Leaderboard

The interesting part about this is how similar this sounds to many apocalyptic stories and tales. I'm considering many in various Seventh Day Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians) in particular. There are conspiracy theories with other Christian sects, as well. And it's not limited to religions. If you look at the Alex Jones / Jeff Rense brand of political belief, they are big-time into conspiracy theories, as well. (I am not including all 9-11 Truth conspiracy types, though. While the full extent of that theory is that Bush did it, but he did it at the behest of the Bilderbergers, I think that most 9-11 Truthers just believed that Bush did it for his own jollies, without being ordered around by shadows beyond Cheney). I think that the common thread is that they are looking for some theory of theories that they can use to rationalize feeling powerless and small.

This weekend marks the 40-year anniversary of the Manson murders. For me, it is a chilling reminder to see the shocking outcome when blind allegiance to a cult leader runs its course. When I attended wierwille's advanced class, I was surprised to see all the conspiracy theories... ie the illuminati, the myth of the six million, the marxist minstrels, every denomination is headed by seed men etc. etc. Far removed from reading bible verses, this "advanced class" was ushering in ideologies, unsubstantiated theories, us-versus-them agendas. In this isolated class-setting, one needed to severely ante-up to be counted as a faithful advanced class grad. Then, the corps indoctrination included aspects of MAL-pack (more abundant life in survival settings) where each corps twig was required to map out a secret destination in the event of government collapse/takeover. More so in the corps indoctrination program, the mantra "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" was well-known and voiced by the corps coordinators. So, the "general" (wierwille) might suggest something in private...and the "soldier" was to follow orders. Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight. IMO, it's chilling to see the parallels of Manson's followers and the extreme subtle suggestions to the corps. Manson directed his followers' actions from behind the scenes. He didn't bloody his own hands. Thankfully, wierwille didn't project violent "prophecies" to his followers.....at least, not to my knowledge. BUT...........how close to the edge did we go???? When so many blame martindale for twi's downfall, they fail to recognize wierwille's ultra-smooth conning of one's conscience. Chilling reminders.......... :blink:

It was staged. One long time poster has detailed how she and VPW were sitting under a tree having a casual conversation, when a certain believer walked by. Wierwille jumped up and got in his face, delivering an enraged tirade. Then, when he had dismissed the person, he sat back down, smiled, made some off the wall comment about spiritual anger and casually resumed the conversation as if nothing had happened. It was all an act. He slipped in and out of character like a walk-on in a broadway show.

Uh.......for me, Ruth Madoff comes to mind.

Exactly!.......when roa was channeled to twi-hq grounds in '78, and every year to follow, the control and wayspeak escaled with each year. By circling the wagons, wierwille drew 'his people' closer to him, closer to his agendas. The WOW program was his sales campaign....and the corps program were his instructed sales force. Remember those slogans and song lyrics, "It's good to be Home Again, been away too long"........like twi's hqtrs was OUR HOME. Yeah, riiiiight. Sure.....and twi was our family, just like Charles Manson's buzz with his followers were "The Family." Same draw.....same pitch.....same with Jim Jones. Then......one finds out about wierwille's sex predation, alcoholism, abuse, plagairism, lies, snow-pump calling, liberty lobby connections, paranoia, butt-smacking on corps girls, sex-mentoring to martindale, etc......and the gripping realization that we were in the clutches of a sociopathic con-man. Could it be any clearer...?????????

Sometimes I think they allowed themselves to be "set off" by trivial stuff just to have an excuse to scream their lungs out, give the false appearance of being "spiritual" (Yeah but what kind of spirit, bucko?") and intimidate everyone else. One thing I'm very thankful for is that after living a few years in LCM-ville, I can smell a load of BS 50 miles this side of New Knoxville. WG

It would be interesting to see how many people could post about a meeting they were at where a leader got out of control and humiliated or verbally assaulted someone in front of everybody.

