Is Talia Winters Bi-Sexual?
Allan Cybulskie
> In article <Cy1xn...@cunews.carleton.ca> acyb...@chat.carleton.ca
> (Allan Cybulskie) writes:
> >I tried to stay out of this, I REALLY tried ...
>
> Then, please, read up on a subject before you post. This is
> not intend as a flame, just a suggestion to consider what you write.
A suggestion to you ... consider what other people write, and try
looking at things using a little logic once in a while ...
> >Homosexuality may or may not be natural. It serves no natural
> >purpose, (like reproduction) so the only way it can be considered
>
>
> Not true. It, for example, helps slow OVERpopulation. There
> is also the possibility that it helps the survival of GROUPS; that
> homosexuals, usually be childless, use the time and energy which
> would have gone to raising a child tb benefit the community as a whole.
And here's the first appeal to logic ... homosexuality slows
overpopulation, right? So it must be natural, right?
Guess again. Take the point to its conclusion ... homosexuality is
the ONLY correct practice. What happens to humanity if everyone is
homosexual? It disappears.
By the same token, do the same thing with heterosexuality. Humanity
survives. If we'd remained totally natural, we wouldn't be worrying
about overpopulation, would we?
> >natural is if you believe that it is natural and right to submit to
> >your sexual urges for any reason whatsoever (ie just because you have
> >them). I'm a bit of a prude, I suppose, and I don't like that
> >statement, so I fall back on reproduction.
> >
> >So where does that leave homosexuality, in my opinion? As a minor,
> >harmless, psychological problem. I'd rank it in intensity at about a
>
>
> That's your -opinion-. According to the American Psychological
> Association, homosexuality is NOT in anyway a psychological problem.
> This is why I suggested you learn a bit more on this subject, so you
> would know such things.
>
With all due respect, I don't care what the APA says because they are
not gods and basically have absolutely no idea what they are talking
about on most issues. They may be right ... but my view may be
correct as well. In fact, we could boht be right ... it could be a
matter of degree ...
> >par with ... oh ... obsessive time compulsion (a problem that I,
> >unfortunately, have. I am an obsessive scheduler).
> >
> >So, in my opinion, while it may not be natural, and I do not feel that
> >it is natural for me (in my case, heterosexuality is normal), I do not
> >feel that it is dangerous or in any sense threatening. Just don't ask
> >me to try it ...
>
> That is fine. I, and most other gay people, do not except
> or even want heterosexual people to be homosexual. As you said,
> it is not natural for you.
>
> We expect to be treated in the same way by you. Don't expect
> us to be heterosexual. It is not natural for us.
Did I say that I expected you to be heterosexual? If I did, please
point it out. It wasn't my intent ...
>
> I give you credit that you were clear and careful to express
> what you wrote as your opinion. Read more, learn more, let knowledge
> expand your opinions.
I let logic form my opinions, and my opinion, I feel, is valid,
logical, and fair. If it isn't, please explain how it isn't, and I
shall clarify ...
Dianne Hackborn
| There's a big difference between not natural and unnatural. Unnatural
| means it goes against everything in nature and can be rather harmful
| to nature, and the world itself. Not natural means that it isn't the
| way it is done naturally, but it really doesn't do much harm, so who
| cares? Humans are not very natural creatures in most respects any
| more ...
One point, 99% of the time "not natural" is used to mean "unnatural" when
attacking queers. I agree that there is a distinction, but realize that
you are playing with a -very- emotionally loaded word. Expect people to
take it how it is usually used.
OTOH, I don't see any evidence here that homosexuality actually -isn't-
"natural," beyond "most people aren't gay." Most people aren't lefties,
but I think being left-handed is perfectly natural.
| > Also, there is quite a bit of evidence that homosexuality may in fact serve
| > an evolutionary purpose; it is certainly something that has been seen in
| > animals, may be something of a safety-valve of population pressure or
| > provide members of the social group who are available to raise orphaned
| > young.
|
| Well, it being seen in animals is a plus for natural, but it again
| fails because it doesn't serve the main purpose of sexual acts. Your
| other reasons are, with no offense intended, I think kludged.
Okay, just ignore the rest. Considering that homosexuality is naturally
seen in animals, how then is it not natural?
| They
| are attempts to justify the action after the fact, not lead to an
| explanation of why an action is useful to develop ... (this probably
| sounds confused. It is ...)
Uhhh... isn't science basically: "Look at the world around you. Make a
hypothosis about how it works. Now test to see if this hypothosis works in
other situations" ?
Or do you think we should make our hypothisis before looking at what things
are like?
| Yes. But who says we have to be completely natural?
See below.
| Well, looking at it in context, if we say it is perfectly natural,
| many people will oppose it. This doesn't help. If we say it is a
| minor psychological problem, we say, "Well, it's not quite right, but
| you can do it anyway. It's harmless ..." while gay children will feel
| that something may be wrong with them, it's all right to do it if they
| want to.
They will feel it's something wrong with them, but it's alright to do it
anyway?
I don't follow.
| Besides, who said anything about fixing it? You're not going to take
| away my scheduling obsessions, are you?
Okay, what is a psychological problem? IMHO, its something about a person
which either (a) they do not like, or (b) causes them to infringe on other
people's rights. Can we take this as a given?
If so, how is homosexuality a psychological problem, per se? If the
homosexual doesn't like it, they can either find some way to change it
[an unlikely event if go by reputable literature on the subject], or change
whatever it is that makes them unable to like who they are. To just
blindly say, "it is a psychological problem" is as bad as me saying "having
a scheduling obsession is a psychological problem." Neither infringes on
other people's lives, and thus whether or not it is a problem depends
entire on whether the individual perceives it to be as such.
| If homosexuality is considered natural, and heterosexuality is
| considered natural, then the only thing that is truly natural is
| bisexuality, and I do not consider myself bisexual ...
Yes, who says we have to be completely natural.
And I -really- don't follow your logic. Are you saying, since having blonde
hair is natural and having black hair is natural, then the only thing that
is truely natural is to have blonde AND black hair?
-------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn "The real question is:
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu Is it possible to laugh
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne while fucking?"
Oregon State University -- Frank Zappa
Franklin Hummel
[ text deleted ]
I find it disappointing, Allen, that while it seems JMS is
in the process of presenting us with a future where both gay people
and religious people are being shown realisticly and honestly, a view
which I welcome and enjoy as do many others, you are unable to accept
this. How sad for you that you are so filled with hate.
JMS has repeated stated that a gay relationship WILL be shown
in a positive, matter-of-fact way in BABYLON 5. It is going to happen,
Allen, no matter what you choose to believe. So I suggest you decide
how important your prejudices are with regards to whether or not you
continue to watch B5, because that is the only choice you have.
Gay relationships are going to be shown as part of day-to-
day life in the BABYLON 5 universe, just as religious belief has been
shown in a similar manner.
If you have a problem with this, don't bother writing me or
anyone else here; we are viewers like yourself. (And this suggestion
is for all of those here who share your beliefs, Allen.) Write to
JMS and tell * him * -- it is HIS series; his address is:
strac...@genie.geis.com
But I think most of us have a fairly good idea of what he will
say to you. If you cannot acccept this, then don't watch B5.
This subject will go into my killfile now. At least this
discussion of Talia's bisexuality managed to continue for a number of
weeks now in an open and interesting way without the usual hate-mongers
jumping in. But you are here now....
-- Frank Hummel [ Internet: hum...@mit.edu - GEnie: F.HUMMEL ]
Allen J. Newton
> In article <0zCEv*k...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton) writes:
> >From: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton)
> >Subject: Re: Is Talia Winters Bi-Sexual?
> >Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 12:02:24 GMT
>
> [entire context deleted :P]
Well, at least you're honest about being devious! :-D
>
> David B.
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton |
ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
Allen J. Newton
> In article <QKCEv*q...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton) writes:
> >From: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton)
> >Subject: Re: Is Talia Winters Bi-Sexual?
> >Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 12:15:00 GMT
>
> >ALL behaviour is chosen. Homosexuality is defined by behaviour. Your
> >dishonest attempts at relabelling (the latest game in town) it as
> >"orientation" is evidence of further dishonesty and a reluctance to accept
> >responsibility for your choice. Futile. You're still responsible before
> >God, and will meet Him one day...
>
> I refer you to Krebs and Davies, "Introduction to Animal Behaviour 2nd.", ALL
> behavoiour is not chosen, VOLUNTARY behaviour is chosen, INVOLUNTARY behaviour
> is not chosen. Homosexuality has never been objectively classed as either.
"Objectively" defined as what, IYO?
> David B.
>
> PS. IMO I am responsible before no-one, and I will never meet God as there is
> no God.
"The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'."
Hi, Fool! Nice knowing you...
Dianne Hackborn
Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>Dianne Hackborn (hac...@python.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
>> acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie) wrote thusly:
>> | harmless and acceptable to do, as long as you don't push it's
>> | 'normality' on those for whom it is not normal ... A big improvement,
>> | wouldn't you say?
>
>> So the definition of natural you are using is "normal, as in the usual
>> case"?
>
>I didn't say that ...
Oh? You deleted your previous comment on this:
| > | Well, looking at it in context, if we say it is perfectly natural,
| > | many people will oppose it. This doesn't help. If we say it is a
| > | minor psychological problem, we say, "Well, it's not quite right, but
| > | you can do it anyway. It's harmless ..." while gay children will feel
| > | that something may be wrong with them, it's all right to do it if they
| > | want to.
You then seemed to use "normal" in place of your previous use of "natural."
So just what -were- you trying to say?
>> I like Frank Zappa, most people don't. Is liking Frank Zappa not natural?
>Liking a performer serves no natural purpose. It is not natural ...
Okay okay, I see that your personal definition of natural is different than
that used by anyone else I know. Enough.
>> AND causes problems at times. What kinds of problems? -I- don't have any
>> problems with it, but some people around me do. I say these appears to be
>> a better indication that homophobia is a psychological problem.
>
>> And what in the world does having a "psychological problem" have to do with
>> the number of people?? Good ghod, I must just be one big walking
>> psychological problem.
>
>> Here ya go: I am into computers, most women aren't, it has caused problems
>> with others. I don't know WHY I like computers so much, I just do. Is
>> that a psychological problem?
>
>Being into computers may or may not be a psychological problem. It
>becomes a psychological problem if you cannot avail yourself of other
>options for social interaction and other benefits of computers.
Oh, then bisexuality is the only "natural" way? Being straight means you
can't avail yourself to other options for social interaction, just like
being gay, right?
>However, computers fits in under entertainment, which it is perfectly
>normal (but not natural) to seek. How you do it has no bearing on it,
>and there is no natural debate because it ain't natural ...
My interest in computers derives from the desire to -create-. Since your
definition of natural seems to revolve around procreation, I think what I
do with computers springs from that same basic part of being human, and
thus under your definition is natural.
>> | I may have biased my logic a bit, and didn't consider that point. But
>> | then, if bisexuality is to be considered natural, this logic has to
>> | apply. Black and blonde hair never mix ...
>
>> Brown. [Or different colors of pubic and head hair.]
>
>No. Not brown. Different colors of hair, neither ...
Maybe not brown, but different colors of hair certainly seems to fit under
"black and blonde" mixing. Now tell me why, under your logic, that is not
actually the True Natural Way?
>> Being left-handed is natural and being right-handed is natural, thus the
>> only truely natural thing is being ambidextrous?
>
>T'would be the ideal, no?
So is being ambidextrous the only really natural way?
>> natural: 1. of or dealing with nature 2. produced or existing in nature;
>> not artificial 3. innate; not acquired 4. true to nature; lifelike
>> 5. normal 6. free from affection; at ease
>
>> The only definition homosexuality seems to definitely fall under is #5.
>> Given that it exists in animals, I think it very well falls under the other
>> definitions.
>
>Um, well, maybe ... but that's not the definition I'm using. I'm
>looking for a natural purpose to it ...
As I said, you are using a person definition of natural which as far as I
can tell 99.9% of the English speaking world doesn't use. Expect to be
misunderstood a lot.
OTOH, this creative definition so far only seems to apply specifically to
the case of homosexuality, so I can't help but wonder if it isn't just an
excuse to cling to your personal opinions of homosexuality.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn She's Slinky! She's Slinky!
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu For fun she's a wonderful toy;
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne She's fun for a girl and a boy!
Oregon State University
Devious Brownies
>From: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton)
>Subject: Re: Is Talia Winters Bi-Sexual?
[entire context deleted :P]
>Franklin, you're so immature! Tell me, why is it that EVERY time you write
>something to me, you a) delete the entire text of what I wrote so that b) you
>can respond to what you WISH I'd said (because it's easier), instead of just
>responding to what I'd said?
Pot, Kettle, Black.
David B.
Allan Cybulskie
> In article <Cy7B0...@cunews.carleton.ca>,
> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >Franklin Hummel (hum...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) wrote:
> >Guess again. Take the point to its conclusion ... homosexuality is
> >the ONLY correct practice. What happens to humanity if everyone is
> >homosexual? It disappears.
> >
> >By the same token, do the same thing with heterosexuality. Humanity
> >survives. If we'd remained totally natural, we wouldn't be worrying
> >about overpopulation, would we?
> Eating is considered a natural activity, by most individuals, in the
> sense that animals do it, and most humans as well. Now what if
> everyone ate as much food as possible, all the time?
Now, how is this the same as taking homosexuality to its conclusion?
I inferred that by taking homosexuality to its conclusive step, that
if it is truly natural, then it could be totally in nature, which
means that all humans could be homosexual, then we wouldn't survive as
a species. How does that apply to everyone eating as much food as
possible, all the time? Unless, of course, that's what happens in
nature, in which case we are, yet again, unnatural ...
> Using the extreme case of an instance, is in fact a logical fallacy.
> Simply try to apply that thinking to ethics, religion, or any other
> matter of human choice, and the fallacy becomes evident.
Using the extreme case of an instance is a perfect way to determine
how much harm or good that instance may perpetrate or achieve ...
> Please do not try to pass off the pitiful bat-droppings that appear
> to compose your thoughts as the thoughts of a logician.
Just as long as you don't ...
> >
> >> >natural is if you believe that it is natural and right to submit to
> >> >your sexual urges for any reason whatsoever (ie just because you have
> >> >them). I'm a bit of a prude, I suppose, and I don't like that
> >> >statement, so I fall back on reproduction.
> >> >
> >> >So where does that leave homosexuality, in my opinion? As a minor,
> >> >harmless, psychological problem. I'd rank it in intensity at about a
> >>
> However the tiny minds possessed by some individuals are a greater problem.
> The fact that you find an act distasteful, does not in the first place
> grant you any insight in its meaning as an action undertaken by an
> individual. Nor, does it in any sense mean that the act need be
> "justified" by some or another linear logic.
> Social evolution, IMHO, if there is indeed such a thing, does not
> necessarily follow "functionality", any more than fashion does.
Nice deletion of the degree of the problem, and notice that I'm not
asking for it to be justified, I'm just stating that you can't
consider it natural. Read more of my posts to Dianne and you'll see
exactly what I mean by that ...
> >
> >With all due respect, I don't care what the APA says because they are
> >not gods and basically have absolutely no idea what they are talking
> >about on most issues. They may be right ... but my view may be
> >correct as well. In fact, we could boht be right ... it could be a
> >matter of degree ...
> >
>
> It is statements such as the above that I think reveal the real
> flawed-ness inherent in your thinking. Am I to deduce
> from the above, that you take orders from "the gods" as that is
> the authority that you seem to feel is authoritative on human
> sexuality.
Gee, where'd you go to school?
Gods are all-knowing. I stated that the APA are not Gods. IE they
don't know everything. IE they can be wrong. So, I don't care what
they call it, unless they can back it up with good solid logic or
facts. And since we're dealing with the human mind, they can't ...
BTW, this brings up another point. You can't prove anything about the
human mind. Heterosexuality couldn't be considered natural if it
wasn't for the fact of reproduction ...
> I tend to believe rather that the only authorities on a matter
> carried on between two people, consensually, are the participants.
