone; I do the best I can in that regard.
>"That is why I say you would probably thrive better in a
>country of your own." I am in my country and so are
>thousands of gays and I hope they all stay.
I thought that was the case. Well, keep bitching.
Diedrich G. Kohl
In article <337697...@tfs.net>
Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net> wrote:
> Wm James wrote:
>
> > >If society actually bothered to treat young homosexual men as human
> > >beings, they might not have such low self-esteem that leads them into
> > >quick sexual relationships. You're blaming them for being abused.
> >
> > Children tend to be cruel to anyone different. The same can be
> > said for any child who is not like the other children. If you are
> > so concerned, why not try and treat their abnormality?
>
> What is there to treat? Your assertion of "treating their abnormality"
> is rather like saying "why not give sight to someone genetically blind?"
>
> The attitudes need to be changed, not the homosexuals.
Right.
> There is no "treatment" for homosexuality, because that is who they
> ARE. Changing it can only be done through forcing them to deny who
> they ARE
Not quite. Your point is understood, but it needs some clarification:
So-called "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy" has no effect
on changing sexual orientation. It results only in convincing some
homosexuals and bisexuals to refrain, usually temporarily, from same-
sex behaviour -- without eliminating the attraction/desire. "Cured ex-
gays" (most of whom eventually become "ex-ex-gays" as they ultimately
revert to their natural inclinations) have admitted as much.
There is no credible evidence that any such "treatment" can eliminate
same-sex attraction or force anyone to deny/repress it. All it does
is persuade some people that they can and should deny themselves the
option of acting upon it. (Naturally, those who hold the view that
homosexuality is wrong consider that this is a useful result.)
Let's put that another way. Take any "ex-gay" man, subject him to
some appropriate stimulus [use your imagination here], and see what
sort of "denied" reaction arises.
> like trying to convince a person genetically blind from birth that
> they can actually see.
Yes, with respect to futility of trying to change something [sexual
orientation] that can't be changed -- which is of course your point.
But you might want to pick a better analogy in future; blindness is
functionally disabling, an undesirable condition, morally neutral to
everyone, not discriminated against, and not regarded as a "choice".
Not to mention, "genetic" anything invites the endless genetic-cause
debate. (Just a suggestion, since analogy-challenging tangents seem to
be a popular technique for avoiding the point.)
> > Promiscuity ... is a greater problem in the homosexual community ...
> > >... homosexuals can be monogamous just as often as heterosexuals ...
> > Yes they can be. However they rarely are.
> [etc.]
So, what is your point exactly, Wm James? Your argument amounts to:
1. promiscuity and unsafe sex are bad;
2. (1) is more prevalent, and monogamy is less common, among gays
than among straights.
Others have argued (2) with you, so I won't bother.
Let me just ask you this: What is your opinion of monogamous, healthy
gay partners? Are they "okay" with you? Do you approve of them? Are
you simply condemning promiscuous, unsafe-sex gay people? Or do you
disapprove of us all? If so, then your promiscuity/monogamy argument
is simply a red herring.
--Rick
Michael Wright
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ever heard of chain letters?
>
>Every heterosexual who is sexually active is, these days, at risk just
>as much as every homosexual who is sexually active... and in many parts
>of the world the risk is immesurably higher for heterosexuals!
>
>WAKE UP!!!!!!!
>
>Pat Winstanley
>
*Probability* and *Possibility*. The *Possibility* (Alarmist) group
rants whenever there is even the most remote statistical chance of a
given event occuring. The *Probability* (Common-sense) group analyzes
risk vs. reward and makes its decisions accordingly.
I agree that it is mathematically possible for any one person in the
world to become infected with a single sexual act. The PROBABILITY of
its occurence between two persons of very low risk behavior is
infinitessimally small. Alarmists always seize upon remote statistical
probabilities to further their agendae.
Michael
Geo
In article <337e3f56...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not
says...
