Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote.

Religions > Atheism > Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 15 of 33

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Randy Jabsco"
Date:	12 Dec 2003 03:02:24 PM
Object:	Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote.

Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.
What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance to old
beliefs are making way". Come on faggots, explain this... I don't
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds vote
otherwise? Why is there currently 38 states with anti-gay marriage laws,
all properly voted for by the public? I am having troubles understanding
why the only way faggots can appear to be accepted is by finding a
sympathetic judge to scratch out laws for them. Can't you get the
"accepting" public to vote for them for you? Why isn't it that the faggots
aren't putting these issues on the ballets rather than taking it to
sympathetic judges and congress men?
===
Ohio House passes anti-gay marriage bill
COLUMBUS -- Gay marriage would be banned and state employees could not
obtain health insurance and other benefits for unmarried partners under a
bill passed by the Ohio House on Wednesday.
The measure, approved by a 73-23 vote, would recognize marriage as a union
"between one man and one woman" and declare that extending benefits for
unmarried partners to state employees, whether of the same or opposite sex,
is against state policy.
Supporters of the measure point toward the possibility of other states
approving homosexual unions as the impetus for Ohio to set its own standards
for marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last month declared that state's
gay marriage ban unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to extend the legal
benefits of marriage to domestic partners.
But opponents called the bill discrimination.
House minority leader Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island, said committee
hearings on the bill were filled with "hate filled language and bigoted
comments" about homosexuals.
"I cannot allow myself to be aligned with that," he said. "I have respect
for my fellow members ... but I don't want them to be the morality police."
Redfern added that considering society's 50-percent divorce rate, it's hard
to argue that the issue is about upholding the sanctity of marriage.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Gays get another "* SLAP." This time in in Ohio.	30 Dec 2003 07:58:54 PM

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:55:48 GMT, Wild Bill taylor posted to
alt.atheism:

Homosexuality, on the other hand, arose from a steaming pile of dog
***** in a back alley on a cold winter day in Brooklyn Heights NY.

Ever been to Brooklyn Heights, Bill?
I didn't think so.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Gays get another "* SLAP." This time in in Ohio.	14 Dec 2003 12:58:13 PM

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

Of course "live and let live" never occurred to you. How exactly does it
hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together and
function as a family?

Twist, lie, twist, lie, twist, lie. The gay hate rhetoric rages on.
No, Vic, you and your rump rider buddies can ***** each other in the *****
all you like and nobody gives a ***** but you.
When you politically attack families and marriages and want to hurt
children, then it is everybody's business.
Bob
.

User: "The other Donald"
Title: Re: Gays get another "* SLAP." This time in in Ohio.	14 Dec 2003 01:37:33 PM

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCB2C5.1050709@hotmail.com...

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

Of course "live and let live" never occurred to you. How exactly does

hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together and
function as a family?

Twist, lie, twist, lie, twist, lie. The gay hate rhetoric rages on.

You're changing the subject. How does it hurt YOU. Is your marriage so
pathetic that the mere mention of two men/women being married suddenly
threaten it?

No, Vic, you and your rump rider buddies can ***** each other in the *****
all you like and nobody gives a ***** but you.

Then ***** and shut up about it.

When you politically attack families and marriages and want to hurt
children, then it is everybody's business.

Thanks for proving Vic to be absolutely correct. You don't have a single,
valid argument outside of your pathetically simple world.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
.

User: "Ward Stewart"
Title: Re: Gays get another "* SLAP." This time in in Ohio.	14 Dec 2003 04:45:33 PM

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:37:33 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw.com> wrote:

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCB2C5.1050709@hotmail.com...

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

Of course "live and let live" never occurred to you. How exactly does

hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together and
function as a family?

Twist, lie, twist, lie, twist, lie. The gay hate rhetoric rages on.

You're changing the subject. How does it hurt YOU. Is your marriage so
pathetic that the mere mention of two men/women being married suddenly
threaten it?

No, Vic, you and your rump rider buddies can ***** each other in the *****
all you like and nobody gives a ***** but you.

Then ***** and shut up about it.

When you politically attack families and marriages and want to hurt
children, then it is everybody's business.

Thanks for proving Vic to be absolutely correct. You don't have a single,
valid argument outside of your pathetically simple world.

-Donald in Austin

Clearly these sad folks are both troglodyte and coprophagous,
specializing in bile and preferring the darkness.
Fiat Lux!
ward
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not
contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just
titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and
commentators of the sacred canons. ...It is not contrary to the natural
and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, and exchanged or given."
--Pope Pius IX, June 20, 1866.
Actually , not surprising except that this odd Polish Joke has
nominated Pio Nono for posthumous elevation to saint-hood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Gays get another "* SLAP." This time in in Ohio.	14 Dec 2003 01:56:30 PM

The other Donald wrote:

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCB2C5.1050709@hotmail.com...

