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.

Aside from the local doing way runs, there's the ex-wayfers. Some come to gaze upon the fountain, smell the hedge-protected air, and run their fingers through the miraculously cut grass. Others, like McBlah, come to make a stink. Still others, uh, . . . they uh, off their meds . . . The Way really must have done them in good.

So.....wierwille and co. fabricated FLAT-OUT LIES on the Jim Jones' cult driven to mass suicide. So.....wierwille and his cronies KNEW that they were changing the label of the peach jar to govt pickles. So.....wierwille and his cult-agenda BLATANTLY LIED TO ALL ADV CLASS ATTENDEES. And....some relish "the good ole days" when grandpa wierwille ruled...???

I am not sure what was said after I left. . . but, I never heard anyone say that the bible gave parents the right to kill a disobedient spouse or child. That would have penetrated my foggy brain. I have always been disgusted and shook about the practice of female infanticide in rural parts of China and India. . . . even when I was in TWI. I would have taken note of that. Martindale did say something about . . . . if it were old testament times. . . and homosexuals. I can imagine it was not a leap for him to include cop-outs or disobedient "believers". It wouldn't have been worse than swatting a fly to him. . . wasn't there even a song? The "adversary" was always nipping at our heels. . . typical TWI. . . giving the devil control over the power of life and death while totally discounting God's role and purview in creation. Hmm, we had more faith in Satan's ability than God's. That is something to consider if we dare. Maybe that is part of the soul killing you mention. . . . or part of the cause of beatings and cruelty. We had some really obsessive traits in TWI. . . . we did train our eyes on evil.

Good point. There were definitely some people who were corpse or leader.... wannabes who would otherwise have been living under a bridge. No social skills and pretty weird. I met one BC at the ROA who was pushing his folks to invest in a silver coin scheme he was selling. Looked like a slimy used car salesman. Bad jacket, bad haircut. Kind of like Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade but without the suave personality. :blink: Come to think of it, there were a lot of people who were kind of on the fringes of society who found a home in twig. Kind of a-social and backwards. Give that person some power and bad advice, yikes! JT

DISCLAIMER The following is second hand information, conveyed to me, personally, in 1979, by the individual involved. 1979 (during "the wierwille administration") A friend of mine who had recently graduated from a Way leadership training program returned to his hometown to resume his life. He was quite disillusioned with some discrepancies that he had seen and some that had been brought to his attention. Mind you, now, this was 1979, pre internet times, so he obviously knew even less than the average GSC frequenter who has been here awhile. He began to speak out publicly against The Way. Within days, literally, an armed goon squad appeared at his door, hundreds of miles from HQ, and made it very clear to him he could suffer dire consequences if he didn't stop immediately. They did not sugar coat it with "spiritual" talk of the hedge of protection. When he told me, I was flabbergasted. I tried to bounce the information off several people, both "rank and file" and "leadership". I suppose you can imagine the sort of reception and rationalization that ensued. Who is to say what might have happened if that incident had escalated? ****************************** "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." ****************************** Believe it if you want to, or dismiss it completely. Makes no difference to me.

I talked to macmarine this evening, and his plan is to call co-conspirator Da*is Cro*we** and make sure he remembers all the details correctly ... stay tuned. TF

