Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
bobandcarole
Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 3, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Linda Harvey
Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks
to positions where they gain access to our kids.
Chips
let Foley be a troop leader for camping trips.
"bobandcarole" <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David Ruether
"bobandcarole" <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
More stupid, bigoted, thoughtless anti-gay propaganda passed on by "bob and carole"...
--
David Ruether
rue...@verizon.net
rp...@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
bob
<bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote:
Sorry dumb ass, isn't 'typical behavior' . Take your bigoted rhetoric
and pound it up your ass.
John McWilliams
So glad you pointed that out.
f-u set.
--
lsmft
Matt Clara
"bobandcarole" <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: October 3, 2006
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>
> By Linda Harvey
>
>
> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
> men, he likes young teen boys.
Yes, and did you know that use of web-tv is indicative of lower economic
status? And we all know what that means: you beat your kids and your
spouse, you steal, you have poor hygene, illegally dump your trash, rip off
the government and hardworking people everywhere by using greenstamps to
support your alcoholism and gambling addictions, and medicare to support
your addiction to prescription drugs. The list goes on and on, you fucking
scum bags--how dare you show your inferior faces here, you sub-hominid
wastes of dna!
Gee, that is fun!
John McWilliams
Nice work. That'll ensure this lovely thread goes longer. F-U set.
--
lsmft
Roedy Green
who said :
>Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
>men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
>handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
>
>Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
>for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks
>to positions where they gain access to our kids.
That is untrue. I have explained why in my post "Are gays more likely
to be pedophiles?"
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
Truth B. Told
Fascism? Gays?
In Germany, the fascists demonized, oppressed and finally rounded-up
and exterminated gays (gives ya woody just thinking about that, huh
Bob?)---except, of course, those gays who happened to be high ranking
party members like Hernamm Goering. Party members were protected.
Starting to sound familar?
I hope you haven't broken too many windows in that glass house of
yours.
T.B. Told
P.S. Carole, maybe if you gave it up to Bob once in a while, you both
would not be so hung up on sex all the time. Just a thought.
Andrealphus
at bobandc...@webtv.net, typed this:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: October 3, 2006
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>
> By Linda Harvey
>
>
> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual.
LOL! Riigggghhhtt! You're still the biggest liar on usenet.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
John McWilliams
> In News 1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,, bobandcarole
> at bobandc...@webtv.net, typed this:
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Posted: October 3, 2006
>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>>
>>
>> By Linda Harvey
>>
>>
>> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual.
>
> LOL! Riigggghhhtt! You're still the biggest liar on usenet.
>
>
Chas
> That is untrue. I have explained why in my post "Are gays more likely
> to be pedophiles?"
They seem to be more likely to be 'ephebephiles'- post-pubescent minors as
the object of desire.
They seem more likely to be rapists as well- as witness the incidence of
forced sex in all-male environments like prison outnumbering the incidence
of all intergender rape.
Chas
No One
In case you don't know, prison rapes are predominently committed by
heterosexuals, either to "get off" with someone when the only
available "someones" are of the same gender or to assert dominance
over another inmate. They think that if you rape another inmate, you
own him. Don't ask me why. This is a prison culture thing outside my
personal experience.
bobandcarole.
Andrealphus wrote:
> In News 1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,, bobandcarole
> at bobandc...@webtv.net, typed this:
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Posted: October 3, 2006
> > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> >
> >
> > By Linda Harvey
> >
> >
> > Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual.
>
> LOL! Riigggghhhtt! You're still the biggest liar on usenet.
Lets see...man sends sexually suggestive messages to teenage boy.
Yeah, he's straight...LMAO!!!!!
You're still nothing but a post editing faggot.......
Andrealphus
at bobandc...@hotmail.com, typed this:
> Andrealphus wrote:
>> In News 1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,,
>> bobandcarole at bobandc...@webtv.net, typed this:
>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Posted: October 3, 2006
>>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>>>
>>>
>>> By Linda Harvey
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual.
>>
>> LOL! Riigggghhhtt! You're still the biggest liar on usenet.
>
> Lets see...man sends sexually suggestive messages to teenage boy.
That's what pedophiles do.... Are you really that stupid?
bobandcarole.
Andrealphus wrote:
> In News 1159927696....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,, bobandcarole.
> at bobandc...@hotmail.com, typed this:
>
> > Andrealphus wrote:
> >> In News 1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,,
> >> bobandcarole at bobandc...@webtv.net, typed this:
> >>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Posted: October 3, 2006
> >>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> By Linda Harvey
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual.
> >>
> >> LOL! Riigggghhhtt! You're still the biggest liar on usenet.
> >
> > Lets see...man sends sexually suggestive messages to teenage boy.
>
> That's what pedophiles do....
Are you really that stupid?
You make me laugh so hard, Jethro!!
Please show your stupidity again :-)
Andrealphus
> Andrealphus wrote:
>> In News 1159927696....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,,
>> bobandcarole. at bobandc...@hotmail.com, typed this:
>>
>>> Andrealphus wrote:
>>>> In News 1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,,
>>>> bobandcarole at bobandc...@webtv.net, typed this:
>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Posted: October 3, 2006
>>>>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By Linda Harvey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Riigggghhhtt! You're still the biggest liar on usenet.
>>>
>>> Lets see...man sends sexually suggestive messages to teenage boy.
>>
>> That's what pedophiles do....
> I'm a pedophile faggots
>
We know.
>> Are you really that stupid?
> Yes, yes I am.
We know that too.
Ray Fischer
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Posted: October 3, 2006
>1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>
>By Linda Harvey
>
>Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
>men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
>handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
Just like "many" heterosexual men like young teen girls.
>Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
>for homosexuals
Bigoted asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bobandcarole.
Ray Fischer wrote:
> bobandcarole <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Posted: October 3, 2006
> >1:00 a.m. Eastern
> >
> >
> >By Linda Harvey
> >
> >Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
> >men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
> >handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
>
> Just like "many" heterosexual men like young teen girls.
Not true, but we are talking about *homo* men.
Pay attention next time.........
>
> >Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
> >for homosexuals
>
> Bigoted asshole.
Pedo lover.........
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> bobandcarole <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote:
>> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >Posted: October 3, 2006
>> >1:00 a.m. Eastern
>> >
>> >
>> >By Linda Harvey
>> >
>> >Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
>> >men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
>> >handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
>>
>> Just like "many" heterosexual men like young teen girls.
>
>Not true,
That's the point, you lying bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Gray Shockley
(in article <1159909561....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> bobandcarole wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are you getting the idea that "bob&carole"
are two different people?
Gray
Matt Clara
news:wcadncQ8D83enb7Y...@comcast.com...
<SNIP a bunch of hate crime material>
>
> Chas
>
>
Hi Chas,
PLONK (you ignorant turd.)
George Kerby
On 10/3/06 11:10 PM, in article 4523343d$0$34515$742e...@news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> bobandcarole <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> Posted: October 3, 2006
>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>>
>>
>> By Linda Harvey
>>
>> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
>> men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
>> handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
>
> Just like "many" heterosexual men like young teen girls.
>
>> Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
>> for homosexuals
>
> Bigoted asshole.
But hating Republicans is not being bigoted, eh Ray?
David Ruether
"bobandcarole" <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> By Linda Harvey:
>
> Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
> for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks
> to positions where they gain access to our kids.
>
> http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52244
This kind of bigoted junk is what leads ("justifies"...?) that nutty
Baptist church group from Kansas to its actions in picketing soldiers'
(and the recently killed girls in Pennsylvania) funerals, of all things!!!
Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their
hatred for homosexuals justifies this... This is ridiculous and
disgusting. BTW - I'm always amused by these hate groups
arguing that gay people somehow undermine "family values", yet
they fight against gay marriage - and fail to recognize the MANY
successful and happy gay families that exist (and, gosh, many even
with children! ;-). Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not
just some in our society (Remember when marriage between
different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at
the whim of the master?). These anti-gay people are soon (I hope)
going to be viewed with the same contempt as we now view those
trying to limit the marriage rights of Blacks. I also have to laugh at
the idea that anyone can be "lured" into being homosexual (or for
that matter, lured into being heterosexual...;-) - people are what
they are, and should be able to live as what they are and as they
wish, so long as that does not (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others.
Bigotry be dead!!!
Matt Clara
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C149258A.B326%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>>
>> Bigoted asshole.
> But hating Republicans is not being bigoted, eh Ray?
>
Hating the current Republican party and what it stands for, no. Hating
Republicans as a whole, yes.
Ron Hunter
Bisexuals do, but the true homosexual can't have sexual intercourse with
a person of the opposite sex.
Bisexuals can, and do, but they aren't the subject of the discussion.
Lumping bisexuals and homosexuals into the same group is as misguided as
lumping homosexuals and heterosexuals into the same group.
David Ruether
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:TYCdnR7xOMgdSL7Y...@giganews.com...
> I hate to break this to you, but homosexuals DON'T have children. Bisexuals do, but the true homosexual can't have sexual
> intercourse with a person of the opposite sex.
> Bisexuals can, and do, but they aren't the subject of the discussion. Lumping bisexuals and homosexuals into the same group is as
> misguided as lumping homosexuals and heterosexuals into the same group.
Gosh, "I hate to break it to you", but heterosexual couples don't
necessarily have children, homosexual couples include women (one
of the prejudices often encountered is that homosexuals are only
male...;-) who *can* have children (with the aid of a male friend
or sperm bank), and gay couples of both sexes can and do adopt
children (who generally turn out to be heterosexual - big surprise,
since homosexuality is not "catching"..!.;-).
Chas
> In case you don't know, prison rapes are predominently committed by
> heterosexuals, either to "get off" with someone when the only
> available "someones" are of the same gender or to assert dominance
> over another inmate. They think that if you rape another inmate, you
> own him. Don't ask me why. This is a prison culture thing outside my
> personal experience.
Politically correct bullshit.
They're homosexuals- that's the basic definition of homosexual; having sex
with men. You may want to consider them 'bisexual', but the bottom line (as
it were) is that they're interested in men-
same thing in women's prisons-
Chas
Chas
>>Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
>>men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
>>handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
> Just like "many" heterosexual men like young teen girls.
And if Foley didn't have the protection of homosexuals' political
correctness, and had gone after a couple of 16 yr old girls, he'd be looking
at twenty years in prison.
>>Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
>>for homosexuals
> Bigoted asshole.
Nothing wrong with being 'bigoted' about degenerates.
Chas
Cary Kittrell
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote
> >>Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
> >>men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
> >>handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
> > Just like "many" heterosexual men like young teen girls.
>
> And if Foley didn't have the protection of homosexuals' political
> correctness, and had gone after a couple of 16 yr old girls, he'd be looking
> at twenty years in prison.
For sending suggestive emails? No, he wouldn't.
-- cary
Chas
> This kind of bigoted junk is what leads ("justifies"...?) that nutty
> Baptist church group from Kansas to its actions in picketing soldiers'
> (and the recently killed girls in Pennsylvania) funerals, of all things!!!
Little different from the anti-war protesters being rude, or the various
anti-christian groups going on about the pederasts in the Catholic Church.
You get the same sort of invective from gays in demonstration/parade, and
from pro/anti immigration issue partisans.
> Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their
> hatred for homosexuals justifies this...
It's much the same as with 'gay marriage' proponents that distance
themselves, sometimes quite contemptuously, from plural marriage advocates;
or consanguinity by measures we don't recognize; or age-of-consent rules, so
on.
Everybody's got some 'twisted views', and everybody is subject to get rude
about it.
>......Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not
> just some in our society (Remember when marriage between
> different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at
> the whim of the master?).
Or when it was between a man and numerous women? or between a 6 yr. old and
the prophet of islam? or a woman and numerous men from the same family?
If you want religious approbation, you need to switch religions until you
find one you like.
If you want approbation from all religions, you're out of luck.
If you want Government Approval for your domestic relationship, you've got
some company to bring with you.
> These anti-gay people are soon (I hope)
> going to be viewed with the same contempt as we now view those
> trying to limit the marriage rights of Blacks.