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

Of course "live and let live" never occurred to you. How exactly does

hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together and
function as a family?

Twist, lie, twist, lie, twist, lie. The gay hate rhetoric rages on.

You're changing the subject. How does it hurt YOU. Is your marriage so
pathetic that the mere mention of two men/women being married suddenly
threaten it?

Several rump riders have posted that during the last few days. Try to
keep up.

No, Vic, you and your rump rider buddies can ***** each other in the *****
all you like and nobody gives a ***** but you.

Then ***** and shut up about it.

Gawd, they hate it when anyone names their sordid sexual perversions.

When you politically attack families and marriages and want to hurt
children, then it is everybody's business.

Thanks for proving Vic to be absolutely correct. You don't have a single,
valid argument outside of your pathetically simple world.

ROFLMAO! It's not about "argument" Dilbert, it's about families and
children.
Bob

-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
....and ordained minister

User: "The other Donald"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	14 Dec 2003 02:40:07 PM

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCC06E.2060106@hotmail.com...

The other Donald wrote:

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCB2C5.1050709@hotmail.com...

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

Of course "live and let live" never occurred to you. How exactly does

hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together and
function as a family?

Twist, lie, twist, lie, twist, lie. The gay hate rhetoric rages on.

You're changing the subject. How does it hurt YOU. Is your marriage so
pathetic that the mere mention of two men/women being married suddenly
threaten it?

Several rump riders have posted that during the last few days. Try to
keep up.

Answer the fucking question, loser:
"Of course 'live and let live' never occurred to you. How exactly does it
hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together and
function as a family?"
Or will you continue to "twist, lie, twist, lie...change the subject?"

No, Vic, you and your rump rider buddies can ***** each other in the *****
all you like and nobody gives a ***** but you.

Then ***** and shut up about it.

Gawd, they hate it when anyone names their sordid sexual perversions.

I'm a married, heterosexual. Perhaps it is actually your own sordid
fantasies that you keep describing? You sure have an unhealthy fascination
with it.

When you politically attack families and marriages and want to hurt
children, then it is everybody's business.

Thanks for proving Vic to be absolutely correct. You don't have a

single,

valid argument outside of your pathetically simple world.

ROFLMAO! It's not about "argument" Dilbert, it's about families and
children.

I'm married, but have NO children with my current wife. She has a daughter
from a previous marriage that is now grown, and I obtained custody only
after we had been married for four years. We married for the love of each
other. People like you cannot get away from your own sexual obsessions and
breeding mentality to see what is at the core of a marriage.
Marriage is a legally-binding contract. It doesn't have jack-***** to do with
children, so your whining of "it's for the children" is *****. In fact,
the more you whine about "the children," the more you sound like a
bleeding-heart liberal.
Your non-sequitur answer has nothing to do with your initial statement of
"politically attack families and marriages and want to hurt children." It
has EVERYthing to do with an argument, Dumbass, because you cannot validate
your position of denying taxpaying citizens equal rights to marry the person
of their choosing.
That makes you a hysterical liar and an idiot that can't stay on topic.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
.

User: "Dennis Kemmerer"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	14 Dec 2003 07:09:25 PM

"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw.com> wrote in message
news:HU3Db.219627$do1.24059@twister.austin.rr.com...

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCC06E.2060106@hotmail.com...

[snip]

Several rump riders have posted that during the last few days. Try to
keep up.

Answer the fucking question, loser:

Boob doesn't answer questions. He just likes to masturbate while he types
'rump rider.'
[snip]
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	14 Dec 2003 02:52:54 PM

The other Donald wrote:

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCC06E.2060106@hotmail.com...

The other Donald wrote:

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCB2C5.1050709@hotmail.com...

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

Of course "live and let live" never occurred to you. How exactly does

hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together and
function as a family?

Twist, lie, twist, lie, twist, lie. The gay hate rhetoric rages on.

You're changing the subject. How does it hurt YOU. Is your marriage so
pathetic that the mere mention of two men/women being married suddenly
threaten it?

Several rump riders have posted that during the last few days. Try to
keep up.

Answer the fucking question, loser:

"Of course 'live and let live' never occurred to you. How exactly does it
hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together and
function as a family?"

Your lack of reading is noted. Bob has constantly said that its fine
for rump riders or lolly lickers to *****-sociate all they like as long as
they mind their own business and not everyone else's.
Only when they engage in political assaults intended to destroy the
institution of marriage that it effects everyone.