1) An outsider can certainly judge if it is natural for them or not ...
2) In that case, they shouldn't be trying so hard to justify it to
others (although I can see why they might try -- fail, but try)
Charles Ewen MacMillan
>> In article <Cy1xn...@cunews.carleton.ca> acyb...@chat.carleton.ca
>> (Allan Cybulskie) writes:
>> >I tried to stay out of this, I REALLY tried ...
>>
>> Then, please, read up on a subject before you post. This is
>> not intend as a flame, just a suggestion to consider what you write.
>
>
>A suggestion to you ... consider what other people write, and try
>looking at things using a little logic once in a while ...
>
>
>> >Homosexuality may or may not be natural. It serves no natural
>> >purpose, (like reproduction) so the only way it can be considered
>>
>>
>> Not true. It, for example, helps slow OVERpopulation. There
>> is also the possibility that it helps the survival of GROUPS; that
>> homosexuals, usually be childless, use the time and energy which
>> would have gone to raising a child tb benefit the community as a whole.
>
>And here's the first appeal to logic ... homosexuality slows
>overpopulation, right? So it must be natural, right?
>
>Guess again. Take the point to its conclusion ... homosexuality is
>the ONLY correct practice. What happens to humanity if everyone is
>homosexual? It disappears.
>
>By the same token, do the same thing with heterosexuality. Humanity
>survives. If we'd remained totally natural, we wouldn't be worrying
>about overpopulation, would we?
Eating is considered a natural activity, by most individuals, in the
sense that animals do it, and most humans as well. Now what if
everyone ate as much food as possible, all the time?
Using the extreme case of an instance, is in fact a logical fallacy.
Simply try to apply that thinking to ethics, religion, or any other
matter of human choice, and the fallacy becomes evident.
Please do not try to pass off the pitiful bat-droppings that appear
to compose your thoughts as the thoughts of a logician.
>
>> >natural is if you believe that it is natural and right to submit to
>> >your sexual urges for any reason whatsoever (ie just because you have
>> >them). I'm a bit of a prude, I suppose, and I don't like that
>> >statement, so I fall back on reproduction.
>> >
>> >So where does that leave homosexuality, in my opinion? As a minor,
>> >harmless, psychological problem. I'd rank it in intensity at about a
>>
However the tiny minds possessed by some individuals are a greater problem.
The fact that you find an act distasteful, does not in the first place
grant you any insight in its meaning as an action undertaken by an
individual. Nor, does it in any sense mean that the act need be
"justified" by some or another linear logic.
Social evolution, IMHO, if there is indeed such a thing, does not
necessarily follow "functionality", any more than fashion does.
>
>With all due respect, I don't care what the APA says because they are
>not gods and basically have absolutely no idea what they are talking
>about on most issues. They may be right ... but my view may be
>correct as well. In fact, we could boht be right ... it could be a
>matter of degree ...
>
It is statements such as the above that I think reveal the real
flawed-ness inherent in your thinking. Am I to deduce
from the above, that you take orders from "the gods" as that is
the authority that you seem to feel is authoritative on human
sexuality.
I tend to believe rather that the only authorities on a matter
carried on between two people, consensually, are the participants.
--
t e z c a t . c o m i n t e r n e t s e r v i c e s
brokers in human interconnectivity - chicago (wicker park)
(312)850-0112<modem> | we support TIA slip | http://tezcat.com<web>
(312)850-0181<voice> | emulation software | in...@tezcat.com<email>
Allen J. Newton
> In article <QKCEv*q...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J.
> Newton) writes:
> >ALL behaviour is chosen. Homosexuality is defined by behaviour. Your
> >dishonest attempts at relabelling (the latest game in town) it as
> >"orientation" is evidence of further dishonesty and a reluctance to accept
> >responsibility for your choice. Futile. You're still responsible before
> >God, and will meet Him one day...
>
> Love is an example of behaviour, you claim you will choose to love someone,
> that you will coldly decide that you will love one person, won't love another.
> You will never fall in love, you will never find yourself in love, you will
> never discover your love for someone. May the God you believe in show pity on
> those you choose/chose to love, that they may never know how shallow is your
> emotion.
You are showing your ignorance of Biblical love -- which IS a decision.
For Christians, there is no other way. "Till death do us part" is a common
wedding vow -- but too many people THESE days interpret it to mean "Till
feelings do us part" or "debt do us part" or anything else but death.
Christian love _is_ a decision. I can choose to love someone even if I
don't like them, and in fact am commanded to. "Love your enemies", Jesus
said. Do you? Can you? I couldn't, apart from the power of the Holy
Spirit living inside me.
(I can hear the homosexuals now, claiming I don't love them). You know
what? Being the imperfect human that I am, sometimes I don't! But
ironically, when I _am_ acting out of love for them, THAT is when they take
the most offense (that is, when I tell them of God's love and plan for
their lives, that all should repent and come to the saving knowledge of
Jesus Christ). Knowing that all unrepentant sinners will end up in Hell
for eternity, it would be unloving NOT to warn them of that fact.
Spouses can (and should) CHOOSE to love one another, even after a
particularly heated fight.
You accuse me of a shallow love. How deep can yours be when you'd
willingly allow someone about to be run over by a semi DIE when you could
have warned them...?
Devious Brownies
>From: acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie)
>Subject: Re: Is Talia Winters Bi-Sexual?
>Charles Ewen MacMillan (il...@tezcat.com) wrote:
>> In article <Cy7B0...@cunews.carleton.ca>,
>> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>> >Franklin Hummel (hum...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) wrote:
>> >Guess again. Take the point to its conclusion ... homosexuality is
>> >the ONLY correct practice. What happens to humanity if everyone is
>> >homosexual? It disappears.
>> >
>> >By the same token, do the same thing with heterosexuality. Humanity
>> >survives. If we'd remained totally natural, we wouldn't be worrying
>> >about overpopulation, would we?
>> Eating is considered a natural activity, by most individuals, in the
>> sense that animals do it, and most humans as well. Now what if
>> everyone ate as much food as possible, all the time?
>Now, how is this the same as taking homosexuality to its conclusion?
>I inferred that by taking homosexuality to its conclusive step, that
>if it is truly natural, then it could be totally in nature, which
>means that all humans could be homosexual, then we wouldn't survive as
>a species. How does that apply to everyone eating as much food as
>possible, all the time? Unless, of course, that's what happens in
>nature, in which case we are, yet again, unnatural ...
It common for males of many species to try to commit infanticide on the
children of other males. Now "if it is truly natural, then it could be totally
in nature" which means that all animals could kill each others children at
every opportunity with out any harm befalling their community. I hope you
don't seriously believe that, although it is a true example of natural
behaviour fed through your "natrality" criterion.
Rape, murder, deceit, and betrayal all occur in nature (if fact ALL are
demonstrated in the behaviour of the common robin! (D. Harper - Uni. of
Sussex)) yet if taken to extremes would devastate a species. Your argument
accuses nature of being unnatural.
David B.
Devious Brownies
>From: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton)
>Subject: Re: Is Talia Winters Bi-Sexual?
>Well, at least you're honest about being devious! :-D
No I'm devious about being honest *MOOR HA Ha ha ha!* [twiddles moustache]
David B.
Devious Brownies
Newton) writes:
>From: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton)
>Subject: Re: Is Talia Winters Bi-Sexual?
>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 12:15:00 GMT
>ALL behaviour is chosen. Homosexuality is defined by behaviour. Your
>dishonest attempts at relabelling (the latest game in town) it as
>"orientation" is evidence of further dishonesty and a reluctance to accept
>responsibility for your choice. Futile. You're still responsible before
>God, and will meet Him one day...
Love is an example of behaviour, you claim you will choose to love someone,
that you will coldly decide that you will love one person, won't love another.
You will never fall in love, you will never find yourself in love, you will
never discover your love for someone. May the God you believe in show pity on
those you choose/chose to love, that they may never know how shallow is your
emotion.
David B.
liz holliday
In article <H7RCv*7...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
>In article <78257794...@jina.rain.com>, Leonard Erickson writes:
>
>> If sexual hangups are eliminated, gays won't go away. But the folks who
>> claim that gays are unnatural will. In case you aren't aware of it,
>> homosexuality has not been considered a psychological condition for
>> quite some time.
>
>Oh, come off it! You know the only reason the APA doesn't recognize
>homosexuality (although many individual psychologists still do) is because
>the fags INFILTRATED the APA and Psychological profession at large.
>
>Yes, I know what I'm talking about, I studied Psychology in college. And
>this was one of TWO major reasons why I got out of it (makes sense they'd
>want to study it, though -- many of them end up comitting suicide. But
>then, many psychologists do, too. Hmmm, anyone see a connection here?)
>
God, you are insecure, aren't you?
>
************Reality Is No Defence*************
Jayne Wirtz
> seen in animals, how then is it not natural?
Just what the heck is NATURAL anyway? Wearing clothes? Brushing your
teeth? Cooking food? Monogamous sex? Watching B 5?(to be slightly on topic)
|||||paul|||||
pwi...@bix.com
Ivanova is always right. I will listen to Ivanova.
Ivanova is God.
Dianne Hackborn
| > Eating is considered a natural activity, by most individuals, in the
| > sense that animals do it, and most humans as well. Now what if
| > everyone ate as much food as possible, all the time?
|
| Now, how is this the same as taking homosexuality to its conclusion?
| I inferred that by taking homosexuality to its conclusive step, that
| if it is truly natural, then it could be totally in nature, which
| means that all humans could be homosexual, then we wouldn't survive as
| a species. How does that apply to everyone eating as much food as
| possible, all the time? Unless, of course, that's what happens in
| nature, in which case we are, yet again, unnatural ...
The most unnatural thing I've seen so far is your use of "logic."
Let me see if my obviously lacking intellect can figure this one out:
1. We deterine if homosexuality is natural by taking it to its "conclusive
step." [100% of people queer, 100% only motss?]
2. The conclusive step for homosexuality is that we're all very happy. :)
3. But if this was the case, there would be no babies and we'd all be
very unhappy. :(
4. Everyone eating as much food as possible and creating the same basic
result due to Gastric Distress is not the same.
5. Unless "that" [presumably death by indigestion] also happens in nature.
6. In which case we are also unnatural.
Okay, is there anyting I missed there? This is the point?
Well then, a few more things to ponder in this above scenario.
- Being female is natural. But if we were all female, there would be no
babies. :( Thus being female must be unnatural.
- Being male is natural. But if we were all male, there would be no
babies. :( Thus being male must be unnatural.
- Disliking someone is natural. But if we all disliked everyone, we'd
never breed and there would be no babies. :( Thus disliking someone is
unnatural.
- Protecting our children is natural. But if we all did everything we
could to protect, we'd never let them have sex and there would be no
babies. :( Thus protecting our children is unnatural.
- Breeding is natural. But if we all spent our time breeding, we'd never
have time to get food and other Important Things, and all our kids would
die. :( Thus breeding is unnatural.
| Using the extreme case of an instance is a perfect way to determine
| how much harm or good that instance may perpetrate or achieve ...
Yes, I can see that.
| Nice deletion of the degree of the problem, and notice that I'm not
| asking for it to be justified, I'm just stating that you can't
| consider it natural. Read more of my posts to Dianne and you'll see
| exactly what I mean by that ...
Oh yes, very enlightening.
| BTW, this brings up another point. You can't prove anything about the
| human mind. Heterosexuality couldn't be considered natural if it
| wasn't for the fact of reproduction ...
May you become impotent.
| 1) An outsider can certainly judge if it is natural for them or not ...
Most certainly. Being 100% straight is unnatural to me, so I would like
you to know, and I say this only with your best interest at heart, that you
are unnatural.
You're welcome.
| 2) In that case, they shouldn't be trying so hard to justify it to
| others (although I can see why they might try -- fail, but try)
You tried, you failed, now go away.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn "Labels, especially derogatory
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu labels, allow the envious to
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne sleep at night."
Oregon State University -- Nancy Friday
liz holliday
In article <Cy1xn...@cunews.carleton.ca>, Allan Cybulskie (acyb...@chat.carleton.ca) writes:
[minor snip]
>
>
>Disclaimer: Please read what I'm saying before you decide to flame
>(ie read the entire post). I will accept logical arguments against my
>stance.
Wanting logic is fine - but that means you have to _be_
logical - and that means defining your terms among other
things.
Flames I do not appreciate ...
>
>
>Homosexuality may or may not be natural.
Define natural, please. Most of what humans do is not
"natural", in that it requires technology. Even the most
basic mating ritual usually involves dressing up etc - go
to any pub or club. There are many people who think that
_not_ dressing up is unnatural, in the sense that it goes
against the cultural norm. Do you mean natural as in,
goes against the "human nature" - in which case, it seems
to me that's pretty mutable: look at someone from my
country [uk] now, vs someone from here 200 years ago [when
it would be a rare male who went out without full make-up,
at least if he had money], and someone from say,
Polynesia; do you mean, natural as in, what we can do
without technology? In which case, how are we having this
conversation? You can't just pick and choose: not and
demand logical rigour off anyone else. Or do you mean
natural, as in hard-wired in to the brain? I don't see how
it can be, or there wouldn't _be_ homosexuals in the first
place
>It serves no natural
>purpose, (like reproduction) so the only way it can be considered
>natural is if you believe that it is natural and right to submit to
>your sexual urges for any reason whatsoever (ie just because you have
>them). I'm a bit of a prude, I suppose, and I don't like that
>statement, so I fall back on reproduction.
What on earth is the matter with sex for fun? I don't even
mean promiscuity or anything - I just mean, two human
beings enjoying themselves, even if you want to limit
yourself to one partner for life.
>
>So where does that leave homosexuality, in my opinion? As a minor,
>harmless, psychological problem.
Well, IMHO, it's just another way for people to care about
each other. Surely the world would be a better place if
everyone cared a bit more, and got a bit less upset about
what people did, consensually, in the privacy of their own
homes?
>I'd rank it in
intensity at about a
>par with ... oh ... obsessive time compulsion (a problem that I,
>unfortunately, have. I am an obsessive scheduler).
Frankly, I'd rate homosexuality as _much_ less of a problem
than getting uptight over time-keeping. I can be friends
with gays, but my time-keeping's so lousy I just upset
people if they get worried about this kind of thing :-)
>
>So, in my opinion, while it may not be natural, and I do not feel that
>it is natural for me (in my case, heterosexuality is normal), I do not
>feel that it is dangerous or in any sense threatening. Just don't ask
>me to try it ...
>
But nobody on this newsgroup _is_ asking you to try it...
unless there's something you haven't told us about? ;-)
************Reality Is No Defence*************
mark kamensek
: think that just having another person express an interest in them is
: tantamount to being kidnapped and tied down to a bed with the words "For
: Queer Sex Only" on a big sign hanging over it], but anyone -pushing- you to
: try it is an insensitive jerk, just the same as anyone pushing someone to
: be straight... :)
I'm not trying to seem sarcastic or anything, but with all the
publicity that gay life has gotten here at Indiana University, I'm just
sick and tired of hearing about it...I don't care if you're gay or
straight (which I am...), I just don't think it's anyone's business nor
something that needs to be advertised...
I don't put judgements on it being right or wrong...natural or
unnatural...(BTW calling heterosexuals normal is a correct
statement...normal can be construed to mean majority as well...not
right...)...
I just think private lives are just that...private...the only
time we need to worry about them is when some asshole decides to make
someone's private life public...Hell, if we knew half of what the
"normal, upstanding" people did in their private lives, for REAL, we'd
probably call them unnatural wierdos with a small psychological problem
too!!!
Thanks...I needed to get that out of my system...
M.Kamensek
----->The Puppeteer<-----
mark kamensek
: Allen J. Newton <ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us> wrote:
: >> If sexual hangups are eliminated, gays won't go away. But the folks who
: >> claim that gays are unnatural will.
: And one of them responds to being threatened with extinction:
: >Oh, come off it! You know the only reason the APA doesn't recognize
: >homosexuality (although many individual psychologists still do) is because
: >the fags INFILTRATED the APA and Psychological profession at large.
