The Kiss of Death
ar...@lymph.dec
net has been most eloquent. Of course, "Can any good thing come from
a Lymph node?" I didn't flame then and I'm not going to now.
I couched the issue (typical homosexual sexual behavior and secondary
heterosexual sexual behavior as a disease vector and public health
menace, with particular attention to it's impact on the homosexual
movement and goals) in terms of PROMISCUOUS sexual behavior in order
to leave some room for discussion and not just come out with a blanket
rejection of homosexual practices and lifestyle per se.
Here is ANOTHER issue that the homosexual community MUST address and
in fairly short order as the rows of AIDS victims gets longer and more
noticeable in each succeeding Gay Pride march.
How many wheelchairs can Sister Boom Boom push
at one time, like a line of shopping carts?
(Just a little gallows humor there folks. Don't
get your bowels in an uproar. The homosexual
community has provided much gallows humor, such as
the amazing scene in the vaulted gothic chapel of
Union Theological Seminary in upper Manhattan with
speakers for the Gay Men's Health Crisis [see they
DO know about it even if it's not in their advertising]
standing below a large crucifix, graphically explaining
the elements of low-risk sex and distributing
phamphlets advising the assembled to "shower with
your partner as part of your foreplay to check for
sores, swollen glands, etc., of which he may not
be aware." From the Am. Spectator which Ron doesn't
want you to read.
So I say, here is another issue (the other being, you remember, **morals**)
that should be a topic of concern to ALL.
There was a nice innocent repartee about what to do with the toilet seat
after you were finished ( on net.women or net.flame) a while ago.
Ah, for the good old days. Now the burning questions are, did you remember
to paper the seat and can you exit the stall and the lav using only your
elbows? Better yet can you hold it till you get home?
Ron Rizzo quotes Pat Buchanan (a co-author of the Spectator article):
"Pity the poor homosexuals. For years they have violated
nature and now nature is exacting a terrible revenge."
The implication being that pity is far from compassion for Pat (it MUST be
since he does not support homosexual goals) and there is no case to be
made about homosexual behavior being in violation of "nature".
Well, let's look at that one for a minute. In what sense is something
(anything) to be seen as "against nature"? If I insist in jumping off
buildings without a parachute is that against nature? If I cure my
cold by cutting off my toes is THAT against nature? People get put
away (homosexuals beware) for those behaviors. What is the result of
homosexual behavior vis a vis nature??? Well, it is the contention of
one leading British expert, writing in the BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENEREAL
DISEASES in 1982, that the common mouth-anal contact of active
homosexuals carries "the almost inevitable risk of transfer of bowel
pathogens." Ergo the title of this posting.
Even the Arabs (before they got all our money and grew grass and learned
to play soccer) learned to eat only with the right hand and leave the
left for dragging a handful of sand across their bums (is that why they
are so cranky?) when they were done soiling the pristine glory of the
dunes.
The question before the house is, Is it "natural" to consider the
lower bowel to be a sexual organ? Is it analogous to other self
destructive behavior? Sure we can work for a cure, maybe even get one.
Should you continue with the behavior in the mean time? And does the
presence of a cure really answer the question? (you remember, the one
before the house!) If I can fix up broken legs and heads does that mean
that jumping is now NOT againts nature? The broken legs and heads still
happen as a result of a jump. Putting your tongue(or other) up your SO's bum
(male or female) still gets you a bag of germs. I realize the problem this
presents for homosexuals who unlike heterosexuals have not many options
left. Where DO they put things? Perhaps a giant body condom would help?
See below for one private response. I won't say the name but he's
a confused Icelander.
-----------------------------------------------
If ( AIDS == Gods way of punishing homosexuals )
{
VD = Gods way of punishing straights.
}
I think this hole(sic) thing is sic(sic).
Why don't we just find a way to cure both AIDS and VD. It won't be
easy we will have to work together both staraight and gay.
Let me ask Arndt this if you had a disease would you refuse a cure
if it was developed by a gay?
Nuf said.
--------------------------------------------------
Who said anything about God? Who is against a cure? Who wouldn't take
a cure and what does who developed it have to do with ANYTHING???
See what too many chemical milk shakes will do to the old neurons?
Well, enough for now. But guess what? There are also OTHER issues that
the homosexual community should be addressing before Nov.!!
Regards, and keep it to yourself.
Ken Arndt
David Canzi
> In what sense is something
> (anything) to be seen as "against nature"? If I insist in jumping off
> buildings without a parachute is that against nature? ...
> What is the result of
> homosexual behavior vis a vis nature??? Well, it is the contention of
> one leading British expert, writing in the BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENEREAL
> DISEASES in 1982, that the common mouth-anal contact of active
> homosexuals carries "the almost inevitable risk of transfer of bowel
> pathogens." ...
>
> The question before the house is, Is it "natural" to consider the
> lower bowel to be a sexual organ? Is it analogous to other self
> destructive behavior? Sure we can work for a cure, maybe even get one.
Are you still talking about bowel pathogens? They *are* curable, y'know.
