Science > Abortion > Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"osprey" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 12:55:41 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<40651edf.63886003@netnews.mchsi.com>...
1. WHY are you a BUSYBODY?
Why are you asking?
2. WHY would you give a flying rat's ***** about ANY
person's *private* sex life?
I don't.
3. WHY in the world would you seek to treat any
person or group of people with less respect based
solely on what they do in private, as consensual
adults? (How could that POSSIBLY be of ANY
importance to you?)
I don't.
4. IF you are opposed to same-sex marriage, WHY?
Because it is a sin. And if I was to support same sex marriage it
would be the same as saying the act of homosexuality is o.k., which it
isn't. So I will never vote for any candidate that supports
homosexual marriage.
Only a VALID, **factual** reason... such as a *way*
that any heterosexual couple's marriage would in
ANY way be threatened, and thus need "protection"
from this impending expansion of liberty... is appro-
priate as a response. (Mindless emotionalism
counts for *nothing*, and is NO excuse for
discrimination.)
Why are you the only one who thinks you can say what is valid or not?
That is a awful lot of power you are giving yourself. Ever occur to
you that some will disagree?
5. ENDA -- the totally-harmless "Employment Non-
Discrimination Act" -- which would have done
nothing more than ensure that people could NOT
be unfairly discriminated against in the workplace,
due to their sexual orientation -- failed by only ONE
(RRR cult-induced) vote in the U.S. Senate last
time, and will almost surely *pass* THIS time. Would
YOU be opposed to this very FAIR measure? If
so -- WHY?
I have no problem with laws that prohibit discrimination. A person is
there to
do a job, and only that job. Not bring in their personal lives. When
they bring in their personal lives, they set themselves up.
[[[ READERS -- if *any* person provides sensible and
intelligent answers to ANY the five above questions,
you'd better be sitting down. I've never seen ANY
person YET provide an intelligent and factual reason
for doing ANY of the above.
Craig Chilton < >
I believe my answers are sensible and intelligent. Your first
question about being a busybody, you kind of contradict yourself by
even asking people these questions. Makes you the busybody.
IMHO
.
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 01:14:14 PM |
|
|
In article <c54q0g$dvu$0@216.39.173.68>, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
wrote:
In article <akib70l37qo8n284k5bcq6a7e3orbph7a0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since there are numerous studies both of homosexuality in man and
other animals your argument falls on its face yet again.
There is not one shred of evidence for homosexuality
being genetic.
Actually that is, of course, not totally true. There are many
indications that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Twin
studies, fingerprints, handedness, neurological morphology.
And, ironically, if it turns out it is genetic it could be classified a
"disability" due to the manner in which gays are treated by
conservatives. That would mean they are covered by the ADA - due in
large part to those who hate them so much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 02:13:05 PM |
|
|
In article <110420041114147529%pass@dbarnes.com>, David Barnes
<pass@dbarnes.com> wrote:
In article <c54q0g$dvu$0@216.39.173.68>, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
wrote:
In article <akib70l37qo8n284k5bcq6a7e3orbph7a0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since there are numerous studies both of homosexuality in man and
other animals your argument falls on its face yet again.
There is not one shred of evidence for homosexuality
being genetic.
Actually that is, of course, not totally true. There are many
indications that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Twin
studies, fingerprints, handedness, neurological morphology.
And, ironically, if it turns out it is genetic it could be classified a
"disability" due to the manner in which gays are treated by
conservatives. That would mean they are covered by the ADA - due in
large part to those who hate them so much.
yes brought that point up with a 'phobe calling it a 'mental illness'.
Their evil will only result in a win-win situation for gays ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 10:49:27 PM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2004 00:16:16 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <akib70l37qo8n284k5bcq6a7e3orbph7a0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since there are numerous studies both of homosexuality in man and
other animals your argument falls on its face yet again.
There is not one shred of evidence for homosexuality
being genetic.
Actually that is, of course, not totally true. There are many
indications that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Twin
studies, fingerprints, handedness, neurological morphology.
Yes, it is true and the twin studies, for example, were
skewed from go. In fact, they advertised for subjects
in gay publications.
But, of course, it really doesn't make a difference - whatever it's
etiology it is not a 'choice' by any reasonable usage of the word in
the vast majority of people.
Sure it is.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Lord, help me get up when I fall. I can fall by myself.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 02:23:34 PM |
|
|
In article <4v1c70dbkoq4kb0ljloc98hcnbb7lsac1c@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 9 Apr 2004 00:16:16 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <akib70l37qo8n284k5bcq6a7e3orbph7a0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since there are numerous studies both of homosexuality in man and
other animals your argument falls on its face yet again.
There is not one shred of evidence for homosexuality
being genetic.
Actually that is, of course, not totally true. There are many
indications that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Twin
studies, fingerprints, handedness, neurological morphology.
Yes, it is true and the twin studies, for example, were
skewed from go. In fact, they advertised for subjects
in gay publications.
Yes, well one - that they advertised for twins were one was gay could
slightly skew the study, the result that identical twins were more
likely the same sexual orientation rather than fraternal twins was not
a factor that advertising would select for, is it? So the studies
still show a trend, all they don't show is prevalence.
