Religions > Atheism > Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Jabsco" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2003 06:55:16 PM |
| Object: |
Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
Hey faggots, I'm still confused. Help me out here. Didn't you faggots say
that the tide has changed and that EVERYONE is accepting faggots now, and
that only a few minor bigots won't accept? Didn't you say the majority of
people are accepting ***** behavior? I don't understand this article, I am
very confused. Why is it that faggots can only be accepted by imposing
their will on other people and seeking out sypathetic judges to change laws
for them? How come they can't take their case to the 'majority public' in
the voting booths? Surely if EVERYONE is accepting faggots now, they should
EASILY get these laws passed on the ballots!! Why is it that 38 states now
have a consititutional ban on ***** marriages if the majority of the voters
want otherwise? Help me out here...
===
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/national/21GAY.html?ex=1073192400&en=a887ec494ccc1c01&ei=5004&partner=UNTD
Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an
amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also
found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a
potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the
Republicans in the 2004 election.
Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the
public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive
of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East
Coast.
Attitudes on the subject seem to be inextricably linked to how people view
marriage itself. For a majority of Americans - 53 percent - marriage is
largely a religious matter. Seventy-one percent of those people oppose gay
marriage. Similarly, 33 percent of Americans say marriage is largely a legal
matter and a majority of those people - 55 percent - say they support gay
marriage.
The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among
respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.
The nationwide poll found that 55 percent of Americans favored an amendment
to the constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a
woman, while 40 percent opposed the idea.
The findings come after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 last
month that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state's Constitution.
That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States
Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.
President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment
immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried
that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But
last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will
support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man
and a woman, codify that."
The statement signals the White House's increasing confidence that it can
exploit the matter in the presidential campaign, both to energize its
evangelical supporters and to discredit the eventual Democratic nominee.
Most of the Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage but favor civil
unions. Howard Dean, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic
nomination, signed a law when he was governor of Vermont allowing civil
unions, an action that Republicans have already used to portray him as too
liberal for mainstream America.
The court rulings generated extensive publicity and concern, not only about
same-sex marriage but also about having the courts set social agendas that
have not been approved by the legislative process.
"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it,"
said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition,
which strongly opposes gay marriage and is working actively for a
constitutional ban.
The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 in
telephone interviews with 1,057 people. It carries a margin of sampling
error of plus or minus three percentage points. Responses about gay rights
tend to be influenced somewhat by the wording of the questions.
This poll and other surveys show that as the courts have extended legal
rights to gays this year, Americans have become increasingly uncomfortable
with same-sex relations.
For decades, a majority of Americans have not approved of homosexual
relations. That had begun to change, until the Supreme Court ruling in June
and the Massachusetts ruling in November. A New York Times/CBS News poll
conducted in July found that 54 percent of respondents said homosexual
relations should be legal. Only 41 percent of the respondents in the latest
poll said they should be legal.
Richard Waters, 71, a retired elementary school teacher in Little Valley,
N.Y., and a Republican, said in a follow-up interview to the poll that he
strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "John Iser" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
02 Feb 2004 08:47:05 PM |
|
|
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote in message
<401f4bf3.34255332@news.dodo.com.au>:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:33:26 +1100, John Iser
<looking@theworldthroughawindshield.com> wrote in message
<ltnr101g4rkqiutaijaovv8nc3dbgscmut@4ax.com>:
Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net> wrote in message
<401D5A48.EF50960F@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
John Iser wrote:
[snip]
Go to http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en and paste
<3F8D8BA0.7CD9471E@bcfjeupl.net> into the 'message ID' field.
Hint: he was quoting you slightly out of context. There are four
sentences in the paragraph of yours Alan (sorry, Throatgobbler) is
referring to, and he only quoted the first two.
That said, you should put up another post in this thread and actively
disassociate yourself from any implied approval of NAMBLA. Even if
they are promoting consensual relationships betwen older and younger
gays, they are still encouraging the manipulation of young gays by
older ones.
Dunno about you, but that sort of thing creeps me out badly.
I believe I already said that in the statement you referred too.
You did, for my money, but I still think "...I'm not so sure
[molesting is] a good idea." should be upgraded to "...I'm 100% sure
[molesting is] a bad idea."
Just to keep trollo-literalists like Alan (Throatgobbler) happy, you
understand. Otherwise, they just come back making mountains out of
molehills and wasting valuable time and bandwidth indefinitely.
So John, are you going to start counting the days and hours and
minutes that elapse before Fritz denounces this group of nasty
predatory faggots, this NAMBLA?
Did he make a statement about posting something within "a few days",
as you did? I don't recall so, Alan.
Hey John, maybe some other faerie from APH will give Fritz a gentle
nudge in the right direction, since it seems he is unwilling to take
advice from you and I?