There were lots of places where such marriages were approved; others where
not.
In much of Asia, the denigrated race was 'white'- asian women who married
whites were despised, their children of mixed-race treated very shabbily.
In other words; the condition of 'racialism' is not confined to some
degenerate group of Americans.
> I also have to laugh at
> the idea that anyone can be "lured" into being homosexual (or for
> that matter, lured into being heterosexual...;-)
Lots of youngsters are seduced by chickenhawks- many, to their lasting shame
and self-degradation. Many go on to predate on younger children; often with
attendent violence.
> - people are what
> they are, and should be able to live as what they are and as they
> wish, so long as that does not (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others.
The dispute is in what constitutes 'harm'.
> Bigotry be dead!!!
Judgment be damned???
Chas
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:4cmdndBBRaJieb7Y...@comcast.com...
Hmmm...
Let's see...
By this logic, (almost?) all male prisoners are homosexual while in
prison, regardless of their likely VERY un-homosexual preferences
(for most) while out of prison? Likewise for women... You mistake
homosexual acts forced by the situation (or present among young
people experimenting sexually) with homosexuality - but the two are
quite different! The OP has it right.
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:NaadnW9Y1uNvcb7Y...@comcast.com...
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
>> This kind of bigoted junk is what leads ("justifies"...?) that nutty
>> Baptist church group from Kansas to its actions in picketing soldiers'
>> (and the recently killed girls in Pennsylvania) funerals, of all things!!!
> Little different from the anti-war protesters being rude, or the various anti-christian groups going on about the pederasts in the
> Catholic Church. You get the same sort of invective from gays in demonstration/parade, and from pro/anti immigration issue
> partisans.
What a bunch of nonsense! Anti-war protesters may be rude sometimes
(I'm glad they are - we must not be sheep led by our leaders into bad
wars with no protest!). And you don't see any more than comment
about the pederasty in the Catholic Church - not a denouncement of
that Church as a whole (though it has done some mighty nasty things in
its history, coming from the top down and not just the bottom up as with
the current problems). People do want to speak out, often loudly (gee,
surprise, if they feel they are not otherwise being heard). This is different
from disrupting *funerals* for our ***SOLDIERS*** who have died in
service to our country - who should be honored (*regardless* of what
we may think of the war!). And, now we have innocent children shot
by a nut who apparently couldn't deal with his sexual demons - and the
nuts from Westboro baptist Church in Kansas threaten to come and
upset these very peaceful and passive Amish during their funerals,
adding to the distress of their losses...
Come on - this almost defines evil!!!
>> Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their
>> hatred for homosexuals justifies this...
> It's much the same as with 'gay marriage' proponents that distance themselves, sometimes quite contemptuously, from plural
> marriage advocates; or consanguinity by measures we don't recognize; or age-of-consent rules, so on.
I don't...;-) One must really examine what is "known" for both logic and the
real truth before coming to conclusions about these. Otherwise, it is just
more prejudices...
> Everybody's got some 'twisted views', and everybody is subject to get rude about it.
OK, if it has some truthful examination of the facts and logic, and not
just bigotry and prejudice, behind it (NOT propaganda, like the OP's
sited URL).
>>......Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not
>> just some in our society (Remember when marriage between
>> different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at
>> the whim of the master?).
> Or when it was between a man and numerous women? or between a 6 yr. old and the prophet of islam? or a woman and numerous men from
> the same family?
> If you want religious approbation, you need to switch religions until you find one you like.
> If you want approbation from all religions, you're out of luck.
Marriage in the US is a state recognition of a union. It may be
additionally regiously sanctioned (or not - it makes no difference
legally...). It is not right to deny a state right to some that is granted
to others (and this recognition of unions does carry with it legal
and financial liabilities/advantages, making it not inconsequential).
> If you want Government Approval for your domestic relationship, you've got some company to bring with you.
??? Or, if I get what you mean, "one considered step at a time...";-)
(Though there may not necessarily be additional included groups,
at least for quite a while. When I was a kid I heard nothing at all about
gay people except my cousin relating how he helped beat one up
one night. 50 years later, there is STILL a lot of predjuce, but gay
marriage actually exists in limited areas in the US (and in more in the
rest of the world [tells yuh sumpin', don' it?;-]).
>> These anti-gay people are soon (I hope)
>> going to be viewed with the same contempt as we now view those
>> trying to limit the marriage rights of Blacks.
> There were lots of places where such marriages were approved; others where not.
> In much of Asia, the denigrated race was 'white'- asian women who married whites were despised, their children of mixed-race
> treated very shabbily.
> In other words; the condition of 'racialism' is not confined to some degenerate group of Americans.
Of course - but we are talking about the US, and the rights of adults...
(Um, I do very much take exception to your referring to gays as degenerates,
if that is what you did - that would have been VERY bigoted...!).
>> I also have to laugh at
>> the idea that anyone can be "lured" into being homosexual (or for
>> that matter, lured into being heterosexual...;-)
> Lots of youngsters are seduced by chickenhawks- many, to their lasting shame and self-degradation. Many go on to predate on
> younger children; often with attendent violence.
The shame (and subsequent psychological problems) can be attributed
more to the guilt and shame (and feelings of need to hide) put on them by
our social-sexual pressures (and the "nuclear family", which is very unrealistic).
If you look at history where man-boy relationships were prized (as in
Rome), generally no harm came from the relationships, the older person
often served as a mentor, and the younger proceeded later to be in a
heterosexual relationship. BTW, many of the Europeans consider us
(properly) to be up-tight prigs about sexuality, which does us more harm
than good in the end.
>> - people are what
>> they are, and should be able to live as what they are and as they
>> wish, so long as that does not (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others.
> The dispute is in what constitutes 'harm'.
If I hit you and cause you physical injury or death, that is "harm";
if a male married same-sex couple walks down the street by you in
Massachussets holding hands, that causes you no harm (except what
you generate internally from your bigotry...). That distinction is simple.
>> Bigotry be dead!!!
> Judgment be damned???
Yes, if it is based on erroneous or ill-considered "facts".
> Chas
Chas
> By this logic, (almost?) all male prisoners are homosexual while in
> prison, regardless of their likely VERY un-homosexual preferences
> (for most) while out of prison?
No- only certain men act out their homosexuality by raping other inmates;
homosexuals.
> Likewise for women... You mistake
> homosexual acts forced by the situation (or present among young
> people experimenting sexually) with homosexuality - but the two are
> quite different! The OP has it right.
You have some odd definition of 'homosexual', if it excludes homosexual acts
of various sorts.
Chas
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:YcednR3p_uBDjbnY...@comcast.com...
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
>> By this logic, (almost?) all male prisoners are homosexual while in
>> prison, regardless of their likely VERY un-homosexual preferences
>> (for most) while out of prison?
> No- only certain men act out their homosexuality by raping other inmates; homosexuals.
I would change that then to *some* men (and women) perform
homosexual acts for various reasons in prison, but relatively few of
those who do are homosexuals...
>> Likewise for women... You mistake
>> homosexual acts forced by the situation (or present among young
>> people experimenting sexually) with homosexuality - but the two are
>> quite different! The OP has it right.
> You have some odd definition of 'homosexual', if it excludes homosexual acts of various sorts.
>
> Chas
You confuse the two - for instance, someone may perform one
or several homosexual acts in his/her life, yet not be homosexual.
Actually, this is the norm (read Kinsey... ;-)
Or, one may be bisexual, or homosexual - but who cares. Live
and let live - the labels are silly impediments.
z
bobandcarole wrote:
> Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
> for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks
> to positions where they gain access to our kids.
>
Yeah, because God knows grown heterosexual men have no interest in
teenage girls.
Cary Kittrell
>
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
> > By this logic, (almost?) all male prisoners are homosexual while in
> > prison, regardless of their likely VERY un-homosexual preferences
> > (for most) while out of prison?
>
> No- only certain men act out their homosexuality by raping other inmates;
> homosexuals.
Hmmmm...either you're declaring that by definition, a tautology, -- or
else you have studies to cite which demonstrate the claim?
>
> > Likewise for women... You mistake
> > homosexual acts forced by the situation (or present among young
> > people experimenting sexually) with homosexuality - but the two are
> > quite different! The OP has it right.
>
> You have some odd definition of 'homosexual', if it excludes homosexual acts
> of various sorts.
And you have an interesting definition yourself. Let's explore it
a bit: is a male who has ... oh, say, one homosexual experience as
young boy, followed by a lifetime of heterosexuality -- is this
individual a homosexual? Or was a homosexual, but got over it?
Or what?
-- cary
z
Chas wrote:
> "Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote
> > That is untrue. I have explained why in my post "Are gays more likely
> > to be pedophiles?"
>
> They seem to be more likely to be 'ephebephiles'- post-pubescent minors as
> the object of desire.
Apparently you're not familiar with the Web.
Cary Kittrell
Oh, BC will claim that they do not.
Of course, Googling on "hot teen" gives something in excess
of three million hits. None, apparently, of the slightest
interest to grown heterosexual men.
(this also explains, of course, why all Playmates of the Month
are thirty. or older)
-- cary
No One
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote
> >>Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
> >>men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
> >>handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
> > Just like "many" heterosexual men like young teen girls.
>
> And if Foley didn't have the protection of homosexuals' political
> correctness, and had gone after a couple of 16 yr old girls, he'd be looking
> at twenty years in prison.
Nonesense. If he went after a couple of 16 year old girls, he'd be
looking at zero years in prison because the age of consent in
Washington D.C. is 16. If you don't like that, don't blame me - I
didn't write the law.
> >>Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
> >>for homosexuals
> > Bigoted asshole.
>
> Nothing wrong with being 'bigoted' about degenerates.
THere's a lot wrong about posting lies designed to spread hatred
against a minority - that's what the Nazis did and doing the same
thing fundamentally makes you as bad as they were morally (even though
they were more effective at causing damage than you are.)
Chas
> .......This is different
> from disrupting *funerals* for our ***SOLDIERS*** who have died in
> service to our country - who should be honored (*regardless* of what
> we may think of the war!).
Of course we all decry such egregious rudeness-
but one might well include anti-war protesters like Cindy Sheehan for some
of her activities; or any other political activist you don't like.
> And, now we have innocent children shot
> by a nut who apparently couldn't deal with his sexual demons -
Yeah- dating back until he was twelve.
Mark Foley is now citing his being molested by a 'clergyman' as the genesis
for his perversion.
> and the
> nuts from Westboro baptist Church in Kansas threaten to come and
> upset these very peaceful and passive Amish during their funerals,
> adding to the distress of their losses...
Which hardly compares- tacky as it may be.
> Marriage in the US is a state recognition of a union.
Yes- they arrogated to themselves the jurisdiction over ecclesiastical law
some decades ago.
The protest is generally religious in nature and has no real relevance to
secular law at all.
> It may be
> additionally regiously sanctioned (or not - it makes no difference
> legally...). It is not right to deny a state right to some that is granted
> to others (and this recognition of unions does carry with it legal
> and financial liabilities/advantages, making it not inconsequential).
You may draw any contract you want- more generous than 'marriage', or less
so, at your discretion.
States, as in Colorado, assert an interest in marriage on account of
children; not much else. They also assert an interest in plural marriage-
both because of the large population of Mormons, and the Treaty People of
the Ute Tribe.
>> If you want Government Approval for your domestic relationship, you've
>> got some company to bring with you.
> ??? Or, if I get what you mean, "one considered step at a time...";-)
Then you've got to take your turn- plural marriage has been a question since
the 1890's or so, and a more pertinent question in this area presently.
Plural marriage also raises questions of consanguinity and, very often, age
of consent to marriage.
> ......but gay
> marriage actually exists in limited areas in the US (and in more in the
> rest of the world [tells yuh sumpin', don' it?;-]).
And plural marriage even moreso.
>> In other words; the condition of 'racialism' is not confined to some
>> degenerate group of Americans.
> (Um, I do very much take exception to your referring to gays as
> degenerates,
> if that is what you did - that would have been VERY bigoted...!).
