|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
03 Nov 2006 11:21:22 AM |
|
|
"Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%Dy2h.3684$Qn2.3388@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Jesus H. Christ" <hippy-dippy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8394b$454a459d$471f0aba$32282@ALLTEL.NET...
Why do so many Christians believe homosexuality is a choice? Are autistic
children responsible for their handicap?
Yes, homosexuality is a birth defect. One that they can't help. It's that
simple. And it's a sin to hate someone for something like that. Just keep
it in the bedroom and out of my face.
Have you always been this paranoid?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
03 Nov 2006 04:39:52 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Mike Flannigan
(mflannigan@jam.rr.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Jesus H. Christ" <hippy-dippy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8394b$454a459d$471f0aba$32282@ALLTEL.NET...
Why do so many Christians believe homosexuality is a choice? Are
autistic children responsible for their handicap?
Yes, homosexuality is a birth defect. One that they can't help.
You're right in one respect, it's not a choice. It can't be helped.
Christian bigotry, OTOH, can be helped. The fact that you do nothing to
quell the ugly flow of hatred from your pie hole speaks wonders of your
beautiful love religion.
It's
that simple. And it's a sin to hate someone for something like that.
Then why do you?
Just keep it in the bedroom and out of my face.
Nice attempt at tolerance, but I guess it's the best you can do.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
03 Nov 2006 07:42:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Mike Flannigan
(mflannigan@jam.rr.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Jesus H. Christ" <hippy-dippy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8394b$454a459d$471f0aba$32282@ALLTEL.NET...
Why do so many Christians believe homosexuality is a choice? Are
autistic children responsible for their handicap?
Yes, homosexuality is a birth defect. One that they can't help.
You're right in one respect, it's not a choice. It can't be helped.
Christian bigotry, OTOH, can be helped. The fact that you do nothing to
quell the ugly flow of hatred from your pie hole speaks wonders of your
beautiful love religion.
It's
that simple. And it's a sin to hate someone for something like that.
Then why do you?
Just keep it in the bedroom and out of my face.
Nice attempt at tolerance, but I guess it's the best you can do.
It actually is a sincere expression of tolerance.
The vast majority of straights confine their intimate amorous
activities to their private bedrooms and they try to keep their
asses out of the public's face.
How could it be wrong for the straights to expect the gay couples
also to carry on with their intimate amorous activities only when
they are alone with each other in private?
Almost all heterosexual couples confine their non-intimate amorous
activities such as holding hands and strolling along arm-in-arm,
and kissing and hugging to areas where such activities are generally
seen as socially acceptable by almost all others in those places.
Homosexual couples should also do the same. Out of consideration
for the feelings of others it is the polite and right thing for people
to do.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 08:23:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 20:42:37 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Mike Flannigan
(mflannigan@jam.rr.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
snip
Just keep it in the bedroom and out of my face.
Nice attempt at tolerance, but I guess it's the best you can do.
It actually is a sincere expression of tolerance.
The hateful content of your posts do not show you as a tolerant
person.
The vast majority of straights confine their intimate amorous
activities to their private bedrooms and they try to keep their
asses out of the public's face.
Just like the vast majority of homosexuals.
How could it be wrong for the straights to expect the gay couples
also to carry on with their intimate amorous activities only when
they are alone with each other in private?
Almost all heterosexual couples confine their non-intimate amorous
activities such as holding hands and strolling along arm-in-arm,
and kissing and hugging to areas where such activities are generally
seen as socially acceptable by almost all others in those places.
That would be just about everywhere.
Homosexual couples should also do the same. Out of consideration
for the feelings of others it is the polite and right thing for people
to do.
In that case there is no problem is there?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 11:39:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:23:50 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
The vast majority of straights confine their intimate amorous
activities to their private bedrooms and they try to keep their
asses out of the public's face.
Just like the vast majority of homosexuals.
A gay bar is probably not the best place to hang out if you don't want
gayness rubbed in your face. Or in your case, against your tongue.