Or will you continue to "twist, lie, twist, lie...change the subject?"

Au contrair. It is YOU who have continued to twist, lie and bugger, as
your previous post demonstrates.

No, Vic, you and your rump rider buddies can ***** each other in the *****
all you like and nobody gives a ***** but you.

Then ***** and shut up about it.

Gawd, they hate it when anyone names their sordid sexual perversions.

I'm a married, heterosexual. Perhaps it is actually your own sordid
fantasies that you keep describing? You sure have an unhealthy fascination
with it.

They always deny being rump riders on the net. They're so ashamed.

When you politically attack families and marriages and want to hurt
children, then it is everybody's business.

Thanks for proving Vic to be absolutely correct. You don't have a
single,
valid argument outside of your pathetically simple world.

ROFLMAO! It's not about "argument" Dilbert, it's about families and
children.

I'm married, but have NO children with my current wife. She has a daughter
from a previous marriage that is now grown, and I obtained custody only
after we had been married for four years. We married for the love of each
other. People like you cannot get away from your own sexual obsessions and
breeding mentality to see what is at the core of a marriage.

Marriage is a legally-binding contract. It doesn't have jack-***** to do with
children, so your whining of "it's for the children" is *****. In fact,
the more you whine about "the children," the more you sound like a
bleeding-heart liberal.

Your non-sequitur answer has nothing to do with your initial statement of
"politically attack families and marriages and want to hurt children." It
has EVERYthing to do with an argument, Dumbass, because you cannot validate
your position of denying taxpaying citizens equal rights to marry the person
of their choosing.

That makes you a hysterical liar and an idiot that can't stay on topic.

LOL. It's not about the argument, its about the children. Your rump
rider attack on marriage doesn't fly with decent people. Protecting and
supporting the children is far more important than your sordid sex life.
Bob

-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
....and ordained minister

User: "Adam Marczyk"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	15 Dec 2003 11:23:21 PM

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCCDA6.3020000@hotmail.com...

The other Donald wrote:

[...]

"Of course 'live and let live' never occurred to you. How exactly does
it hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together
and function as a family?"

Your lack of reading is noted. Bob has constantly said that its fine
for rump riders or lolly lickers to *****-sociate all they like as long as
they mind their own business and not everyone else's.

Only when they engage in political assaults intended to destroy the
institution of marriage that it effects everyone.

And they intend to accomplish that by *extending* the definition of who can
get married? This must be some new usage of the word "destroy" of which I
was not previously aware. Can you destroy a building by building another
wing onto it?
--
Manifest plainness, | a.a. #2001
Embrace simplicity, | http://www.ebonmusings.org
Reduce selfishness, | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
Have few desires. | ICQ: 8777843
--The Tao Te Ching | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 01:31:46 AM

Adam Marczyk wrote:

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCCDA6.3020000@hotmail.com...

The other Donald wrote:

[...]

"Of course 'live and let live' never occurred to you. How exactly does
it hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together
and function as a family?"

Your lack of reading is noted. Bob has constantly said that its fine
for rump riders or lolly lickers to *****-sociate all they like as long as
they mind their own business and not everyone else's.

Only when they engage in political assaults intended to destroy the
institution of marriage that it effects everyone.

LOL. Good Analogy. If you had, say a lovely park in the center of
town, and you built a slaughter house on top of it, the park would
effectively destroyed. The original park would still be there, but
instead of flowers it would be buried under 400 tons of cow *****.
Bob
.

User: "Adam Marczyk"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 10:34:31 AM

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDEB4E2.3090403@hotmail.com...

Adam Marczyk wrote:

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCCDA6.3020000@hotmail.com...

The other Donald wrote:

[...]

"Of course 'live and let live' never occurred to you. How exactly
does it hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live
together and function as a family?"

Your lack of reading is noted. Bob has constantly said that its fine
for rump riders or lolly lickers to *****-sociate all they like as long
as they mind their own business and not everyone else's.

Only when they engage in political assaults intended to destroy the
institution of marriage that it effects everyone.

And why is your analogy more appropriate than mine? Unlike your analogy,
legitimizing gay marriage would not have any effect on existing
heterosexual marriages.
--
Manifest plainness, | a.a. #2001
Embrace simplicity, | http://www.ebonmusings.org
Reduce selfishness, | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
Have few desires. | ICQ: 8777843
--The Tao Te Ching | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 11:03:51 AM

Adam Marczyk wrote:

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDEB4E2.3090403@hotmail.com...