I referred to your group of racialists whom you hold in such contempt.
But, while I don't hold all gays to be 'degenerates' (although some
demonstrably are), I do consider it a 'deviation'. I don't approve of
criminal sanctions for it- neither do I consider it an excuse for some sorts
of activities rightfully regulated by society.
> The shame (and subsequent psychological problems) can be attributed
> more to the guilt and shame (and feelings of need to hide) put on them by
> our social-sexual pressures (and the "nuclear family", which is very
> unrealistic).
Sure- nothing wrong with Guilt&Shame, when and where appropriate.
Our greatest opprobrium is reserved for sexual transgressions; infidelity,
age span, idee fixee`, gender/species- all kindsa classifications of
deviants.
> If you look at history where man-boy relationships were prized (as in
> Rome), generally no harm came from the relationships, the older person
> often served as a mentor, and the younger proceeded later to be in a
> heterosexual relationship.
They also gloried in the most bizarre associations of sex with death,
kiddie-fucking, watching women forced to sex with animals, unlimited rapine
of conquered women- and the vast population of slaves.
Seems a curious example if chosen in support of your thesis that it's
'normal' or something.
> BTW, many of the Europeans consider us
> (properly) to be up-tight prigs about sexuality, which does us more harm
> than good in the end.
What possible relevance could that have to anything-
base your life on what eurotrash twinks will espouse?
Quelle fromage.
> If I hit you and cause you physical injury or death, that is "harm";
But not the only sort of harm-
Let's take a genderfuck-nun with 'costume' exposed genitalia, deliberately
targeting devout catholics- is that not the intentional infliction of
emotional distress?
And, just as a practical observation; if you know something excites a
significant negative reaction from some people, probably best to exercise
some discretion about it. As an example, best not to do it whilst strolling
into a mosque with your shoes on.
> if a male married same-sex couple walks down the street by you in
> Massachussets holding hands, that causes you no harm (except what
> you generate internally from your bigotry...). That distinction is simple.
Yes; it is simple- and kind of impertinent/irrelevant by its illogical
extreme.
Chas
Chas
>> No- only certain men act out their homosexuality by raping other inmates;
>> homosexuals.
> Hmmmm...either you're declaring that by definition, a tautology, -- or
> else you have studies to cite which demonstrate the claim?
Words mean what they mean- there's no equivocation here.
Homosexuals are people that do homosexual things.
> And you have an interesting definition yourself. Let's explore it
> a bit: is a male who has ... oh, say, one homosexual experience as
> young boy, followed by a lifetime of heterosexuality -- is this
> individual a homosexual? Or was a homosexual, but got over it?
> Or what?
He doesn't sound homosexual to me-
a homosexual does homosexual things- sounds like he doesn't do homosexual
things, so it would seem self-evident.
Chas
Chas
> You confuse the two - for instance, someone may perform one
> or several homosexual acts in his/her life, yet not be homosexual.
Coersion isn't a sexual choice; except as regards 'survival'.
Homosexuals often predate on the weaker- lots of weird dominant/submission
stuff in that community anyway.
> Actually, this is the norm (read Kinsey... ;-)
Kinsey was an utter zipperhead whose protocols would be repugnant, as well
as academically deficient, today.
> Or, one may be bisexual, or homosexual - but who cares. Live
> and let live - the labels are silly impediments.
There's always 'us' and 'them'.
Whether that's sufficient to fight about is a choice on both sides.
Chas
Cary Kittrell
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
> >> No- only certain men act out their homosexuality by raping other inmates;
> >> homosexuals.
> > Hmmmm...either you're declaring that by definition, a tautology, -- or
> > else you have studies to cite which demonstrate the claim?
>
> Words mean what they mean- there's no equivocation here.
> Homosexuals are people that do homosexual things.
So we're going with the "tautology" choice then. What of
some subset of these prisoners who do only heterosexual
things before and after prison, but "do homosexual things"
while on the inside, out of lack of other opportunity? What are they?
>
> > And you have an interesting definition yourself. Let's explore it
> > a bit: is a male who has ... oh, say, one homosexual experience as
> > young boy, followed by a lifetime of heterosexuality -- is this
> > individual a homosexual? Or was a homosexual, but got over it?
> > Or what?
>
> He doesn't sound homosexual to me-
> a homosexual does homosexual things- sounds like he doesn't do homosexual
> things, so it would seem self-evident.
But he did at one point "do homosexual things" -- a fairly common youthful
experience, it seems. Was he a homosexual when he did these homosexual
things, but he since stopped being one?
-- cary
Chas
>> Words mean what they mean- there's no equivocation here.
>> Homosexuals are people that do homosexual things.
> So we're going with the "tautology" choice then.
No tautology there; homosexuals are defined by their practices.
>...What of
> some subset of these prisoners who do only heterosexual
> things before and after prison, but "do homosexual things"
> while on the inside, out of lack of other opportunity? What are they?
Plainly, homosexual- insofar as the who-gives-a-fuck meter goes; some care,
some don't.
Homosexuals do homosexual things, buddy.
> But he did at one point "do homosexual things" -- a fairly common youthful
> experience, it seems. Was he a homosexual when he did these homosexual
> things, but he since stopped being one?
Obviously.
It is, for many, a matter of choice, not birth.
Chas
Chas
> Nonesense. If he went after a couple of 16 year old girls, he'd be
> looking at zero years in prison because the age of consent in
> Washington D.C. is 16. If you don't like that, don't blame me - I
> didn't write the law.
The 'Foley Law', as I understand, prohibits interstate communications which
have such content with persons under 18.
There is also the consideration that most laws giving 16'ers 'consent', do
so only with partners 18 or under. If the age difference is greater, the AOC
rises to 18.
Further, the state in which the one youngster resides, the operative
jurisdiction, is over 16 (I've seen 17 and 18 cited).
Chas
Cary Kittrell
"Chas" <chasclem...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
> > You confuse the two - for instance, someone may perform one
> > or several homosexual acts in his/her life, yet not be homosexual.
>
> Coersion isn't a sexual choice; except as regards 'survival'.
> Homosexuals often predate on the weaker-
Heterosexuals often predate on the weaker, to the tune of
about a hundred thousand -- reported -- cases of rape a year.
> lots of weird dominant/submission stuff in that community anyway.
And S/M flourishes in the straight community as well.
>
> > Actually, this is the norm (read Kinsey... ;-)
>
> Kinsey was an utter zipperhead whose protocols would be repugnant, as well
> as academically deficient, today.
Kinsey's study -- Kinsey's quite flawed study -- was essentially
the first. There have been rather a number of others since.
>
> > Or, one may be bisexual, or homosexual - but who cares. Live
> > and let live - the labels are silly impediments.
>
> There's always 'us' and 'them'.
But sanctioned discrimination based on us and them should
require a convincing ethical underpinning.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
> >> Words mean what they mean- there's no equivocation here.
> >> Homosexuals are people that do homosexual things.
> > So we're going with the "tautology" choice then.
>
> No tautology there; homosexuals are defined by their practices.
>
> >...What of
> > some subset of these prisoners who do only heterosexual
> > things before and after prison, but "do homosexual things"
> > while on the inside, out of lack of other opportunity? What are they?
>
> Plainly, homosexual- insofar as the who-gives-a-fuck meter goes; some care,
> some don't.
> Homosexuals do homosexual things, buddy.
But apparently, going by your response to my example, doing heterosexual
things does not a heterosexual make -- if, under some conditions, he also
does homosexual things.
>
> > But he did at one point "do homosexual things" -- a fairly common youthful
> > experience, it seems. Was he a homosexual when he did these homosexual
> > things, but he since stopped being one?
>
> Obviously.
> It is, for many, a matter of choice, not birth.
How about you? Could you -- just for the sake of experiment, mind
you -- choose to be homosexual, maybe just for the next twenty
minutes or so? Could you sit down, right now, and consciously
decide to become so aroused by the thought of some hunk's cock
in your mouth that you will get an erection, perhaps even
ejaculate?
Or is this chooseable only for some, but not you?
-- cary
Chas
>> Coersion isn't a sexual choice; except as regards 'survival'.
>> Homosexuals often predate on the weaker-
> Heterosexuals often predate on the weaker, to the tune of
> about a hundred thousand -- reported -- cases of rape a year.
Homosexual rape in prison is often cited as 2,000,000 incidents per year.
>> lots of weird dominant/submission stuff in that community anyway.
> And S/M flourishes in the straight community as well.
Yeah; how weird- conflating dungeon stuff with sex.
There are some very strange people prancing about the Big Green Tree, bud.
> But sanctioned discrimination based on us and them should
> require a convincing ethical underpinning.
Sure- the relaxation of some ethical underpinning is what you seem to
demand.
You seem to conflate 'discrimination' based on activities with
discrimination based on heredity. Our Constitution prohibits 'corruption by
blood' in it's earliest form, but it doesn't excuse activities prohibited by
civil law. The greatest scope of laws prohibiting sexual acts have to do
with heterosexuals, not homosexuals- far more people in jail over being
inappropriately 'heterosexual' than homosexual.
Chas
Chas
>> Homosexuals do homosexual things, buddy.
> But apparently, going by your response to my example, doing heterosexual
> things does not a heterosexual make -- if, under some conditions, he also
> does homosexual things.
'Homosexual' isn't some sort of exclusionary word- it's obvious, for
instance, that one can be both Homosexual and Republican; Homosexual and
Clergy (if the Republican's report is credible); Homosexual and
Sado-Masochistic; Homosexual and Ephebephilic; Homosexual and Pedophilic-
nothing exclusionary there, pal.
> How about you? Could you -- just for the sake of experiment, mind
> you -- choose to be homosexual, maybe just for the next twenty
> minutes or so? Could you sit down, right now, and consciously
> decide to become so aroused by the thought of some hunk's cock
> in your mouth that you will get an erection, perhaps even
> ejaculate?
I've thought about that, and decided some years ago that it wasn't my
proclivity; same with S&M, or the fetish stuff- I pretty much think they've
got entirely too much time on their hands.
> Or is this chooseable only for some, but not you?
Others seem to be ready to make all sorts of choices that I don't share- and
homosexuality is way on down the line from some of the things I feel
strongly about.
Chas
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
> > Nonesense. If he went after a couple of 16 year old girls, he'd be
> > looking at zero years in prison because the age of consent in
> > Washington D.C. is 16. If you don't like that, don't blame me - I
> > didn't write the law.
>
> The 'Foley Law', as I understand, prohibits interstate communications which
> have such content with persons under 18.
I'm not sure.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley#Legislation_regarding_pornography_and_sexual_offenses>
describes some of his legislation reagrding interstate communications of
a pornographic nature, but it seemed designed to shut down web sites
that were trying to exploit children or teenagers.
<http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/politics/news-article.aspx?storyid=66076>
claims Foley
-- Helped write legislation to ban "virtual child
pornography."
-- Introduced legislation to ban "child erotica" websites.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the actual legislation in
question. If you have a link to that (i.e., the text of the law on a
House or Senate web site), it would help clarify the issue.
> There is also the consideration that most laws giving 16'ers 'consent', do
> so only with partners 18 or under. If the age difference is greater, the AOC
> rises to 18.
> Further, the state in which the one youngster resides, the operative
> jurisdiction, is over 16 (I've seen 17 and 18 cited).
When I checked some web sites, what I found was that the age of consent
in Washington D.C. was 16, but there was also a rule about the age
difference being no more than 4 years when the younger of the two was
under 16 (but older than some minimum, or something like that).
Cary Kittrell
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
> >> Coersion isn't a sexual choice; except as regards 'survival'.
> >> Homosexuals often predate on the weaker-
> > Heterosexuals often predate on the weaker, to the tune of
> > about a hundred thousand -- reported -- cases of rape a year.
>
> Homosexual rape in prison is often cited as 2,000,000 incidents per year.
>
> >> lots of weird dominant/submission stuff in that community anyway.
> > And S/M flourishes in the straight community as well.
>
> Yeah; how weird- conflating dungeon stuff with sex.
