(Originally posted on TB2000)

Looking for him...

Man Targeting 8 Year Old Kids With Semen Filled Squirt Gun - April 24, 2000

Got 'em!

[A HREF="http://www.newschannel2000.com/orl/news/stories/news-20000503-212345.html">Squirt Gun Suspect Stays In Jail - May 3, 2000

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 09, 2000

Answers

Shoulda been...

Got 'em!

Squirt Gun Suspect Stays In Jail - May 3, 2000

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 09, 2000.

How can this guy be gay when he targeted FEMALE children?!?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 09, 2000.

How can this guy be gay ...

True, his actions don't necessarily show a gay slant but your reasoning that he can't be gay because the child was female is just as flawed.

-- Perverts (are@disgusting.com), May 09, 2000.

True, his actions don't necessarily show a gay slant but your reasoning that he can't be gay because the child was female is just as flawed.

So are you saying that he's gay until proven otherwise?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 09, 2000.

Of course this guy isn't a homosexual. He's a pedophile with a fetish for semen.

Misunderstanding the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual probably goes back to childhood and the schoolyard, where most of us first heard the whispered rumors that "wierdos" existed. In a child's mind both gays and pedophiles are perceived as scary boogeymen and social outcasts.

This "Unreported Gay" person obviously never got any information on the subject more reliable than playground whispers.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 09, 2000.

So are you saying that he's gay until proven otherwise?

Flawed reasoning has no correct conclusion.

-- Perverts (are@disgusting.com), May 09, 2000.

::::::::I'm feeling sick::::::::: :-#

-- Maya (Maya@eck.ist), May 09, 2000.

>> Flawed reasoning has no correct conclusion. <<

How true. The fact that the targeted child was a girl and the perp was a man shows that he was not homosexual. That term is reserved for those whose sexual attraction is reserved to the same sex. Please note: the man and the girl are of different sexes.

The facts speak for themselves. The closest this perp could come to your description would be if he were a bisexual pedophile with a semen fetish. Possible. No evidence to support that claim, though.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 09, 2000.

"In a child's mind both gays and pedophiles are perceived as scary boogeymen and social outcasts."

It would seem that most of the time this perception is correct.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 09, 2000.

capnfun

Are you saying that all gay men are in fact, "boogeymen"?

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Y2kPro,

No,if I were to dissect the statement I would say that much of the time gays are outcasts and pedophiles are boogeymen.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 09, 2000.

In a child's mind both gays and pedophiles are perceived as scary boogeymen and social outcasts.

Both for good reasons.

This "Unreported Gay" person obviously never got any information on the subject more reliable than playground whispers.

Hamsters and Gerbils of the world tend to disagree.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 09, 2000.

how long did it take to fill the squirt gun?

-- scorekeeper (ur@dufus.com), May 09, 2000.

how long did it take to fill the squirt gun?

My turn to puke...

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 09, 2000.

lighten up.

-- scorekeeper (ur@dufus.com), May 09, 2000.

This guy is obviously one sick individual.

I hope that he doesn't have any deadly diseases that could be transmitted through facial orifices.

Imagine the HORROR those families must be going through!

I can't!

-- Peg (not@really.necessary), May 09, 2000.

At least he didn't inject them---did he?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 09, 2000.

"The fact that the targeted child was a girl and the perp was a man shows that he was not homosexual. That term is reserved for those whose sexual attraction is reserved to the same sex. Please note: the man and the girl are of different sexes."

Brian, I couldn't have said it better myself.

For the record, there have been no recorded instances of anyone, gay, straight, or otherwise, putting gerbils, hamsters, ferrets, marmots, rats, mice, shrews, squirrels or any other small mammal up their posterior.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithtouta.net), May 09, 2000.

Tarzan,

Yes,the gerbil thing has been documented,I know two ER nurses who at the time were wotking in LA,both confirmed the fact that said well known actor was admitted for removal of rodent from posterior cavity.

One nurse is a friend of my mothers now residing in Kentucky,the other nurse is the wife a fellow whom I worked with for awhile here in Nashville.In casual conversation it turned out that they knew each other from LA and confirmed the story was not urban myth.

Truth IS stranger than fiction.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 09, 2000.

Capnfun, I'm calling your bluff. I can't tell you how many "friend of a friend" stories I've heard, and moreover, I can't tell you how many times I've heard of this particular story. Must be a lot of actors out there stuffing rodents up their anuses and NOT getting written up in the medical literature. So, my questions for you are:

Which hospital?

Which star?

What was the name of the attending physician?

While I wait for your answers, here's some info on the "gerbiling" myth.

http://www.snopes.com/sex/homosex/gerbil.htm

http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/gerbilling/x-ray_debunked.html

"Cecil Adams, in his Straight Dope column (collected into several books) at first thought the rumour might be true, but says that all attempts to track down a real case have been unsuccessful and says that he now is confident that it's merely a legend.

Jan Harold Brunvand discusses it as an urban legend (and agrees that it's false) in his book on urban legends, The Mexican Pet.

The guy who writes "News of the Weird" published a list of objects found up the down staircase which included a rodent. On being asked by Cecil for a source, he hastily retracted the gerbil (ummm, you know what I mean); he had mistaken his original query for such a cite as being a cite. Or something like that; the correspondence is in one of Cecil's books."

http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/gerbilling/gerbilling_debunking.ht ml

http://www.baywindows.com/gerbil.asp

"Although it's impossible to say that no cases of gerbilling exist, it appears that it's just another in a long line of famous -- and virtually inextinguishable -- urban legends."

http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/gerbilling/gerbilling_medline_refe rences_none.html

http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/gerbilling/richard_gere.html

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 09, 2000.

Tarzan,

I cannot/will not let down the confidence of the women involved.As far as calling my bluff,there was no bluff and I will acquiesce as to providing verifiable evidence,my humble apologies.You my friend win that hand of cards.

You are correct,sinse I can't put up,I'll shut up.*I* will have to go with my friend's words and their stories and keep it to myself,now and in the future.

"Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor"

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 09, 2000.

Tarzan,

You've made a bet you probably can't lose. No doctor or nurse could reveal the name of a patient Gerbiling without violating doctor-patient confidentiality. Therefore, you'll only get "I know a nurse/doctor who said" stories, as I doubt you can find a doctor who hates his house and car so much he'll go on record with this kind of info.

As far as the medical literature, why would you consider someone putting a gerbil up their butt worthy of publication? Does the medical literature have case reports of people putting other things up their butts?

It's a "myth" I have no trouble believing, but then I'm religious ;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 09, 2000.

My response to capnfun:

"I cannot/will not let down the confidence of the women involved."

I'm not asking you to tell me who those women are. I'm asking you to tell me which hospital they were working at when this event took place. You said they no longer work there, so where, exactly, is the confidence broken?

"I* will have to go with my friend's words and their stories and keep it to myself,now and in the future."

I suggest you do that. Urban legends are nasty, vile rumors, plain and simple. I do not believe that you, or your friends, have conciously lied, but I do believe they have been taken in by a very common urban legend. I have a number of medical professionals in my family, and I can tell you that this particular urban legend is extremely common.

My response to Frank:

"No doctor or nurse could reveal the name of a patient Gerbiling without violating doctor-patient confidentiality."

You're right on this point.

"As far as the medical literature, why would you consider someone putting a gerbil up their butt worthy of publication? Does the medical literature have case reports of people putting other things up their butts?"

As a matter of fact, yes. Doctors routinely publish facts about unusal cases in order to share their knowledge with the community, get their names out there (publish or perish), or to fulfill educational and/or professional obligations. Medline has many citations of unusual items being removed from rectums. JAMA has also published several articles on this point. Moreover, highly unusual cases frequently see quite a bit of news coverage; consider the doctor in New York who carved his initials into his patient, the child who received the baboon heart, the Grants Pass, OR man who had an arrow removed from his forehead in 1993.

