A challenge to all fags and other self-righteous people
Mr. Willie
TO READ THESE SAD LETTERS THAT HONEST FAGS SENT TO WBC.
Unlike the hypocrites of Exodus International and other phony
so-called "ex-gays," here's the testimony of honest fags. Unlike
money-grubbing heretics like Jerry Falwell and the folks at Focus on
the Family who think if they lie often enough about Jesus Christ and
can get enough money from enough simpletons, then they can deceive
homosexuals into believing they've repented, here are the confessions
of sincere fags. As the publican in Luke 18:13 & 14, so is this fag:
"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful
to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified
rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be
abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." His testimony
reads as follows:
Testimony 1
"Hi Rev. Phelps, or whoever reads these:
I trapped myself into faggotry when I was 19 years old. While I have
to take responsibility for this myself, I can see how our modern
American values made it so easy to turn myself into a fag. I can't be
the only one who got trapped this way.
In an example of kindness that can kill, society seems to no longer
view the sin of sodomy as a sin. Instead, the view now common is that
the temptation to commit buggery is an intrinsic immutable personal
characteristic, as much as having brown eyes or red hair. Therefore it
can't be wrong, so the theory goes.
When I first felt these temptations, I learned not that I was a sinner
but that I had 'awakened' to my own sexual identity. I should 'rejoice
in this characteristic that makes me the individual I am.' This clever
lie not only gave me permission to commit these sins but also indeed
put considerable pressure on me to make these acts the mantle of my
existence and adopt a life that revolved around the act of buggery.
Because after all, to repent and turn from this sin would be 'denying
the reality of my identity' and 'only living a lie.'
With the help of an 'understanding' society, I adopted this view.
Occasionally I sought help (in the wrong places) for the nagging
notion that this was all a horrible, horrible mistake. The apostate
clergy of modern psychology told me that my aversion to my 'sexual
identity' was wrong, I should let go of my inhibitions and go enjoy
the revolving door sex culture of anonymous gay sex.
I reached a depth of despair at my first (and last) 'gay pride'
parade. I saw the most revolting attributes of homosexuality flaunted
as if they were the hallmark achievements of mankind. Vileness,
promiscuity, perversity, and inverted morality (not to mention logic)
were all hailed in an orgy of celebration. It was like a bad science
fiction horror movie of Hades come to Earth.
As the years passed, it was increasingly more difficult to suppress
the growing sense of revulsion I had to those wretched beings with
whom I had cast my lot. I left the city every year on the day of the
'gay pride' orgy. I tried to distance myself from the amoral
antilogical licentious human garbage that collectively calls itself
the 'gay community.'
Currently I still feel the call of this sin, though I no longer act on
it. The final chapter of my odyssey of escape from the clever lies of
an immutable fag nature is perhaps not yet written. But I pray to God
for redemption. I'm not yet sure of the state of my salvation, but if
nothing else, I have turned my back on fag sin and all the evil that
comes with it.
I used to think you people were evil and crazy and persecuted the
righteous. But I am beginning to understand that I have had it exactly
backwards."
Testimony 2
"If it's ok with you, I would like you guys to post my story on your
site like you did with that other guy. Here is my story below, feel
free to correct any spelling. I am not afraid to have my name in
there, so feel free to print it.
My name is F**** G*****. I am now 55 and I have AIDS, my reward for a
life of faggotry and promiscuity. In my lifetime I have had nearly
every venereal disease you could imagine, but none of those could stop
me from my life of sin.
I got involved with sodomy at a very young age. My neighbor was an
upstanding person in the community. Everyone loved him and his wife.
At church he was almost a celebrity. But what I found out that his
wife had not, is that he was a faggot, leading a hidden lifestyle. One
weekend, my parents thought it would be a good idea for me to go
camping with my neighbor while they were out of town. It was a
horrible mistake for all of us.
Alone with this pervert in the woods, there was nobody to stop him
from exposing me to sodomy and all manners of perversion. Years later,
those events damaged my psychological development in high school. I
could never maintain a healthy relationship with females. But things
got worse in college.
When I was a senior in college, I met a professor that was a faggot.
He began telling me that what I was feeling was "normal", and that
those who opposed this sort of behavior were neandethals and backward.
Soon we were having a relationship. It was then that I had considered
myself gay.
What I want people to know at this point is that the gay lifestyle is
not some kind of mirror image of the heterosexual lifestyle. It
involves multiple partners, anonymous sex, and many perversions. It
seemed that I needed to experience more and more perverted activities
to be satisfied. Among the ones I could mention here are pedophilia
and beastiality.
So I continued in my life of faggotry, never truly happy. I claimed I
was proud of it; I marched in parades and chanted the slogans. But
inside I knew there was something wrong. From the first time I called
myself gay, I had always turned to drugs to take away the pain of my
sin. If I ran out of money for drugs, I thought nothing wrong about
going to the nearest rest stop or public restroom, and offering my
services to strangers. Nothing the gay movement could tell me could
make me happy the way the drugs did. They said that the lifestyle was
becoming more accepted, that we were going to be accepted by the
country as normal. But I knew I was not normal, and I suspected many
others know this too.
Still I was involved in the lifesyle until March 24, 1999. I had in
and out of doctors' offices for years, diagnosed and treated for
ghonorrea, scabies, and lice. I thought I had hit the bottom when
diagnosed with herpes in 1995. But on that day in 1999, I learned that
I had tested positive for HIV. The worse thing is that with the
lifestyle I was leading, I could not tell you who gave me that virus.
The reason why I am writing this, and using my real name, is because I
want everyone to know the truth about his lifestyle. I no longer care
about what happens to me. I will be dead soon, and my family disowned
me long ago. I am ashamed of what I did to them and god. When I was
lying in the hospital bed about a month ago, I learned that what I had
done for years was a sin.
Now I felt better knowing that I was right to doubt myself back then.
I have repented to the Lord and know that while my sins are now washed
clean, my duty in my final months on Earth is to warn the world,
especially young males, about the danger of homosexuality.
There is NOTHING normal about it. The media tries to portray faggots
as being entertaining, funny, and just like everyone else. But that
could not be further from the truth. I know because I have been there.
Not a day goes by that I don't regret my sins of the past. If just one
afflicted person reads this and changes there ways before having to
suffer the pain that I have, then I will consider my holy mission
accomplised.
F**** G*****
Philadelphia, PA
Paul Duca
"Mr. Willie" wrote:
Does God have hot horny women waiting for you in Heaven, to
let you catch up on all the normal sex you missed here on Earth?
Paul
JJ RavenBear
JJ
"Mr. Willie" <the_ful...@japan.com> wrote in message
news:f2f36d62.02012...@posting.google.com...
Mr. Willie
Dionisio
> A challenge to all fags and other self-righteous people: WE DARE YOU
> TO READ THESE SAD LETTERS THAT HONEST FAGS SENT TO WBC.
The self-righteous attempting to degrade others by calling them
self-righteous. <smirk> Will the wonders of "Holy Hypocrisy" never cease?
For more information on the Westboro Baptist Church and the interesting
inbred "congregation" that dares to claim to work for God, visit:
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio/queer/database/w.html#westboro.baptist.church
Be forewarned, Christians may find their acts appalling. They are of some
entertainment value though.
--
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio -- Snookems, the white kitty.
And then there's the whole sex thing... Not that I don't enjoy it, but
it's kind of like a trip to Disney Land. You get so excited about a ride
on the Matterhorn. And then when it's over, you realize that you spent all
that time in line for a minute-and-a-half upside-down and the chance to
throw up.
--Murphy Brown
Conan
"Mr. Willie" wrote: I get along with my spell checker because
I only cut and paste other people's ideas.
Yohan the Lost
about cartoons, not your political BS.
--
Yohan the Lost
me
the weirdos against homosexuality. However, that does not change the fact
that there are many people that, while they love the sinner, they hate the
sin - because the FACT is that homosexuality IS a sin; although not any
different than any other sin, and can be forgiven.
Dionisio <dmi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C588989...@insight.rr.com...
maf1029
<snip religious crappola>
>The apostate
>clergy of modern psychology told me that my aversion >to my 'sexual
>identity' was wrong, I should let go of my inhibitions and >go enjoy
>the revolving door sex culture of anonymous gay sex.
Honey, your being a slut was your problem, not your shrink's. If you had
actually been to a qualified psychologist, you would have learned that being
gay is not a reason to beat yourself up emotionally or hate yourself. You
would have further learned that being gay is just that, being gay, not a
free license for you to be a tramp. So, grow up, stop whining, and take
responsibility for your own actions. Oh, wait........... you're a sniveling
christer, that would be against your religion.
--
maf and dog, aa #1954
maf1029
"me" <robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qR268.2674$zT.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Gee, it looks like you've here (at the website you refer to) listed all of
> the weirdos against homosexuality. However, that does not change the fact
> that there are many people that, while they love the sinner, they hate the
> sin - because the FACT is that homosexuality IS a sin; although not any
> different than any other sin, and can be forgiven.
1. Sin only applies to sniveling christers.
2. Sniveling christers only see the big red SIN etched on the forehead of
the "sinner."
3. You misspelled "opinion." Learn the difference between opinion and fact.
4. If homosexuality is a "sin," as you claim in your opinion, then what
other psychological phenomena do you qualify as "sin"? Autism? Mental
retardation? Schizophrenia?
5. Take your "sin" and shove it up your ass.
You have no right to tell others how to live. But, in case you do, l;et me
just remind you ever so tactlessly that your religion prevents you from
thinking. Be ever so kind as to dump your religion (which is a choice, by
the bye) in exchange for my not being gay.
What was that? You say you won't? Then fuck right off.
me
condemn it. Homosexuality is something that God condemns. If homosexuality
were something one could be born with, then God would not call it an
abomination. You will also notice that I stated that it is no different than
any other sin - be it lying, cheating, stealing, or even envy, and also,
your rude, foul language.
maf1029 <maf...@xhotmailx.com> wrote in message
news:pg568.2362$I5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dionisio
> Gee, it looks like you've here (at the website you refer to) listed all of
> the weirdos against homosexuality.
Nah, that would require a full time staff of 20 working 5 days a week. (What is
it about Christianity that has that effect anyway?)
> However, that does not change the fact
> that there are many people that, while they love the sinner, they hate the
> sin - because the FACT is that homosexuality IS a sin
Really? To which religion? Christianity? Hardly. Name even one Bible verse that
is not deliberately mistranslated or taken out of context for the purpose of
lining the pockets. One. (It's a very small number.)
By the by, the popular ones have already been examined. You may wish to try for
something obscure. Shouldn't be too tough if ya know yer Gospels... :)
L. Michael Roberts
>
> A challenge to all fags and other self-righteous people:
ROFLMAO!!! You claim that the WBC cult is not self righteous?
<snip boring junk>
Get some new material... this stuff is old and tired!
+==================== L. Michael Roberts =======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Hamilton, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+=================================================================+
Dionisio
> Guess what? I am mildly autistic, and so? It is not a sin - God does not
> condemn it.
I take it you've not heard about God rejecting those with "problems." Take a
look at Deuteronomy 23 and tell me if you're still confident about your status.
(There are other verses on the subject, but I like to take things one at a
time.)
> Homosexuality is something that God condemns. If homosexuality
> were something one could be born with, then God would not call it an
> abomination.
Really? One is born with the status of "bastard." God calls that a sin. One is
born with the genes of your father, and if he's offended God, so have you.
(Actually, you get to worry about the status of your grandfather and
great-grandfather too. Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:18.)
Are you sure you really know what you think you know about God? I've been bonked
over the head with the Bible enough that I decided to examine it's potential for
myself. Very interesting reading. Would you like some pointers?
me
what is it that you believe, the twisted doctrine of Hitler - that any child
with anything "wrong", be it a club foot, a cleft palate, or anything,
should be destroyed?! That's really twisted - and if you think for one
minute that the Bible supports that crazy belief, then you obviously are
completely blinded, and unable to comprehend what you read, and therefore,
there's really not much point in discussing this with you.
Also, while one may be called a "bastard", that is not his sin, it is the
sin of his father. And while one inherits their parents' genes, they are
still not responsible for their parents' sins. And those who attempt to use
the scripture about the sins of the father being visited upon the children
are completely misinterpreting it. The sins of the father may be passed on
to the children by way of, for example, if the father abuses his family,
then that is what the children learn, and then they continue that cycle. In
other words, there are consequences, and that is why it is imperative to
teach our children well, so that our sins will not be visited upon the
children.news:3C58F843...@insight.rr.com...
me
homosexuality. But I'm not even going to get into this anymore, seeing as my
main reason for posting anyway was to point out that "Mr. Willie" is a
hateful waste of a man that should stop posting hatred. That's it.
Dionisio <dmi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C58F465...@insight.rr.com...
Light Templar
> First off, I don't have a "problem" as you state, I'm perfectly fine. And
> what is it that you believe, the twisted doctrine of Hitler - that any
child
> with anything "wrong", be it a club foot, a cleft palate, or anything,
> should be destroyed?!
It wasn't just Hitler. The Catholic Church routinely did the same thing
during the Inquisitions. Columbo put an estimated 10,000 infants and
children to death for various physical and mental (then called demon
possession) afflictions. The Puritans did the same thing for a few years
here in the pre-nation US history.
David Slade
> Yeah, I know both the Gospel and the Torah; both of which clearly condemn
> homosexuality. But I'm not even going to get into this anymore, seeing as
my
> main reason for posting anyway was to point out that "Mr. Willie" is a
> hateful waste of a man that should stop posting hatred. That's it.
Mr. Willie's hatred is quite obvious. You are just as hateful, only you
dress it up in a finer suit. Mr. Willie uses the Bible to justify his
beliefs just like you. The book you use is not clear about anything. Your
interpretation of it is no better than anyone elses. The fact is your
looking for answers that do not exist. One thing that is definite; you are
not going to find it in a bunch of ancient texts thrown together in one
book. You will equally find the answers you seek in the Iliad or Odyssey.
They have it's central God and demi-gods(angels); they have adventure and
strife; they, too, have it's half man-half god characters. What makes your
God more real than Zeus? Why should I choose the Bible over the Odyssey as
my guide through life? If you can convince me I will run directly down to
the river and dunk myself and become saved. By the by, considering it's -3C,
that's
quite a challenge.
Ninure Saunders
<robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
-Guess what? I am mildly autistic, and so? It is not a sin - God does not
-condemn it.
YOU need to read YOUR bible.
The same Levitical code that "condemns" homosexuality also "condemns"
anyone who has a disability.
- Homosexuality is something that God condemns
God does not "condemn" homosexuality..anyone more than God condemns you.
-. If homosexuality
-were something one could be born with, then God would not call it an
-abomination.
The Bible, which is not God even tho some Christians seem to worship it,
calls lots of things abomination..(like eating pork) yet magically
people like you seem to have no problem with ignoring that.
-You will also notice that I stated that it is no different than
-any other sin - be it lying, cheating, stealing, or even envy, and also,
-your rude, foul language.
Yes I did note that, and am offended that you presume to call my LOVE for
others a sin, and outraged you would equare that LOVE with actions that
hurt and harm others.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Dionisio
> First off, I don't have a "problem" as you state, I'm perfectly fine. And
> what is it that you believe, the twisted doctrine of Hitler - that any child
> with anything "wrong", be it a club foot, a cleft palate, or anything,
> should be destroyed?! That's really twisted
Take it up with God. (Though He doesn't take it as far as Hitler did, He merely
relegates them to Hell.)