> There are some very strange people prancing about the Big Green Tree, bud.
>
> > But sanctioned discrimination based on us and them should
> > require a convincing ethical underpinning.
>
> Sure- the relaxation of some ethical underpinning is what you seem to
> demand.
No, the examination of this allegedly ethical underpinning. It makes
no sense to me -- and I'm straight.
> You seem to conflate 'discrimination' based on activities with
> discrimination based on heredity. Our Constitution prohibits 'corruption by
> blood' in it's earliest form, but it doesn't excuse activities prohibited by
> civil law. The greatest scope of laws prohibiting sexual acts have to do
> with heterosexuals, not homosexuals-
Really? What acts are legally forbidden to heterosexuals, but not
forbidden to homosexuals?
>far more people in jail over being inappropriately 'heterosexual' than homosexual.
Hardly surprising, as there are far more straights than gays.
All of which has little to do with what I was talking about -- when I
said "sanctioned discrimination", I was talking about culturally-accepted
attitudes, not legal sanction.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
"Chas" <chasclem...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
> >> Homosexuals do homosexual things, buddy.
> > But apparently, going by your response to my example, doing heterosexual
> > things does not a heterosexual make -- if, under some conditions, he also
> > does homosexual things.
>
> 'Homosexual' isn't some sort of exclusionary word- it's obvious, for
> instance, that one can be both Homosexual and Republican; Homosexual and
> Clergy (if the Republican's report is credible); Homosexual and
> Sado-Masochistic; Homosexual and Ephebephilic; Homosexual and Pedophilic-
> nothing exclusionary there, pal.
And, similarly, Homosexual and Heterosexual?
If not, we're right back to my question, above.
>
> > How about you? Could you -- just for the sake of experiment, mind
> > you -- choose to be homosexual, maybe just for the next twenty
> > minutes or so? Could you sit down, right now, and consciously
> > decide to become so aroused by the thought of some hunk's cock
> > in your mouth that you will get an erection, perhaps even
> > ejaculate?
>
> I've thought about that, and decided some years ago that it wasn't my
> proclivity;
So you consciously chose to become straight, but it could have gone
either way? Sort of like picking the best mortgage plan or something?
Me, I never even gave it a thought, back when such things suddenly became
unbearably urgent.
Which makes me inclined to accept it when gays tell me much the
same thing.
> same with S&M, or the fetish stuff- I pretty much think they've
> got entirely too much time on their hands.
Well, I have more than enough time for sex, but S&M simply doesn't appeal.
I don't think one choses what gets the tumesence going.
>
> > Or is this chooseable only for some, but not you?
>
> Others seem to be ready to make all sorts of choices that I don't share-
Or perhaps it was no choice at all -- no more than I had to take time
to make kind of choice back when the hormones kicked in.
> and
> homosexuality is way on down the line from some of the things I feel
> strongly about.
And I feel that love is love, and lust is lust, and I'm not terribly
concerned about the details of the plumbing. And I would that
others could share my unconcern.
-- cary
Baal
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:25:16 +0000, in Message-ID:
<gvPUg.8124$rH1.6529@trndny05>, "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu>
wrote:
> "bobandcarole" <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their
> hatred for homosexuals justifies this... This is ridiculous and
> disgusting. BTW - I'm always amused by these hate groups
> arguing that gay people somehow undermine "family values", yet
> they fight against gay marriage - and fail to recognize the MANY
> successful and happy gay families that exist (and, gosh, many even
> with children! ;-). Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not
> just some in our society (Remember when marriage between
> different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at
> the whim of the master?).
Hell, we've got same sex marriage up here in Canada, and the place
hasn't fallen apart yet. You'd think that would tell ya something, eh?
> These anti-gay people are soon (I hope) going to be viewed with the
> same contempt as we now view those trying to limit the marriage
> rights of Blacks. I also have to laugh at the idea that anyone can be
> "lured" into being homosexual (or for that matter, lured into being
> heterosexual...;-) - people are what they are, and should be able
> to live as what they are and as they wish, so long as that does not
> (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others. Bigotry be dead!!!
I think this will come in time, but I believe it will be a *long* time
coming.
> --
> David Ruether
> rue...@verizon.net
> rp...@cornell.edu
> http://www.ferrario.com/
Baal
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEVAwUBRSPMrgjjY4weksDoAQpGGAgAk5GVrZPOyMXSmegprGk+VXKplczPt2lT
P/vO7qGF+yDrA6CYdjb7uzW462GFQYSHNOj3Bty0T8sY3amB4XhwQKMF3LSyE6zi
Tilrw0YGu8vaD3qu9ltQJsx5KCUoppZANyAYYhVnCDAwz8rLiWUeWV5HYuU4EIQP
pJ6OzlFwjwXUStODWZc7m9LfDsTc8z29dCmr4rdybeHUU3Tg2iA4rIqUhOhNQtxn
KSUFOle43Deh2INlk4kkH9C4bCSybCL9CZfcaVvcR8sJxJVg667eyur14Awj3N+r
g/yqGqTQYP3+39tlG/0Hlc+mv3hxM0pwSKyR18R2qf1yxs7sa+KXbg==
=HF6a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baal
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:39:07 +0000, in Message-ID:
<m3psd7d...@nospam.pacbell.net>, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
> "Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
>> > Nonesense. If he went after a couple of 16 year old girls, he'd be
>> > looking at zero years in prison because the age of consent in
>> > Washington D.C. is 16. If you don't like that, don't blame me - I
>> > didn't write the law.
>>
>> The 'Foley Law', as I understand, prohibits interstate communications which
>> have such content with persons under 18.
The full text of the bill is shown below.
> I'm not sure.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley#Legislation_regarding_pornography_and_sexual_offenses>
> describes some of his legislation reagrding interstate communications of
> a pornographic nature, but it seemed designed to shut down web sites
> that were trying to exploit children or teenagers.
>
> <http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/politics/news-article.aspx?storyid=66076>
> claims Foley
>
> -- Helped write legislation to ban "virtual child
> pornography."
>
> -- Introduced legislation to ban "child erotica" websites.
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the actual legislation in
> question. If you have a link to that (i.e., the text of the law on a
> House or Senate web site), it would help clarify the issue.
>
>
>> There is also the consideration that most laws giving 16'ers 'consent', do
>> so only with partners 18 or under. If the age difference is greater, the AOC
>> rises to 18.
>> Further, the state in which the one youngster resides, the operative
>> jurisdiction, is over 16 (I've seen 17 and 18 cited).
>
> When I checked some web sites, what I found was that the age of consent
> in Washington D.C. was 16, but there was also a rule about the age
> difference being no more than 4 years when the younger of the two was
> under 16 (but older than some minimum, or something like that).
Here is the legislation I think you've been looking for:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.05749:
H.R.5749 Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect
youth from exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for other
purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Foley,Mark [FL-16] (introduced 7/10/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: S.3499
Latest Major Action: 7/10/2006 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
SUMMARY AS OF: 7/10/2006--Introduced.
Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's
Youth Act (SAFETY) of 2006 - Amends the federal criminal code to
prohibit: (1) financial transactions that facilitate access to, or
the possession of, child pornography; (2) the operation of a child
exploitation enterprise; and (3) the use of deceptive wording or
images to deceive persons, including minors, into viewing obscene
material on the Internet.
Increases criminal penalties for: (1) registered sex offenders
who commit a felony offense involving a child; and (2) activities
involving the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.
Amends the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 to: (1) increase
monetary penalties for willful failure of electronic communication
service providers to report child pornography; and (2) impose new
penalties for negligent failure to report.
Requires commercial website operators to place warning marks
prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission on web pages that contain
sexually explicit material.
Includes within the definitions of racketeering activity and
money laundering the crimes of child pornography and child sexual
exploitation. Expands civil remedies for victims of sex crimes
against children.
Establishes in the Department of Justice an Office on Sexual
Violence and Crimes against Children.
Authorizes additional (not less than 200) U.S. attorneys in FY2007
to prosecute crimes relating to the sexual exploitation of children.
Directs the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention to increase the number of Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Forces.
Directs the Attorney General to make grants to states, local
governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations to establish
and maintain programs for the prevention of sexual offenses against
minors.
Amends the USA PATRIOT Act to increase funding for regional computer
forensic laboratories. MAJOR ACTIONS:
***NONE***
ALL ACTIONS:
7/10/2006: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
***NONE***
COSPONSORS(1), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
(Sort: by date)
Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [PA-8] - 7/10/2006
COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee: Activity: House Judiciary Referral,
In Committee
RELATED BILL DETAILS: (additional related bills may be indentified
in Status)
Bill: Relationship: S.3499 Related bill identified by CRS
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***
=====================================================================
HR 5749 IH
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5749
To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth from
exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2006
Mr. FOLEY (for himself and Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth from
exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Internet Stopping Adults
Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act (SAFETY) of
2006'.
SEC. 2. FINANCIAL FACILITATION OF ACCESS TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
(a) Offense- Chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1960A. Financial facilitation of access to child pornography
`Whoever knowingly conducts, or attempts or conspires to
conduct, a financial transaction (as defined in section
1956(c)) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
knowing that such transaction will facilitate access to, or
the possession of, child pornography (as defined in section
2256) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 20 years, or both.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
`1960A. Financial facilitation of access to child
pornography.'.
SEC. 3. CHILD EXPLOITATION ENTERPRISES.
Section 2252A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
`(g) Child Exploitation Enterprises-
`(1) Whoever engages in a child exploitation enterprise
shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any
term of years not less than 20 or for life.
`(2) A person engages in a child exploitation enterprise
for the purposes of this section if the person violates
section 1466A, 1470, or 1591, section 1201 if the victim
is a minor, or chapter 110 or 117, as a part of a series
of felony violations constituting three or more separate
incidents and commits those offenses in concert with
three or more other persons.'.
SEC. 4. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS.
(a) Offense- Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 2260A. Increased penalties for registered sex offenders
`Whoever, being required by Federal or other law to register
as a sex offender, commits a felony offense involving a minor
under section 1201, 1466A, 1470, or 1591, or chapter 110 or
117 shall be fined under this title and imprisoned 10 years,
or both, in addition to the imprisonment imposed for the
offense under that provision. The sentence imposed under this
section shall be consecutive to any sentence imposed for the
offense under that provision.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
`2260A. Increased penalties for registered sex
offenders.'.
SEC. 5. INTERNET FACILITATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND EXPLOITATION
OF CHILDREN.
(a) Offense- Chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1960B. Internet facilitation of child pornography and
exploitation of children
`(a) Offense- Whoever, being an Internet content hosting
provider or email service provider, knowingly engages in
any conduct the provider knows or has reason to believe
facilitates access to, or the possession of, child pornography
(as defined in section 2256) shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
`(b) Definitions- As used in this section--
`(1) the term `Internet content hosting provider' means
a service that--
`(A) stores, through electromagnetic or other
means, electronic data, including the content of
web pages, electronic mail, documents, images,
audio and video files, online discussion boards,
and weblogs; and
`(B) makes such data available via the Internet
`(2) the term `email service provider' means a person
that--
`(A) provides a service, using the Internet, for
the transmission, receipt, storage, and retrieval,
by registered users, of electronic mail messages;
and
`(B) receives the content of, and recipient list
for, electronic mail messages that it transmits,
receives, or stores for the person or entity
procuring such services.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
`1960B. Internet facilitation of child pornography and
exploitation of children.'.
SEC. 6. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY REPORTING.
(a) Child Pornography Reporting- Section 227(b)(4) of the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13032(b)(4)) is
amended to read as follows:
`(4) FAILURE TO REPORT-
`(A) KNOWING FAILURE- A provider of electronic
communication services or remote computing
services described in paragraph (1) who knowingly
fails to make a report under that paragraph shall
be fined--
`(i) in the case of an initial failure to
make a report, not more than $150,000; and
`(ii) in the case of any second or
subsequent failure to make a report, not
more than $300,000.