Maybe he's thinking about it right now.
This post was basically OK, except for the "faerie" bit, so I won't
give you the Formosa's rule warning I did in the other two I've sent
today. But even so, you are on *very* thin ice with me at the moment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
03 Feb 2004 06:16:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:47:05 +1100, John Iser
<looking@theworldthroughawindshield.com> wrote in message
<8g2u10ddfvig5f264f67bvk1f24f5pk5dk@4ax.com>:
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote in message
<401f4bf3.34255332@news.dodo.com.au>:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:33:26 +1100, John Iser
<looking@theworldthroughawindshield.com> wrote in message
<ltnr101g4rkqiutaijaovv8nc3dbgscmut@4ax.com>:
Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net> wrote in message
<401D5A48.EF50960F@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
John Iser wrote:
[snip]
Go to http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en and paste
<3F8D8BA0.7CD9471E@bcfjeupl.net> into the 'message ID' field.
Hint: he was quoting you slightly out of context. There are four
sentences in the paragraph of yours Alan (sorry, Throatgobbler) is
referring to, and he only quoted the first two.
That said, you should put up another post in this thread and actively
disassociate yourself from any implied approval of NAMBLA. Even if
they are promoting consensual relationships betwen older and younger
gays, they are still encouraging the manipulation of young gays by
older ones.
Dunno about you, but that sort of thing creeps me out badly.
I believe I already said that in the statement you referred too.
You did, for my money, but I still think "...I'm not so sure
[molesting is] a good idea." should be upgraded to "...I'm 100% sure
[molesting is] a bad idea."
Just to keep trollo-literalists like Alan (Throatgobbler) happy, you
understand. Otherwise, they just come back making mountains out of
molehills and wasting valuable time and bandwidth indefinitely.
So John, are you going to start counting the days and hours and
minutes that elapse before Fritz denounces this group of nasty
predatory faggots, this NAMBLA?
Did he make a statement about posting something within "a few days",
as you did?
No, I don't think so. Why, was he asked to?
I don't recall so, Alan.
Me neither.
Anyway, are you going to start tallying up the elapsed time, or not?
I'm not, because, unlike you, I know that the disgusting ***** cannot
bring himself to denounce NAMBLA.
Hey John, maybe some other faerie from APH will give Fritz a gentle
nudge in the right direction, since it seems he is unwilling to take
advice from you and I?
Maybe he's thinking about it right now.
Or maybe not, John.
This post was basically OK, except for the "faerie" bit, so I won't
give you the Formosa's rule warning I did in the other two I've sent
today. But even so, you are on *very* thin ice with me at the moment.
OK, John, keep this post just as it is, open and displayed in the main
window of Agent.
Click on the Message menu.
Then click on Filters.
Then click on Add Kill Filter.
A dialog box will come up.
In the top of the dialog box you will see, highlighted, something like
the following -
Author: Throatwarbler Mangrove
Leave it highlighted.
Just under this, on the left-hand side (no, your other left) are the
words "Kill Action".
Underneath are three buttons.
o Delete
o Mark Read
o Ignore Thread
Make sure the top button is selected.
Click OK, and you're done!
Oh, and remember to stay away from Google Groups, too.
Byebye, Jonjon!
/me hopes he's too stupid to figure out how to delete a kill filter.
Looks like he'll miss out on "ARMIDALE: Domestic Violence Capital of
Australia? YOU decide."
--
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
01 Feb 2004 05:33:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:58:00 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net>
wrote in message <401D5A48.EF50960F@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
John Iser wrote:
Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net> wrote in message
<401C8A03.BF02B205@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
You mis-spelled "filthy top-posting ***** pedophile", you filthy
top-posting ***** pedophile.
You're one of those christians, aren't you ?
No, I just don't like child molestors.
Child molestors are worse than christians. You are worse than a
christian.
I am not a child molester.
If you're not a child molester, then why do you promote an
organization that wants to legalize child molestation?
Show me where I promoted anything of the kind.
I showed you. You google it.
What would I look for, at least give me a clue.
Go to http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en and paste
<3F8D8BA0.7CD9471E@bcfjeupl.net> into the 'message ID' field.
Hint: he was quoting you slightly out of context. There are four
sentences in the paragraph of yours Alan (sorry, Throatgobbler) is
referring to, and he only quoted the first two.
That said, you should put up another post in this thread and actively
disassociate yourself from any implied approval of NAMBLA. Even if
they are promoting consensual relationships betwen older and younger
gays, they are still encouraging the manipulation of young gays by
older ones.
Dunno about you, but that sort of thing creeps me out badly.
I believe I already said that in the statement you referred too.
Not really.
I don't know (but I can guess) why you don't say something more along
the lines of what all heterosexuals and most homosexuals say.
