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.

... classic enabler and co-dependent ... Agreed. But by definition you have to consider how cowed and deeply in denial an enabler is, which is how I see Dotsie. I don't believe it gives her a free pass, just a lot more sympathy than the original purpetrators. Most of us here are willing to forgive her simply because she didn't instigate, she just enabled. It is easier to see how she was a victim, like many of us were victims and are ashamed of what we did under twi's thrall. Could Vic have done it all without her being by his side? Perhaps but she gave the man and his operation a huge amount of legitimacy because of the way she conducted herself. And she certainly gave Martindale legitimacy at a time when many of us would have bolted for the door if she had shown the slightest indication that Craig was off the mark. Clearly there is no question that her enabling caused harm. But I've known women who were cowed by men who threatened, beat, and cheated on them. And they wouldn't leave them. They defended them. They blamed themselves and their own shortcomings. And we know twi did that same thing to all of us... if something is wrong, blame yourself first... a lot of us fell into that mentality and some still struggle with it today. In my opinion it takes outside validation and information (a LOT of it) to break out of the enabling pattern. And it takes a lot of inner strength. You have to be willing to go through h*!! to get out of the h*!! you are in, and some victims just never find their way out. That's why a lot of us are more lenient toward Mrs. VPW... not because she is blameless, but because that she is a lot more understandable and pathetic.

What interesting things you miss when you're field Corps, and have the privilege of serving by scrubbing the portaloos! Bravo the guy who tossed the armband at the tosser

"Preach the gospel always, if necessary, use words." -- St Francis of Assisi

GW as kork coord. is another sto-owwree for another day. LCM was no longer the day-to-day campus guy anymore by then, lifted. he was the 6xxkkppthh kork's first year...

Here Here Trefor I havent weighed in on this here and probably wont, but I have to wonder how many of these people are actually Massachusetts taxpayers like myself. Few I would would venture a guess, and that puts you all in the same boat

I have heard this as well, but one has to wonder as to the root cause of this. Does being homosexual lead one to all of these problems, or are they a result of society's negative reaction to homosexuality and they end up dealing with it the wrong way? It's also a fact that a much higher percentage of black people are addicted to smoking crack than the percentage of white people. Is this because there is inherently something wrong with being black, or is there something wrong culturally or with something else that causes this?

The gay man I was talking about earlier in this thread was married at one time and had 2 kids by that marriage. These 2 kids are very well adjusted, and they loved thier father very much and are very successful, the boy is a full professor, and the girl is a businesswoman also successful. They had no problem accepting who their dad was. He was just that their dad who loved tham and was always there for them. He was even good freinds with his ex. 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

Mark: I bring up DOMA because that is the current state of affairs. I am not claiming that it is not a dogs breakfast as far as legislation goes but many states have used that law to amend their state constitutions. It is not unconstitutional unless and until it goes before the Supreme Court for a ruling - it is their duty to consider what is constitutional or not when challenges are brought before it. That can be a long and slow process. And yes, I do know about Prohibition, I have cited it more than once already. Its major result was to encourage the growth of organised crime. The posting about was animals was interesting and much in line with other things I have seen upon TV. It shoots down the arguments of those who were claiming that it was unknown in the animal world. LCM included - he once asked in a meeting I was at if anybody had heard of a gay kangaroo. Pity I didn't have material like this to throw in his face at the time. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

OK, I haven't followed exactly what is happening or how it's happening in Mass. Are there any articles or other information on the web? If so, it would be nice to have a link...and if that's already been done in this thread, I'm sorry for not catching it sooner. ?????????????