Fortunately for you, I am a secular humanist.
> Also, while one may be called a "bastard", that is not his sin, it is the
> sin of his father.
And as such, it is also a sin to the progeny for the next several generations.
The Bible is quite clear on that. You wouldn't be disputing the dictates of God
would you?
> And while one inherits their parents' genes, they are
> still not responsible for their parents' sins.
Says a representative of the religion that originated "original sin..."
Next.
Dionisio
> Yeah, I know both the Gospel and the Torah; both of which clearly condemn
> homosexuality. But I'm not even going to get into this anymore, seeing as my
> main reason for posting anyway was to point out that "Mr. Willie" is a
> hateful waste of a man that should stop posting hatred. That's it.
Such conviction. 'Tis always a joy to see folks willing to stand up and support
their convictions and beliefs. Ah well, some spines are made of Jello, and some
are not. Nice talking to you anyway. Remember to come up with a good excuse for
turning down this Witnessing opportunity when you stand before the Pearly Gates,
waiting for the Judge to let you in.
Toodles.
Don
<robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yeah, I know both the Gospel and the Torah; both of which clearly condemn
>homosexuality.
I didn't know that about the "Gospel." I have read the four Gospels
many times and don't recall any mention of homosexuality, not even
from Jesus, himself.
D*
Few people can be happy unless they hate some other
person, nation, or creed.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
=============
Are you unmarried? Then do not look for a wife . . .
From now on, those who have wives should live as if they have none.
(1 Corinthians 7:27, 29)
Fenris
<no...@NoSpamThanks.net> wrote:
>"Mr. Willie" wrote:
>>
>> A challenge to all fags and other self-righteous people:
>
> ROFLMAO!!! You claim that the WBC cult is not self righteous?
>
><snip boring junk>
>
> Get some new material... this stuff is old and tired!
What do you expect from Phelpses?
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Fenris
<robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yeah, I know both the Gospel and the Torah; both of which clearly condemn
>homosexuality.
No they don't; there are some passages which are misinterpreted that way
by homophobes, like yourself.
"The devil makes many disciples by preaching against sin."
祈r. Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, p. 92
It sometimes happens that men who preach most vehemently about evil and
the punishment of evil, so that they seem to have practically nothing else
on their minds except sin, are really unconscious haters of other men.
They think that the world does not appreciate them, and this is their way
of getting even.
è²´erton, New Seeds of Contemplation, p. 93
Fenris
<robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Guess what? I am mildly autistic, and so? It is not a sin - God does not
>condemn it. Homosexuality is something that God condemns. If homosexuality
>were something one could be born with, then God would not call it an
>abomination. You will also notice that I stated that it is no different than
>any other sin - be it lying, cheating, stealing, or even envy, and also,
>your rude, foul language.
That's lovely, comparing nonconsensual crimes with other people's romantic love.
Try loving your neighbor as yourself. Actually, if you loved yourself
more, perhaps you wouldn't be going on about other people's supposed sins.
Fenris
<robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>First off, I don't have a "problem" as you state, I'm perfectly fine.
It sometimes happens that men who preach most vehemently about evil and
the punishment of evil, so that they seem to have practically nothing else
on their minds except sin, are really unconscious haters of other men.
They think that the world does not appreciate them, and this is their way
of getting even.
è²´erton, New Seeds of Contemplation, p. 93
--
Mr. Willie
TO READ THESE SAD LETTERS THAT HONEST FAGS SENT TO WBC.
notion that this was all a horrible, horrible mistake. The apostate
clergy of modern psychology told me that my aversion to my 'sexual
identity' was wrong, I should let go of my inhibitions and go enjoy
the revolving door sex culture of anonymous gay sex.
I reached a depth of despair at my first (and last) 'gay pride'
Dionisio
> Are you unmarried? Then do not look for a wife . . .
> From now on, those who have wives should live as if they have none.
> (1 Corinthians 7:27, 29)
Hmm... So if I have a spouse, I should be out looking for one? Isn't that
promiscuity?
Mark Bassett
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.229.223.phnx.grid.net...
> In article <%d768.2445$I5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "me"
> <robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, I know both the Gospel and the Torah; both of which clearly condemn
> >homosexuality.
>
> No they don't; there are some passages which are misinterpreted that way
> by homophobes, like yourself.
The word "homophobe" seems to be designed specifically in response to the
term homosexual, to categorize those who object to immorality. I personally
see no sensible basis for the suffix "-phobe", however.
Several decades ago, the assertion that there was psychological disturbance
in matters pertaining to same-sex sexual relationship was quite the
opposite. Indeed, DSM-III classified homosexuality (i.e. listed it as a
mental disorder, until a lobby effectively prevailed upon membership by
referendum to declassify it only 29 years ago (1973).
The debate concerning identification of abnormal behavior vs normal/abnormal
psychological compulsion is old and tired, however the sense that homosexual
behavior is still uniqely objectionable to many people, and particularly
offlimit to anyone with a high regard for ancient moral principles is
undeniable. So, it is understandable who those who advocate homosexual
behavior without regard to sanction would seek to identify those who object
strenuously, and to belittle them as "fearful". However, it doesn't really
make sense.
The reason that I question the sense of the modern use of the term "-phobe",
hoping to dismiss those who are opposed to immoral behavior as irrationally
fearful is that there is good cause for some emotional caution, or "fear" in
apporaching these matters, and I quote:
"That third study (Sandfort et al.) is now available. The Sandfort research
is particularly significant because it surveyed a large sample of the Dutch
population (about 7,000 individuals), avoiding convenience samples and the
potential for bias that such samples can introduce. Of those individuals
surveyed, 2.8% of the men and 1.4% of the women were classified as
homosexual.
The findings," says the authors, "support the assumption that people with
same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders."
The lifetime prevalence of one or more Diagnostic Manual (DSM-III) disorders
among men engaging in same sex behavior was found to be 56.1%, versus 41.4%
among men who do not engage in such behavior. The rate for two or more DSM
II disorders is 37.8% (versus 14.4%).
For women engaging in same-sex behavior, the rate for one or more DSM III
disorders is 67.4% (versus 39.1%) and for two or more disorders 39.5%
(versus 21.3%).
Differentiating the homosexual population by gender, there was a higher
prevelance of substance-abuse disorders among lesbians, and a higher
prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders among gay men. Both groups exceeded
the incidence of those problems in the heterosexual population.
Significantly, the study sampled residents of the Netherlands, where social
acceptance of same-sex behavior is high. This would call into question the
assumption that the high rate of psychiatric problems is primarily due to
social or internalized homophobia."
(reference: Sandfort, T., R. Graaf, R. Bijl, P. Schnabel (2001) "Same-Sex
Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands
Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)," Archives of General
Psychiatry 58: 85-91.)
For those interested in continued investigation ....
"The study categorized anyone who had recently had sex with a person of the
same gender (exclusively or not) as homosexual. This distinction is
significant, because the category of "homosexual" would, by these
researchers' definition, include bisexuals and heterosexual people going
through a phase of homosexual behavior.
If the study had been limited to individuals who were exclusively
homosexual, the difference between homosexual and heterosexual populations
might have been even more distinct.
The researchers note that when the American Psychiatric Association debated
in 1973 about whether or not to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic
manual, many psychiatrists supported deletion because of the supposed
"equality in mental health status of homosexual and heterosexual people."
Yet there is now substantial disconfirming evidence of that equality in
mental-health status, the authors say, and "recent studies applying a more
rigorous methodology" show that there is "substantial support" for the idea
that gay men and lesbians are, indeed, less psychologically healthy than
heterosexuals.
Sandfort et al. list other studies which support their findings. In one,
"young people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation were found to be at
increased risk of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct
disorder, substance abuse/dependence, and suicidal behaviors."
In another study, "middle-aged men who reported ever having had male sex
partners were at higher lifetime risk for various suicidal symproms...even
after controlling for substance abuse and depressive symptoms."
In yet another study, homosexually active men were found to be at greater
risk of major depression and panic attack syndromes, while lesbians were
more likely to be dependent on drugs or alcohol.
The authors of the Sandfort study suggest a number of possible reasons for
the difference in mental-health status. They suggest loneliness, difficulty
in finding and keeping longterm partners due to the lesser stability of gay
relationships, different social norms of the gay world (i.e., the acceptance
of promiscuity), and the stress of social stigma--although the latter is,
the authors admit, considerably less of a factor in The Netherlands (from
which they drew the study population) than in other Western countries.
Sandfort et al. echo other recent researchers who suggest that to the extent
that a homosexual orientation is biologically influenced in any particular
individual, it may represent a "biological developmental error." Thus the
differences observed in mental health, the Sandfort report suggests, may be
due to "biological and genetic factors in the causes and development of
homosexuality which redispose homosexual people to developing psychiatric
disorders."
Don
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>Several decades ago, the assertion that there was psychological disturbance
>in matters pertaining to same-sex sexual relationship was quite the
>opposite. Indeed, DSM-III classified homosexuality (i.e. listed it as a
>mental disorder, until a lobby effectively prevailed upon membership by
>referendum to declassify it only 29 years ago (1973).
And "only 29 years ago," the public restrooms in my home town had
signs on the doors which said "white" and "colored." There were also
water fountains labeled, "white" and "colored" in the court-house.
>... however the sense that homosexual
>behavior is still uniqely objectionable to many people...
So was Bill Clinton, but he was elected twice!
...Miscellaneous numbers snipped...
Your text proves that you are familiar with the popular book entitled,
"HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS!"
Your post is a good example of it.
>For those interested in continued investigation ....
How to Lie With Statistics
by Darrell Huff, Irving Geis (Illustrator) (Paperback - November 1993)
It's available from Amazon.com.
D*
Few people can be happy unless they hate some other
person, nation, or creed.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
=============
Are you unmarried? Then do not look for a wife . . .
Bruce Garrett
Dionisio <dmi...@insight.rr.com> writes...
In response to Mr. Willie (the_ful...@japan.com)...
>> A challenge to all fags and other self-righteous people: WE DARE YOU
>> TO READ THESE SAD LETTERS THAT HONEST FAGS SENT TO WBC.
D> For more information on the Westboro Baptist Church and the interesting
D> inbred "congregation" that dares to claim to work for God...
Question. Why is this being posted to alt.tv.cartoon-network?
Please don't tell me that Hanna-Barbera is developing a cartoon series
based on the Phelps clan. Oh gosh no...no... Fred and his
Family...with some kind of wise cracking talking animal side-kick...
Just...no...don't...
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com
Political cartoons at http://www.brucegarrett.com/cartoon.htm
Skywatcher Stories Back On Line.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQEVAwUBPFm2Ppo33Y/gFaKRAQF8bggAyGmDkEntUwT3ujAJIc94bR8v6TUnAUsv
AW0eyJbadetsRaYRCeJXHG2c9xsSyMXREEyLz9yLl5odOpfeBATNCVqu4rJBhRou
g4LNQ3fvcWXDR2jV0FAXEc0aBC40lKDaHalkcci+uX1MM7/0x24qNltxumyD2RKm
pYtSZtPX/GwYv9jGrXYZrA6gUvvm3VTylRh0z9ttlPXLYuyvuhptQStHx98/ehE5
ksJjjCDxlrA1BEiDPQTAQM960xvi4sSw7r1OVW8zly9G0hNabD3mY56wOPkJyP3+
NGp0ICYQRjvgYbCazX6cBFwzmtBxNzHk2d9PZnXrGr4koU7MuTh0jQ==
=392H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Don
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>"That third study (Sandfort et al.) is now available. The Sandfort research
>is particularly significant because it surveyed a large sample of the Dutch
>population (about 7,000 individuals), avoiding convenience samples and the
>potential for bias that such samples can introduce.
"A statistician is the type of guy who would put his head in an oven,
and his feet in a bucket of ice, and say that, on average, he felt
fine."
>In another study, "middle-aged men who reported ever having had male sex
>partners were at higher lifetime risk for various suicidal symproms...even
>after controlling for substance abuse and depressive symptoms."
But the "study" doesn't say WHY?
>In yet another study, homosexually active men were found to be at greater
>risk of major depression and panic attack syndromes, while lesbians were
>more likely to be dependent on drugs or alcohol.
Again, the study doesn't tell WHY?
>The authors of the Sandfort study suggest a number of possible reasons for
>the difference in mental-health status.
But the authors come to no conclusions.
Duhh!!!
According to recent studies, the divorce rate among "born again"
Christians is equal to that of non-Christians.
Fenris
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>The word "homophobe" seems to be designed specifically in response to the
term homosexual...
Duh. Glad you figured that out.
> ...to categorize those who object to immorality. I personally
>see no sensible basis for the suffix "-phobe", however.
'Cause you are one. Bigots never understand that they are bigots. Go have
a moral objection to something that harms you or others.
>Several decades ago, the assertion that there was psychological disturbance
>in matters pertaining to same-sex sexual relationship was quite the
>opposite.
Gee, and now all of the relevant disciplines and professional
organizations have learned better. Guess there is hope for most of us.
>The debate concerning identification of abnormal behavior vs normal/abnormal
>psychological compulsion is old and tired...
But not too tired for a dedicated homphobe like you to bring it up at any
opportunity.
>... however the sense that homosexual
>behavior is still uniqely objectionable to many people, and particularly
>offlimit to anyone with a high regard for ancient moral principles is
>undeniable.
Wrong, again. The correlation is between homophobia and cultures which are
pro-natalistic/expansionistic. And some 67% of cutlures have not been
homophobic. But is you are only interested in Christianity, you had better
read Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality." Things
weren't the way you thought.
>So, it is understandable who those who advocate homosexual
>behavior without regard to sanction would seek to identify those who object
>strenuously, and to belittle them as "fearful". However, it doesn't really
>make sense.
Sure it does. Go mind your own business and let other people be who they
are and live their lives in ways that do not affect you or yours. You
obviously can't do tha; you have a problem. Get some help.
>Differentiating the homosexual population by gender, there was a higher
>prevelance of substance-abuse disorders among lesbians, and a higher
>prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders among gay men. Both groups exceeded
>the incidence of those problems in the heterosexual population.
>
>Significantly, the study sampled residents of the Netherlands, where social
>acceptance of same-sex behavior is high. This would call into question the
>assumption that the high rate of psychiatric problems is primarily due to
>social or internalized homophobia."
Oh, yeh, all Dutch parents want their kids to be Gay or Lesbian! ;-)
>The researchers note that when the American Psychiatric Association debated
>in 1973 about whether or not to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic
>manual, many psychiatrists supported deletion because of the supposed
>"equality in mental health status of homosexual and heterosexual people."
>Yet there is now substantial disconfirming evidence of that equality in
>mental-health status, the authors say, and "recent studies applying a more
>rigorous methodology" show that there is "substantial support" for the idea
>that gay men and lesbians are, indeed, less psychologically healthy than
>heterosexuals.
>
>Sandfort et al. list other studies which support their findings. In one,
>"young people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation were found to be at
>increased risk of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct
>disorder, substance abuse/dependence, and suicidal behaviors."