Lack of love...Hmmph...How bout, I forgot because being on the spot is scary? One time in Christian Communication: Dave B*dard says: Kevin Nye stand up! Recite CC Principle# 7! Kevin stands up, struggles with it, but doesn't have it all down. DB yelling: Why can't you remember it?!?! Dave B*rk just said it two minutes ago! Are you deaf?!?! (As a matter of fact Kevin did have a serious hearing loss, but was not in favor of blaming things on his hearing loss, and didn't like to confess the negative of said hearing loss with the hopes of being healed one day). Kevin begins to stammer something and DB screams; "Answer me! Are-You- Deaf?!?! Kev*n still doesn't want to say yes, because he knows that this is not why he can't recite it anyway. But if he says no, it wouldn't really be true, and if yes, it would seem as an excuse and he'd really get creamed. Rock and a hard place. And on Kevin's right is his gal pal (just really good friend, for she was married) Karin Morgan. Karin is fidgeting in her chair as Kevin is being interrogated, grilled, smoked! Her husband Max had his hand on her knee, trying to keep her in check. He knows what she's thinking... DB keeps on screaming at the top of his lungs (that little nipper!), and finally Karin can stand the abuse no more because Kevin is her friend. So, she leaps to her feet and yells almost in a military fashion; "Yes Dave! He is very hard of hearing! He lost alot of his hearing due to adult measles and he doesn't want to confess that his hearing is bad because he wants to be healed one day!!!" And then slams back down in her seat next to Kevin as he sits down too and hugs him, kisses him on the cheek, and then hugs Max, burying her head in his shoulder and sobbed saying "I'm sorry I'm sorry", waiting for DB to rip into her. It was so quiet one could hear a pin drop, except for Karin's crying... But DB didn't rip into her. He was speechless for a moment, and then quietly says; "Well then why didn't you say so?" And Kevin says; "Because like Karin said, I never want to confess that my ears are bad and I don't want to use the loss as an excuse." And DB said; "oh". Now, that Karin was some kind of a friend, no? What a Sister! God rest her soul. She died a few years later of ovarian cancer. :(-->

Yeah, droning on on their birthdays... One guy went on and on during his "birthday speech" aboout how he was now "living in the Land of the Giants" and somehow had co-related his coming into the Way Corps with that old television show The Land of the Giants. Richrad Th*mas finally tells him to sit down and shut up, and then goes into his opinion of those who did such things, with the admonition to keep it short and sweet. Then, a couple days later, this gal, Judy Sz*m*ky, gets up with her guitar and sings a song she wrote called "Daddy's Girl" which was all about her life story, and it seemed to go on forever, while Richard T, in the background was half smiling and shaking his head in a "you got me on that one" sort of a way. When she was done, we all laughed and cheered as RT shook his head with a defeated smile..

So we're sittin' at supper one day in the lunchroom at Emporia lookin' down at our plates. A bunch of the usual suspects. Some of us around the table were part of the same group of wild foot crazy 11th Corps guys that Radar talked about running in slow motion to the Chariots of fire background music JAL was playing for effect. Today's topic, however was... "What is THAT?" "I dunno." "I aint eatin' it." "Well, I'M hungry." "ME too, but I aint eatin' THAT!" "If I knew what it was I MIGHT eat it, I'm hungry." "I know what it is..." "Ok smartass, you know what it is, YOU eat it." "NO. YOU eat it. I told you, I aint eatin' it." "I know what it is, that WHY I - AINT - EATin' it." The plurality bowl went by and each guy in turn picked up his fork and stabbed his perfectly round, igloo-shaped scoop and plopped it onto the bowl, making a little perfectly shaped mountain of the dreaded.... Brocoli/Millet caserole... Ugh. "Now what are we gonna do?" I leaned forward and said to my good bud G@rl@nd H@rr!s. "I'm STILL hungry," somebody else said, "Yeah What we gonna do about eating? We cant eat that sh$t." G leaned forward, looked at me & said. "A BIG MAC sounds really good right now" "Oooooohhhh, a BIG mac...!" It seemed like we all sighed in unison and sunk into our chairs. "Theres a McDonalds, right down the street..." "So close, yes SOOOOOOOOO far away." If only we could get there. Yeah. We could have a BIG MAC. AND fries. AND a milkshake! Everbody said, "miiiillllk shaaaaake." G said. You know, there's enough time before class... I said, "We could make it and be back, eat our food..." Somebody else said... "And DRINK our shake!" Yes MILK-Shake! ..."all that EATing... ...and drinking..... "done by Corps time for class." "Yes. BUT we have no vehicle. I only have a bike." I said. Can't make it on a bike. "We're not allowed off campus." Another sigh.... "Mcdonalds." We lifted our glasses in toast to Micky D's. G leaned forward again, turned towards me and said. "If we only had a vehicle." I said, "And a College Division friend." "Yes! Such a FRIEND could SAVE us." "The FREIND could use his vehicle...." "and his ABILITY to leave this wretched place." "That fed us this stuff>' "We CAN't eat it." There was a College Division guy sitting between G and I the whole time. Everyone else at the table was staring at him through out the whole discourse. He broke. He started flailing his hands in the air, "Ok .... OK !! I'll DO it! I'll go to McDon.." "Shhh! We MUST be QUIET if this is going to work." We passed a napkin around, everybody put their order on it and Garland & I put together this James Bond type plan where everone would quickly go back to their rooms and get their money to the college division guy who had to leave at precisely the right time from behind the building we ate in by the loading dock cause there was never any staff abck there who could foil the plan. I zoomed back on my bike and literally just lept off of it and jumped into the side door of College Division guy's van as he was leaving. they shut the door & off we went. We got the food and brought it back to garden level Wierwille and pigged OUT! The whole floor smelled like McDonalds & people were going NUTS! We were like the Godfather. Yes, my son, A bite of this Big MAC will cost you the cookie or brownie from your next three sac suppers. Some Staff & even JAL walked by. We all pointed in unison to College Division guy. We chipped in & bought his meal for transpoting us. He shrugged his shoulders, we munched. Nobody was late for class.