`(B) NEGLIGENT FAILURE- A provider of electronic
communication services or remote computing
services described in paragraph (1) who
negligently fails to make a report under that
paragraph shall be subject to a civil penalty of--
`(i) in the case of an initial failure to
make a report, not more than $50,000; and
`(ii) in the case of any second or
subsequent failure to make a report, not
more than $100,000.
`(C) AUTHORITY- For the purposes of this
paragraph, the Federal Communications Commission--
`(i) may levy civil penalties under
subparagraph (B); and
`(ii) shall promulgate regulations, in
consultation with the Attorney General, to--
`(I) effectuate the purposes of
subparagraph (B); and
`(II) provide for appropriate
administrative review of any
civil penalties levied under that
subparagraph.'.
SEC. 7. DECEPTION BY EMBEDDED WORDS OR IMAGES.
(a) In General- Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 225B the following:
`Sec. 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet
`(a) In General- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital
images into the source code of a website with the intent to
deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity
shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less
than 2 years nor more than 10 years.
`(b) Minors- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images
into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a
minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet
shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less
than 5 years nor more than 20 years.
`(c) Construction- For the purposes of this section, a word or
digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the
site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.
`(d) Definitions- As used in this section--
`(1) the terms `material that is harmful to minors'
and `sex' have the meaning given such terms in section
2252B; and
`(2) the term `source code' means the combination of
text and other characters comprising the content, both
viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any
website publishing language, programming language,
protocol or functional content, as well as any successor
languages or protocols.'.
(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections for chapter 110
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 2252B the following:
`2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the
Internet.'.
SEC. 8. REQUIREMENT TO PLACE WARNING MARKS ON COMMERCIAL WEBSITES
CONTAINING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL.
(a) Definitions- As used in this section--
(1) the term `Commission' means the Federal Trade
Commission;
(2) the term `website' means any collection of material
placed in a computer server-based file archive so that
it is publicly accessible, over the Internet, using
hypertext transfer protocol or any successor protocol
except that the term does not include any collection
of material where access to sexually explicit material
is restricted to a specific set of individuals through
the provision of a password or through another access
restriction mechanism;
(3) the term `sexually explicit material' means any
material that depicts sexually explicit conduct (as that
term is defined in subsection (2)(A) of section 2256
of title 18, United States Code), unless the depiction
constitutes a small and insignificant part of the whole,
the remainder of which is not primarily devoted to
sexual matters;
(4) the term `Internet' means the combination of
computer facilities and electromagnetic transmission
media, and related equipment and software, comprising
the interconnected worldwide network of computer
networks that employ the Transmission Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol or any successor protocol to
transmit information; and
(5) the term `Internet access service'--
(A) means a service that enables users to access
content, information, electronic mail, or other
services offered over the Internet, and may
also include access to proprietary content,
information, and other services as part of a
package of services offered to consumers; and
(B) does not include telecommunications services.
(b) Labeling Requirement- Except as provided in subsection
(d), no person who operates a website that is primarily
operated for commercial purposes, in or affecting interstate
or foreign commerce, may knowingly, and with knowledge of the
character of the material, place on that website sexually
explicit material, and fail--
(1) to include on each page of the website that contains
sexually explicit material, the marks and notices
prescribed by the Commission under subsection (c); or
(2) to ensure that the matter on the website that is
initially viewable, absent any further actions by the
viewer, does not include any sexually explicit material.
(c) Prescription of Marks and Notices- Not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission
shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, establish
by regulation clearly identifiable marks or notices to be
included in the code, if technologically feasible, or if not
feasible on the pages, of websites that contain sexually
explicit material in order to inform the viewer of that fact
and to facilitate the filtering of such pages.
(d) Inapplicability to Carriers and Other Service Providers-
This section shall not apply to a person, to the extent that
such person is--
(1) a telecommunications carrier engaged in the
provision of a telecommunications service;
(2) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet access service; or
(3) similarly engaged in the transmission, storage,
retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any
combination thereof) of a communication made by another
person, without selection or alteration of the content
of the communication, and such person's deletion of a
particular communication or material made by another
person in a manner consistent with any applicable law or
regulation shall not constitute selection or alteration
of the content of the communication.
(e) Penalties- Whoever violates subsection (b) shall be fined
under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than
15 years, or both.
SEC. 9. RICO PREDICATES.
Section 1961(1) is amended--
(1) by inserting `1466A (relating to obscene visual
representation of the abuse of children),' after
`sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene matter),';
(2) by inserting `1960A (relating to financial
facilitation of access to child pornography), 1960B
(relating to Internet facilitation of child pornography
and exploitation of children),' after `section 1958
(relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in
the commission of murder-for-hire),'; and
(3) by inserting `2252A (relating to child pornography),
2260A (relating to increased penalties for registered
sex offenders),' before `sections 2312'.
SEC. 10. MONEY LAUNDERING PREDICATE.
Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting `1466A (relating to obscene visual
representation of the abuse of children),' before
`section 1708';
(2) `1960A (relating to financial facilitation of access
to child pornography), 1960B (relating to Internet
facilitation of child pornography and exploitation of
children),' before `section 2113'; and
(3) by inserting `2252A (relating to child pornography),
2260A (relating to increased penalties for registered
sex offenders),' before `section 2280'.
SEC. 11. MASHA'S LAW.
Section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
`(a) Any person aggrieved by a violation of section 2241(c),
2242, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 may
in a civil action obtain appropriate relief.
`(b) An action under this section is barred if the complaint
is filed more than 10 years after the right of action
accrues.'.
SEC. 12. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES.
Sections 2252(b)(1) and 2252A(b)(1) of title 18, United States
Code, are each amended--
(1) by striking `5 years' and inserting `10 years'; and
(2) by striking `20 years' and inserting `30 years'.
SEC. 13. OFFICE ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN.
(a) Establishment- There is established within the Department
of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney
General, an Office on Sexual Violence and Crimes against
Children (hereinafter in this subtitle referred to as the
`Office').
(b) Director- The Office shall be headed by a Director who
shall be appointed by the President. The Director shall
report to the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs and shall have
final authority for all grants, cooperative agreements, and
contracts awarded by the Office. The Director shall not engage
in any employment other than that of serving as the Director,
nor shall the Director hold any office in, or act in any
capacity for, any organization, agency, or institution with
which the Office makes any contract or other arrangement.
(c) Duties and Functions- The Office is authorized to--
(1) administer the standards for sex offender
registration and notification programs set forth in this
title;
(2) administer grant programs relating to sex offender
registration and notification authorized by this title
and other grant programs authorized by this title as
directed by the Attorney General;
(3) cooperate with and provide technical assistance to
States, units of local government, tribal governments,
and other public and private entities involved in
activities related to sex offender registration or
notification or to other measures for the protection
of children or other members of the public from sexual
abuse or exploitation; and
(4) perform such other functions as the Attorney General
may delegate.
SEC. 14. ADDITIONAL PROSECUTORS FOR OFFENSES RELATING TO THE SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.
(a) Additional Prosecutors- In fiscal year 2007, the Attorney
General shall, subject to the availability of appropriations
for such purpose, increase by not less than 200 the number of
attorneys in the United States Attorneys' offices to prosecute
offenses relating to the sexual exploitation of children.
(b) Definition- For purposes of this section, the term
`offenses relating to the sexual exploitation of children'
shall include any offense committed in violation of--
(1) section 1201(g) of title 18, United States Code;
(2) chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code,
involving an obscene visual depiction of a minor, or
transfer of obscene materials to a minor;
(3) section 1591 of title 18, United States Code,
involving a person who has not attained the age of 18
years;
(4) chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code,
involving a sexual act or sexual contact with a minor,
or sexual abuse of a minor;
(5) chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code; or
(6) chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code,
involving coercion or enticement of a minor,
transportation of a minor, or transmittal of information
about a minor.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Justice for fiscal year
2007 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 15. ADDITIONAL ICAC TASK FORCES.
(a) Additional Task Forces- In fiscal year 2007, the
Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations for such purpose, increase by not less than 20
the number of Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces
that are part of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Force Program authorized and funded under title IV of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5771 et seq.).
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention for fiscal year 2007 such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 16. GRANTS FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General- The Attorney General shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations, make grants to States,
units of local government, Indian tribes, and nonprofit
organizations for purposes of establishing and maintaining
programs with respect to the prevention of sexual offenses
committed against minors.
(b) Definition of State- For purposes of this section, the
term `State' means any State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana
Islands.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
SEC. 17. CYBERSECURITY FORENSIC CAPABILITIES.
Section 816(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Act (28 U.S.C. 509
note) is amended by striking `$50,000,000' and inserting
`$70,000,000'.
Baal
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEVAwUBRSRYowjjY4weksDoAQqDVQf+LjxtmeFtWDcf3ob72PHavtlvlOMnj/Y7
j9iuDGNF3WVM7uqntFm0tkVGG8uwdGuruz8l5FVQGL8c5vGTV0Qhbp8ned3NmXzK
oXdpFzIyCQCcnfZDoIzW0JZbh0nUqhr71Nlfka0uiMOPCRK4dAgw6KqfXPb0kxXU
guw/Mlu9d+1prbniGdXmWXyjodMK+ftrT+iEaTZGsilop2UrqZDjmkcvEnxBqm7e
XNOsJ5JmHrVpVdoSntGQbjQEPst9uB1dxu0NrVitTadpA07Z93FLLMslbC4nlZMh
HcotIXsxgj7vCKHX9dOhZvz5+Oa/JvkllCti9lckx6trdWS4tfY5UA==
=vJjU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ray Fischer
>"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
>> In case you don't know, prison rapes are predominently committed by
>> heterosexuals, either to "get off" with someone when the only
>> available "someones" are of the same gender or to assert dominance
>> over another inmate. They think that if you rape another inmate, you
>> own him. Don't ask me why. This is a prison culture thing outside my
>> personal experience.
>
>Politically correct bullshit.
>They're homosexuals- that's the basic definition of homosexual; having sex
>with men.
That is not the definition of homosexual.
A homosexual is someone who PREFERS sex with people of his/her own sex.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> bobandcarole <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---
>>> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---
>>> Posted: October 3, 2006
>>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>>>
>>>
>>> By Linda Harvey
>>>
>>> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
>>> men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
>>> handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
>>
>> Just like "many" heterosexual men like young teen girls.
>>
>>> for homosexuals
>>
>> Bigoted asshole.
Since I didn't write anything about hating republicans it would seem
that you're just another partisan bigot who can't read.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bobandcarole
And that makes mark foley a homosexual-pedophile.........
Ron Hunter
> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:TYCdnR7xOMgdSL7Y...@giganews.com...
>> David Ruether wrote:
>>> "bobandcarole" <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
>>>> to positions where they gain access to our kids.
>>>>
>
>>> This kind of bigoted junk is what leads ("justifies"...?) that nutty
>>> Baptist church group from Kansas to its actions in picketing soldiers'
>>> (and the recently killed girls in Pennsylvania) funerals, of all things!!!
>>> Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their
>>> hatred for homosexuals justifies this... This is ridiculous and
>>> disgusting. BTW - I'm always amused by these hate groups
>>> arguing that gay people somehow undermine "family values", yet
>>> they fight against gay marriage - and fail to recognize the MANY
>>> successful and happy gay families that exist (and, gosh, many even
>>> with children! ;-). Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not
>>> just some in our society (Remember when marriage between
>>> different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at
>>> going to be viewed with the same contempt as we now view those
>>> trying to limit the marriage rights of Blacks. I also have to laugh at
>>> the idea that anyone can be "lured" into being homosexual (or for
>>> that matter, lured into being heterosexual...;-) - people are what
>>> they are, and should be able to live as what they are and as they
>>> wish, so long as that does not (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others.
>>> Bigotry be dead!!!
>>> David Ruether
>
>> I hate to break this to you, but homosexuals DON'T have children. Bisexuals do, but the true homosexual can't have sexual
>> intercourse with a person of the opposite sex.
>> Bisexuals can, and do, but they aren't the subject of the discussion. Lumping bisexuals and homosexuals into the same group is as
>> misguided as lumping homosexuals and heterosexuals into the same group.