Now the Australian twin study they used a preexisting twin registery.
Using very strict concordency rates the identical twins STILL showed a
higher than expected rate of both male siblings being the same sexual
orientation, and fraternal twins showed 0% increase over expected.
Interestingly since this study included both male and female twins they
found that there was no difference between female identical and
'fraternal' twins in expected concordence of sexual orientation.
So once again it is shown you don't know what you think you know.
But, of course, it really doesn't make a difference - whatever it's
etiology it is not a 'choice' by any reasonable usage of the word in
the vast majority of people.
Sure it is.
Ok smart guy, how do you 'choose' to have the whole host of autonomic
responses that go with merely observing someone you are sexually
attracted to?
Once again just by your saying that indicates that either:
1) you yourself experience these things for both sexes and assume that
everyone does (only a small percentage of adults actually response
sexually to both sexes)
2) you yourself don't experience any of these parts of sexuality
marking you as one of the 'ambisexuals' that Masters and Johnson
identified in their sexual research (another small minority)
3) you are just pulling these comments out of your butt and the really
don't have any actual thought behind them at all - you just say them as
a troll.
Which one is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 07:41:05 AM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2004 19:23:34 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <4v1c70dbkoq4kb0ljloc98hcnbb7lsac1c@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 9 Apr 2004 00:16:16 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <akib70l37qo8n284k5bcq6a7e3orbph7a0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since there are numerous studies both of homosexuality in man and
other animals your argument falls on its face yet again.
There is not one shred of evidence for homosexuality
being genetic.
Actually that is, of course, not totally true. There are many
indications that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Twin
studies, fingerprints, handedness, neurological morphology.
Yes, it is true and the twin studies, for example, were
skewed from go. In fact, they advertised for subjects
in gay publications.
Yes, well one - that they advertised for twins were one was gay could
slightly skew the study, the result that identical twins were more
likely the same sexual orientation rather than fraternal twins was not
a factor that advertising would select for, is it?
Yes, it is, since gays reading those publications would
have a desire to see the results skewed to their favor
and you would tend to see more twins with brothers and
sisters who are also gay, respond to the advertisement.
Now the Australian twin study they used a preexisting twin registery.
Using very strict concordency rates the identical twins STILL showed a
higher than expected rate of both male siblings being the same sexual
orientation, and fraternal twins showed 0% increase over expected.
Interestingly since this study included both male and female twins they
found that there was no difference between female identical and
'fraternal' twins in expected concordence of sexual orientation.
A "higher then expected rate"? Well, what rate was
"expected"? The fact that they "expect" a certain
rate, means they are not going into it objectively.
They have determined that it should be the case, before
even starting. And if you're going to make claims
about a study, then you should back it up with
references.
But, of course, it really doesn't make a difference - whatever it's
etiology it is not a 'choice' by any reasonable usage of the word in
the vast majority of people.
Sure it is.
Ok smart guy, how do you 'choose' to have the whole host of autonomic
responses that go with merely observing someone you are sexually
attracted to?
How does one "choose" to experiment with same sex
physical relations? Yet people do it all the time, out
of curiosity, which is why I stated what I did about
curiosity not always being an innocent thing, in
another debate, in another thread. It is a choice.
You forget to note, that people abused when their
young, when that abuse involved same sex actions, have
a higher rate of growing up and seeking out same sex
relations. Had they been left alone when they were
young, it is obvious that wouldn't be the case. That
tells you that it has nothing to do with genetics.
You also forget to note, that no, "gay gene" has ever
been found.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD. - Joshua 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 09:13:27 AM |
|
|
False Christian Pastor Dave wrote:
On 9 Apr 2004 19:23:34 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <4v1c70dbkoq4kb0ljloc98hcnbb7lsac1c@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 9 Apr 2004 00:16:16 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <akib70l37qo8n284k5bcq6a7e3orbph7a0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Now the Australian twin study they used a preexisting twin registery.
Using very strict concordency rates the identical twins STILL showed a
higher than expected rate of both male siblings being the same sexual
orientation, and fraternal twins showed 0% increase over expected.
Interestingly since this study included both male and female twins they
found that there was no difference between female identical and
'fraternal' twins in expected concordence of sexual orientation.
A "higher then expected rate"? Well, what rate was
"expected"? The fact that they "expect" a certain
rate, means they are not going into it objectively.
Perhaps the poster used an unfortunate turn of phrase. The scientists
probably used a phrase such as a higher rate than is observed in the
general population.
They have determined that it should be the case, before
even starting.
The rates of homosexuality in the general population are well known
through many studies. It is quite simple to compare the rates one finds
in a sample population with the rates in the general population.
And if you're going to make claims
about a study, then you should back it up with
references.
How amusing. The bearer of false witness, who has been called upon to
prove his words, is now calling on other to back up their words when he
won't/can't do that for his own words. You reap what you sow "Pastor"
as you have not set a very good example for others with your
behaviour... repent hell-bound sinner!!