All decent people of any orientation will very strongly denounce
NAMBLA with words such as filthy pervert pedophile predatory slimy
sick sleazy fucked-up deranged dirty-old-man hang shoot burn
disgusting evil, and so on.
You never have, so what does that say about you?
All *You* say about child molestation is that you're "not so sure"
that it is "a good idea."
Not a good idea, until such a time as it's made legal, that's what
*you* mean, *****.
Well, it will be legal over my dead body (and yours too, hopefully).
--
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
03 Feb 2004 03:04:23 AM |
|
|
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:58:00 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net>
wrote in message <401D5A48.EF50960F@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
John Iser wrote:
Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net> wrote in message
<401C8A03.BF02B205@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
You mis-spelled "filthy top-posting ***** pedophile", you filthy
top-posting ***** pedophile.
You're one of those christians, aren't you ?
No, I just don't like child molestors.
Child molestors are worse than christians. You are worse than a
christian.
I am not a child molester.
If you're not a child molester, then why do you promote an
organization that wants to legalize child molestation?
Show me where I promoted anything of the kind.
I showed you. You google it.
What would I look for, at least give me a clue.
Go to http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en and paste
<3F8D8BA0.7CD9471E@bcfjeupl.net> into the 'message ID' field.
Hint: he was quoting you slightly out of context. There are four
sentences in the paragraph of yours Alan (sorry, Throatgobbler) is
referring to, and he only quoted the first two.
That said, you should put up another post in this thread and actively
disassociate yourself from any implied approval of NAMBLA. Even if
they are promoting consensual relationships betwen older and younger
gays, they are still encouraging the manipulation of young gays by
older ones.
Dunno about you, but that sort of thing creeps me out badly.
I believe I already said that in the statement you referred too.
Not really.
I don't know (but I can guess) why you don't say something more along
the lines of what all heterosexuals and most homosexuals say.
All decent people of any orientation will very strongly denounce
NAMBLA with words such as filthy pervert pedophile predatory slimy
sick sleazy fucked-up deranged dirty-old-man hang shoot burn
disgusting evil, and so on.
You never have, so what does that say about you?
All *You* say about child molestation is that you're "not so sure"
that it is "a good idea."
Not a good idea, until such a time as it's made legal, that's what
*you* mean, *****.
Well, it will be legal over my dead body (and yours too, hopefully).
I'm sorry, I find it difficult to wipe myself into a frenzy over
something I don't know very much about, just to placate you.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
03 Feb 2004 09:50:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:04:23 -0500, Fritz
<fsmith@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net> wrote in message
<401F6417.270F19B5@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:58:00 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net>
wrote in message <401D5A48.EF50960F@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
John Iser wrote:
Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net> wrote in message
<401C8A03.BF02B205@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
You mis-spelled "filthy top-posting ***** pedophile", you filthy
top-posting ***** pedophile.
You're one of those christians, aren't you ?
No, I just don't like child molestors.
Child molestors are worse than christians. You are worse than a
christian.
I am not a child molester.
If you're not a child molester, then why do you promote an
organization that wants to legalize child molestation?
Show me where I promoted anything of the kind.
I showed you. You google it.
What would I look for, at least give me a clue.
Go to http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en and paste
<3F8D8BA0.7CD9471E@bcfjeupl.net> into the 'message ID' field.
Hint: he was quoting you slightly out of context. There are four
sentences in the paragraph of yours Alan (sorry, Throatgobbler) is
referring to, and he only quoted the first two.
That said, you should put up another post in this thread and actively
disassociate yourself from any implied approval of NAMBLA. Even if
they are promoting consensual relationships betwen older and younger
gays, they are still encouraging the manipulation of young gays by
older ones.
Dunno about you, but that sort of thing creeps me out badly.
I believe I already said that in the statement you referred too.
Not really.
I don't know (but I can guess) why you don't say something more along
the lines of what all heterosexuals and most homosexuals say.
All decent people of any orientation will very strongly denounce
NAMBLA with words such as filthy pervert pedophile predatory slimy
sick sleazy fucked-up deranged dirty-old-man hang shoot burn
disgusting evil, and so on.
You never have, so what does that say about you?
All *You* say about child molestation is that you're "not so sure"
that it is "a good idea."
Not a good idea, until such a time as it's made legal, that's what
*you* mean, *****.
Well, it will be legal over my dead body (and yours too, hopefully).
I'm sorry, I find it difficult to wipe myself into a frenzy over
something I don't know very much about, just to placate you.
You seemed to know enough to comment on it before. In fact, you
claimed to be quite knowledgable about it.
I hope you get on well with your new friend John.
You might get to meet another friend of John's soon. His name is
Peter.
Perhaps you three can find something you have in common?
Stay away from little kids, Fritz.