Adam Marczyk wrote:

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCCDA6.3020000@hotmail.com...

The other Donald wrote:

[...]

"Of course 'live and let live' never occurred to you. How exactly
does it hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live
together and function as a family?"

Your lack of reading is noted. Bob has constantly said that its fine
for rump riders or lolly lickers to *****-sociate all they like as long
as they mind their own business and not everyone else's.

Only when they engage in political assaults intended to destroy the
institution of marriage that it effects everyone.

And why is your analogy more appropriate than mine? Unlike your analogy,
legitimizing gay marriage would not have any effect on existing
heterosexual marriages.

Same old lying crap. They keep pumping it out.
.

User: "Al Ongapo"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 01:23:26 AM

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:23:21 GMT, "Adam Marczyk"
<ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDCCDA6.3020000@hotmail.com...

The other Donald wrote:

[...]

"Of course 'live and let live' never occurred to you. How exactly does
it hurt *you* to allow two people (regardless of sex) to live together
and function as a family?"

Your lack of reading is noted. Bob has constantly said that its fine
for rump riders or lolly lickers to *****-sociate all they like as long as
they mind their own business and not everyone else's.

Only when they engage in political assaults intended to destroy the
institution of marriage that it effects everyone.

After Canada legalized ( but has not yet finalized) same-sex
marriage, there was no rush down the aisle to the altar. Out of
34,200 self-identified homosexual couples, only 1.4 percent obtained
marriage licenses. The editor of Fab, a popular gay magazine in
Toronto, explained, ''I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people
would challenge and change the institution and NOT BUY INTO the
traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and MONOGAMY FOREVER.''
Gays already have the liberty to live their lives as they
choose, set up housekeeping, share income and expenses, make contracts
and wills, and transfer property. What they are now demanding is
respect and social standing for a lifestyle that a majority of others
believe is immoral (like mixed-gender cohabiting).
That amounts to the minority forcing its views on the majority.
Nobody is entitled to respect for behavior of which we don't approve.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would not merely permit a small
number of people to choose alternate lifestyles (they are already
doing that). It would force the rest of us to accept a public
judgment that "personal desire outweighs the value of traditional
marriage and outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers."
If personal desire is to become the only criterion for public
recognition of marriage, if equal rights and nondiscrimination require
us to be neutral about who is eligible for marriage, how then can we
deny marriage to those who want to marry a child, or a sibling, or
more than one wife? All those practices are common in some other
countries.
If a 13-year-old girl can exercise ''choice'' to ''control her
own body'' and get an abortion, why can't she have the choice to
marry? The Candian decision ruled that ''the right to marry means
little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's
choice.''
Marriage must not be changed to mean merely two consenting
persons agreeing to share quarters and start applying to the
government and to employers for economic benefits. Marriage must
continue to be recognized as the essential unit of a stable society
wherein husbands and wives provide a home and role models for the
rearing of children. Yes, with it's warts and all.
.

User: "Rick"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 02:18:01 AM

I respond one last time to the Teranews Twinkie Troll, for
anyone who is following this and might be interested in some
facts instead of tired and disproven right-wing rhetoric..
<Al Ongapo> wrote in message news:f015b03d5258d4a1e7369b6894ba9d6b@news.teranews.com...

Gays already have the liberty to live their lives as they
choose, set up housekeeping, share income and expenses, make contracts
and wills, and transfer property. What they are now demanding is
respect and social standing for a lifestyle that a majority of others
believe is immoral (like mixed-gender cohabiting).

If the right to legally recognized marriage isn't part of man's
inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
NOTHING ELSE IS.

That amounts to the minority forcing its views on the majority.
Nobody is entitled to respect for behavior of which we don't approve.

Well, I sincerely hope you continue to believe that, because
the longer you do, the longer you'll continue to LOSE EVERY
COURT CASE on this issue.
The fact is, what the majority wants counts for two things in the
U.S. -- diddly and squat. If the state wants to deny legal
recognition of marriage for any group it must show a compelling
interest in doing so -- and simply saying "the majority considers
it icky and doesn't like it" doesn't cut it in a court of law.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would not merely permit a small
number of people to choose alternate lifestyles (they are already
doing that). It would force the rest of us to accept a public
judgment that "personal desire outweighs the value of traditional
marriage and outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers."

"Traditional marriage" is a relative term, e.g. before 1960
"traditional marriage" was used as an argument to justify laws
against interracial marriages. Again, it's not a legally defensible
argument. Nor is pointing to bibles.

If personal desire is to become the only criterion for public
recognition of marriage, if equal rights and nondiscrimination require
us to be neutral about who is eligible for marriage, how then can we
deny marriage to those who want to marry a child, or a sibling, or
more than one wife? All those practices are common in some other
countries.

