Jeep thing or sheep thing?

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: >
: > Here's the radical heterosexual agenda
: > http://www.htmlshop.com/java/population.asp Pretty disgusting!
: >
: >
: >
: > :
: > : The problem is that the reality of the homosexual lifestyle isn't
: anything
: > : like the heterosexual family lifestyle. There isn't much of anything
: > : "family" about it. So much of it is a life of promiscuity and
transient
: > : relationships. Some have stable relationships and these days even
adopt
: > : children to have a semblence of a family. But mostly, it just isn't
a
: > : culture that works and never has been.
: >
: > Oh gee let's see. That wouldn't be due to the fact that straight
society
: > forces a lot of these conditions onto gays, does it? Promiscuity? The
: > straight culture has taken AIDS, which should have died out since
everyone
: > "knows" gays only comprise 5% (HA!) of the population, but no, the
: > straights have made it a pandemic. Promiscuity? Like about 75-80% of
those
: > nice straight men getting a quickie from a $10 whore on the way home
from
: > work. Nice role model! (Oh and about 50% of straight women are humping
the
: > meter reader while their brain-dead husbands are at work).
: >
:
: Straight society forces conditions on gays? The whole of our society,
: regardless of race, creed or ethnic background is based on the
heterosexual
: family unit. Inasmuch as people can't fit in to that structure makes it
a
: hardship for them. There is no homosexual family structure. That's part
of
: why there's so much promiscuity in that community and no enduring
stability.
: It's the nature of reality.

Of course it does. It denies then the same rights as straights. It treats
them worse than second class citizens. And you wonder why there is no
stability? There is no family structure because it is not allowed due to
fear baiting from reich wing hatemongers who will spread lies and spurious
information not backed by any credible source.

:
: And the argument isn't about good or bad people (a la cheating spouses),
: it's about even having a chance at an enduring and stable society.
: Straights are indeed quite capable of screwing that up without the help
of
: gays.

No but that tired old bull**** about gays being promiscuous and the implied
fact that straights are not is complete crap.

:
: > :
: > : I think for the vast majority of homosexuals, it's a tremendous curse
to
: > : have to live with. In fact, I think of all the people on the Earth,
God
: > : will probably be most merciful to homosexuals.
: > :
: > : That's how I see it.
: >
: >
: > Fortunately your view doesn't extend past the end of your pointed head.
: >
:
: Having a little trouble formulating an intelligent response? Run out of
: tolerance? C'mon, I know you can do better than that!


There is no response other than what I said for such a ****ing illiterate
remark. How about:

"I think for the vast majority of Blacks, it's a tremendous curse to have
to live with."

"I think for the vast majority of Mexicans, it's a tremendous curse to
have to live with."

"I think for the vast majority of disabled, it's a tremendous curse to
have to live with."

"Lon Stowell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
: Hillary Clinton wrote:
:
: > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : On 17 Jul 2003 17:06:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
: > : : >>>
: > : >>>Or evolution?
: > : >>
: > : >>Evolution theory, and it is just that - a theory,
: > : >
: > : >Wrong. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity.
: >
: > Again, you telegraph your stupidity. Do you know the difference between
a
: > "theory" (colloquial) and a "Scientific Theory?" Hell no! For anyone
to
: > say evolution is a "theory" is the same as saying the earth is flat and
man
: > lived with dinosaurs. Of course we know that is true because we all
watched
: > the Flintstones.... No wonder the United States has lost its
scientific
: > preeminence. There are too many knuckle walking Luddite christians
roaming
: > outside of their cages.
:
: It has always been somewhat amusing [for sick sick sick
: interpretations of amusing] that disbelieving in evolution
: tends to be most common in those geographical areas and
: populations of the USofA that tend to practice it so
: commonly in their livelihood. Also where the number
: of teeth is less than the number of persons, mullet cuts
: are high fashion, Jerry Springer is a national hero, and
: the kinship with the views of a Bin Laden is too close to
: be funny. Folks who can't understand 9/11 and the religious
: kookery necessary for such have plenty of examples of
: a triumph of brainwashing over common sense and education
: right here in the USofA. e.g. our friend above.
:

Thanks for making my point. Always stay tethered to a solid object so you
won't fall off of your flat earth. jesus I can't believe people like this
can simultaneously walk and breathe

"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bmIRa.9110$Bp2.4013@fed1read07...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : DTJ wrote:
> : > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>
>
> :
> :
> : That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners, regardless
> : of the sin.
> :
>
> It's difficult to accept that in the 21st century, grown adults still
> babble about "sin." I'll be these same grown adults don't use a divining
> rod to find water or see a witchdoctor when they are ill
>
>

You presume that people of previous centuries are less enlightened than here
in the 21st century. Hardly the case. Science and technology have
advanced, but our enlightenment, intelligence and philosopy have nothing on
our forebearers. People believe there is sin because they believe in God.
They believe there is right and wrong.

