Prop 8?

Make a point to debate against first instead of your baseless and unrelated rambles.

I don't need to argue with the clown that says that the sky is green because the sky is red.

T
K
O

I made two points. One with the Mailer quote and one about evolution. And a few others.

Your post is again meaningless.

Oh! You mean the Mailer quote about homosexuals not being able to keep females...

Not really the objective is it? What point is there to even discuss here?

No. You come in here and talk non-sense; literally words with no sensibility. You're just another clown arguing the sky is green because the sky is red.

T
K
O

I think that Lightwizard is correct. We are Stalinists in this country. In the country where Freedom is the highest value, we meddle in the sexual practices of free peoples. I have been trying to impress people for years that what is called beastiality( that is a pejoritive, of course) is merely true love between a person and their pet.

No one who has seen the magnificent play, The Goat or Who is Sylvia( written by one of our greatest playwrites, Edward Albee) can fail to recognize that there are people whose sexual needs are unmet because of bigotry.

The story is simple. A man is completely in love with his pet goat. His wife, insanely jealous that he would prefer carnal love with a goat than with her, murders the goat and at the end of the play, drags the body into the living room. The poor husband's incredible anguish brought tears to my eyes.

Lightwizard is correct. My correspondence with the members of NAMBLA and the Animal Lovers reveal that bigotry against those who want NOTHING else but to LOVE, is still alive in America.

Spendius-- Your anecdote about your explanation in a pub regarding lesbians and what they do was quite good. I had a similar experience last year when we were talking about movies in the local tavern. One person mentioned that there was going to be a remake of "Bang the Drum Slowly" --a very sad movie about Baseball and the imminent death of one of the heroes--the pitcher. His best friend was the catcher.

We learned that the remake might use characters from the Academy Award Winning--Brokeback Mountian but we could not decide who would be the pitcher and who the catcher!

Cyclops wrote:

Gays are most specifically not treated like everyone else, and once again, it's highly insulting that you would even claim that. Gays are not allowed to marry the people they are in love with. Surely you can agree with me that marriage is supposed to be a relationship based upon love, not on the base needs of biology.
***********************************************

I agree with Cyclops. The Roman Catholic Church agrees with Cyclops. If homosexuals do love each other and if, AS CYCLOPS SAYS, marriage is based on love, NOT ON THE BASE NEEDS OF BIOLOGY, the Catholic church says that there is absolutely nothing wrong with two homosexuals living together as LONG AS THEY ARE CELIBATE IN THEIR MARRIAGE AND REMAIN CELIBATE.

Cyclops said--based onlove and not the base needs of biology!!!

Cyclops wrote:

'Pursuit of happiness' demands that everyone be given the opportunity to pursue happiness.

I agree but why then do the bigots have problems with the people in NAMBLA?

Please, no lectures about ten year olds not knowing what they are doing. Anyone who studied Ancient Greece knows that that magnificent civilization had a great deal of man-boy love.

Lightwizard sniffs at the thesis of one of our greatest playwrights, Albee, in,"The Goat or who is Sylvia". No amount of linguistic prestidigitation can convince me that a person who truly loves his dog or sheep or goat should be barred BY LAW from expressing that love.

As Cyclops said, Love,not base biological needs!

Cyclops tells us about "The pursuit of happiness" and our fascistic government( under Bush, of course--Obama knows that sexual freedom is essential to good government,he learned that in the Chicago Ghetto when he was a Community Organizer) BARS AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AT EVERY TURN.


The 20-year-old Wisconsin man last year charged with having sex with a dead deer has been sentenced to probation and evaluation as a sex offender, Yahoo! reports.

Bryan James Hathaway was cuffed on a "a misdemeanour charge of sexual gratification with an animal". The court case raised some interesting legal issues, since according to the defence, the relevant "crimes against sexual morality" statute prohibits sex with animals, but fails to mention carcasses.

Hathaway's attorney Fredric Anderson filed a motion which argued "because the deer was dead, it was not considered an animal and the charge should be dismissed". He insisted: "The statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass."