Gee, in a homophobic culture, who'd a thunk it?
>Sandfort et al. echo other recent researchers who suggest that to the extent
>that a homosexual orientation is biologically influenced in any particular
>individual, it may represent a "biological developmental error.
And the moon may be made of green cheese.
>" Thus the
>differences observed in mental health, the Sandfort report suggests, may be
>due to "biological and genetic factors in the causes and development of
>homosexuality which redispose homosexual people to developing psychiatric
>disorders."
The truth is that healthy heterosexuals don't spend their time thinking
about or posting crap like this. : )
Get help.
maf1029
> Guess what? I am mildly autistic, and so? It is not a sin
Hmm..............how *convenient* for you. Did you also get a second helping
of excuses from the salad bar at your local Christian Cafeteria?
And autism also explains why you can't quite grasp the social convention of
why it's ever so fucking rude to go into a gay political newsgroup and
condemn homosexuality on religoius grounds.
>God does not condemn it.
So, if God (TM) created us in his/her image, then is God (TM) also mildly
autistic? Why am I not mildly autistic?
Also, God (TM) does not condemn homosexuality. If you were to use your
brain, you would have learned that the prohibition in Leviticus refers to
ritualized temple prostitution in the cult of Molech. The concept of
"homosexuality" as the term is used today is a social convention unique to
our modern era. It did not exist at the time of Levitical common law.
Also, I would be willing to bet a lot of money that you don't follow every
last Prohibition in Leviticus. That would mean you are picking and choosing
your "sins" to decry, like any good Cafeteria Christian. Might I strongly
suggest that you fuck your hypocritical self? Thanks in advance.
>Homosexuality is something that God condemns. If >homosexuality
> were something one could be born with, then God >would not call it an
> abomination. You will also notice that I stated that it is >no different
than
> any other sin - be it lying, cheating, stealing, or even envy, and also,
> your rude, foul language.
You think that was rude? That was nothing. Obviously in al your studies of
your religion, you have never come across the expression, "So shall ye
reap." You decided, in your finite "wisdom" to crosspost your crap to a gay
political newsgroup, where your stupid comments are unwelcome. Now you're
surprised when when someone "dares" to return to you what you have doled
out? Congratulations on reaching the heighth of hubris. If you want to be
treated better, then act like a human being, not some pre-programmed godbot
on a mission. Until such time, go fuck yourself.
By the way, alittle advice for you: If homosexuality bothers you so much,
then here's a thought: Don't do it. That should solve your problem. As for
the rest, keep your ugly, spiteful, bigoted nose out of my life and the
lives of those to whom you feel divinely motivated to proselytize, asshole.
Have a nice day,
maf1029
> Yeah, I know both the Gospel and the Torah; both of which clearly condemn
> homosexuality.
If only you could read for comprehension, or had the vaguest inkling of
history.........
>But I'm not even going to get into this anymore, seeing as my
> main reason for posting anyway was to point out that "Mr. Willie" is a
> hateful waste of a man that should stop posting hatred. That's it.
And you're what? Some saintly incarnation, or are you the Spokesmodel for
God (TM)? You think you're not a hateful piece of shit with the IQ and
knowledge of a turnip? Think again.
maf1029
> First off, I don't have a "problem" as you state, I'm perfectly fine. And
> what is it that you believe, the twisted doctrine of Hitler
- that any child
> with anything "wrong", be it a club foot, a cleft palate, or anything,
> should be destroyed?! That's really twisted - and if you think for one
> minute that the Bible supports that crazy belief, then you obviously are
> completely blinded, and unable to comprehend what you read, and therefore,
> there's really not much point in discussing this with you.
You do excel at projection. Is it your day job?
> Also, while one may be called a "bastard", that is not his sin, it is the
> sin of his father. And while one inherits their parents' genes, they are
> still not responsible for their parents' sins. And those who attempt to
use
> the scripture about the sins of the father being visited upon the children
> are completely misinterpreting it. The sins of the father may be passed on
> to the children by way of, for example, if the father abuses his family,
> then that is what the children learn, and then they continue that cycle.
In
> other words, there are consequences, and that is why it is imperative to
> teach our children well, so that our sins will not be visited upon the
> children.
So, Bible verses are not to be taken at face value, and a literal
interpretation is a "misinterpretation." Glad we could clear that up. Now go
do your homework on ancient temple worship in the cult of Molech. Come back
when you have learned something.
M Bassett
"Don" <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i95e5u4hl1pgmq6r3...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:37:55 GMT, "Mark Bassett"
> <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Several decades ago, the assertion that there was psychological
disturbance
> >in matters pertaining to same-sex sexual relationship was quite the
> >opposite. Indeed, DSM-III classified homosexuality (i.e. listed it as a
> >mental disorder, until a lobby effectively prevailed upon membership by
> >referendum to declassify it only 29 years ago (1973).
>
> And "only 29 years ago," the public restrooms in my home town had
> signs on the doors which said "white" and "colored." There were also
> water fountains labeled, "white" and "colored" in the court-house.
The United States had a period of racism, as have all developing cultures
which were faced with confrontation of people from other racial backgrounds.
Homosexual behavior however, is nothing new to any culture and has been
soundly rejected in general by virtually all civilizations through history,
except when their measures of corruption and self-discipline met going
opposite ways, and the end of the culture was near at hand.
Homosexual advocates who liken their "plight" to racial minorities and
attempt to usurp genuine sympathy on that basis are not different than some
who seek to make political advances by falsely likening themselves to Jews,
and to ride the cot-tails of those who are oppressed because of race or
religion.
> >... however the sense that homosexual
> >behavior is still uniqely objectionable to many people...
>
> So was Bill Clinton, but he was elected twice!
Is this dimentia kicking in?
> ...Miscellaneous numbers snipped...
>
> Your text proves that you are familiar with the popular book entitled,
> "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS!"
Your snipping proves that you are, as was suspected, completely uninterested
in reality when statistics do not speak in favor od your perverse ideas.
Dionisio
> Question. Why is this being posted to alt.tv.cartoon-network?
That's where "Mr. Willie" posted, and that's where a reply needed to appear as
well. Fundies sans reasoned responses equals Fundy recruitment for fence
sitters. (Lack of reply appears to be the same as inability to reply, which
lends credibility to the original poster.)
> Please don't tell me that Hanna-Barbera is developing a cartoon series
> based on the Phelps clan. Oh gosh no...no... Fred and his
> Family...with some kind of wise cracking talking animal side-kick...
What!? No Simpsons episode about Flanders and his cousins in Idaho? (Gotta
give Kansas a break, they have the real thing. Idaho's kinda used to it. <g>)
<duck>
Dionisio
> The United States had a period of racism, as have all developing cultures
> which were faced with confrontation of people from other racial backgrounds.
> Homosexual behavior however, is nothing new to any culture and has been
> soundly rejected in general by virtually all civilizations through history,
> except when their measures of corruption and self-discipline met going
> opposite ways, and the end of the culture was near at hand.
Ah, so when are the Asian cultures that have been Buddhist for thousands of
years finally going to go belly up?
As for some others... The Romans lost their empire shortly after the Emperor
converted to Christianity. Oops. (Or maybe it was the lead in the water...)
The Native American cultures sort of bit the big one when the Christians came
and slaughtered them. (Oh my, could there be a trend developing?)
Ditto with some of the South American ones.
I must confess to a lack of knowledge regarding the Aboriginal culture of
Australia, so if anyone has some knowledge of that, please chime in.
A few notable African cultures not only tolerate homosexual acts, they require
it as a "rite of passage" into adulthood. Then again, Africa has been in a state
of perpetual flux since almost the beginning of recorded history, and may not be
the best example.
Regardless, the fact remains that the largest population group on the planet has
no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. If you would like, I could post
interviews -- yes, plural -- where the Dalai Lama addresses it directly.
> Homosexual advocates who liken their "plight" to racial minorities and
> attempt to usurp genuine sympathy on that basis are not different than some
> who seek to make political advances by falsely likening themselves to Jews,
> and to ride the cot-tails of those who are oppressed because of race or
> religion.
Why not? The arguments against homosexuals are the same as those against blacks.
"Gays/niggers spread disease." "Queers/mud people will rape your
daughters/sons." "Giving them rights will destroy the nation!" And on and on...
Don't like the shoes? Stop walking in 'em.
> Your snipping proves that you are, as was suspected, completely uninterested
> in reality when statistics do not speak in favor od your perverse ideas.
Or that they're acquainted with Netiquette, and don't make the readership wade
through endless paragraphs of stuff they're familiar with. Fancy people having
manners and not being boors...
JTEM
"Dionisio" <dmi...@insight.rr.com> wrote
> That's where "Mr. Willie" posted, and that's where a reply
> needed to appear as well.
Although we might all enjoy playing superior, the fact is if
someone is really too stupid to see transparent trolling for
what it is then it is unlikely that you could educate them in
even a dozen responses.
Bruce Garrett
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net>...
In response to "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com>...
MB> The word "homophobe" seems to be designed specifically in response to
MB> the term homosexual, to categorize those who object to immorality.
Uhm...no. It categorizes people who are fearful of, or hostile
toward, homosexual people, in much the same way as the word "xenophobe"
categorizes people who are fearful of, or hostile toward, strangers or
foreigners.
MB> I personally see no sensible basis for the suffix "-phobe", however.
No doubt a xenophobe wouldn't either. So much, so obvious.
MB> Several decades ago, the assertion that there was psychological
MB> disturbance in matters pertaining to same-sex sexual relationship was
MB> quite the opposite. Indeed, DSM-III classified homosexuality (i.e.
MB> listed it as a mental disorder, until a lobby effectively prevailed
MB> upon membership by referendum to declassify it only 29 years ago (1973).
Uhm...no. It was science that prevailed...more specifically, the
fact that there was no scientific basis for classifying homosexuality as a
mental illness. The lobbying on the part of gay and lesbian people was
simply to get the organization to accept the science its own members were
producing. The resistance to that, came from people within the
organization whose minds were closed to the evidence. You go on to quote
some of the most dogged holdouts here:
MB> The reason that I question the sense of the modern use of the term
MB> "-phobe", hoping to dismiss those who are opposed to immoral behavior
MB> as irrationally fearful is that there is good cause for some emotional
MB> caution, or "fear" in apporaching these matters, and I quote:
You quote. Yes. Quite. And =who= is it you're quoting?
Why...surprise, surprise...it's NARTH:
http://www.narth.com/docs/studyconfirms.html
NARTH is an objective source, like the Republican National
Committed is a non-partisan organization. NARTH has a long history of
misrepresenting the research of others, to support it's own a-priori dogmas
about homosexuals, and homosexuality. None, repeat, none of their work is
itself peer reviewed.
I see you were bellyaching in another post that "Don"
<calldo...@earthlink.net> wasn't interested in reality:
"Your snipping proves that you are, as was suspected, completely
uninterested in reality when statistics do not speak in favor
od your perverse ideas."
Oh really? Well your failure to cite your source on those so
called statistics on homosexual psychological disorders, surely reveals your
utter intellectual dishonesty on this subject, doesn't it Mark? If you
know about NARTH enough to look to them for ammunition, you surely know how
controversial they are. But instead of telling people in your post that
you were citing not Sandfort, but NARTH, you deliberately allowed them to
think that the facts you presented were what the Sandfort study said, and
not merely what NARTH says they said. That really says all there is to say
about your regard for reality here, doesn't it.
So. You personally see no sensible basis for the word 'homophobe',
do you? How about just plain old, 'Bigot'...? That one suit you?
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com
Political cartoons at http://www.brucegarrett.com/cartoon.htm
Skywatcher Stories Back Up.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQEVAwUBPFnYKJo33Y/gFaKRAQE62wgAk0kwbVkiUjlxiM11m8Gm4RvOfjXYC568
BvKoHxQyJKUOGLyit6hcsHyUyLzSLc+qaVXo1OvaNqco/g1l6n63w2wtGhzahsvQ
cW6k6WSK/5g7zhMoOm3BFYX8Lkvi9gz2r0nuky3ty5rcV3f900ORv3CjV5J1qY/C
eHHQr+NMJ5l3L/wNjHdpx946BtxprWJSb+uNS2VYroOJgFuFdKEc//t9jyZi+Gb5
LcKJG4lityUvV8LPL/ZcwayUxkvv8ASuOui6L91IreCZe03a0a5IL5fcCVxIqpJz
/yu2KPYtO3dW0EN82fY/Em0pgrI7P5+/8zviLEHHxQn84vrYeZkDUg==
=kOcy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Bassett
news:3C59D1C5...@insight.rr.com...
> M Bassett wrote:
>
> > The United States had a period of racism, as have all developing
cultures
> > which were faced with confrontation of people from other racial
backgrounds.
> > Homosexual behavior however, is nothing new to any culture and has been
> > soundly rejected in general by virtually all civilizations through
history,
> > except when their measures of corruption and self-discipline met going
> > opposite ways, and the end of the culture was near at hand.
>
> Ah, so when are the Asian cultures that have been Buddhist for thousands
of
> years finally going to go belly up?
You think that all the countries and kingdoms of Asia have existed in
perpetuity?
> As for some others... The Romans lost their empire shortly after the
Emperor
> converted to Christianity. Oops. (Or maybe it was the lead in the
water...)
Roman moral degeneracy is the subject of extensive literature.
> The Native American cultures sort of bit the big one when the Christians
came
> and slaughtered them. (Oh my, could there be a trend developing?)
Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian cultures
did. You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
that condition to develop.
> Ditto with some of the South American ones.
>
> I must confess to a lack of knowledge regarding the Aboriginal culture of
> Australia, so if anyone has some knowledge of that, please chime in.
>
> A few notable African cultures not only tolerate homosexual acts, they
require
> it as a "rite of passage" into adulthood. Then again, Africa has been in a
state
> of perpetual flux since almost the beginning of recorded history, and may
not be
> the best example.
Yeah, probably not. The AIDS statistics don't do much for you either -
rather like the effect of the same AIDS statistics on the supposedly
celibate RC priesthood that have frequent run ins with the law for
molestation of boys.
> Regardless, the fact remains that the largest population group on the
planet has
> no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. If you would like, I could post
> interviews -- yes, plural -- where the Dalai Lama addresses it directly.
Hmmm... you have sprung a new one on me. I did not know that Tibetans were
the largest population group on earth. I DID realize however, that the
deposed monarch pretends to speak for many people.
> > Homosexual advocates who liken their "plight" to racial minorities and
> > attempt to usurp genuine sympathy on that basis are not different than
some
> > who seek to make political advances by falsely likening themselves to
Jews,
> > and to ride the cot-tails of those who are oppressed because of race or
> > religion.
>
> Why not? The arguments against homosexuals are the same as those against
blacks.
> "Gays/niggers spread disease." "Queers/mud people will rape your
> daughters/sons." "Giving them rights will destroy the nation!" And on and
on...
> Don't like the shoes? Stop walking in 'em.
You are cosumed with the science of propoaganda, and are evidently not
interested in standing in the open without such misdirection.
> > Your snipping proves that you are, as was suspected, completely
uninterested
> > in reality when statistics do not speak in favor od your perverse ideas.
>
> Or that they're acquainted with Netiquette, and don't make the readership
wade
> through endless paragraphs of stuff they're familiar with. Fancy people
having
> manners and not being boors...