--
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
05 Feb 2004 01:09:02 PM |
|
|
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:04:23 -0500, Fritz
<fsmith@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net> wrote in message
<401F6417.270F19B5@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:58:00 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net>
wrote in message <401D5A48.EF50960F@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
John Iser wrote:
Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net> wrote in message
<401C8A03.BF02B205@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
You mis-spelled "filthy top-posting ***** pedophile", you filthy
top-posting ***** pedophile.
You're one of those christians, aren't you ?
No, I just don't like child molestors.
Child molestors are worse than christians. You are worse than a
christian.
I am not a child molester.
If you're not a child molester, then why do you promote an
organization that wants to legalize child molestation?
Show me where I promoted anything of the kind.
I showed you. You google it.
What would I look for, at least give me a clue.
Go to http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en and paste
<3F8D8BA0.7CD9471E@bcfjeupl.net> into the 'message ID' field.
Hint: he was quoting you slightly out of context. There are four
sentences in the paragraph of yours Alan (sorry, Throatgobbler) is
referring to, and he only quoted the first two.
That said, you should put up another post in this thread and actively
disassociate yourself from any implied approval of NAMBLA. Even if
they are promoting consensual relationships betwen older and younger
gays, they are still encouraging the manipulation of young gays by
older ones.
Dunno about you, but that sort of thing creeps me out badly.
I believe I already said that in the statement you referred too.
Not really.
I don't know (but I can guess) why you don't say something more along
the lines of what all heterosexuals and most homosexuals say.
All decent people of any orientation will very strongly denounce
NAMBLA with words such as filthy pervert pedophile predatory slimy
sick sleazy fucked-up deranged dirty-old-man hang shoot burn
disgusting evil, and so on.
You never have, so what does that say about you?
All *You* say about child molestation is that you're "not so sure"
that it is "a good idea."
Not a good idea, until such a time as it's made legal, that's what
*you* mean, *****.
Well, it will be legal over my dead body (and yours too, hopefully).
I'm sorry, I find it difficult to wipe myself into a frenzy over
something I don't know very much about, just to placate you.
You seemed to know enough to comment on it before. In fact, you
claimed to be quite knowledgable about it.
You seem to be a that likes to twist things round to suit his own
agenda.
I hope you get on well with your new friend John.
Why would that be any concern of yours?
You might get to meet another friend of John's soon. His name is
Peter.
Again, Why would that be any concern of yours?
Did someone ask you to pay the motel bill?
Perhaps you three can find something you have in common?
We do, it's called a brain. You should get one.
Stay away from little kids, Fritz.
I do, and I have.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
05 Feb 2004 07:39:18 PM |
|
|
[ alt.kook.kook.achoo.iser.in.wonderland added ]
[ alt.kook.iser.is.probly.even.dumber.than.wollman added ]
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:09:02 -0500, Fritz
<fsmith@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net> wrote in message
<402294CD.77C590FA@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:04:23 -0500, Fritz
<fsmith@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net> wrote in message
<401F6417.270F19B5@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:58:00 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net>
wrote in message <401D5A48.EF50960F@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
John Iser wrote:
Fritz <fsmith@1sibm11bcpl.net> wrote in message
<401C8A03.BF02B205@1sibm11bcpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
You mis-spelled "filthy top-posting ***** pedophile", you filthy
top-posting ***** pedophile.
You're one of those christians, aren't you ?
No, I just don't like child molestors.
Child molestors are worse than christians. You are worse than a
christian.
I am not a child molester.
If you're not a child molester, then why do you promote an
organization that wants to legalize child molestation?
Show me where I promoted anything of the kind.
I showed you. You google it.
What would I look for, at least give me a clue.
Go to http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en and paste
<3F8D8BA0.7CD9471E@bcfjeupl.net> into the 'message ID' field.
Hint: he was quoting you slightly out of context. There are four
sentences in the paragraph of yours Alan (sorry, Throatgobbler) is
referring to, and he only quoted the first two.
That said, you should put up another post in this thread and actively
disassociate yourself from any implied approval of NAMBLA. Even if
they are promoting consensual relationships betwen older and younger
gays, they are still encouraging the manipulation of young gays by
older ones.
Dunno about you, but that sort of thing creeps me out badly.
I believe I already said that in the statement you referred too.
Not really.
I don't know (but I can guess) why you don't say something more along
the lines of what all heterosexuals and most homosexuals say.
All decent people of any orientation will very strongly denounce
NAMBLA with words such as filthy pervert pedophile predatory slimy
sick sleazy fucked-up deranged dirty-old-man hang shoot burn
disgusting evil, and so on.
You never have, so what does that say about you?
All *You* say about child molestation is that you're "not so sure"
that it is "a good idea."
Not a good idea, until such a time as it's made legal, that's what
*you* mean, *****.
Well, it will be legal over my dead body (and yours too, hopefully).