This story has been documented since 1982, usually involving Richard Geer. In all that time, there hasn't been a single, solitary shred of documentable evidence of this case. No hospital is cited, no x- rays or physical evidence, no doctor, nurse, or hospital administrator coming forward and saying they can confirm this story, no ambulence driver trying to make a fast buck, no other patients who happened to be in the next room looking for quick publicity. Nothing.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 09, 2000.

Fascinating that many of the same people who believe the "gerbil up the butt" urban legend are also the ones who believed Ed Yourdumb and his Y2K nonsense.

-- Savage (blah@blah.com), May 09, 2000.

Tarzan,

Why such a great defense of homosexuals?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 09, 2000.

Y2J, obviously you didn't read my post, or you would know that gerbiling is complete fiction and has nothing to do with homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, or nonsexuals.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 09, 2000.

Y2J" (Rant on)

And what if Tarzan were defending homosexuals? Are you going to give us a bunch of religious bullshit to tell us that we should see them as less than equal to you, you fascist? I will defend ANY human's right to be treated equally. It is people like you that make a bad name for the human species.

(Rant off)

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 09, 2000.

Y2J said:

>> Why such a great defense of homosexuals? <<

This is pretty mild, but typical. Y2J very likely falls among those who believe the taboo against homosexuality is so powerful that to merely hint that someone might be gay should make them back off. The truth is that activities that harm no one should not require defending.

But attacks do require a defense. It is the role of any good person to defend from attack those who do no harm. We should not leave it to the gay community to do the defending alone.

I will repeat it for those who have missed my other posts on this subject: consensual sex harms no one. Homosexuals are not threats to anyone by the mere fact of their homosexuality. I have known many homosexuals. None were anything but essentially decent people. And totally harmless to society. If you do not know a gay person well enough to know their phone number, then the chances are good that most of what you think you "know" about gays is false.

This particular bigotry just gravels me no end.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 09, 2000.

Tarzan,

I tried a quick search on medline and didn't come up with any case reports on rectal item removal, or I wouldn't have posted the way I did. What did you use as keywords to find case reports of inanimate items removed from rectums?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 09, 2000.

I asked Tarzan a question, and I am labeled a fascist and a bigot because of it. FutureShock and Brian, you need to be a little less hasty as you jump to your conclusions. Maybe I am a homosexual and I am trying to find out if Tarzan is too. Or do both of you have extrasensory perception that allows you to know all of my thoughts?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 09, 2000.

Frank:

Just trying to help out here, but if you use Google as a search engine and type in rectal removal objects, you should get lots of hits.

Google search on rectal objects for Frank

As for the rest of this thread, I already saw it presented on EZBOARD. The poster who originated the thread made LOTS of assumptions that were obviously carried over here.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Google search on rectal objects for Frank

LOL. Does anyone else see the irony in this statement or is it just me?

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 10, 2000.

Opps! Worng thread.

-- Coke or Pepsie? (iswallow@umm.com), May 10, 2000.

>> Maybe I am a homosexual and I am trying to find out if Tarzan is too. <<

OK. I'll bite. Are you? 'Fess up.

>> Or do both of you have extrasensory perception that allows you to know all of my thoughts? <<

So. You complain that we misinterpret you. Yet, strangely enough, you offer no alternative interpretation to ours. Only speculation about what in the world you might have meant. Don't you know? Aren't you the proper person to correct us with the true meaning of your question. Then why didn't you? Very odd if you ask me.

Or could it be FS and I were onto something and you felt bad about calling us liars when we were uncomfortably close to the truth? Why leave us guessing? Why not set us straight once and for all?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 10, 2000.

A load in the gun is worth two in the pants.

-- Siegfried and Roy (Viv@LasVegas.com), May 10, 2000.

Frank said, "I tried a quick search on medline and didn't come up with any case reports on rectal item removal, or I wouldn't have posted the way I did. What did you use as keywords to find case reports of inanimate items removed from rectums?"

WHICH Medline did you use? Access to the database is for paying customers only, at $150 a year. MI'm assuming that you don't have the same interest in medicine (most people don't), so I'm thinking you must be using a different services with a similar name.

The search string "anus +foreign +objects" gives me several hits from the last ten years alone (Medline has over eight million documents).

Please share the URL of the site you're using, I'm always looking for new med sites.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

Frank said, "I tried a quick search on medline and didn't come up with any case reports on rectal item removal, or I wouldn't have posted the way I did. What did you use as keywords to find case reports of inanimate items removed from rectums?"

WHICH Medline did you use? Access to the database is for paying customers only, at $150 a year. My sister lets me use her password occasionally just to keep up with dinner conversation when we all get together (lots of shop talk). I'm assuming that you don't have the same interest in medicine (most people don't), so I'm thinking you must be using a different services with a similar name.

The search string "anus +foreign +objects" gives me several hits from the last ten years alone (Medline has over eight million documents).

Please share the URL of the site you're using, I'm always looking for new med sites.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

This argument is pretty funny. I have to wonder, though, what kind of range this guy achieved. Perhaps he watered it down?

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), May 10, 2000.

Wouldn't gerbils fall under "Animated" objects?

Also, I guess that should I defend black women against mindless bigotry I would then be accused of being a black woman?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

The difference between this thread and the virtually identical one over at sleazy, started by the hatemeister "Mabill", is that over there virtually everyone agreed with him.

-- Savage (blah@blah.com), May 10, 2000.

Brian said:

Homosexuals are not threats to anyone by the mere fact of their homosexuality. Ever heard of aids? No blood center in the USA will accept blood from a homosexual. Are they bigoted too?

This particular bigotry just gravels me no end. What really gravels me is the fact the gay community feels the need to shove their lifestyle down my and everyone elses throat at every available opportunity. Think about this, why do we need a floatila of homosexuals marching in a St. Patty's day parade? There is NO equal time arguement to be made here because they are the only ones stating their sexual preferences at these events!

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Correction

No blood center in the USA will accept blood from a homosexual. Are they bigoted too?

That should have read: No blood center in the USA will accept blood from a homosexual male. Are they bigoted too?

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

"Ever heard of aids? No blood center in the USA will accept blood from a homosexual. Are they bigoted too?"

To be fair and accurate, no blood center will accept blood from anyone who's had a blood transfusion, received a tatoo or piercing in the last year, or traveled to sub-saharan Africa or Haiti. They will also deny blood from anyone who's ever been with a prostitute, injected drugs, or slept with anyone who's done the same.

AIDS is not a gay issue, it's a health issue.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

To be fair and accurate, That doesn't make them less of a threat. Brian attempted to portray them as being harmless which is a lie.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

AIDS is not a gay issue, it's a health issue. By and large AIDS primaraily impacts the gay community.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Actually, AIDS has seen its largest increases among black and hispanic heterosexual women in the US. Both of these groups are considerably less likely to use condoms than other groups of women. AIDS rates are highest in Africa among cultures and countries that are typically not sympathetic or accepting of homosexuality.

If you're going to claim that AIDS makes gay men harmful, then would you also claim that lesbians are the least harmful of any group in the US? After all, it's a fact that lesbians have the lowest rates of AIDS of any group in the US, including heterosexuals.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

Actually, AIDs is more prevalent in black females, heterosexual. At the last report from CDC. I think it was CDC.

AIDS is also becoming more prevalent in the high school bracket, but I forgot where I read that. It may have been a local report....

-- AIDS ain't a gay thing anymore (spreadingalmost@s.fast.as.gossip.and.lies), May 10, 2000.

SHEESH,

This went from stuffing animals up da poop shoot to Aids?