: >Yes, I know what I'm talking about, I studied Psychology in college. And
: >this was one of TWO major reasons why I got out of it (makes sense they'd
: >want to study it, though -- many of them end up comitting suicide. But
: >then, many psychologists do, too. Hmmm, anyone see a connection here?)
: So, you're so homophobic that it made you change your choice of profession?
: *scratches head*..
: Good thing you're one of the 'healthy' ones, huh?
: D
: --
: Damian Hammontree, Soul Pit dam...@cthulu.med.jhu.edu
: "A spokesman for the Lyon Group, producers of _Barney and Friends_, denied
: that Barney is an instrument of Satan." --the Advocate, spring 1994
: GM/MU (-)d(+) p- c++ u+(-) e- m---- s n@ f g+ w+ t@ r+ y++
: Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Tom Johnston-Oneill
Somebody said:
: > Being left-handed is natural and being right-handed is natural, thus the
: > only truely natural thing is being ambidextrous?
Somebody else replied:
: T'would be the ideal, no?
Tom added:
In the early part of the century Robert Hertz wrote an interesting
article called simply "The Right Hand". He suggests that there are
probably a small number of people who are naturally right handed and a
slightly smaller number who are left handed. The slight statistical
difference in occurance gives the righthanders the "upperhand" and over
the long history of civilizations the ability to conform the majority
ambidextrous folk to righthandedness. It is a complex argument (which
needs close reading and greater justice than I can give here) which
attempts to address the nearly universal association of Right with right
(ie "good", lots of languages make the same connection) and Left with
darkness or other negative qualities. I think that it may have some
implications with regards to sexual "orientations" and offer additional
insights regarding deeply felt (subconscious and irrational) fears
concerning homosexuality.
-Tom
Mark Evans
: "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. "`Do
: not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations
: that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. (Lev. 18:22,24 NIV)
There are many possible conclusions to draw from this. e.g. men should not
marry men.
Also you are quoting this out of context, are you wearing any garment which
is made from a mixture of fibres?
: In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves
: up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who
: suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7 NIV)
If you read the whole of the story you will discover that the offence is
the attempted rape of visitors. i.e. the behaviour of the inhabitents towards
visiting dignitories so annoyed them that they resorted to "gunboat deplomecy".
(You don't need a god to explain what is described in this story, a nuclear
war will do quite nicely)
Do you actually watch B5, all this talk about MALE homosexuality is rather
irrelevent considering Talia Winters is FEMALE.
Allan Cybulskie
> In article <CyAt...@cunews.carleton.ca>,
> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >Dianne Hackborn (hac...@python.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
> >> acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie) wrote thusly:
> >> | They'll feel that it isn't quite the normal thing, but that it is
> >> | harmless and acceptable to do, as long as you don't push it's
> >> | 'normality' on those for whom it is not normal ... A big improvement,
> >> | wouldn't you say?
> >
> >> So the definition of natural you are using is "normal, as in the usual
> >> case"?
> >
> >I didn't say that ...
> Oh? You deleted your previous comment on this:
I previously defined natural as having a natural purpose, like
procreation. Like eating. Like sleeping.
> | > | Well, looking at it in context, if we say it is perfectly natural,
> | > | many people will oppose it. This doesn't help. If we say it is a
> | > | minor psychological problem, we say, "Well, it's not quite right, but
> | > | you can do it anyway. It's harmless ..." while gay children will feel
> | > | that something may be wrong with them, it's all right to do it if they
> | > | want to.
> You then seemed to use "normal" in place of your previous use of "natural."
> So just what -were- you trying to say?
It is never "natural", by strict definition, but it may or may not be
normal. How would we determine if something is normal? One way is to
look at how many people exhibit this behaviour, and let the majority
rule ...
> >> AND causes problems at times. What kinds of problems? -I- don't have any
> >> problems with it, but some people around me do. I say these appears to be
> >> a better indication that homophobia is a psychological problem.
I missed this the first time ... homophobia is a psychological
problem. I am fortunate to not have it ...
> >
> >> And what in the world does having a "psychological problem" have to do with
> >> the number of people?? Good ghod, I must just be one big walking
> >> psychological problem.
> >
> >> Here ya go: I am into computers, most women aren't, it has caused problems
> >> with others. I don't know WHY I like computers so much, I just do. Is
> >> that a psychological problem?
> >
> >Being into computers may or may not be a psychological problem. It
> >becomes a psychological problem if you cannot avail yourself of other
> >options for social interaction and other benefits of computers.
> Oh, then bisexuality is the only "natural" way? Being straight means you
> can't avail yourself to other options for social interaction, just like
> being gay, right?
Not the only natural way ... but it may be the only normal way (see
above) ...
> >However, computers fits in under entertainment, which it is perfectly
> >normal (but not natural) to seek. How you do it has no bearing on it,
> >and there is no natural debate because it ain't natural ...
> My interest in computers derives from the desire to -create-. Since your
> definition of natural seems to revolve around procreation, I think what I
> do with computers springs from that same basic part of being human, and
> thus under your definition is natural.
God has a desire to create lesser beings ... for humans it may be a
slight problem ...
And it is still a means to entertain yourself, so it is therefore
entertainment and therefore not natural ...
> >> | I may have biased my logic a bit, and didn't consider that point. But
> >> | then, if bisexuality is to be considered natural, this logic has to
> >> | apply. Black and blonde hair never mix ...
> >
> >> Brown. [Or different colors of pubic and head hair.]
> >
> >No. Not brown. Different colors of hair, neither ...
> Maybe not brown, but different colors of hair certainly seems to fit under
> "black and blonde" mixing. Now tell me why, under your logic, that is not
> actually the True Natural Way?
First, you must prove to me that the genes that determine the colour
of hair on your head are the same as the genes that determine the
colour of your hair elsewhere ...
> >> Being left-handed is natural and being right-handed is natural, thus the
> >> only truely natural thing is being ambidextrous?
> >
> >T'would be the ideal, no?
> So is being ambidextrous the only really natural way?
This is a very difficult question, because I can't find a natural
reason why one may be more desirable than the other. The ideal would
be to be ambidextrous ... do you know whether wild apes exhibit left
or right handedness ?
> >> natural: 1. of or dealing with nature 2. produced or existing in nature;
> >> not artificial 3. innate; not acquired 4. true to nature; lifelike
> >> 5. normal 6. free from affection; at ease
> >
> >> The only definition homosexuality seems to definitely fall under is #5.
> >> Given that it exists in animals, I think it very well falls under the other
> >> definitions.
> >
> >Um, well, maybe ... but that's not the definition I'm using. I'm
> >looking for a natural purpose to it ...
> As I said, you are using a person definition of natural which as far as I
> can tell 99.9% of the English speaking world doesn't use. Expect to be
> misunderstood a lot.
> OTOH, this creative definition so far only seems to apply specifically to
> the case of homosexuality, so I can't help but wonder if it isn't just an
> excuse to cling to your personal opinions of homosexuality.
What personal opinion is that? My view that it is not quite normal
(but minor) but is definitely not natural?
Allan Cybulskie
Distribution:
Well, unless it serves a natural purpose, I don't care much for that.
BUT, since we all have a natural instinct to protect our young, to
take that case to its final conclusion would mean the end of packs,
and that's all ...
> Rape, murder, deceit, and betrayal all occur in nature (if fact ALL are
> demonstrated in the behaviour of the common robin! (D. Harper - Uni. of
> Sussex)) yet if taken to extremes would devastate a species. Your argument
> accuses nature of being unnatural.
Those terms you are using is our rational definitions of an act in
nature. I don't think the intent exists in nature to define it as
such ...
Allen J. Newton
> Because, Mr. Newton, 1) I do not want to repost such hate-filled
> messages a 2nd time, 2) because anyone who has been here even a moderate
> amount of time knows your bigoted arguments well-enough by now that they
> do not need to read them again, and 3) because -your- post, the same old
> tired lies about homosexuality, had little to do with -my- post, which
> was if you are so displeased with the discussion about the upcoming
> presence of a gay love relationship in BABYLON 5 here on one of the B5
> newsgroups, take it up with J. Michael Straczynski himself, since he is
> the one who stated a postive gay relationship would be seen in his series.
>
> As I said, I think we all know how he will reply, since JMS
> has made it very clear in the past he does not tolerate irrational
> bigotry: whether it is against those with religious beliefs or those
> who are homosexual or bisexual.
Funny, you just did it again. In the part you omitted, I said that whether or
not a homo/bi-sexual character is portrayed on B5 has never been an issue with
me. But you persist in suggesting that it is.
> Allen, I pity you.
Why, because you intend to continue to annoy me and bore everyone else with
your out-of-context quotes and responses? (Okay, the rest of the fags
probably enjoy it, but I doubt anyone else does -- especially given the number
of "I'm sick of..." posts. Perhaps we should drop it now that new episodes
are showing again.
What say ye?
Dianne Hackborn
| I previously defined natural as having a natural purpose, like
| procreation. Like eating. Like sleeping.
|
| It is never "natural", by strict definition, but it may or may not be
| normal. How would we determine if something is normal? One way is to
| look at how many people exhibit this behaviour, and let the majority
| rule ...
|
| > Oh, then bisexuality is the only "natural" way? Being straight means you
| > can't avail yourself to other options for social interaction, just like
| > being gay, right?
|
| Not the only natural way ... but it may be the only normal way (see
| above) ...
I did, and I am even more confused. Last I heard, the majority of people
are not bi. [Though we can always hope... ;)]
| > My interest in computers derives from the desire to -create-. Since your
| > definition of natural seems to revolve around procreation, I think what I
| > do with computers springs from that same basic part of being human, and
| > thus under your definition is natural.
|
| God has a desire to create lesser beings ... for humans it may be a
| slight problem ...
I'm not Christian. Maybe that's why I don't understand this at all.
| And it is still a means to entertain yourself, so it is therefore
| entertainment and therefore not natural ...
Oh! So you don't have fun during sex?
Now I think I am beginning to see the problem here...
| > Maybe not brown, but different colors of hair certainly seems to fit under
| > "black and blonde" mixing. Now tell me why, under your logic, that is not
| > actually the True Natural Way?
|
| First, you must prove to me that the genes that determine the colour
| of hair on your head are the same as the genes that determine the
| colour of your hair elsewhere ...
Okay, as soon as you prove to me that the genes which determine an
attraction to males are the same as the ones which determine an attraction
to females.
| > So is being ambidextrous the only really natural way?
|
| This is a very difficult question, because I can't find a natural
| reason why one may be more desirable than the other. The ideal would
| be to be ambidextrous ... do you know whether wild apes exhibit left
| or right handedness ?
And also homosexuality.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu My other .sig is hysterical.
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne
Oregon State University
Dianne Hackborn
| I'm not trying to seem sarcastic or anything, but with all the
| publicity that gay life has gotten here at Indiana University, I'm just
| sick and tired of hearing about it...I don't care if you're gay or
| straight (which I am...), I just don't think it's anyone's business nor
| something that needs to be advertised...
Cute, tell us you don't care if we're gay or straight, and then be SURE to
let us know that you ARE STRAIGHT. <laugh!> Believe me, -nobody- would
have mistaken you for a fag. No need to worry about it.
And hey, I really don't care.
| I don't put judgements on it being right or wrong...natural or
| unnatural...(BTW calling heterosexuals normal is a correct
| statement...normal can be construed to mean majority as well...not
| right...)...
"Normal" != "Natural".
| I just think private lives are just that...private...the only
| time we need to worry about them is when some asshole decides to make
| someone's private life public...Hell, if we knew half of what the
| "normal, upstanding" people did in their private lives, for REAL, we'd
| probably call them unnatural wierdos with a small psychological problem
| too!!!
Hmmmm... Measure 13, the anti-gay measure here in Oregon. -Someone- sure
as hell is trying to make my private life public. And it ain't queers.
| Thanks...I needed to get that out of my system...
You're welcome. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn "Nuclear explosions under the Nevada desert?
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu What the fuck are we testing for?
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne We already know the shit blows up."
Allen J. Newton
*laughing raucously*
Don't I recognize you? Didn't you just send me e-mail telling me you thought
MY post was a waste of your download charges?
How is yours any different?
Please, take that log out of your eye. Your beginning to knock things over
with it! :-D
Allen J. Newton
[To acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie)]:
>
> May you become impotent.
Such eloquence, milady!
It appears to be the last resort of someone who's badly losing an argument...
Allen J. Newton
A post so full of holes, I'll try to respond to any real points I can find...
> Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) wrote:
>
> : "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. "`Do
> : not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations
> : that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. (Lev. 18:22,24 NIV)
>
> There are many possible conclusions to draw from this. e.g. men should not
> marry men.
> Also you are quoting this out of context,
'Scuse me? In the first place, the verse or the surrounding verses have
nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, the topic under discussion is only
sex. By attempting to draw a conclusion about marriage from it, _you_ are the
one taking it out of context.
But if you feel I am as well, please explain how. While you're at it (and
since your being able to demonstrate that I _am_ quoting it out of context
implies you understand the correct context), please enlighten me as to the
correct context. Please explain your answer, and what sources led you to that
conclusion.
>are you wearing any garment which
> is made from a mixture of fibres?
Attempts a redirection will be ignored. Stick to the subject at hand.
> : In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves
> : up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who
> : suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7 NIV)
>
> If you read the whole of the story you will discover that the offence is
> the attempted rape of visitors.
Yet another out of context interpretation. The angels went down there to "see
if the reports [of the wickedness of the place] were true". God, being
omniscient, already knew that they were, and the angels were sent to send Lot
away from Sodom, then to destroy it. The attack against them was merely
evidence of the wickedness for which they were being judged and sentence was
about to be carried out.
>i.e. the behaviour of the inhabitents towards
> visiting dignitories so annoyed them that they resorted to "gunboat deplomecy".
If getting away from them or punishing them were all that they wanted to do,
striking them blind was sufficient...
> (You don't need a god to explain what is described in this story, a nuclear
> war will do quite nicely)
Oh, REALLY? Mankind had nuclear weapons c. 1900 B.C.? That's very
interesting. I learn something new every day.
;-) ;-) for the sarcasm impaired...
(and you think _I_ have a lot of faith!)
> Do you actually watch B5, all this talk about MALE homosexuality is rather
> irrelevent considering Talia Winters is FEMALE.
Nope, wrong on both counts. According to an interview of Andrea Thompson,
Talia Winters is _bi_-sexual. We have even seen one former MALE lover of
hers.
Ah, sheesh, man. Do just a LITTLE studying up before you post next time, eh?
There's a good chap...
Chris Mankey
: > I like Frank Zappa, most people don't. Is liking Frank Zappa not natural?
: Correct.
: > | > Okay, what is a psychological problem? [ ... ]
: >
: > AND causes problems at times. What kinds of problems? -I- don't have any
: > problems with it, but some people around me do. I say these appears to be
: > a better indication that homophobia is a psychological problem.
: ANY phobia is a psychological problem, according to the psychological
: industry.
: Oh, wait, I forgot. HOMOSEXUAL (and other queer's) definition of homophobia:
: Disapproves of, or in any way speaks derogatorily about or against.
: I keep forgetting you like to use your own Homo-Collegiate Dictionary...
: > I must just be one big walking
: > psychological problem.
: Hey, you said it, I didn't...
: > And are we using a different definitions of "natural" than as "normal" up
: > above?
: >
: > For reference:
: I've got some, too:
: phobia: an exaggerated usu. inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular
: object or class of objects (Webster's New Collegiate 10th Anniversary edition.
: Now please explain how my quotation of God's Word regarding homosexuality:
: "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. "`Do
: not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations
: that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. (Lev. 18:22,24 NIV)
: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
: exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also
: abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
: another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
: themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did
: not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a
: depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with
: every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy,
: murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters,
: insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey
: their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although
: they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,
: they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who
: practice them. (Rom 1:26-32 NIV)
How about this little tidbit of the "word of god"NOT!