I'm sorry, I find it difficult to wipe myself into a frenzy over
something I don't know very much about, just to placate you.
You seemed to know enough to comment on it before. In fact, you
claimed to be quite knowledgable about it.
You seem to be a that likes to twist things round to suit his own
agenda.
My agenda is of no concern to you.
Your agenda is to try to make child-rape legal.
And that is of concern to all decent people.
I hope you get on well with your new friend John.
Why would that be any concern of yours?
Because John doesn't have any friends, and that's why he befriends
people who have a laid-back attitude about child rape. Sort of like
losers of a feather flock together.
You might get to meet another friend of John's soon. His name is
Peter.
Again, Why would that be any concern of yours?
You can discuss child rape with him. You'll find that nothing you can
say to him will shock him.
Did someone ask you to pay the motel bill?
Well, John's got no money, and it looks like Peter has fallen on hard
times too, from what I hear. But I'm not going to pay the motel bill
for you three, so it looks like Fritz will have to shell out.
Perhaps you three can find something you have in common?
We do,
It's beginning to look that way.
it's called a brain. You should get one.
You've been taking lessons from Iser by the looks of that clever
riposte.
Stay away from little kids, Fritz.
I do, and I have.
Until child rape becomes legal, eh?
--
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
06 Feb 2004 12:33:02 PM |
|
|
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
You seemed to know enough to comment on it before. In fact, you
claimed to be quite knowledgable about it.
You seem to be a that likes to twist things round to suit his own
agenda.
My agenda is of no concern to you.
You come into a public forum, and start telling lies and
misrepresenting what I and other people say, twisting their words,
and you say it's none of their business?
Your agenda is to try to make child-rape legal.
And then you start telling me what I want to do?
And that is of concern to all decent people.
I'm a decent people, and I think you have a problem, maybe you
should talk to a doctor.
I hope you get on well with your new friend John.
Why would that be any concern of yours?
Because John doesn't have any friends, and that's why he befriends
people who have a laid-back attitude about child rape. Sort of like
losers of a feather flock together.
That does not compute. If he were a loser, he would be your
friend. I think you have it backwards.
You might get to meet another friend of John's soon. His name is
Peter.
Again, Why would that be any concern of yours?
You can discuss child rape with him. You'll find that nothing you can
say to him will shock him.
Again you have it backward, I'm not interested in shocking anyone.
That's just your childish way of viewing the world.
Did someone ask you to pay the motel bill?
Well, John's got no money, and it looks like Peter has fallen on hard
times too, from what I hear. But I'm not going to pay the motel bill
for you three, so it looks like Fritz will have to shell out.
If you're not paying, then it's none of your business.
What adults do in the privacy of their own abodes is none
of your business anyway.
Perhaps you three can find something you have in common?
We do,
It's beginning to look that way.
it's called a brain. You should get one.
You've been taking lessons from Iser by the looks of that clever
riposte.
He didn't need to tell me, what is plain for all the world to see.
Stay away from little kids, Fritz.
I do, and I have.
Until child rape becomes legal, eh?
Not interested.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
06 Feb 2004 04:39:12 PM |
|
|
[ alt.kook.kook.achoo.iser.in.wonderland added ]
[ alt.kook.iser.is.probly.even.dumber.than.wollman added ]
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:33:02 -0500, Fritz
<fsmith@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net> wrote in message
<4023DDDD.364384F1@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
You seemed to know enough to comment on it before. In fact, you
claimed to be quite knowledgable about it.
You seem to be a that likes to twist things round to suit his own
agenda.
My agenda is of no concern to you.
You come into a public forum, and start telling lies and
misrepresenting what I and other people say, twisting their words,
and you say it's none of their business?
Where did I lie, Fritz? I said that NAMBLA is an organization that
wants to legalize homosexual rape of children as young as 8 years old.
I then pointed out that you made a statement in support of NAMBLA, in
which you were trying to dishonestly present them as something benign
and meritorious.
Your agenda is to try to make child-rape legal.
And then you start telling me what I want to do?
Just repeating your own words, basically.
And that is of concern to all decent people.
I'm a decent people,
You are an apologist for NAMBLA.
So how could you be a "decent people" (sic)?
and I think you have a problem, maybe you
should talk to a doctor.
I don't take advice from NAMBLA supporters, I'd be much more likely to
take a baseball bat to them.
I hope you get on well with your new friend John.
Why would that be any concern of yours?
Because John doesn't have any friends, and that's why he befriends
people who have a laid-back attitude about child rape. Sort of like
losers of a feather flock together.
That does not compute. If he were a loser, he would be your
friend. I think you have it backwards.
Gee, what a lame comeback.
Yes, you have definitely been taking lessons from Iser.
You might get to meet another friend of John's soon. His name is
Peter.
Again, Why would that be any concern of yours?