<snip 2 end>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 11:06:06 AM |
|
|
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> writes:
False Christian Pastor Dave wrote:
On 9 Apr 2004 19:23:34 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
Now the Australian twin study they used a preexisting twin
registery. Using very strict concordency rates the identical twins
STILL showed a
higher than expected rate of both male siblings being the same sexual
orientation, and fraternal twins showed 0% increase over
expected.<snip>
A "higher then expected rate"? Well, what rate was
"expected"? The fact that they "expect" a certain
rate, means they are not going into it objectively.
Perhaps the poster used an unfortunate turn of phrase. The
scientists probably used a phrase such as a higher rate than is
observed in the general population.
Also, "expected value" is a mathematical term used in the theory of
probability and does not imply any bias on the part of the person
using it.
This "Pastor Dave" guy doesn't like the results so he is attacking
the messenger. 400 years ago, Dave's predecessors would have burned
the heretics at the stake.
They have determined that it should be the case, before
even starting.
The rates of homosexuality in the general population are well
known through many studies. It is quite simple to compare the rates
one finds in a sample population with the rates in the general
population.
Plus you have to explain the difference between identical versus
fraternal twins, since the environment each pair grew up in is nearly
identical for both.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 11:57:49 AM |
|
|
In article <jfqf705f7u08tj12lq1eedf1op26fbmblp@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 9 Apr 2004 19:23:34 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <4v1c70dbkoq4kb0ljloc98hcnbb7lsac1c@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 9 Apr 2004 00:16:16 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <akib70l37qo8n284k5bcq6a7e3orbph7a0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since there are numerous studies both of homosexuality in man and
other animals your argument falls on its face yet again.
There is not one shred of evidence for homosexuality
being genetic.
Actually that is, of course, not totally true. There are many
indications that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Twin
studies, fingerprints, handedness, neurological morphology.
Yes, it is true and the twin studies, for example, were
skewed from go. In fact, they advertised for subjects
in gay publications.
Yes, well one - that they advertised for twins were one was gay could
slightly skew the study, the result that identical twins were more
likely the same sexual orientation rather than fraternal twins was not
a factor that advertising would select for, is it?
Yes, it is, since gays reading those publications would
have a desire to see the results skewed to their favor
and you would tend to see more twins with brothers and
sisters who are also gay, respond to the advertisement.
Sisters would have made no difference but you might have a point.
Now the Australian twin study they used a preexisting twin registery.
Using very strict concordency rates the identical twins STILL showed a
higher than expected rate of both male siblings being the same sexual
orientation, and fraternal twins showed 0% increase over expected.
Interestingly since this study included both male and female twins they
found that there was no difference between female identical and
'fraternal' twins in expected concordence of sexual orientation.
A "higher then expected rate"? Well, what rate was
"expected"? The fact that they "expect" a certain
rate, means they are not going into it objectively.
No means you don't understand statistical analysis - but I forgot I was
speaking to a pedant. Ok let me amend that statement to:
"A higher than the rate you would expect without any genetic component".
If there is no genetic component you would expect the sexual
orientation concordence to be the same between monozygotic twins
('identical twins' twins with the same genetic material) and dizygotic
twins ('fraternal twins' twins with different genetic material).
They have determined that it should be the case, before
even starting.
Of course they have - its a mathmatical relationship. If you are
comparing 2 populations that may or may not have a factor that is
different between them you can calculate the results you would expect
if there was no factor, and then measure the actual difference that
does appear (if any).
And if you're going to make claims
about a study, then you should back it up with
references.
As if references have ever once been able to get over the wall of pride
you have surrounded yourself with. <sigh> Oh and a simple google
search of Australian Twin and homosexuality will pop up dozens of
sites.
J.M. Bailey and N.G. Martin "A twin registry study of sexual
orientation," International Academy of Sex Research, Provincetown,
Massachusetts, 1995.
But, of course, it really doesn't make a difference - whatever it's
etiology it is not a 'choice' by any reasonable usage of the word in
the vast majority of people.
Sure it is.
Ok smart guy, how do you 'choose' to have the whole host of autonomic
responses that go with merely observing someone you are sexually
attracted to?
How does one "choose" to experiment with same sex
physical relations?
that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is
the attraction, not the act. Sexual orientation is who makes your
pulse race, your skin flush, gives you butterflies in your stomach. All
of these things happen before or even if you ever have sex.
Yet people do it all the time, out
of curiosity, which is why I stated what I did about
curiosity not always being an innocent thing, in
another debate, in another thread. It is a choice.
No you don't choose how you feel, you can only choose how you act.
Again, sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with sex, you are gay or
straight before you have had sex for the first time.
You forget to note, that people abused when their
young, when that abuse involved same sex actions, have
a higher rate of growing up and seeking out same sex
relations.
But is that cause and effect or are gay kids more likely to be abused?
Please your turn to cite a study or journal that demonstrates the cause
and effect of this. I can find many sites on the internet that claim
one way or another, but most of the ones by psychiatrists and mental
health professionals label this a 'myth'.
Had they been left alone when they were
young, it is obvious that wouldn't be the case.
Actually nothing obvious about it, as per usual. It was interesting
actually do some specific research on this.