Bow jr (12 years old at the time) and I were there too - we were rather thrilled to be in that particular meeting, truth be told. Oh, the spiritually mature elite we thought we were! I've never heard a "pastor" or "reverend" or "minister" ever speak half that profanely before or since the way. In fact, if I ever did again, I'd not wait around to see if they were spitters or if veins burst in their necks or temples as they "lovingly reproved" "their" people. So many red flags as I look back - I'm so glad I'm not a kool-aid drinker anymore. The pastor whose church I attend now lives by "the right thing to do is always the right thing to do", not who else can I screw???

Does anyone know? I hope he recovered quickly.

Scout, I agree with alot of what ExCathedra said to you, except that I wasn't really that beaten down like she was. I believe that her experience as a woman differed from mine as a dumba$$ 22 year old kid though. I was very oblivious to upper eschelon shenanigans, and actually went there to "have my a$$ kicked and to learn something about discipline because I grew up lazy and hated work but learned from the Bible that work was "a good thing". So, I welcomed all of the pressure with the goal of looking at it and overcoming it. Surely there was some serious bs from the big wigs, and some scary stuff like "MAL", but all in all, like ExCath said, some of those folks were and are some of the finest I have ever known. And yes, I think there really was a difference between the pre-Martindale presidency, and the post Martindale presidency. I began to meet a number of 13th Corps grads and on up, and some (but more than should have been usual) of them were childish morons who really loved to be "lords over God's heritage. In fact, it was my being a clergyman that kept some of them from really messing with me. Once I moved to an area and didn't tell them that I was a clergy guy. I just wanted to "be a believer" for awhile. And as time went on, this BC punk began to dislike my independant ways. When I finally let it out of the bag to another believer that I was a clergy guy, this weasal was so shocked, but then began to suck up and apologize and he was just plain shameless. That wasn't too long before I got kicked out by LCM. And that punk actually tried to break my wife and my marriage up! I actually caught him at my home one day when I came home from work while my wife was chewing him out and kicking him out the door! It was beautiful. I just smiled at him and waved as he scuttled into his car and drove off. I didn't need to bark at him because "The Shotgun" (my wife's nickname) had already unloaded on him... Sorry for the de-rail folks, but yeah Scout Finch, I think your assessment was accurate. And say, has Boo Radley come out lately? :)-->

I remember the first time it was cleaned out there were a couple of sinks that the former students had ripped out of the walls from one of the dorms when they found out the College of Emporia was closing and they wouldn't be awarded their degrees. I think I remember that there was a refrigerator in there as well. That pond was disgusting... I never swam in it... just the thought makes me queasy.

For those who were never blessed to have been in the corps program, if you knew the people involved in these sto-ries and their personalities, you could "see it yet", so living & real ... Our last year in res was the 11th's 1st year, and because there were so maany of them, maany of us married couples had to share rooms with an 11th corps couple. We had bunk beds in these rooms in those days, retrieved from the river-bed dry pool in Allen gym (how many corps ever even stepped INSIDE Allen gym?? I'll bet some didn't even realize the gym was part of the Emporia campus. WHY didn't they ever fill it up with water and let us SWIM???!!!). Anyways, these bunk beds had frames of wrought iron, weighed 100 lbs apiece, with old wire springs for mattress support. Me & wifey had claimed bottom bunk, leaving the top to the newbie 11th couple. When the 11th corps couple arrived for the 1st day in res, they had the husband's parents come with them. PM #1: The expression on the parents' faces when they realized we were SHARING the same bedroom. PM #2: Come 'loving' time for the upper bunk couple, their every move made those iron springs spring into a loud squeaking, as of a rushing, mighty wind. I had to put a pillow over wifies face to muffle her laughter. PM #3: One late night, the upper bunk couple, rising up a great while before day, were in the middle of 'knowing' each other, and I had to spring a leak (common male term for urination). Well, as soon as I rose out of the lower bunk, lo and behold I see the gal riding trigger, paps 'a swayin' and butts a' rockin'. They either didn't see me or didn't care, as the hour of power kept on going. I am thankful to this day for the vee-sion God shewed me that night. PM #4: At Gunnison under the reign of TJ (not Tick Jr), after getting my lunch, I headed over to Simon's table. Noticing a few 11th corps sitting there already, I stepped up behind the one sitting next to Simon and barked sharply, "MOVE !!!!" (like some earthly truck driver). This was not unusual to Simon and me, as we would greet each other with a "Dammit, how the F@@K are you?" on campus, just to keep spiritually sharp. Well, at the end of the announcments after lunch, LCM gets on the horn and say's "Tom T, please meet with me and TJ in cabin 2 immediately.". So I thought maybe God was moving over to give me a 'spacial' place in heaven. Wrong. I got lamblasted. Some 11th corps ratted me out, saying I was a bully. I got a lecture from LCM (TJ only sitting there nodding in spiritual agreement) about because of my size, I had to go the extra mile to be gentle, as I might be intimidating to smaller people. I told him I was only JOKING, that I thought it was OBVIOUS I was joking. I suppose the humor of Simon & I was too great a blessing for some ...