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
06 Nov 2006 06:07:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:23:50 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
The vast majority of straights confine their intimate amorous
activities to their private bedrooms and they try to keep their
asses out of the public's face.
Just like the vast majority of homosexuals.
A gay bar is probably not the best place to hang out if you don't want
gayness rubbed in your face. Or in your case, against your tongue.
You are aware that I was opposing Heywood in my response, right?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 12:59:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, thomas p wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 20:42:37 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Mike Flannigan
(mflannigan@jam.rr.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
snip
<snip>
The vast majority of straights confine their intimate amorous
activities to their private bedrooms and they try to keep their
asses out of the public's face.
Just like the vast majority of homosexuals.
How could it be wrong for the straights to expect the gay couples
also to carry on with their intimate amorous activities only when
they are alone with each other in private?
Almost all heterosexual couples confine their non-intimate amorous
activities such as holding hands and strolling along arm-in-arm,
and kissing and hugging to areas where such activities are generally
seen as socially acceptable by almost all others in those places.
That would be just about everywhere.
Homosexual couples should also do the same. Out of consideration
for the feelings of others it is the polite and right thing for people
to do.
In that case there is no problem is there?
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 01:02:43 PM |
|
|
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> writes:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, thomas p wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 20:42:37 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Mike Flannigan
(mflannigan@jam.rr.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
snip
<snip>
The vast majority of straights confine their intimate amorous
activities to their private bedrooms and they try to keep their
asses out of the public's face.
Just like the vast majority of homosexuals.
How could it be wrong for the straights to expect the gay couples
also to carry on with their intimate amorous activities only when
they are alone with each other in private?
Almost all heterosexual couples confine their non-intimate amorous
activities such as holding hands and strolling along arm-in-arm,
and kissing and hugging to areas where such activities are generally
seen as socially acceptable by almost all others in those places.
That would be just about everywhere.
Homosexual couples should also do the same. Out of consideration
for the feelings of others it is the polite and right thing for people
to do.
In that case there is no problem is there?
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
....which explains why YOU go looking for such places, so you can get your
jollies.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Toronto 2, Houston 1 (November 3)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, November 4 at Hamilton, 6:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 02:16:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> writes:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, thomas p wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 20:42:37 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Mike Flannigan
(mflannigan@jam.rr.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
snip
<snip>
The vast majority of straights confine their intimate amorous
activities to their private bedrooms and they try to keep their
asses out of the public's face.
Just like the vast majority of homosexuals.
How could it be wrong for the straights to expect the gay couples
also to carry on with their intimate amorous activities only when
they are alone with each other in private?
Almost all heterosexual couples confine their non-intimate amorous
activities such as holding hands and strolling along arm-in-arm,
and kissing and hugging to areas where such activities are generally
seen as socially acceptable by almost all others in those places.
That would be just about everywhere.
Homosexual couples should also do the same. Out of consideration
for the feelings of others it is the polite and right thing for people
to do.
In that case there is no problem is there?
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
...which explains why YOU go looking for such places, so you can get
your jollies.
A problem with you is that you like to project your perversities
onto normal folks so as to attempt to deflect any suspicions about
your being the raving nutcase that you are.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 11:40:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:59:01 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
In that case there is no problem is there?
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Ah, yes. And ONLY homosexuals would do such a thing. I guess that
straight couple I saw having sex in a pick up in a public park at
three in the afternoon on labor day was just my imagination.
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 03:10:27 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same? Where is the distinction,
where does one draw the line? Do you think children will adopt homosexual
tendencies because they see it in a park? One cannot choose to be
homosexual or heterosexual. One is born that way.
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you project that
feeling on others around you. Why?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 11:41:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:10:27 GMT, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same? Where is the distinction,
where does one draw the line? Do you think children will adopt homosexual
tendencies because they see it in a park? One cannot choose to be
homosexual or heterosexual. One is born that way.
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you project that
feeling on others around you. Why?