I gotta say though, this is a WEIRD one..

---Now dont get all rowdy on me, I still believe in All goes forum, I just think this is funny....

----looking around to see if animal is up my but....

PSS Rodents have been known to run to the nearest hole. My bro-in-law told me when he was in VietNam a small rodent ran up his pant leg and he was scared to death cuz he knew it was looking for 'the hole', NOW I know it is he said/she said, but I swear its truth.

So in conclusion, perhaps their ARE documented evidence of that..after all, cockroaches will climb in your ear. Ants in your pants, so why not gerbils in da butt?

I cant believe the topic, but hey what the hell, its good for a laugh.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 10, 2000.

Unreported:

Unfortunately, and I say this with sympathy and prayers, you are an ass. Can you show me statistics, with links, that show there is a higher crime rate among homosexuals? Can you define "harmful" so that we can understand what you mean?

Your kind of bigotry, as I said earlier to Y2J(are you the same?), reveals the worst in the human species. Judge not, lest ye be judged. I guess it is okay in your mind to make these baseless judgements-if so, then I am making my own judgement.

You are a worthless shell of a human being who probably emotionally abuses family members, and if there is a hell, I hope you like heat, because that is where bigots like yourself will go.

-- FutureShock. (gray@matter.think), May 10, 2000.

If you're going to claim that AIDS makes gay men harmful, WRONG! Blood Centers 'CLAIM'AIDS makes gay men harmful

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Unreported Gay said:

>> What really gravels me is the fact the gay community feels the need to shove their lifestyle down my and everyone elses throat at every available opportunity. <<

There it is again. The charge that gays "shove lifestyles down throats". This has got to be the wierdest charge going. It sounds like horrendous violence. But does a throat hurt when a lifestyle is shoved down it? Is it a one-handed shove, like Shaq dunking a basketball, or a two-handed shove, like someone overpacking a suitcase?

Inquiring minds want to know.

>> Think about this, why do we need a floatila of homosexuals marching in a St. Patty's day parade? <<

Why do we need ice cream? There are plenty of other sweet things to eat.

Why do we need beauty? It has no practical use.

Why do we need language? Every other animal gets by without it.

Come to think of it, why do we need a Saint Patrick's Day parade at all?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 10, 2000.

FutureShock:

higher crime rate among homosexuals? Where did that assumption come from? Now if we can only teach FutureShock to read the posts before replying to them.

One more observation FutureShock. You state: Judge not, lest ye be judged. while conveniently overlooking Leviticus 18:22-23"`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 23"`Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

I remember reading somewhere where you don't have much use for bible thumpers. Thats funny, because it's usually been YOU quoting the bible verses.

What a hipocrite.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

>> Think about this, why do we need a floatila of homosexuals marching in a St. Patty's day parade? <<

Why do we need ice cream? There are plenty of other sweet things to eat.

Whoaa did I miss something here?

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Whoaa did I miss something here?

Congratulations. You've just won the Understatement Of The Thread award.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 10, 2000.

The charge that gays "shove lifestyles down throats".

Yep. Here's another example of shoving down our throats in addition to the St. Patrick's Day Parade. Public employees teach kids 'gay' sex Workshops reportedly instruct youths in how to perform homosexual acts

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Congratulations.

What has being Irish and wearing green got to do with homosexuality?

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

OK, for the record, I am NOT gay.

Homosexuality is an aberrant behavior.

FutureShock you are way out of line quoting scripture to justify homosexuality. You can call me a bigot and say that I am judgmental and that I am going to hell if that makes you feel good, but you are wrong. Homosexuality is a sin. Just like stealing is a sin. Why don't you say that I am bigoted because I think that thiefs should be in jail?

I am not judging that these people are going to hell, I am DISCERNING that they are committing a sin. I am not saying that I am better than they are, because I sin, too.

The main problem that I have with homosexuals is their lack of repentance. We should all hate the sin, and love the sinner, but it is not our duty to forgive those that are not repentant.

Lastly, on the aids topic, it may very well be true in the U.S. that aids is growing fastest amongst black and hispanic women, or that WORLDWIDE, it is a heterosexual disease. This does not change the fact that aids started out in the U.S. as primarily a GAY MALE disease. How much blame should be given to the GAY MALE community for spreading this disease around until it started infecting the straight community as well(through bisexual men, shared I.V. drug use, etc.)?

Of course, nothing that I say is politically correct, so I will be labeled a "white-wing"(Y2KPro'S term) racist, fascist, bigoted, gun-toting, gold-hoarding, paranoid, conspiracy theory believing, survivalist, nut case, wacko, Christian.

So be it.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

wacko, Christian.

According to todays standards, thats about as bad as you can be.

If you had told people Christians would be called 'extremists', 'wackos', 'far right', etc. 25 years ago, most people would have said your crazy.

My how times have changed (for the worse).

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Consumer:

The article was presented along with a presumption that the weirdo behind the squirt gun must be gay. Of course there's absolutely NOTHING in the article to support this presumption. The thread was DESIGNED to elicit a conversation on homosexuality.

Unreported:

I'm sure you support the constitution, right? The right of all/any to peacefully engage in a parade is supported in the constitution, right?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Anita,

That would depend on whose parade it was, don't you think? Or should I just show up the next time your family has a reunion?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

>> Of course, nothing that I say is politically correct, so I will be labeled a "white-wing"(Y2KPro'S term) racist,<<

Nope. Racism is irrelevant to this discussion.

>> fascist,<<

Ditto for fascism. Although quite a few homosexuals died in Nazi concentration camps, that was not fascism so much as plain murder under color of war.

>> bigoted,<<

Bingo! You win the prize. Your attitude toward gays is simple bigotry. Ugly word, maybe, but it describes an ugly fact. Live with it.

>> gun-toting, gold-hoarding, paranoid, conspiracy theory believing, survivalist, nut case, wacko, Christian. <<

All red herrings. All irrelevancies. Poor you. How misunderstood your bigotry is. Why, you are simply indulging in a little sin-hating, that's all. You delude yourself.

The problem with calling this stance politically incorrect is that the "political" qualifier is misleading. You are just plain incorrect.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 10, 2000.

J:

A public parade is NOT a family reunion. Unreported is concentrating on the St. Patrick's Day parade, but I've seen all sorts of unrelated groups parading along in EVERY parade. Some people simply like parades, I guess.

BTW, [just between you and me], when I was in college some of us would visit public parks where families had HUGE reunions. We got a lot of free food that way.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Anita,

Thanks for the link! Yep, there are plenty of instances of people putting broomsticks, curtain rods, glass jars, canes, etc. up their butts reported. No gerbils that I could see though.

Tarzan,

I used Silver Platter for Windows if that helps you any, but I spent most of my time (and not much at that) looking for "felching" and gerbil related stuff.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 10, 2000.

"My how times have changed (for the worse)."

The way I see it, times have changed for the best. You're just behind the times.

-- (y@x.x), May 10, 2000.

Brian,

Someone is definitely delusional, but it is not me.

I would be a bigot if I were prejudiced against blacks, Asians, hispanics, women, etc. I am not a bigot if I point out that a certain type of BEHAVIOR is wrong.

People can't change their skin color or their gender, but people can change their BEHAVIOR. So as I said earlier, why am I not a bigot for believing that thiefs should be in jail, or how about murderers, or rapists? Am I a bigot because I am not tolerant of stealing, murder, and rape?

You have this misguided belief that homosexuals are victims because Y2J won't accept their behavior as normal. They are victims, but not because of my views, or the views of people like me. They are victims of the devil because they are caught in a world of sin. The worst part is not that they can't get out, the worst part is that they don't want to get out.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

J, you said,

They are victims of the devil because they are caught in a world of sin.