Hey, even Grace Adler calls Will and Jack homos. (Will and Grace)

First, I'd like to state that I'm not a homosexual and I don't play one on TV. There were a lot of posts I wanted to address... but they're all a few pages back now... and it seems the name calling has stopped... I thought the big reason folks wanted this was so they could have the same "survivorship" rights as heterosexual folks do... plain and simple... So why should anyone else care? Only because your religion says to? ... You can have your anti-homosexual beliefs, just don't hide behind all the rhetoric and name calling, just admit it and say "I don't like it"... you don't have to justify it, it's the way you choose to believe... you are the only one who it has to be justified to... It's kinda like Abigail's "To every man his own truth and his own God within." but if that's your argument against this case... a couple's survivorship rights (whether homo or hetero)... what does it matter to you? It does not effect you really. It just effects your social and religious feelings... but that doesn't make it wrong. I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

Linda, Yes, courts do that, and they should, according to the governing constitution(s), other relevant laws, and precedent, including definitions that have been accepted for centuries. In this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court defied hundreds of years of legal precedent and, by a one vote margin, redefined the legal meaning of "marriage," potentially not only for Massachusetts, but for the entire country. Who said anything about spousal rights that "shouldn't be permitted?" Most of them can already be exercised through other means than either marriage or formalized civil unions. The ones that can't are special benefits that society has provided for traditional marriages, in order to encourage and support them. If the people, through their elected representatives or voter initiatives, should choose to extend some or all of those benefits to others, I have no problem with whatever they decide.

Long Gone said, "Why do you assume that 'we' are afraid of anything? That was the "royal we." I'm kidding! I meant "we" as in "we as a society." Long Gone: "I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage." I think we're...er, I'm getting somewhere now. I might even agree with you, if that "legal formalizing" permits one partner to include the other partner on his or her health insurance, allows them to share in end-of-life decisions, and other such things that life partners may do. I'm still not sure a court doesn't have the right to interpret existing law. Isn't that part of what courts do? (Not saying I know--just asking.) When you say "most of the spousal rights," which ones do you think same-sex partners shouldn't be permitted? Linda Z

Sorry for being ignorant but what is a DOMA law. 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

Last time I asked this, it killed the thread. So be ye warned. :D--> I'm not trying to be a thorn in anyone's side here with this, but could someone outline for me what the benefits of the piece of paper are? Is it just the financial benefits, and is this a reason to get married? It doesn't guarantee the relationship will last forever (none do, for whatever reason). Does it mean the union is blessed by God, and what does that mean? With DNA testing now, one can prove who the father of a child is, so one can pursue child support should this be necessary. Truly, an honest question on my part. The lessons repeat until they are learned.