> Should you continue with the behavior in the mean time? And does the
> presence of a cure really answer the question? (you remember, the one
> before the house!) If I can fix up broken legs and heads does that mean
> that jumping is now NOT againts nature?
You seem to believe that self-harmful behaviour is unnatural *because* of its
harmful consequences. (You didn't say so explicitly, but you seem to use it
as an assumption in your reasoning.) If, as a result of medical advances,
or of simply being more cautious, such behaviour no longer has harmful
consequences, then it is no longer unnatural. See?
David Canzi, watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
Steve Upstill
to this breeder. I'm having a hard time figuring out what the implications are
of something being natural or unnatural, let alone the semantics of it.
My favorite words on the subject are those of Dr. HIPpocrates, medical sage of
the Berkeley Barb in days long past:
"An unnatural act is one which is impossible for human beings to commit."
Steve U.
Rich Rosen
> (anything) to be seen as "against nature"? If I insist in jumping off
> buildings without a parachute is that against nature? If I cure my
> cold by cutting off my toes is THAT against nature? People get put
> away (homosexuals beware) for those behaviors. What is the result of
> homosexual behavior vis a vis nature??? Well, it is the contention of
> one leading British expert, writing in the BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENEREAL
> DISEASES in 1982, that the common mouth-anal contact of active
> homosexuals carries "the almost inevitable risk of transfer of bowel
> pathogens." Ergo the title of this posting.
"Nature" is simply a word to describe the way things happen and occur "out
there". The problem is often that some people distinguish between "out
there" (the "natural" world) and us (human beings), as if what human beings
did somehow was not "natural". "Nature" is not a set of rules that things
follow (no punishment from a 'mother nature' or a deity for not "obeying"), but
rather a set of observations that describe how things happen. Thus the only
things that are "against nature" are those things that don't happen. And once
they do happen, they're no longer "against nature".
> The question before the house is, Is it "natural" to consider the
> lower bowel to be a sexual organ?
Or the hand, Ken? Or the mind? By the above paragraph, clearly it is
natural to do so since some of the human beings out there (part of what
you call nature) do so.
> Is it analogous to other self destructive behavior?
The use of the word "other" is pretty vacuous; it immediately assumes that
the behavior is self destructive while it pretends to be "asking" if it is.
As usual, no reason is given for assuming that the implied notion is true.
> Sure we can work for a cure, maybe even get one.
> Should you continue with the behavior in the mean time? And does the
> presence of a cure really answer the question? (you remember, the one
> before the house!)
I thought that was already done. Why are all of Ken's questions moot except
to him?
> Perhaps a giant body condom would help?
I'll agree with that in one case in particular. :-)
--
"Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while."
"Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
The devil himself
Gee, Ken; what makes you think that heterosexuals don't get into some
oral-anal contact from time to time? Agreed, it's not the main feature of
heterosexual erotic activity. But then again, it's not the main feature of
homosexual erotic activity.
<_Jym_>
r...@opus.uucp
>net has been most eloquent. Of course, "Can any good thing come from
>a Lymph node?" I didn't flame then and I'm not going to now.
Sorry, Ken - I imagine most people have written off your rantings; silence
is the best they deserve. Actually, I took a minor shot at it. (Don't
mistake network malfunction for approval.:-) Moreover, you were flaming
then and you are now again, though you're apparently too jaded to see it.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...I'm not cynical - just experienced.
Dave Taylor
Gee, I hate to be silly and inane or anything, but why the f*** should
we be discussing MORALS? I suspect that the average person subscribing
to this network does NOT want to read flaming-hot articles that will
burn out the phosphor on their screen from virtrolic hate (good phrase
eh?) (pardon the crass generalization!) on the morality of homosexuality.
If this discussion did take off, all that would occur is that
there would be narrow minded pinheaded twits like, well, umm, gee, yourself,
who would stand on their stack of bibles and biased books etc and spout
about the inherent evil of it, and phrases like 'if God meant man to be
homosexual, he would have allowed two adults of the same sex to procreate'
or perhaps more likely 'Gee, look at all the horrid illnesses that gay
people get...it must surely mean that homosexual people are damned!'
That, my friend (?) is BULLSHIT!
Morality-wise, I couldn't give a f*** about how someone else lives
their life. If they contract some wild disease, I will NOT accuse them of
ruining the capitalistic way of life that we lead, or proving to be another
of them 'commie plots' or whatever you get so gung ho about.
(Gee...I am getting more hostile as I go..soon I might be coughing
and wheezing from the inevitable asbestos that I will be forced to
don)
Sigh. I have this strange feeling that there are some people who
really DO argue for the sake of arguing. Not only that, but you are one
of them.
The worst part is you claim to back your comments up with research.
I know that the 'printed' word is a double-edged sword, but you wield it
with the cunning of a viper. This is NOT complimentary.
I am reminded of the quote "Ahh Religion. What evils have been
done in your name!" (or some permutation of that!). I think we can, in
closing, safely adapt the quote for this situation;
Ahh Research! What evils have been done citing you!
Firmly ensconsed,
Dave Taylor