To nit-pick a bit, I think the Devil isn't committing a crime *on* them, they are listening to evil's suggestions, and acting on them. My belief is that people won't be held accountable for anything that is out of their control, so if the practice of homosexuality is a sin, it must be the choice of the homosexual, and not something inflicted on them from outside.

You also said,

The worst part is not that they can't get out, the worst part is that they don't want to get out.

Reading this part, I hope I didn't misinterpret the last, as this is kind of what I was trying to say, the will of the person determines the sin.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 10, 2000.

Anita: I seen that, just being silly today. :-} BTW, Been here, had this topic before.

J:

YOu said 'they dont want to get out", stereotyping to me, I KNOW for a fact of those that 'do', but feel they 'cant'.

Here is where the TRUE tire hits the pavement (personal experience on)

IF instead of spending the whole time arguing what you know to be truth, tell me something:

How come, as a Christian, you dont try to start a help group for those who do? COME ON TELL ME?

This subject just ticks me off. Christian Viewpoint.....no help, and of course the old 'hate the sin, love the sinner', rarely do I see help being given.

Homosexuals go to church to get help, and many times are rejected, and judged. Kind of like an alcoholic, once a drunk always a drunk, but Jesus is the cure...I believe he can be however, WHAT ABOUT SUPPORT?

Who is judging/labeling now J? If I appear angry I am. Not to take it personally for yourself, but can you honestly open up your heart/mind from spiritual standpoint, inhale, go back, read your recent post and then carefully respond to me.

And answer me, if you are so passionate, and it appears you are,,,what are you doing or going to do to help? Burden = ministry, no?

Regards,

consumer

-- consumer (Shh@aol.com), May 10, 2000.

The way I see it, times have changed for the best. You're just behind the times.

Lets examine how times have changed for the best shall we?

1) The bible teaches values; your group wants nothing to do with the bible.

2) Since we have removed the bible and the values it taught/teaches us from our public schools, teen pregnancy, suicide, drug abuse, iliteracy have gone off the charts. Most recently, school shootings are the in 'thing'.

3) Our prison systems are exploding with inmates.

4) Our local and federal governments continue to enact ever increasing numbers of new laws because people that now ignor bible taught morals/ethics need to be controlled by laws instead. But it doesn't work.

If this is a 'change for the best', I'll pass.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

so if the practice of homosexuality is a sin

Well Someone? As a 'Christian' whats your take on it?

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Frank,

You are, of course, correct. The devil doesn't make us sin, he tempts us to sin. This is what I meant in my post. They have fallen to the temptation, and in thast way, they are the devil's victim.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

People can't change their skin color or their gender, but people can change their BEHAVIOR.

This, of course, harkens back to the controversy regarding whether or not homosexuality is a learned behavior or whether they are "born that way." I take it that you believe that it is the former?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 10, 2000.

hmmm,

Yes, I believe that it is a learned behavior.



consumer,

I am going to respond to you, I am just suddenly very busy.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

Can anyone prove that homosexuality is a sin? If not, the belief that it is will have to remain as an opinion. While we're at it, what exactly is sin, anyway?

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Y2J-you said:

"To be fair and accurate, That doesn't make them less of a threat. Brian attempted to portray them as being harmless which is a lie."

From this I concluded two things; one, that homosexuals were harmful, in your opinion, and two, that we needed a definition of what you mean by harmful. I took a leap and asked you about crime rates, because having a crime committed against me is the only "harm" that a person can do to me. Reducto ad absurdum-Your point can lead one to conclude that the mere fact of one's homosexuality makes him a criminal.

Let's not get into qoute slinging, Y2J-or is it "Stop the Murder" or is it "I believe in him".

If we are to use the words of the old testament literally you will be in BIG BIG trouble. There is stuff in there which is totally absurd.

It is not that I do not have any use for bible thumpers; I do not have any use for IGNORANCE-I have no use for anyone who judges a human being for being different from them, and then points to a book which is basically a fairy tale to justify the egregious behavior.

God have mercy on your soul for doing his judging for him that certain humans are sinners-What the hell is wrong with you?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 10, 2000.

J,

Put that way, I see your point, they are the Devil's victims.

Unreported,

Based on precedent, I'd say the practice of homosexuality is a sin, but as I really don't know how much of our drives are learned vs. innate, I don't know if the *inclination* towards homosexuality is a sin.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 10, 2000.

FutureShock,

Since you have no use for IGNORANCE, maybe you should go back in the thread and see who posted what, because your IGNORANCE is showing. You are attributing things to me that I did not post.

For the record, I am Y2J, I have never posted as any other handle. (Note: I was Y2J@home.com until it was pointed out that home.com was a real domain name, so I switched to @home.comm).

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

TUGL said:

"1) The bible teaches values; your group wants nothing to do with the bible. "

Actually, there are many gays and lesbians who are active members of religion, even the Christian religion. I don't know if you've ever heard of the Metropolitan Church of Christ, but they were founded in order to have a church that is accepting of all, regardless of orientation. The Unitarians as well are very accepting. Several other denominations have accepting congregations as well. Many gays and lesbians aren't Christian, but many of them are.

"2) Since we have removed the bible and the values it taught/teaches us from our public schools, teen pregnancy, suicide, drug abuse, iliteracy have gone off the charts. Most recently, school shootings are the in 'thing'."

Not true. Teen pregnancy is declining, as well as suicide and drug abuse. Illiteracy rates in particular have declined dramatically in the last forty years. Teen crime has been on a sharp decline since Roe V. Wade.

None of these things, of course, are directly attributable to the presence, or lack thereof, of the Bible in the classroom. The problems in American schools are much more complex. Also, if faith in god and belief in Christianity were so fragile as to depend on the presence of the Bible in the school system, then why is it that so many Americans still have faith in god and belief in Christianity in the abscence of the Bible in school?

"3) Our prison systems are exploding with inmates."

Actually, that could also be attributable to the rise in mandatory sentencing, ("three strikes and you're out"), the decline of manufacturing jobs, the rise in population, and the decreasing popularity of spending tax money on "pork barrel project" like prisons. It also should be said that the marjority of inmates in the corrections system are Christians.

"4) Our local and federal governments continue to enact ever increasing numbers of new laws because people that now ignor bible taught morals/ethics need to be controlled by laws instead. But it doesn't work."

Actually, since crime has been on a steady decline for the last several years, the rise of those new laws probably has more to do with hysteria than Biblical morals and ethics.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

Brian said, "Y2J very likely falls among those who believe the taboo against homosexuality is so powerful that to merely hint that someone might be gay should make them back off. The truth is that activities that harm no one should not require defending. "

I agree with you there. Y2J and I have tangled a couple of times on religion, and I suspect that what he was really getting at was a little good old fashioned atheist baiting. I remember when I was in high school, the mere association of another guy with something or someone remotely considered gay was a serious insult, worthy of a punch in the mouth. If I were fourteen, I would have been very insulted.

But I'm not fourteen anymore, and I don't have a problem if someone wants to attempt to imply that I'm gay. I'm secure enough in who I am not to let it bother me. I've had enough people in my life whom I admire and respect who are gay that it would be anything but an insult to be lumped together with them.

Ironically enough, my fiancee and I are planning to spend Memorial Weekend at a gay B & B run by a cousin of mine. He's said we're welcome to stay as long as we don't go too overboard with the heterosexual kissy face stuff in front of the other guests. It will be interesting to go from being part of the majority group to being in the minority.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

Hmmm. Where is Ken Decker's defense of this incident? He must be off today.

-- (@ .), May 10, 2000.

FutureShock:

basically a fairy tale

You are the one quoting from it first. If you think it to be a 'fairy tale' why the quote?