It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend to
be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested. Lets talk about
17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
genuine "dandy" now?
Fenris
<mba...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Homosexual behavior however, is nothing new to any culture and has been
>soundly rejected in general by virtually all civilizations through history,
>except when their measures of corruption and self-discipline met going
>opposite ways, and the end of the culture was near at hand.
Gee, wasn't the case for the Greeks, and here's what John Boswell has to
say about Rome:
"In a now famous remark, Edward Gibbon observed that 'of the first fifteen
emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely
correct,' meaning heterosexual. If Gibbon was right, the Roman Empire was
ruled for almost 200 consecutive years by men whose homosexual interests,
if not exclusive, were sufficiently noteworthy to be recorded for
posterity."
Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality," p. 61
>Homosexual advocates who liken their "plight" to racial minorities and
>attempt to usurp genuine sympathy on that basis are not different than some
>who seek to make political advances by falsely likening themselves to Jews,
>and to ride the cot-tails of those who are oppressed because of race or
>religion.
Tha nature of bigtory is always the same. See Gordon Allport, "The Nature
of Prejudice."
See the last five paragraphs of this:
An American Psychological Association Statement on Homosexuality
The following is an excerpt from a published statement, January 26,
1990, by Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director for Professional
Practice with the American Psychological Association. Prior to joining APA,
Dr. Welch practiced in the mental health delivery system for 15 years.
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is
neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a
minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study
after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians.
Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational
adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as
well as heterosexuals.
Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research
suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the
life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten
percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across
cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of
a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of
homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral
codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to
repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in
psychological accoutrements.
All targets of discrimination, be they blacks, women, handicapped,
or religious sects, have a uniquely horrible dimension to their
suffering. This is true for gay men and lesbians as well. Psychologically,
sexuality and sexual orientation represent life forces which form the most
sensitive bedrock of our being. They not only shape our attitudes and our
passions, but they are so fundamental to our personality structure that they,
in large part, determine our sense of personal cohesiveness and our level
of comfort in the world. They are the driving force with which we love,
work, and create.
For patients (in psychotherapy), the societal assumption that
homosexuality (is) sick and/or immoral creates(s) an emotional,
sensual, and spiritual prison where self-expression, love, and the deepest
forms of human connectedness (are) stultified though anguishing guilt and
self-loathing. For those of us in psychology who have had this kind
of experience working with gay men and lesbians, the impact has been
quite profound. For over two decades now, the American Psychological
Association has advocated the elimination of discrimination against
gay men and lesbians.
Finally, if one thinks about the vast real problems confronting
our society and attacking our family structure--problems such as
family violence, divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, homelessness,
and isolation, it becomes clear that individuals who are obsessed with how
a minority of our citizens express love and sexuality have, indeed,
established a most peculiar set of priorities, both for themselves and
for others.
Healthy and secure heterosexuals do not feel threatened by
homosexuality. Healthy heterosexuals don't need to oppress
homosexuals. Healthy heterosexuals donšt need to repair homosexuals.
The real issue confronting our society today is not why people
seek love and understanding as they do, but why some seem so unable to
love and understand at all.
Fenris
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian
cultures did.
In the name of Christ, believing themselves to be Christians.
>You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
>that condition to develop.
Nice projection, Mark.
JTEM
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote
> An idiot, "M Bassett" <mba...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Homosexual behavior however, is nothing new to any culture
> > and has been soundly rejected in general by virtually all
> > civilizations through history,
> Gee, wasn't the case for the Greeks, and here's what John
> Boswell has to say about Rome:
[---snip Rome---]
Modern cultures don't even agree on what exactly constitutes
"homosexuality," much less whether it's good or bad. For all
practical purposes homosexuality -- as we understand it today --
simply did not exist in many cultures. That is not to say that
there weren't always men & women who were attracted to their
own gender, what it means is that the societies saw no distinction
between those men and woman and the rest of the population.
In Ancient Greece, a man who allowed himself to be penetrated
by someone of a lesser stature would almost certainly be looked
down on. However, the same man would probably go unnoticed
if he was the one doing the penetrating. There just wouldn't be
a noticeable distinction between him and the rest of society. Having
sex was something they all shared and the gender of the partner
simply didn't matter.
Of course, attraction towards other men or not, an ancient roman
or Greek from a good family would still be expected to have
a wife. Sexual gratification was irrelevant, she was property, a
field in which to plant his children. Marriage for love, like
homosexuality as we know it, is a modern concept.
Dionisio
> You quote. Yes. Quite. And =who= is it you're quoting?
> Why...surprise, surprise...it's NARTH:
I rather like NARTH.
On May 17, 1997 NARTH announced the results of a two year study of 860 clients
and their more than 200 psychologists and therapists. Their claimed results:
* When they entered therapy 68% of the clients identified themselves as totally
or almost exclusively homosexual; 22% said they were more homosexual than
heterosexual
* When they left therapy, 13% saw themselves as totally or almost entirely gay;
33% said they were exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual.
Looking at the numbers, we see that 284 people came out as "straight." And 189
classifiable as bisexual when they went in. That means there was a 66%, or
two-thirds "failure rate." Impressive.
And their leader, Charles Socarides... Oh you couldn't get a more classic
exercise in irony! Although his claim is that homosexuality is caused by
ineffective parenting on the part of the father, or abuse, and that
homosexuality is a "disorder" that is "curable," he has a homosexual son on whom
he's tried his "treatments." His son is still homosexual, and worked for
President Clinton. (And if homosexuality really IS caused by abuse, perhaps it
would be in the public interest to lock the guy up.)
Mark Bassett
> In article <iSl68.29576$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net>, "Mark Bassett"
> <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian
> cultures did.
>
> In the name of Christ, believing themselves to be Christians.
People who do not have the substance of what they claim are always
dangerous, from the man who pretends to be a cop and carries a loaded gun,
to the man who pretends to be a doctor, and practices surgery.
> >You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
> >that condition to develop.
> Nice projection, Mark.
Its my opinion, and I think it is reasonable to understand that a prejudice
(and yes, people who engage in homosexual behavior have significant
prejudice, not to mention a victim mentality and all the accompanying
problems) does indeed develop with hatred, and lessens the individuals
access to an open mind.
Mark Bassett
L. Michael Roberts
>
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.229.223.phnx.grid.net...
> > In article <%d768.2445$I5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "me"
> > <robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Yeah, I know both the Gospel and the Torah; both of which clearly condemn
> > >homosexuality.
> >
> > No they don't; there are some passages which are misinterpreted that way
> > by homophobes, like yourself.
>
> The word "homophobe" seems to be designed specifically in response to the
> term homosexual, to categorize those who object to immorality. I personally
> see no sensible basis for the suffix "-phobe", however.
The word homophobe was coined by a heterosexual psychologist to
describe those who have an irrational fear of homosexuals and
homosexuality. It has nothing to do with morality or immorality as
it is a scientific/medical term.
>
> Several decades ago, the assertion that there was psychological disturbance
> in matters pertaining to same-sex sexual relationship was quite the
> opposite. Indeed, DSM-III classified homosexuality (i.e. listed it as a
> mental disorder, until a lobby effectively prevailed upon membership by
> referendum to declassify it only 29 years ago (1973).
Excuse me? Are you totally oblivious to the science that was
behind the declassification? The only reason homosexuality was
classified as a disorder in the first place was because mental
health professionals were only seeing those gays with problems in
their offices. This is akin to taking a survey on cavities in
dentist's waiting rooms and then declaring that the vast majority of
people have cavities! Once the mental health people began to look
at gays were did not have psychological problems, the picture
changed. Here is some more detailed information so that you can
eliminate your ignorance on the subject:
The APA membership voted 58% to 37% to remove homosexuality from the
DSM with 5% of the membership not returning their ballots. Even if
all 5% of the non-voters felt homosexuality to be a mental disorder,
that makes the vote 58% to 42%, a difference of 16%. As it is, the
21% difference between the two camps would be called a landslide if
this were a political election. The executive board of the APA
agreed and voted unanimously 7-0 to remove homosexuality from the
DSM. In November 1974, months after the conference and initial vote,
the 13 member APA board of trustees voted unanimously to uphold the
members decision.
In the past...
The father of modern psychoanalysis is considered to be Sigmund
Freud. Freud felt that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed
as a form of pathology. In a now famous letter to an American mother
in 1935, Freud wrote:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be
ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an
illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function
produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly
respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been
homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato,
Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to
persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too...." [from the
American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786].
Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality have had
considerable medical and social influences in the past, these
theories had not been subjected to rigorous empirical testing prior
to 1957. Instead, they had been based on analysts' clinical
observations of patients already known by therapists to be
homosexual.
Two major problems result from this procedure. First, the analyst's
theoretical orientations, expectations, and personal attitudes are
likely to bias her or his observations. This is why scientists take
great pains in their studies to ensure that the researchers who
actually collect the data do not have expectations about how a
particular research participant will respond. An example is the
"double blind" procedure used in many experiments. Such procedures
had not been used in clinical psychoanalytic studies of
homosexuality prior to the Hooker study.
A second problem with early psychoanalytic studies is that they
have only examined homosexuals who were already under psychiatric
care in other words, homosexuals who were seeking treatment or
therapy. This is akin to going to dentist waiting rooms and doing a
survey of tooth decay and then announcing that the vast majority of
the population has serious cavity problems.
Patients, however, are probably not representative of well adjusted
individuals in the general population. Just as it would be
inappropriate to draw conclusions about all heterosexuals based only
on data from heterosexual psychiatric patients, we cannot generalize
from observations of homosexual patients to the entire population of
gay men and lesbians.
Although dispassionate scientific research on homosexuality was
largely absent from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and
medicine during the first half of the twentieth century, some
researchers remained unconvinced that all homosexual individuals
were mentally ill or socially misfit. Berube (1990) reported the
results of previously unpublished studies conducted by military
physicians and researchers during W.W.II. These studies challenged
the equation of homosexuality with psychopathology, as well as the
stereotype that homosexual recruits could not be good soldiers.
A common conclusion in their wartime studies was that, in the words
of Maj. Carl H. Jonas, who studied fifty three white and seven black
men at Camp Haan, California, "overt homosexuality occurs in a
heterogeneous group of individuals." Dr. Clements Fry, director of
the Yale University student clinic, and Edna Rostow, a social
worker, who together studied the service records of 183 servicemen,
discovered that there was no evidence to support the common belief
that "homosexuality is uniformly correlated with specific
personality traits" and concluded that generalizations about the
homosexual personality "are not yet reliable."
The Pentagon has commissioned a number of studies - mostly to find
ammunition to continue excluding gays from the military. The forces
biggest claim is that gays are more likely to be blackmailed. In a
closeted military with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, this may be
correct. In Militaries such as those of Israel and Canada where
gays serve openly, blackmail is not an issue since everybody already
knows. The Pentagon has simply shelved such taxpayer funded studies
to gather dust when the results did not agree with what the military
was looking for.
The beginnings or real research...
Today, a large body of published empirical research clearly refutes
the notion that homosexuality per se is indicative of or correlated
with psychopathology. One of the first and most famous published
studies in this area was conducted by psychologist Evelyn Hooker.
Hooker's study
Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects.
First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of
homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether
homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological
adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she
recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally
in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to
rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual
orientation.
This method addressed an important source of bias that had been a
feature so many previous studies on homosexuality.
Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach,
Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS]
Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited
through community organizations. The two groups were matched for
age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time
of the study.
Unaware of each subject's sexual orientation, two
independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men's overall adjustment
using a 5 point scale. They classified two thirds of the
heterosexuals and two thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest
categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach
protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not
distinguish respondents' sexual orientation at a level better than
chance. The were experts who believe that homosexuality was a mental
illness, and yet they could NOT determine who was homosexual using
standard tests.
A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate
the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach
responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexual and
heterosexuals did not differ significantly.
Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality as a
clinical entity does not exist and that homosexuality is not
inherently associated with psychopathology.
Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other
investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971),
for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and
heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered
objectively scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions
were similar to those of Hooker.
Although some investigations published since Hooker's study
have claimed to support the view of homosexuality as pathological,
they have been methodologically weak. Many used only clinical or
incarcerated samples, for example, from which generalizations to the
population at large are not possible. Others failed to safeguard the
data collection procedures from possible biases by the investigators
for example, a man's psychological functioning would be evaluated by
his own psychoanalyst, who was simultaneously treating him for his
homosexuality.
Some studies found differences between homosexual and
heterosexual respondents, and then assumed that those differences
indicated pathology in the homosexuals. For example, heterosexual
and homosexual respondents might report different kinds of childhood
experiences or family relationships. It would then be incorrectly
assumed that the patterns reported by the homosexuals indicated
pathology - even though there were no differences in psychological
functioning between the two groups.
The weight of evidence
In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and
heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found
that, although some differences have been observed in test results
between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently
score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that
"Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological
disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more
psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality"
(Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart,
Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980).
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing
cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists
have radically altered their views during the last two decades.
Removal from the DSM
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled by changing
social norms and the development of an active gay community in the
United States, led the Board of Directors of the American
Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Their decision was supported in 1974 by a vote of the membership.
The APA membership voted 58% to 37% to remove homosexuality from the
DSM with 5% of the membership not returning their ballots. Even if
all 5% of the non voters felt homosexuality to be a mental disorder,
that makes the vote 58% to 42%, a difference of 16%. The 21%
difference between the two camps would be called a landslide if this
were a political election.
The executive board of the APA agreed and voted unanimously 7-0 to
remove homosexuality from the DSM. In November 1974, months after
the conference and initial vote, the 13 member APA board of trustees
voted unanimously to uphold the members decision.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality,
was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. In 1986, the
diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of
ego-dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under
Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent
and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American
Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of
the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).
Reparative Therapy
Some groups, mostly religious or affiliated with religious
organizations, have made the claim that they can "change' or
"repair" homosexuals. The major proponents of this line of thinking
is an organization called NARTH which advocates "reparative
therapy".
Examining the claims of NARTH, one finds that even their own
published data, scanty as it is, is internally inconsistent and
never actually claims to "cure" homosexuality, only to modify
homosexual behaviour. NARTH has never given a detailed account of
the clinical methodology used in their "treatments". NARTH have
never submitted any of their findings for publication in reputable
peer reviewed journal - rather the papers appear in the "vanity
press" or in publications with strong ties to religious organization
(for reviews, see Haldeman, 1991, 1994).
Another issue is the lack of adequate classification of the
patient's initial sexual orientation. Naturally it is easier for a
highly motivated bi-sexual to repress homosexuality and adopt a
heterosexual behaviour pattern.
There is also a complete absence of any long term follow up of
patients who have undergone this "reparative therapy", or any review
of patients by independent professionals. Without proper follow up
study, any claims made for the efficacy of the therapy are worthless
as there is no data available on the success rate.
The American Psychiatric Association's official web site [
http://www.psych.org/public_info/HOMOSE~1.HTM ] notes that:
"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy
of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual
orientation.... There are a few reports in the literature of efforts
to use psychotherapeutic and counselling techniques to treat persons
troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual;
however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been
replicated."
"There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual
person's deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.
Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion
therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in
internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have
accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted
than those who have not done so."
Reading list
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual.
Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31.
Berube, A. (1990). Coming out under fire: The history of gay men and
women in World War II. New York: Free Press
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982). Results of psychological testing on
homosexual populations. American Behavioral Scientist, 25 (4),
385-396.
Ford, C.S., & Beach, F.A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New
York: Harper & Brothers.
Freedman, M. (1971). Homosexuality and psychological functioning.
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the
illness model of homosexuality. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich
(Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp.
115-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reiss, B.F. (1980). Psychological tests in homosexuality. In
J.Marmor (Ed.), Homosexual behavior: A modern reappraisal (pp.
296-311). New York: Basic Books.
Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The
politics of diagnosis (2nd Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Haldeman, D.C. (1991). Conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians:
A scientific examination. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.),
Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp.
149-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation
conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
62 (2), 221-227.
> The debate concerning identification of abnormal behavior vs normal/abnormal
> psychological compulsion is old and tired, however the sense that homosexual
> behavior is still uniqely objectionable to many people,
Then those people should not engage in homosexual activities!
> and particularly
> offlimit to anyone with a high regard for ancient moral principles is
> undeniable.
Those with religious objections should remember that religion is a
chosen behaviour. One that, under the principally of freedom OF and
FROM religion, they have no right to foist onto others. Orthodox
jews consider the mixing of meat and dairy to be objectionable yet
you do not see them picketing McDonalds for serving cheeseburgers.
If you chose religion says that homosexuality is unacceptable then
by all means avoid homosexuality in your own life and in the lives
of the followers of that chosen religious behaviour... but don't
attempt to foist your beliefs onto others and particularly into the
CIVIL laws of the land which must be religiously neutral!
> So, it is understandable who those who advocate homosexual
> behavior without regard to sanction would seek to identify those who object
> strenuously, and to belittle them as "fearful". However, it doesn't really
> make sense.
No. Only those who have an IRRATIONAL fear of homosexuality are
identified as homophobes.
>
> The reason that I question the sense of the modern use of the term "-phobe",
> hoping to dismiss those who are opposed to immoral behavior as irrationally
> fearful is that there is good cause for some emotional caution, or "fear" in
> apporaching these matters, and I quote:
>
> "That third study (Sandfort et al.) is now available. The Sandfort research
> is particularly significant because it surveyed a large sample of the Dutch
> population (about 7,000 individuals), avoiding convenience samples and the
> potential for bias that such samples can introduce. Of those individuals
> surveyed, 2.8% of the men and 1.4% of the women were classified as
> homosexual.
> The findings," says the authors, "support the assumption that people with
> same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders."
<snip>
I am sure a similar survey of Christians in ancient rome would have
found they they to were at a greater risk for psychiatric
disorders. Any minority that is persecuted by the majority can
expect to have some problems. Once countries live up to the promise
of equality for all before the civil laws of the land, these
problems tend to go away as persecution and bigotry is eliminated.
+==================== L. Michael Roberts =======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Hamilton, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+=================================================================+
Mark Bassett
author below makes some very dogmatic statements that are hard to support
apart from the fervor of personal prejudice.
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.217.144.phnx.grid.net...
Dionisio
> You think that all the countries and kingdoms of Asia have existed in
> perpetuity?
Oh heavens no. (Irony intentional.) Tibet became "part of China" for instance.
Oh, but we were talking of cultures, yes/no? In that case, Tibet still exists.
Ditto Japan. (Or did you think a measly World War destroyed them?) Same with
Siam.
> > As for some others... The Romans lost their empire shortly after the Emperor
>
> > converted to Christianity. Oops. (Or maybe it was the lead in the water...)
>
> Roman moral degeneracy is the subject of extensive literature.
Yes, I know. And much of it cites Emperor Constantine. Odd, no?
> > The Native American cultures sort of bit the big one when the Christians
> came
> > and slaughtered them. (Oh my, could there be a trend developing?)
>
> Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian cultures
> did.
Well, aren't we splitting hairs? Were those "evil men" ever excommunicated? Dare
one paint a picture of dereliction of duty? Yes, I do dare.
Dare one also have the balls to call you a liar? Yes, I do dare. And I dare to
use the very book your religion considers holy. Behold a small list of
documented slaughter, by Christians: Genesis 19:24-25, 22:2; Exodus 21:14, 15,
16, 17, 23, 29, 22:18, 19, 20, 24, 23:27, 32:27; Leviticus 20:2, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 21:9, 24:14-16 & 23, 21, 26:17, 22, 29; Numbers 16:31-33,
35, 21:6, 31:1 ; Deuteronomy 13:5, 9-10, 21:18-21, 22:21; Ezekiel 14:9; Matthew
15:4; Acts 5:5 & 10.
You really don't know your religion. 'Tis a shame you claim to be a
representative of it.
> Yeah, probably not. The AIDS statistics don't do much for you either
And would those statistics be "U.S.-centric" or actually manage to cover the
total infected population? (A population that just happens to be mostly
straight...)
> > Regardless, the fact remains that the largest population group on the planet
> has
> > no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. If you would like, I could post
> > interviews -- yes, plural -- where the Dalai Lama addresses it directly.
>
> Hmmm... you have sprung a new one on me. I did not know that Tibetans were
> the largest population group on earth. I DID realize however, that the
> deposed monarch pretends to speak for many people.
Buddhists, my dear one, Buddhists. Only a small percentage of the population can
come from any one geographic location. Religion, however, has no such barriers.
(Otherwise, all the Christians on the planet would have to be crammed inside the
boundaries of Jerusalem. A prospect that makes the sardine can look positively
roomy by comparison.)
> > Why not? The arguments against homosexuals are the same as those against
> blacks.
> > "Gays/niggers spread disease." "Queers/mud people will rape your
> > daughters/sons." "Giving them rights will destroy the nation!" And on and
> on...
> > Don't like the shoes? Stop walking in 'em.
>
> You are cosumed with the science of propoaganda, and are evidently not
> interested in standing in the open without such misdirection.
So, you claim that the reasons people argue against treating homosexuals as
humans are different from the reasons that people argued against treating blacks
as humans? That the reasons that certain people argue that gays shouldn't have
the right to seek redress of grievances are different from the reasons that
people argued against women having those same rights? You claim that the reasons
are not the same? Well, in that case, stand forth and present your reasoning.
That's right. I encourage you to engage in speech that goes beyond the mere
"sound bite." Live up to it. I dare you.
> It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend to
> be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested. Lets talk about
> 17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
> genuine "dandy" now?
Alas, I prefer functional clothing. Frills and lace were never my thing. Oh, and
what was that about "propaganda" you were speaking of not so long ago? Alas,
propaganda sans a stereotype isn't all that effective. Is it? Poor dear, it must
be Hell confronting somebody who doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Oh
well...
You'll get over it, or you'll go insane. Either way, we win. :p
Dionisio
> Gee, wasn't the case for the Greeks, and here's what John Boswell has to
> say about Rome:
Screw Boswell. Let's cut to the chase: Rome is still there. Oddly enough, it has
some "very close" ties with the Vatican... Let the innuendo "roam free."
Mark Bassett
> Well, aren't we splitting hairs? Were those "evil men" ever
excommunicated? Dare
> one paint a picture of dereliction of duty? Yes, I do dare.
>
> Dare one also have the balls to call you a liar? Yes, I do dare. And I
dare to
> use the very book your religion considers holy. Behold a small list of
> documented slaughter, by Christians: Genesis 19:24-25, 22:2; Exodus 21:14,
15,
> 16, 17, 23, 29, 22:18, 19, 20, 24, 23:27, 32:27; Leviticus 20:2, 9, 10,
11, 12,
> 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 21:9, 24:14-16 & 23, 21, 26:17, 22, 29; Numbers
16:31-33,
> 35, 21:6, 31:1 ; Deuteronomy 13:5, 9-10, 21:18-21, 22:21; Ezekiel 14:9;
Matthew
> 15:4; Acts 5:5 & 10.
It is probably beneath your dignity, but I do need to point out that the
first 20 or so references are from an era when there was no such thing as a
Christian. Since they are from the New Testament, lets review the last
several.
1) Matt 15:4 - There was no such thing as a New Covenant yet, and thus, no
such thing as a Christian as we know it today (at least in principle), for
none had received the Holy Spirit for regeneration (it was reserved unto the
day of Pentecost a number of months later, when it was poured out with the
establsihment of Jesus' sacrifice.... Nevertheless, here Jesus is citing
civil law in from the Old Testament period.
2) Acts 5:5 - A man who lied to God is shown falling dead, without any
Christian comitting murder, or any violent act occuring (apart from the
lie). You should conisder that when you lie.
3) Acts 5:10 - same as above.
I appreciate that you join people of similar nature to defame with truthless
accusations.
> You really don't know your religion. 'Tis a shame you claim to be a
> representative of it.
I think you have shown yourself to be insincere in this kind of
conversation. Your citations are not even relevant in even once case to the
assertion that you made, sir.
Mark Bassett
> Fenris wrote:
>
> > Gee, wasn't the case for the Greeks, and here's what John Boswell has to
> > say about Rome:
>
> Screw Boswell. Let's cut to the chase: Rome is still there. Oddly enough,
it has
> some "very close" ties with the Vatican... Let the innuendo "roam free."
The Empire of Rome suffered collapse. Earlier you propsoed that Constantine
and 'Christianity' was responsible for collapse that you now suppose did not
happen.
Mark Bassett
"L. Michael Roberts" <no...@NoSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:3C5A0A02...@NoSpamThanks.net...
> Mark Bassett wrote:
> >
> > "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> > news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.229.223.phnx.grid.net...
> > > In article <%d768.2445$I5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"me"
> > > <robynba...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Yeah, I know both the Gospel and the Torah; both of which clearly
condemn
> > > >homosexuality.
> > >
> > > No they don't; there are some passages which are misinterpreted that
way
> > > by homophobes, like yourself.
> >
> > The word "homophobe" seems to be designed specifically in response to
the
> > term homosexual, to categorize those who object to immorality. I
personally
> > see no sensible basis for the suffix "-phobe", however.
>
> The word homophobe was coined by a heterosexual psychologist to
> describe those who have an irrational fear of homosexuals and
> homosexuality. It has nothing to do with morality or immorality as
> it is a scientific/medical term.
But it appears that the word is now used virtually always as I indicated.
> > Several decades ago, the assertion that there was psychological
disturbance
> > in matters pertaining to same-sex sexual relationship was quite the
> > opposite. Indeed, DSM-III classified homosexuality (i.e. listed it as a
> > mental disorder, until a lobby effectively prevailed upon membership by
> > referendum to declassify it only 29 years ago (1973).
>
> Excuse me? Are you totally oblivious to the science that was
> behind the declassification?
Yes, because the cause of declassification was referendum, which may or may
not derive from science.
> The only reason homosexuality was
> classified as a disorder in the first place was because mental
> health professionals were only seeing those gays with problems in
> their offices.
ROTFL! You are a comic.
<snip>
RESTATEMENT:
Fenris
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>The Empire of Rome suffered collapse.
Not because of homosexuality, fool.
Fenris
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>> >Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian
>> cultures did.
>>
>> In the name of Christ, believing themselves to be Christians.
>
>People who do not have the substance of what they claim are always
>dangerous, from the man who pretends to be a cop and carries a loaded gun,
>to the man who pretends to be a doctor, and practices surgery.
And that would be you, yourself, believing that you are a real Christian,
and a judge of who is and who is not really Christian.
>> >You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
>> >that condition to develop.
>
>> Nice projection, Mark.
>
>Its my opinion, and I think it is reasonable to understand that a prejudice
>(and yes, people who engage in homosexual behavior have significant
>prejudice...
Against whom, those who attack them? Duh.
>...not to mention a victim mentality and all the accompanying
>problems) does indeed develop with hatred, and lessens the individuals
>access to an open mind.
Yeh, we should really be open-minded about bigots like you. ;-)
Mark Bassett
> In article <_Pn68.30247$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net>, "Mark Bassett"
> <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian
> >> cultures did.
> >>
> >> In the name of Christ, believing themselves to be Christians.
> >
> >People who do not have the substance of what they claim are always
> >dangerous, from the man who pretends to be a cop and carries a loaded
gun,
> >to the man who pretends to be a doctor, and practices surgery.
>
> And that would be you, yourself, believing that you are a real Christian,
> and a judge of who is and who is not really Christian.
The scripture is the criteria, and not the private opinion of one person or
another.
If indeed God can communicate, and I beleive He can and does, then Peter'ss
words are true, and believers have a "more sure word of prophecy". The
parameters and blueprints for a victorious life are in the scripture. Rest
assured, murderers are not Christians.
Beyond that, those who propose that the Kingdom of God is responsible for
one or many hypocrites who claim to have what they do not arenot being
honest.
Mark Bassett
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.215.178.phnx.grid.net...
> <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >The Empire of Rome suffered collapse.
>
> Not because of homosexuality, fool.
Well friend, if you believe that I wrote that the cause of the collapse of
Rome was homosexuality, you were mistaken. Read again, and you will find no
such claim. If you beleive that I IMPLIED that it was homosexuality, you are
likewise mistaken.
However, I am pointing out that the destruction of moral restraint in
general historically comes towards the end of a societies period of
prosperity and peace.
maf1029
> Oh, yeh, all Dutch parents want their kids to be Gay or Lesbian! ;-)
Yes, they do. Didn't you know that? Hell, my mother wanted 10 gay kids. 20,
even. My Oma would have kicked my ass til hell wouldn't have had it if I
hadn't been gay. ;-)
(Just a question, though -- where these incredibly stupid, idiotic bigots
come up with this crap? They can't be making it up themselves, because that
would take creativity, and we all know the creativity/thinking gene is
mutually exclusive of the asshole-bigot gene).
Don
wrote:
>
>"Don" <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:i95e5u4hl1pgmq6r3...@4ax.com...
>
>> ...Miscellaneous numbers snipped...
>>
>> Your text proves that you are familiar with the popular book entitled,
>> "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS!"
>
>Your snipping proves that you are, as was suspected, completely uninterested
>in reality when statistics do not speak in favor od your perverse ideas.
The numbers alone proved NOTHING! All statistics are based on a small
(tiny) sample of the population. So how was the sample chosen? How
big is the sample? What population does it claim to represent? What
population does it actually represent?
Most of the figures stated are meaningless and misleading alone.
Remember that a statistic is only worthwhile when it satisfies the
assumptions of the model/test. Knowing whether the assumptions are
met is dependant upon the competence of the person running the tests.
Paul Cameron is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of this. Since you quote Paul
Cameron as an expert, you reveal your obvious bias.
maf1029
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote in message
news:iSl68.29576$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net...
> "Dionisio" <dmi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3C59D1C5...@insight.rr.com...
> > M Bassett wrote:
Maybe you should just reinsert your foot into your mouth, because I have
some news for you, toots. There was this little thingy in the Middle Ages
called THE CRUSADES where "good" Christians went tooling about southern
Europe and the Middle East on a killing rampage.
There was also a slight thingy in medieval Europe called THE INQUISITION,
where "good little Christians" burned, tortured, mutilated, and killed
people.