Apparently lovers' lane is for heterosexuals only.
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 04:06:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same?
Of course. I am talking about "carrying on" only in the non-intimate
sense, doing things like playing kissy face, and strolling along holding
hands or walking along arm-in-arm.
Where is the distinction,
Aw, c'mon now, you know the difference between hets and homos.
where does one draw the line? Do you think children will adopt
homosexual tendencies because they see it in a park?
Yes. Haven't you ever heard of the monkey see, monkey do theory?
One cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
I say that one may choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
It is a simple matter of exercising one's "free will".
I know you will disagree with me about that, but I do not
think you will disagree that a homosexual couple may choose
to carry on in a secluded area instead of in a public park
in full view of where children are playing.
One is born that way.
That is just a popular opinion, not a proven fact.
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you
project that feeling on others around you. Why?
Seeing homosexual activity grosses out almost all normal people.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
04 Nov 2006 04:54:15 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same?
Of course. I am talking about "carrying on" only in the non-intimate
sense, doing things like playing kissy face, and strolling along
holding hands or walking along arm-in-arm.
Where is the distinction,
Aw, c'mon now, you know the difference between hets and homos.
where does one draw the line? Do you think children will adopt
homosexual tendencies because they see it in a park?
Yes. Haven't you ever heard of the monkey see, monkey do theory?
This is where you fail. Sexuality and sexual orientation are not a
choice, they are not influencable. The only thing that would happen,
depending on the parents' meddling with the child's character, is that
the child would observe, make a mental note, file it under "what some
people do", and probably make a jugement. Do you seriously think if you
and your little friend Johnny saw two men kiss, you'd want to try it?
One cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
I say that one may choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
When you had your first wet dream, was the dream of a hetero of
homosexual nature? Why? Can you control your dreams?
It is a simple matter of exercising one's "free will".
Could you exercise your free will and become gay? Why not?
I know you will disagree with me about that, but I do not
think you will disagree that a homosexual couple may choose
to carry on in a secluded area instead of in a public park
in full view of where children are playing.
As should a hetero couple.
One is born that way.
That is just a popular opinion, not a proven fact.
The religious say the same about evolution.
http://tinyurl.com/ybm2dv
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you
project that feeling on others around you. Why?
Seeing homosexual activity grosses out almost all normal people.
So hetero = normal, eh? Sez who? The bible, that's who. The bible also
says bats are birds, and the sun revolves around the earth.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strabo" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
06 Nov 2006 06:08:03 PM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same?
Of course. I am talking about "carrying on" only in the non-intimate
sense, doing things like playing kissy face, and strolling along
holding hands or walking along arm-in-arm.
Where is the distinction,
Aw, c'mon now, you know the difference between hets and homos.
where does one draw the line? Do you think children will adopt
homosexual tendencies because they see it in a park?
Yes. Haven't you ever heard of the monkey see, monkey do theory?
This is where you fail. Sexuality and sexual orientation are not a
choice, they are not influencable. The only thing that would happen,
depending on the parents' meddling with the child's character, is that
the child would observe, make a mental note, file it under "what some
people do", and probably make a jugement. Do you seriously think if you
and your little friend Johnny saw two men kiss, you'd want to try it?
One cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
I say that one may choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
When you had your first wet dream, was the dream of a hetero of
homosexual nature? Why? Can you control your dreams?
It is a simple matter of exercising one's "free will".
Could you exercise your free will and become gay? Why not?
I know you will disagree with me about that, but I do not
think you will disagree that a homosexual couple may choose
to carry on in a secluded area instead of in a public park
in full view of where children are playing.
As should a hetero couple.
One is born that way.
That is just a popular opinion, not a proven fact.
The religious say the same about evolution.
http://tinyurl.com/ybm2dv
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you
project that feeling on others around you. Why?
Seeing homosexual activity grosses out almost all normal people.
So hetero = normal, eh?