In every one of those cases the state has proven a compelling
interest in denying legal recognition of marriage. Not so in the
case of same-sex marriage.

If a 13-year-old girl can exercise ''choice'' to ''control her
own body'' and get an abortion, why can't she have the choice to
marry? The Candian decision ruled that ''the right to marry means
little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's
choice.''

Marriage must not be changed to mean merely two consenting
persons agreeing to share quarters and start applying to the
government and to employers for economic benefits. Marriage must
continue to be recognized as the essential unit of a stable society
wherein husbands and wives provide a home and role models for the
rearing of children. Yes, with it's warts and all.

You're stuck in the year 1950. Virtually all reputable child
welfare and mental health organizations, from the American
Academy of Pediatrics to the American Psychiatric Association
supports equal parenting rights by same-sex couples. And two
decades of formal studies and research shows NO NOTABLE
DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES between children
raised by opposite-sex and same-sex couples:
"The great majority of studies published in the past 20 years conclude
that there are no notable developmental differences between children
raised by heterosexual parents and those raised by lesbian and gay
parents. Along the same lines, several medical and mental health
professional associations, including the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American
Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological
Association have issued formal statements generally supporting equal
access to parenting and adoption for gay men and lesbians."
American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html
"Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of
their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all
children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable
body of professional literature provides evidence that children with
parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the
same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can
children whose parents are heterosexual."
North American Council on Adoptable Children
http://www.nacac.org/pub_statements.html#gay
"Children should not be denied a permanent family because of the
sexual orientation of potential parents. Everyone with the potential
to successfully parent a child in foster care or adoption is entitled
to fair and equal consideration."
American Psychoanalytic Association
http://apsa-co.org/ctf/cgli/parenting.htm
"The American Psychoanalytic Association supports the position
that the salient consideration in decisions about parenting, including
conception, child rearing, adoption, visitation and custody is the
best interest of the child. Accumulated evidence suggests the best
interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and
competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these
parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding
sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are
capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be
afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities
as heterosexual parents."
American Psychiatric Association
http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200214.pdf
"Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate
that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of
emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by
heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development
for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on
stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults.
"The American Psychiatric Association has historically supported equity,
parity, and non-discrimination regarding legal issues affecting mental
health. In 2000, APA supported the legal recognition of same sex unions
and their associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities. APA has
also supported efforts to educate the public about homosexuality and the
mental health needs of lesbian women, gay men, and their families.
Removing legal barriers that adversely affect the emotional and physical
health of children raised by lesbian and gay parents is consistent with the
goals of the APA.
"The American Psychiatric Association supports initiatives which allow
same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children and supports all the
associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities which arise from
such initiatives."
etc.
Rick
.

User: "Deborah Terreson"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 03:55:25 PM

----------
In article <brmf3r$4tg9r$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Rick"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

Good point, Rick..
.

User: "Rick"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 04:37:22 PM

"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@comcast.net> wrote in message news:I-WdnagWt4nQ4kKi4p2dnA@comcast.com...

----------
In article <brmf3r$4tg9r$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Rick"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

Good point, Rick..

Thanks Deborah. The people who're pushing the FMA are going
to have to come up with something other than these disproven scare
tactics to justify their bigotry. 40 or 50 years from now their
arguments will seem as ridiculous and outdated as those who tried
to justify laws against mixed-marriages in the 1950s. And as with
miscegenation laws, when these ridiculous DOMA laws have long
been relegated to the trash heap where they belong, heterosexual
men and women will notice nothing different about their own lives,
except Americans will look upon Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags"
signs with the same utter disgust as we look upon "White Drinking
Fountain" signs today.
Rick
.

User: "The other Donald"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 04:48:40 PM

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bro1f2$5ls2a$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:I-WdnagWt4nQ4kKi4p2dnA@comcast.com...

----------
In article <brmf3r$4tg9r$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Rick"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

Good point, Rick..

Rick,
You're incorrectly assuming that these imbeciles actually have a disgust for
segregation. Based on what they write, I've not seen four brain cells
between the lot of them leading me to conclude they are of the three-tooth,
barefoot, Klan rallying, Gawd-loves-me-but-hates-you, inbred, home-skooled
ilk. I'm talking houseplant-that-craps kind of stupid.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister

User: "Rick"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 05:16:09 PM

"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote in message news:cZLDb.134445$Ek.86683@twister.austin.rr.com...

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bro1f2$5ls2a$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:I-WdnagWt4nQ4kKi4p2dnA@comcast.com...