You got me with the Leviticus thing, Mark. Now that I think about it, the dietary laws wouldn't fall under any of the 10 commandments, either. Now that makes me wonder if the ten commandments were given as a safeguard to a God-fearing society, while additional OT laws were given to safeguard individuals' well-being. I don't know the answer. I'm just pondering aloud to get others' input, but maybe this is the wrong place for that. Since Jesus Christ took us beyond the law to the law of love, do those other laws still pertain, even in the God-fearing portion of socity? Not saying they do or don't, because I'm not sure. But it's something to think about. Anyway, either way, you're right--it doesn't really have any bearing on the legal question at hand. You already addressed that yourself when you said, "Having said that, in modern society, Biblical beliefs and practices have nothing to do with society or the law." So back to that: If someone said this before and I missed it or didn't understand, can anyone tell me, from a purely legal perspective, how allowing homosexuals to marry jeopardizes the soundness of society? Isn't that what laws are intended to protect? Can anyone tell me how allowing people of the same gender to marry would be giving homosexuals more rights than heterosexuals? Linda Z

Gosh, I go to bed and when I return to this thread after a night's sleep there are two more pages, there is name calling and discussions about the Reformation! :D--> zix: You are still making the same old "take it or leave it argument", that the status quo is the best that there is or ever will be. You are still comparing chalk and cheese. Single heterosexual people have a choice to marry if they want the benefits, homosexual people do not have that choice of marrying the person thay they love. You may be surprised to know that here in the UK first cousins may marry and have children without any legal restriction. The fact that it is illegal elsewhere does not invalidate the marriage and I am sure that were two cousins who had got married elsewhere were to immigrate the the US that their marriage would be still accepted - after all it's one man and one woman! cynic: Culture changes, the understanding of the bible changes and marriage occurs in cultures that have not been biblically influenced. What you are saying is that because we have always done something a certain way based upon a set of beliefs influenced by society that nothing should be amenable of change. The fact that they have been "historically viewed as aberrant" does not mean that this view was ever right. Again I challenge you to look at the bible from another viewpoint. Dr Truluck is a biblical scholar and there are many other scholars who have reached the same or similar conclusions. It might be shocking for you to discover that this "historical view" is in fact wrong but nevertheless the possibility is indeed there. laleo: For centuries a woman that got married became a chattel of her husband. She had no legal rights, all her property went to him as did the children, should he desire, if they separated. Men had a legal right to have sex, forced if necessary, with their wives, were allowed to beat them also without legal penalty or redress. One therefore has to question the amount of advantage to the woman that she supposedly gets than if they did not marry. Children only have stability when a relationship has stability and looking at the statistics for divorce I find this argument hard to swallow. There is no evidence that children brought up by a same sex couple are any less disadvantaged when the "parents" remain together. Some have argued that they are missing the vital role model of a father or a mother but many children are already devoid of one or the other because of divorce. I have said so before but I will repeat it - marriage is not granted on the grounds that the couple will have children - it may be an expectation but it is not obligatory and the inability to have children is no barrier or the complete lack of interest in having any is no bar to marriage. Any relationship exists when two parties consent to it, male and female, male and male, female and female, they do not require anybody else's approval. Men and women can, however get their relaitonship legally recognised should they wish it. Benefits, prvileges and responsiblities flow from that. A gay man whose partner dies however is not considered to be his next of kin. He may lose the home they have built up, he may even be excluded by the family from his partner's funeral. If the partner had been in hospital beforehand he may have been refused access. He could lose out on survivor and pension benefits which would have been his otherwise. Thanks for your kind wishes, when I have a mate about vows. Vows are, however made, to each other, before God and witnesses. A religious marriage is not in itself sufficient to make a marriage in the eyes of the state - it has to be registered as a contract for all the legal recognitions etc to ensue. Divorce always requires a legal act and in some churches, such as the Roman Catholic church, even a civil divorce does not invalidate the marriage. But that's another story. Personally it is not what you call a legally recognised relationship that is important. I am quite content with the arrangements that are being made over here in the UK. If the USA offered similar accomodations and called it something other than marriage I would not object but in the absence of such accomodations being proposed or even opposed I must speak my mind. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Garth, You possibly are going to face my bringing up your blood-libels every time you get in my face. You finally have provided some links, however, which, despite their possible imprecision, is quite an accomplishment for such a lazy little a$$ hole as you.