Samaria hath rebelled against me, They will fall by the sword. Infants
shall be dashed to the ground in pieces and pregnant women will be
ripped to open.Hosea 13:16 I bet you thought the bible is pro-life didn't
you?
: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not
: be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor
: male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor
: drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
: (1 Cor 6:9-10 NIV)
: and finally:
: In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves
: up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who
: suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7 NIV)
You quote the bible like mere repition makes it true. Why should any one
care about your personal myth s?
: ....is homophobic? I have no fear of them, the first time I ever said
: anything on the .net about this was to merely point this out. But, oh no!
: They couldn't argue against the Word of God, so they had to start trying to
: discredit the messenger. Sorry, won't work! :-)
I think you fear homosexuals like a solder fears a bullet!
: God is the same yesterday, today and forever...
Execpt that he changes all the time.
: Peace!
A lotus to you, a buddha to be- thich nhat hahn
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Allen J. Newton | (Now they'll REALLY be
: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us | infuriated! :-)
Chris Mankey
: > In article <aV9Ev*l...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
: >
: > [ text deleted ]
: >
: >
: > I find it disappointing, Allen, that while it seems JMS is
: > in the process of presenting us with a future where both gay people
: > and religious people are being shown realisticly and honestly, a view
: "in the process of _attempting_" would have been more accurate, or have you
: developed precognitive ability since we last discussed?
: > which I welcome and enjoy as do many others, you are unable to accept
: > this. How sad for you that you are so filled with hate.
: Hate? Who said I hate homosexuals? Have I expressed ill will or made any
: threats to any homosexuals that you know of?
: > JMS has repeated stated that a gay relationship WILL be shown
: > in a positive, matter-of-fact way in BABYLON 5. It is going to happen,
: > Allen, no matter what you choose to believe. So I suggest you decide
: > how important your prejudices are with regards to whether or not you
: > continue to watch B5, because that is the only choice you have.
: Franklin, you're so immature! Tell me, why is it that EVERY time you write
: something to me, you a) delete the entire text of what I wrote so that b) you
: can respond to what you WISH I'd said (because it's easier), instead of just
: responding to what I'd said?
: Please feel free to re-post any article I posted where I said I'd stop
: watching B5 if Straczynski portrayed a regular character as homosexual. I'd
: really like to see it, complete with headers if you don't mind. Refresh my
: memory, please!
: > If you have a problem with this, don't bother writing me or
: > anyone else here; we are viewers like yourself. (And this suggestion
: > is for all of those here who share your beliefs, Allen.) Write to
: > JMS and tell * him * -- it is HIS series; his address is:
: No, that really isn't my way. It's you fags who get all up in arms when you
: see something you don't like. Star Trek and its LACK of homosexual
: representation, for instance. YOU were the one who was calling for a
: letter-writing campaign to Warner's and the stations showing B5 in support of
: B5 for that one single reason (never mind B5's other redeeming
: characteristics). YOU were one of many involved in organizing a
: letter-writing campaign to Paramount when the episode showing a race of
: androgynous beings, some with "gender" leanings who were regarded as ill.
You fags? WOW, that is like saying that I don't hate jews and then
saying something like,"Gee, you kikes really get mad when you see some
thing you don't like" You expect me to believe that a man who resorts to
name calling isn't filled with hate? Gee silly me your right:-)
: Please stop projecting your psychoses onto others -- we don't all work the
: same way you do.
: > This subject will go into my killfile now.
: THANKfully! But I'll cc: my response to you as a favor, anyway...
: >At least this
: > discussion of Talia's bisexuality managed to continue for a number of
: > weeks now in an open and interesting way without the usual hate-mongers
: > jumping in. But you are here now....
: Again, accusing me of hate simply for expressing disagreement. It is _you_,
: Franklin who are full of both hate and fear. Realize that most of us don't
: see you as a threat at all, personally...
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Allen J. Newton |
: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
Chris Mankey
: > In article <QKCEv*q...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton) writes:
: > >From: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton)
: > >Subject: Re: Is Talia Winters Bi-Sexual?
: > >Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 12:15:00 GMT
: >
: > >ALL behaviour is chosen. Homosexuality is defined by behaviour. Your
: > >dishonest attempts at relabelling (the latest game in town) it as
: > >"orientation" is evidence of further dishonesty and a reluctance to accept
: > >responsibility for your choice. Futile. You're still responsible before
: > >God, and will meet Him one day...
: >
: > I refer you to Krebs and Davies, "Introduction to Animal Behaviour 2nd.", ALL
: > behavoiour is not chosen, VOLUNTARY behaviour is chosen, INVOLUNTARY behaviour
: > is not chosen. Homosexuality has never been objectively classed as either.
: "Objectively" defined as what, IYO?
: > David B.
: >
: > PS. IMO I am responsible before no-one, and I will never meet God as there is
: > no God.
: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'."
Mattew 5:22" He who shall in his heart "thou fool!" shall be in danger
of hellfire.
: Hi, Fool! Nice knowing you...
See you in Hell, Allen
Allen J. Newton
[A fourth response. Yup, I guess he's designated hitter today. "Some people
have entirely too much free time on their hands." - Spaf]
> For hatered is never ended by hatred, only by love is it appeased this
> is an eteranal law, eternal and never ending- Gautma the Buddha in the
> dhammapada. You know I have the strangest feeling that the DALI LAMA and
> Thich nhat hahn love thier foes better that you do, allen. And all with
> out the holy spirt. HMMM?
Sure, enough to allow someone to get run over by a semi if that's what that
person REALLY wants.
I wondered what your bent was...
> Gee, what A loving god to send most* of the people in the world to
> everlasting torment. I guess I can't fathom love like that:-)
God doesn't do it. God sent His one and only Son to die in your place. If
you reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, you send yourself to Hell.
Grow up, and quit passing the blame. Accept responsibility for your own
decisions.
Allen J. Newton
> How about this little tidbit of the "word of god"NOT!
> Samaria hath rebelled against me, They will fall by the sword. Infants
> shall be dashed to the ground in pieces and pregnant women will be
> ripped to open.Hosea 13:16 I bet you thought the bible is pro-life didn't
> you?
Out of context. Invalid.
You know where the Bible says Cain slew Abel? And the part that says "Go and
do likewise"...? Care to be my first volunteer?
Get a Clue.
> You quote the bible like mere repition makes it true. Why should any one
> care about your personal myth s?
Well, no, I quote it because it is true. The cool thing about it is that I
don't have to defend it. If you don't believe me now, consider this: There
is a day when you will die and see God face to face. It is a fact that that
day will come. And I will not need to defend God, as if He needed it!
He who laughs last...
> I think you fear homosexuals like a solder fears a bullet!
No, but perhaps they WISH I did...or was that a veiled threat of some kind?
> : God is the same yesterday, today and forever...
> Execpt that he changes all the time.
Unsubstantiated claim, rejected out of hand...
Poor spelling, too...
Allen J. Newton
[More out of context quotes -- also: LEARN to trim the parts of an article
out that you're not addressing and quit wasting bandwidth, moron!]
> You fags? WOW, that is like saying that I don't hate jews and then
> saying something like,"Gee, you kikes really get mad when you see some
> thing you don't like" You expect me to believe that a man who resorts to
> name calling isn't filled with hate? Gee silly me your right:-)
"Kikes" is a derogatory term toward Jews. Fags were fags before they were
ever called homosexuals, and WAY before they were ever called "gay". Okay,
perhaps you have one point in that "fags" is a shortened term for "faggots",
but the term is technically accurate.
As for me calling you a moron for wasting bandwidth, that wasn't out of hate,
but contempt. And I'm sure a LOT of other people agree with it, even if they
otherwise agree with your post (and disagree with mine). They just won't call
you on it if they agree with you. Which makes them hypocrites if they call
someone ELSE on it with whom they DISAGREE.
Allen J. Newton
Is this your day to respond to every post I make? Yesterday, it was someone
else. I just like to keep track...
> [I wrote]:
> : "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'."
> Mattew 5:22" He who shall in his heart "thou fool!" shall be in danger
> of hellfire.
> : Hi, Fool! Nice knowing you...
I didn't call him a fool, I said the Bible says he's a fool, and I was merely
acknowledging that.
> See you in Hell, Allen
I'm sure you'll probably be there. But don't hold your breath waiting for
me...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton | Washed in the Blood! :-)
ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
Sheryl Katz
Dianne Hackborn
| of responses that tend to lead to emotions, which are strictly
| reactions to causes. I doubt it is natural ...
|
| It is not natural for parents to protect their children from the evils
| of sex. That is again a human invention ...
|
| In nature, breeding tends to be reserved for certain times of the year
| ... Maybe we could take a hint ...
That's enough; this discussion is so far off into the twilight zone that
not even -I- am amused by it any longer.
| Whatever happened your reasonability ... ?
I really don't want to know what your definition of "reasonable" is.
---------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu "Frank [Zappa] is my Elvis."
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne -- Matt Groening
Oregon State University
Chris Mankey
: In article <D.M.Brownles...@rutherford.ac.uk>, Devious Brownies writes:
: > In article <QKCEv*q...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J.
: > Newton) writes:
: > >ALL behaviour is chosen. Homosexuality is defined by behaviour. Your
: > >dishonest attempts at relabelling (the latest game in town) it as
: > >"orientation" is evidence of further dishonesty and a reluctance to accept
: > >responsibility for your choice. Futile. You're still responsible before
: > >God, and will meet Him one day...
: >
: > Love is an example of behaviour, you claim you will choose to love someone,
: > that you will coldly decide that you will love one person, won't love another.
: > You will never fall in love, you will never find yourself in love, you will
: > never discover your love for someone. May the God you believe in show pity on
: > those you choose/chose to love, that they may never know how shallow is your
: > emotion.
: You are showing your ignorance of Biblical love -- which IS a decision.
: For Christians, there is no other way. "Till death do us part" is a common
: wedding vow -- but too many people THESE days interpret it to mean "Till
: feelings do us part" or "debt do us part" or anything else but death.
: Christian love _is_ a decision. I can choose to love someone even if I
: don't like them, and in fact am commanded to. "Love your enemies", Jesus
: said. Do you? Can you? I couldn't, apart from the power of the Holy
: Spirit living inside me.
For hatered is never ended by hatred, only by love is it appeased this
is an eteranal law, eternal and never ending- Gautma the Buddha in the
dhammapada. You know I have the strangest feeling that the DALI LAMA and
Thich nhat hahn love thier foes better that you do, allen. And all with
out the holy spirt. HMMM?
: (I can hear the homosexuals now, claiming I don't love them). You know
: what? Being the imperfect human that I am, sometimes I don't! But
: ironically, when I _am_ acting out of love for them, THAT is when they take
: the most offense (that is, when I tell them of God's love and plan for
: their lives, that all should repent and come to the saving knowledge of
: Jesus Christ). Knowing that all unrepentant sinners will end up in Hell
: for eternity, it would be unloving NOT to warn them of that fact.
Gee, what A loving god to send most* of the people in the world to
everlasting torment. I guess I can't fathom love like that:-)
: Spouses can (and should) CHOOSE to love one another, even after a
: particularly heated fight.
: You accuse me of a shallow love. How deep can yours be when you'd
: willingly allow someone about to be run over by a semi DIE when you could
: have warned them...?
Umm, allen I wonder if you love this people at all.
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Allen J. Newton |
: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
John Bayko
>if it is truly natural, then it could be totally in nature, which
>means that all humans could be homosexual, then we wouldn't survive as
>a species.
According to extensive research, there is no physical difference
in the reproductive physiology of heterosexual and homosexual humans.
Homosexual humans are completely capable of physically reproducing,
and many, in fact, do.
>BTW, this brings up another point. You can't prove anything about the
>human mind. Heterosexuality couldn't be considered natural if it
>wasn't for the fact of reproduction ...
Reproduction is a very small part of survival. Most species
reproduce far more effectively than humans - are you suggesting
that humans are therefore an evolutionary failure?
Survival is even more important than reproduction, in terms of
evolution and 'nature'. Survival is also very much more complicated
than you seem to grasp - much of what you dismiss as 'unnatural' is
essential for humanity's success as a species.
That includes human behaviour such as homosexuality.
I've explained this before, but I may have used long words.
If you need assistance- er, help - in understanding anything, please
feel free to ask me.
**********************************************************************
*** IF YOUR NEWSREADER SOFTWARE DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWUP-TO: ***
******** LINE, PLEASE CHANGE YOUR NEWSGROUPS: LINE MANUALLY TO *******
*** "alt.politics.homosexuality". ***
***** IF YOUR NEWSREADER SOFTWARE DOES RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWUP-TO: ****
***** LINE, PLEASE DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE BY CHANGING IT BACK TO AN *****
*** INAPPROPRIATE NEWSGROUP. THANK YOU *******************************
--
John Bayko.
ba...@cs.uregina.ca
http://cs.uregina.ca/~bayko
liz holliday
>Good point. I agree totally. Love isn't natural, it's a human
>invention ...
>
>
>> Does this mean that if I don't breed, I don't get to "naturally" be in love
>> with anyone?
>
>Love isn't natural anyway ... breeding is natural ...
>
We just had a very interesting science programme on over
here about the "private lives" of dolphins. Seems that
among other things they use same-sex bonding behaviour (ie
stroking, touching, nuzzling) to reinforce family groups.
And they also have sex for reasons not to do with breeding.
That's just one other species. Where does it leave this
"natural" and "normal" argument of yours? What you don't
seem to realise is that a) almost nothing humans do is
"natural" - natural is living and dying by what you can
catch with your bare teeth and hands, wearing no clothes,
eating your food raw because you can't make fire...
No, to hell with normal. I'll stick with "human" - and
"humaneness" and "humanity" - and accepting this very
strange concept: other people can live their lives in ways
different from mine, without me being threatened by them
or needing to be afraid of them. Surely the more different
ways to love each other there are in the world, the better
the whole place is?
Liz
>
************Reality Is No Defence*************
liz holliday
>
>: ....is homophobic? I have no fear of them, the first time I ever said
>: anything on the .net about this was to merely point this out. But, oh no!
>: They couldn't argue against the Word of God, so they had to start trying to
>: discredit the messenger. Sorry, won't work! :-)
> I think you fear homosexuals like a solder fears a bullet!
>: God is the same yesterday, today and forever...
If I remember rightly, when you first posted you asked for
"logical arguments". Can you tell me how quoting a book
of mythology counts as a "logical argument"? OK, you're a
Christian, and IMO you have the right to that belief. But
if you are going to start quoting the Bible at us, then I
think you have to be prepared to answer some hard
questions. Like, how do you reconcile the contradictions
it contains? I don't see how you reconcile "Love thy
neighbour" and "Turn the other cheek" with some of the
stuff you quoted. Come to think of it, I don't understand
how you can reconcile infinite goodness and infinite
compassion with the stuff you quoted either.
If my choice is to loathe half the human race or burn in
hell - I'll choose hell. (and we'd better not get on to
the subject of how you reconcile infinite goodness and
infinite compassion with spina bifida babies - I'm not
talking about evil, I'm talking about innocents suffering
- or this debate may never end...)
T. L. Scott
Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>Dianne Hackborn (hac...@python.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
>post in the tone that you did, implying that you thought I was
>homophobic. That's unreasonable, especially considering that I showed
>no indications of those views ...
It could have something to do with :
acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie) wrote thusly:
> Now, how is this the same as taking homosexuality to its conclusion?
> I inferred that by taking homosexuality to its conclusive step, that
> if it is truly natural, then it could be totally in nature, which
> means that all humans could be homosexual, then we wouldn't survive as
> a species. How does that apply to everyone eating as much food as
> possible, all the time? Unless, of course, that's what happens in
> nature, in which case we are, yet again, unnatural ...
Your assumption that a homosexual orientation automatically precludes
making and having babies tends to be one of the wrong-headed ideas
spouted by homophobes in their attempts to defend their discrimination
against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
Allan Cybulskie
> >> Eating is considered a natural activity, by most individuals, in the
> >> sense that animals do it, and most humans as well. Now what if
> >
> >Now, how is this the same as taking homosexuality to its conclusion?