From today's New York Times February 7, 2004 Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name By DINITIA SMITH Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either. At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them. "They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach. Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world. This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic." But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral? The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly. Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' " Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.) Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law. "Sexual Exuberance" was also cited in 2000 by gay rights groups opposed to Ballot Measure 9, a proposed Oregon statute prohibiting teaching about homosexuality or bisexuality in public schools. The measure lost. In his book Mr. Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild. Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years. Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity. Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex. Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality." Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said. For Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, their homosexuality "is about bond formation," she said, "not about being sexual for life." She said that studies showed that adult male dolphins formed long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Ms. Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added. But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs, each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors. Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed." She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to use their right hand," she pointed out. Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable." But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes." Mr. Bagemihl is also wary of extrapolating. "In Nazi Germany, one very common interpretation of homosexuality was that it was animalistic behavior, subhuman," he said. What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think." "You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate." In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction." "Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals."

Linda Z wrote, "What is 'spirated,' because I can't find it in any American English dictionary." ***** According to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christia...ogy-philosophy/ , "breathe forth." It is a word I came across some years ago in a theological handbook written by a guy who apparently used it for its stronger semantic character than equivocally used words such as inspired or inspiration.

"I reject both of these arguments, mainly because any homosexual couple is entering into a relationship that, at least biologically, is already equal, and does not need the force of law to make it so, unlike a heterosexual union. Marriage, historically, benefits the female, and whatever children she may bring into this world. In fact, I think that marriage at its essence is a haven for female sexuality and female procreation. It offers protection for women to freely and safely express their sexuality. Marriage, more than abortion, and even more than the pill, has empowered women, because she can choose who will father her children, and with whom she will enter into a sexual union. There is an inherent inequality between men and women, which marriage (not feminism, not contraception) helps to remedy. I think that making a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will do nothing more than put women (and their children) at a further disadvantage. " That sounded so reasonable and logical, Laleo. But it really isn't. Because traditionally, a married woman was the property of her husband, who had the right to force sex upon her if she refused, and who and the final say in how many children were to be had. About the only thing a marriage offered a woman, traditionally, was some degree of financial security. Then came the sixties, abortion, birth control, and equal rights. New laws to protect married women were created and old laws done away with or changed. A woman could use birth control, a woman could legally tell her husband no to sex and expect that decision to be respected, a woman could go out and get a job and demand something closer to equal pay. NOW there is empowerment and protection for a woman. With those changes, divorce rates doubled, tripled, skyrocketed to a rate of 50+%. The concept of the traditional marriage has been changing ever since. People resist change, change is often scary to them. But not all change is bad. Today, marriage really doesn't offer any special protection to a woman and she doesn't even need it anyway. There are still many flaws to be worked out and some of these changes have brought up issues which we still haven't resolved. But I for one am very glad we no longer have those traditional protections offered by marriage which basically made a woman the property of her husband. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Well, this thread has certainly degraded into schoolyard bullying... cynically speaking... But, with a couple of the usual suspects, Excie, i repeat one of your earlier encouragements: "why waste your breath? One has to learn that the world does not stop if a Cynic or a Zixar tells one to .... off. Please, someone pass them the prozac.

As usual, Garth cites no sources to support his accusations.

That, plus Cynic has this rather irritating habit of talking like a cliquish prep school bookworm who confuses bandying about big sounding words for utilizing 'Scripture for faith and practice'. Never mind that you don't see biblical individuals like Peter, Paul, David, or even Jesus Christ going around and talking like they are some William Buckley knock-off, and then getting all huffy about 'orthodoxy' and 'polemic heretical hacks' when challenged. No, they acted more real than that. Heck, and they weren't even Republicans! Update: Cynic spouteth: ".... off!" Now, now Cynic, who'se acting polemic now? Or are you going to give us a Buckleyesque critique and apologetic about why your snit towards Ex is justified? Defending the 'Gospel', no doubt? 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

abi i think there was a "village" concept at one time ps. you other guys, why are you so rude ? if you hate homos, just say so. that would be a lot easier for a dense derailer like me ?

talking about the real issue is not derailing oh and thank you danny ps. cynic why don't you (and zix) say something worthwhile for once ? ? [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:05.]