Is this the best you can come back with? Or is this one of those 'gotta defend a fellow Republican no matter what' frat brother sort of thing? I'm sorry, but I didn't know that I made Cynic 'look good' because I called him on his condescending arrogance, particularly towards Excathedra in this case. And all he could come back with is to bring up an unsettled argument to deflect the criticism. Oh I know, its because I'm such the 'liberal', isn't it? Therefore that 'neccesitates' my words not meaning a thing, is that it? (As tho' that argument really carries any weight -- which it does not) 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

Hee hee, if this is the best you can come back with, bringing up unsettled arguments that you had with me as a means of 'proving' your case, then you must be getting desperate. Calvin was responsible for more than just Servetus' death. And the evidence documenting this isn't a result of some 'intellectual vitality of a lazy fabricator'. Plus I imagine that if it weren't so well known that Calvin was responsible for Servetus' death, you'd deny that too, and hope that nobody would be the wiser. Perhaps you aren't as objective about the founder of your denomination as you'd like for us to think, hmmm? Thank you for showing me further why Calvinism (your brand anyway) is best avoided. 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

Exie, I am so very very proud to know you at this moment. :)--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

To you.

I knew you were going to say that.

It's not for me to argue one way or another about polygyny or polygamy - I was merely making some observations about its practice cynic. All I argue is that there is a level playing field. If the state allows two people to enter into the legal contract of marriage then it should allow any two people of either sex the same. The state does not allow anybody to have multiple marriages and therefore nobody is advantaged or discriminated against or rather everybody is discriminated against equally. We are talking about legal recognitions, not what arrangements that are not legally recognised may occur. Many heterosexual men have their harems, their mistresses, their "other women". VPW was only legally married to Dorothea and LCM is only legally married to Donna. Joseph Smith was only legally married to Emma no matter what other arrangements his religion came to allow at the time. Yet Bob and Tom are not allowed even one legal marriage to each other. That is the discrimination. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Interesting piece. "The Biblical Source of Western Sexual Morality," by Peter J. Leithart. http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm07_leithart.html ***** Quoted from that piece: "This brief glance at the structure of sexual mores in two pre-Christian civilizations suffices to prove the point: Biblical sexual morality is not universally defended and practiced in all societies. The sexual morality that has served as a foundation of Western civilization is a product of Christianity. Given the fact that sexual issues so deeply disturb contemporary society, it is essential for Christians self-consciously to defend Biblical morality, not some vague 'traditional morality' or 'traditional family values.'"

Cynic... how will divorce be handled then? It's complicated enough now, with only one husband/one wife at a time.

Well, depending upon your marital experience(s), I would think that marriage would be a "pursuit of happiness". So... To me, that implies a right to marriage. But I'm no lawyer and I don't know how or even if the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with constitutional law. ?????????????

yeah! people! I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

M&A, Yeah! And while we're at it, since we're being so 'godly' and all ((GAG)) :o-->, 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)) --> Tell me something dude. Do you belong to that God Hates Fags Church? Cause you sure sound like a sure fire successor to that Fred Phelps guy. Is he grooming you to take over? ..... Kinda like VPW groomed L. Craig Martindale? (This guy is a classic example of why fundies sometimes make me throw up) :o--> :P--> Mark, Excuse me, but there are some things that 'the PEOPLE' via the legislative process have no business in determining. Private and consenting relationships between adults, and the full legal protection of them, is one of them. There are a couple of others that 'the PEOPLE' cannot touch through the legislative process. Ohhh, like freedom of religion being one. And the right to own and bear arms for your and your family's protection is another. As long as they aren't pushing it directly on you and making you participate, you aren't being harmed. Plus I think that there are perhaps more important and relevant issues that we, as a people, need to deal with, perhaps? 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

Incest definition and laws have nothing to do with the age of the participants. Therefore, incest does not necessarily include minors. There are older people (past child bearing years) with legitimate concerns about societal limitations on this.

Rocky: "Consensual incest" means engaging in a sexual act with one's own sibling, first cousin, or similar adult relative.