>
> Gosh, "I hate to break it to you", but heterosexual couples don't
> necessarily have children, homosexual couples include women (one
> of the prejudices often encountered is that homosexuals are only
> male...;-) who *can* have children (with the aid of a male friend
> or sperm bank), and gay couples of both sexes can and do adopt
> children (who generally turn out to be heterosexual - big surprise,
> since homosexuality is not "catching"..!.;-).> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
>
>
Again, homosexuals DON'T HAVE children, they can borrow, steal, or
adopt, they don't HAVE them. As for how they turn out, the jury remains
out on that subject. Whether or not they turn out to be homosexual,
heterosexual, or bisexual remains to be seen when/if there are
sufficient numbers for meaningful statistics. I would suspect that a
much larger segment will turnout to be bisexual.
David Ruether
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:-JCdnWR0ot2JL7nY...@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
> Again, homosexuals DON'T HAVE children, they can borrow, steal, or adopt, they don't HAVE them. As for how they turn out, the
> jury remains out on that subject. Whether or not they turn out to be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual remains to be seen
> when/if there are sufficient numbers for meaningful statistics. I would suspect that a much larger segment will turnout to be
> bisexual.
Well, I guess you just choose to ignore what I wrote above
(which happens to be true). And there have been enough
gay-raised straight children over a long enough time (and
straight-raised gay children - often "forgotten", but they come
from somewhere, and NOT from being somehow lured into
being gay [gosh, how insecure must straight people be to believe
that that is possible...! ;-]). I would add to that that homosexuals
*can* have children with the opposite sex (note the many gay
people who finally accept their sexuality and then leave their
heterosexual marriage/relationship, sometimes taking their kids with
them). You can call them bi-sexual if you want (and bi-sexuality
does exist...), but it is usually not the case, and the decision to
"come out" and live in truth about ones identity can be a wrenching
one. And, lest the definition of "marriage" be a sticking point
for you (ah, those heathen gays, who live together without
marriage [never mind that they are generally prevented from
marrying...! ;-]), it is here (note b-b, do NOT "overlook it!;-):
1.. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
2.. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same
dwelling place.
1.. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
2.. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same
dwelling place.
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ivGdnXcp3pz_u7nY...@comcast.com...
[...]
> Yes; it is simple- and kind of impertinent/irrelevant by its illogical extreme.
>
> Chas
Methinks you presented more of this than did I - but believe
(and I emphasize "believe", since anti-gay reactions generally
boil down to beliefs and not to facts...) what you want, since
I guess little will change your mind (unless maybe you have
a child or parent who is gay, who can tell you personally
what it is like to be "normal", but shunned by many for stupid
and thoughtless reasons...).
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:OPqdnQdyaKncr7nY...@comcast.com...
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
[this probably useless since little will affect "Chas" by way of
truth - though "Chas" at least appears intelligent and does appear
to think sometimes...;-]
>>> Coersion isn't a sexual choice; except as regards 'survival'.
>>> Homosexuals often predate on the weaker-
>> Heterosexuals often predate on the weaker, to the tune of
>> about a hundred thousand -- reported -- cases of rape a year.
> Homosexual rape in prison is often cited as 2,000,000 incidents per year.
So, this indicates that most prisoners are homosexual? Or that the
prison situation forces otherwise heterosexual people into practicing
homosexual acts? Or that, given a choice (not being in prison), most
would not be predators? Or that some within either group, given a
choice, will still be predators? Statistics, statistics, statistics - always
fun for "proving" points...;-)
(My apologies to "Cary"...;-)
>>> lots of weird dominant/submission stuff in that community anyway.
>> And S/M flourishes in the straight community as well.
> Yeah; how weird- conflating dungeon stuff with sex.
> There are some very strange people prancing about the Big Green Tree, bud.
The point is that there is a wide range of sexual proclivities, not
exclusive to either homosexuals or heterosexuals. To blame one
group for activities shared by the other is silly. And, even activities
many would consider strictly homosexual are commonly shared
by heterosexuals (big surprise...;-). For instance, the Texas
anti-sodomy law caught both homosexuals and heterosexuals
in its trap (and since there are far more heterosexuals......;-).
>> But sanctioned discrimination based on us and them should
>> require a convincing ethical underpinning.
> Sure- the relaxation of some ethical underpinning is what you seem to demand.
No. The recognition that legal descrimination exists that is based
on beliefs/bigotry rather than on valid ethical underpinnings is what
is required...
> You seem to conflate 'discrimination' based on activities with discrimination based on heredity. Our Constitution prohibits
> 'corruption by blood' in it's earliest form, but it doesn't excuse activities prohibited by civil law. The greatest scope of laws
> prohibiting sexual acts have to do with heterosexuals, not homosexuals- far more people in jail over being inappropriately
> 'heterosexual' than homosexual.
>
> Chas
There are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals (gays are in
the minority, or didn't you know that?;-). Statistics, again. But you
*still* don't appear to recognize the inherent nature of sexual
orientation, whether homosexual *OR* homosexual - and that laws
and views based on this bigotry are inherently unethical/unfair!
Eyeball Kid
bobandcarole <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Posted: October 3, 2006
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>
> By Linda Harvey
>
>
> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
> men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a
> handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids.
>
> Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
> for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks
> to positions where they gain access to our kids.
>
> http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52244
Gay baiting.
Nonsense. No one with a modicum of common sense and rudimentary
knowledge of the research in this area will get sucked into this bs.
But then again, that's why WND is printing this tripe.
E. K.
>
--
"You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
G.W. Bush, Gridiron Club dinner, Wash., D.C. March 2001
"I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and
ought to be encouraged." Antonin Scalia, September 28, 2004
"The American Way of Life is not negotiable." Dick Cheney, 2001
"The American Way of Life is heading for extinction." Eyeball Kid, 2006
Free humor. Whenever you want. http://www.psmueller.com
Chas
> A homosexual is someone who PREFERS sex with people of his/her own sex.
No one cares, or can ascertain, what goes on in the mind of a homosexual-
you're defined by your actions.
If you do homosexual things, you're a homosexual.
You may be something else as well- being a homosexual isn't a metaphysical
exclusionary to being afflicted in other ways as well.
Chas
Chas
>> Homosexual rape in prison is often cited as 2,000,000 incidents per year.
> So, this indicates that most prisoners are homosexual?
Well, prisoners are already a cull-group of miscreants- and the 20 times
incidence of homosexual rape to hetero rape must be significant. It is
reflected in the popularity of S/M practices in the civilian homosexual
community.
> Or that the
> prison situation forces otherwise heterosexual people into practicing
> homosexual acts?
Most men don't turn fag in prison-
and homosexuals may well seek it out.
> Or that, given a choice (not being in prison), most
> would not be predators?
They're already 'predators'- that's what got them in prison in the first
place.
> Or that some within either group, given a
> choice, will still be predators?
Homosexual predators.
> No. The recognition that legal descrimination exists that is based
> on beliefs/bigotry rather than on valid ethical underpinnings is what
> is required...
Our society regulates sexual acts- age, consanguinity, numbers and sorts of
partners, sorts of acts, and so on. Our 'ethical underpinnings' are
completely supportive of that regulation.
Of course it is 'belief' that is the base for 'ethical' position-
> There are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals (gays are in
> the minority, or didn't you know that?;-).
Sure- that's why I find it cogent that 2,000,000 rapes a year are performed
by a minority- that widens the gap exponentially.
> Statistics, again. But you
> *still* don't appear to recognize the inherent nature of sexual
> orientation, whether homosexual *OR* homosexual - and that laws
> and views based on this bigotry are inherently unethical/unfair!
That's the same argument that child-molesters use; or necrophiliacs, for
that matter.
There are a lot of regulations on whom your partners might be, legally; of
age, human, alive, willing and able to knowledgably consent.....
Nothing 'unethical' about it- and 'unfair' is even less pertinent.
Chas
Strife767
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
>> In case you don't know, prison rapes are predominently committed by
>> heterosexuals, either to "get off" with someone when the only
>> available "someones" are of the same gender or to assert dominance
>> over another inmate. They think that if you rape another inmate, you
>> own him. Don't ask me why. This is a prison culture thing outside my
>> personal experience.
>
> Politically correct bullshit.
> They're homosexuals- that's the basic definition of homosexual; having
> sex
> with men.
Nonsense. One's sexual orientation is not defined by acts, but by
attraction, and I'll prove it to you--no one thinks of a virgin as having
_no_ sexual orientation, do they?
> You may want to consider them 'bisexual', but the bottom line (as
> it were) is that they're interested in men-
They're interested in fucking. There's a difference. If you introduced a
woman into any male prison, she would get pounced on by everyone--maybe
even fucked to death. But when a guy goes months, _years_ without ever
even _seeing_ a female in person...they learn to settle.
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
Strife767
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
>> By this logic, (almost?) all male prisoners are homosexual while in
>> prison, regardless of their likely VERY un-homosexual preferences
>> (for most) while out of prison?
>
> No- only certain men
Male/male sexual contact is very common in prisons.
> act out their homosexuality by raping other inmates;
> homosexuals.
So, care to explain why the vast majority of people who have sex with men
in prison have nothing to do with them sexually once they're out?
>> Likewise for women... You mistake
>> homosexual acts forced by the situation (or present among young
>> people experimenting sexually) with homosexuality - but the two are
>> quite different! The OP has it right.
>
> You have some odd definition of 'homosexual', if it excludes homosexual
> acts
> of various sorts.
Funny how you think the actual definition of the word is odd.
Homosexuality is an attraction, not an act.
Strife767
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
>>> No- only certain men act out their homosexuality by raping other
>>> inmates;
>>> homosexuals.
>> Hmmmm...either you're declaring that by definition, a tautology, -- or
>> else you have studies to cite which demonstrate the claim?
>
> Words mean what they mean- there's no equivocation here.
> Homosexuals are people that do homosexual things.
Wrong. One can live and die a virgin and be a homosexual--just one way to
easily destroy that silly definition.
>> And you have an interesting definition yourself. Let's explore it
>> a bit: is a male who has ... oh, say, one homosexual experience as
>> young boy, followed by a lifetime of heterosexuality -- is this
>> individual a homosexual? Or was a homosexual, but got over it?
>> Or what?
>
> He doesn't sound homosexual to me-
> a homosexual does homosexual things- sounds like he doesn't do homosexual
> things, so it would seem self-evident.
Prison inmates are in the same exact position--they engage in male/male
sex at one point in their lives (while they're in prison), and the rest of
their lives is a "lifetime of heterosexuality." So why do you not think
the male in the example is gay, but you think the inmates are?
Strife767
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
>>> Words mean what they mean- there's no equivocation here.
>>> Homosexuals are people that do homosexual things.
>> So we're going with the "tautology" choice then.
>
> No tautology there; homosexuals are defined by their practices.
No, they aren't. That's just the method bigots use to try and identify
them. If you don't know of or don't see a homosexual fucking someone of
the same gender, how would you ever know who to condemn? *rolls eyes*
>> ...What of
>> some subset of these prisoners who do only heterosexual
>> things before and after prison, but "do homosexual things"
>> while on the inside, out of lack of other opportunity? What are they?
>
> Plainly, homosexual-
You're contradicting yourself. Two examples (one hypothetical, one not) of
a male who has a small (compared to the rest of his life) period where he
does stuff with the same gender, while the rest of his life he only
'shacks up' with women, and you say one isn't a homosexual, and the other
is.
> insofar as the who-gives-a-fuck meter goes; some care,
> some don't.
> Homosexuals do homosexual things, buddy.
This is like telling that guy who had to saw his own hand off to save his
life after a boulder fell on it that he is fixated with self-mutilation.
>> But he did at one point "do homosexual things" -- a fairly common
>> youthful
>> experience, it seems. Was he a homosexual when he did these homosexual
>> things, but he since stopped being one?
>
> Obviously.
To your small mind, maybe.
> It is, for many, a matter of choice, not birth.
There is absolutely zero evidence that sexual orientation is subject to
willful choice. You are plainly _wrong_ here.