Let's not get into qoute slinging, Y2J-or is it "Stop the Murder" or is it "I believe in him".

You forgot LBO Grise, tt (cuddluppy@aol.com) & robert bright (roosterbos@go.com). I won't include Someone, because he rarely takes a firm stand on anything dealing with Christianity.

BTW Those voices in your head are real and 'they' are out to 'get you'.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

consumer,

If someone is trying to get out of that lifestyle, then they are obviously repentant for their behavior. The devil is lying to them telling them that they 'can't' get out. It is not that type of person that I am talking about. That is like the alcoholic who wants to break the chains of addiction but hasn't yet been able to free himself. We all succumb to the temptations of sin from time to time.

What I am talking about are the militant gays who want everyone to accept their deviant behavior as "normal". No repentance, no wish to change their behavior at all.

As far as burden= ministry, you are correct. I am not burdened at all by those who show no remorse for their open homosexuality, and I do not know of any homosexuals who are trying to escape from that lifestyle. I have no burden there, so I have no ministry there. Besides, I have never struggled with that sin, so I am not sure that my ministry would be very effective there. I would venture that a Christian who has come out of homosexuality would be the best support for those trying to escape that lifestyle. I have been in ministry where my struggles with alcohol have been helpful in ministering to those who were currently struggling.

To put it politely, you are barking up the wrong tree about me not being in ministry. I could, of course, do more in the way of ministry, but then, we all could.

I think to summarize, I would say that I am not intolerant of people, but I am intolerant of some things that people do. In this day and age of political correctness, a lot of people can't distinguish between the two.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

TTAM

Actually, there are many gays So? Whats the connection?

Not true. Teen pregnancy is declining, The fact that abortion numbers are high should explain that. Illiteracy rates in particular have declined That must be why we continue to see high school and college grads that can't read/write. Dexter Manley is a good example. so many Americans still have faith in god and belief in Christianity Really? This forum is a good case in point. Not many believers here. attributable to the rise in mandatory sentencing, ("three strikes and you're out"), How do you think they got three strikes anyway? crime has been on a steady decline for the last several years How do you explain exploding prison population?

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

If someone is trying to get out of that lifestyle, then they are obviously repentant for their behavior. The devil is lying to them telling them that they 'can't' get out.

And yet, it is puzzling as to why they have so much difficulty "getting out" if they really want to do so. After all, this is a behavior which costs people their families and friends, and subjects them to all manner of scorn, ridicule, hatred, and violence. Why would they choose such a path? This is why the "learned behavior" theory never made logical sense to me.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 10, 2000.

TUGL:

"So? Whats the connection?"

You said that gays and lesbians have no interest in the Bible, and yet there are many who not only have an interest, but here are several who not only have an interest, but who believe wholeheartedly in it.

"Teen pregnancy is declining, The fact that abortion numbers are high should explain that."

Actually, teen abortion rates are also declining.

Illiteracy rates in particular have declined That must be why we continue to see high school and college grads that can't read/write."

The instance of an illiterate individual is not indicative of the rates of illiteracy. Illiteracy is declining, it is not vanquished.

"so many Americans still have faith in god and belief in Christianity Really? This forum is a good case in point. Not many believers here."

If you believe this forum is a representative of America as a whole, illiteracy, atheism, and teen pregnancy should be the least of your worries.

"attributable to the rise in mandatory sentencing, ("three strikes and you're out"), How do you think they got three strikes anyway?"

Instances of crime are not indicative of the rate or crime overall.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

hmm,

You could say the exact same thing about alcohol or drug abuse. Do you believe that alcoholics and addicts are just born that way, or do you believe that they learned the behavior?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

Gay Lifestyle said: One more observation FutureShock. You state: Judge not, lest ye be judged. while conveniently overlooking Leviticus 18:22-23"`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 23"`Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Hey Gay Life, what about Leviticus 19:27? "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard"? How long is your hair, UGayL? If you cut it you are as guilty of sin as any gay! Sinner! Heathen! And to think that you CHOSE to cut your hair, and cut it on a continuing basis!! Repent sinner, before it is too late!

Just another fine example of selective Bible Thumping by an ignorant bigot.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

You have this misguided belief that homosexuals are victims because Y2J won't accept their behavior as normal. They are victims, but not because of my views, or the views of people like me. They are victims of the devil because they are caught in a world of sin. The worst part is not that they can't get out, the worst part is that they don't want to get out.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

See your own words....^^^^, In being polite I do not feel as if I am 'barking up the wrong tree'. If you are stereotyping The use of THEY meaning?

I am not trying to 'slam' you. I am glad to hear you do ministry work for those w/alcohol problems, that is a 'support' system much needed.

As for not knowing any who try to get out, think about this, since you do feel so passionate about it, why then not pray for a burden that God lead you to those who wish to get out? Believe me, they are out there.

Many who do desire to get out of the lifestyle are AFRAID....case in point...I had someone say to me "how many people will stand up in church and admit to having been a homosexual?"

I do not believe you are naive enough to believe that this is not occurring in churches, come on, you know it is.........

It is perhaps easier to admit being an alcoholic people are ok with that. But many who are gay are outcasted. Face the facts....not ALL are unwilling to change.....

But the greatest of these gifts is LOVE.

I know whereof I speak. Try to be more open-minded, I am not saying you have to 'accept' it, just at least hear with your heart and your spirit.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 10, 2000.

consumer,

I stand corrected. My original thoughts were not of those homosexuals trying to get out, but of those clamoring for the rest of the world to embrace their deviance. My words painted them both with the same brush. I was wrong to do this.

I still believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that like any sin, we are called to forego it for that which is right. My beef is not with those who are aware of their sin, and are trying to overcome it. My beef is with those who embrace their sin, revel in it, and try to convince the rest of the world that it is good and normal. For this I am labeled an intolerant bigot.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

1) The bible teaches values; your group wants nothing to do with the bible.

The Bible is full of both good values, and silly nonsense. Here's a good Bible value for ya: Leviticus 20:9 "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or mother, and his blood will be on his own head."

2) Since we have removed the bible and the values it taught/teaches us from our public schools, teen pregnancy, suicide, drug abuse, iliteracy have gone off the charts. Most recently, school shootings are the in 'thing'.

Addressed above.

3) Our prison systems are exploding with inmates.

Yes, because loving and forgiving Christians are hell bent on throwing people with a drug problem in to prison. Drug offenders make up TWO THIRDS of the prison population. I'm sure that Jesus would have thrown away the key on pot-smokers, much like his first-stone casting followers do.

4) Our local and federal governments continue to enact ever increasing numbers of new laws because people that now ignor bible taught morals/ethics need to be controlled by laws instead. But it doesn't work.

Nonsense, why are all of those "Laws" in the bible then? They have been around for 2000 years! Why haven't they worked yet? WHat is wrong with the Bible that in 2000 years it has not been able to accomplish it's goal of having everyone think the same?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

You said that gays and lesbians have no interest in the Bible,

I Never said that! I said: 1) The bible teaches values; your group wants nothing to do with the bible. IF you consider 'your group' to have no interest in the bible and IF 'your group' is gay then to use an old but appropriate quote: 'If the shoe fits, wear it'. If not, try another.

Illiteracy is declining, it is not vanquished.

attributable to the rise in mandatory sentencing, ("three strikes and you're out")

Since 1988, the number of felons convicted in State court grew by an average of 5% annually.

Actually, teen abortion rates are also declining Gaining abortion on demand after the bible was removed is yet another example (and topic).

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Hey Gay Life, what about Leviticus 19:27?

I suppose if I were an Orthodox Jew it would/does mean a lot. I am a Christian. I am not going to get into a theology debate with you. FutureShock started the bible quoting. If you or he are gonna use it yourself, be prepared to have it sent right back to ya. Hence, my quote to him of Leviticus 18:22-23 because he said judge ot lest you be judged.