This audacious interpretation of the law clearly cut little ice with the courts, because Hathaway earlier this month pleaded no contest to a charge of "misdemeanour mistreatment of an animal". Judge Michael Lucci sentenced him to six months' probabation and ordered him to be "evaluated as a sex offender and treated at the Institute for Psychological and Sexual Health in Duluth, Minnesota".

The judge admitted: "The type of behaviour is disturbing. It's disturbing to the public. It's disturbing to the court."

Hathaway had previously been convicted of a related offence in April 2005, when he pleaded "no contest to one felony charge of mistreatment of an animal for the shooting death of Bambrick, a 26-year-old horse, to have sex with the animal".

Although he received just probation for his latest escapade, local animals can sleep sound in their beds since he attracted a nine-month jail sentence back in February for violating the extended supervision order slapped on him for his equicide outrage.

It is amazing how the Bush Nazis blocked American Citizens at every turn. All these men wanted to do was to express their love. They were searching for "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and they were arrested by the Bush Bigot Army.

Saturday, July 16, 2005 -

KEN LAMBERT / THE SEATTLE TIMES

A TV cameraman was among those scrutinizing an Enumclaw-area farm yesterday. Authorities were investigating reports of bestiality after the death of a Seattle man.

Archive: Enumclaw-area animal-sex case investigated

ENUMCLAW " Authorities are reviewing hundreds of hours of videotapes seized from a rural Enumclaw-area farm that police say is frequented by men who engage in sex acts with animals.

The videotapes police have viewed thus far depict men having sex with horses, including one that shows a Seattle man shortly before he died July 2, said Enumclaw police Cmdr. Eric Sortland.

"Activities like these are often collateral sexual crimes beyond the animal aspect," said Sortland, adding that investigators want to make sure crimes such as child abuse or forcible rape were not occurring on the property.

Police are also investigating the farm and the two men who live on the property to determine whether animal cruelty " which is a crime " was committed by forcing sex on smaller, weaker animals. Investigators said that in addition to horses, they have found chickens, goats and sheep on the 40-acre property northwest of Enumclaw.

Officers talked with the two men, but neither has been arrested. Neither man could be reached yesterday for comment.

According to King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart, the farm is known in Internet chat rooms as a destination for people who want to have sex with livestock.

However, authorities didn't learn about the farm until a man drove up to Enumclaw Community Hospital on July 2 seeking medical assistance for a companion. Medics wheeled the man into an examination room before realizing he was dead. When hospital workers looked for the driver, he was gone.

Using the dead man's driver's license to track down relatives and acquaintances, authorities were led to the Enumclaw farm. Some earlier reports had said hospital-surveillance cameras were used to track down the driver.

The dead man was identified as a 45-year-old Seattle resident. According to the King County Medical Examiner's Office, he died of acute peritonitis due to perforation of the colon. The man's death is not being investigated because it did not result from a crime, Urquhart said.

The Seattle man's relatives said yesterday they never suspected he was involved in bestiality. They said they were surprised when they learned he had purchased a Thoroughbred stallion earlier this year. The man told his relatives he boarded the animal with some friends in Enumclaw.




While the man's relatives were unsure how many horses he had boarded at the property, one Enumclaw neighbor said the Seattle man was keeping two stallions there.

Police and neighbors said the people renting the property have also had dogs and bull calves on the farm. Yesterday there were several horses and ponies grazing near a barn.

Two neighbors, a married couple who declined to allow use of their names, said yesterday they had no idea what had been going on at the farm. They said they've known one of the men who live on the farm for years.

On Thursday, police showed the couple videotape seized from the farm showing men having sex with horses. The couple identified one of the horses as belonging to them, Sortland said. The couple also said it appeared at least part of the tape was filmed in their barn, which left them shocked and angry.

C yclops wrote:

If I remember my Christian teachings correctly, it's God's duty to judge, not ours. It isn't our duty to make laws to enforce morality which some claim stems from god.