The ones that pop up on a Google search first are the homophobic sites
like you would frequent. But their references are either very 'soft'
(this study sorta said this sort of around this time) or when you can
actually find the reference you find it didn't say what the sites
preported it says.
A couple are so universally 'soft' in their references I have written
them down in my PDA and will try and locate the actually source next
time I am at the unversity library. In all past experiences such soft
references are because the study doesn't say what they present it as
saying and those citing it are deliberately misrepresenting it. We'll
see.
Shoot the NARTH site even has a guy's doctoral dissertation online -
that tells you there just isn't much out there to support their
contention (a non-peer reviewed doctoral paper which the writer states
right in it what result he is expecting... well not worth much in the
world of science :)
As a fun example of misuse, a paper on the NARTH site uses this quote
from a paper:
"Children who experience prolonged abuse are more likely to view the
abuse as positive or neutral, suggesting that as the molestation
continues, children eventually identify with the molester (22)"
(22) Doll, L., Joy, D., Bartholow, B., Harrison, J., Bolan, G.,
Douglas, J., Saltzman, L., Moss, P., Delgado, W. (1992), Self-reported
childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and
bisexual men. Child Abuse and Neglect 16:825-864.
Gosh sounds damning doesn't it? But if you go to the actual paper
itself you find:
"While it is theoretically possible that sexual abuse plays a formative
role in the development of gay orientation for some men, what appears
more likely is that gay children are particularly vulnerable to
molestation by older males because there are few acceptable ways of
expressing their sexuality. ... He and other men in our groups appeared
to be aware of a gay sexual orientation before the CSA [Childhood
Sexual Abuse], suggesting that molestation by a male perpetrator is not
necessarily causal in the development of a gay sexual orientation. "(p.
438)
Hmmm seems that these therapists don't see the cause and effect, in
fact they think that any statisical variation might be due to the fact
that gay kids are more vulnerable than straight kids.
Odd that the NARTH article didn't mention that, isn't it?
If you pick and choose your data, even from within a paper that doesn't
reach the conclusion you want, you can pretty much make anything say
anything you want. A variation of the old "Lies, Damn Lies, and
Statistics" (the 'effects of a Fatherless home' garbage floating around
this forum is another good example of this)
That tells you that it has nothing to do with genetics.
Well rather obviously, no it doesn't and if you are assuming it does,
then you are making your mind up without any facts, not that there's
anything unusual about that for you.
You also forget to note, that no, "gay gene" has ever been found.
And may never be - but that, of course, doesn't mean there is no
genetic cause. Something can have a genetic cause without having its
own gene - it can be caused by a confluence of genes, or be a side
effect of another process entirely.
Good example: remember that 'gay gene' study in the 90's that didn't
pan out? Well post study reviews by other researchers noted that all
of the brothers with the gene were either Kinsey 1's or Kinsey 6's (at
the far ends of the range of sexual expression, either very straight,
or very gay with no inbetweens like in general populations.) They
speculated what if the gene really was coding for a 'sexual orientation
rigidity' that locked someone into a particular sexual orientation at
some stage of development and other factors decided which way it would
go. This could explain a higher rate of homosexuality than normal AND
would explain how the gene survives - the randy straight brothers would
more than compensate for any lack of gene spreading on the gay brothers
part.
No one has done any research to see if this is true, but it does
illustrate how something could have a genetic basis but still not ever
have a specific gene for it show up.
And you have ignored all the other genetic and gestationally related
factors such as fingerprints, brain morphology and the like I
mentioned. Does one thing 'prove' it? No but when so many
physiological differences start cropping up anyone who says there ISN'T
a genetic component is just saying what they want to believe, not what
the data suggests.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 12:35:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:41:05 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
You also forget to note, that no, "gay gene" has ever
been found.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
Oh, I see! And since No 'bald' gene has ever been found... that means bald doesn't exist!
You're logic is impeccable.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 08:33:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
The ultimate goal of these people is no less than genocide against
gays. They are terribly upset if anything happens that tends to
humanize their targets in the mind of the public. After all, this
would require them to go to all the effort of finding another group to
demonize.
Now switch the word to "pedophile". Would you make the
same claim? Why not? Would you support their rights?
If not, why not?
If you can't see the difference between to adults entering into a civil contract and one adult
manipulating a child you need help.
There are pedophile laws to protect those society has deemed too immature to make certain decisions.
Why is it homophobes always try to tie Homosexuality to Pedophiles? Nearly All Pedophiles are
Heterosexual Men.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 03:09:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:33:12 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
The ultimate goal of these people is no less than genocide against
gays. They are terribly upset if anything happens that tends to
humanize their targets in the mind of the public. After all, this
would require them to go to all the effort of finding another group to
demonize.
Now switch the word to "pedophile". Would you make the
same claim? Why not? Would you support their rights?
If not, why not?
If you can't see the difference between to adults entering into a civil contract and one adult
manipulating a child you need help.
Why do you assume the child is being manipulated?
Children can marry here in the U.S..
There are pedophile laws to protect those society has deemed too immature to make certain decisions.
Really? And who is too immature? What is the age that
all children magically reach the ability to consent?