. [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:05.]

okay mr. density, i don't know where you are coming from as far as what i said and cynic as usual i have no clue what you're talking about ohmygod what if you both spoke english? SCARE ME ?

okay i don't get this comparisonand the next one.... SAME ????? what ? now i'll go back and keep reading ?

ohmygosh catch me i'm about to faint i didn't know this was a religious discussion ?

why waste your breath, tref scripture is his ultimate rule of faith and practice ?

Scripture is my ultimate rule of faith and practice.

the discussion does not disturb me and of course talk how you want can you answer my other question about the bible being your only rule of faith and practice ? thank you sorry i offended you ?

Trefor continues to compare the disparity of legal statuses between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages, and fails to show why polygyny should not be governmentally sanctioned, while homosexual relationships ride to state recognition behind a banner of liberty and equality.

Ex, I am opposing the invoking of equality and liberty as a basis for myopically evaluating whether or not states should recognize homosexual relationships as "marriages." I have not appealed to the Constitution, and deem that document something that is quite far from having been divinely spirated.

Yeah, what makes THEM think they are better than us NON-marrieds? :D-->

i think we should take away all married people's rights ?

who the hell decides who controls evaluative factors for all situations and issues ????? (i had to copy and paste what you said, cynic ;)-->) are you telling me ? the constitution is god's word ? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha the more i read the more i am confused.... ?

Zixar appears to be aiming at the uncritical sloganeering of Trefor's appeals to equality and liberty by demonstrating that equality and liberty could not reasonably be deemed controlling evaluative factors for all situations and issues.

I don't get the point of zixar's analogies either... and Coolwaters, I don't know how you came up with the connection on pursuit of happiness, but I appreciate it, because it takes the matter back to the foundation of our society. And as to the point regarding polygamy, I don't see polygamy inherently as something that should be subject to specific exclusion, but as with homosexuality, some of the related cultural manifestations are or may be highly undesirable. Welfare fraud, closed societies with no accountability and high levels of personal intimidation, and child sexual exploitation are very real issues inherently tied to polygamist subcultures in northern Arizona and Utah.

Anyone care to argue why appeals to equality and liberty should advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of homosexual relationships, but should not advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of polygyny?

zix, i was posting while you were posting what does a roman catholic church rule have to do with a citizens ? are we talking church now ? ?

Ex: The point is that marriage has a traditional definition, with certain rules. Now, homosexuals want to redefine it to suit their wishes, regardless of how it has always been practiced. There have been many, many homosexual men who married women, either for appearance's sake, or to have children, or some other reason. There is currently no sexual-preference check in order to get a marriage license, but you do have to have one and only one of each gender to do so. There is no ban on homosexuals entering into marriage, they just can't do it with another person of the same gender. That's just how marriage works--like the priesthood. You want to be a priest? Fine. But you have to obey the rules, and one of those is that you must be celibate. Why should they have to make an exception because some people don't want to choose celibacy? There are other churches which do allow marriage of the clergy. I've forgotten at the moment who was making the "democracy" argument for states voting on gay marriage one by one. That doesn't wash. Why? Well, what would have stopped the Southern states from re-instating slavery at the first general election after the Civil War? We should address the secular inequity from gay/single vs. married, but only that. Anything more would build even more on the new state-sponsored religion--political correctness.