----------
In article <brmf3r$4tg9r$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Rick"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

Good point, Rick..

Rick,

You're incorrectly assuming that these imbeciles actually have a disgust for
segregation. Based on what they write, I've not seen four brain cells
between the lot of them leading me to conclude they are of the three-tooth,
barefoot, Klan rallying, Gawd-loves-me-but-hates-you, inbred, home-skooled
ilk. I'm talking houseplant-that-craps kind of stupid.

Well, there are some very heavy hitters behind the FMA, not the
least of which is the Catholic Church, who has a vested interest
in making sure gay people continue to be shoved back into closets.
As the single largest organization of gay men and women on the
planet, it would be nothing short of catastrophic for them to finally
have to come clean about the state of affairs in their church: the
fact that half the men in their seminaries are active homosexuals;
that a sexually starved, perpetually horny clergy is morally
indefensible and counterproductive, etc.
I don't have any illusions that this fight will be an easy one, but it
is most certainly a just one.
Rick
.

User: "Al Ongapo"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 05:46:25 PM

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:16:09 -0800, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Well, there are some very heavy hitters behind the FMA, not the
least of which is the Catholic Church, who has a vested interest
in making sure gay people continue to be shoved back into closets.

Especially when one considers the number of homosexuals there are
among the Catholic priest and the evilness associated with them. Their
propensity to rape boys in the churches and young men in the
seminaries is about as perverted and promiscuous as even homosexual
behavior could allow. Certainly nothing that any association of human
beings would want to publicize.
Homosexuality - What purpose does it serve?
.

User: "curtsybear"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	17 Dec 2003 02:21:14 PM

In alt.politics.homosexuality Al wrote:

Homosexuality - What purpose does it serve?

It is enough that is serves to twist your panties.
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"Rick Moranis and Mike Myers and Jim Carrey all turned their backs on
Canada in favor of God's country." -- Lurlean Tucker bases her church's
self-worth on the emigration habits of comedians, as that population
probably mirrors her congregation with great precision.
.

User: "Wild Bill Taylor"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 05:40:55 PM

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:48:40 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote:

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bro1f2$5ls2a$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:I-WdnagWt4nQ4kKi4p2dnA@comcast.com...

----------
In article <brmf3r$4tg9r$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Rick"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

Good point, Rick..

Rick,

You're incorrectly assuming that these imbeciles actually have a disgust for
segregation. Based on what they write, I've not seen four brain cells
between the lot of them leading me to conclude they are of the three-tooth,
barefoot, Klan rallying, Gawd-loves-me-but-hates-you, inbred, home-skooled
ilk. I'm talking houseplant-that-craps kind of stupid.

Of course he speaks of the "some what lucid" in AA. The other regulars
are functioning at the level of "cattle food." What other purpose
could they have...

-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
....and ordained minister

User: "The other Donald"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 07:16:11 PM

<Wild Bill Taylor> wrote in message
news:7ecd6b2e37d8f97df76084bfc53357d2@news.teranews.com...

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:48:40 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote:

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bro1f2$5ls2a$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:I-WdnagWt4nQ4kKi4p2dnA@comcast.com...

----------
In article <brmf3r$4tg9r$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Rick"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

"Traditional marriage" is a relative term, e.g. before 1960
"traditional marriage" was used as an argument to justify laws
against interracial marriages. Again, it's not a legally

defensible

argument. Nor is pointing to bibles.

Good point, Rick..

Rick,

You're incorrectly assuming that these imbeciles actually have a disgust

for

segregation. Based on what they write, I've not seen four brain cells
between the lot of them leading me to conclude they are of the

three-tooth,

barefoot, Klan rallying, Gawd-loves-me-but-hates-you, inbred,

home-skooled

ilk. I'm talking houseplant-that-craps kind of stupid.

Of course he speaks of the "some what lucid" in AA.

AA in this case refers to "alt.atheism." My feet are planted firmly in
reality, in stark contrast to your own behavior and unhealthy fascination
with homosexual behavior.
And I am speaking specifically about clusterfucks like you.

The other regulars
are functioning at the level of "cattle food."

Monkey see, monkey do. write your own material, Dumbass.

What other purpose
could they have...

To keep the idiots like yourself on your medications?
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
.

User: "Wild Bill Taylor"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 11:11:54 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:16:11 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote:

<Wild Bill Taylor> wrote in message

(...)

Of course he speaks of the "some what lucid" in AA.

AA in this case refers to "alt.atheism." My feet are planted firmly in
reality, in stark contrast to your own behavior and unhealthy fascination
with homosexual behavior.

