Jeep thing or sheep thing?

"Daniel J Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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"?!
>

That's not what I'm talking about. If homosexuality had the potiential for
having an enduring and stable family structure, it would exist somewhere on
Earth...laws be damned and bigotry be damned. It doesn't.

> > 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?
>

You can read about the issue of gay promiscuity all over the internet.
There's plenty of disagreement out there, accusations and defensiveness to
be sure, but it's pretty plain there's truth to it.

I remember reading about the issue back when AIDS hit the gay community.
*One* of the reasons it spread so quickly was the rampant promiscuity in the
community.

> > 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...
>

Oh please. It's not bigotry to believe that it's a tough thing to be
homosexual. Nor does believing it create it. It doesn't mean much to wake
up in the morning and think "I'm heterosexual". Much more so for
homosexuals. All the world's cultures have roots in the traditional family
structure. To be homosexual is to be outside that "norm". Over the
milennia of human existence, no homosexual based culture or "family" unit
has emerged.

> > 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?
>

Biology determines it.

> > 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.
>

The problem isn't how me and my wife are hurt if Frank and Sam accross the
way are "married". The absurdity of that is obvious.

Marriage is about creating a stable place to raise a family. It isn't about
money, or hospital visitation, or tax returns. To legally redefine marriage
to accomadate those things or to provide a legal and moral playground for
imaginative adults is going in the wrong direction for those of us who
believe the purpose of marriage is all about families.

I'm all for gays being able to solve practical problems such as hospital
visitation or pick their partners children up from school and so on. But we
don't need to redefine marriage to get there.

>
> DS
>

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, David Allen wrote:

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

2> I *beg* your pardon?

2> They're not allowed to marry. Many states won't let them adopt. They're
2> hauled-up on charges if, having lived together for years, they try to
2> file their taxes jointly. If one of them gets in a car crash, the other
2> one will be tossed on his ass should he try to attend in the ER --
2> treated as any other random stranger to the patient. If they go
2> somewhere that *does* allow them to marry and get hitched, their home
2> state says "**** you, we don't recognize your marriage as valid; you're
2> strangers." ALL by law.
2> And you have the audacity to say there's "no one stopping them from
2> having enduring family structures"?!

> That's not what I'm talking about

Excuse me: You said there's nobody stopping gays from having enduring and
stable families. I gave you an accurate and concrete list of how we do
*exactly* that in America. It's exactly what you're talking about.

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

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

> You can read about the issue of gay promiscuity all over the internet.

Oh! You read it on the internet! Well, my apologies, then...if it weren't
true, it wouldn't be on the internet.

> There's plenty of disagreement out there, accusations and defensiveness to
> be sure, but it's pretty plain there's truth to it.

No, it's pretty plain you want to believe it. That's different.

> > ...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...
>
> Oh please.

Yes. Exactly. Please.

3> [gay marriage] won't change anything for them

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

> Biology determines it.

So, biology determines all needs. I see. So, you'd be OK with all of what
you regard as your needs being scrutinized, and those which do not have a
clear and articulable biological root deleted?

> > Still waiting for your answer on exactly how two homosexuals getting
> > married would affect, in *any* concrete way, your marriage and your
> > family.
>
> The problem isn't how me and my wife are hurt if Frank and Sam accross the
> way are "married".

You said it would be chaotic to existing marriages and families. I'm
asking you how. You're not answering.

> Marriage is about creating a stable place to raise a family. It isn't
> about money, or hospital visitation, or tax returns.

Either it is about all of those things, or you should begin work
immediately to ban the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples, and
those who choose not to have children.

You're digging yourself deeper and deeper with every post you make.

DS

Give in, Mike. This is firmly off-topic and will stay that way.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ya but do any of these crazies drive Jeeps?
>
> Mike
>
.....................................

True, except that homosexuals are specifically ruled out.

How accurate the figures are is another matter, but it must be pretty hard
to get hard facts as so much of it goes on in families and among
acquaintances (figures from Britain confirm this), so much won't become
public.

Put the molesters in a Jeep and drive them to court/prison...

