Conference back40::soapbox

    I now hope Glen, et al realize that this was the perfect litmus test. 
    I AM NOT a homophobe.  I feel absolutely NO DIFFERENT about Brudnoy
    than I did before this announcement.  
    
    Brudnoy is the model as to how we should deal with our sexuality.  He
    is private, he doesn't flaunt it, he doesn't wish to make it an issue,
    he view victimization as nonsensical and foolish.  Regardless of your
    orientation, stop the victim yell, IT IS GETTING OLD!!!!!!
    
    Glen, this last part isn't directed toward you personally.  It is to
    the general Soapbox audience.

Last night in an interview, Brudnoy said

	"Everyone knew I was gay, unless they were a fool."

In my opinion, part of the gay issue is that it really isn't necessary
for everyone to know who is gay.  It's not my business, and you don't
need to wave your sexual practices in my face.

TYVM

/john

| <<< Note 56.1 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| I now hope Glen, et al realize that this was the perfect litmus test. I AM NOT
| a homophobe.  

	You now hope? Mr. Martin. When did I ever say, or even imply you were a
homophobe? I know I have not. And as far as the perfect litmus test goes, that
was done long ago when we met. The conversation we had was really good, and we
even continued it out in the parking lot. How could you get the impression that
I thought you were a homophobe? I'm really curious, AND pissed that you would
ever think that. 

| I feel absolutely NO DIFFERENT about Brudnoy than I did before this 
| announcement.

	Jack, maybe it wasn't you, but I thought it was you who told me he was
gay last year. 

| Brudnoy is the model as to how we should deal with our sexuality. He is 
| private, he doesn't flaunt it, he doesn't wish to make it an issue, he view 
| victimization as nonsensical and foolish.  Regardless of your orientation, 
| stop the victim yell, IT IS GETTING OLD!!!!!!

	Jack, Jack, Jack..... what you said above about the victims does come
into play a lot. But it is not a universal thing. How bout we take this on a
case by case basis, and not try and lump everyone into one catagory? 

| Glen, this last part isn't directed toward you personally. It is to the 
| general Soapbox audience.

	Hell... I wish the FIRST part wasn't directed towards me Jack. You have
some splainin to do...


Glen

| <<< Note 56.2 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| "Everyone knew I was gay, unless they were a fool."

	The gay community knew, but the public at large? No. They weren't
fools, they just didn't know.

| In my opinion, part of the gay issue is that it really isn't necessary for 
| everyone to know who is gay. 

	John, we've been over this a lot already. When you are willing to take
off the wedding ring, never talk about your kids, wife, family, same with any
pictures you might have, then you would have a point. But until then, you
don't.

| and you don't need to wave your sexual practices in my face.

	And when has anyone waved their sexual practices in your face John! I
can't even fatom such a thing....


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Sorry, you are the only one who will understand this...
    
    Richard, Patricia, Bob, Jim, Cindy....
    
    These people STILL think I'm a homophobe.  In fairness, you DIDN'T
    say I was a homophobe.  Sorry about that! 
    
    I guess I'm tired of having to defend myself because they don't value 
    diverse thinking.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.6 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Sorry, you are the only one who will understand this...
| Richard, Patricia, Bob, Jim, Cindy....
| These people STILL think I'm a homophobe.  In fairness, you DIDN'T
| say I was a homophobe.  Sorry about that!

	I think I'll have to go back and reread that topic again. I don't ever
recall reading that. Hmmm....

| I guess I'm tired of having to defend myself because they don't value diverse 
| thinking.

	Jack, no one ever said you were diverse.... :-)

    Glen you crumb!!! :-)

	>> The gay community knew, but the public at large? No. They weren't
	>> fools, they just didn't know.
    
    Yes, we did.  I knew, and I can't even remember how I found out.
    I just picked it up "at random" somewhere, probably in a newspaper
    or magazine.  It was no big deal, and didn't change my opinion of
    him.  It's his business, as was his illness.
    
    I don't know whether there was any reaction to my earlier reply
    on this in the "old" box... while David Brudnoy made no secret
    (and similarly, made no attempt to hide) his sexual preference, he
    did not wish the public at large to know about having contracted
    AIDS.  The Boston Globe forced him into the revelation, or else
    they were going to do it for him, just to sum up that one. What
    a great bunch of people there...
    