Now, here's a quiz:
1. Who killed Joan of Arc?
2. Who was responsible for the annihaltion of the natives of Hawaii?
3. Who caused apartheid in South Africa?
Answer to all the above: Christians in their zeal to ram the Word of God
Almighty (TM) down the throat of every "heathen" man, woman, and child whom
they didn't like.
There has been more bloodshed, war, poverty, famine, death, and IGNORANCE
caused and created by Christianity than by insane political despots.
Oh, I know, you'll say, "But it was caused by evil men with from Christian
cultures." Well, I'll tell you what: there's a slight logical fallacy in
your argument. Of course, you wouldn't know or care what it is, being a
"good little Christian" and all.
> Evil men with from Christian cultures
> did. You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
> that condition to develop.
And you would know about *that*, godbot.
>
> > Ditto with some of the South American ones.
> >
> > I must confess to a lack of knowledge regarding the Aboriginal culture
of
> > Australia, so if anyone has some knowledge of that, please chime in.
> >
> > A few notable African cultures not only tolerate homosexual acts, they
> require
> > it as a "rite of passage" into adulthood. Then again, Africa has been in
a
> state
> > of perpetual flux since almost the beginning of recorded history, and
may
> not be
> > the best example.
>
> Yeah, probably not. The AIDS statistics don't do much for you either -
The leading transmission method of HIV in Africa is HETEROSEXUAL contact,
moron.
> rather like the effect of the same AIDS statistics on the supposedly
> celibate RC priesthood that have frequent run ins with the law for
> molestation of boys.
The topic is homosexuality, not poedophilia. Do try to keep current.
>
> > Regardless, the fact remains that the largest population group on the
> planet has
> > no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. If you would like, I could
post
> > interviews -- yes, plural -- where the Dalai Lama addresses it directly.
>
> Hmmm... you have sprung a new one on me. I did not know that Tibetans were
> the largest population group on earth. I DID realize however, that the
> deposed monarch pretends to speak for many people.
The Dalai Lama is not a monarch. Dio was speaking of the world population as
a whole. Your lack of historical knowledge, your blatant stupidity, your
rampant homophobia, and your lack of reading comprehension are all duly
noted.
>
> > > Homosexual advocates who liken their "plight" to racial minorities and
> > > attempt to usurp genuine sympathy on that basis are not different than
> some
> > > who seek to make political advances by falsely likening themselves to
> Jews,
> > > and to ride the cot-tails of those who are oppressed because of race
or
> > > religion.
> >
> > Why not? The arguments against homosexuals are the same as those against
> blacks.
> > "Gays/niggers spread disease." "Queers/mud people will rape your
> > daughters/sons." "Giving them rights will destroy the nation!" And on
and
> on...
> > Don't like the shoes? Stop walking in 'em.
>
> You are cosumed with the science of propoaganda, and are evidently not
> interested in standing in the open without such misdirection.
Ah, the tried and true "Nyah nayh nyahnyahnyah" refutation. Good show, old
chap.
>
> > > Your snipping proves that you are, as was suspected, completely
> uninterested
> > > in reality when statistics do not speak in favor od your perverse
ideas.
> >
> > Or that they're acquainted with Netiquette, and don't make the
readership
> wade
> > through endless paragraphs of stuff they're familiar with. Fancy people
> having
> > manners and not being boors...
>
> It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend
to
> be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested.
So, would it be more appropriate to say "POT KETTLE BLACK" or "And this,
ladies and gentlemen, is a classic example of projection"?
>Lets talk about
> 17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
> genuine "dandy" now?
That was an English term, dipshit.
The common monickers for the French aristocracy were a bit more formal. Your
continued lack of historical knowledge is further noted.
Don
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend to
>be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested. Lets talk about
>17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
>genuine "dandy" now?
Mark, I find it interesting that you answer with "wise cracks" rather
than answer any rebuttals of your comments. You follow the pattern of
insult followed by accusing the other person of being gay. I guess,
to you, that says it all.
Too bad you have been wrong so far in all of your conclusions. Too
bad that you assume that actually means something!
Don
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend to
>be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested. Lets talk about
>17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
>genuine "dandy" now?
Mark, when did you last have sex with a female?
maf1029
>
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.217.144.phnx.grid.net...
> > In article <iSl68.29576$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net>, "Mark
Bassett"
> > <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian
> > cultures did.
> >
> > In the name of Christ, believing themselves to be Christians.
>
> People who do not have the substance of what they claim are always
> dangerous, from the man who pretends to be a cop and carries a loaded gun,
> to the man who pretends to be a doctor, and practices surgery.
To the Scotsman who puts sugar on his porridge.
>
> > >You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
> > >that condition to develop.
>
> > Nice projection, Mark.
>
> Its my opinion, and I think it is reasonable to understand that a
prejudice
> (and yes, people who engage in homosexual behavior have significant
> prejudice,
How eaxctly is being gay prejudiced?
>not to mention a victim mentality and all the >accompanying
> problems)
Cites from the peer-reviewed, psychological literature, please. TIA.
>does indeed develop with hatred, and lessens the individuals
> access to an open mind.
Great, so now this 'phobe thinks we're stupid because we're gay? Unreal.
So, Marky, when you *chose* to become a godbot, exactly how many IQ points
did you have to relinquish for your lifetime membership?
Billy
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote
> The Empire of Rome suffered collapse.
With hundreds of years of growth as a pagan society, Rome
collapsed after the introduction of christianity.
And you mistakenly believe this says something bad about gay
people and good about christians?
maf1029
>
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.215.178.phnx.grid.net...
> > In article <_Pn68.30247$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net>, "Mark
Bassett"
> > <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> >Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian
> > >> cultures did.
> > >>
> > >> In the name of Christ, believing themselves to be Christians.
> > >
> > >People who do not have the substance of what they claim are always
> > >dangerous, from the man who pretends to be a cop and carries a loaded
> gun,
> > >to the man who pretends to be a doctor, and practices surgery.
> >
> > And that would be you, yourself, believing that you are a real
Christian,
> > and a judge of who is and who is not really Christian.
>
> The scripture is the criteria, and not the private opinion of one person
or
> another.
just the "true Christians" with whom you happen to agree? That *would*
explain the unity in having how many thousands of denominations?
> If indeed God can communicate, and I beleive He can and does, then
Peter'ss
> words are true, and believers have a "more sure word of prophecy". The
> parameters and blueprints for a victorious life are in the scripture. Rest
> assured, murderers are not Christians.
Sure. Right. The clergy responsible for the INQUISDITION thought they were,
and they did their fair share of murdering. Manson claims to be a disciple
of God Almighty (TM). Who are you to judge?
> Beyond that, those who propose that the Kingdom of God is responsible for
> one or many hypocrites who claim to have what they do not arenot being
> honest.
God created it all, di he/she/it not? That's what your Bloody Grimoire of
Genocide and Death says. (Check with Genesis, chapter 1).
Billy
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote
> If indeed God can communicate, and I beleive He can and
> does, then Peter'ss words are true,
Given those circumstances, surely you must conclude that God's
words are true. So you believe you are going to hell if you ever
failed to keep Saturday holy... or if you ever ate pork or shell
fish... ever cut your hair...
That, or there's a hole in your (lack of) logic I could fly a B-52
through.
Mark Bassett
"maf1029" <maf...@xhotmailx.com> wrote in message
news:req68.4132$I5.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:_Pn68.30247$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net...
> >
> > "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> > news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.217.144.phnx.grid.net...
> > > In article <iSl68.29576$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net>, "Mark
> Bassett"
> > > <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian
> > > cultures did.
> > >
> > > In the name of Christ, believing themselves to be Christians.
> >
> > People who do not have the substance of what they claim are always
> > dangerous, from the man who pretends to be a cop and carries a loaded
gun,
> > to the man who pretends to be a doctor, and practices surgery.
>
> To the Scotsman who puts sugar on his porridge.
> >
> > > >You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
> > > >that condition to develop.
> >
> > > Nice projection, Mark.
> >
> > Its my opinion, and I think it is reasonable to understand that a
> prejudice
> > (and yes, people who engage in homosexual behavior have significant
> > prejudice,
>
> How eaxctly is being gay prejudiced?
One identifies one's desires as natual, since they provide pleasure. Its the
same way that person with chronic lack of dietary control is prejudiced
toward a different standard of what is reasonable in terms of food intake
than what another might be.
> >not to mention a victim mentality and all the >accompanying
> > problems)
>
> Cites from the peer-reviewed, psychological literature, please. TIA.
>
> >does indeed develop with hatred, and lessens the individuals
> > access to an open mind.
>
> Great, so now this 'phobe thinks we're stupid because we're gay? Unreal.
> So, Marky, when you *chose* to become a godbot, exactly how many IQ points
> did you have to relinquish for your lifetime membership?
Only half the number that I have left and twice what you have.
Mark Bassett
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:06:22 GMT, "Mark Bassett"
> <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> >It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend
to
> >be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested. Lets talk about
> >17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
> >genuine "dandy" now?
>
> Mark, when did you last have sex with a female?
>
> D*
Are religious newsgroups really appropriate for you Don?
Mark Bassett
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:06:22 GMT, "Mark Bassett"
> <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend
to
> >be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested. Lets talk about
> >17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
> >genuine "dandy" now?
>
> Mark, I find it interesting that you answer with "wise cracks" rather
> than answer any rebuttals of your comments. You follow the pattern of
> insult followed by accusing the other person of being gay. I guess,
> to you, that says it all.
When you read the thread, you will notice that my turn to shallow comment
follows well after I received no sincere response from the individual. The
"fancy" individual snipped the data, and went for the throat.
> Too bad you have been wrong so far in all of your conclusions. Too
> bad that you assume that actually means something!
I think we hit the mark with you earlier, Don.
Mark Bassett
>
> "Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:ONp68.31615$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net...
> >
> > "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> > news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.215.178.phnx.grid.net...
> > > In article <_Pn68.30247$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net>, "Mark
> Bassett"
> > > <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >Christians never slaughtered anyone. Evil men with from Christian
> > > >> cultures did.
> > > >>
> > > >> In the name of Christ, believing themselves to be Christians.
> > > >
> > > >People who do not have the substance of what they claim are always
> > > >dangerous, from the man who pretends to be a cop and carries a loaded
> > gun,
> > > >to the man who pretends to be a doctor, and practices surgery.
> > >
> > > And that would be you, yourself, believing that you are a real
> Christian,
> > > and a judge of who is and who is not really Christian.
> >
> > The scripture is the criteria, and not the private opinion of one person
> or
> > another.
> Oh, so, everyone in Christiandom agrees on the menaing of Scripture, or
> just the "true Christians" with whom you happen to agree? That *would*
> explain the unity in having how many thousands of denominations?
No, certainly people disagree. However, that does not mean that there is no
meaning. The notion of lack of absolute truth is a convenient escape from
truth, but not a means of destroying truth. Men and women can find the
message of salvation and divine truth in the Bible. Not all do. Certainly,
bu definition, those who murder have not.
> > If indeed God can communicate, and I beleive He can and does, then
> Peter'ss
> > words are true, and believers have a "more sure word of prophecy". The
> > parameters and blueprints for a victorious life are in the scripture.
Rest
> > assured, murderers are not Christians.
>
> Sure. Right. The clergy responsible for the INQUISDITION thought they
were,
> and they did their fair share of murdering. Manson claims to be a disciple
> of God Almighty (TM). Who are you to judge?
The actions judge the individuals. The Word of God is a pattern for
evaluation. If you are so foolish that you listen to a fish that catch claim
that it is so small that it must be thrown back, then you had best throwa
away your ruler, for it does nothing for you without use. The scripture is
the standard that validates the believer.
> > Beyond that, those who propose that the Kingdom of God is responsible
for
> > one or many hypocrites who claim to have what they do not arenot being
> > honest.
>
> God created it all, di he/she/it not? That's what your Bloody Grimoire of
> Genocide and Death says. (Check with Genesis, chapter 1).
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Mark Bassett
> The numbers alone proved NOTHING! All statistics are based on a small
> (tiny) sample of the population. So how was the sample chosen? How
> big is the sample? What population does it claim to represent? What
> population does it actually represent?
All wonderful questions. :-)
Mark Bassett
>
> "Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:iSl68.29576$B94.4...@news02.optonline.net...
> > "Dionisio" <dmi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C59D1C5...@insight.rr.com...
> > > M Bassett wrote:
> > Christians never slaughtered anyone.
>
> Maybe you should just reinsert your foot into your mouth, because I have
> some news for you, toots. There was this little thingy in the Middle Ages
> called THE CRUSADES where "good" Christians went tooling about southern
> Europe and the Middle East on a killing rampage.
You mean europeans who claimed to be justified by Christianity invaded
various other realms and asserted themselves.
> There was also a slight thingy in medieval Europe called THE INQUISITION,
> where "good little Christians" burned, tortured, mutilated, and killed
> people.
You mean various religious people who claimed to be Christian, but generally
were brainwashed sinners invested with evil by hte vatican eventually
succombed to the evil of pride and religious error, and began to act like
the same devil that led them into such a sick and perverted conditon.
> Now, here's a quiz:
> 1. Who killed Joan of Arc?
> 2. Who was responsible for the annihaltion of the natives of Hawaii?
> 3. Who caused apartheid in South Africa?
> Answer to all the above: Christians in their zeal to ram the Word of God
> Almighty (TM) down the throat of every "heathen" man, woman, and child
whom
> they didn't like.
> There has been more bloodshed, war, poverty, famine, death, and IGNORANCE
> caused and created by Christianity than by insane political despots.
> Oh, I know, you'll say, "But it was caused by evil men with from Christian
> cultures." Well, I'll tell you what: there's a slight logical fallacy in
> your argument. Of course, you wouldn't know or care what it is, being a
> "good little Christian" and all.
Do you make sense occasionally?
> > Evil men with from Christian cultures
> > did. You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
> > that condition to develop.
>
> And you would know about *that*, godbot.
I thought that some of you folks were offended by the idea of engaging in
conversation with the technique of leading by insult? It seems that this is
actually your prefered method.
> > > Ditto with some of the South American ones.
> > >
> > > I must confess to a lack of knowledge regarding the Aboriginal culture
> of
> > > Australia, so if anyone has some knowledge of that, please chime in.
> > >
> > > A few notable African cultures not only tolerate homosexual acts, they
> > require
> > > it as a "rite of passage" into adulthood. Then again, Africa has been
in
> a
> > state
> > > of perpetual flux since almost the beginning of recorded history, and
> may
> > not be
> > > the best example.
> >
> > Yeah, probably not. The AIDS statistics don't do much for you either -
>
> The leading transmission method of HIV in Africa is HETEROSEXUAL contact,
> moron.
Ya think?
Have you followed the conversation at all? You might just want to read what
"Dionisio" wrote above and then dowble talk your way down another deadend.
> > rather like the effect of the same AIDS statistics on the supposedly
> > celibate RC priesthood that have frequent run ins with the law for
> > molestation of boys.
>
> The topic is homosexuality, not poedophilia. Do try to keep current.
Maybe you want to correct me, but I always thought that male/male sexual
contact was homosexuality. Is homosexuality now qualified by the age of the
participants?
> >
> > > Regardless, the fact remains that the largest population group on the
> > planet has
> > > no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. If you would like, I could
> post
> > > interviews -- yes, plural -- where the Dalai Lama addresses it
directly.