> >I inferred that by taking homosexuality to its conclusive step, that
> >if it is truly natural, then it could be totally in nature, which
> >means that all humans could be homosexual, then we wouldn't survive as
> >a species. How does that apply to everyone eating as much food as
> Because it is as absurd as taking homosexuality to its extreme
> conclusion.
>
> It is an absurd analogy, in response to your absurd argument. A
> point not likely to be lost on anyone with a whit of sense.
>
> >possible, all the time? Unless, of course, that's what happens in
> >nature, in which case we are, yet again, unnatural ...
> >
> Dump an entire can of fish food into a bowl of fish. The un-natural
> creatures will eat until they explode.
All right, I'll admit that taking it to its logical conclusion is a
bit of a hyperbole, and that if we did it in all cases virtually
everything would be bad. However, there is no reason to consider
homosexuality as being natural, unless one points to it as being a
part of human nature. If that's your definition of natural, then I
cannot argue that point with you, because it seems to be a part of
humanity's nature (or, at least, of some people). Of course, then
most psychological problems could be justified in the same way (as
someone pointed out eariler) so this isn't a very good argument.
However, once one accepts that, unlike other problems, this one is
harmless, then the argument is strong, but as I do not use that
definition of natural, I will not allow someone to claim that it is
natural.
Note: Right or wrong does not enter the picture ...
> I have read plenty of your postings, and I can consider anything
> natural that I please to consider natural.
Is this your definition of natural, what you consider natural? And
I'M bad?
> >BTW, this brings up another point. You can't prove anything about the
> >human mind. Heterosexuality couldn't be considered natural if it
> >wasn't for the fact of reproduction ...
> >
> Now you truly descend into bathos......
No, its a logical point from my definition of natural ... and I
wouldn't consider it "natural" if it didn't serve a natural purpose ...
> >> I tend to believe rather that the only authorities on a matter
> >> carried on between two people, consensually, are the participants.
> >
> >1) An outsider can certainly judge if it is natural for them or not ...
> >
> I am sorry, but so long as it affects no third party, no one else
> aside from the involved parties has any authority as to what takes
> place in the bedroom.
> Or do you argue that we should return to the days of the Church
> deciding what sexual positions are natural? Frankly, I prefer
> freedom and privacy to the prying of the monks.
Now, where did I say that? I said someone can decide if it is natural
for them, meaning themselves. For example, I can always decide that
being homosexual is not natural for myslef, without falling back on
any definitions. The instant I try to prove it in a general case, I
need a definition to explain why I think so (or not).
> >2) In that case, they shouldn't be trying so hard to justify it to
> >others (although I can see why they might try -- fail, but try)
> >
>
> You have set up an arbitrary and shifting framework for something
> called "natural" which you are attempting in your feeble arguments
> to use to determine homosexuality un-justifiable.
Not arbitrary, and not shifting. Natural purpose, that's it ...
> It is only natural that people should wish to correct you.
I thank people who try to correct me ... and I occasionally admit I am
in error ...
Allan Cybulskie
> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >Dianne Hackborn (hac...@python.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
> >> acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie) wrote thusly:
> >
> >... Maybe we could take a hint ...
> >
> Diane, this man cannot become impotent.
> He is already a Eunuch it would appear.
Do you have justification for that statement, or are you just being insulting?
Why is it that I always get personally insulted, and never personally
insult anyone else?
Allan Cybulskie
> I am afraid you are going to have to drop the connexion between sex
> and reproduction as being a determinant in what is "natural" Alan.
> There are many species, notably alligators, lions, and many of
> the primates who copulate, for pleasure or socialization out of
> estrus.
> Many species, as has been pointed out to you already more than once
> have some sort of homosexual behavior as part of their normal
> socialization.
I've stated before (and received no argument) that animals may share
our psychological problems ...
> You cannot make the assertion that humans are any different than these
> animals, as there are no "natural" humans with which to make an honest
> comparison. Humans, like lions, alligators, and primates, have sexual
> relations in and out of estrus. Humans have homosexual relations as
> well.
>
> Now, what, really is natural.
I stand by the definition of serving a natural purpose. This may not
be an accepted definition, but I tend to use it.
Damian Hammontree
>> If sexual hangups are eliminated, gays won't go away. But the folks who
>> claim that gays are unnatural will.
And one of them responds to being threatened with extinction:
>Oh, come off it! You know the only reason the APA doesn't recognize
>homosexuality (although many individual psychologists still do) is because
>the fags INFILTRATED the APA and Psychological profession at large.
>Yes, I know what I'm talking about, I studied Psychology in college. And
>this was one of TWO major reasons why I got out of it (makes sense they'd
>want to study it, though -- many of them end up comitting suicide. But
>then, many psychologists do, too. Hmmm, anyone see a connection here?)
So, you're so homophobic that it made you change your choice of profession?
*scratches head*..
Good thing you're one of the 'healthy' ones, huh?
D
--
Damian Hammontree, Soul Pit dam...@cthulu.med.jhu.edu
"A spokesman for the Lyon Group, producers of _Barney and Friends_, denied
that Barney is an instrument of Satan." --the Advocate, spring 1994
GM/MU (-)d(+) p- c++ u+(-) e- m---- s n@ f g+ w+ t@ r+ y++
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Allan Cybulskie
> It could have something to do with :
> acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie) wrote thusly:
> > Now, how is this the same as taking homosexuality to its conclusion?
> > I inferred that by taking homosexuality to its conclusive step, that
> > if it is truly natural, then it could be totally in nature, which
> > means that all humans could be homosexual, then we wouldn't survive as
> > a species. How does that apply to everyone eating as much food as
> > possible, all the time? Unless, of course, that's what happens in
> > nature, in which case we are, yet again, unnatural ...
> Your assumption that a homosexual orientation automatically precludes
> making and having babies tends to be one of the wrong-headed ideas
> spouted by homophobes in their attempts to defend their discrimination
> against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
Um, if everyone is homosexual, they can't have children unless they
partricipate in a heterosexual relation. This would be against their
own wishes ... and it was just my proving that it serves not natural
purpose. Moreover, I said several times that I did not consider
homosexuality wrong and that I did not discriminate against
homosexuals.
terry king
>Homosexuality may or may not be natural. It serves no natural
>purpose, (like reproduction)
On the contrary... I would speculate that having individuals who are not
likely to reproduce would be A Good Thing. Not having offspring of their
own would free them to assist in raising the offspring of others in the
tribe/clan/unit of choice. They could likewise give more time to other
projects contributing to the common good - patrolling the perimeter,
hunting, gathering, creating durable goods, running the government,
teaching, whatever. If one or both parents in a nuclear family should be
injured or killed, there would be individuals available to shoulder the
burden without depriving offspring of their own of attention or resources.
Sounds like a nifty evolutionary safety net to me.
Example: in wolfpacks, only the alpha pair breed, but the whole pack
raises the pups. Granted, it's a matter of status rather than sexual
orientation, but the result is similar - more coverage to rear offspring,
the ability to pull down larger prey, more snarling bodies between a
threat and the pups, more pups making it to maturity. Which is the point,
in the end.
Just another friendly view on evolution and its natural purposes.
Terry King | "got to kick at the darkness
prea...@mit.edu | til it bleeds daylight" - B. Cockburn
GSS d-- s+: g+ p0 !au a w+ v++(*) c++@ N+++ K--- M+$ -po+ Y+
t+ 5++ jx R G' tv+ b+++ !D B--- e+ u**(*) h+ f(+) n+ x+
Allen J. Newton
> Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) wrote:
> : In article <38vnl2$q...@blackice.winternet.com>, Chris Mankey writes:
>
> : [More out of context quotes -- also: LEARN to trim the parts of an article
> : out that you're not addressing and quit wasting bandwidth, moron!]
And I see he's still doing it, including the previous post from him (which had
NO original material). What a luser!
> What the Hell is the differance between contempt and hate. Gosh I don't
> hate you allen , I just have contempt for you:-)This is like saying I
> don't hate you, I just hate you. Guess there is no differance.
You're not very well educated, are you? Tell me, how did you figure out how
to turn your computer or terminal on when you obviously haven't figured out
how to open a dictionary. Or perhaps you did and simply couldn't understand
what you were reading?
From Webster's New Collegiate 150th Anniversary Edition:
hate (n) 1 a: intense hostility and aversion usu. deriving from fear, anger,
or sense of injury. b: extreme dislike or antipathy: LOATHING. 2: an object
of hatred.
contempt (n) 1 a: the act of despising: the state of mind of one who despises:
DISDAIN. b: lack of respect or reverence for something. 2: the state of
being despised.
loathing (n) : extreme disgust: DETESTATION.
disdain (n) : a feeling of contempt for what is beneath one: SCORN.
Clue for the Clueless One: The biggest difference between hate and contempt
is the matter of degree. The second biggest difference is the reason.
Please notice the use of words like "intense" and "extreme" in the definition
of hate, and the lack of the use of those or equivalent words in the
definition of contempt.
Yet another Clue for you, Clueless One: In any language, if there are two
non-slang words in that language, they most generally mean something
different, even slightly different. The number of degrees of difference in
English is relatively small compared to other languages, like Greek, for
instance. What is translated "love" in the Bible, for instance, can be any
one of four (that I know of) Greek words, all having completely different
meanings...
Now, go get yourself a REAL education, or just bugger off...
Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet
: These are obviously only my views, and I hope they don't upset
: or offend.
: regards,
: Angus.
: unless you're alive you can't play,
: an...@angusm.demon.co.uk and if you can't play.......
I hope that you understand that it's possible to hold offensive views
without 'meaning' to offend.
I'm not going to discuss what you've written - I'm sure others will -
except to note that you obviously bear ill will to no one. That granted,
please realize that you hold notions ('views' is a more specialized,
elaborated term) that are rather oppressive (in a "heaviness" sense of
the term, rather than that of political oppression).
Since my training is in post-structuralist philosphy and critical theory,
my inclination is to discuss the nature of the statement; i.e., I am more
ready to look at people's statements as phenomona, rather than mere
truth/fallacy statements for systematic verification/falsification.
Little irks me more than the blanket application of empirical categories
of discourse to all discourse; you see a lot of that in science-fiction
and other fannish environs. I should write a paper on that someday.
What they are, these "latently oppressive notions", others (particalarly
Dianne) will tell you. I'm here to tell you that I don't dispute your
fundemental good-will.
Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet
: In the 10 years I've been a Christian, I've not seen anyone bring up a single
: contradiction that stood up when the context was researched.
In the 10 + years since I've left the church, and particularly the
Thomistic Dominicans that were my tutors (until the Jesuits got me and I
found Marx), I've never found a single premise of belief that couldn't be
supported by some apologetics, rhetorical sleight-of-hand, or outright
denial.
You are an insult to the real theologians I know.
Betty Boop
: >
: We just had a very interesting science programme on over
: here about the "private lives" of dolphins. Seems that
: among other things they use same-sex bonding behaviour (ie
and they are abusive too. they force their sexual
frustrations on "weaker" dolphins, and have done it
to swimmers as well, and there have been video tapes
of their males "hazing" females--chasing them around,
slapping, and ramming them, until they submit. No,
dolphins are like chimps. they are no angels, to be
sure, and should be considered with caution.
============================================================================
The Boopster! (cl...@nevada.edu) | You know you've landed gear up when
"Marie"; The Magic Kingdom's | it takes full throttle to taxi!
Sing-Around Diva! | ...UNKNOWN
===========================================================================
Allan Cybulskie
> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >Um, if everyone is homosexual, they can't have children unless they
> >partricipate in a heterosexual relation.
> If lesbian and a gay man decide to create a baby and he goes in the
> bathroom and fills an..ahem..instrutment, then gives said instrutment
> to her, and she...well...you know. ;)
Well, with the advent of medical technology, I suppose they could
reproduce, by artifical means ... that, I think, I can definitely
define as "not natural", but it works, I guess ...
> Or _if_ the two people in question decided to engage in a "act" of
> cross-sex intercourse, that does _not_ made that _act_ a relationship.
> (I think this is what you meant by "relation" [not a spelling flame])
> The two people will probably be friends, to start out with, and
> later their relationship will encompose the chld they have created,
> but will also include their _real_ life-partners (which for the lesbian
> will be another woman; and for the gay man, another man.
> They are all still homosexuals. The _act_ does nothing to change
> that.
> And the fact you may think an _act_ "makes" a person another
> orientation then she or he is, shows you have bought into the
> most common misperceptions concerning sexuality.
I did not say that ... and I meant relation. The old few nights stand
until a pregnancy occurs, and then back to their regular partners ...
> >This would be against their
> >own wishes ...
> This makes no sense with respect to your earlier line.
> Could you explain what you are saying here?
> I _don't_ think you are talking about rape, but it's the only thing
> I can think of that fits the above line.
They are homosexual ... they don't want to engage in heterosexual acts
... to do so for the sake of reproduction would be against their own
views and preferences ...
> >and it was just my proving that it serves not natural
> >purpose.
> I quess it depend on just what you are excluding from nature.
Read the previous posts ...
> >Moreover, I said several times that I did not consider
> >homosexuality wrong and that I did not discriminate against
> >homosexuals.
> Just "unnatural"
"Not natual". Unnatural is dangerous ...
> Can you not see this an insulting way to speak about people
> whose sexual orientation is toward the same sex.
> To say their love and committment to another serves no purpose
> since those two people are not able to bear each other's child.
> Throughout history, many cross-sex couples "failed" to conceive
> a "natural" child. Does this mean, to you, that their relationship
> also serves "no natural purpose?
If they attempted, then it would have served a natural purpose. If
they did not, it would not ...
> Also, it can be very easy to think one is not prejudiced if there
> isn't anyone around to point these kinds of mispreception out.
I think I am not prejudiced because I don't automatically think
horrible things of people who are gay and bisexual ...
bmai...@eyecon.com
IA>It appears to be the last resort of someone who's badly losing an argument..
IA>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA>Allen J. Newton |
IA>ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
There is no argument. There is no discussion. There is no real
discourse on the matter.
After reading your posts, I can only conclude they are worthless. If
there is a source that agrees with your position, you cite it. If there
is a source that disagrees with your position, you belittle it. Your
main statement is "Fag this and fag that." After reading it many times,
it loses its emotional content.
If you don't like fags so much, why are you so involved in this? I
don't particularly care for lima beans--so I don't serve them. What I
don't do is put them on the plate and then complaincomplainwhine about
them being there.
Someone e-mailed me about the appropriateness of this thread to the
group. I've disagreed until this morning; when I read the latest
spewings from you I am now convinced that there is no reason to further
continue this.
OBVorlons: No, not Winston Churchill. IT'S YODA!!
--
****************
Via: Eye Contact BBS telnet: bbs.eyecon.com (204.94.37.2)
Modem:(415) 703-8200 Voice:(800) 949-2668 150 lines
****************
Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet
useful or meaningful term in re: human sexuality. Nothing in human
sexuality is simply natural (or unnatural, or non-natural).
We can discuss the origin of impulse, or the formation of sexual
identity. We can talk about the historical construction of gender, and
the acts of overdetermination in the body. But let's take the theoretical
basis of this discussion somewhere past the mid 19th century, ok?
Gharlane of Eddore
occurred.....
> In nature, breeding tends to be reserved for certain times of the year
> ... Maybe we could take a hint ...
Charles Ewen MacMillan (il...@tezcat.com) wrote:
> Diane, this man cannot become impotent.
> He is already a Eunuch it would appear.
In <CyJvH...@cunews.carleton.ca> acyb...@chat.carleton.ca
(Allan Cybulskie) writes:
> Do you have justification for that statement, or are you just being
> insulting? Why is it that I always get personally insulted, and
> never personally insult anyone else?
The obvious presumption is that Cybulskie is Just Lucky!
Betty Boop
: >Um, if everyone is homosexual, they can't have children unless they
: >partricipate in a heterosexual relation.
sara said that to me. (she's gay) she said "I want to have
a baby." I told her her "orientation" stood in the way of an
easy solution to that problem. sara then told me she'd chosen
the father, so-and-so, who was a male gay. I laughed, said
It'll never work. You hate men and he hates women. she said
"he's gonna mastrubate into a dish and with the turkey baster
I'm gonna slurp up the stuff and insert it..." well, you get
the idea.