You can discuss child rape with him. You'll find that nothing you can
say to him will shock him.
Again you have it backward, I'm not interested in shocking anyone.
Well, you shocked me. Wanting to legalize sodomy with 8yo children is
pretty damn shocking.
That's just your childish way of viewing the world.
Stay away from the children, Fritz.
Did someone ask you to pay the motel bill?
Well, John's got no money, and it looks like Peter has fallen on hard
times too, from what I hear. But I'm not going to pay the motel bill
for you three, so it looks like Fritz will have to shell out.
If you're not paying, then it's none of your business.
But I can still taunt and ridicule the three of you, can't I?
What adults do in the privacy of their own abodes is none
of your business anyway.
Unless they are raping children, as your favorite little group of
"men" want to do. Then, Fritz, it becomes an issue of concern to all
of society.
Perhaps you three can find something you have in common?
We do,
It's beginning to look that way.
it's called a brain. You should get one.
You've been taking lessons from Iser by the looks of that clever
riposte.
He didn't need to tell me, what is plain for all the world to see.
Lamer and lamer. You NAMBLA "men" are not very good at anything other
than manipulating small children, it seems.
Stay away from little kids, Fritz.
I do, and I have.
Until child rape becomes legal, eh?
Not interested.
So why be an apologist for NAMBLA, then?
--
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
06 Feb 2004 08:13:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:39:12 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
Still_Laughing_@john.iser.ROTFL.com (Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
|
| [ alt.kook.kook.achoo.iser.in.wonderland added ]
| [ alt.kook.iser.is.probly.even.dumber.than.wollman added ]
|
| On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:33:02 -0500, Fritz
| <fsmith@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net> wrote in message
| <4023DDDD.364384F1@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net>:
|
| >Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
| >
| >> >> You seemed to know enough to comment on it before. In fact, you
| >> >> claimed to be quite knowledgable about it.
| >> >
| >> >You seem to be a that likes to twist things round to suit his own
| >> >agenda.
| >>
| >> My agenda is of no concern to you.
| >
| >You come into a public forum, and start telling lies and
| >misrepresenting what I and other people say, twisting their words,
| >and you say it's none of their business?
|
| Where did I lie, Fritz? I said that NAMBLA is an organization that
| wants to legalize homosexual rape of children as young as 8 years old.
That was the Rene Guyon Society (A heterosexual paedophile group).
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC137.HTM
FIGURE 137-1
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE REVISIONS SOUGHT BY THE RENE GUYON SOCIETY
HOMOSEXUALITY (Anal Copulation, PC 286).
We Suggest: At age 4, and sometimes sooner, both male and female
children want , can easily hold after massage, and will be allowed to
have a teenager of older male's condom-covered penis in their *****.
Tiny children will be required to wear a small "finger stall" or
"finger cot" (obtainable from a drug store) condom from age 4 or any
earlier age that they start penetrating male and female anuses. 99% of
the day there is no fecal matter in the *****. No enema is required.
Reasons: Makes child aware of anal venereal disease and its
prevention. [Anal copulation is] part of the natural progress of
development to heterosexuality.
ORAL COPULATION (PC 288a).
We Suggest: At age 4, and sometimes sooner, both male and female
children want , can easily hold, and will be allowed to have a tiny
child, teenager, or older male's penis in their mouth. This will bring
an end to thumbsucking. The child will at last get valuable hormones
that appear in the mature male's ejaculate that have been denied
children in the past. Very young, teenage and adult females will be
allowed to provide sexual satisfaction with their mouths and tongues
to the penis and clitoris of young children.
Reasons: Trains for heterosexuality. No data exists showing that any
harm is done. [Oral copulation is] part of the natural progress of
development to heterosexuality.
HETEROSEXUALITY (Penis-Vagina Copulation (PC 261.1)).
We Suggest: At age 10, 11, or 12, females want , can easily hold, and
will be allowed to have a teenager or older male's condom-covered
penis in their vagina. From the earliest age of desire, a very young
female will be allowed to have a tiny male's penis in her vagina if
the penis is covered with a "finger stall" or "finger cot" (obtainable
from a drug store). At all ages prior to age 18 for the female, the
female is required to have vaginal foam inserted before penetration of
the covered penis.
Reasons: Prevents venereal disease and pregnancy. Older person passes
on tender, loving mannerisms. Lack of premarital sex leads to divorce,
crime, and suicide.
MASTURBATION OF CHILD (PC 288 & PC 288.1).
We Suggest: No restrictions will be on the masturbation of a child so
that such enjoyment will be provided by family, friends, or neighbors
so that the child will no longer seek out strangers for this
satisfaction. Self-masturbation, from crib age on, not to be
discouraged).