    Chris

    I knew Brudnoy was gay. Not quite sure how I knew, I just knew. I've
    known a lot of gay men -- I used to be a dancer -- and he just struck
    me as a gay man. Not a big deal, really. I think we really have it
    wrong about gay people. I know many who stay in the closet. They
    routinely get "fixed up" against their will because people don't expect
    they're gay, people expect they're somehow socially disabled. Coming
    out gets people off your back. People know where you stand. There's no
    real reason to stay in the closet, other than to protect onseself
    against discrimination. But, then that's the discriminator's problem,
    isn't it? Rather silly thing to get worked up about.
    
    Besides, the gay people I know, one and all, are a total hoot! You
    couldn't ask for a nicer bunch of people. Being a bashed minority tends
    to do that... my gay black friends are some of the finest people I've
    ever met...
    
    -b

    Quoted without permission from The Globe And Mail, November 17,1994:

    A team of Canadian researchers has uncovered significant differences
    in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. The focus of their
    study was the corpus callosum, a fibrous structure connecting the
    hemispheres of the brain.  The scientists found that one part of the
    corpus callosum, the isthmus, was 13% larger in gay men compared
    with straight men. 

    The discovery was announced November 16, 1994, in Miami at a conference
    of the Society For Neuroscience.  Dr. Sandra Witelson, a professor in
    the Department of Psychiatry at McMaster University in Hamilton, noted
    that other researchers have also identified anatomical differences 
    while probing the brains of gay and straight men.  Those earlier
    discoveries related to subtle differences in the hypothalamus - the
    part of the brain controlling secretion of hormones from the pituitary
    gland and so regulating basic functions including body temperature, 
    sleep, and the development of secondary sex characteristics. 

    Several years ago, Dr. Witelson was involved in another study which
    found that the isthmus tended to be larger in left-handed men as
    compared to right-handed men.  And yet another study indicated that
    homosexuals tended to have a higher incidence of left-handedness than
    heterosexuals.

    "This study has taken the anatomical differences from the middle of the
     brain up to the cortex - the thinking part of the brain.  That's a very
     big leap," she said.  "This is showing that sexual orientation is part
     of something that is much bigger than just sexual reproductive behaviour.
     What we are suggesting is that sexual orientation is just one feature
     in the constellation of characteristics which includes perception and
     cognitive patterns."

| <<< Note 56.10 by MPGS::MARKEY "Worse!! How could it be worse!?!?" >>>


| There's no real reason to stay in the closet, other than to protect onseself
| against discrimination. But, then that's the discriminator's problem,isn't it?
| Rather silly thing to get worked up about.



	You know, in truth what you said makes perfect sense. But from someone
who;s been there, it's the hardest thing to do as the one's who you expect to
be the biggest discriminators are the ones you care about most. Sometimes it is
that way, sometimes it is not. I think I was lucky, as for the most part when I
first came out, it wasn't a problem. Now that I've been out for alost 5 years,
it's not a problem for anyone who is close to me. 


Glen

	Hey jc..... I know a lot of people who are lefthanded.... must check
this theory out... heh heh...

      Yeah Glen.  I even like ya!!  ;-)
    
                                          Tony

| <<< Note 56.14 by STRATA::BARBIERI "God cares." >>>



| Yeah Glen.  I even like ya!!  ;-)

	Tony, you're gay???? Just runnin an experiment ya know... heh heh...

	I'm doin' fine. Yerself?

    Glen:
    
    If these findings are reversible...if being gay can be altered..in your
    opinion do you believe this is something the gay community would be
    interested in?  I know its the same as asking a het if he'd want to be
    altered gay but I'm curious as to how these findings would be received!
    
    -Jack

    	re .16
    
    	Kind of reminds me of the guy who got a sex change operation
    	because he said he was a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

| <<< Note 56.16 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>




| If these findings are reversible...if being gay can be altered..in your 
| opinion do you believe this is something the gay community would be interested
| in?  