DAS.
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hillary Clinton wrote:
> > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > : On 17 Jul 2003 17:08:32 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> > :
> > : >What's "crap" is ONLY teaching abstinence, so teens who engage in sex
> > anyway
> > : >have no idea of how to protect themselves.
> > :
> > : Agreed. I have no issue with teaching children about abstinence and
> > : about how to protect themselves if they don't listen to that message.
> > : The problem is a lot of schools refuse to teach abstinence, and others
> > : refuse to teach about protecting the child.
> >
> > Yeah, schools not teaching anything but abstinence because some
christian
> > militant threatens to sue to school board...
> >
> > :
> > : >You should know most child molestors are heterosexuals.
> > :
> > : This is not a fact. Most reported child molesters may be
> > : heterosexuals. However, due to the stigma attached to being molested
> > : by a homosexual, one can not know how many unreported cases there are.
> > : It is unreasonable to assume that one group is more or less likely to
> > : molest children.
> >
> > 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." Sure most molesters are
> heterosexual ... most people are! The telling data would be the percent
> of the total population who are molesters, and that is not in this data
> set near as I can tell. If homosexuals constitute 5% of the population,
> but 10% of the people who molest children, then they are twice as likely
> to be child molesters as compared to heterosexuals, even though they are
> only 10% of the total number of the molester population.
>
>
> Matt
>

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.

More correctly, it is a bigotted and power hungry maniac CLAIMING
to be a christian...which is impossible for the type.

On 18 Jul 2003 15:10:40 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>Will you be burning heretics?

ROTFLMAO.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:21:19 -0700, Lon Stowell
<[email protected]> wrote:

> More correctly, it is a bigotted and power hungry maniac CLAIMING
> to be a christian...which is impossible for the type.

Say, like, the Pope or one of his Cardinals ?

Bob

On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>
>Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no law
>establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.


No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
that's it, no "religion".

Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?

Bob

I am wondering whether he did, or whether his followers later said he did..

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
..........................................

> Jesus... nice fellow as I remember. Seemed to have a bit of an
> "I am God" complex though.
........................................

All you respondents must be very rich or unemployed or both or in jobs where
nobody notices your output, as you're all spending hours every day posting
to this group...

(Says he, himself posting more than once...)



DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:R2HRa.9086$Bp2.1387@fed1read07...
>
> "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.
>
> :
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>
>>Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no law
>>establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
>
>
>No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
>a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
>schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
>like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
>that's it, no "religion".
>
>Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
>schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?
>
>Bob
Perhaps they've never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, in the early 1800s,
signed by Pres. Adams, which said we are not a Christian country.

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> 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"?!
>>
>
>That's not what I'm talking about. If homosexuality had the potiential for
>having an enduring and stable family structure, it would exist somewhere on
>Earth...laws be damned and bigotry be damned. It doesn't.

How did marriage exist before the church and state teamed up to have it?

>
>> > 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?
>>
>
>You can read about the issue of gay promiscuity all over the internet.
>There's plenty of disagreement out there, accusations and defensiveness to
>be sure, but it's pretty plain there's truth to it.
>
>I remember reading about the issue back when AIDS hit the gay community.
>*One* of the reasons it spread so quickly was the rampant promiscuity in the
>community.

And why is that? Because society will not recognize stable relationships.

>
>> > 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...
>>
>
>Oh please. It's not bigotry to believe that it's a tough thing to be
>homosexual. Nor does believing it create it. It doesn't mean much to wake
>up in the morning and think "I'm heterosexual". Much more so for
>homosexuals. All the world's cultures have roots in the traditional family
>structure.


Sure, Nazism, Marxism, etc. Jim Jones' "Kool-Aid" cult. The KKK was a very
traditional family group.

> To be homosexual is to be outside that "norm".

So is to be Jewish, left-handed, or red-headed.


>Over the
>milennia of human existence, no homosexual based culture or "family" unit
>has emerged.

Perhaps because society kept killing those who dared try?

>
>> > 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?
>>
>
>Biology determines it.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
>The problem isn't how me and my wife are hurt if Frank and Sam accross the
>way are "married". The absurdity of that is obvious.
>
>Marriage is about creating a stable place to raise a family. It isn't about
>money, or hospital visitation, or tax returns.

Then why are those benefits accorded married couples? And are you saying
people who are too old to raise a family should be barred from marrying? Or
if one of the couple is infertile?


> To legally redefine marriage
>to accomadate those things or to provide a legal and moral playground for
>imaginative adults is going in the wrong direction for those of us who
>believe the purpose of marriage is all about families.
>
>I'm all for gays being able to solve practical problems such as hospital
>visitation or pick their partners children up from school and so on. But we
>don't need to redefine marriage to get there.

Then I take it you support civil unions?

>
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>

Liberals tend not to be real hard workers. They generally want someone else
to work
hard so they can collect freebees and live lives free of responsiblity. I
have not met
any that are happy though, mostly just bitter and jealous.

"Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All you respondents must be very rich or unemployed or both or in jobs
where
> nobody notices your output, as you're all spending hours every day posting
> to this group...
>
> (Says he, himself posting more than once...)
>
>
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:R2HRa.9086$Bp2.1387@fed1read07...
> >
> > "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.
> >
> > :
> >
> >
>
>
Liberals tend to not be real hard workers. They generally want someone else
to work
hard so they can collect freebees.