Cycloptichorn

*********************

Cyclops- I hope you don't mind but I have sent your message to

a. Moveon.org

b. "The Nation"

c. The Huffington Post

d. Bill Maher

and, not to be overlooked

e. GLAD

to remind them that , as you said, It's God's duty to judge, not ours,so any judgements about Bush, Cheney, Rove, McCain, Palin etc. are strictly off limits.

Immaterial to the discussion, disregarded.

says Cyclops.

Why so judgemental, Cyclops? Cant handle the question?

Lightwizard wrote:

I have two male friends who have been together for over 40 years and are devout Catholics, and I mean devout -- I would venture to say more devout than thou. They bought their TV's and other electronic gear from me and I visit them both at their home in Monterey Park and Laguna Beach. I would not swear around them at all nor tell any off-color jokes as they would likely be offended. I have to be careful what I E mail them even though they are both liberals. They attend church every Sunday. They've also invited me to join them to see an opera (they love Wagner). They are both school teachers in grammar schools. This is only one example.

**********************

They are devout Catholics?

******************************

Perhaps they do not know the Catholic teachings.
question
How do you answer the charge that the Catholic Church or opposition to same-sex marriage is "homophobic"?
answer
The term homophobic refers to fear of homosexuality. This term often is used by homosexual activists to end rational discussion of the issue by accusing their opponents of having an irrational fear. This is unjust. One can disagree with and be critical of a behavior without having a fear of it. When the charge of "homophobia" is made, it signifies that those making the accusation do not have reasoned responses to their critics, so they switch to portraying their critics as irrational rather than responding to their arguments.

While the Church does recognize homosexuality as disordered, this does not mean that the Church is uncompassionate to those who suffer from the disorder. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies . . . must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."3

We have to remember that all people are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated as such, no matter what their behavior. We make a distinction between person and behavior, sometimes expressed as "hate the sin, love the sinner." The Catechism describes homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered": "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."4

So we deplore acts of discrimination or unkindness against homosexual persons, but we insist on speaking the truth about the nature of homosexual acts. This is not a phobia. It is compassion together with frank recognition of the nature of a disordered condition.

The Catholic Church opposes homosexual activity because it is intrinsically disordered, an abuse of our human nature. But legalizing same-sex marriage would also have harmful effects on society, as we will see in the remainder of this special report.

The "Know-Nothings" were right. The Catholic Church is underminin our society and is a fifth column which is controlled from Rome. Tolerance is a prime American value. That is why we cannot abide Intolerance.

NO TOLERATION FOR THE INTOLERANT

Vice is a monster of such frightful mien,
as to be hated needs but to be seen.

Alexander Pope

Spendius wrote:

It is very odd that the same people who approve of Darwinian science being taught in schools are the same people, generally, who support homosexual unions being given official approval. And abortion and birth control neither of which figure in the evolutionary process. It is very odd.
***********************************************************************
But Spendius, don't you think the Chinese have found a solution?

Note:

Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia
Wednesday, June 13, 2007

By Sherry Karabin

E-Mail Print Share:

There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide " the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million "missing" girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come.

"Twenty-five million men in China currently can’t find brides because there is a shortage of women," said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute in Washington, D.C. "The young men emigrate overseas to find brides."

The imbalances are also giving rise to a commercial sex trade; the 2005 report states that up to 800,000 people being trafficked across borders each year, and as many as 80 percent are women and girls, most of whom are exploited.
**************************************************************

We may have to go in that direction soon since our population is growing so rapidly and, of course, Spendius, more people mean more "pollution".

I wonder what the National Organization for Women think about the Chinese policy?
****************************************************************

But there is another solution to the population problem. As more and more Americans become gay, the population decreases. If homophobia were to declared illegal(I am sure Obama has something like this on his agenda because it would mean more votes) our population would plummet.

But, as you mentioned, Spendius, there is an "evolutionary process" which presses us to procreate. Gays normally do not. It is a pity that they will not be able to pass their genes into the next generation.

Well I'm not going to read all of everything but I don't get what the big deal is about same sex marriages, I'm sure that there is much more pressing issues out there in this world than to spend millions on passing an unnecessary bill, we have in NZ what is called a civil union marriage where the same sex unions are treated fairly and lawfully just as equally as a marriage between a man and a woman, which I feel is damn right logical and moves with the times.