Strife767
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
>>> Homosexuals do homosexual things, buddy.
>> But apparently, going by your response to my example, doing heterosexual
>> things does not a heterosexual make -- if, under some conditions, he
>> also
>> does homosexual things.
>
> 'Homosexual' isn't some sort of exclusionary word- it's obvious, for
> instance, that one can be both Homosexual and Republican; Homosexual and
> Clergy (if the Republican's report is credible); Homosexual and
> Sado-Masochistic; Homosexual and Ephebephilic; Homosexual and Pedophilic-
> nothing exclusionary there, pal.
What are you talking about? Nobody said it was exclusionary.
>> How about you? Could you -- just for the sake of experiment, mind
>> you -- choose to be homosexual, maybe just for the next twenty
>> minutes or so? Could you sit down, right now, and consciously
>> decide to become so aroused by the thought of some hunk's cock
>> in your mouth that you will get an erection, perhaps even
>> ejaculate?
>
> I've thought about that, and decided some years ago that it wasn't my
> proclivity;
That's not what we're talking about. Asking yourself "Am I turned on by
this?" and realizing that "no, I'm not" is nothing but _realization_ of
the attractions you already have or don't have.
If sexual orientation were subject to choice, you could _make_ yourself
gay for a time, and change back and forth whenever you wanted. But no one
can force him/herself to be attracted to something that he/she isn't
attracted to.
Strife767
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
>> You confuse the two - for instance, someone may perform one
>> or several homosexual acts in his/her life, yet not be homosexual.
>
> Coersion isn't a sexual choice; except as regards 'survival'.
> Homosexuals often predate on the weaker-
Any evidence that it happens more than in heterosexuals? I'm pretty sure
heterosexuals are 'winning' when it comes to "predation"--females are the
gender raped far and wide the most often, and call it a gut feeling, but I
don't think it's GAY guys raping them. :P
> lots of weird dominant/submission
> stuff in that community anyway.
Only if you're talking about the _human_ community. Stop trying to make it
sound like heteros aren't plenty kinky themselves. This is a human thing,
not a homosexual thing.
>> Actually, this is the norm (read Kinsey... ;-)
>
> Kinsey was an utter zipperhead whose protocols would be repugnant, as
> well
> as academically deficient, today.
It was mainly Kinsey's work that got homosexuality taken off the list of
mental illnesses.
Haven't seen that undone yet--maybe mainstream medicine doesn't agree with
you when it comes to Kinsey--and I think they're far more academic. :)
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ZaGdnWhlhL8LvrjY...@comcast.com...
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
>>> Homosexual rape in prison is often cited as 2,000,000 incidents per year.
>> So, this indicates that most prisoners are homosexual?
> Well, prisoners are already a cull-group of miscreants- and the 20 times incidence of homosexual rape to hetero rape must be
> significant. It is reflected in the popularity of S/M practices in the civilian homosexual community.
Wow! (See below...)
>> Or that the
>> prison situation forces otherwise heterosexual people into practicing
>> homosexual acts?
> Most men don't turn fag in prison-
> and homosexuals may well seek it out.
Wow! (See below...)
>> Or that, given a choice (not being in prison), most
>> would not be predators?
> They're already 'predators'- that's what got them in prison in the first place.
Wow! (See below...)
>> Or that some within either group, given a
>> choice, will still be predators?
> Homosexual predators.
Wow! (See below...)
>> No. The recognition that legal descrimination exists that is based
>> on beliefs/bigotry rather than on valid ethical underpinnings is what
>> is required...
> Our society regulates sexual acts- age, consanguinity, numbers and sorts of partners, sorts of acts, and so on. Our 'ethical
> underpinnings' are completely supportive of that regulation.
> Of course it is 'belief' that is the base for 'ethical' position-
Wow! (See below...)
>> There are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals (gays are in
>> the minority, or didn't you know that?;-).
> Sure- that's why I find it cogent that 2,000,000 rapes a year are performed by a minority- that widens the gap exponentially.
Wow! (See below...)
>> Statistics, again. But you
>> *still* don't appear to recognize the inherent nature of sexual
>> orientation, whether homosexual *OR* homosexual - and that laws
>> and views based on this bigotry are inherently unethical/unfair!
> That's the same argument that child-molesters use; or necrophiliacs, for that matter.
> There are a lot of regulations on whom your partners might be, legally; of age, human, alive, willing and able to knowledgably
> consent.....
> Nothing 'unethical' about it- and 'unfair' is even less pertinent.
>
> Chas
Wow! You sure do demonstrate your bigotry with your
responses above!!! Gosh, it is now REALLY crystal-clear
that you have ***NO*** concept of what human sexuality
is, what the variations are, how they relate to the real world
and to interpersonal interactions, or anything else related
to homosexuality or sexuality in general. You, like many,
just close your eyes, ears, and mind and thoughtlessly mumble
over and over, "bad, bad, bad,bad"! You should be ashamed
of your close-mindedness.
Strife767
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote
>> A homosexual is someone who PREFERS sex with people of his/her own sex.
>
> No one cares, or can ascertain, what goes on in the mind of a homosexual-
"You could not be more wrong if your name was W. Wrongy Wrongenstein!"
> you're defined by your actions.
Only by quick-to-judge members of society.
> If you do homosexual things, you're a homosexual.
Wrong.
> You may be something else as well- being a homosexual isn't a
> metaphysical
> exclusionary to being afflicted in other ways as well.
Afflicted? What a pitiful choice of words.
Strife767
wrote:
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "bobandcarole" <bobandc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:1159881994.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> By Linda Harvey:
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior
>>> for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks
>>> to positions where they gain access to our kids.
>>>
>>> http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52244
>> This kind of bigoted junk is what leads ("justifies"...?) that nutty
>> Baptist church group from Kansas to its actions in picketing soldiers'
>> (and the recently killed girls in Pennsylvania) funerals, of all
>> things!!!
>> Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their
>> hatred for homosexuals justifies this... This is ridiculous and
>> disgusting. BTW - I'm always amused by these hate groups
>> arguing that gay people somehow undermine "family values", yet
>> they fight against gay marriage - and fail to recognize the MANY
>> successful and happy gay families that exist (and, gosh, many even
>> with children! ;-). Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not
>> just some in our society (Remember when marriage between
>> different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at
>> the whim of the master?). These anti-gay people are soon (I hope)
>> going to be viewed with the same contempt as we now view those
>> trying to limit the marriage rights of Blacks. I also have to laugh at
>> the idea that anyone can be "lured" into being homosexual (or for
>> that matter, lured into being heterosexual...;-) - people are what
>> they are, and should be able to live as what they are and as they
>> wish, so long as that does not (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others.
>> Bigotry be dead!!!
>> --
>> David Ruether
>> rue...@verizon.net
>> rp...@cornell.edu
>> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
>>
> I hate to break this to you, but homosexuals DON'T have children.
> Bisexuals do, but the true homosexual can't have sexual intercourse with
> a person of the opposite sex.
And you are completely ignorant of the _other_ myriad ways to bring a
child into the care of a pair of parents? Adoption is the main one. The
current stat is 10 million children who live with gay parents. I hate to
break this to you. :P
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:UqudnQyaVPpqgrjY...@comcast.com...
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote
(I guess I'm getting tired of this, uh, person - though I'm not
sure if I think he really is a jerk [judging from what he writes],
or if he just seems to be a jerk [judging from what he seems to
think] ;-)
So, let's see... Catholic priests are not homosexual (for the most
part, by your definition, though as many as 50% may be by more
objective studies of their personal identities), and celibate straights
may be gay, or some such...;-). Again, you appear to be unable
to make distinctions - and as a result, run into logical problems.
But we are getting nowhere - I guess I must now see you as
just another bigoted jerk, especially after your last comment above.
Bye for now...
Chas
> Wow! You sure do demonstrate your bigotry with your
> responses above!!!
Merely making an ad hominem invoking the boogerbear of 'bigotry' is
intellectually dishonest- and philosophically insupportable.
Do you consider restricting the marriage of close-relatives to be 'bigotry'?
or protecting minors? or other species? or pluralism?
> Gosh, it is now REALLY crystal-clear
> that you have ***NO*** concept of what human sexuality
> is, what the variations are, how they relate to the real world
> and to interpersonal interactions, or anything else related
> to homosexuality or sexuality in general.
Actually, I have a very refined concept; replete with scholarly support and
real-world examples.
You, on the other hand, have 'feelings'.
> You, like many,
> just close your eyes, ears, and mind and thoughtlessly mumble
> over and over, "bad, bad, bad,bad"! You should be ashamed
> of your close-mindedness.
Gee; scolded by a fluff-head.
That's a little heartbreaker.
Chas
Strife767
wrote:
> David Ruether wrote:
It would be interesting for you to tell a heterosexual couple who has
adopted a child that they don't HAVE a child, lol. Don't be retarded.
> As for how they turn out, the jury remains out on that subject.
Wrong again! lol
We know very clearly that a child raised by gay parents has exactly the
same chances of being gay, straight, or anything else (stuff unrelated to
sexuality) as any other child. The gender/orientation of the parents has
been _proven_ to be COMPLETELY immaterial.
You really ought to educate yourself:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110762.htm
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/gaylesbian/a/samesex1104.htm
http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file823_12137.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/childwelfareleagueofamericafriendofthecourtbrief.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/howard%20brief.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/howard2.pdf
> Whether or not they turn out to be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual
> remains to be seen when/if there are sufficient numbers for meaningful
> statistics.
There already are--where have you been?
> I would suspect that a much larger segment will turnout to be bisexual.
And you're wrong...again. :)
Chas
>> Homosexuals often predate on the weaker-
> Any evidence that it happens more than in heterosexuals?
Yeah-
homosexuals are already a minority group- the incidence of 'predation'
amongst that minority group seems, as with the evidence of 20X the incidence
of rape, and the high incidence of sub/dom and dungeon freeks, to be higher
by an order of magnitude than the 'majority' population.
And the comparison is impertinent anyway- do we tolerate child-molesters
because they're 'heterosexual'? Of course not.
> I'm pretty sure heterosexuals are 'winning' when it comes to
> "predation"--females are the gender raped far and wide the most often,
> and call it a gut feeling, but I don't think it's GAY guys raping them.
> :P
Actually, the incidence of homosexual rape in prisons alone is significantly
higher than the incidence of heterosexual rape in a much larger population.
> Only if you're talking about the _human_ community. Stop trying to make it
> sound like heteros aren't plenty kinky themselves. This is a human thing,
> not a homosexual thing.
Not my point at all- I'm offended by your intellectual dishonesty, not your
sexuality.
> It was mainly Kinsey's work that got homosexuality taken off the list of
> mental illnesses.
My point exactly.
> Haven't seen that undone yet--maybe mainstream medicine doesn't agree with
> you when it comes to Kinsey--and I think they're far more academic. :)
Agree with me about what?
Kinsey was an early researcher- his whole identity is bound up with his
time-frame, not his academic rectitude. He's on par with the Orgone Box- of
interest only historically.
Chas
Lars Eighner
<Q9WdnTDHk-Qco7jY...@comcast.com>,
the lovely and talented Chas
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> Actually, the incidence of homosexual rape in prisons alone is
> significantly higher than the incidence of heterosexual rape in a much
> larger population.
But of course most prison rape is committed by heterosexuals.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
The best way to support the troops right now
is to take them out of hazard's way. -- U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Odem (Ret.)
Chas
> "You could not be more wrong if your name was W. Wrongy Wrongenstein!"
cute; argumentum ad TV.
>> you're defined by your actions.
> Only by quick-to-judge members of society.
Nothing 'quick' about it-
do you not think 'society' has the 'right' to 'judge'?
We judge all sorts of things; age, consanguinity, disease, 'numbers',
capacity to consent.....
Do you think we should throw aside being 'quick to judge' marriages denied
to consanguinous partners; 'brother and sister', perhaps?
>> If you do homosexual things, you're a homosexual.
> Wrong.
There's no other standard by which to know. It's immaterial what's in your
head, only what you act out.