And I am speaking specifically about clusterfucks like you.

The other regulars
are functioning at the level of "cattle food."

Monkey see, monkey do. write your own material, Dumbass.

What other purpose
could they have...

To keep the idiots like yourself on your medications?

Boring! Terribly FUCKING BORING!

-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
....and ordained minister

User: "Wild Bill Taylor"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 05:37:08 PM

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:37:22 -0800, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@comcast.net> wrote in message news:I-WdnagWt4nQ4kKi4p2dnA@comcast.com...

----------
In article <brmf3r$4tg9r$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Rick"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

Good point, Rick..

Black Ministers Decry Gays' Comparison to Civil Rights Movement
(Boston-AP) -- Some black ministers are angry that advocates of gay
marriage compare their movement to the struggle for racial equality.
The Reverend Talbert Swan of Springfield, Massachusetts, says
homosexuality is "a chosen lifestyle" while blacks cannot choose the
color of their skin.
The Reverend Walter Fauntroy, who organized the Reverend Martin Luther
King Junior's March on Washington, is a leading opponent of gay
marriage and supporter of a constitutional amendment to block it.
********************
Your apples and oranges don't mix, Rickety boy. At least the ORANGES
say that!

Rick

User: "Rick"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 06:12:04 PM

<Wild Bill Taylor> wrote in message news:0fef938e7d2455d91ecb8c8a8934d078@news.teranews.com...

The Reverend Talbert Swan of Springfield, Massachusetts, says
homosexuality is "a chosen lifestyle" while blacks cannot choose the
color of their skin.

Oh, talk to Rick Santorum, he'll tell you the same thing. Rev.
Swan isn't the only one who's clueless about homosexuality.
Now read the facts, from those who've researched the issue,
instead of simply parroting ignorance from those who haven't:
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight.
Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence
without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose
whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider
sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be
voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives,
some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their
sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the
influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so.
The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not
require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek
assistance from a mental health professional want to change their
sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek
psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies
to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same
reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health
professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy
report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual
orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of
these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on
their claims. For example, many of the claims come from
organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns
homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented.
For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported
overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any
mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about
such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the
Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution
reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment
and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and
self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal
with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such
therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment
absent of any social bias.
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health
professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental
disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective,
well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality,
in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional
or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a
mental illness because mental health professionals and society
had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian
and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing
the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data
about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that
homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be
untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the
importance of the new, better designed research and removed
homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and
emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological
Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For
more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental
health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness
that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual
and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences
between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their
intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and
popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a
parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that
gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to
sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that
homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest
children.
.

User: "Wild Bill Taylor"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	16 Dec 2003 07:01:42 PM

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:12:04 -0800, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

<Wild Bill Taylor> wrote in message news:0fef938e7d2455d91ecb8c8a8934d078@news.teranews.com...

The Reverend Talbert Swan of Springfield, Massachusetts, says
homosexuality is "a chosen lifestyle" while blacks cannot choose the
color of their skin.

The very same APA that openly supports Pedophilia and says that it
cause no harm to children. Yeah, I'll believe what they say about
homosexuals too. You ignorant fool. If you had as many dicks sticking
out of you as you have had stuck in you you'd be the envy of every
porcupine in the world.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	17 Dec 2003 08:38:11 AM

Wild writes:

Wild> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:12:04 -0800, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Wild Bill Taylor> wrote in message news:0fef938e7d2455d91ecb8c8a8934d078@news.teranews.com...
The Reverend Talbert Swan of Springfield, Massachusetts, says
homosexuality is "a chosen lifestyle" while blacks cannot choose the
color of their skin.

http> www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
Wild> The very same APA that openly supports Pedophilia and says that it
Do you really think lying will help your cause?
It just shows how desperate you are.
Wild> cause no harm to children. Yeah, I'll believe what they say about
Liar.
Wild> homosexuals too. You ignorant fool. If you had as many dicks sticking
Wild> out of you as you have had stuck in you you'd be the envy of every
Wild> porcupine in the world.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
.

User: "Wild Bill Taylor"
Title: Re: Gays get anoth -Bob gets a "* SLAP" with his own stupidity	17 Dec 2003 11:34:27 AM

On 17 Dec 2003 09:38:11 -0500, <ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:

Wild writes:

Wild> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:12:04 -0800, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

http> www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

Wild> The very same APA that openly supports Pedophilia and says that it
Wild> cause no harm to children. Yeah, I'll believe what they say about homosexuals
Do you really think lying will help your cause?
It just shows how desperate you are.