There's nothing antiquated about that. Funny how religion hasn't gone the
way of the flat Earth. There's not enough people who believe that right and
wrong are antiquated.

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:RmIRa.9111$Bp2.9039@fed1read07...
: >
: > "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : Nathan Nagel wrote:
: > : :
: > : That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you
to
: > : accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is
true
: > : whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
: > :
: >
: > Too bad stupidity isn't a "sin"
: >
: >
:
: Harrrumph!!! We'll accept you anyway... good people that we are
:
:

Sorry. Everytime I feel a knife in my back, it has come from another
ignorant holey moaner

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
:
: "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:bmIRa.9110$Bp2.4013@fed1read07...
: >
: > "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : DTJ wrote:
: > : > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
:
: You presume that people of previous centuries are less enlightened than
here
: in the 21st century. Hardly the case. Science and technology have
: advanced, but our enlightenment, intelligence and philosopy have nothing
on
: our forebearers. People believe there is sin because they believe in
God.
: They believe there is right and wrong.
:
: There's nothing antiquated about that. Funny how religion hasn't gone
the
: way of the flat Earth. There's not enough people who believe that right
and
: wrong are antiquated.


1. Right and wrong are not religious concepts. They are ethical values.
2. No, religion hasn't gone the way of the flat earth because there are
always weak minded, addle brained people who believe such crap. However,
the U.S. is the most "churched" of the industrialized powers, the most
violent and also the most sexually repressed. With these shortcomings, we
manage to entertain the rest of the world.

"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OpIRa.9113$Bp2.5649@fed1read07...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Nathan Nagel wrote:
> : >
> : > The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
> : >
> : > nate
> :
> : Where in the Bill of Rights does it mention separation of church and
> : state? Hint, you won't find it. The only think prohibited was a state
> : church as existed in England at the time. Separation of church and
> : state was a concept that came many years later in a court decision as
> : best I recall. Been a long time since I studied this in detail though
> : so I can't quote the court case, but I believe it was as recent as the
> : 1900s.
> :
>
> Wrong
> http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
>
>
The case was in 1947 and was pivotal. It's where the establishment clause
became the separation clause. The Court ruled it unconstitutional for
government "to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever
they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion".

The Jefferson letter doesn't argue or support the same thing as the 1947
case. Even though he used the actual phrase "wall of separation", it was in
reference to his duties as chief executive that the establishment clause
forbade him from proclaiming a national day of fasting and thanksgiving. It
never stopped him nor members of congress from tolerating or engaging in
religious expression while engaged in official duties or while on public
property. No such activities were ever considered an act of establishment,
merely expression.

There's a line somewhere separating two important rights. The right to
religious expression and the right not to have religion imposed by the
government. To champion one while dismissing the other is wrong, IMHO of
course.

> : >
> : > Too bad stupidity isn't a "sin"
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Harrrumph!!! We'll accept you anyway... good people that we are
> :
> :
>
> Sorry. Everytime I feel a knife in my back, it has come from another
> ignorant holey moaner
>

A Christian's worst enemy isn't an anti-Christian, it's another Christian
who behaves badly.

> :
> : Straight society forces conditions on gays? The whole of our society,
> : regardless of race, creed or ethnic background is based on the
heterosexual
> : family unit. Inasmuch as people can't fit in to that structure makes it
a
> : hardship for them. There is no homosexual family structure. That's
part of
> : why there's so much promiscuity in that community and no enduring
stability.
> : It's the nature of reality.
>
> Of course it does. It denies then the same rights as straights. It treats
> them worse than second class citizens. And you wonder why there is no
> stability? There is no family structure because it is not allowed due to
> fear baiting from reich wing hatemongers who will spread lies and spurious
> information not backed by any credible source.
>

Look, there's no doubt that gays have it tough. But no one is stopping gays
from having enduring family structure. It just can't happen. It hasn't
happened in the thousands of years of civilization, with or without present
day "reich wingers" (how cute).

> :
> : And the argument isn't about good or bad people (a la cheating spouses),
> : it's about even having a chance at an enduring and stable society.
> : Straights are indeed quite capable of screwing that up without the help
of
> : gays.
>
> No but that tired old bull**** about gays being promiscuous and the
implied
> fact that straights are not is complete crap.
>

Let's be honest here. Promiscuity among straights doesn't even come close
to that in the gay community.