Chas
Chas
>> If you do homosexual things, you're a homosexual.
> part, by your definition, though as many as 50% may be by more
> objective studies of their personal identities), and celibate straights
> may be gay, or some such...;-).
What?
Catholic-priests may be homosexual as well, although it's not in their basic
job description.
Celebates are celebates.
duh.
> Again, you appear to be unable
> to make distinctions - and as a result, run into logical problems.
hahahahaha-
Wake me when you bring some 'logic' to the table- tell yer friends.
> But we are getting nowhere - I guess I must now see you as
> just another bigoted jerk, especially after your last comment above.
> Bye for now...
addy os
Chas
Chas
>> Actually, the incidence of homosexual rape in prisons alone is
>> significantly higher than the incidence of heterosexual rape in a much
>> larger population.
> But of course most prison rape is committed by heterosexuals.
hahahahaha-
homosexual rape is committed by homosexuals.
One of the earlier posters even commented on one's inability to become
aroused by what is not within one's native orientation.
Geez; try to keep up.
Chas
Lars Eighner
<fpCdnTbSbN6327jY...@comcast.com>,
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> "Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote
>>> Actually, the incidence of homosexual rape in prisons alone is
>>> significantly higher than the incidence of heterosexual rape in a much
>>> larger population.
>> But of course most prison rape is committed by heterosexuals.
> hahahahaha-
> homosexual rape is committed by homosexuals.
No doubt some of it is. But in prison, most of it is committed by
heterosexuals.
> One of the earlier posters even commented on one's inability to become
> aroused by what is not within one's native orientation. Geez; try to keep
> up.
I will. I will continue to tell the truth.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.
- A.J. Muste
No One
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:26:27 -0400, Chas <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
> >>> Homosexuals do homosexual things, buddy.
> >> But apparently, going by your response to my example, doing heterosexual
> >> things does not a heterosexual make -- if, under some conditions,
> >> he also
> >> does homosexual things.
> >
> > 'Homosexual' isn't some sort of exclusionary word- it's obvious, for
> > instance, that one can be both Homosexual and Republican; Homosexual and
> > Clergy (if the Republican's report is credible); Homosexual and
> > Sado-Masochistic; Homosexual and Ephebephilic; Homosexual and Pedophilic-
> > nothing exclusionary there, pal.
>
> What are you talking about? Nobody said it was exclusionary.
What was being said (by the few sensible people posting on this topic)
is that these are independent traits: if pedophiles make up x percent
of the population, they also make up x percent of the gay population.
Child molesters are, however, more likely to be straight: either gay
pedophiles are better at controlling themselves or it is harder for
them to find victims.
Chas
>>> But of course most prison rape is committed by heterosexuals.
> No doubt some of it is. But in prison, most of it is committed by
> heterosexuals.
It is probably committed *on* heterosexuals, but it's committed *by*
homosexuals- by definition.
What part of that do you not understand?
Chas
No One
Except that Lars is right. Do you think most guys are gay because
they manage to get themselves aroused with nobody else around as
they "abuse themselves"? (Please replace "abuse themselves" with
your favorite euphamism.)
Lars Eighner
<BqudnYaO-JRa1LjY...@comcast.com>,
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> "Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote
>>>> But of course most prison rape is committed by heterosexuals.
>>> homosexual rape is committed by homosexuals.
>> No doubt some of it is. But in prison, most of it is committed by
>> heterosexuals.
> It is probably committed *on* heterosexuals, but it's committed *by*
> homosexuals- by definition.
No, it isn't. A homosexual is someone who prefers sex with a person
of his own sex. Some who has sex with person of the opposite sex when
they have a choice is a heterosexal.
Eating a carrot doesn't make you a vegan, and having sex with men in prison
or any other place where there is no sexual access to women does not
make a homosexual of a heterosexual.
> What part of that do you not understand?
The part I don't understand is how you could be so wrong.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Chas
>> It is probably committed *on* heterosexuals, but it's committed *by*
>> homosexuals- by definition.
> No, it isn't. A homosexual is someone who prefers sex with a person
> of his own sex. Some who has sex with person of the opposite sex when
> they have a choice is a heterosexal.
No one knows what is going through a persons mind- the only definitive
knowledge we have is in their actions.
Homosexuals do homosexual things.
What they do other than that is irrelevant.
> The part I don't understand is how you could be so wrong.
You're using an entirely inapplicable definition to the word 'homosexual',
insofar as it expressing itself in any way anyone cares about.
I'm not viewing this in a homosexual group- my interest is in the 'legal
aspect', not the psychosexual one. I don't care about your sexuality- only
the intellectual dishonesty as applicable in law.
Chas
bobandcarole
Chas wrote:
> "Strife767" <stri...@gmail.com> wrote
> > "You could not be more wrong if your name was W. Wrongy Wrongenstein!"
>
> cute; argumentum ad TV.
>
> >> you're defined by your actions.
> > Only by quick-to-judge members of society.
>
> Nothing 'quick' about it-
> do you not think 'society' has the 'right' to 'judge'?
> We judge all sorts of things; age, consanguinity, disease, 'numbers',
> capacity to consent.....
> Do you think we should throw aside being 'quick to judge' marriages denied
> to consanguinous partners; 'brother and sister', perhaps?
>
> >> If you do homosexual things, you're a homosexual.
> > Wrong.
If you do homosexual things you're straight???
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:GOqdnU0oDIj0q7jY...@comcast.com...
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
>> Wow! You sure do demonstrate your bigotry with your
>> responses above!!!
> Merely making an ad hominem invoking the boogerbear of 'bigotry' is intellectually dishonest- and philosophically insupportable.
Over MANY posts, I and others have supported well our
view that you are simply bigoted (as in, you refuse to listen to
anything but your own unsupported opinions, facts and logic
be damned). I leave it to others to decide who here is right
about this...
Chas
>> Merely making an ad hominem invoking the boogerbear of 'bigotry' is
>> intellectually dishonest- and philosophically insupportable.
> Over MANY posts, I and others have supported well our
> view that you are simply bigoted (as in, you refuse to listen to
> anything but your own unsupported opinions, facts and logic
> be damned).
You folks have told me about your Feelings concerning the subject at hand,
but no evidence to support them. Repeated admonitions of 'that's wrong'
aren't particularly suasive.
My own posture has been well validated- verging on the self-evident.
> I leave it to others to decide who here is right
> about this...
ad populum?
really, isn't that beneath you?
Chas
Andrealphus
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SqqdnaZ2a5BUCbjY...@comcast.com...
Personally I'm waiting for whatever investigation comes out of this, to see
what comes of it. Beyond being morally bankrupt, and rather hypocritical,
I'm not convinced that he's guilty of a criminal violation. We'll see
though.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Chas <chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
>> >> In case you don't know, prison rapes are predominently committed by
>> >> heterosexuals, either to "get off" with someone when the only
>> >> available "someones" are of the same gender or to assert dominance
>> >> over another inmate. They think that if you rape another inmate, you
>> >> own him. Don't ask me why. This is a prison culture thing outside my
>> >> personal experience.
>> >
>> >Politically correct bullshit.
>> >They're homosexuals- that's the basic definition of homosexual; having sex
>> >with men.
>>
>> That is not the definition of homosexual.
>>
>> A homosexual is someone who PREFERS sex with people of his/her own sex.
>
And given your interest in male homosexuality it makes you a
homosexual as well.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
What a stupid statement.
So we can assume that YOU are homosexual? What goes on in your mind
isn't relevant?
>If you do homosexual things, you're a homosexual.
So a man who has sex ONCE with a man and 5,000 times with womoen is,
according to you, a homosexual.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chas
>>No one cares, or can ascertain, what goes on in the mind of a homosexual-
>>you're defined by your actions.
You can assume anything you care to- what's in your mind is irrelevant.
> What goes on in your mind
> isn't relevant?
Only to my actions-
and I don't do homosexual things.
Chas
David Ruether
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:SqqdnaZ2a5BUCbjY...@comcast.com...
> "David Ruether" <rp...@no-junk.cornell.edu>
>>> Merely making an ad hominem invoking the boogerbear of 'bigotry' is intellectually dishonest- and philosophically insupportable.
>> Over MANY posts, I and others have supported well our
>> view that you are simply bigoted (as in, you refuse to listen to
>> anything but your own unsupported opinions, facts and logic
>> be damned).
> You folks have told me about your Feelings concerning the subject at hand, but no evidence to support them. Repeated admonitions
> of 'that's wrong' aren't particularly suasive.
> My own posture has been well validated- verging on the self-evident.
I've yet to see any real (objective) support on your part for
your views. It is you who have offered beliefs and illogical
suppositions only. For instance, you chose to ignore "Strife767"'s
collection of URLs presented to support just *one* aspect in
opposition to something you said, to no avail - and solid
references (beyond the facts, experiences, and the logic
related to these presented here) could be presented to support
others if anyone thought it would do any good with someone
as close-minded as you... (so, why bother...?).
You really ought to educate yourself - and here is "Strife767"'s
list showing that gay-raised children are no more likely to be
gay than those raised by straight parents (and, BTW, I did
note that gay children are generally raised by straight parents -
they came from somewhere, and did not somehow "catch"
homosexuality from someone who is homosexual, contrary
to the beliefs of the non-thinking anti-gay bigots).
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110762.htm
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/gaylesbian/a/samesex1104.htm
http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file823_12137.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/childwelfareleagueofamericafriendofthecourtbrief.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/howard%20brief.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/howard2.pdf
>> I leave it to others to decide who here is right
>> about this...
> ad populum?
> really, isn't that beneath you?
>
> Chas
No - I offered to leave it to others to judge who is right based
on the arguements and information presented, confident that
any truly thinking person would at the very least consider the
views and evidence presented by those who disagree with you
(I didn't expect that you would, though...;-). There is really little
worse intellectually than someone who refuses to accept evidence
that is contrary to his beliefs, and who continues to promote his
beliefs as truths in the face of contrary information. Shame on you!
(And, enough of this - I now dismiss you.)
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>They seem more likely to be rapists as well- as witness the incidence of
>forced sex in all-male environments like prison outnumbering the incidence
>of all intergender rape.
Homosexuals don't rape. I have only heard of one in my entire life,
who was a particularly well hung guy who was always getting turned
down for being impractically large. Heterosexual men in prison DO rape
other males but they are still heterosexuals. They are fantasizing
about females, and would definitely prefer females.
If necessary, I will relate a story of my visit to a prison to lecture
on homosexuality and what the prisoners told me.
Homosexuality is defined in terms of sexual preference, not sexual
activity. A homosexual might have heterosexual sex as part of his
cover. He might be celibate (as I am). A man who had 1 homosexual
encounter for every 10 heterosexual ones would be termed heterosexual,
if he preferred the heterosexual ones or homosexual if he preferred
the homosexual one.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
For links to books about George W. Bush see
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushbooks.html
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Politically correct bullshit.
>They're homosexuals- that's the basic definition of homosexual; having sex
>with men. You may want to consider them 'bisexual', but the bottom line (as
>it were) is that they're interested in men-
>same thing in women's prisons-
The psychologists are the ones who make up the definitions. By your
definition someone raped in prison is homosexual.
Roedy Green
(Cary Kittrell) wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Really? What acts are legally forbidden to heterosexuals, but not
>forbidden to homosexuals?
The rights heterosexuals enjoy that in some parts of the world
homosexuals do not, include:
1. right to marry your own choice of partner rather than someone
else's choice for you.
2. right to neck in cars.
3. same age of consent
4. right to hold hands or kiss in public
5. avoiding eviction based on landlord's opinion of your sex life
6. right to attend some churches
7. right to bring your spouse to the office party
8. pension survival right. Gays pay but cannot collect.
9. spousal medical/dental coverage. Gays pay but cannot collect.
10. adoption
11. police protection (police generally don't prosecute crimes against
gays. Police are usually bigoted and have the attitude gays deserve
it.)
12. right to life (in some parts of the world, gays are executed)
13. nude beaches
14. child custody after a divorce