And you wonder why people are fed up with the homosexual political
agenda.
Sez who?
Sez Mother Nature, and the Manual For the Survival of Species.
The bible, that's who. The bible also
says bats are birds, and the sun revolves around the earth.
You've gotta have a better argument than that.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
07 Nov 2006 01:16:00 PM |
|
|
"Strabo" <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:1162858161_33809@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same?
Of course. I am talking about "carrying on" only in the non-intimate
sense, doing things like playing kissy face, and strolling along
holding hands or walking along arm-in-arm.
Where is the distinction,
Aw, c'mon now, you know the difference between hets and homos.
where does one draw the line? Do you think children will adopt
homosexual tendencies because they see it in a park?
Yes. Haven't you ever heard of the monkey see, monkey do theory?
This is where you fail. Sexuality and sexual orientation are not a
choice, they are not influencable. The only thing that would happen,
depending on the parents' meddling with the child's character, is that
the child would observe, make a mental note, file it under "what some
people do", and probably make a jugement. Do you seriously think if you
and your little friend Johnny saw two men kiss, you'd want to try it?
One cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
I say that one may choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
When you had your first wet dream, was the dream of a hetero of
homosexual nature? Why? Can you control your dreams?
It is a simple matter of exercising one's "free will".
Could you exercise your free will and become gay? Why not?
I know you will disagree with me about that, but I do not
think you will disagree that a homosexual couple may choose
to carry on in a secluded area instead of in a public park
in full view of where children are playing.
As should a hetero couple.
One is born that way.
That is just a popular opinion, not a proven fact.
The religious say the same about evolution.
http://tinyurl.com/ybm2dv
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you
project that feeling on others around you. Why?
Seeing homosexual activity grosses out almost all normal people.
So hetero = normal, eh?
And you wonder why people are fed up with the homosexual political
agenda.
Sez who?
Sez Mother Nature, and the Manual For the Survival of Species.
Neither of which exist in reality.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
09 Nov 2006 11:10:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:16:00 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
And you wonder why people are fed up with the homosexual political
agenda.
Sez who?
Sez Mother Nature, and the Manual For the Survival of Species.
Neither of which exist in reality.
It strikes me as odd that so many people without children are so
concerned about 'survival of the species'. Particularly since that
phrase is anathema to the primary group who carries highest the anti
gay banner. In this country, birth rates have fallen precipitously
for decades. It would seem that if there was a genuine concern for
procreation, there would be higher birth rates and less use of birth
control among the mostly white and Christian homophobes who make up
the bulk of the anti-gay movement.
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
07 Nov 2006 03:09:31 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Robibnikoff
(witchypoo@broomstick.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Sez who?
Sez Mother Nature, and the Manual For the Survival of Species.
Neither of which exist in reality.
Well, they're all capitolized, which, like Truth, means *****.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
09 Nov 2006 11:11:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:09:31 GMT, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
Sez Mother Nature, and the Manual For the Survival of Species.
Neither of which exist in reality.
Well, they're all capitolized, which, like Truth, means *****.
They won their bid for national office?
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
06 Nov 2006 07:20:23 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Strabo
(strabo@flashlight.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
So hetero = normal, eh?
And you wonder why people are fed up with the homosexual political
agenda.
I always thought "live and let live" was the best agenda.
Sez who?
Sez Mother Nature, and the Manual For the Survival of Species.
It seems to me the population of humans is not declining. In fact, if we
survive another 500 years, we're going to have to do something about it.
The bible, that's who. The bible also
says bats are birds, and the sun revolves around the earth.
You've gotta have a better argument than that.
Why? The bible is the root of all evil.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
07 Nov 2006 07:21:25 AM |
|
|
Strabo wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
snip
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you
project that feeling on others around you. Why?
Seeing homosexual activity grosses out almost all normal people.
So hetero = normal, eh?
And you wonder why people are fed up with the homosexual political
agenda.