Ever heard of: if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander?

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

You could say the exact same thing about alcohol or drug abuse. Do you believe that alcoholics and addicts are just born that way, or do you believe that they learned the behavior?

An interesting analogy. However, drug and alchohol use come about as a result of the pleasurable sensations they produce in those who use them. Those who do not use drugs and alchohol don't experience these sensations. What pleasurable sensations can be produced in a homosexual relationship that cannot be produced in a heterosexual one? In other words, what is the incentive to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to heterosexual behavior?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 10, 2000.

Did anyone else notice that TUGL used WORLD literacy rates when he had been talking about AMERICAN literacy rates? TUGL claims that literacy dropped in the US after the Bible was no longer used in public schools. Also, his charts, while visually impressive, have no citations attached.

Come on, TUGL, you can do better than this.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

Irritable bowel syndrome?

-- Madman (Loose@out.onthewater), May 10, 2000.

FutureShock

points to a book which is basically a fairy tale to justify the egregious behavior.

God have mercy on your soul for doing his judging for him that certain humans are sinners-What the hell is wrong with you?

Lemme see here. You say the Bible is a fairy tale but you ask God for mercy on my soul. Did I get that right?

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

hmm,

I don't know the answer to your questions. Are you just thinking out loud, or are you trying to use your questions as points to bolster the argument that homosexual behavior is innate instead of learned?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

Looks like I was wrong, TUGL did have a link to his statistics. And from this site, I found:

Homicide Rates Have Recently Declined to Levels Last Seen in 1969

I also found:

Violent Crime Rates Have Declined

And:

Since 1993, the number of crimes committed with firearms has declined, falling to levels last experienced in the mid 1980s

Also:

Burglary Rates Have Been Declining Since 1973

And this little gem:

In 1998, motor vehicle theft rates reached the lowest level ever recorded

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

In 1992 21 percent of the adult population had only rudimentary reading and writing skills

A 1992 survey by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics estimated that about 21 percent of the adult population  more than 40 million Americans over the age of 16  had only rudimentary reading and writing skills.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

I don't know the answer to your questions. Are you just thinking out loud, or are you trying to use your questions as points to bolster the argument that homosexual behavior is innate instead of learned?

The latter. As I mentioned, it makes no sense for someone to choose to engage in behavior that offers no clear advantages over similar behavior that is deemed acceptable. I see no reason why it must therefore be a learned behavior.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 10, 2000.

With all this decrease in crime, why hasn't there been a cry for layoffs at local police departments?

There is a saying Figures don't lie but liars can figure.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

From TUGL's web site:

"Historians remind us that during the last 200 hundred years, our nation's literacy skills have increased dramatically in response to new requirements and expanded opportunities for social and economic growth. Today we are a better educated and more literate society than at any time in our history."

Hey TUGL, got any more links that make my point for me?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

From the same site

If large percentages of adults had to do little more than be able to sign their name on a form or locate a single fact in a newspaper or table, then the levels of literacy seen in this survey might not warrant concern. We live in a nation, however, where both the volume and variety of written information are growing and where increasing numbers of citizens are expected to be able to read, understand, and use these materials.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

"Historians remind us that during the last 200 hundred years, our nation's literacy skills have increased dramatically..."

What they don't say is "literacy" now means your ability to play Nintendo and knowing how to don a condom....

-- The good ole USA. Home of the largest per capita prison population on the planet Earth. (me@usa.net), May 10, 2000.

I can see I'm going to have to go slow with this.

Just to backtrack, TUGL, you said that literacy rates in the US have declined since the days when kids were forced to read the Bible and pray. To support this, you posted a chart showing WORLD illiteracy rates rising. I asked you for US statistics, and you posted a link to a study that not only doesn't claim that US literacy rates have fallen since the early 60's but that actually claims that Americans are more literate and better educated in general than at any other time in our history.

Now, why don't you go back to the drawing board and find something to support your statement that US literacy rates have declined since the Bible was removed from public schools?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 10, 2000.

Enough for today. Be back tomorrow

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 10, 2000.

Y2J:

I will respond to your points later, but I WILL apologize for stating that you were maybe using other handles. I will always admit when I am in the wrong.

Will you?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 10, 2000.

Got a question for "TUGL":

Why do you believe we need bible-taught morals/ethics in schools? What happened to the (drum-roll please).....PARENTS?!?!?!?

Frankly, if you want to get to the heart of "what's wrong with society today", start there. When "parents" start taking responsibility for the lives they bring into this world, only then will "society's ills" wash away. I'm tired of hearing how music and video games and movies and television had this, that and the other thing to do with "why Johnny can't read" and "why Johnny decided to do drugs" and "why Johnny decided to shoot his classmates", and "why Johnny killed himself", blah, blah, blah.

I grew up watching Road Runner/Coyote cartoons ... with my Dad. NOT ONCE have I ordered anything from The Acme Company, nor have I EVER TRIED to "cliff-dive". My *parents* taught me the difference between cartoons/TV/movies and REAL LIFE. They also had a knack for teaching me responsibility for my actions. I don't see a whole hell of a lot of THAT happening today.

Where the hell is Parental Responsibility? When are people going to start taking responsibility for themselves? "Ooo, I spilled hot coffee on myself because I'm an idiot; pay me four gazillion dollars!!" "Nothing you can do will replace my Johnny, but pay me five gazillion dollars and we'll forget the whole thing." The freaking sports report should be listed under the police blotter. Think about it: These are the "role models" for kids today. We need directions on bottles of shampoo for crying out loud. Does anyone besides me see the sheer idiocy here?

You need a freaking license to drive a car, but any moron can have a kid. Says it all, and it has zero, zilch, nada, absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not "bible studies" are taught in school. The responsibility begins and ends in THE HOME. Period.

Rant off.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 10, 2000.

hmm,

I think that your reasoning is wrong. Why do people steal things when it is perfectly acceptable behavior to get a job and then buy those same things? See my point?

Furthermore, if homosexuality were an innate behavior, how in the world would homosexuals propagate themselves? Remember, in most of the world's creatures, sex is solely for propagation.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

Future:

Unless I missed something, I can't think of anything that Y2J said that was WRONG. You're arguing with a belief system. Personally, I don't think a belief system can be WRONG. Unreported has moved on to make statements that can be debated using information available. I haven't seen Y2J do that. He/she BELIEVES that the Bible is the word of God. That BELIEF has become the axiom from which all other arguments unfold. In addition to this axiom, weight is placed on SOME scriptures to the exclusion of others. This is a function of interpretation...also not debatable.

Unreported: You said there weren't many "believers" on this forum? It seems to me this forum has a good mix of folks who believe in many different things.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Anita,

I damn sure like the way your mind works.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 10, 2000.

J,

I liked the first part of your post. With regard to the second,

Furthermore, if homosexuality were an innate behavior, how in the world would homosexuals propagate themselves? Remember, in most of the world's creatures, sex is solely for propagation.

Just because something is counterproductive to procreation, doesn't mean it can't occur. If homosexuality was a recessive trait for instance, it would only be expressed when both parents contributed aberrent the gene to their offspring. It therefore could be carried along indefinitely in heterozygotes, showing up sporadically, with the affected people not having to reproduce themselves.

But even so, that wouldn't excuse them from *acting* on their condition from a Christian perspective, any more than an alcoholic would be excused from drinking their liver out.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 10, 2000.

Well, TUGL has been guilty of changing the subject so often on this thread that now it is a complete muddle. I will not attempt to answer in detail all two dozen shotgun pellets in TUGL's evasions. Whenever his positions have started to slide out from under him, being built on sand, he(?) just jumps to a new spot until it gets undermined, too.