Why is it homophobes always try to tie Homosexuality to Pedophiles? Nearly All Pedophiles are
Heterosexual Men.
Why do liberals always claim that anyone against
homosexuality, is a homophobe?
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 05:56:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:09:09 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are pedophile laws to protect those society has deemed too immature to make certain decisions.
Really? And who is too immature? What is the age that
all children magically reach the ability to consent?
I'm with you on this one. In some countries, you can legally have sex with a young person, but if
you had sex with that same young person in the USA, you'd go to prison for 30 years and be labled a
sexual preditor for the rest of your life... not to mention the 30 year gang rape you'd get by the
other prisoners.....
In the USA, 'too immature' is normally under 17 years old. It's a law, and most of us here obey it
if we agree with it or not.
(and why are you an 'adult' for air-fare purposes when you're 14? :-)
Why is it homophobes always try to tie Homosexuality to Pedophiles? Nearly All Pedophiles are
Heterosexual Men.
Why do liberals always claim that anyone against
homosexuality, is a homophobe?
Homophobia is a fear, hatred, or discrimination of homosexuals. You fit that bill and it's not a
"liberal" thing... it's a Merriam-Webster thing.
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
What in the HELL are you talking about? Move away from the anti-homosexual, religious right web
sites and look at some real statistics, PLEASE!
Homosexual men don't need to molest little kids... they're attracted to other MEN, and we all know
that the male libido is a bit rambuctious, so imagine when all the 'dancing' and 'games' of the
male-female courtship ritual is taken out of the picture... all the sex you want. (of course,
this is health consequences, but I guarantee that if women wanted sex as much as men, the disease
rate would be the same for m/m, f/f, and m/f.
James, Seattle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 08:10:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:56:55 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:09:09 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are pedophile laws to protect those society has deemed too immature to make certain decisions.
Really? And who is too immature? What is the age that
all children magically reach the ability to consent?
I'm with you on this one. In some countries, you can legally have sex with a young person, but if
you had sex with that same young person in the USA, you'd go to prison for 30 years and be labled a
sexual preditor for the rest of your life... not to mention the 30 year gang rape you'd get by the
other prisoners.....
In the USA, 'too immature' is normally under 17 years old. It's a law, and most of us here obey it
if we agree with it or not.
(and why are you an 'adult' for air-fare purposes when you're 14? :-)
Why is it homophobes always try to tie Homosexuality to Pedophiles? Nearly All Pedophiles are
Heterosexual Men.
Why do liberals always claim that anyone against
homosexuality, is a homophobe?
Homophobia is a fear, hatred, or discrimination of homosexuals. You fit that bill and it's not a
"liberal" thing... it's a Merriam-Webster thing.
Sorry, but "phobia" means a fear, or dislike of
something, despite awareness and reassurance that it is
not a dangerous thing. I am not reassured.
Liberals try to claim it involves discrimination, but
calling it discrimination, assumes it should be
considered as legitimate as heterosexual relations and
that is not something that you get to define for me.
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
What in the HELL are you talking about? Move away from the anti-homosexual, religious right web
sites and look at some real statistics, PLEASE!
Homosexual men don't need to molest little kids... they're attracted to other MEN,
Heterosexual men don't need to molest little kids.
They're attracted to women. That argument works both
ways and you now imply that NO homosexual men are
pedophiles.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 08:34:46 PM |
|
|
In article <t0l670d5tb7mm8o82g8stfnnheblf1gcji@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Homosexual men don't need to molest little kids... they're attracted to
other MEN,
Heterosexual men don't need to molest little kids.
They're attracted to women. That argument works both
ways and you now imply that NO homosexual men are
pedophiles.
Well I know you probably think you are being clever but you are right,
just not in the way you want to be.
Most adult oriented men that molest kids are usually molesting their
own kids. As such homosexual men rarely do if only because most of
them don't have kids.
Most true pedophiles don't have an adult sexual attraction, gay or
straight. Those that do usually 'pass' as heterosexuals (why would you
not blend with the majority if its a sham?) but even that is just that
- a sham.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 07:41:13 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:10:27 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Homophobia is a fear, hatred, or discrimination of homosexuals. You fit that bill and it's not a
"liberal" thing... it's a Merriam-Webster thing.
Sorry, but "phobia" means a fear, or dislike of
something, despite awareness and reassurance that it is
not a dangerous thing. I am not reassured.
Liberals try to claim it involves discrimination, but
calling it discrimination, assumes it should be
considered as legitimate as heterosexual relations and
that is not something that you get to define for me.
For being such a stickler for "definitions" (read: "marriage") you sure don't have a clue what
homophobia means. Yes, yes... the suffix 'phobia' is on that word, but I'm not saying anything
about 'phobias' I'm talking about HOMOPHOBIA taken as a hole word.
If you want to nitpick the fact that Homophobia doesn't neccessarily mean "an unreasonable fear of.
.. ." then 'homophobia' will be on a list of a few hundred words you'll need to contact
Merriam-Webster about since the Latin Root words in the don't jib with the common meaning.