I imagine some people are fed up with a great many things. Some of
them actually exist unlike "the homosexual political agenda". Being
"fed up" however is not an argument or a justification.
Sez who?
Sez Mother Nature, and the Manual For the Survival of Species.
Neither one of the above exists. On the other hand there is no reason
to believe that homosexuality has not always existed, yet the species
seems to be reproducing quite well.
The bible, that's who. The bible also
says bats are birds, and the sun revolves around the earth.
You've gotta have a better argument than that.
Great irony - apparently unintended.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
06 Nov 2006 06:02:18 AM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same?
Of course. I am talking about "carrying on" only in the non-intimate
sense, doing things like playing kissy face, and strolling along holding
hands or walking along arm-in-arm.
Where is the distinction,
Aw, c'mon now, you know the difference between hets and homos.
In an earlier post you said that that type of behavior (holding hands,
kissing etc.) should be reserved where it is appropriate. Clearly it
is appropriate in parks if others are allowed to do it.
where does one draw the line? Do you think children will adopt
homosexual tendencies because they see it in a park?
Yes. Haven't you ever heard of the monkey see, monkey do theory?
No, I missed that one. Could you name any scientific studies that show
that children become homosexual because they saw two homosexuals
holding hands?
One cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
I say that one may choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
It is a simple matter of exercising one's "free will".
I know you will disagree with me about that, but I do not
think you will disagree that a homosexual couple may choose
to carry on in a secluded area instead of in a public park
in full view of where children are playing.
In that case, according to your earlier, self-described display of
tolerance, heterosexuals will also have to seclude themselves.
One is born that way.
That is just a popular opinion, not a proven fact.
From the person who talks about the "monkey see monkey do" theory.
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you
project that feeling on others around you. Why?
Seeing homosexual activity grosses out almost all normal people.
That must be why television programs such as '"Will and Grace" have
been so popular. You have nothing to offer as an argument beyond your
bigotry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
06 Nov 2006 11:20:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, thomas p. wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same?
Of course. I am talking about "carrying on" only in the non-intimate
sense, doing things like playing kissy face, and strolling along holding
hands or walking along arm-in-arm.
Where is the distinction,
Aw, c'mon now, you know the difference between hets and homos.
In an earlier post you said that that type of behavior (holding hands,
kissing etc.) should be reserved where it is appropriate. Clearly it
is appropriate in parks if others are allowed to do it.
Homosexual behavior is not appropriate anywhere, but if the homos
express their affections to each other only in private, or at least
out of sight of normal people, then society should tolerate them.
where does one draw the line? Do you think children will adopt
homosexual tendencies because they see it in a park?
Yes. Haven't you ever heard of the monkey see, monkey do theory?
No, I missed that one. Could you name any scientific studies
that show that children become homosexual because they saw two
homosexuals holding hands?
"The monkey see, monkey do theory" has been extensively tested and
found to be quite viable. I cannot point you to any specific
scientific studies on how it works in the above case, but almost
everyone knows that the "monkey see, monkey do theory" is one of
the very best explanations for why people do stupid things. The
only other explanation I know of for why people do stupid things
is that they do stupid things because they are insane.
One cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
I say that one may choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
It is a simple matter of exercising one's "free will".
I know you will disagree with me about that, but I do not
think you will disagree that a homosexual couple may choose
to carry on in a secluded area instead of in a public park
in full view of where children are playing.
In that case, according to your earlier, self-described display of
tolerance, heterosexuals will also have to seclude themselves.
No, because kissing a person of the opposite sex is different
from kissing a person of the same sex. This assertion is so
obviously true that I don't even need to prove it to myself by
kissing a person of the same sex.
One is born that way.
That is just a popular opinion, not a proven fact.
From the person who talks about the "monkey see monkey do" theory.
"The monkey see, monkey do theory" is supported by mountains of
evidence. It is the theory that explains how peer pressure works
and how fads get started and about how people fall for many
kinds of advertising and propaganda. The only people to whom the
"monkey see, monkey do theory" does not apply are those who
exercise their free will in a rational and positive way.