	I would bet that some people may be interested in it. For those that
were, I'd love to know the reasoning behind it. If it were based on that they
wanted to be straight, or they want to be straight because of the views society
has towards them. I would venture to say that if we plotted this geographically
we might see more people willing to be altered in those areas where
hate/bigotry crimes are the highest. But that would be just a guess. 

	It would not be something I would be interested in doing, as why alter
who I am? I wouldn't color my hair to hide any of the grays that pop up, unless
I was disfigured I wouldn't do plastic surgery. But that's me. Other people may
do other things. I seriously doubt any large portion of the gay community would
run out and make the change, but one never knows.

| I know its the same as asking a het if he'd want to be altered gay but I'm 
| curious as to how these findings would be received!

	You would need to go ask the gay community about this for an honest
response. It really isn't a topic I've really talked about with any of them. It
isn't a topic that I've ever seen come up.



Glen

    Glen:
    
    There is an excellent documentary on A&E I believe.  It was on last
    night and I think they're rerunning it tonight or Wednesday.  It is a
    commentary of the start of AIDS in this country.  Talks and shows alot
    of footage from Fire Island in New York.  What a bed of immorality that
    place was in the 70's.  Truly a Sodom and Gomorrah...
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.19 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>




| There is an excellent documentary on A&E I believe. It was on last night and 
| I think they're rerunning it tonight or Wednesday. It is a commentary of the 
| start of AIDS in this country.  

	I'll have to check the program guide and see. Thanks.

| Talks and shows alot of footage from Fire Island in New York. What a bed of 
| immorality that place was in the 70's.  

	I thought that was the 70's to a lot of people period! Regardless of
sexual orientation....

| Truly a Sodom and Gomorrah...

	Jack, please go and read about S&G. Then come back and tell me why fire
island is like those 2 cities. 


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Yes, it was like S&G because of LUST.  The man interviewed had over
    3000 differnt sex partners...most of them from Fire Island.
    
    -Jack

    
    .21, Jack:
    
    Yes...well...I know of a gay man who hasn't had even as 
    many as *one* sexual partner.
    

| <<< Note 56.21 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>




| Yes, it was like S&G because of LUST.  

	Funny, I had always thought the townspeople not being hospitable
towards one another was one of the biggies. And while lust did exist, the only
time it had anything to do with anything gay was when the townspeople wanted to
rape the angels. And the only thing that it had in common with gays is that
apparently these angels, who are genderless, were men. The townspeople, who
were never identified as being gay or straight, wanted to rape them. I guess
you would probably acknowledge Jack that the 70's must have had a lot of S&G
cities!

| The man interviewed had over 3000 differnt sex partners...most of them from 
| Fire Island.

	Wilt Chamberlin..... now there was a het with a lot of pep. Is he the
norm? Nah, he's just very horny. I wonder though, if it were a woman who had
3000 partners, if they would be called a slut? But I digress.... Jack, if one
man goes off and has sex with any and everyone he can find, he will have a lot
of sex partners. BTW, how many years did it take to reach 3000? 


Glen

    3000 partners? How did he keep track, a notch for each one?

If he kept a notch for each one, he wouldn't be able to have 100 partners,
never mind 3000.

      re: .15
    
      I'm not even left-handed!!
    
      Thats weird...my wife and I are right-handed and BOTH 
      daughters are left-handed.
    
                                                 Tony

    I didn't believe Wilt when he claimed to have 20000 partners, and I
    think the 3000 number is a bit of posturing as well.
    
    Do the math. Even with a different partner _every_ day for 8 years,
    you still wouldn't go through that many people....
    
    How many people even *meet* one new person a day for 8 years, never
    mind sleep with them?
    
    -b

    Mr. Collins:
    
    I too know gay men who have actually taken a vow of celibacy in their
    lives.  I know a man who will not have sex until he meets the one he
    falls in love with.
    
    As far as Fire Island, I was simply telling you what the gay individual
    said on the show.  Incidently, he has died of AIDS.  Glen, I was
    concurring with what you have preached in the past.  Fire Island was a
    bastian of promiscuity, multiple sex partners at one time, etc.  I know
    of plenty of other places where heteros do the same thing.  I was just
    telling you about Fire Island and how interesting the commentary was
    last night!
    