And I've never met a Dictionary that Anyone would call "liberal"... check out:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=homophobia&x=0&y=0
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hussy Galore" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 08:30:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 7:41:13 -0500, RainLover wrote
(in message <bct770lcqcq5kigbev50mstfrrpu1q04e1@4ax.com>):
I'm talking about HOMOPHOBIA taken as a hole word.
Ooooo, Sweetcheeks, you can say that again!
I'm talking about HOMOPHOBIA taken as a hole word.
Any hole in particular, big boy?
Hussy Galore
---------------
"Homophobia, my *****!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 12:15:04 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:33:12 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
There are pedophile laws to protect those society has deemed too immature to make certain decisions.
Really? And who is too immature? What is the age that
all children magically reach the ability to consent?
Why is it homophobes always try to tie Homosexuality to Pedophiles? Nearly All Pedophiles are
Heterosexual Men.
Why do liberals always claim that anyone against
homosexuality, is a homophobe?
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
Provide proof. You would not want people to think that a pastor is
bearing false witness [again] now would you?
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 06:22:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:15:04 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:33:12 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
There are pedophile laws to protect those society has deemed too immature to make certain decisions.
Really? And who is too immature? What is the age that
all children magically reach the ability to consent?
Why is it homophobes always try to tie Homosexuality to Pedophiles? Nearly All Pedophiles are
Heterosexual Men.
Why do liberals always claim that anyone against
homosexuality, is a homophobe?
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
Provide proof.
Sure. Right after the poster provides proof of his
statement, which came before mine, that they are mostly
heterosexual men, from an unbiased source.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Read an amazing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 11:05:06 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:15:04 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:33:12 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Why is it homophobes always try to tie Homosexuality to Pedophiles? Nearly All Pedophiles are
Heterosexual Men.
Why do liberals always claim that anyone against
homosexuality, is a homophobe?
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
Provide proof.
Sure. Right after the poster provides proof of his
statement, which came before mine, that they are mostly
heterosexual men, from an unbiased source.
Sorry "pastor" Dave... you don't get away with bearing false witness by
suddenly asking the previous poster for proof. He who makes the
assertion carries the burden of proof. If you doubted his words, you
should have challenged them *before* you made your claim that "Your
statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are mostly homosexual men.".
YOU have been called to provide proof of that assertion... to show that
you are not bearing false witness and thereby consigning your soul to
the lake of fire. You are trying to get out of your sin of lying by
casting doubt on the previous poster *after* the fact. You are a
discredit to Christianity - repent hell-bound sinner!
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 06:27:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:05:06 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:15:04 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:33:12 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Why is it homophobes always try to tie Homosexuality to Pedophiles? Nearly All Pedophiles are
Heterosexual Men.
Why do liberals always claim that anyone against
homosexuality, is a homophobe?
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
Provide proof.
Sure. Right after the poster provides proof of his
statement, which came before mine, that they are mostly
heterosexual men, from an unbiased source.
Sorry "pastor" Dave... you don't get away with bearing false witness by
suddenly asking the previous poster for proof. He who makes the
assertion carries the burden of proof.
And his assertion was made first. I responded to it.
It is hypocritical and dishonest of you to take the
approach that you do. I noticed no such message from
you, regarding this, to him.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/christ_scientific_creation.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 10:37:50 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:05:06 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:15:04 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:33:12 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
Provide proof.
Sure. Right after the poster provides proof of his
statement, which came before mine, that they are mostly
heterosexual men, from an unbiased source.
Sorry "pastor" Dave... you don't get away with bearing false witness by
suddenly asking the previous poster for proof. He who makes the
assertion carries the burden of proof.
And his assertion was made first. I responded to it.
By making a counter assertion of your own... not by challenging him to
back up his facts. You only did that when I challenged your counter
assertion as false witness. You are such a discredit to your religion
and a very poor advertisement for Christianity when you pile deceit on
top of dishonesty.
It is hypocritical and dishonest of you to take the
approach that you do.
It is dishonest and hypocritical of me to challenge those who make
assertions to provide proof? Seeking after truth and correcting the
spreading of false witness is dishonest and hypocritical? Apparently
you are a false Christian who knows nothing of the teachings the saviour.
I noticed no such message from
you, regarding this, to him.
No I did not respond to his original assertion as I did not disagree
with his statement. What I challenged as false witness is the counter
assertion that YOU made. Now go ahead and prove you are not spreading
false witness [again] by backing up what you have stated. Have some
integrity, stand behind your OWN words and show us that you are indeed
speaking the truth and not damming your soul to hellfire.
I note you one again cut the majority of my reply without marking the
cut... that is not only rude, but it can distort the previous posters
words to which you are responding. You should mark such cuts so people
are aware that your response may be a limited one or out of context to
the main discussion.
<sig snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 06:32:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:37:50 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:05:06 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:15:04 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:33:12 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Your statement about pedophiles is incorrect. They are
mostly homosexual men.
Provide proof.
Sure. Right after the poster provides proof of his
statement, which came before mine, that they are mostly
heterosexual men, from an unbiased source.
Sorry "pastor" Dave... you don't get away with bearing false witness by
suddenly asking the previous poster for proof. He who makes the
assertion carries the burden of proof.