> SOCIAL PROGRAM! A military unit must live, eat, crap, and sleep
> together in very close contact without having to wonder about the
> soldier next to you.This is why women should not be in combat.
Same lame arguments were made against integrating blacks into the army in
the late 40's.
Do I smell a caveman around here?
Geo
aulieSPAM
In article <5l8ahi$e...@news.atlantic.net>, jma...@iu.net (j) wrote:
> . . . The masses, deluded into
> believing that they are pretty-damn-sure to get HIV
> are supposed to demand govt-sponsored health care,
> hospices and for researchers to be pulled off other
> projects. And finally, the masses are supposed to
> embrace homosexuals and junkies as fellow sufferers
> rather than to see them as the primary vectors of
> the disease.
Most people have understood for a long time that you have to do what you
have to do to get Aids, that it's a behavioral thing, and that faggots and
junkies are contaminated. In this country, anyway.
Who says the masses are "supposed" to embrace homosexuals and junkies?
I've never heard this, but I don't listen to the fringes you may be in
contact with. People ARE worried about their young people--maybe a
grandchild, a nephew, the neighbor's kids, the church youth group, etc.,
etc.
> . . . The "great hetero HIV plague" never materialized.
In this country.
> It is evil to deceive people into believing it will.
Propaganda and persuasion are everywhere. So is a lot of good
information. I think we can hold the "masses" responsible for their own
mental processes, without blaming this or that advocate.
--
Please delete "SPAM" from my address. Thanks.
Wm James
>Of course, there are many other categories of human beings with
>whom I never associate, so I am bigot, I suppose, without any
>bigotry over whom I act bigoted.
>
>tomitire
You may be called a bogot, but you are simply a voice of reason.
Thank you for your logic.
William R. James SA#306
Now get ready for the flames. They eill call you a bigot, they
will call you a "homophobe", and they will accuse you of
spreading hate.
Wm James
>Wm James wrote:
>>
>> You then lobby for special rights and protection for others who beleive that their > brake malfunctions are "normal".
>Special rights - well, let's see.
>
>1) The not just to die serving this country in the military, but the
>right to say you're gay while doing it. There IS, ALWAYS was, and
>ALWAYS will be gays in the military. That has NEVER been the issue.
>The issue is the right to say you're gay.
The military exists to kill people and break things. This may
sound bad, but in a war this is what is needed. IT IS NOT A
SOCIAL PROGRAM! A military unit must live, eat, crap, and sleep
together in very close contact without having to wonder about the
soldier next to you.This is why women should not be in combat.
This is also why homosexuals should not be in combat units as
well. I think that there are positions that women and homosexuals
can serve in that are of great value in the military, but not in
any unit that could be expected to enter into combat.
>2) The right to visit someone who you have shared your life with if they
>are in a hospital.
This, I would not argue. The hospitals are your target here. Few
of us would argue this point. I am on your side. ( did I say
that?)
>3) The right to know that what you and someone else have accumilated
>through your working together over many years will pass on to that other
>person after you die without long, hard court battles.
Without a will, ALL have that problem. With a will, few do.
This is not a sexual issue. Some people leave millions to their
cat!
>4) The right to not only pay taxes but have your tax money come back to
>you and your loved one in the form benefits reflective of other American
>citizens.
No sympathy here. The government should not take or give.
>5) The right to NOT be driven from a job, home that you had for many
>years because someone found out what you did in your bedroom with
>another consenting adult.
I don't want the government telling me where I have to buy bread,
gas, soap, or labor. Freedom is freedom. The price is sometimes
higher than other times, but it is a bargin at any price.
>6) The right to live their lives in peace from bigots.
No one has the right to be agreed with. Do you really think you
are so special?
>> Since many of your loved ones (also non-brakers) are either already injured or at high > risk of injury, you lobby for laws to force your employers insurance plan to pay their > health care
>You said the key phrase: your employers
Would you want the government to decide where you have to buy
everything, or just labor?
>> and taxpayer funding for auto accident treatment research.