Long Gone, perhaps I was being too touchy last night. I'm sorry. But please don't go. I've asked my question of you two different ways, and you still haven't answered. I'm really interested in what you meant by "most." What shouldn't be included? I'm not asking to badger you. I'm asking because I value your opinion and want to hear the rest of it. Linda

I don't know, but it sounds more interesting than mbla.

Long gone, When you said, "I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage," it appeared you meant that some wouldn't be included. I was wondering what those might be. Sheesh. I never saw you as such a nitpicker before. Pardon me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Linda Z

BTW I would rather have a loving dad like him than one of those men that beat their wives and kids every time he drinks or sometimes just for the power it gives them to do so or just because he can. I saw many little kids get pretty bad beatings with a wooden spoon while in TWI. My freind never hit his kids, he loved them and they they were good kids because he loved them not because they were scared to death of him. Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735

Okay, let's call it a privilege. I get the distinction. Sort of. Main Entry: 1priv·i·lege Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&- Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law : a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor (From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary online) Well, lookee there. It says a privilege is a right "granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor." So when a couple marries, their married status affords them special (peculiar) benefits, special favor, and an advantage over single people and couples who do not enter into that legal contract. Correct? The difference, then, is that heterosexual couples have a choice in whether they'll enter into that legal contract or not, but homosexual couples, in most states, do not have that choice. Heterosexual couples can make a lifetime commitment without the "piece of paper" if they so choose, and thus relinquish the special rights marriage would give them. For homosexuals in most of the states, that right is relinquished for them. They do not have an equal choice. It reminds me of that old saying, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." Why?????? Will letting homosexuals marry threaten my heterosexuality? Of course not. Will letting homosexuals marry raise my taxes? I don't think so. Just as both parties in many heterosexual married couples work and pay taxes, so do both parties in many (maybe most) homosexual couples. Will letting homosexuals marry raise my health insurance premiums? Given the small percentage of homosexuals in this country, I doubt it. Will letting homosexuals marry prevent heterosexuals from marrying? No. Will it take anything away from heterosexual, married couples? I don't see how it would. Long Gone said: "The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences." In other words, the majority rules? Sorry, I don't buy that. And a freedom is involved. The freedom to choose to marry or not. Like many Midwest-reared people who grew up in the 1950-60s, I'll be the first to admit that I squirm a bit when I see men holding hands or women kissing. Even though I have gay friends, I'm still a product of my upbringing. The word "homosexual" was seldom uttered when I was a kid, and I wasn't even sure what a homosexual was by the time I was a teenager, because of the era I was living in. But my emotions and leftover prejudices aren't the deciding factors for me. My sense of fairness is. I can't debate about whether it should be legislators or courts that have the right to decide this stuff. Mark may well be correct on that. But it seems to me that someone ought to fix this inequity. Courts, lawmakers, someone. I don't care who. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that if homosexuals are given an equal right to choose marriage or not, and if these unions become somehow more "acceptable," that there will be some kind of an explosion in the homosexual population? I see no reason why that would happen. I have not known one homosexual who didn't, at some point, struggle with wishing he or she could have the same attraction to the opposite sex as the majority, to "be like everyone else" if they could. So why would the numbers of homosexuals drastically increase. It's not some sort of societal "fad" that's going to spread like wildfire. It's not contagious. Your kids aren't going to say, "Hey, it's cool to be gay. That's what I'm going to be" despite the fact that they came from the womb "hardwired" to be heterosexual. Good grief. Linda Z