There is no arguing with someone like that. I'm out of this thread until TUGL presents a coherent, unified topic and sticks to it. Preferably in a new thread. I won't chase after someone who's running away doing the dodge'em weave.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 10, 2000.

I think that your reasoning is wrong. Why do people steal things when it is perfectly acceptable behavior to get a job and then buy those same things? See my point?

No I don't. Stealing things offers the advantage of being able to acquire what you don't have without spending any money. If one doesn't have the money, or simply doesn't want to spend it, stealing offers an incentive over buying. The disincentive, of course, is the risk of getting caught as well as the moral implications of stealing.

Furthermore, if homosexuality were an innate behavior, how in the world would homosexuals propagate themselves? Remember, in most of the world's creatures, sex is solely for propagation.

Obviously it's not innate in everyone, just as being left-handed is not innate in everyone. Nor does it mean that homosexuals propagate other homosexuals any more than left-handed people propagate more left-handed people. Yes, in many creatures, sex is soley for propagation, but obviously our species is somewhat different in that respect. Otherwise, the porno industry wouldn't be as big as it is. LOL

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 10, 2000.

Patricia, I too have a problem with, "You need a freaking license to drive a car, but any moron can have a kid." If we worried *half* as much about people's qualifications for parenting, as some worry about bible studies, trash TV and videos, this world would be a better place, and there would be fewer unwanted children in the world.

Parenting is the key. A child's model is his parents. If he doesn't have decent parents, willing to take the time and effort to help him make his way through a very complicated world, then he is at a disadvantage. It is not the school's job to teach morals and the bible. Kids need all the education they can get, and more bible thumping will not help them with math and englishm, nor help them earn a diploma.

Concerning gays, I have two friends that are gay, and I couldn't ask to know finer people.

And, many of you know I was raised a Christian, but rejected the whole thing. Why?? First, I just didn't believe that Jesus was any more a savior than any other man. Nor did I believe we should use the bible as a guide for living when it's filled with hundreds of contradictions. (ie, "an eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek) Second, and maybe the most important, much of the behavior I saw from Christians made me not want to be a participant, and one behavior I particularly disliked was their intolerance for anyone who had a different lifestyle, sex life, or religion.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 10, 2000.

hmm,

Thinking out loud here: What if homosexuality offered sex without responsibility?

I have read somewhere that a gay man in San Francisco had something like hundreds of sexual partners, of many he didn't even know their names. If this were the norm for that lifestyle, a man could have all the sexual gratification that he wanted with no emotional attachment whatsoever. Also, there is obviously no risk of pregnancy in homosexual sex.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

Just because something is counterproductive to procreation, doesn't mean it can't occur. If homosexuality was a recessive trait for instance, it would only be expressed when both parents contributed aberrent the gene to their offspring. It therefore could be carried along indefinitely in heterozygotes, showing up sporadically, with the affected people not having to reproduce themselves.

But even so, that wouldn't excuse them from *acting* on their condition.....

How can they NOT act on something that is inherent to their genetic composition and is at the core of their very being? Try telling a bird NOT to fly! To insist that they be deprived of sexual expression because of a faulty gene is nothing short of punishment for an implied offense not of their own doing. Surely your Christian god is more understanding and tolerant than that!

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 10, 2000.

I wonder how many men would have had hundreds of sex partners if women were as ready to go as guys are? Men are horny buggers, it is the woman who decides when and where sex will or will not occur. Gays have sex more than straights because it is two guys deciding, if women were as ready to spread the seed as guys are hetero guys would boff their brains out as much as any gay does.

Just MHO.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

gilded-

"(ie, "an eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek)"

Have you ever heard of "context?" You speak as a fool, are you?

-- No sodomites (Wisdom@Bible.God), May 10, 2000.

LunaC,

Why did you snip off the last part of Frank's post? Didn't you like that part of what he said?

I am aware of no proof that homosexuality is innate. Even if it were, there would be no proof that it was from God. Bad things have been happening to mankind from the time that Adam and Eve sinned.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

I am aware of no proof that homosexuality is innate

innate - adj. 1) Possessed at birth: INBORN 2) Possessed as an essential characteristic: INHERENT (Webster's Dictionary)

So you're disagreeing with Frank when he said:

Just because something is counterproductive to procreation, doesn't mean it can't occur. If homosexuality was a recessive trait for instance, it would only be expressed when both parents contributed aberrent the gene to their offspring. It therefore could be carried along indefinitely in heterozygotes, showing up sporadically, with the affected people not having to reproduce themselves.

Now how do you think we're going to come to a meeting of the minds (or hearts) when guys on The Same Team can't even agree?

-- Lunac (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 10, 2000.

I find it interesting that those who say homosexuality is not innate also say that THEY would never do such a thing. If it IS a choice then it resides in all of us, and it's only the weak who succumb to the temptation. Which means that those who say that it is a choice struggle with thoughts of homosexual temptation, but are stronger than those who cannot resist. How many times today did you shrug off homo temptations today UGL?

Has to be, you can't have it both ways.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

LunaC,

I know what innate means.

I don't agree with Frank on the specific point of whether or not homosexuality is innate, but I am interested to hear what others think about this point.

I am still wondering why you snipped Frank's post.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,

How many times did you fight off the temptation to beat your wife today? It is a choice to beat your wife, you can't have it both ways.

See how silly your argument is?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

My wife was nice to me today, hardly any temptation at all. So you DO struggle with those feelings? Is that your point?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,

No, my point was that your reasoning is flawed.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

It all started when men started allowing women to speak.

Then we gave them the vote.

It's been down hill from there...

-- It's a man's world (alwaysh@s.been), May 10, 2000.

And just when was it that you chose to use your right hand over your left hand?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,

Either I am not a very good teacher, or you are not a very good student. Your reasoning about everyone on the planet struggling with homosexual temptation is absurd. My example of you beating your wife was supposed to drive that point home. You completely missed the point. Maybe you really do have the temptation to beat your wife.

Regardless, I will try one more time. Not everyone is born with the desire to vacation in Florida. So by following your flawed reasoning, everyone today had to fight off the temptation to vacation in Florida. The reality is that today, undoubtedly someone did fight off the temptation to vacation in Florida, but that by no means implies that everyone on the planet had that same temptation.

Get it?

Or do you think that anyone who beats his wife or vacations in Florida was born that way?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.

I got your point, you missed mine. The point being that the majority of folks do NOT struggle with such feelings.

When, on which day, did YOU chose to use your right (or left) hand as the dominant hand? Do you struggle with feelings that maybe you would like to try using your left hand? Or does using your right hand seem natural to you? And why do those people who use their left hand do so? Don't they know that it makes things difficult for them? Ever try to cut paper with righty scissors in your left hand?

THAT was my point, however badly made, perhaps badly made again.

Also, guys who beat their wives usually were either abused themselves or saw daddy do it to mommy. If one would use that analogy then gay children would come only from gay parents who had sex with them, or from watching gay parents have sex, but we all know that this is not so.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

PS, I was not tempted to visit Florida today ;-)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

J,

I was trying to offer *an* explanation of how homosexuality could be innate and yet be passed on through generations. For the record though, I'm not aware of any definitive studies one way or the other.

An example of a genetic trait that could be useful as an example is an XYY male. They tend to be criminals more often, and more aggressive than normal people. Should they be excused from their behaviors if they assault someone else because of what we consider a *predisposition* to violent behavior?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 11, 2000.

I wonder if UGL wants homosexuals dead? Leviticus 20:13 (NIV):

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Tsk!