    -Jack

    	re .23
    
    	Not too many people see S&G as you do, but I suspect you knew
    	that.  You probably also know that people who do agree with
    	you on it also promote a similar agenda as you do...

    Considering the Mosaic law condemns homosexuality as an abomination, I
    am inclined to agree that it was more than lust.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.28 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| concurring with what you have preached in the past.  Fire Island was a
| bastian of promiscuity, multiple sex partners at one time, etc.  I know
| of plenty of other places where heteros do the same thing. 

	But again, about the S&G thing. Can you show me Scripture as to where
it says they had multiple partners and that was the reason for their
destruction?

| I was just telling you about Fire Island and how interesting the commentary 
| was last night!

	And speaking of which.... I couldn't find it on for last night or
Wednesday. Did you happen to tape it?


Glen

| <<< Note 56.29 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| Not too many people see S&G as you do, but I suspect you knew that.  

	Joe, show me the Scripture for S&G and we can go from there. At least
this way we can see the words that tell the tale, and base it on that. Then I
can see your position (which I don't know yet) and you can see what I base mine
on.

| You probably also know that people who do agree with you on it also promote a 
| similar agenda as you do...

	That the Bible lists several reasons for the destruction of the two
cities?


Glen

| <<< Note 56.30 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| Considering the Mosaic law condemns homosexuality as an abomination, 

	Tiling again Jack? Where does it state this?

| I am inclined to agree that it was more than lust.

	Uh huh... again, can we see the scripture?


Glen

    
    Um, if I could start a rathole...  Why does everybody have to have
    their own "Ishews" ?  I mean, do we have "Engineers' Issues" ?
    "Obese People's Issues" etc ?
    
    My support will go to the first group that declares it has NO issues !
    
      bb

We Atheists have no issues.

    From the issues standpoint, most gay people I've known have not had
    "ishews" or any agenda other than "please leave us alone and stop
    telling us that the bible says we're toast."
    
    -b

Leviticus 20:13.  Sodom and Gemorrah are in Genesis 19.  Their sins ran the
gamut from sexual immorality to harrassing strangers.  The Talmud refers to
harming someone when you yourself get no benefit therefrom as "the way of
Sodom."

 >>   We Atheists have no issues.
    
    Jack, Madeline Murray O'Hare would fervantly disagree with you.  
    
    Glen, I will look in my commentary and quote the verse tomorrow.  It is
    there, I just need to find it.
    
    No, I didn't tape it.  Do you have a TV guide for cable?  I'm pretty
    sure it is on Wednesday night on A&E.  I heard the advertisement just
    as I was falling asleep.  It was quite an interesting and informative 
    documentary.  It didn't get political, it was strictly facts.
    
    -Jack

> >>   We Atheists have no issues.
    
>    Jack, Madeline Murray O'Hare would fervantly disagree with you.  

I don't know who she is. I guess we're not very organized, either.

:^)

| <<< Note 56.38 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Glen, I will look in my commentary and quote the verse tomorrow.  It is
| there, I just need to find it.

	Thanks Jack. BTW, are you really going to provide the VERSE? I wanna
try something, and if I can get it to work, I'll provide you with ALL of the
verseS!

| No, I didn't tape it.  Do you have a TV guide for cable?  I'm pretty
| sure it is on Wednesday night on A&E.  I heard the advertisement just
| as I was falling asleep.  It was quite an interesting and informative
| documentary.  It didn't get political, it was strictly facts.

	I looked at the cable guide. Nothing from 6:00 on. Biography, Law &
Order, things like that. The Biography is on one of the Kennedy's.


Glen

    Maybe I heard wrong.  Too bad...it was a good commentary.  Maybe it
    wasn't on A&E.  Maybe it was the discovery channel!
    
    Yes, I will really provide the verse.
    
    -Jack

    .39
    
    madalyn murray o'hair has long been known as one of the loudest atheist
    noisemakers - it was she who raised a stink about the bible quotation
    that the apollo 8 astronauts read over the air while in orbit around
    the moon.

 Her son (for whom Ms O'hair fought to remove Prayer from schools) became
 a Christian several years ago..