And his assertion was made first. I responded to it.
By making a counter assertion of your own... not by challenging him to
back up his facts. You only did that when I challenged your counter
assertion as false witness.
Why did you not challenge his original assertion? Oh
wait, we know, you liked it when he attacked.
You are such a discredit to your religion
and a very poor advertisement for Christianity when you pile deceit on
top of dishonesty.
You are a very poor advertisement for honesty and
integrity. I have done nothing dishonest, while you
have.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Atheism is folly, and atheists are the
greatest fools in nature; for they see
there is a world that could not make
itself, and yet they will not own there
is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 07:01:39 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:37:50 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:05:06 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:15:04 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:33:12 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:41:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Sorry "pastor" Dave... you don't get away with bearing false witness by
suddenly asking the previous poster for proof. He who makes the
assertion carries the burden of proof.
And his assertion was made first. I responded to it.
By making a counter assertion of your own... not by challenging him to
back up his facts. You only did that when I challenged your counter
assertion as false witness.
Why did you not challenge his original assertion?
Well "pastor" Dave [I have to put the pastor in quotes since you
on-line sinning makes me doubt you are actually clergy], in the section
of my previous reply, which you dishonestly cut without marking the
deletion, I said :
No I did not respond to his original assertion as I did not disagree with his statement. What I challenged as false witness is the counter assertion that YOU made. Now go ahead and prove you are not spreading false witness [again] by backing up what you have stated. Have some integrity, stand behind your OWN words and show us that you are indeed speaking the truth and not damming your soul to hellfire.
See. I was quite honest in saying that I did not disagree with his
statement which is why I did not challenge it. You on the other hand,
did not see fit to disagree which his statement until I challenged you
to support your statement with facts. You have yet to support your
statement with ANY facts... rather yo have been dancing around making
excuse for your false witnesss. Why not just post the facts and
demonstrate that you are not lying?
Oh
wait, we know, you liked it when he attacked.
Read what I said... Oh wait, that was in the part you dishonestly
snipped "pastor" Dave. Here, let me quote myself:
No I did not respond to his original assertion as I did not disagree with his statement.
You are such a discredit to your religion
and a very poor advertisement for Christianity when you pile deceit on
top of dishonesty.
You are a very poor advertisement for honesty and
integrity. I have done nothing dishonest, while you
have.
So cutting people's words without marking the deletion to alter the
meaning of their reply demonstrates honesty and integrity and shows a
good example of how a christian should behave? Dancing around and
calling on others to prove their assertions only *after* you have been
called to prove your assertions... spending several posts avoiding and
evading posting the actual facts that could prove you were not bearing
false witness, is demonstrating how good christians, and one who claims
to be clergy, show honesty and integrity?
<sig snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 09:17:35 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:01:39 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Well "pastor" Dave [I have to put the pastor in quotes since you
on-line sinning makes me doubt you are actually clergy], in the section
of my previous reply, which you dishonestly cut without marking the
deletion, I said :
No I did not respond to his original assertion as I did not disagree with his statement.
I hardly ever mark snips. Folks have the message I
responded to and can read it for themselves. I'm not
trying to hide anything.
I did miss that in what I snipped and I do apologize
for rushing through the text.
What I challenged as false witness is the counter assertion that YOU made.
You assert that it is false. You have not proven that,
nor did he prove his original claim, upon request.
Your interruption of the conversation (which you're
free to do in a public forum) does not take away from
the fact that he didn't. Nor does your agreement with
his claim, which he made first, prove his claim to be
true.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 12:17:11 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:01:39 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Well "pastor" Dave [I have to put the pastor in quotes since you
on-line sinning makes me doubt you are actually clergy], in the section
of my previous reply, which you dishonestly cut without marking the
deletion, I said :
No I did not respond to his original assertion as I did not disagree with his statement.
I hardly ever mark snips.
How rude of you and also how convenient that many of the snips you make
change the meaning of the previous posters response such that you can
twist their words.
Folks have the message I
responded to and can read it for themselves. I'm not
trying to hide anything.
USEnet is an imperfect medium and often posts don't show up, People
may not have the complete text of what you are responding to for a
number of technical reasons.
I did miss that in what I snipped and I do apologize
for rushing through the text.
Your apology is accepted but do try not to commit such sins in the future.
What I challenged as false witness is the counter assertion that YOU made.
You assert that it is false.
Please provide a link to my post in the Google archives where I
asserted that your counter claim is false - you would not want people to
think you were bearing false witness [again] now would you?
You have not proven that,
The burden of proof is upon he who made the assertion. In this case,
YOU made an assertion and I asked you to provide proof - which I note
you have still failed to provide. This exchange would be over if you
had provided evidence from a peer-reviewed journal or other scientific
source to back up you claims about homosexuals.
nor did he prove his original claim, upon request.
No he did not. However, your request for poof came *after* you had
made a counter claim and I had requested YOU provide proof of your
counter claim. IOW, you have shirked your responsibility to prove a
claim that seems dubious at best, and possibly an outright lie, by
engaging in delaying tactics [asking the previous poster to prove his
claim] and then avoiding and evading providing the actual proof of you
claim.