Reasons: Parents and nonparents help a child toward good mental health
by masturbating it or encouraging it to masturbate. Lack of premarital
sex leads to divorce, crime, and suicide.
NUDITY ALONE WITH NO SEXUAL ACTIONS.
We Suggest: No restrictions; thus freeing Law Enforcement to tackle
disease-spreading and unwanted-pregnancy activity and photos. Almost
all American children have seen an erect male penis and an adult
spread-eagle vagina or pictures thereof.
Reference: Rene Guyon Society promotional/information package
distributed in Beverly Hills on March 20, 1981. Also reprinted in
Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives &
Public Policy . 1982: Old Greenwich, Connecticut; Devin Adair
Publishers. Pages 178 and 179.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try to imagine forcing oral sex on a four-year old in the name of
eliminating thumbsucking and providing vitamins! Whoever performed
this "research" is either blinded by his perverted addictions or has a
very low opinion of the intelligence of the lawmakers who briefly
considered (and promptly round-filed) this trash.
Pedophile Goals. As the above proposed laws show, one of the primary
goals of these pedophile groups is to lower the age of sexual consent
to four years of age -- or to eliminate such laws altogether.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[snip]
| >> Until child rape becomes legal, eh?
| >
| >Not interested.
|
| So why be an apologist for NAMBLA, then?
So you're a Fresh Petals apologist?
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moffitt weaselkiller@ prodigy.net" |
|
| Title: Re: "Fritz" |
07 Feb 2004 12:43:51 AM |
|
|
"Jeff North" <jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:o5i8205vm2sijrsb7lspnsfc5cvl8maqif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:39:12 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
Still_Laughing_@john.iser.ROTFL.com (Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
|
| [ alt.kook.kook.achoo.iser.in.wonderland added ]
| [ alt.kook.iser.is.probly.even.dumber.than.wollman added ]
|
| On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:33:02 -0500, Fritz
| <fsmith@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net> wrote in message
| <4023DDDD.364384F1@1sib22qmvim11bcnytpl.net>:
|
| >Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
| >
| >> >> You seemed to know enough to comment on it before. In fact, you
| >> >> claimed to be quite knowledgable about it.
| >> >
| >> >You seem to be a that likes to twist things round to suit his own
| >> >agenda.
| >>
| >> My agenda is of no concern to you.
| >
| >You come into a public forum, and start telling lies and
| >misrepresenting what I and other people say, twisting their words,
| >and you say it's none of their business?
|
| Where did I lie, Fritz? I said that NAMBLA is an organization that
| wants to legalize homosexual rape of children as young as 8 years old.
That was the Rene Guyon Society (A heterosexual paedophile group).
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC137.HTM
FIGURE 137-1
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE REVISIONS SOUGHT BY THE RENE GUYON SOCIETY
HOMOSEXUALITY (Anal Copulation, PC 286).
We Suggest: At age 4, and sometimes sooner, both male and female
children want , can easily hold after massage, and will be allowed to
have a teenager of older male's condom-covered penis in their *****.
Tiny children will be required to wear a small "finger stall" or
"finger cot" (obtainable from a drug store) condom from age 4 or any
earlier age that they start penetrating male and female anuses. 99% of
the day there is no fecal matter in the *****. No enema is required.
Reasons: Makes child aware of anal venereal disease and its
prevention. [Anal copulation is] part of the natural progress of
development to heterosexuality.
ORAL COPULATION (PC 288a).
We Suggest: At age 4, and sometimes sooner, both male and female
children want , can easily hold, and will be allowed to have a tiny
child, teenager, or older male's penis in their mouth. This will bring
an end to thumbsucking. The child will at last get valuable hormones
that appear in the mature male's ejaculate that have been denied
children in the past. Very young, teenage and adult females will be
allowed to provide sexual satisfaction with their mouths and tongues
to the penis and clitoris of young children.
Reasons: Trains for heterosexuality. No data exists showing that any
harm is done. [Oral copulation is] part of the natural progress of
development to heterosexuality.
HETEROSEXUALITY (Penis-Vagina Copulation (PC 261.1)).
We Suggest: At age 10, 11, or 12, females want , can easily hold, and
will be allowed to have a teenager or older male's condom-covered
penis in their vagina. From the earliest age of desire, a very young
female will be allowed to have a tiny male's penis in her vagina if
the penis is covered with a "finger stall" or "finger cot" (obtainable
from a drug store). At all ages prior to age 18 for the female, the
female is required to have vaginal foam inserted before penetration of
the covered penis.
Reasons: Prevents venereal disease and pregnancy. Older person passes
on tender, loving mannerisms. Lack of premarital sex leads to divorce,
crime, and suicide.
MASTURBATION OF CHILD (PC 288 & PC 288.1).