> :
> : > :
> : > : I think for the vast majority of homosexuals, it's a tremendous
curse to
> : > : have to live with. In fact, I think of all the people on the Earth,
God
> : > : will probably be most merciful to homosexuals.
> : > :
> : > : That's how I see it.
> : >
> : >
> : > Fortunately your view doesn't extend past the end of your pointed
head.
> : >
> :
> : Having a little trouble formulating an intelligent response? Run out of
> : tolerance? C'mon, I know you can do better than that!
>
>
> There is no response other than what I said for such a ****ing illiterate
> remark. How about:
>

No improvement :- (


> "I think for the vast majority of Blacks, it's a tremendous curse to have
> to live with."
>
> "I think for the vast majority of Mexicans, it's a tremendous curse to
> have to live with."
>
> "I think for the vast majority of disabled, it's a tremendous curse to
> have to live with."
>
>

Right out of the old "conservatives are rascists" section of the liberal
playbook.

The fact that there is no enduring homosexual family structure isn't the
Republicans fault nor is it straights fault. It isn't even political.
There's no where for gays to go with it. Redefining marriage to include
pairings or groupings (you fill in the blanks) of various types seems like a
nice gesture of inclusion to our gay friends and loved ones, but it won't
change anything for them and it would open the gates of chaos for the
traditional family and the institutions supporting it. Instead of marriage
being a family institution, it would become legal and moral playground for
adults.

'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:44:00 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's like the stupid (in my city) anti-war protestors that were running
>>around blocking traffic on the city streets during the Iraq war. None of these
>>morons were within even 10,000 feet of a military recruting station, nor were they
>>even near the Federal courthouse or any other major government building. Instead
>>they were down in the oldtown area which is one of these "retail botique"
>>areas, and they weren't even confining themselves to the sidewalks. To me
>>that isn't protesting, it's a bunch of street kids using the pretext of
>>protesting to bother people who had nothing whatsover to do with the war in
>>Iraq, just for the sake of being able to be an asshole to people.
>
>I neither support or deny the anti-war folks. But, the idea of a
>protest is to draw public attention. You do it in public places.
>This is "non-harrasing" protest. When you do it at the "place of
>business" you are stepping across that line that separates
>protesting from heckling.

I'm confused. Say I wanted to protest Proctor and Gambel. Now, would a
more appropriate place for the protest be in front of the P&G headquarters,
or the headquarters of Colgate-Palmolive?

You seem to be asserting that I can protest as much as I like, as long as I
don't subject those that I object to to the protests.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:0koRa.8602$Bp2.2415@fed1read07...
>>
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> :
>> : What was that book called? Ah yes, "Heather Has Two Mommies" for
>elementary
>> : aged students. Everyone with an agenda wants to spread their views
>among
>> : the young. It's an attempt to infuse "values" into the masses using
>public
>> : education.
>>
>> Talk about an "agenda?" The xtian right has caused more damage with their
>> abstinence crap and war against science aka evolution. I don't know where
>> you are, but I'd be more worried about a child be molested by the local
>> priest.
>>
>
>Extreme kooks on any side are dangerous. But to call abstinence "crap" is
>pretty extreme.

I didn't see anyone call abstinence "crap." I saw someone complain about a
group that spreads abstinence crap. The abstinence crap is the people that
advocate teaching abstinence to the exclusion of teaching about sex. The
students don't learn how to protect themselves or what to protect
themselves from. They don't have access to the means to protect
themselves. This leads to the self fulfilling prophecy. If you are
completely ignorant of the results (other than going to Hell) and ill
equipped to protect yourself, the only "safe sex" will be abstinence.

That is why it is "abstinence crap."

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hillary Clinton wrote:

>> Yes it IS a fact. Most child molesters ARE straight!
>> http://danenet.wicip.org/dcccrsa/saissues/childinf.html
>
>If it is, you can't tell it from this "data."

So most molesters are gay?

>... [homosexuals] are only 10% of the total number of the molester population.

Oh, so you admit that you agree that most molesters are straight, but you
apparently just don't like the implications. Perhaps you should try to not
state it in a way that results in you directly contradicting yourself. It
makes you just appear to be a myopic bigot.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Let me dare say the majority of gays also don't subscribe to the radical
>"homosexual agenda".
....
> To portray and promote the homosexual
>lifestyle as equal to the heterosexual lifestyle.

In that one, I'd say that just about all gays (and many straight people)
subscribe to the radical "homosexual agenda."

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>That's your problem Lloyd. People who disagree with you are automatically
>bigots.