Linda Z. wrote, "Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence? ***** Garthella Z., Your questioning of the authenticity of various biblical passages is seemingly a way of maintaining and wielding plausibility for some unscriptural viewpoint concerning homosexuality. The issue you raise is speculative and is more intellectually autobiographical than historical. From an evangelical viewpoint, a detestable thing about the affirming revisionism practiced by some church folks is that such revisionism denies both Law and Gospel. Ministering such a thing as affirmation to a homosexual in his sin is an act against both the condemnation and the grace that is ministered through the Scriptures. There is no conviction concerning sin ministered where the sinner is affirmed and his sin denied. There is no need for the atonement and forgiveness that is in the Gospel for a person who refuses to repent from affections and practices that are not sin.

Coolwaters raised the most clearly stated, logical argument for permitting same-sex marriage I've yet seen in this thread: It's a legal contract. So why should anyone be denied the right (or privilege--either way) to enter into that legal contract? Denying one segment of the population this right/privilege certainly doesn't seem just or right to me. Zix, you're calling upon tradition to argue against homosexuals marrying? (Why do I picture you dancing around like the Zero Mostel in Fiddler on the Roof? "TraDItion!" Some traditions are good; some can stand a tune-up, and I think this is one of them. Cynic, you're invoking the inerrancy of your denomination's take on the Bible to bolster your argument. I also hold the Scriptures in extremely high regard, but I am willing to acknowledge: (a) that my understanding of portions of the Bible could be incorrect, or (b) that over the centuries, maybe, just maybe, the men who chose what went into the Bible and what didn't, and how it all should be interpreted into English, might have been mistaken on some points, or they might have had their own agendas that crept in, whether intentionally or not. Tradition is no basis for such determinations, Zixar. Others have made that argument in this thread, and made it well. Traditions change as people's needs change, as society changes. (And NO, I'm not saying let's have a free-for-all and let everyone do as they like. I'm talking about permitting something that doesn't cause harm to anyone else.) Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence? Excath: You did NOTHING to disrupt this thread. Cynic's just diverting attention from the flaws in his argument by calling your opinions/questions disruptive. Ignore him and ask/say what you want. laleo: Your argument that marriage affords women and children protection is good in terms of being a reason why marriage is beneficialfor heterosexuals. But I don't understand how extending the right to marry to people of the same gender would compromise that protection. Please explain. Linda Z [This message was edited by Linda Z on February 07, 2004 at 8:26.]

Zix, you've been reading too many of Mike's threads. Dodge, distract, etc. "It's not quite the same thing, because at the time, there was nothing illegal about slavery, and the slaves themselves were chattel property. They could not exercise freedom by making a personal choice." Exactly, it was ILLEGAL for them to exercise freedom by making a personal choice and attempting to make it LEGAL was an attempt at changing a long established tradition. "It isn't. Only homosexual marriage is, since the sodomy laws were overturned on dubious reasoning by one Supreme Court after they had been upheld by another. " I misspoke and you know that. You still didn't answer the question, though. So I'll try again and word it correctly for you........... ""It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense. Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women. Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents." And homosexual MARRIAGES are illegal because????????????????? Why????????? To every man his own truth and his own God within. [This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 7:55.]

(checking to see which forum this thread is in!) so nice to be in a forum where such civil discourse is appreciated. goodness! A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle.

Trefor, As it might concern an intelligent debate on issues, this thread -- through no doing of yours -- appears to be dead. Another day.

I intend to do some investigation of Garth's links, though on a cursory reading only one of the links seemed relevant to the question at hand. For tentative consideration, here's another: http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/mara...9202geneva.html

Rocky, Rocky, Rocky: It's "abstruse."