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

BTW, to answer a question raised earlier by someone, it has been determined that a person can be predisposed to be an alcoholic. A gene has been discovered, if gene is the right word, in the DNA strand that, when awakened by the first taste of alcohol, will cause a person to become 'acclimated' to alcohol in the system, thereby requiring more and more in order to get the high desired from alcohol.

Anyone can be tested for this characteristic. However, if you test postive you may have your health insurance canceled.

Auto insurance probably wouldn't be far behind on that wagon either...

-- factoids of DNA (could@gay.gene.be.possible.too?), May 11, 2000.

Frank, J:

"For the record though, I'm not aware of any definitive studies one way or the other."

This sorta sums it up, Frank, but studies are getting closer and closer to conclusive proof that at least the PROCLIVITY is genetic.

The first study of which I'm familiar is that of Simon Levay in August of 1991. He studied the brains of [obviously] dead folks, many of which were homosexuals who had died of AIDS. His findings demonstrated that the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus showed that INAH 3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in women or homosexual men. This study is inconclusive, because there's no way of telling whether the INAH 3 was smaller due to genetics, or smaller because homosexuality had been practiced. The brain changes during life.

The second study was done in December, 1991 by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard. They solicited gay men for the study and found that 52% of identical twin brothers were both gay. Again, this is inconclusive.

The study I find most relevant is that of the National Cancer Institute in 1993. Here they found that homosexual men appear to inherit a gene from their mothers that influence sexual orientation. "Hamer studied the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and found 33 of them shared genetic markers on the X chromosome in a region known as Xq28." This AGAIN is not conclusive, and further study is required to determine IF and what OTHER genetic markers may be involved. Studies must also be done to investigate same sex proclivity in women. Homosexual women are deemed less important for scientific study, perhaps due to the rarity of increased illness due to their sexual orientation.

It's all mom's fault

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Thinking out loud here: What if homosexuality offered sex without responsibility?

This is dependent on the partners, however. There are certainly many heterosexual males who have sex with many different women, never thinking to take responsibility for their actions. There are also homosexual partners who truly care about each other and take responsibility for the other person's feelings.

I have read somewhere that a gay man in San Francisco had something like hundreds of sexual partners, of many he didn't even know their names. If this were the norm for that lifestyle, a man could have all the sexual gratification that he wanted with no emotional attachment whatsoever.

LOL. As in the above example, men having sexual gratification with no emotional attachment is hardly an exclusively homosexual trait. The sheer number of female prostitutes, for example, demonstrates the proclivity of heterosexual males to desire sex with no emotional attachment. Sure, there are some homosexuals that are like the man you used in your example, just as there are heterosexual males who use the number of women they "scored" with as the basis for their self-esteem.

Also, there is obviously no risk of pregnancy in homosexual sex.

There are certainly several different methods of sexual contact between heterosexuals that also involve no risk of pregnancy. In addition, there is more to homosexuality than sex, just as there is more to heterosexuality than sex. Would a homosexual be "okay" if all he did was kiss his partner? Or perhaps simply share feelings of love with his partner without actually engaging in sexual contact? The "behavior" can cover many actions, sex is only one of them.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 11, 2000.

TTAM

forced to read the Bible and pray. I think thats a stretch.

claims that Americans are more literate When children leave the public school system unable to properly make change at a McDonalds drive thru, there is something wrong. When our kids spend more time learning why Jim has two mommys instead of learning US History there's something wrong.

When The good ole USA. Home of the largest per capita prison population on the planet Earth. (me@usa.net), May 10, 2000 posted these comments: What they don't say is "literacy" now means your ability to play Nintendo and knowing how to don a condom.... he/she was right on the money.

Our educational system doesn't make the learning environment more challenging, they lower/change the requirements formerly necessary to obtain the same goal. Which is/was obtaining an education.

Today we are a better educated and more literate society than at any time in our history. Say the bureaucrats in need of our tax dollars so they may retain their jobs. I agree with virtually all of Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com)'s earlier post. The main problem we have today is parent's allowing our government to raise our kids. In some cases, expecting them to do so. Many of these same parents that expect the government run school system to raise their kids for them, expect them to be literate. When the school system shows failure at this task, the bureaucrats running the show change the criteria needed to obtain literacy. It's a shell game plain and simple.

I have seen the charts (can't locate an online link) that have shown SAT scores dropping since 1962. That was the year the Bible was removed from public schools.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 11, 2000.

Italicsoff

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 11, 2000.

Richard Dymond

I wonder if UGL wants homosexuals dead? Once again, if I were an orthodox Jew, then yes. Since I am a Christian that is not true.

-- The Unreported Gay Lifestyle (exposed@now.com), May 11, 2000.

Anita,

I kind of remember the Levay study, had never heard of the others. Thx. Anywho, your third study didn't show that Xq28 was altered in ALL of the 40 brothers, just in 33 of them. To me, this means that while this locus *may* be correlated with homosexuality, it's probably not the sole cause at this point, if it's related at all.

I am NOT however trying to imply that YOU said that was the case, but am pointing it out for other people reading these posts.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 11, 2000.

Certainly true, Frank, which is why I added "This AGAIN is not conclusive, and further study is required to determine IF and what OTHER genetic markers may be involved." It could be that the other brothers had a marker on Xq29. It could be that the other brothers had no identifiable markers. For ME, noticing that 75% of the group studied shared the very same marker on the very same thread is both an indicator that a majority of sexual preference is innate, as well as an indicator that more studies are required. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the folks at the National Cancer Institute were given strict warning that their job is NOT to stray from cancer research.

In addition, the gay community was in an uproar over these results. The fear is justifiable. First of all, they worry that SOMEONE will want them to undergo a procedure that will FIX this genetic marker. This goes back to Nazi Germany's "experiments". We will first PROVE that you're genetically inferior, and then move on to exterminate YOU and anyone else that may be "infected" by this genetic aberration. Secondly, what does this genetic research mean to future generations? Already we have tests via amniocentesis to determine whether a fetus has a 46th chromosome, or some other malformity. Will we now perform tests that tell parents, "Well, you have a little boy in there, but he's going to be a homosexual."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Anita,

Do you remember if they analyzed the genes from NON-homosexual brothers in these families as well? Was this gene something that ONLY the homosexual members expressed, or did all males?

It's an interesting topic, but I have to agree with the last part of your post, in that if they ever discover a "gay gene", amnio will take on a new use.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 11, 2000.

Anita,

Forget about the first part of my post. I have to work on my reading comprehension it seems :-(

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 11, 2000.

"I have seen the charts (can't locate an online link) that have shown SAT scores dropping since 1962. That was the year the Bible was removed from public schools."

Uh huh. That'd be like me observing that the Soviet Union didn't collapse until after Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker got caught with their hands in the cookie box, uh, jar. Therefore, jailed televangelists are a necessary prerequisite to the collapse of communism, right? Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. Try harder.

You have fallen prey to a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Look it up, TUGL.

-- Reasoning 101 (getcher.facts@straight.com), May 11, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Savage says: The difference between this thread and the virtually identical one over at sleazy, started by the hatemeister "Mabill", is that over there virtually everyone agreed with him.

That's not true. In fact, the very first reaction pointed out that he hadn't provided any evidence for his conclusion that the perp is gay.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), May 13, 2000.

If it were possible to determine in advance that a fetus was likely to end up gay, would most mother's opt to continue or terminate the preganancy?

-- Wonderin (about@lots.of.stuff), May 13, 2000.

If my child had a genetic predisposition to be gay or lesbian, it wouldn't change my feelings one bit. Anyone who would abort a child based on such a minor difference shouldn't have children in the first place.

-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), May 13, 2000.

Hey, Sodomizer, you knew what I meant didn't you? Or are you such a pedant that you couldn't possibly utter a word that isn't "in context."

I don't go around calling people fools because they paraphrase a written passage. So rave on, fool.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 2000.