Okay, here goes, I am going to jump into this thread. First of all I am so happy to see this subject discussed so maturely in this thread. It made me comfortable enough to be a part of it. Please do not let my post become a thread killer. By now I have heard it all and I can appreciate to some extent all of the different viewpoints. I am very good at seeing all sides of the situation as long as we don't get into namecalling and insults. I do appreciate the following comment that was made as what I feel was an appropriate resonse to this individual poster. "M&A, Yeah! And while we're at it, since we're being so 'godly' and all ((GAG)) , why not round them up, tie them up to some fence post during the dead of winter and pistol whip them, just like Matthew Shepard. Or witch hunts, where you re-enact the Salem witch trials, except this time determining who is gay and who isn't; where one sure fire tactic was to throw them in the water with rocks tied to them, and if they float, they are innocent, and if they don't .... ((shrug)) My 14 year old daughter is a "lesbian". I put it in quotes because I have a problem with labling her that in the first place. To me she is my child, loving, bright, compassionate (maybe more so than others because she does have to put up with discrimination). I am glad that she is compassionate (I find that a rather mature insight for a 14 year old). rather than full of hate as she continues to suffer insults and others' godly tirades against it. On the other hand she has not had alot of problems at school nor has she had others not want to socially interact with her. My god, the phone rings off the wall for her, just as it would for any other 14 year old child. My home is constantly filled with kids her age. As a matter of fact, she has more friends than I ever did at her age. We have to kick them out usually. They are a mixture of both "straight" and "gay" kids. Also we live in a very small town of about 200 people and she goes to a country school. When she first "came out" I had some real concerns about how she would be treated in a small community. You would be suprised at the number of gay people in this small area. I was. From my perspective it has been the parents of some of the kids that have made the nasty remarks, not the children themselves. If you have never lived discrimination, then it is difficult at best to make a "etched in stone" type of belief about this subject. Back to my comment though, I consider her my child and I look at all her good qualities and her faults. Her sexual orientation has nothing to do with her personality, her humor, he love and dislikes for things in this world. I only want what is best for her as any mother would her child. My daughter knew this very early on. She just a year or so ago came to us and told us. From that point on, our relationship improved dramatically as far as communicating, because she no longer felt she had to keep this big "secret" from her dad and I. It was a tremendous burden for her not to feel that she could be who she was. It was her decision to make it known to friends and family etc. I do not intend to take her to a phyciatrist or anything to help "change" her or convince her she is not who she is. She's a cool kid all the way around. I guess with all this talk of laws etc, etc. I just wanted to put an element of the "human face" in here, and to let others see who may be against this lifestyle, that it is only one part of her as a whole person. There are those of us who are families of people who are different from what society deems appropriate. She has great goals for the future as to what she hopes to contribute to society. Call my post, the human face of a raging debate in our country. A side thought - did you ever wonder why there is "no male nor female" in heaven as the bible so eloquently puts that. It seems that there, we will all be one. Just something to ponder for those who with all my respect, still use the bible as their basis for things here on earth. Also, I am not trying to exploit my child in anyway. It does not bother her for others to know, she only hopes that it helps others to understand. outofdafog

Let's not be naive. It already is a Federal issue. Proponents of gay marriage intend to use Massachusetts law to challenge DOMA. Shortly after the Massachusetts law takes effect, gay couples married in Massachusetts will file suits in Federal Courts to require other States to recognize the marriages, based on Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. I'm pretty sure that some U.S. District judges, and one or two Circuit Courts of Appeals would rule it unconstitutional. I think the current U.S. Supreme Court would probably uphold it, , based on the second sentence of Article IV, Section 1, but that's not certain. Also, a future Supreme Court could reverse that ruling.I think this is going to backfire on gay rights advocates. There will almost certainly be a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which I think has a good chance to be ratified. I don't like the idea of amending the constitution for such things, but it's becoming the only option left to people of States who want to continue to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

I have no idea... I've not been invited to their meetings. I'm neither gay nor republican.

" TARGET=_blank>http://www.adrianplass.com/articles/chainsaw_fellowship.htm Oh come on Cynic, don't forget your pals in the Log Cabin Republicans.

Hey, Zix, you asked: "Society would lose ___________ if everyone were heterosexual, so homosexuality does serve a vital function." How 'bout Queer Eye For The Sraight Guy!

JL: And if you were a teenage girl instead, you'd have probably still kicked his heterosexual a$$, right? :)--> That's why I said that the bad acts of individuals are as irrelevant as the good acts of individuals.