When you see homosexual activity it grosses you out, so you
project that feeling on others around you. Why?
Seeing homosexual activity grosses out almost all normal people.
That must be why television programs such as '"Will and Grace" have
been so popular. You have nothing to offer as an argument beyond your
bigotry.
I never heard of "Will and Grace". I watch TV only very rarely.
The homosexual agenda is for bigots. Family values are for lovers.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
07 Nov 2006 04:06:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:20:58 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
"The monkey see, monkey do theory" has been extensively tested and
found to be quite viable.
If you think that's all it takes to "make people gay", I have to ask
myself how often you suck *****.
One doesn't choose to be gay as one chooses which car to buy. One
chooses to be gay in the same way one chooses to have blue eyes or be
left handed. Heterosexual children don't grow up and choose to be
gay. Quite the opposite. Such as Foley and lately, Haggard, are born
queer and choose, or attempt to choose, to be straight. The hypocrisy
lifetime of lies caused by society's refusal to accept that
homosexuality is as natural a throw of the genetic dice as hair color
or voice pitch is a far greater danger than seeing two people of the
same sex showing affection in public.
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
07 Nov 2006 04:42:50 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:20:58 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
From the person who talks about the "monkey see monkey do" theory.
"The monkey see, monkey do theory" is supported by mountains of
evidence. It is the theory that explains how peer pressure works
and how fads get started and about how people fall for many
kinds of advertising and propaganda. The only people to whom the
"monkey see, monkey do theory" does not apply are those who
exercise their free will in a rational and positive way.
Look at it this way. Are you going to "turn queer" if you happen to
spot two guys kissing? Are you going to do it if you see two guys
kissing every day? Do you really think children are so weak and
impressionable that they're going to grow up gay because they know
there is such a thing? I personally know many gay parents who have
raised straight children. A guest for dinner tonight was once married
to a lesbian who was pregnant with a child of rape. She refused to
have an abortion and being a good friend of his, he decided to marry
her and help her raise the child as his own. The professional and
social benefits of appearing to be straight with a wife and child was
not lost on either of them. They never told their son where he really
came from but he knew from before puberty that his dad took men to his
bedroom sometimes and his mom took women to her bedroom sometimes.
That his parents were both gay but married to have and raise him must
surely have proven their love for their son. He is now married and a
father.
Over the years of my life I have known *many* gay parents of straight
children. A close friend of mine whom I've known for years has kept
separate bedrooms from her husband almost since their son was born.
The boy is a healthy young man with healthy heterosexual appetites
despite having a queer for a father and a ***** for a mom. They are
keeping their premarital agreement to divorce and divide their assets
as soon as he has moved away from home. He started college this year.
Another old friend married and raised three children. When the
youngest entered college, he and his wife came out to them about their
dad's sexuality which he was no longer able to deny by his mid
thirties. (He once told me he thought marriage and children would
'cure' him.) An amicable divorce followed and over the years he has
acquired 4 grandchildren.
Sexual orientation is not taught, it is innate. Environment can only
teach children how to deal with the sexual feelings they have as they
enter adulthood.
My parents were both straight. I was raised in a fundamental
Christian church. From the time I was eight I was fascinated by what
other males looked like naked. By the time I was twelve I knew other
boys weren't like me and I first heard the word "queer" in correct
context but with no idea of what it meant until I asked my terrified
father.
I learned some years ago that before I even entered kindergarten that
my mother had told my father that he needed to spend more time with me
because she feared I was too "gentle and nice" for such an active boy.
Mothers have gaydar too.
Had both my parents been able to be open with me on the subject, I
might not have been such a ***** in my youth and might even have been
able to find happiness and stability with a life mate instead of empty
thrills with the trick of the day as I did. The public sexual
activities you rail against might not even be occurring if gay teens
were given the same kind of advice and guidance in their romantic
relationships that straight kids get. We wouldn't have to live lies
or fear being found out for fear of losing jobs, promotions or rights.