Totally agree - you would have thought they would have fixed it for Netscape
7.0

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:keHRa.9091$Bp2.1950@fed1read07...

: Here's the radical heterosexual agenda
: http://www.htmlshop.com/java/population.asp Pretty disgusting!

Dave, I believe that use of a double conditional with perfect tense is
unwarranted here. I would have used

"one would think they fixed it for Netscape 7.0"

or

"one thinks they would have fixed it for Netscape 7.0"

Don't mention it.

Earle


"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Totally agree - you would have thought they would have fixed it for
Netscape
> 7.0
>
> --
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:keHRa.9091$Bp2.1950@fed1read07...
>
> : Here's the radical heterosexual agenda
> : http://www.htmlshop.com/java/population.asp Pretty disgusting!
>
>
>
>

Personally, I agree with you. However, the state doesn't see it that way,
and there does seem to be a need to create some form of legal relationship
to deal with next of kin, joint living agreements etc. Currently, that is
called marriage, and if the state would like to define something different
for gays that gives them the same legal protection as married people, then
that's fine by me.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Marriage is about creating a stable place to raise a family. It isn't
about
: money, or hospital visitation, or tax returns. To legally redefine
marriage
: to accomadate those things or to provide a legal and moral playground for
: imaginative adults is going in the wrong direction for those of us who
: believe the purpose of marriage is all about families.

Sorry Charlie, it should read
"One would think they HAD fixed it for Netscape 7.1"


Earle Horton wrote:
> Dave, I believe that use of a double conditional with perfect tense is
> unwarranted here. I would have used
>
> "one would think they fixed it for Netscape 7.0"
>
> or
>
> "one thinks they would have fixed it for Netscape 7.0"
>
> Don't mention it.
>
> Earle
>
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Totally agree - you would have thought they would have fixed it for
>
> Netscape
>
>>7.0
>>
>>--
>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>>
>>"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:keHRa.9091$Bp2.1950@fed1read07...
>>
>>: Here's the radical heterosexual agenda
>>: http://www.htmlshop.com/java/population.asp Pretty disgusting!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

In some areas of the USofA, there are "domestic partner" laws
and practices that can apply to same sex or mixed sex shackups.
Mostly they appear to be used for insurance purposes, allowing
members of the shack job to obtain insurance from their employer
for their domestic partner.

With the caution that I am not a lawyer, nor do I care to play
one on TV, I don't believe any of these compacts are worth much
for inheritance, etc. Nor do they appear to have any validity
where they are not recognized. Nor do you have to hire lawyers
and get a judge to get out of one.


Dave Milne wrote:

> Personally, I agree with you. However, the state doesn't see it that way,
> and there does seem to be a need to create some form of legal relationship
> to deal with next of kin, joint living agreements etc. Currently, that is
> called marriage, and if the state would like to define something different
> for gays that gives them the same legal protection as married people, then
> that's fine by me.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Marriage is about creating a stable place to raise a family. It isn't
> about
> : money, or hospital visitation, or tax returns. To legally redefine
> marriage
> : to accomadate those things or to provide a legal and moral playground for
> : imaginative adults is going in the wrong direction for those of us who
> : believe the purpose of marriage is all about families.
>
>

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Dave Milne wrote:

> there does seem to be a need to create some form of legal relationship
> to deal with next of kin, joint living agreements etc. Currently, that
> is called marriage, and if the state would like to define something
> different for gays that gives them the same legal protection as married
> people, then that's fine by me.

Bzzt, no sale. The "Separate but Equal" doctrine was tried in the US in
the 1950s. It was separate, but it surely wasn't anything like equal!

DS

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:15:27 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I am wondering whether he did, or whether his followers later said he did..
>
>DAS

I agree. It bothers me a bit that the earliest writings of his life
were at least 50, and maybe 80 years after his death. Also, as you
mentioned, "followers" have a certain vested interest in the story
an unbiased information - except for the fact that he did indeed
live - is hard to come by.

It's a general problem with the Bible that goes back to the Old
Testament, the Talmud, and the Hebrew committee of authors and
editors. I do find it interesting when the History channel does
a segment where they try to verify biblical facts. They've had
many interesting episodes where they have been able to find and
verify biblical stories. It appears certain that the writers of
the Old Testament could not have been familiar with certain
details by personal experience thus showing that at least some
of the stories were true even as stories.

They recently did one on Jesus, following up on the various stories
of where he was born. By examining housing at the time and also the
meanings of words that may have been distorted, they were able to
show that all of the stories could in fact be true.

As to whether he was the son of God, or whether he said we are all
the children of God and someone distorted that, it's up to you to
decide.

Bob