Not a homosexual but rather a pedophile? Ok, how 'bout this? He was a homosexual pedophile. And, he had a wig! Uggh, what a friggin creep he was... The guy was a queer pedophile who simply wanted some young c**k. He deceived me into thinking that he could get me a job on the offshore oil rig that he worked on, and since it was his two week off period, I could come to his place for dinner. And so I did. He deceived me into thinking that he wanted to help me out and be his friend, and I was gullible and stupid at first. He didn't get any farther than trying to rub my back and ask me for sex at the same time because at that point I kicked his a$$ and then walked out. The question was asked what would be lost in our society if there were no homosexuals, and my answer was that that tiny chapter in the history of our society would not have happened. And, I am aware of the fact that seductions/molestations are not unique to homosexuals. But that attempt would not have happened if he had not had a "penchant for penis", that's all..

Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?

I'm no fan of homosexuality myself, and I certainly don't want to see it. However, I do think that people have rights to do as they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Johnny's opinion is valid, but it's a problem with laws of underage marriage rather than something to do with homosexuality. If the problem is pedophilia, I think it's best to fight pedophilia itself whether it's gay or straight people engaging in it with children. I can understand why gay people are wanting this. They can't be a "family" which shares in all the benefits of a married couple. They're not making the law so that gay people can go to your church and demand to be married, but that they can be able to claim a legal representation of their union together. I imagine gay couples want to get married for exactly the same reason straight couples do. We're all human beings. As to the causes or problems associated with homosexuality, there is a lot of controversy. Gay people have a higher percentage of mental illnesses than the straight population. However, is that due to a brain defect causing them to be gay also, is it due to their choosing to be gay, or is it due to society at large condemning them and treating them like garbage? We confuse the symptoms and causes too easily, and nobody really knows much about it. I'll admit that the sight of two men hugging and kissing makes me ill. However, I don't think that it's a good thing, any more than getting ill from seeing a black man and a white woman. I'd never be gay, but at the same time I can be comfortable knowing that people can deal with their own life on their own terms. If two consenting adults want to do it, then that's their choice. Besides, if they get married it would probably cut down the amount of STDs among homosexuals that spread as a result of multiple partners. I would think that gay people would be at least as committed as heterosexual couples are (which doesn't seem to be much these days.)

"(I work for LCM's *twin sister*, I swear - at least I had practice on dealing with this kind of ego before...)" Chas, is that "work",present tense or "worked", past tense? I didn't know LCM has a twin. I heard a few years back that he was estranged from his entire "earthly family", even before the Allen Lawsuit. Do you know if they managed to patch things up? What was it like, working for the sister of The Most Hight Way god?

I hear ya Raf - but the weird part about it all is I remember when the guy first made the statement about keeping it simple, or whatever it was, that I said to my husband, "Oh, s#it..." and started counting. I don't think I got to the number 4 when LCM flipped his lid. I'd spent enough time around leadership back then to know he was going to go into orbit. The dude wasn't spouting the company line at the time and anything that smelled like someone taking initiative was just plain BAD... You had to walk, talk, dress, etc., like him (or the Stepford Wives, for the women) or you were singled out. (I work for LCM's *twin sister*, I swear - at least I had practice on dealing with this kind of ego before...)

I was there - I can't speak for freeman but I would have to say *it* was LCM's perceived notion that someone was trying to run the show. I never did see what the guy did - i.e. ripping off the arm band - but I remember LP running after him for damage control. I'd love to know where that guy is now. (I bet he wasn't at the ROA that night after that!)

Greetings all and happy holidays. My wife and I were at that TC meeting and it was so uncomfortable just to be there. The young man was exhorting the crowd in the tent to "Keep it simple" and that set LCM off on his diatribe. I remember as the words were coming out of his mouth We were cringing in our chairs, not because the young man was wrong, but I guess only LCM and his ego could give direction at "HIS" meeting and we knew what was comming. It was L#$RY Pan^&*$%o who LCM sent to clean up his mess. I must admit at the time I thought it was funny, But it must have been humiliating for the guy and I'm sorry I felt that way. It would have been so easy to have handled it in a kind and loving manner but bullies will do what bullies do. One either earns another's respect through love or intimidates with fear. LCM always chose the latter. Peace and Blessings IMA