Their have been times when cancer patients and diabetics were
considered unclean and were to be avoided. When there was social
stigma attached to having hair of a certain color or an unusual shape
to the features. There have even been evil days when left handed
people were considered defective or possessed. As recently as the
20th century punishment was used to try to force left handed children
to use their "right" hand.
The very insistence by homophobes such as yourself that homosexuals
should all be shut away from society and prevented from sharing in the
same joys and fulfillments straights do is what drives gays to the
very promiscuity and sexual rebellion you detest. Attitudes such as
yours would sentence to ostracism and loneliness the millions who are
currently living the lie of being straight. And raising many
children.
If Reverend Haggard had been your son or brother or father, would you
still hate and revile him?
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
09 Nov 2006 11:12:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 05:42:50 -0500, wrote:
"The monkey see, monkey do theory" is supported by mountains of
evidence. It is the theory that explains how peer pressure works
and how fads get started and about how people fall for many
kinds of advertising and propaganda. The only people to whom the
"monkey see, monkey do theory" does not apply are those who
exercise their free will in a rational and positive way.
Look at it this way. Are you going to "turn queer" if you happen to
spot two guys kissing?
So, you can dish it out but you can't take it.
You *****.
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
06 Nov 2006 02:34:04 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, thomas p. wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Samuel W. Heywood
(sheywood@MyRealBox.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is a problem where homosexual couples are seen carrying on
in public parks where children play.
Is it OK for hetero couples to do the same?
Of course. I am talking about "carrying on" only in the
non-intimate sense, doing things like playing kissy face, and
strolling along holding hands or walking along arm-in-arm.
Where is the distinction,
Aw, c'mon now, you know the difference between hets and homos.
In an earlier post you said that that type of behavior (holding
hands, kissing etc.) should be reserved where it is appropriate.
Clearly it is appropriate in parks if others are allowed to do it.
Homosexual behavior is not appropriate anywhere, but if the homos
express their affections to each other only in private, or at least
out of sight of normal people, then society should tolerate them.
It's your type of bigotry that is not appropriate.
http://www.canoe.ca/BaseballArchive/aug23_dod.html
<snip>
"The monkey see, monkey do theory" is supported by mountains of
evidence.
Please post some.
It is the theory that explains how peer pressure works
Do you know what a peer is?
and how fads get started and about how people fall for many
kinds of advertising and propaganda. The only people to whom the
"monkey see, monkey do theory" does not apply are those who
exercise their free will in a rational and positive way.
Well, since you are obviously not rational or positive, then you are in
grave danger of becoming a homosexual the next time you see two men
holding hands.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
07 Nov 2006 04:44:44 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:34:04 GMT, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
Homosexual behavior is not appropriate anywhere, but if the homos
express their affections to each other only in private, or at least
out of sight of normal people, then society should tolerate them.
Like you, we need more than "toleration".
It's your type of bigotry that is not appropriate.
http://www.canoe.ca/BaseballArchive/aug23_dod.html
*applause* I believe a toast to the ball club is in order.
Swill
--
It's about the oil, stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuality = Birth Defect? |
07 Nov 2006 01:11:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Uncle Vic wrote:
"The monkey see, monkey do theory" is supported by mountains of
evidence.
Please post some.
It is the theory that explains how peer pressure works
Do you know what a peer is?
Yep. I'm the meanest and ugliest and most vile of all of them.
and how fads get started and about how people fall for many
kinds of advertising and propaganda. The only people to whom the
"monkey see, monkey do theory" does not apply are those who
exercise their free will in a rational and positive way.
Well, since you are obviously not rational or positive, then you are
in grave danger of becoming a homosexual the next time you see two
men holding hands.
Nope. I have natural aversions to doing homo things. My natural
aversions kick in instantly whenever I see homo things. Whenever
my natural aversions kick in my free will gets a break from duty.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