>ROFLOL - Grow up! Homosexuals have been paying taxes for YEARS. No one
>can be so naive as to believe that they haven't! They have been paying
>taxes since the tax system was started so why shouldn't they have some
>of the benefits?
They have the same benifits as anyone else. What they want are
special benifits. I am not inclined to consent to that. The AIDS
lobby wants many times more than what is spent for research on
many other non-preventable diseases. Until HIV mutates into an
airborne virus, it will be among the most preventable of all
diseases. NO ONE has to expose themself to it. We know how to
prevent it. the information is now common knowledge. If we are to
spend money on research, it should be on other things.
William R. James SA#306
Wm James
> What are you, a professional idiot?
> He meant for you to "document or retract" your statement that
>monogamy is rarer among homosexuals than among heterosexuals.
> DUH!
Is the obvious as much of a problem for you as simple logic?
William R. James SA#306
loki
> >5) The right to NOT be driven from a job, home that you had
> >yeafor many rs because someone found out what you did in your
> >anobedroom with ther consenting adult.
>
>Not possible. But there is a right for employers to cease and
>desist employment if they feel you do not project the image they
>wish because it may be detrimental to their business. We might
>see this with the show, 'Ellen.' If the ratings are lousy is the
>network obligated to keep it going; and would that be 'forcing'
>DeGeneris out of her job? I don't believe I care to see the
>market dictated to.
Tricky call. Would you grant an employer the right to refuse to hire
black people because his product or service appealed to people who do
not like black people, Jews, or women? If not, what is the difference?
Loki
Wm James
>Perhaps we interpretted the question differently, but I thought that
>you were being asked to documment that instances of promescuity were
>greater in the homosexual community than in the straight one.
>
>Loki
Is there any doubt? Do you beleive that HIV more contagious
than the common cold? Look at the rate of spred in the
homosexual community verses the rate of spread in the
heterosexual community. Does anyone, homo or hetero, really
wonder about this?
William R. James SA#306
Wm James
>Hardly. It is you who does not understad, or engage in a life
>style-but rather than accept it and saying to each his own, you try to
>condem that life style as being abnormal, deny basic human rights to
>the people who are in it, and draw faulty analogies claiming that
>people who engage in that lifestyle are a danger to society.
I never condemned, and I challange you to produce any post wher I
did. I never condoned denial of human rights to anyone and make
the same challange. I have stated that the lifestyle is self
destructive and I stand by that statement based on fact.
>It was not homosexuals who invented the terms "faggot" and "dyke". It
>is not homosexuals who argue that their lifestyle is responsible for
>the spread oof AIDS. (and before you respond, bear in mind that there
>are more reported cases of members of the LA Lakers contacting the HIV
>virus than lesbians. Yet no one says that basketball spreads AIDS).
So, you agree that those who do not have penises inserted in
their rectums are at low risk of AIDS? I agree.
>It is heterosexuals who would deny homosexuals to put a picture of
>their signifigant other on their desk at work, or hold hands while
>walking through the park on a Sunday afternoon, sneak a kiss on the
>lips in a public place, or form a lifelong commitment through
>marriage.
I would deny no such thing. I simply suggest that if you want to
have a free society, you must accept that those thing will result
in things that you may not want. This may include loss of job,
loss of respect, and public scorn. If you want freedom, you must
be willing to accept the results of your actions. If you want the
government to place everyone in a cage and control everything,
this means that you will also be in a cage.
>Yet these are all activities the heterosexuals would claim
>were indicative of good family values were they engaged in by other
>heterosexuals.
"Family"????? Get real.,
>No sir, I am afraid that your analogy is flawed and your last comment
>is a cast of the pot calling the kettle black.
The anology is correct. If you ddislike it, I suggest you
re-think your logic.
>Loki
William R. James SA#306
Wm James
>I think that he was refering to your assertion that monogamy was rare in
>the homosexual community.
Compared to the heterosexual community, it is. LIKE I SAID!