Zixar, your examples of the RC church and the Armed Services are clear enough, but those are closed communities. Marriage is an institution that crosses all boundaries, cultures, religions, and for that matter, sexual orientations. I don't see how any one culture, or age, can claim the only true definition. Marriage is defined, like it or not, by many differing doctrines, and the only common denominator is voluntary commitment. We call it a vow, but it's a contractual commitment. Everything else marriage is depends upon what we believe. Suppose you attend the First Church of the Heterosexual Truth and Premarital Abstinance. Your fellow church members needn't consider a homosexual union legitimate, on spiritual grounds. On legal grounds, it only matters in limited circumstances, and they have no effect on your own definition of marriage. And the same goes for "Jim and Bob." My only concern is fairness. For instance, it's obvious to me that when they have the married-couples' three-legged race at the county fair, the gays will have a leg up, so to speak. In that case, the rules may need to be amended. Other than that I don't see a major problem.

cynic, first off, are you talking to me or garth about tref ? and if you want people to get a liking to your way of thinking, you should try to talk ?

Don't sweat it, Exie. I've noticed that he does that with everyone with whom he disagrees. Old Way habits dies hard. Danny

Or oppose it because of its lack of societal usefulness.

i thought we were talking about homosexuality relationships what the hell are you talking about ? give me a break ?

Bob and Tom have the same right to engage in a marriage as any other person, they simply cannot get married to each other, or any other member of their own gender. Neither can marry his sister, either, no matter how much the two might consent, even if both are sterilized. Nor can either marry a six-year old unrelated girl. It doesn't matter how much any of them whines about it, the fact is that the state has always reserved the right to dictate marriage restrictions for the greater good of the society as a whole. As has been repeatedly asked and avoided, there is no apparent societal plus side for the defense of homosexuality whatsoever, whereas there is an obvious downside to it, just the same as incest, polygamy, and pedophilia. One always has to take the responsibility for every single privilege they wish to claim. They do not get to transgress the rules just because they want to have their cake and eat it, too. If a person wants to be a Catholic priest, they cannot also have sex with women. If a person wants to enjoy base purchase privileges, they must be a member of the Armed Forces. If you refuse to pay the price, you don't get to have the goods. I don't see why that's so difficult for anyone to grasp. If you want to be married, you can only be married to one unrelated person of the opposite gender. That's the price of being married. Attempting to change a long-established institution is very much seeking special privilege. Homosexuality is not a disability. Just as the priest-wannabe must choose to repudiate his sexual preferences in order to become a priest, homosexuals must currently make the same choice if they want to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If they cannot choose that path, no one will force them to. But just as single people must also marry if they want marriage benefits, should they be able to just claim they don't want to marry and receive them anyway? Of course not.

thank you ?

ohmygosh is that the best you can do ? can you talk like a person ? okay okay sorry i'll go read that again ?

that's more where i'm coming from it is about PEOPLE. i know everyone makes it about religion and political agenda, whatever. but what i myself am talking about is people deserving to be treated equally, you know ? ?

but 6er... I don't think your analogy holds... one is a set of rules for a particular religious sect that some may or may not want to belong to, the other is for society as a whole... and before you say "it's just for the homosexuals" it's not, it's for "people" wanting to share in the same societal and governmental benefits that everyone else does... isn't it? I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

The Massachusetts law when written was intended for a man and a woman because at the time it was written it was inconceivable that a marriage would take place any other way. The Massachusetts Supreme Court absolutely knew this and instead of interpreting the law as it should have been interpreted, became the activist jurist body they were and "re-wrote" it to include their own political beliefs without changing a word of the language. It once was that I used to just tolerate homosexuals if they kept to themselves and did their own thing. I could have cared less. But now, I am the opposite. I have had enough. I am opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to gay civil unions. I am opposed to any more protection by the law based on sexual preference. I believe now in the right to discriminate against them and to practice it, because it is the right thing to do. I believe it must be now said they are either spiritually "off" or mentally ill. If it is due to a genetic flaw, then it is just like any other genetic flaw, such as cystic fibrosis or Downs syndrome, and the American medical and psychiatric communities must be compelled, and forced if necessary, by law, to find the problem and the cure. I believe in re-enacting and re-establishing every sodomy law on the books dealing with homosexuality. Jailing them won't do any good, but gives great ground to close down and eliminate every gay bar and gay sexual establishment in the country. I believe in breaking up every "gay" community in the country. We should punish any lawmaker or publically elected or appointed official that backs anything even remotely related to homosexual agendas. I have lost what tolerance I have had, and that wasn't much. My sympathy is gone. Anger has replaced it. Marked and Avoided