> >
> > Hmmm... you have sprung a new one on me. I did not know that Tibetans
were
> > the largest population group on earth. I DID realize however, that the
> > deposed monarch pretends to speak for many people.
>
> The Dalai Lama is not a monarch. Dio was speaking of the world population
as
> a whole. Your lack of historical knowledge, your blatant stupidity, your
> rampant homophobia, and your lack of reading comprehension are all duly
> noted.
I think you yourself have show that you prefer fable to history, and that
you like to insert considerable propaganda into the comments you mae. As to
my being stupid, that may be, but it is unlikely that you have the ability
to measure that, given that you have not begun to discuss measurable facts.
Moreover, while I do object to homosexual activity and its advocates
proposal of amorality that has become common, I certainly am not afraid of
people who are in bondage.
> > > > Homosexual advocates who liken their "plight" to racial minorities
and
> > > > attempt to usurp genuine sympathy on that basis are not different
than
> > some
> > > > who seek to make political advances by falsely likening themselves
to
> > Jews,
> > > > and to ride the cot-tails of those who are oppressed because of race
> or
> > > > religion.
> > >
> > > Why not? The arguments against homosexuals are the same as those
against
> > blacks.
> > > "Gays/niggers spread disease." "Queers/mud people will rape your
> > > daughters/sons." "Giving them rights will destroy the nation!" And on
> and
> > on...
> > > Don't like the shoes? Stop walking in 'em.
> >
> > You are cosumed with the science of propoaganda, and are evidently not
> > interested in standing in the open without such misdirection.
>
> Ah, the tried and true "Nyah nayh nyahnyahnyah" refutation. Good show, old
> chap.
<yawn>
I think that I should withdraw from contact with a person that is so
exceedingly particular, with one final note. Dandys in England and Dandys in
France by any other name are still trivial. When you look back at the moral
and intellectual nature of the articulate parts of societies immediately
before their decline, you recognize much of what I am hearing here.
<plonk>
Pastor Brian
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA (CHARISMA) -- Christian broadcaster and cult
watcher Hank Hanegraaff has lobbed heresy charges at Bishop T.D. Jakes, the
nation's most prominent black preacher.
A stinging critique of Jakes -- touted by some as a successor to Billy
Graham as America's unofficial national evangelist -- appeared in January in
Hanegraaff's magazine, "Christian Research Journal," accusing him of
promoting unbiblical views of the Trinity.
Jerry Buckner, an African American radio host and pastor, wrote the
eight-page article that charges Jakes with promoting modalism, an ancient
heresy that states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different
"modes" of God rather than three unique entities.
"Do we really want a non-Trinitarian to be the spiritual leader of our
country?" Buckner wrote. "The Trinity is the primary truth of New Testament
theology."
While acknowledging that Jakes has "many fine leadership qualities" and has
helped break racial barriers in the United States, Buckner said Jakes is
deceiving his followers by promoting Oneness Pentecostal views. Although
Jakes provided Buckner with a statement that says he believes "there is one
God who manifests Himself in the Trinity--Father, Son and Holy
Spirit"--Buckner claims that Jakes is hiding his ties to Oneness
Pentecostalism in order to be accepted in the mainstream.
Jakes, who pastors the 23,000-member Potter's House Church in Dallas, was
not interviewed for the article. Buckner relied on e- mailed comments from
one of Jakes' key staff members to draw his own conclusions.
"T.D. Jakes is a cult leader and his ministry is a cult," Buckner told
"Charisma" magazine last week. "He needs to repent of his theology if he is
to be considered the next Billy Graham."
It is no secret that Jakes serves as a first assistant to the general bishop
of Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, a Oneness Pentecostal network.
In an interview with "Charisma," Jakes said he traces his spiritual heritage
to both Baptists and Oneness Pentecostals. "I have been shaped by both
denominations. I appreciate both, but am controlled by neither."
The debate over Oneness theology is not new. It divided Pentecostals in
1916, when the Assemblies of God voted to separate from a group of ministers
who insisted on baptizing converts in the name of Jesus rather than in the
name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Buckner branded Jakes a heretic because of the Oneness ties, and because of
a statement on the T.D. Jakes Ministries Web site that says God "exists in
three manifestations." Buckner and Hanegraaff's California-based Christian
Research Institute maintain that the use of the word "manifestation" is
theologically unsound, and they insist that Jakes must correct his view by
stating that the Trinity is "three separate persons."
Jakes said, "I believe in one God. I believe in the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit. I believe that these three are distinct and separate in their
function. Their distinctives are so separate that each has individual
attributes, yet they are one. I do not believe in three Gods."
Jakes said that he baptizes converts in the name of Jesus, like Oneness
Pentecostals do, but he does not make the formula a divisive issue. He was
not worried that the heretic label would stick. "I look forward to the day
when Christians do not judge one another by our diverse associations," he
said, "nor the nuances of semantics, but by our love and the sweet fruit of
Christ in our lives."
(© 2000, Charisma News Service)
maf1029
And this is prejudiced exactly how?
>Its the
> same way that person with chronic lack of dietary control is prejudiced
> toward a different standard of what is reasonable in terms of food intake
> than what another might be.
Now I get it. You don't know what prejudiced means. Gotcha. (Honey, the word
you want is "predisposed.")
>
> > >not to mention a victim mentality and all the >accompanying
> > > problems)
> >
> > Cites from the peer-reviewed, psychological literature, please. TIA.
> >
> > >does indeed develop with hatred, and lessens the individuals
> > > access to an open mind.
> >
> > Great, so now this 'phobe thinks we're stupid because we're gay? Unreal.
> > So, Marky, when you *chose* to become a godbot, exactly how many IQ
points
> > did you have to relinquish for your lifetime membership?
>
> Only half the number that I have left and twice what you have.
And you're proud of this? Given that you couldn't have been that bright to
begin with, half of zero is still zero. As for mine.......... think what you
want. At least I know the meaning of the word "prejudiced" and how to use it
properly in a sentence. And your "knowledge" of history
<snort>............... it must have come from your mistranslated,
prejudicially edited (ever hear of King James??) Holy Grimoire of Death and
Mayhem (TM).
Dump the god crap if you're not going at least learn the basics.
maf1029
So much for the inerrancy of the Bloody Grimoire of Mayhem and Death (TM).
> However, that does not mean that there is no
> meaning.
I totally agree. It can mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your
convenience. Enjoy.
>The notion of lack of absolute truth is a convenient escape from
> truth,
AH!!!! Now I get it. On your planet, truth is qualified. Gotcha. Welcome to
Earth.
>but not a means of destroying truth. Men and women can find the
> message of salvation and divine truth in the Bible. Not all do. Certainly,
> bu definition, those who murder have not.
What? Your Supreme Being, God Almighty (TM), doesn't forgive? I know you're
incapable, but I distinctly remember a theme of "salvation and redemption"
in Christianity.
>
> > > If indeed God can communicate, and I beleive He can and does, then
> > Peter'ss
> > > words are true, and believers have a "more sure word of prophecy". The
> > > parameters and blueprints for a victorious life are in the scripture.
> Rest
> > > assured, murderers are not Christians.
> >
> > Sure. Right. The clergy responsible for the INQUISDITION thought they
> were,
> > and they did their fair share of murdering. Manson claims to be a
disciple
> > of God Almighty (TM). Who are you to judge?
>
> The actions judge the individuals. The Word of God is a pattern for
> evaluation. If you are so foolish that you listen to a fish that catch
claim
> that it is so small that it must be thrown back, then you had best throwa
> away your ruler, for it does nothing for you without use.
"I have no idea what you are talking about."
>The scripture is the standard that validates the believer.
And whose interpretation is right? Which believer should I believe? (ANSWER:
None, as none can show inerrant undertsanding of your error-ridden Holy Writ
of Death and Destruction, copyright 12 AD).
>
> > > Beyond that, those who propose that the Kingdom of God is responsible
> for
> > > one or many hypocrites who claim to have what they do not arenot being
> > > honest.
> >
> > God created it all, di he/she/it not? That's what your Bloody Grimoire
of
> > Genocide and Death says. (Check with Genesis, chapter 1).
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
You wouldn't.
If God created it, he/she/it is responsible for everything, right? And
surely an omnipotent, omniscient being would know about everything in
advance? So, why the hypocrites? After all, it *does* say in Genesis that
Goddiditall, so God is responsible for everything, as he/she/it created it
all. I guess losing half your IQ points damaged your critical thinking and
reading comprehension skills. Darn shame, that was. Bigger shame that you're
proud of that. Biggest shame that you don't care.
Dump the god crap, or at least have the intellectual integrity to learn
about your religion before cramming it down others' throats.
maf1029
Which of course, you have chosen to side-step. So, is this the Jesus
Shuffle, or the Trinity Waltz?
Gavin Wheeler
> First off, I don't have a "problem" as you state, I'm perfectly fine. And
> what is it that you believe, the twisted doctrine of Hitler - that any child
> with anything "wrong", be it a club foot, a cleft palate, or anything,
> should be destroyed?! That's really twisted - and if you think for one
> minute that the Bible supports that crazy belief, then you obviously are
> completely blinded, and unable to comprehend what you read, and therefore,
> there's really not much point in discussing this with you.
[...]
Very good - now, how many of those arguments can also be applied to
the case of homosexuality and those who would use the bible to condemn
it?
"I don't have a "problem" as you state, I'm perfectly fine"?
- Check. *Some* people (gay or straight) have a problem with their
sexuality, but there are plenty who do not on either side of the
fence.
"And what is it that you believe, the twisted doctrine of Hitler[...]"
- Check. Gays were deported too, y'know.
"That's really twisted - and if you think for one minute that the
Bible supports that crazy belief, then you obviously are completely
blinded, and unable to comprehend what you read, and therefore,
there's really not much point in discussing this with you."
- Check. See books like "What the Bible Really Says About
Homosexuality" by Daniel Helminiak for an in depth discussion, but the
biblical 'argument' against homosexuality is very much based on
reading verses the way you want to. Much like your example of the
'Sins of the father'.
"Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination"
seems as clear cut as "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and
fourth generation of those who hate me". Until, that is, you look at
the original text, or just look at the whole bible and start wondering
why the fundies aren't up in arms against black pudding and
mixed-fabric clothing. For that matter, fundamentalist preachers have
a bad reputation for adultery, and *that's* one of the ten
commandments.
L. Michael Roberts
Mark Bassett wrote:
>
> "Don" <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mj2f5u44a6k7o9m75...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:06:22 GMT, "Mark Bassett"
> > <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > >It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend
> to
> > >be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested. Lets talk about
> > >17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
> > >genuine "dandy" now?
> >
> > Mark, I find it interesting that you answer with "wise cracks" rather
> > than answer any rebuttals of your comments. You follow the pattern of
> > insult followed by accusing the other person of being gay. I guess,
> > to you, that says it all.
>
> When you read the thread, you will notice that my turn to shallow comment
> follows well after I received no sincere response from the individual.
Ummmm no! I posted a detailed article about the scientific
findings that led the APA to vote to remove homosexuality from the
DSM and you simply snipped the who serious article without response
and restated your theory. I would definitely rate that as a failure
to prove any serious rebuttal.
<snip 2 end>
+==================== L. Michael Roberts =======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Hamilton, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+=================================================================+
Dionisio
> It is probably beneath your dignity, but I do need to point out that the
> first 20 or so references are from an era when there was no such thing as a
> Christian.
Translation: "We didn't do it, that was the Jews." Such a crafty dodge...
> 1) Matt 15:4 - There was no such thing as a New Covenant yet, and thus, no
> such thing as a Christian as we know it today (at least in principle), for
> none had received the Holy Spirit for regeneration (it was reserved unto the
> day of Pentecost a number of months later, when it was poured out with the
> establsihment of Jesus' sacrifice.... Nevertheless, here Jesus is citing
> civil law in from the Old Testament period.
Translation: "'Thou shalt not kill' didn't apply to them." As to "why," one's
not sure.
> 2) Acts 5:5 - A man who lied to God is shown falling dead, without any
> Christian comitting murder, or any violent act occuring (apart from the
> lie). You should conisder that when you lie.
Oh, God's not Christian... How... "convenient."
--
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio -- Snookems, the white kitty.
And then there's the whole sex thing... Not that I don't enjoy it, but it's kind
of like a trip to Disney Land. You get so excited about a ride on the
Matterhorn. And then when it's over, you realize that you spent all that time in
line for a minute-and-a-half upside-down and the chance to throw up.
--Murphy Brown
Dionisio
> "Dionisio" <dmi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
> > Fenris wrote:
> > > Gee, wasn't the case for the Greeks, and here's what John Boswell has to
> > > say about Rome:
> > Screw Boswell. Let's cut to the chase: Rome is still there. Oddly enough, it
> has
> > some "very close" ties with the Vatican... Let the innuendo "roam free."
>
> The Empire of Rome suffered collapse. Earlier you propsoed that Constantine
> and 'Christianity' was responsible for collapse that you now suppose did not
> happen.
Don't pay attention to detail very well, do you? Examine the message above. Tell
me where you see me talking about the "Roman Empire." No, little one, I speak of
"Rome." Do try to follow the conversation and read what is actually said.
Dionisio
> But it appears that the word is now used virtually always as I indicated.
Welcome to English, a "living language." Motto: "Rules? Rules be boring, man."
Dionisio
> Well friend, if you believe that I wrote that the cause of the collapse of
> Rome was homosexuality, you were mistaken. Read again, and you will find no
> such claim. If you beleive that I IMPLIED that it was homosexuality, you are
> likewise mistaken.
Translation: "I said it was immorality that caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
Homosexuality was part of that. Did you think I meant to imply that it was a
major part? Oh, dear me! How could you have gotten that impression!?"
<dry> Yes, shocking, ain't it?
Dionisio
> How eaxctly is being gay prejudiced?
Perhaps gay men are biased against sleeping with women...
<ducking and running away>
Dionisio
> One identifies one's desires as natual, since they provide pleasure. Its the
> same way that person with chronic lack of dietary control is prejudiced
> toward a different standard of what is reasonable in terms of food intake
> than what another might be.
Nice try. Pity that we know that appetite isn't always mere gluttony on the part
of the obese. Many people have genes that simply doom them collecting extra
insulation. (Excessively efficient fat storage mechanisms, faulty copies of the
"I feel full" gene, and other little oopsies.)
Good attempt to imply that gays have a lack of moral control. I give it a 6.
(But that's because I keep up on the latest scientific research. Others might
well give it an 8.)
--
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio -- Snookems, the white kitty.
"I think it's really silly to hate somebody because of the color of their
skin....because if you really took the time to get to know them, you could find
so many better reasons to hate them"
-- Dennis Miller
Dionisio
> When you read the thread, you will notice that my turn to shallow comment
> follows well after I received no sincere response from the individual. The
> "fancy" individual snipped the data, and went for the throat.
The "fancy" individual happens to be considerate and doesn't force others to
wade through tons of past messages in order to see what is being replied to in
his current message. 'Tis "dandy" that some folks have manners, no?
Dionisio
> "maf1029" <maf...@xhotmailx.com> wrote:
> > God created it all, di he/she/it not? That's what your Bloody Grimoire of
> > Genocide and Death says. (Check with Genesis, chapter 1).