>Document or retract, and then tie that back into the subject of this thread
>and tell us why gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be encouraged or given
>incentive to enter into a commited, stable, monogamous relationship like
>marriage.
Gay people, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual should be
prepared to accept the risk of the actions that the choose.
>> Is documentation required for the logically obvious?
>
>When you make blanket statements like that, yes, otherwise you are simply
>giving us your opinion on the subject, and as was proven by Baehr v. Lewin,
>your opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans..
Ignore the obvious as loog as you wish. It does not change the
facts. If you want documentation for the earths spherical shape,
I expect you to get it elsewhere. I am discussing more complex
issues.
>> William R. James SA#306
>
>Jeff Barlow
William R. James SA#306
Wm James
>Are you suggesting that a heterosexual woman who engages in anal sex
>with multiple partners is safer than a homosexual man who does the
>same?
When have I said that?
>Or that an an unprotected homosexual man who (ahem) enters that region
>on an infected homosexual man is in any more danger than a
>heterosexual man who takes a heterosexual woman that way?
The homosexual or heterosexual man who is the "penatrator" is at
far less risk than the penatrated. Sinse the body fluid if
transfered into the torn rectum, any disease carried by the
penatrator is at very high risk of transfer.
Sinse male homosexual sex involves TWO penatrators, the risk is
twice as high, even if all other factors were the same. The
increase from other partners increases linearly for heterosexuals
and exponentialy for homosexual males due to the dual fluid
transfer nature of male homosexual sex.
This is an undeniable FACT.
>Please continue.
Wm James
>> >Source?
>> Police reports
>
>From? Any particular city? Any particular year? How did you come across
>these?
You need statictical reports from every major city in the western
hemisphere to conclude what you could find from any? Call LAPD,
NYPD, SFPD, ect... Pick ANY.
>[snip]
>
>> >> These multiple sexual encounters with strangers are the reasom HIV
>> >> spread so fast over such a short time.
>> >
>> >Multiple sexual encounters? How do you know these exist?
>>
>> Three letters... H.I.V.
>
>And the existence of the virus proves exactly... what?
Not the existance, the rate of spread. HIV spread into every
major US city in the homosexual community in a matter of 3 to 5
years. In each city, it was considered an epidemic in the
homosexual community in less than two years after the first
confirmed case. It is reasonable to assume that the first
heterosexuals wer exposed to HIV in less than 5 years after the
first homosexual exposure, so If the lifestyle were of equal
exposure risk, the infection rate would be less than 5 years
behind the homosexual exposure rate. The facts show that this is
not anywhere near the case. If you discount the needle sharing
drug users, those who got HIV from blood , and females who got it
from bisexuals (who got it from homosexual activities) you STILL
have a VERY LOW rate among heterosexuals.
>[snip]
>
>> Alas, there it is. The first thing homosexuals do when confronted with
>> logic for which they have no rational argument. Attaching their own
>> perversions to others. Congradulations, it took you several sentences
>> to resort to it.
>
>I'm a heterosexual. I don't see why you would assume otherwise.
The name calling is a traditional response from the homosexual
activists to those who present any disagreement. This has been
demonstrated many times. You would have seen thid if you had read
this entire thread.
>> >> Making the lifestyle sound like Ozzie and Harry doesn't work. The
>> >> facts show otherwise.
>> >
>> >Facts? You misspelled: "fictitious shit I make up as I go along".
>> And here, folks, is the second thing. Name calling.
>> Thank you for proving my case once again.
>
>Name calling? It seemed a reasonable interpretation of your post.
I presented only logical argument based on facts available to
anyone. I never expressed the hate and bigotry that I was accused
of. What is reasonable about the illogical, irrational, name
calling?
>Might I add that none of this has anything to do with the morality of
>homosexuality?
I never in this or any other thread brought up morality. That is
a different issue.
>--
>stufnten, Toby
>Ich weiss keinen besseren Lebenszweck als am Grossen und Unmoeglichen zu
>Grunde zu gehen - FNietzsche
>
William R. James SA#306