Sara had artificial insim(can't spell it) cuz the turkey
baster idea doesn't do it.
: If lesbian and a gay man decide to create a baby and he goes in the
: bathroom and fills an..ahem..instrutment, then gives said instrutment
: to her, and she...well...you know. ;)
Allan Cybulskie
> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >They are homosexual ... they don't want to engage in heterosexual acts
> >... to do so for the sake of reproduction would be against their own
> >views and preferences ...
> Engaging in vaginal-penial intercourse is just that, v-p intercourse.
> A lesbian and a homosexual can choose to perform that act in order to
> produce a baby (although the actual act isn't really neccessary)
> It's not against their wills as they choose to do this. Such their real
> partners are different people This is very different compared to Abraham
> raping Hagar to get a baby since Sarah was barren.
Um, they don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex ...
that's why they're defined as being homosexual. If they do it just to
have a baby (and we consider homosexuality natural) then they are
commiting a not natural (and perhaps, in this case, truly unnatural)
act for them for the express purpose of reporduction ...
> v-p intercourse is done by heterosexual couples but that doesn't make it
> a purely heterosexual act alone.
> I'm sure you consider anal sex to be a purely homosexual act. However
> many more heterosexual couples perform this act than homsexual male
> couples. Actually many gay men I know don't even like the concept of
> anal sex, in much the same way that many women find the
> act distasteful.
I don't consider anal sex to be a purely homosexual act. I don't find
it appealing, from my end, but heterosexuals do it as well ...
> And of course there's oral sex.
Of course ...
> Yet, when it's all said and done, except for a couple of versions of
> two acts, I can't think of anything a same-sex couple does that a
> cross-sex couple doesn't do also (or could be they wished to)
Reproduce ...
> >> Can you not see this an insulting way to speak about people
> >> whose sexual orientation is toward the same sex.
> >
> >> To say their love and committment to another serves no purpose
> >> since those two people are not able to bear each other's child.
> >
> >> Throughout history, many cross-sex couples "failed" to conceive
> >> a "natural" child. Does this mean, to you, that their relationship
> >> also serves "no natural purpose?
> >
> >If they attempted, then it would have served a natural purpose. If
> >they did not, it would not ...
> So as long as two gay men, or two lesbians have sex with the "intention"
> of producing a baby, it's natural.
They know very well that they will not have a child ...
> But when a cross-sex couples who knows beyond a doubt they are
> infertile have sex, they are unnatural.
Not natural. Which does not mean wrong ...
> >I think I am not prejudiced because I don't automatically think
> >horrible things of people who are gay and bisexual ...
> Just that they are unnatural and their love and committment to another
> means nothing in the light that their orientation is "jsut" behavior.
Not natural (again).
Look, I'll say it again. Not natural is not for a natural purpose.
This includes seeking entertainment, watching Babylon 5 (for example),
and other similar situations. This does not mean it is wrong.
Unnatural is damaging to the natural fabric of the world ...
And whether anyone uses these definitions besides me ... I don't care ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Commander Allan Cybulskie "Evil walks behind you ..."
Carleton University
Babylon 5
Email address: acyb...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
liz holliday
In article <0zCEv*k...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
>In article <38kh86$1...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, Franklin Hummel writes:
>
>> In article <aV9Ev*l...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
>>
[stuff deleted}
>
>> which I welcome and enjoy as do many others, you are unable to accept
>> this. How sad for you that you are so filled with hate.
>
>Hate? Who said I hate homosexuals? Have I expressed ill will or made any
>threats to any homosexuals that you know of?
Yes. You keep saying that they will be doomed to eternal
hellfire. That's a pretty big threat. I actually don't
know how you can bear to live your life filled with such
rancour and - apparent - anger.
[snip]
>
>Please feel free to re-post any article I posted where I said I'd stop
>watching B5 if Straczynski portrayed a regular character as homosexual. I'd
>really like to see it, complete with headers if you don't mind. Refresh my
>memory, please!
What I can't understand is what you get out of watching B5
in the first place - or any other science fiction show.
Sf is based on rationality and the understanding that
things in the future will be different from things in the
past. You seem irrational in the extreme (in the sense
that your arguments are based on faith, not logic - not in
the "crazy" sense: even if some of what you've said does
seem crazy to me), and unwilling to admit the possibility
of change.
>No, that really isn't my way. It's you fags who get all up in arms when you
>see something you don't like.
I can't believe I just read this. You mean you really think
people have to _be_ gay in order to believe they should be
accepted in society. What a _stupid_ _sad_ assumption.
Perhaps you also think that only Jews are appalled at the
holocaust? Or that only the black people applauded the
end of apartheid in South Africa? No? I should hope not.
Yet you think that the only people who are happy that gays
are finding acceptance in society are gay themselves.
Well, you're wrong. I, for one, am straight: but if the
only way I could get into your God's heaven would be to
take up your scared, sick beliefs, I'd rather burn: after
all, why would I want to be in heaven without some of my
closest friends?
>Please stop projecting your psychoses onto others -- we don't all work the
>same way you do.
About psychoses - I'd have said this is precisely what you
do.
As for "not working the way you do" - thank the Great Frog
we don't all work the way you do, Allen. There's quite
enough hate in the world with just the one of you.
>Again, accusing me of hate simply for expressing disagreement. It is _you_,
>Franklin who are full of both hate and fear. Realize that most of us don't
>see you as a threat at all, personally...
>
Then why do you behave as if you do - see homosexuals as a
threat, that is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Micky Mouse Is Not A Real Duck<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
liz holliday
In article <CyHxJ...@cunews.carleton.ca>, Allan Cybulskie (acyb...@chat.carleton.ca) writes:
>liz holliday (l...@iguana.win-uk.net) wrote:
>>
>> In article <Cy1xn...@cunews.carleton.ca>, Allan Cybulskie (acyb...@chat.carleton.ca) writes:
[humungous snip]
>> >
>
>> Frankly, I'd rate homosexuality as _much_ less of a problem
>> than getting uptight over time-keeping. I can be friends
>> with gays, but my time-keeping's so lousy I just upset
>> people if they get worried about this kind of thing :-)
>
>I'd say it's in the same group ... harmless but problematic because
>there aren't that many people who think the way you do ...
>
Really? I have a large group of friends. Some of them are
gay, some bi, some straight. Can't remember the last time
someone - anyone, not just in that group - suggested there
might be a problem with being homosexual. Could this be a
cultural difference between the US and UK, or do I just
know a very tolerant bunch of people?
Question: do you think the world would be a better place if
either there were no gays in it? Seems to me, gays wouldn't
have a problem at all if straight folk would just accept
them, and not discriminate against them (and yes, I do admit
the arguments for and against positive discrimination -
whether we're talking women, homosexuals or ethnic
"minorities" - are complex; but _something_ has to change)
>> >
>> >So, in my opinion, while it may not be natural, and I do not feel that
>> >it is natural for me (in my case, heterosexuality is normal), I do not
>> >feel that it is dangerous or in any sense threatening. Just don't ask
>> >me to try it ...
>> >
>
Another question: why is this whole question of the
"naturalness" of homosexuality important to you? The only
reason I can see is if you think gays ought to justify
themselves, or if you're trying to force them back in the
closet.
Allen J. Newton
> PARdon me. But if you are gonna quote the Torah at least get it right. First
> off, don't use the english translations, King George. Use the ones us Jews
> use, like Soccino. OK!
Well, as someone who doesn't read Hebrew, I can't very well accomodate you on
that, and can only do the best I can, which is to read the various English
translations that exist and the commentaries in the language I DO understand.
But rather than flaming me for not speaking your language, why don't you
enlighten us (if you can, translation can be difficult, especially where idiom
and such is concerned) by giving us the Full Flavored Meaning (tm) of the
verses in question from the original Hebrew? BTW, it wouldn't be a
translation if it IS in Hebrew.
But in any case, I really would like a few Jewish opinions (other than those
I've gotten over the years) on those sections of the Torah in the original
Hebrew which deal with homosexuality, especially male homosexuality.
Thanks in advance...
Allen J. Newton
> >Context is everything. Take specific verses out of context and you can build
> >ANY kind of idea.
>
> I agree, and thankyou for your copious demonstrations.
Cheap shot, unsubstantiated, ignored...
> >In the 10 years I've been a Christian, I've not seen anyone bring up a single
> >contradiction that stood up when the context was researched.
>
> In the 10 years I've been a scientist, I've never found anything which
> requires the existance of a god of any sort to explain.
Well, Einstein, keeping your eyes closed to contradictory evidence is a common
practice in your field, and makes that possible.
But back to supposed Biblical "contradictions": I do have my eyes open (how
else can I evaluate them?), and I'm still waiting...
Allen J. Newton
> [I wrote]
> : > : [More out of context quotes -- also: LEARN to trim the parts of an article
> : > : out that you're not addressing and quit wasting bandwidth, moron!]
> You didn't like that I answer your charges directly so you delete the
> text.You brave christian solider, you!.:-)
What charges? I still charge you with wasting bandwidth by quoting my entire
message including sections you're NOT answering. And you're guilty.
> : And I see he's still doing it, including the previous post from him (which had
> : NO original material). What a luser!
And yet a third post. He really is clueless.
For context, I'm going to include the entire section on definitions here, for
those just joining...
> : > What the Hell is the differance between contempt and hate. Gosh I don't
> : > hate you allen , I just have contempt for you:-)This is like saying I
> : > don't hate you, I just hate you. Guess there is no differance.
>
> : You're not very well educated, are you? Tell me, how did you figure out how
> : to turn your computer or terminal on when you obviously haven't figured out
> : how to open a dictionary. Or perhaps you did and simply couldn't understand
> : what you were reading?
>
> : From Webster's New Collegiate 150th Anniversary Edition:
>
> : hate (n) 1 a: intense hostility and aversion usu. deriving from fear, anger,
> : or sense of injury. b: extreme dislike or antipathy: LOATHING. 2: an object
> : of hatred.
>
> : contempt (n) 1 a: the act of despising: the state of mind of one who despises:
> : DISDAIN. b: lack of respect or reverence for something. 2: the state of
> : being despised.
> OH!I see, hate is the emotion of contempt and contempt is the action of
> hatred. Yes, thanks for clearing that up for me:-) A rose by an other name.
You have a very active imagination if you got that idea out of the definitions
above.
If anyone does hate you, it's because you're obnoxious, not homosexual.
Grow a brain. You were supposed to have done that BEFORE exiting the womb...
> : loathing (n) : extreme disgust: DETESTATION.
>
> : disdain (n) : a feeling of contempt for what is beneath one: SCORN.
>
> : Clue for the Clueless One: The biggest difference between hate and contempt
> : is the matter of degree. The second biggest difference is the reason.
>
> : Please notice the use of words like "intense" and "extreme" in the definition
> : of hate, and the lack of the use of those or equivalent words in the
> : definition of contempt.
>
> : Yet another Clue for you, Clueless One: In any language, if there are two
> : non-slang words in that language, they most generally mean something
> : different, even slightly different. The number of degrees of difference in
> : English is relatively small compared to other languages, like Greek, for
> : instance. What is translated "love" in the Bible, for instance, can be any
> : one of four (that I know of) Greek words, all having completely different
> : meanings...
>
> : Now, go get yourself a REAL education, or just bugger off...
> GEE, um allen have you ever considered that you are just a asshole
> looking for a body of dogma to attach himself to?
Certainly! I considered it, but the evidence didn't support it. So I
rejected it.
Have YOU considered that you might just be an asshole looking for a fight,
since you obviously have no productive aspects to your life? I doubt it.
I have this feeling your response is going to confirm it...
John A. Kilpatrick
>In article <383549436...@u87.galaxy.com>, Daryll T. Fogal writes:
>> This disucssion is way out of hand.
>And you're gonna fan the flames a little, then, is that it?
When someone insults you, you don't take it lying down.
>> 1) Bisexuals exist.
>Shameful, but true. So?
To deny their existence is stupid.
>> 2) Bisexuals have always existed.
>Rape has always existed. Does that make it okay?
No. Is two bisexuals having consentual sex together o.k.? Yes.
>> 3) Bisexuals would like to see positive portrayals of themselves on TV. It
>> would be a wise marketing move for PTEN to show bisexuals on B5. They need
>> not be the core story line. A mere casual mention would be sufficient.
>Axe murderers would like to see positive portrayals of themselves on TV. It
>would be a wise marketing move for PTEN to show axe murderers on B5. They need
>not be the core story line. A mere casual mention would be sufficient.
Ah. I see. Being bisexual is like being an ax murder. Pls. grow up.
--
******************************John A. Kilpatrick*******************************
* "Tsuki ni kawatte...oshiokiyo!" | I do not speak for ACS, UC Davis, or *
* Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon | anyone else. You have been warned. *
***************************jaki...@engr.ucdavis.edu***************************
Allen J. Newton
Bastardizing my argument again, eh?
> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton) writes:
> >In article <383549436...@u87.galaxy.com>, Daryll T. Fogal writes:
> >> This disucssion is way out of hand.
> >And you're gonna fan the flames a little, then, is that it?
>
> When someone insults you, you don't take it lying down.
Fags take fisting lying down. The gesture for fisting is generally taken
as an intense insult. Therefore...
> >> 1) Bisexuals exist.
> >Shameful, but true. So?
> To deny their existence is stupid.
But I never did this, did I? Did you have a point? I doubt it...
> >> 2) Bisexuals have always existed.
> >Rape has always existed. Does that make it okay?
>
> No. Is two bisexuals having consentual sex together o.k.? Yes.
Not in God's eyes, apparently, which is really the only opinion which will
count in the end. It matters little in the eternal aspect whether _I_
approve or disapprove of it...
> >> 3) Bisexuals would like to see positive portrayals of themselves on TV. It
> >> would be a wise marketing move for PTEN to show bisexuals on B5. They need
> >> not be the core story line. A mere casual mention would be sufficient.
>
> >Axe murderers would like to see positive portrayals of themselves on TV. It
> >would be a wise marketing move for PTEN to show axe murderers on B5. They need
> >not be the core story line. A mere casual mention would be sufficient.
>
> Ah. I see. Being bisexual is like being an ax murder. Pls. grow up.
The pot trying to find a kettle to call black, I see. Why don't you
educate yourself beyond the third grade level so that you can understand
that my previous statement was a parody to the point I was responding to
that the existence of homo/bi-sexuals is not justification of the behaviour
or even justification of the existence itself (which would be circular
reasoning, but I'm sure that's your modus operandi).
But justification seems to be what you're seeking.
Chris Mankey
: > Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) wrote:
: > : In article <38vnl2$q...@blackice.winternet.com>, Chris Mankey writes:
: >
: > : [More out of context quotes -- also: LEARN to trim the parts of an article
: > : out that you're not addressing and quit wasting bandwidth, moron!]
You didn't like that I answer your charges directly so you delete the
text.You brave christian solider, you!.:-)
: And I see he's still doing it, including the previous post from him (which had
: NO original material). What a luser!
: > What the Hell is the differance between contempt and hate. Gosh I don't
: > hate you allen , I just have contempt for you:-)This is like saying I
: > don't hate you, I just hate you. Guess there is no differance.
: You're not very well educated, are you? Tell me, how did you figure out how
: to turn your computer or terminal on when you obviously haven't figured out
: how to open a dictionary. Or perhaps you did and simply couldn't understand
: what you were reading?
: From Webster's New Collegiate 150th Anniversary Edition:
: hate (n) 1 a: intense hostility and aversion usu. deriving from fear, anger,
: or sense of injury. b: extreme dislike or antipathy: LOATHING. 2: an object
: of hatred.
: contempt (n) 1 a: the act of despising: the state of mind of one who despises:
: DISDAIN. b: lack of respect or reverence for something. 2: the state of
: being despised.