Other than the "what good is it" line, which I wouldn't pursue, I pretty much agree with Zixar, at least for now. I'm all for people being able to designate whoever they want as beneficiaries, medical decision makers, etc. I'm not in favor of people being able to demand that whoever they want be covered under their health insurance policies. Regardless of childless marriages, marriages of convenience, marriages that amount to little more than legalized pedophilia, forced marriages, and relatively temporary marriages, the institution of marriage is intended to encourage and support families, particularly children, who are the future of any society. It is not a peculiarly religious institution. Homosexual unions are legal. Polygamous relationships are also, in a sense. Polygamy, as such, is illegal, but there is no law preventing the same sort of arrangement, as long as it is not called marriage. For now, I think that the legitimate (from my point of view) concerns of homosexual couples can be met without changing marriage laws. There will probably come a time when that won't be the case. I expect that, within my lifetime, two women will conceive a child together, without any involvement of a man. I expect that sometime in the more distant future, it will be possible for two men to do the same thing. All it would take is a little advancement in the same sorts of techniques currently used for cloning, plus an artificial "womb." I don't doubt that either will happen. When they do, society will have to adapt and laws will have to change.

(resolving a cross-post) Trefor: With respect, that's the same dodge you used the last time I asked this question. I know you must keep seeing it as snide or accusatory because of the indignance of your replies, but I'm being totally serious--give me a REASON why I should fight as hard to protect homosexuality as I would to protect any other concept. As I outlined above, homosexuals already have the right to marry in this country, according to the definition of marriage that has persisted for the past three thousand years. If government were a restaurant, the fact that certain people don't particularly like what's on the menu does not obligate the chef to cook something special for them, nor does it give them any right to sue for redress.

Tom: The point is that if there is no positive net effect on society, why should society recognize homosexuality as requiring legal steps to protect and advance it?

yeah Datway... pretty callous... 6er, I guess I just don't follow the logic, I kinda thought that's what you meant, but aside from the reproductive aspects, what's the difference? I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

That was an interesting article Zixar. I have to agree with the authors point of view, provided that his description of the functions of the branches of government are correct. But to the best of my recollection of how our government is supposed to work, I think he is right...

Also, in this case they didn't make a law, they simply gave their interpretation of a vague part of the Massachusets state constitution. Courts are supposed to interpret the law, and supreme courts can overrule laws that don't fit in with the rest of the law. Legislating from the bench is a bad thing, but in this case all they did was provide a clearer interpretation of an already existing law. Whether that interpretation was right or wrong will be up for debate for quite some time.

Actually, I believe it's possible that we make be recounting the same incident. The WOW in my story was an African American, too. And 1992/93 sounds about right.

i am glad to hear that mstar how 'bout that man of god who performed your dad's and new bride's wedding ? merry christmas ?

LOL! Good quote, true enough of wayfer and some fundamentalist types, but I have seen a few over the years (not in TWI) who aren't so consumed by control, power and lack of humility. In my experience its sometimes the ones who arent so out front who are actually worth listening to.

Actually, I think it was 1993. Not surprised that it would have happened more than once, but I do remember that the question and answer parts were discontinued after that in 94 and 95. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

As wannabe "leaders" frequently imitated Wierwille and later Martindale, many started saying "I'm running this meeting" whenever there was any dissent, or if the reproved one disagreed with the assessment of the almighty miniMOG. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

cringing for other folks.... the way corps motto.... i remember evan's testimony and i remember daily the in-residence house of horrors with my tuttles also if i'm remember right, veepee was with lc initially with the jock chit then what happened ? after he did the dance, veepee backstepped ??? i forget ?

okay.... w*at's *appen*ng???

Reminds me of the Corps weeks when Martindale & Wierwille floated the "athletes only" doctrine. It was presented by Mr. Fore Head and we were given, what?, a day to "work" it. My skeptical buddies & I found problems in the proposition that *all military language in the NT was wrong. So we have the "discussion". ForeHead is front & center. Also on stage are Wierwille & cummins. After some more from the stage we are invited to share our questions, agreements, problems. Yeah. Same deal. Fawning & butt-kissing; shameless, emabarrassing. Emboldened by one another, our posse lined up behing a mic. Each of us were angrily interrupted ...not by Mr. Rev Fore S. Head, but by Big Daddy MotorCoach Hisself. His comments, though a bit more articulated, amounted to "shut up dummy, we don't want to hear it". For Fore Head this was learned behavior.

another thing. i have a problem with subtle arrogance. even if they don't have a big mouth. but that's another story ;)--> ?

what the phhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkk was his problem ? LOVE you say ? ?