This entire exchange could have been ended a few posts ago by you
simply providing the proof of your claim and thereby showing people it
is in fact a valid claim and not another false witness [lie], You do
know that bearing false witness is listed in the top 10 sins don't you.
Your interruption of the conversation (which you're
free to do in a public forum) does not take away from
the fact that he didn't. Nor does your agreement with
his claim, which he made first, prove his claim to be
true.
Please provide the Google URL to the post in which I sad that his claim
was true, or once again be shown to be the unrepentant sinner that you
appear to be with your continuous deceit, deception, evasion and false
witness.
<sig anip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 08:13:19 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:17:11 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
What I challenged as false witness is the counter assertion that YOU made.
You assert that it is false.
Please provide a link to my post in the Google archives where I
asserted that your counter claim is false - you would not want people to
think you were bearing false witness [again] now would you?
If you agreed with his claim, which was the opposite of
mine, what do you think that says?
You have not proven that,
The burden of proof is upon he who made the assertion. In this case,
YOU made an assertion and I asked you to provide proof
Sorry, he made the first claim and I asked him to back
up his claim. When he backs up his, then we can
continue.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
- Pastor Dave Raymond
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 11:36:19 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:17:11 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
What I challenged as false witness is the counter assertion that YOU made.
You assert that it is false.
Please provide a link to my post in the Google archives where I
asserted that your counter claim is false - you would not want people to
think you were bearing false witness [again] now would you?
If you agreed with his claim, which was the opposite of
mine, what do you think that says?
You made the claim that I asserted it was false and are unable to back
up that claim with evidence. That is called lying - bearing false
witness if you prefer it sugar-coated and in Biblical terms. YOU are an
unrepentant sinner doomed to the lake of fire for you lies!
Further, I have already stated that I did not disagree with his
statement which by NO means implies that I agreed with his claim. I
know you operate in a black & white world but I can see shades of grey
and if someone neither agrees or disagrees with a statement, it could
just be that they are neutral on the statement or hold some other
position entirely.
You have not proven that,
The burden of proof is upon he who made the assertion. In this case,
YOU made an assertion and I asked you to provide proof
Sorry, he made the first claim and I asked him to back
up his claim.
Yes but only AFTER you had been challenged on your false witness. Had
you disagreed with his claim, you should have asked him to provide proof
BEFORE you made a counter claim of you own. Further, the rules of
debate are that he who makes a claim must back it up when called to do
so. I have called YOU on YOUR claims and seek back up from YOU - the
claim of the previous poster is IRRELEVANT to this discussion as I ma
not calling upon them for proof, I ma calling upon YOU to back up you
claim according to the rules of debate.
When he backs up his, then we can
continue.
How very dishonest of you to state that your claim is contingent on him
verifying his claim when you only challenged it AFTER your claim had
been challenged. Is this an example of how a Christian, and an
erstwhile pastor, should be speaking the truth?
As I have said before, this whole issue could have been ended a few
posts ago by YOU simply backing up your claim with verifiable facts...
which you have steadfastly refused to do by avoiding, evading, pointing
fingers and dancing around. You bring the principals of Christianity
into disrepute by your actions and amply demonstrated that you are a
false Christian and your soul is consigned to eternal damnation.
<sig snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
12 Apr 2004 10:42:18 AM |
|
|
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Unrepentant sinner and false Christian Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:17:11 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
What I challenged as false witness is the counter assertion that
YOU made.
You assert that it is false.
Please provide a link to my post in the Google archives where I
asserted that your counter claim is false - you would not want people
to think you were bearing false witness [again] now would you?
If you agreed with his claim, which was the opposite of
mine, what do you think that says?
Well "pastor" Dave, IT appear that you, who claim to hold the "high
moral ground" and be a representative and example of Christianity, have
run away and are avoiding the truth. I am still waiting for you to
provide some proof that you are not bearing false witness - AKA lying -
in the counter assertion that you made further up in this thread.
I am still waiting for you to back you your claim above [about my
previous post] that "You assert that it is false" by providing a link to
my post in the Google archives where I claimed that the original
poster's assertion was false. That is the second lie you told in this
thread.
You have demonstrated that you are a false Christian unable to back up
your words with truth. Until such time as you can back up your claims
with facts, you are an unrepentant liar and sinner doomed to eternal
hellfire.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 01:31:37 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<299570hm5ievjco6hodn58vj1r2ibi5m2m@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:38:58 -0400, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 01:23:38 GMT, (Craig Chilton)
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:05:38 -0400,
"L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
"Pastor" Dave wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote::
<snip>
...whereas **you**, "Pastor" Dave, are nothing but a hate-filled
and ignorant bigot. As you prove in here, regularly.
I'm not the one throwing out the insults.
No. What you are doing is EXPONENTIALLY WORSE than
that. You publicly support hateful and loathsome agendas that
seek to deny equal rights to millions people, and FORCE people to
carry-to-term against their will. Only a hardened criminal could be
worse than that.
More insults.
You support banning/preventing same-sex marriage thereby denying a
small group of citizens EQUAL rights. You have sai | |