I think that Lloyd is a Llying moron (hi Lloyd). However, I think that the
"bigot" term was applied because some of the people in this thread have
prejudged members of a class of people, which is an appropriate use of the
term.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

> : You presume that people of previous centuries are less enlightened than
here
> : in the 21st century. Hardly the case. Science and technology have
> : advanced, but our enlightenment, intelligence and philosopy have nothing
on
> : our forebearers. People believe there is sin because they believe in
God.
> : They believe there is right and wrong.
> :
> : There's nothing antiquated about that. Funny how religion hasn't gone
the
> : way of the flat Earth. There's not enough people who believe that right
and
> : wrong are antiquated.
>
>
> 1. Right and wrong are not religious concepts. They are ethical values.
> 2. No, religion hasn't gone the way of the flat earth because there are
> always weak minded, addle brained people who believe such crap. However,
> the U.S. is the most "churched" of the industrialized powers, the most
> violent and also the most sexually repressed. With these shortcomings, we
> manage to entertain the rest of the world.
>
>

Well, I guess you won't be coming to Sunday School with me this Sunday.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, David Allen wrote:

> Look, there's no doubt that gays have it tough. But no one is stopping
> gays from having enduring family structure.

I *beg* your pardon?

They're not allowed to marry. Many states won't let them adopt. They're
hauled-up on charges if, having lived together for years, they try to file
their taxes jointly. If one of them gets in a car crash, the other one
will be tossed on his ass should he try to attend in the ER -- treated as
any other random stranger to the patient. If they go somewhere that *does*
allow them to marry and get hitched, their home state says "**** you,
we don't recognize your marriage as valid; you're strangers." ALL by law.

And you have the audacity to say there's "no one stopping them from having
enduring family structures"?!

> Let's be honest here. Promiscuity among straights doesn't even come
> close to that in the gay community.

You still haven't answered how you "know" this. What is your source for
this information?

> Right out of the old "conservatives are rascists" section of the liberal
> playbook.

....says the man who says homosexuality is a "tremendous curse" to live
with, never stopping to think that if in fact homosexuals *do* see
themselves as "cursed", which he has yet to support with fact, it might be
attitudes like his that create the curse...

> it won't change anything for them

Don't you think *they're* the ones who should decide that? Or do you think
they're helpless and brainless and unable to determine their own needs?

> and it would open the gates of chaos for the traditional family and the
> institutions supporting it.

Still waiting for your answer on exactly how two homosexuals getting
married would affect, in *any* concrete way, your marriage and your
family.


DS

David Allen wrote:
>
> > : >
> > : > Too bad stupidity isn't a "sin"
> > : >
> > : >
> > :
> > : Harrrumph!!! We'll accept you anyway... good people that we are
> > :
> > :
> >
> > Sorry. Everytime I feel a knife in my back, it has come from another
> > ignorant holey moaner
> >
>
> A Christian's worst enemy isn't an anti-Christian, it's another Christian
> who behaves badly.

I'll drink to that! some of the worst sins have been committed in the
name of Christ, which IIRC is a sin in and of itself... (I've been
going to church for weddings only the past *mumble* years)

nate

Hillary Clinton wrote:
>
> Sorry. Everytime I feel a knife in my back, it has come from another
> ignorant [christian].

Same here - and I'm a Christian. One of the many mistakes you're making
is equating stupid people with God. Strangely, not many people have the
sense enough to realize that "God" does not equal "people", i.e., when a
person hurts me, it wasn't God who did it - it was the person. But God
gets the black eye. Maybe if you realized that, you'd get over your
antagonism towards God.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Thanks for the various comments. If I get to Salt Lake City (maybe by Jeep)
I'll see if I can get to see the 'bone of contention'.

BTW, in anwer to 'nuther Bob's post, I think that child molesters deserve to
have the book flung at them whoever they are; sure it make it worse if they
are in positions of authority and respect, but maybe that's another issue.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:35:24 -0400, Mike Romain <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Do they drive Jeeps?
> >
> >Mike
>
>
> No, jeeps are not allowed on the property that the Mormons
> purchased from the city. That's the major reason that the
> Jeep owners are involved in this thread.
>
> Bob

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:45:53 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There's a line somewhere separating two important rights. The right to
>religious expression and the right not to have religion imposed by the
>government. To champion one while dismissing the other is wrong, IMHO of
>course.

Yet both are clearly laid out in the Constitution:

: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Bob

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:43:50 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>BTW, in anwer to 'nuther Bob's post, I think that child molesters deserve to
>have the book flung at them whoever they are; sure it make it worse if they
>are in positions of authority and respect, but maybe that's another issue.

Me too, but obviously another Church's power in government has
prevented any criminal charges against the criminals that knowingly
concealed criminals and crimes.

Bob