No, your denial shows how stupid or uninformed YOU ARE:
**What the APA Should Have Known
By Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. and Dale O'Leary**
Deconstructionists argue that distinctions between the genders are
arbitrary and political. Now, the same argument is being advanced by
man-boy love advocates about the distinction between the generations.
An article published last summer in the American Psychological
Association's Psychological Bulletin has drawn a recent firestorm of
criticism. Talk show hosts and congressmen are calling for
investigations. The outrage has focused on the authors' conclusion,
based on their analysis of child-molestation studies, that "the
negative effects [of sexual abuse] were neither pervasive nor
typically intense."
The article was entitled "A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed
Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples."
APA spokeswoman Rhea Faberman defended publication of the article as
part of the scientific work of the organization, saying, "We try to
create a lot of dialogue." She labeled "ridiculous" the claim that
publication of the article and the attempt to normalize pedophilia
were in any way related.
Contrary to Ms. Faberman's assertion, however:
1. There is a real and growing movement to legitimize and also
legalize sexual relations between boys aged 10 to 16 and adult males;
2. Robert Bauserman, one of the authors of the article, has associated
himself with the pedophilia movement through a previous article; 3.
The movement's strategy is to promote the "objective" study of
child/adult sex, free of moral considerations; 4. The APA should have
known this before they published the article. Those who are interested
in legalizing sexual relations between adults and children want to
change the parameters of the discussion from the "absolutist" moral
position, to the "relative" position that it can sometimes be
beneficial. The A.P.A. article furthered exactly this position.
Deconstructionists have argued--with some success--that distinctions
between the genders are arbitrary and politically motivated. Now, the
same argument is being advanced about the distinction between the
generations.
In a recent lead article of the Journal of Homosexuality (1), for
example, Harris Mirkin says the "sexually privileged" have
disadvantaged the pedophile through sheer political force in the same
way that blacks were disadvantaged by whites before the civil-rights
movement.
The Movement to Legitimize Pedophilia
In 1981, Dr. Theo Sandfort, co-director of the research program of
the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of
Utrecht, Netherlands, interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were
currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The
interviews took place in the homes of the men.
According to Sandfort, "For virtually all the boys ... the sexual
contact itself was experienced positively..." Could an adult-child
sexual contact, then, truly be called positive for the child? Based on
the research presented, Sandfort answered that question in the
affirmative.
The study was severely criticized by experts in the field of child
sexual abuse. Dr. David Mrazek, co-editor of Sexually Abused Children
and Their Families, attacked the Sandfort research as unethical,
saying:
"In this study, the researchers joined with members of the National
Pedophile Workshop to 'study' the boys who were the sexual 'partners'
of its members ... there is no evidence that human subject safeguards
were a paramount concern. However, there is ample evidence that the
study was politically motivated to 'reform' legislation. "These
researchers knowingly colluded with the perpetuation of secret illegal
activity ... In the majority of cases, these boys' parents were
unaware of these sexual activities with adult men, and the researchers
contributed to this deception by their action." Child sexual-abuse
expert Dr. David Finkelhor also criticized the Sandfort research,
pointing to the numerous studies which show adult-child sexual contact
as a predictor of later depression, suicidal behavior, dissociative
disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and sexual problems.
Dr. Finkelhor strongly defended laws against child/adult sex, saying
that many of those now-grown children are very active in lobbying for
such protection.
In 1990, the campaign to legalize man-boy sex was furthered by the
publication of a two-issue special of the Journal on Homosexuality,
reissued as Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical,
Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives.
This volume provided devastating information on the way
psychologically immature pedophile men use vulnerable boys who are
starved for adult nurturance and protection.
In the forward, Gunter Schmidt decries discrimination against and
persecution of pedophiles, and describes
"successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the
child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking
comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply
lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in
an adult's love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a
stroke of luck to have found such an 'enormously nurturant
relationship'." There is another deeply disturbing article in the
volume, revealingly titled, "The Main Thing is Being Wanted: Some Case
Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children." In it, pedophiles
reveal their need to find a child who will satisfy their desire for
uncritical affirmation and a lost youth. One of the men justifies his
activity as a search for love, and complains that: "Although I've had
physical relationships with probably, I don't know, maybe a hundred or
more boys over the years, I can only point to four or five true
relationships over that time."
The volume also contains an introductory article which decries
society's anti-pedophile sentiment. The authors complain about the
difficulty studying man-boy relationships in "an objective way," and
they hope the social sciences will adopt a broader approach which
could lead to understanding of the "diversity and possible benefits of
intergenerational intima