We Suggest: No restrictions will be on the masturbation of a child so
that such enjoyment will be provided by family, friends, or neighbors
so that the child will no longer seek out strangers for this
satisfaction. Self-masturbation, from crib age on, not to be
discouraged).
Reasons: Parents and nonparents help a child toward good mental health
by masturbating it or encouraging it to masturbate. Lack of premarital
sex leads to divorce, crime, and suicide.
NUDITY ALONE WITH NO SEXUAL ACTIONS.
We Suggest: No restrictions; thus freeing Law Enforcement to tackle
disease-spreading and unwanted-pregnancy activity and photos. Almost
all American children have seen an erect male penis and an adult
spread-eagle vagina or pictures thereof.
Reference: Rene Guyon Society promotional/information package
distributed in Beverly Hills on March 20, 1981. Also reprinted in
Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives &
Public Policy . 1982: Old Greenwich, Connecticut; Devin Adair
Publishers. Pages 178 and 179.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Try to imagine forcing oral sex on a four-year old in the name of
eliminating thumbsucking and providing vitamins! Whoever performed
this "research" is either blinded by his perverted addictions or has a
very low opinion of the intelligence of the lawmakers who briefly
considered (and promptly round-filed) this trash.
Pedophile Goals. As the above proposed laws show, one of the primary
goals of these pedophile groups is to lower the age of sexual consent
to four years of age -- or to eliminate such laws altogether.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
%%%% Yes the pro-queer APA is trying to do one better for you NAMBLA members
and remove your rape of little boys from being a perversion! Then you will
be free to prey on all of the Jesse Dirkhisings you desire.
Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
Maybe priests that bugger alter boys are not so bad after all.
Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
By Lawrence Morahan
June 11, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in decriminalizing
sexual contact between adults and children, the American Psychiatric
Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants
discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the
psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San Francisco
proposed removing several long-recognized categories of mental illness -
including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism and
sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM).
Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as
"paraphilias."
Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced
Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of
Ottawa presented conferees with a paper entitled "DSM-IV-TR and the
Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."
People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or
religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill, they
argued.
Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since the
existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias from
so-called "normophilics," there is no reason to diagnose paraphilics as
either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy, Moser and Kleinplatz
stated.
Participants also debated gender-identity disorder, a condition in which a
person feels discomfort with his or her biological sex. Homosexual activists
have long argued that gender identity disorder should not be assumed to be
abnormal.
"The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality
in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who
fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be
listed in the DSM," Moser and Kleinplatz wrote.
Dean Byrd, vice president of the National Association for Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of medicine at the
University of Utah, condemned the debate. Taking the paraphilias out of the
DSM without research would have negative consequences, he said.
"What this does, in essence, is it has a chilling effect on research," Byrd
said. "That is, once you declassify it, there's no reason to continue
studying it. What we know is that the paraphilias really impair
interpersonal sexual behavior...and to suggest that it could be normalized
simply takes away from the science, but more importantly, has a chilling
effect on research."
"Normalizing" pedophilia would have enormous implications, especially since
civil laws closely follow the scientific community on social-moral matters,
said Linda Ames Nicolosi, NARTH publications director.
"If pedophilia is deemed normal by psychiatrists, then how can it remain
illegal?" Nicolosi asked. "It will be a tough fight to prove in the courts
that it should still be against the law."
In previous articles, psychiatrists have argued that there is little or no
proof that sex with adults is necessarily harmful to minors. Indeed, they
have argued that many sexually molested children later look back on their
experience as positive, Nicolosi said.
"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if
children can be forced to go to church, why should consent be the defining
moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.
But whether pedophilia should be judged "normal and healthy" is as much a
moral question as a scientific one, according to Nicolosi.
"The courts are so afraid of 'legislating someone's privately held religious
beliefs' that if pedophilia is normalized, we will be hard put to defend the
retention of laws against child molestation," Nicolosi noted.
In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal and
immoral."
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or socially
acceptable behavior," the APA said.
However, the APA failed to address whether it considers a person with a
pedophile orientation to have a mental disorder.
"That is the question that is being actively debated at this time within the
APA, and that is the question they have not answered when they respond that
such relationships are 'immoral and illegal,'" Nicolosi said.
Dr. Darrel A. Regier, director of research for the APA, said there were "no
plans and there is no process set up that would lead to the removal of the
paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate mental disorders."
Some years ago, the APA considered the question of whether a person who had
such attractions but did not act on them should still be labeled with a
disorder.
"We clarified in the DSM-IV-TR...that if a person acted on those urges, we
considered it a disorder," Regier said.
Dr. Robert Spitzer, author of a study on change of sexual orientation that
he presented at the 2001 APA convention, took part in the symposium in San
Francisco in May.
Spitzer said the debate on removing gender identity disorder from the DSM
was generated by people in the homosexual activist community "who are
troubled by ge | | | | | | | | | |