Diest, I believe I wrote in a previous post exactly why I am against gay marriage. It seems you (and Cy, among others) either cannot comprehend my answer or I am not properly stating my answer. So go back and read my explanation again.

And Cy, short of someone who feels the need to be disrespective of me or mine, I will always respond to questions if I see them. Sorry to disappoint you in this respect.

Finally,



Your question assumes that I must choose one or the other. It is an incorrect assumption that two adults cannot be friends while having diametrically opposed views on any given subject. I expect nothing less than for her to use any legal means to fight for what she desires, just as I will continue to fight for what I desire. What is wrong with that? It is what many of you on here do not understand. I don't hold someone's views against them. Why should I? That would be like saying I would somehow have to choose between calling Cy or you a friend and my Christian beliefs simply because you hold differing beliefs that are incompatible with mine. (And I do consider many on here as my A2K friends even though we've never met. )That's stupid. Friendship is not necessarily based on beliefs, but on a myriad of other things.



Never said it did. Again, based on Cy's and Debra's accusations, I decided to talk to her about it. Chalk it up to wanting to find out if she thought I was a bigot for believing differently than she does. We had an interesting chat and she assured me that while she wished I felt differently, she did not think I was in anyway bigoted. That's good enough for me. I only brought the conversation up to make a point.

Hope I responded to everything you asked.

He has explain his reasoning, as did we all, many times.

You folks refuse to accept his explanation, so like the 5 year olds you are acting like, you continue to ask.

WHY??WHY??WHY??WHY??

I'm trying to be amiable here CR. I just want a clear answer. I obviously was not able to extract the "why" out of your previous post, so I don't feel that you've properly stated your answer (as you've said is possible). I just want a clear "why."

I asked several specific question in my post to you that you didn't respond to either.

Do you believe that you are entitled to more because you are straight?
Did you have to ask for permission to use the term married?

These are very direct yes/no questions.

As for my question of your views vice your friendship, you proposed a question back which does not have the same relationship as the one I posted. The dilemma I posted to you has to do with whether you hold a view about something that does not effect you to be of greater importance than a social relationship. It does assume you must choose one or the other. It's a hypothetical. The question is designed such that you can declare what is more important/of greater value to you. If you do not wish to answer the question, you can simply state which is more important to you.

In short, I am at a loss to understand the desire to prohibit the LGBT community from either or both equal coupling rights and the term "marriage." As it's been clearly pointed out, what the state recognizes as marriage is not in line with any religious view as is. Catholics aren't being abused because the state recognizes a marriage that has people who have been divorced in it. You as a Christian, are in no way threatened or abused by what another couple (gay or straight) calls their relationship. So why make yourself an obstruction? Why deny gays the right to have their union recognized by the state as a marriage? Do you believe they don't deserve to call themselves married and be recognized by the state as such? Returning to the Catholics, do you think that the state should not recognized remarried people because it does not fall into their views of marriage? Do you think that you deserve that title more than a gay couple? If so, why? I want to know why? I want to understand what this phantom threat is. If their is no threat the ban on gay marriage seems meaningless and petty. As in: We don't need to stop you from calling yourself married, we just are.

Help me here.

I don't suspect you are a bigot CR. I don't think that you'll answer that you think you're superior to gays. I've read your posts, and you seem pretty decent in my mind. I think however this topic has brought a bit of you on character trial and that has yielded some sort of defensive behavior out of you. I think it's noble to go and talk to you gay friend about the topic. It just doesn't make sense to me: If you don't think you're superior, then why do you think you deserve something that your friend doesn't?

I'll get it if it's about religion, but does matters of rights factor into your thinking? Do you believe that people should have the right to do things that exist outside of your Christian code? Can you not share your Christian viewpoint with your friend in a world where you two are on equal footing?

I just want to know "why."

T
K
O

Because a lot of people feel-

"The carpet to is moving under you
And it's all over now Baby Blue."