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
<chuckle> Mr. "I know my Christianity" apparently hasn't heard of the story of
Creation...
Bruce Garrett
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net>...
In response to "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com>...
>>> You have a very simplistic view of the world, friend. Hatred helps
>>> that condition to develop.
>> Nice projection, Mark.
MB> Its my opinion, and I think it is reasonable to understand that a
MB> prejudice (and yes, people who engage in homosexual behavior have
MB> significant prejudice, not to mention a victim mentality and all the
MB> accompanying problems) does indeed develop with hatred, and lessens the
MB> individuals access to an open mind.
Nice projection, Mark.
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com
Political cartoons at http://www.brucegarrett.com/cartoon.htm
Skywatcher Stories Back Up.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQEVAwUBPFqfZJo33Y/gFaKRAQH5ugf/SLYWEVx38Ar2BRr29mFNhiEqvpV3/khB
jWDC3K0SeQOKv1u8/PVbIQCTs+4LcYn++00Mx3xVkCT6eXt6Ue+DGeeQmLhEiCoC
i3FbBsVfaNLaxENJxH1SOdEBCHrGnooWapTDImXTDc/3iov8aA9k6rpF5Ebl6EYf
3gxom6A2gZ/PY3oORrvo41HBOf+dxRQqNtSng+Z29BdQv7vv+Lo/5Om1sYKUnmB6
9LmQRuBqc+23WtSux5d5KxtkCDRuHB7kisV7ifv03hBWXOWBEbfMA15EJbDvKQLR
ruU3CpWwZU4hhu/fEIwYlqoKFseRIRRaIl/FheipXBhlPGt6MtdqmQ==
=Jh8L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bruce Garrett
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net>...
In response to "Dionisio" <dmi...@insight.rr.com>...
>> You really don't know your religion. 'Tis a shame you claim to be a
>> representative of it.
MB> I think you have shown yourself to be insincere in this kind of
MB> conversation.
This from someone who posts verbiage copied straight from NARTH's
web site, without mentioning where he got it...
Nice projection, Mark. Or have I already said that.
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com
Political cartoons at http://www.brucegarrett.com/cartoon.htm
Skywatcher Stories Back Up.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQEVAwUBPFqhLpo33Y/gFaKRAQElWwgAj/xa4xnXsDdUSvDrm279cnHXXi9+VKGL
M6hFm2SWLxEPEEwBhMvInyXWEUuOJ6r1B7fTaN2CLO13r6D52LVsK9kxMXVAPi6c
fsPpDwAAtvqsDaSLic2bCRjqS9Piqo7V/SyttAxh9oCnlClYw2A+qM4MockDuhb6
QybOacwgtLagjgEbDzFmHVGF+kEhU3EIxrC2jztJmGCvxfTco9TSCT2iX7q0K+tS
pQ1aoQnQ+GMQpst+2rqSScNs0MwHduVFv2qdlDPv+Wp8w+cYKwnqTaWqGjfqB15q
sH03R7+QP8znWNevCv9seQQnsFyUuw2ZO42RrILU+nKiv+q5wp2eVA==
=+9AH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fenris
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Fenris
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>> >People who do not have the substance of what they claim are always
>> >dangerous, from the man who pretends to be a cop and carries a loaded gun,
>> >to the man who pretends to be a doctor, and practices surgery.
>> And that would be you, yourself, believing that you are a real Christian,
>> and a judge of who is and who is not really Christian.
>
>The scripture is the criteria, and not the private opinion of one person or
>another.
Alas, the B ible is fraught with error and contradiction, and it has been
used to justify endless horrors.
>If indeed God can communicate, and I beleive He can and does then Peter'ss
>words are true...
Ew, now there's a nice chain of logic. You *believe* that God can
communicate; therefore some understanding of some translation of Peter's
puported words are, of necessity, true. Dude, I have a big bridge in NY
that I will be happy to let you have at bargain-baasement prices!
>... and believers have a "more sure word of prophecy". The
>parameters and blueprints for a victorious life are in the scripture. Rest
>assured, murderers are not Christians.
Was it Twain who said that the only problem with Christians is that there
haven't been any?
>Beyond that, those who propose that the Kingdom of God is responsible for
>one or many hypocrites who claim to have what they do not arenot being
>honest.
Who said that God was responsible for any of it?
Fenris
dmi...@insight.bad-part-bad-bad-part.rr.com wrote:
>> > God created it all, di he/she/it not? That's what your Bloody Grimoire of
>> > Genocide and Death says. (Check with Genesis, chapter 1).
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
><chuckle> Mr. "I know my Christianity" apparently hasn't heard of the story of
>Creation...
Which one? : )
Fenris
<NOSPAMpa...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Jerry Buckner, an African American radio host and pastor, wrote the
>eight-page article that charges Jakes with promoting modalism, an ancient
>heresy that states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different
>"modes" of God rather than three unique entities.
Oh horrors!
Fenris
"maf1029" <maf...@xhotmailx.com> wrote:
>"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
>news:nospam-3101...@pool-63.50.229.254.phnx.grid.net...
>> Oh, yeh, all Dutch parents want their kids to be Gay or Lesbian! ;-)
>
>Yes, they do. Didn't you know that? Hell, my mother wanted 10 gay kids. 20,
>even. My Oma would have kicked my ass til hell wouldn't have had it if I
>hadn't been gay. ;-)
>
>(Just a question, though -- where these incredibly stupid, idiotic bigots
>come up with this crap? They can't be making it up themselves, because that
>would take creativity, and we all know the creativity/thinking gene is
>mutually exclusive of the asshole-bigot gene).
Obsession and desperation are the mother of invention. =)
Don
<mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"Don" <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:mj2f5u44a6k7o9m75...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:06:22 GMT, "Mark Bassett"
>> <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >It is not boorish to be concerned with the data. It IS boorish to pretend
>to
>> >be "fancy" when one is merely ignorant and uninterested. Lets talk about
>> >17th and 18th century France now. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a
>> >genuine "dandy" now?
>>
>> Mark, I find it interesting that you answer with "wise cracks" rather
>> than answer any rebuttals of your comments. You follow the pattern of
>> insult followed by accusing the other person of being gay. I guess,
>> to you, that says it all.
>
>When you read the thread, you will notice that my turn to shallow comment
>follows well after I received no sincere response from the individual. The
>"fancy" individual snipped the data, and went for the throat.
>
>> Too bad you have been wrong so far in all of your conclusions. Too
>> bad that you assume that actually means something!
>
>I think we hit the mark with you earlier, Don.
So Mark, when was the last time you had sex...with a female?
D*
Few people can be happy unless they hate some other
person, nation, or creed.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
=============
Are you unmarried? Then do not look for a wife . . .
From now on, those who have wives should live as if they have none.
(1 Corinthians 7:27, 29)
Mr. Willie
TO READ THESE SAD LETTERS THAT HONEST FAGS SENT TO WBC.
Unlike the hypocrites of Exodus International and other phony
so-called "ex-gays," here's the testimony of honest fags. Unlike
money-grubbing heretics like Jerry Falwell and the folks at Focus on
the Family who think if they lie often enough about Jesus Christ and
can get enough money from enough simpletons, then they can deceive
homosexuals into believing they've repented, here are the confessions
of sincere fags. As the publican in Luke 18:13 & 14, so is this fag:
"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful
to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified
rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be
abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." His testimony
reads as follows:
Testimony 1
"Hi Rev. Phelps, or whoever reads these:
I trapped myself into faggotry when I was 19 years old. While I have
to take responsibility for this myself, I can see how our modern
American values made it so easy to turn myself into a fag. I can't be
the only one who got trapped this way.
In an example of kindness that can kill, society seems to no longer
view the sin of sodomy as a sin. Instead, the view now common is that
the temptation to commit buggery is an intrinsic immutable personal
characteristic, as much as having brown eyes or red hair. Therefore it
can't be wrong, so the theory goes.
When I first felt these temptations, I learned not that I was a sinner
but that I had 'awakened' to my own sexual identity. I should 'rejoice
in this characteristic that makes me the individual I am.' This clever
lie not only gave me permission to commit these sins but also indeed
put considerable pressure on me to make these acts the mantle of my
existence and adopt a life that revolved around the act of buggery.
Because after all, to repent and turn from this sin would be 'denying
the reality of my identity' and 'only living a lie.'
With the help of an 'understanding' society, I adopted this view.
Occasionally I sought help (in the wrong places) for the nagging
notion that this was all a horrible, horrible mistake. The apostate
clergy of modern psychology told me that my aversion to my 'sexual
identity' was wrong, I should let go of my inhibitions and go enjoy
the revolving door sex culture of anonymous gay sex.
I reached a depth of despair at my first (and last) 'gay pride'
parade. I saw the most revolting attributes of homosexuality flaunted
as if they were the hallmark achievements of mankind. Vileness,
promiscuity, perversity, and inverted morality (not to mention logic)
were all hailed in an orgy of celebration. It was like a bad science
fiction horror movie of Hades come to Earth.
As the years passed, it was increasingly more difficult to suppress
the growing sense of revulsion I had to those wretched beings with
whom I had cast my lot. I left the city every year on the day of the
'gay pride' orgy. I tried to distance myself from the amoral
antilogical licentious human garbage that collectively calls itself
the 'gay community.'
Currently I still feel the call of this sin, though I no longer act on
it. The final chapter of my odyssey of escape from the clever lies of
an immutable fag nature is perhaps not yet written. But I pray to God
for redemption. I'm not yet sure of the state of my salvation, but if
nothing else, I have turned my back on fag sin and all the evil that
comes with it.
I used to think you people were evil and crazy and persecuted the
righteous. But I am beginning to understand that I have had it exactly
backwards."
Testimony 2
"If it's ok with you, I would like you guys to post my story on your
site like you did with that other guy. Here is my story below, feel
free to correct any spelling. I am not afraid to have my name in
there, so feel free to print it.
My name is F**** G*****. I am now 55 and I have AIDS, my reward for a
life of faggotry and promiscuity. In my lifetime I have had nearly
every venereal disease you could imagine, but none of those could stop
me from my life of sin.
I got involved with sodomy at a very young age. My neighbor was an
upstanding person in the community. Everyone loved him and his wife.
At church he was almost a celebrity. But what I found out that his
wife had not, is that he was a faggot, leading a hidden lifestyle. One
weekend, my parents thought it would be a good idea for me to go
camping with my neighbor while they were out of town. It was a
horrible mistake for all of us.
Alone with this pervert in the woods, there was nobody to stop him
from exposing me to sodomy and all manners of perversion. Years later,
those events damaged my psychological development in high school. I
could never maintain a healthy relationship with females. But things
got worse in college.
When I was a senior in college, I met a professor that was a faggot.
He began telling me that what I was feeling was "normal", and that
those who opposed this sort of behavior were neandethals and backward.
Soon we were having a relationship. It was then that I had considered
myself gay.
What I want people to know at this point is that the gay lifestyle is
not some kind of mirror image of the heterosexual lifestyle. It
involves multiple partners, anonymous sex, and many perversions. It
seemed that I needed to experience more and more perverted activities
to be satisfied. Among the ones I could mention here are pedophilia
and beastiality.
So I continued in my life of faggotry, never truly happy. I claimed I
was proud of it; I marched in parades and chanted the slogans. But
inside I knew there was something wrong. From the first time I called
myself gay, I had always turned to drugs to take away the pain of my
sin. If I ran out of money for drugs, I thought nothing wrong about
going to the nearest rest stop or public restroom, and offering my
services to strangers. Nothing the gay movement could tell me could
make me happy the way the drugs did. They said that the lifestyle was
becoming more accepted, that we were going to be accepted by the
country as normal. But I knew I was not normal, and I suspected many
others know this too.
Still I was involved in the lifesyle until March 24, 1999. I had in
and out of doctors' offices for years, diagnosed and treated for
ghonorrea, scabies, and lice. I thought I had hit the bottom when
diagnosed with herpes in 1995. But on that day in 1999, I learned that
I had tested positive for HIV. The worse thing is that with the
lifestyle I was leading, I could not tell you who gave me that virus.
The reason why I am writing this, and using my real name, is because I
want everyone to know the truth about his lifestyle. I no longer care
about what happens to me. I will be dead soon, and my family disowned
me long ago. I am ashamed of what I did to them and god. When I was
lying in the hospital bed about a month ago, I learned that what I had
done for years was a sin.
Now I felt better knowing that I was right to doubt myself back then.
I have repented to the Lord and know that while my sins are now washed
clean, my duty in my final months on Earth is to warn the world,
especially young males, about the danger of homosexuality.
There is NOTHING normal about it. The media tries to portray faggots
as being entertaining, funny, and just like everyone else. But that
could not be further from the truth. I know because I have been there.
Not a day goes by that I don't regret my sins of the past. If just one
afflicted person reads this and changes there ways before having to
suffer the pain that I have, then I will consider my holy mission
accomplised.
F**** G*****
Philadelphia, PA"
Mark Bassett
"Bruce Garrett" <bgar...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:a3e7f...@drn.newsguy.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net>...
> In response to "Dionisio" <dmi...@insight.rr.com>...
>
> >> You really don't know your religion. 'Tis a shame you claim to be a
> >> representative of it.
>
> MB> I think you have shown yourself to be insincere in this kind of
> MB> conversation.
>
> This from someone who posts verbiage copied straight from NARTH's
> web site, without mentioning where he got it...
>
> Nice projection, Mark. Or have I already said that.
Yes, I think so - but thanks.
Mark Bassett
> Mark Bassett wrote:
>
> > "maf1029" <maf...@xhotmailx.com> wrote:
> > > God created it all, di he/she/it not? That's what your Bloody Grimoire
of
> > > Genocide and Death says. (Check with Genesis, chapter 1).
> >
> > I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> <chuckle> Mr. "I know my Christianity" apparently hasn't heard of the
story of
> Creation...
It amuses some to speak in terms that others do not clearly understand and
then think themselves clever. The question still remains as to what they are
using their organs of communication for. A similar question follows from
the inception off any action. Someone might ask, "why did you start this,
and what end are you acheiving? Are they the same?".
Since you mentioned creation (small 'c', since you arent speaking of the
Creator), there is implicit purpose there. When the human anatomy has it's
use twisted by those who do not understand the purpose of it, or care, then
it is reasonable to expect the Designer to start to pick some up and turn
them around, or remove them from the whole picture, such that that which is
consistent with his purpose can procede unobstructed.
Mark Bassett
> Mark Bassett wrote:
>
> > "Dionisio" <dmi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Fenris wrote:
> > > > Gee, wasn't the case for the Greeks, and here's what John Boswell
has to
> > > > say about Rome:
> > > Screw Boswell. Let's cut to the chase: Rome is still there. Oddly
enough, it
> > has
> > > some "very close" ties with the Vatican... Let the innuendo "roam
free."
> >
> > The Empire of Rome suffered collapse. Earlier you propsoed that
Constantine
> > and 'Christianity' was responsible for collapse that you now suppose did
not
> > happen.
>
> Don't pay attention to detail very well, do you? Examine the message
above. Tell
> me where you see me talking about the "Roman Empire." No, little one, I
speak of
> "Rome." Do try to follow the conversation and read what is actually said.
I thin you need a more intelligent conversation partner, Di.