OH!I see, hate is the emotion of contempt and contempt is the action of
hatred. Yes, thanks for clearing that up for me:-) A rose by an other name.
I admire you allen, your such an well spoken bigot, It impresses me to
no end! : loathing (n) : extreme disgust: DETESTATION.
: disdain (n) : a feeling of contempt for what is beneath one: SCORN.
: Clue for the Clueless One: The biggest difference between hate and contempt
: is the matter of degree. The second biggest difference is the reason.
: Please notice the use of words like "intense" and "extreme" in the definition
: of hate, and the lack of the use of those or equivalent words in the
: definition of contempt.
: Yet another Clue for you, Clueless One: In any language, if there are two
: non-slang words in that language, they most generally mean something
: different, even slightly different. The number of degrees of difference in
: English is relatively small compared to other languages, like Greek, for
: instance. What is translated "love" in the Bible, for instance, can be any
: one of four (that I know of) Greek words, all having completely different
: meanings...
: Now, go get yourself a REAL education, or just bugger off...
GEE, um allen have you ever considered that you are just a asshole
looking for a body of dogma to attach himself to?
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Allen J. Newton |
: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
Betty Boop
(snip)
: >
: > (the exceptions, of course, involved the specific bodys that a man
: > or woman does not have in order to perform a certian act with another)
: You've never heard of strap-on dildo's? Now she can do it ALL! (Except
: ejaculate)...
Saw on current Affair...no it was America's most wanted...
where a woman was raped by a male and a *female*. she said
is was worse being raped by a woman.....well, the point is
there are many documented cased of a woman raping another woman.
liz holliday
In article <cvrGv*7...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
>In article <1...@iguana.win-uk.net>, liz holliday writes:
>
>
>> ways to love each other there are in the world, the better
>> the whole place is?
>
>If your premise were true, I'd agree with you. However, you seem to be
>missing one very important thing: Sex is not love. Sex does not require
>love. And homosexuality is defined by behaviour, not by feelings. Despite
>recent attempts to redefine it as "orientation".
No, of course sex doesn't require love, though sex is
better with love. But building stable, caring relationships
does.
So are you going to tell me that my gay friends in stable,
caring relationships don't love each other? Or are you
going to redefine love to include them out? Or better
yet, will you just ignore this post, as you've ignored all
the other posts that require you to look at the real world
instead of that frightening, demon-and-"God" ridden place
that is the inside of your head?
>
>Case in point (which is sometimes perverted by some to justify their own
>behaviour): In the Bible is described the friendship between David and
>Jonathon. They loved each other deeply, from the heart. But not in a
>homoerotic way. Some male homosexuals I know would like to interpret it that
>way, but the wording is very specific: "He loved him as himself". And how do
>we love ourselves? We'd do anything to ensure our safety and happiness. I
>doubt the majority of us love ourselves by "having sex with ourselves" (if
>that were possible -- and I'm not even referring to masturbation here because
>for MOST folks [as I understand it from Psych classes] engage in fantasies
>while doing that, and therefore it's not really "sex with themselves" in their
>minds).
You really don't get it, do you? I don't _care_ what it
says in the Bible. I don't _care_ what higher authority
you invoke to shore up your shoddy, second rate
intolerance. I _do_ care about the fact that your
intolerance is making this world a worse place to live
in.
>
>Anyway, enough of this diversion. Season Two has begun! [Off to check my
>VCR...and I'm not talking about Abbut!]
>
Peace at last... well, we can hope
liz holliday
In article <pCrGv*8...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
>In article <1...@iguana.win-uk.net>, liz holliday writes:
>
>>
>> If I remember rightly, when you first posted you asked for
>> "logical arguments". Can you tell me how quoting a book
>> of mythology counts as a "logical argument"? OK, you're a
>> Christian, and IMO you have the right to that belief. But
>> if you are going to start quoting the Bible at us, then I
>> think you have to be prepared to answer some hard
>> questions. Like, how do you reconcile the contradictions
>> it contains? I don't see how you reconcile "Love thy
>> neighbour" and "Turn the other cheek" with some of the
>> stuff you quoted. Come to think of it, I don't understand
>> how you can reconcile infinite goodness and infinite
>> compassion with the stuff you quoted either.
>
>Context is everything. Take specific verses out of context and you can build
>ANY kind of idea.
Which is specifically my point. You quote anything you
like, and demand we accept it. Anything anyone else
quotes, you say is out of context.
>
>What the context is considered (who wrote it, when, and to whom and the
>cultural ideas of the time), I haven't seen a single contradiction, myself...
>
This is possibly the most interesting thing you've said so
far. It admits that the meaning of the Bible is mutable -
it depends on the cultural ideas of the time etc, as you
say above. Yet you assume it has relevance today, when
the culture we live in is so different. But I'm not
surprised you can't see the contradictions, since logic
doesn't actually make an appearance in many of your
arguments.
>> If my choice is to loathe half the human race or burn in
>> hell - I'll choose hell. (and we'd better not get on to
>> the subject of how you reconcile infinite goodness and
>> infinite compassion with spina bifida babies - I'm not
>> talking about evil, I'm talking about innocents suffering
>> - or this debate may never end...)
>
>On this we agree completely. Hence, I didn't address any specific
>"contradiction" to discuss. Although if you have some in mind and want to
>take it to email, I'd be more than happy to discuss them with you.
>
No thanks. I've wiped most of the preceding discussion,
and in any case I've got a commission for a 90k word book
due by the end of November. Since I've only written about
5k words so far, life for the next 3 weeks is going to be
interesting to say the least.
>In the 10 years I've been a Christian, I've not seen anyone bring up a single
>contradiction that stood up when the context was researched.
>
Well, I have to tell you, I was born and raised Catholic,
and forced to learn chunks of both the Old and New
Testaments by heart. The contradictions are there all
right - you just have too much to lose by admitting them.
The other thing that drove me out was the illogicality and
intolerance of my teachers. Fraid to say, you've done
nothing to change my mind.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Allen J. Newton |
>ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
>
liz holliday
In article <CyM19...@cunews.carleton.ca>, Allan Cybulskie (acyb...@chat.carleton.ca) writes:
>Petri Wessman (Petri....@hut.fi) wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 1994 17:28:23 GMT, acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie) said:
>
>> Allan> Whether you have fun in a natural act or not is irrelevant
>> Allan> ... until you start using that natural act strictly for
>> Allan> entertainment and not for its original purpose. Then, it is
>> Allan> not natural ...
>
>> Gawd, and here I've been having sex with my girlfriend without the
>> slightest intention of making babies, without once realizing that I've
>> been involved in Unnatural Practices (tm). Horrors. I'm almost too
>> ashamed to admit that we even (shudder) *enjoy* it... does that make
>> us Satanists or worse?
>
>Why don't you read the entire post, and my definition of not natural
>(as opposed to unnatural, which you've assumed) and get back to me, hmmm?
>
Well, I've read all your posts, and I still can't see what
you're getting at, still don't know what you think the
difference is between unnatural and not natural, and can't
see why Petri's response isn't perfectly valid.
liz holliday
In article <CyJvL...@cunews.carleton.ca>, Allan Cybulskie (acyb...@chat.carleton.ca) writes:
>Charles Ewen MacMillan (il...@tezcat.com) wrote:
>
>> and reproduction as being a determinant in what is "natural" Alan.
>
>> There are many species, notably alligators, lions, and many of
>> the primates who copulate, for pleasure or socialization out of
>> estrus.
>
>> Many species, as has been pointed out to you already more than once
>> have some sort of homosexual behavior as part of their normal
>> socialization.
>
>I've stated before (and received no argument) that animals may share
>our psychological problems ...
>
Okay, I'm going to try one more time:
Allan am I correct in thinking that your definition of
"natural" means "serving some purpose such as
reproduction"? Because in that case, you've received many
possible hypothetical purposes, without explaining why you
think they are inadequate.
If on the other hand, you mean "appearing in nature" then
to say that if homosexuality appears in nature it is a
sign of animals "sharing our psychological problems" is a
circular argument and therefore invalid. Incidentally,
many zoologists have posited reasons for animal
homosexuality, and you _have_ been told about them. It
isn't our fault if you've ignored them.
Also, can you please explain:could be totally in nature.
I really hate to say this - and I don't want you to think
I'm just being bitchy or ultra-picky - but despite the
number of posts about it, I still can't work out what you
mean. It just doesn't appear to be in English. My
failing, I'm sure: other people seem to have figured it
out.
>I stand by the definition of serving a natural purpose. This may not
>be an accepted definition, but I tend to use it.
>
>
The problem with that is that language is consensual: it
only works if we agree on terms - and if you insist on
using a word in a definition no-one else agrees with,
you're bound to have trouble.
Chris Mankey
I would say the evidence speaks for it self.
: Have YOU considered that you might just be an asshole looking for a fight,
: since you obviously have no productive aspects to your life? I doubt it.
Gee, hmm I work for habitat for humanity, I also work for potomac museum
group preparing their fossils for them. I care about other human beings
and work to rectify their real pain in the real world. You're right I
need jeezus:-) not. I have a life allen, get yours soon or it might be
to late!:-)
: I have this feeling your response is going to confirm it...
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Allen J. Newton( the "J" is for jackass |
: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
Allen J. Newton
> >From: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton)
> >In article <396eaq$5...@engr.orst.edu>, T. L. Scott writes:
> >> then does a person who stops having sexual acts continue
> >> to have _any_ sexuality in your eyes? Does she or he _lose_ the
> >> sexuality bestowed by previous sexual acts?
> >Depends. Does the person still think about sexual acts? If so, the Bible is
> >pretty clear that "whoever lusts after a woman has committed adultery with her
> >in his heart" (applies both ways, btw -- what God measures is the intention of
> >the heart). Then again, you can think about sex without necessarily lusting
> >after someone in particular...
>
> So what, you cover up their faces?!!!
> This turns it into an animal act!
What? How did you get this out of what I wrote? That wasn't what I said.
And you obviously haven't been reading the rest of the thread.
God ordained and blessed sex between a man and his [female] wife. That's
what He created it for, and that's the only sex that He condones. All
other sex (premarital, homo, bestial, incest, etc is a perversion of that
one perfect plan).
> Lust is lust, whether you can make out who they are or not!!
> If you are fantisizing about the "act" then you are mentally
> coupulating with a succubi! This is evil extention of the
> devil! You have played right into his hands! Pray for your
> soul! Pray that your god will forgive you and accept you back
> into his fold! Pray!
I don't have a guilty conscience about this subject matter...did I say
something that stung you particularly?
> >-- I decided what I
> >liked. I learned about families and relationships while young. They made
> >sense. Later, I discovered so-called "alternative" relationships. They don't
> >make sense. When I became a Christian and studied God's Word, I discovered
> >that the God who made the Universe, who cares for each and every one of us,
> >designed us with a specific purpose in mind. Homosexuality doesn't enter into
> >that design, and is contrary to God's purpose for our lives.
>
> Then why did he make them? Not that I am for OR against them,
> but if god made everything...including his evil counterpart...
> how do you get away with saying that they "don't" fit into the
> design?
God didn't "make" homosexuals. God made people and gave them a manual.
People choose to conform to the plan in that manual, or they choose to do
their own thing. Homosexuals choose to have sex in a way contrary to what
God designed it for.
Satan isn't God's "evil counterpart", he's merely a created being, former
Worship Leader of the Heavenly Hosts, who, through his own pride sought to
exalt himself above God (he didn't have a clue that he was out of his
league). AND, as far as Christians are concerned, he's a defeated foe. He
can't touch us. "He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world."
Thanks for playing...
ObB5: If Minbari change sex, how many sexes do they have? I know of a
certain species of Paramecium which has 5 sexes...
Allan Cybulskie
> In article <CyM19...@cunews.carleton.ca>, acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie) writes:
> > Petri Wessman (Petri....@hut.fi) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Oct 1994 17:28:23 GMT, acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie) said:
> >
> >> Allan> Whether you have fun in a natural act or not is irrelevant
> >> Allan> ... until you start using that natural act strictly for
> >> Allan> entertainment and not for its original purpose. Then, it is
> >> Allan> not natural ...
> >
> >> Gawd, and here I've been having sex with my girlfriend without the
> >> slightest intention of making babies, without once realizing that I've
> >> been involved in Unnatural Practices (tm). Horrors. I'm almost too
> >> ashamed to admit that we even (shudder) *enjoy* it... does that make
> >> us Satanists or worse?
> >
> > Why don't you read the entire post, and my definition of not natural
> > (as opposed to unnatural, which you've assumed) and get back to me, hmmm?
> Umm, err I'm confused. I'm sort of new to this group, but I have no idea what
> this argument has to do with Babylon 5. Could someone explain to me what
> people's views on the morality of sex-for-pleasure has to do with the show?
> This post isn't the only one I've seen with non-Babylon 5 arguments -- it's
> just an example.
Babylon 5, like all good sci-fi, makes statements about society. So,
we're arguing them ...
Betty Boop
: Yet another quotation of the complete text which he adds just 6 lines to at
: the end.
I *really* HATE that.
Chris Mankey
: In article <39jnvu$g...@blackice.winternet.com>, Chris Mankey writes:
: Yet another quotation of the complete text which he adds just 6 lines to at
: the end.
: Well, that gets boring pretty quickly. Chris Monkey, let me introduce you
: to...
Well, that's so* new jackass, I've haven't heard that since
kindergarten.HO HO HO HEH HEH HEH!
: *plonk!*
: (Hey, if the name fits...)
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Allen J. Newton |
: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us |
Allen J. Newton
> In article <cvrGv*7...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
> >In article <1...@iguana.win-uk.net>, liz holliday writes:
> >>Surely the more different
> >> ways to love each other there are in the world, the better
> >> the whole place is?
> >If your premise were true, I'd agree with you. However, you seem to be
> >missing one very important thing: Sex is not love. Sex does not require
> >love. And homosexuality is defined by behaviour, not by feelings. Despite
> >recent attempts to redefine it as "orientation".
>
> No, of course sex doesn't require love, though sex is
> better with love. But building stable, caring relationships
> does.
>
> So are you going to tell me that my gay friends in stable,
> caring relationships don't love each other? Or are you
> going to redefine love to include them out? Or better
> yet, will you just ignore this post, as you've ignored all
> the other posts that require you to look at the real world
> instead of that frightening, demon-and-"God" ridden place
> that is the inside of your head?
*sigh* I wish you could discuss things logically and rationally,
communication flows so much easier when both sides are following the same
rules.
Look again at your sentence. The first one. You make the claim is
homosexuality is just "one more way to love one another". You acknowledge
that sex is not love. So how is the world a better place because of
homosexuality? I have acknowledged that a man can love a man without
having sex with him. How would the world be a better place if that man had
sex with the man he loved, rather than if he merely loved him? Even by
your first statement, you can clearly see that it doesn't -- You said the
world would be better if more people loved one another (A Christian idea,
by the way), not if more people had sex with one another.
Do you get it now?
> >Case in point (which is sometimes perverted by some to justify their own
> >behaviour): In the Bible is described the friendship between David and
> >Jonathon. They loved each other deeply, from the heart. But not in a
> >homoerotic way. Some male homosexuals I know would like to interpret it that
> >way, but the wording is very specific: "He loved him as himself". And how do
> >we love ourselves? We'd do anything to ensure our safety and happiness. I
> >doubt the majority of us love ourselves by "having sex with ourselves" (if
> >that were possible -- and I'm not even referring to masturbation here because
> >for MOST folks [as I understand it from Psych classes] engage in fantasies
> >while doing that, and therefore it's not really "sex with themselves" in their
> >minds).
>
> You really don't get it, do you?
Pot, kettle, black...
> I don't _care_ what it
> says in the Bible. I don't _care_ what higher authority
> you invoke to shore up your shoddy, second rate
> intolerance. I _do_ care about the fact that your
> intolerance is making this world a worse place to live
> in.
If my saying that the Bible teaches that God has judged homosexuality as
sin is intolerant and therefore makes your little world a worse place to
live in, that's really tough...
Perhaps it's YOU who needs a lesson in tolerance -- tolerance of ideas
which differ from yours!