Don't feel bad Exie, I am too. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage, beyond terminology. Perhaps this has been explained somewhere in this thread already and I just haven't seen it. I started reading on the last page and am working my way back. But given that something like 50+% of all marriages end in divorce anyway, what makes marriage such a sacred thing? See QQ, you made some statements about modifying or modernizing marriage, and I'm not certain but I think you said it tongue in cheek, but the thing is, I agree. Maybe it is time to take a new look at this contract we call marriage and what it means. Seems to me at this point, the people who benefit the most from marriage contracts are divorce attorneys. In fact, one of the attorneys I work for is a conservative from the east coast and I asked him what he things about all of this. He laughed and said, "well I guess it means I can expect business to boom." ;)--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

i must admit i am confused about this ?

Yes, there are. There are also people not past childbearing age, but "related" by marriage, with legitimate concerns about restrictions on marriage.

Long Gone: The partnership arrangements here are marriages in all but name. If there were similar proposals being made in the USA then I am sure the needs of most gay people would be satisfied. As they are not I have every reason to indicate my concern and to support my fellow gays who are US citizens. Bigotry is bigotry wherever it is. The same for inequality. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Garth: You're blurring the issue. I'm not saying anything about the sodomy laws. What I am saying is that there is nothing so particularly special about homosexuality that it demands any sort of special consideration whatsoever from the remainder of society.

Zix, You brought up these points before, and they are still either irrelevant, have no real effect on society, and clearly needs no government intervention. Here's why. 1) Society does indeed have a duty to self-perpetuate. And that duty is more than covered by humanity's natural urges to have sex. And that is in no danger of seriously waning (to the point of having a negative drop in the population) anytime soon. As a matter of fact, it has been often said that this society, if anything, is *over*sexed. Yet Another Indicator that there is no danger of society 'not perpetuating'. That alone puts a serious damper in your argument. 2) Despite your argument of society's duty to self-perpetuate, there is nowhere in our governing documents that specifically gives government the means to see that the duty is carried out by society. Again, see point one as to why this is (and should be) a non-issue to the powers that be. 3) The question on whether society would lose anything if there were no homosexuals is the irrelevant part, and really, a question that civilized people have no place in seriously asking. It is very similar to asking whether society would lose anything if there weren't any retarded/handicapped people. I don't know what it does for you, but the mindset behind such questions, particularly if the asker was very serious about those questions, gives me the willies. Need I say more? Besides, isn't society fluid and flexible enough to take care and work around whatever 'irregularities' that 'non-normal' sexual practices between adults just might bring up? Hell, society has been propagating itself for thousands of years, and homosexuality has been practiced right along with it. ... I mean, when you have over *6 billion people* on this globe, self-perpetuation isn't exactly the foremost problem here, y'think? Maybe the over-crowding problem might be a little more relevant? Just something to think about. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

No, because AIDS is now transmitted primarily between heterosexuals in Africa, and a large percentage of transvestites are heterosexual. Any other answers?

AIDS and ugly cross dressers? WAYWho?

Tom: What would society lose if there were no such thing as homosexuality? I'm not talking about eliminating homosexual individuals, I'm talking about what would we really lose if all homosexuals were heterosexual instead.

thanks, mpm ?

A quote from John Lynn, many years ago -------- God did not create ADAM AND FRANK. Still applies today --> :rolleys:

I concur CC... It must have been either 92 or 93. We got the boot and never attended ROA 94. I specifically remember this guy getting up there and barely getting a chance to finish his sentence about 'Keeping it simple' and Craigger the raving lunatic jumping down his throat. I felt like I was in residence again...ahhhhh such a nice feeling it was! --> NOT!!!!!!!!! 'til the next time...

No need to apologize, good man. Next cup of coffee is on me.

Raf, I stand corrected. I was refering to it as the situation as he(LCM) percieved it not that it was something that needed to be handled at all. It's funny how intent doesn't always tranaslate well over the keyboard, sorry. Peace IMA