> >Anyway, enough of this diversion. Season Two has begun! [Off to check my
> >VCR...and I'm not talking about Abbut!]
>
> Peace at last... well, we can hope
Seeing as how you followed up to _four_ more posts, you don't seem to
followup your hope with your actions.
On to the next...
ObB5: I can't wait to see Delenn's new <spoiler deleted>...
Allen J. Newton
> In article <pCrGv*8...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
> >Context is everything. Take specific verses out of context and you can build
> >ANY kind of idea.
>
> Which is specifically my point. You quote anything you
> like, and demand we accept it. Anything anyone else
> quotes, you say is out of context.
That's an empty accusation, and you know it. It seems in YOUR mind,
perhaps, anything which conflicts with ideas you hold dear is a
"contradiction". But the contradiction isn't in the text, but in your
preconceived notions...
> >What the context is considered (who wrote it, when, and to whom and the
> >cultural ideas of the time), I haven't seen a single contradiction, myself...
>
> This is possibly the most interesting thing you've said so
> far. It admits that the meaning of the Bible is mutable -
> it depends on the cultural ideas of the time etc, as you
> say above.
No, not at all. You really do have a problem with logical progression,
don't you?
The meaning in the Bible has to be understood for what those who _wrote_ it
meant, not what someone today who wrote the same thing would mean.
Exegetical reading, not isogetical (since you're an author, I assume you
know the difference).
>Yet you assume it has relevance today, when
> the culture we live in is so different.
The laws and teachings are still relevant. How have humans changed since
the time it was written? Not a whit. _Society_ has changed, and indeed
constantly changes. That's not relevant. Humanity's needs have never
changed.
> But I'm not
> surprised you can't see the contradictions, since logic
> doesn't actually make an appearance in many of your
> arguments.
With all due respect, you obviously wouldn't know logic if it bit you on
the ass...
> >On this we agree completely. Hence, I didn't address any specific
> >"contradiction" to discuss. Although if you have some in mind and want to
> >take it to email, I'd be more than happy to discuss them with you.
>
> No thanks. I've wiped most of the preceding discussion,
> and in any case I've got a commission for a 90k word book
> due by the end of November. Since I've only written about
> 5k words so far, life for the next 3 weeks is going to be
> interesting to say the least.
But you had time to post 5 articles to this newsgroup (at least two in
response to me, I haven't seen the other 3 yet)?
> >In the 10 years I've been a Christian, I've not seen anyone bring up a single
> >contradiction that stood up when the context was researched.
>
> Well, I have to tell you, I was born and raised Catholic,
> and forced to learn chunks of both the Old and New
> Testaments by heart. The contradictions are there all
> right - you just have too much to lose by admitting them.
_WHAT_ contradictions would those be? Why are you people [who claim that
the Bible is full of contradictions] so cagey about actually ever pointing
any specific one out? Could it be that you don't know of any, but have
always HEARD "The Bible's just a book full of contradictions. You just
have to be open-minded enough to see them." Open-minded is right. You
just have to be open-minded enough for your brains to fall out...
> The other thing that drove me out was the illogicality and
> intolerance of my teachers. Fraid to say, you've done
> nothing to change my mind.
I never really expected to. I'm just responding to your ill-formed logic
and false claims...
Chris Mankey
: Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) wrote:
: : In article <39jnvu$g...@blackice.winternet.com>, Chris Mankey writes:
: : Yet another quotation of the complete text which he adds just 6 lines to at
: : the end.
: I *really* HATE that.
I'm sorry I've only been on the net for a month now. I will try to cut it
down next time.
: ============================================================================
Betty Boop
(snip)
: >: I *really* HATE that.
: >I'm sorry I've only been on the net for a month now. I will try to cut it
: >down next time.
: the calm manner in which we gently correct each other.
did MR. Swift just arrive?
Devious Brownies
>Betty Boop (cl...@nevada.edu) wrote:
>: Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) wrote:
>: : In article <39jnvu$g...@blackice.winternet.com>, Chris Mankey writes:
>: : Yet another quotation of the complete text which he adds just 6 lines to
>: : at the end.
>: I *really* HATE that.
>I'm sorry I've only been on the net for a month now. I will try to cut it
>down next time.
the calm manner in which we gently correct each other.
David B.
(And if you believe that, have you ever though of OWNING London Bridge, well
for the miserly sum of $10,000 (exc. P&P) you could...)
Peter Gore
In article <-zDGv*c...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
> I didn't "discover" an
>attraction for women, or for particular types of women -- I decided what I
>liked. I learned about families and relationships while young. They made
>sense. Later, I discovered so-called "alternative" relationships. They don't
>make sense. When I became a Christian and studied God's Word, I discovered
>that the God who made the Universe, who cares for each and every one of us,
>designed us with a specific purpose in mind. Homosexuality doesn't enter into
>that design, and is contrary to God's purpose for our lives.
>
At last I understand! Allen J. Newton is an android[:|] He has no
feelings but *decides* everything based on input. Unfortunately
someone forcefed him their interpretation of the bible and a pile
of other narrow social preconceptions when his neural net was
forming.
Peter Gore
Peter Gore
In article <u4OFv*s...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
>In article <38vn85$q...@blackice.winternet.com>, Chris Mankey writes:
>
>> How about this little tidbit of the "word of god"NOT!
>> Samaria hath rebelled against me, They will fall by the sword. Infants
>> shall be dashed to the ground in pieces and pregnant women will be
>> ripped to open.Hosea 13:16 I bet you thought the bible is pro-life didn't
>> you?
>
>Out of context. Invalid.
>
Please explain in what context the above actions would be
acceptable. No, please, I'd really like to know...
>> You quote the bible like mere repition makes it true. Why should any one
>> care about your personal myth s?
>
>Well, no, I quote it because it is true. The cool thing about it is that I
>don't have to defend it. If you don't believe me now, consider this: There
>is a day when you will die and see God face to face. It is a fact that that
>day will come. And I will not need to defend God, as if He needed it!
>
>He who laughs last...
>
So when we are all burning in hell you and/or god will laugh at
us. That doesn't sound very christian to me.
And you still claim (as you have done repeatedly in this thread)
that you don't hate Homosexuals, but you would laugh at them if
they were being tortured.
Peter Gore
Peter Gore
In article <CyJvH...@cunews.carleton.ca>, Allan Cybulskie (acyb...@chat.carleton.ca) writes:
>Why is it that I always get personally insulted, and never personally
>insult anyone else?
>
Telling me that when I have sex with no intention of producing
children that I'm behaving in a way that isn't natural? Sounds
pretty insulting to me.
Peter Gore
NoiVad
least one Hardcore Christian flaming away anytime someone mentions Homos or
Anti-Religion etc? Iz this some kind of conspiracy? Any way, here a few
things I thought Id comment on that have nothing to do with this flamage:
>'So me the face you had before your parents were bborn?'
None. D-uh? not very deep.
>'What can yousee in an empty mirror?''
Blackness. a mirror iz only "empty" when no light hits it.
> 'How do you stop a charging horse?'
Take away his credit card.
So this post isn't a complete waste:
I remember posting back in April or March my only problem with BAB5 was the
lack of characters and I even suggested a few that would take the load off
the commander. Well, it seems that in the first Episode of the new season JMS
noticed the problem also. They actually had a separate fighter pilot and
secondary command people. PLUS, I had a friend over that night and was
telling him about the show. He said he's not that much of a TV "junkie". But
I told him that the show iz great, and definately getting better. I'm glad
that this season premiere reinforced my claim. It had both of us on the edge
of our seats.
Well, back to the important Flamage!
Noi...@cyberden.com
-vBR2.0: quis custodiet ipsos custodes
--
The CyberDen - Worldwide Alternative Music & Entertainment Network
415-472-5527 - Labels, Zines, Multimedia, Bands, Artists, Cultures
cyberden.com - Telnet and anonymous FTP -> Info: in...@cyberden.com
Devious Brownies
>*sigh* I wish you could discuss things logically and rationally,
>communication flows so much easier when both sides are following the same
>rules.
Trouble is, a lot of people seem to be objecting to rule 14a, to whit
"14a. If the logic of AJ Newton should be used against him, it will be
considered invalid in the posts of anyone other than AJ Newton."
>Perhaps it's YOU who needs a lesson in tolerance -- tolerance of ideas
>which differ from yours!
A problem AJ Newton doesn't have as apparently any ideas that differ from his
are inherently invalid.
David B.
Devious Brownies
>No, not at all. You really do have a problem with logical progression,
>don't you?
I don't have a problem WITH logical progression, I just have a problem FINDING
any in AJ Newton's posts.
David B.
Adam Delafield
Look people, there is no answer. Everyone has their own
basic principles. Faith is not founded on logic so
you cann't use logic to change someones mind on something
if their beleif to the contrary is based on faith.
Logic may be more popular at present as it has given us
masive tangible scientific advances, but that donn't
mean that there is no longer any room for faith.
Nor does that say that there is no room for logic. If
God had not ment us to question we would not have been
made inquisative.
So lets just agree to disagee OK?
And sorry about the spelling. I'm writeing this on the fly
instead of posting a spell checked file.
AdamD (a...@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk)
"My god man. We've become a tourist attraction!"
Allen J. Newton
> >From: ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton)
>
> >ObB5: If Minbari change sex, how many sexes do they have? I know of a
> >certain species of Paramecium which has 5 sexes...
>
> If a paramecium is allowed by god to have 5 sexes, why can't mankind
> have 2, 3, or even 4. Surely we are more loved by god than
> paramecium. (paramecii ?) And if your answer is no, then what allows
> us any more understanding of a god then the paramecium has
> understanding of us?
Well, it's a biological fact that humans only come in two sexes, male and
female. But what does how much God loves us have to do with how many sexes we
have? Who said more is better, _you_? And your credentials are...?
We understand what little we do of God through His written Word and even more
through His Living Word, Jesus Christ.
God made a lot of mysteries down here for us to check out: "It is the glory
of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek it out" (forget
where that is, exactly. Prego.).
Were you aware that in some species of birds, if a male suffers an injury to
his male parts, he becomes a fully functional female capable of laying and
hatching eggs? It's a trip, fer shur...
Angus Manwaring
: _WHAT_ contradictions would those be? Why are you people [who claim that
: the Bible is full of contradictions] so cagey about actually ever pointing
: any specific one out? Could it be that you don't know of any, but have
: always HEARD "The Bible's just a book full of contradictions. You just
: have to be open-minded enough to see them." Open-minded is right. You
: just have to be open-minded enough for your brains to fall out...
If being open-minded about homosexuality was good enough for Jimi Hendrix,
" 'scuse me while I kiss this guy, "
then its good enough for me.
Cheers,
Angus.
"What can you do with a man who resembles a female llama, startled while
bathing?" Churchill on De Gaulle.
Angus Manwaring
: So lets just agree to disagee OK?
Wise words mate.
Cheers,
Angus.
unless you're alive you can't play,
an...@angusm.demon.co.uk and if you can't play.......
Chris Mankey
: Man, every week another one of you people comes to answer every single article
: I write -- I'm sure it's the Designated Hitter thing. Why do you bother?
: > In article <u4OFv*s...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) writes:
: > >In article <38vn85$q...@blackice.winternet.com>, Chris Mankey writes:
: > >
: > >> How about this little tidbit of the "word of god"NOT!
: > >> Samaria hath rebelled against me, They will fall by the sword. Infants
: > >> shall be dashed to the ground in pieces and pregnant women will be
: > >> ripped to open.Hosea 13:16 I bet you thought the bible is pro-life didn't
: > >> you?
: > >
: > >Out of context. Invalid.
: >
: > Please explain in what context the above actions would be
: > acceptable. No, please, I'd really like to know...
: I'm sure you would. Please try to expand your mind to the point where you can
: understand simple things like this.
: The passage in question does not refer to God a) approving of, b) commanding,
: or c) condoning the actions being discussed. The context is "Israel, BECAUSE
: you have rejected Me, I am removing My protection from you to prod you back to
: the right direction. These things will happen when your enemies come against
: you."
No, allen you play fast and loose with the truth again don't
you? It was order by
god to avenge his wounded ego over the fact that they were idolalars
The troops in this verse were ordered by god to kill these people, they
were isrealites. You say that I will stand before god because I think
that this is sick. You really are a depraved human(sic)being Mr. Newton
The only context you are worried about is what you want* it to mean.
Allan Cybulskie
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: inet
James (boho...@oa1.western.tec.wi.us) wrote:
> >From: acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie)
> >Babylon 5, like all good sci-fi, makes statements about society. So,
> >we're arguing them ...
JMS has said that they will be ...
-== Captain Chaos ==-
bring God into this sort of mortal delema. I always thought God loved
everyone who accepted him? Well, there is such a thing as being a good
christian and being gay. I know, I have seen them. Now my question is,
and be forwarned that this is a trick question, what sex is God?
You see the point? If God has a sex, then God is bi because he loves us
all equally. If God is sexless, and God created us all in his own image,
then We could love anyone, regardless of sex, or cross-over-isms, because
He is androdgonous(sp) Himself. Love is love, and the feelings are what
is important. The commitment to be there for your partner, for the rest
of your life. Everything a man and a woman can do, men and women can do
with eachother. Also note, for referance, that there have been many gay
clergy, and even I am told (by a premere biblical scholar here at Temple)
a strong case for a gay pope.
If this be herasy, so be it, but I will not stand by and let some closed
minded pin heads muck up the issue with ego contests. If you have a
problem with gays, don't sleep with one!
(as a disclaimer, although I have many friends in the community, I myself
am straight. I add this because I do not wish to be a victim of the net
brutality that comes from some who would only see my support for gay
rights, and not the reasons behind that stance, which is a personal
feeling, which I can not justify, that this is the correct possition. I
was raised a good christian, and feel that the church is wrong in its
hate brokering. A possition of such power demands its use for the good
of all Gods people. As He would do. He doesn't judge us by what flag we
salute, who we sleep with, or how we tie our shoes. He judges us by what
is in our hearts.)
Eric Birnie
Then why did he make them? Not that I am for OR against them,
but if god made everything...including his evil counterpart...
how do you get away with saying that they "don't" fit into the
design?
God made serial killers, should we accept them?
Allen J. Newton
> >From: acyb...@chat.carleton.ca (Allan Cybulskie)
>
> >Lisa (gar...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu) wrote:
> >> Umm, err I'm confused. I'm sort of new to this group, but I have no idea
> That>> this argument has to do with Babylon 5. Could someone explain to me
> what>> people's views on the morality of sex-for-pleasure has to do with the
> show? >> This post isn't the only one I've seen with non-Babylon 5 arguments
> -- it's>> just an example.
>
> >Babylon 5, like all good sci-fi, makes statements about society. So,
> >we're arguing them ...
>
> I don't remember the series making this "statement" as of yet.
No, but the series' Executive Producer has.
Oh, he (JMS) doesn't hang out in this newsgroup. He's over in rec.arts.sf.
tv.babylon5...
Allen J. Newton
> Angus Manwaring (an...@angusm.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) wrote:
> (snip)
> : : _WHAT_ contradictions would those be? Why are you people [who claim that
>
> : " 'scuse me while I kiss this guy, "
>
> That's "'scuse me while I kiss the sky". I have the lyrics.
> he's talking about being "high as a kite" not gay.
Isn't it amazing the depths some people will go to in order to justify
themselves?
And here I thought Angus was nominating Hendrix for Messiah...
Betty Boop
(snip)
: > : " 'scuse me while I kiss this guy, "
: >
: > That's "'scuse me while I kiss the sky". I have the lyrics.
: > he's talking about being "high as a kite" not gay.
: Isn't it amazing the depths some people will go to in order to justify
: themselves?
Well, it was pretty weak. I think Angus was just pulling
the collective leg. I don' think he was really serious.
Allan Cybulskie
Um, Allen has repeatedly said that he believes that homosexuality is
personal choice ... and God gave us free will ...
BTW, your second point makes it very unclear which side you are
arguing for. It's a killer argument AGAINST homosexuality ...