Jim

    Back to the gay topic for a minute... talk elsewhere about what the
    bible says about homosexuality made me want to add a statement of two
    here.
    
    My "problem" with the biblical perspective on homosexuality is this:
    basically, the Christian view on homosexuality seems to be that
    practicing it is a "sin" and that it is something that the "sinner"
    should pray to overcome.
    
    So, either being homosexual is something someone chooses, or it is
    something that God made them. This person must overcome the temptation
    to "sin" their entire life if they want eternal peace with God.
    
    This doesn't wash. For one thing, evidence suggests that people do not
    choose to be homosexuals. They simply *are* homosexuals. Many gay
    people I've asked pointed to ways they were "different" even as young
    children... be it the toys they choose to play with or the clothes they
    prefered to wear. There was no "choice" about it.
    
    The bible excludes the possibility that God makes homos, and faced with
    evidence to the contrary, the idea of God "challenging the sinner" is
    born. Nonsense.
    
    I hear all this stuff about homosexuality being in conflict with God's
    will and it brings back very bad memories for me. As a kid, I was very
    sick with repiratory diseases, and was frail. People who I'm sure have
    had a fair dose of homos are sinners and scum BS pumped into them made
    my life hell... and I was straight. I was openly persecuted at Catholic
    HS, by teachers and students alike. The *only* person who treated me
    decent in HS was a priest who was... you guessed it... gay.
    
    I really think Christians should take a step back, concentrate on
    teaching love and respect, and leave reconciling with the "sinners"
    up to God.
    
    -b

	My roomate rented another movie which we watched after the faces of
death. I do forget the name of it though. It talked about two leaders of
Exodus, which is a group to make gay people straight. These two "former gays"
who were leaders, realized that they actually loved each other and at one of
the churches they attended, they talked about how the church should start
loving people, not trying to change who they are. Of course they left the
group, and even talked about some of the methods they used that were pretty
funny. Like if someone who was gay felt it was bad, they went along with it
and never asked why they felt this way. They had both ex "former gays" and some
that are still "former gays" talking. It was quite informative, and at times,
quite funny. The funniest part was when they showed the views of the 40's and
50's (psycologists talking) and compared it to this lady's view of today. It
was quite funny as she stated it almost word for word. The funny part was the
stuff from the 40's/50's was refuted long ago. 

| <<< Note 64.108 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| OK..do you concur with Patricia that Paul the Apostle is a homophobe?

	Haven't read enough on Paul to make that conclusion. If it is based on
the thing that Dick wrote, then no, I do not believe he is. 

	And while we're on the topic of what Dick wrote, it was kind of funny.
Because what Dick pointed out was true, but what was funny is that you can read
the Bible and later on the word effeminate is also referred to as a homosexual.
So many different meaning of the same word. Just how do they keep track?

| And if he is, then how can his doctrinal statements on the death and
| resurrection be taken without bias or emotion just as his opinion of
| sexual matters is taken?

	They should be taken in the same light as when he said, "What I am
about to say is not from God, but my own opinion". His opinion in a book about
God's Word? Uh huh..... it's mans word Jack, not God's. (imho)

| Ya see, I think you use your ideology FIRST as a guide.  The bible is a
| secondary guide if it fits into your ideology.  Could that be the case?

	No, because the Bible is a book, period (to *me*). God could use a
comic book to give me an answer. A story in the Bible, the words a mere human
speaks, the writing on a street sign, the words of a song, could all be used to
give the answer to a question. I hold all of these items as being things made
by man. They are of equal value to me. None of them even compare to God. So I
don't use the Bible to fit any idealogy, I use the Bible if I am led there, or
something else if I have been led that way. Again, that was why I had asked
Kimball before if he went to the Bible and prayed, or prayed first and was led
by Him to the answer, using whatever means He wanted to use.

	Now Jack, there is still a lot you have yet to account for. Like why
you would make the comments you did in the first place. That really pisses me
off and if ya would, please explain it.



Glen

    .46
    
    actually, glen, the word "effeminate" appears exactly ONCE in the king
    james version, and not at all in the revised standard version or the
    new international version.
    
    the niv does use the term "homosexual offenders" where the kjv uses
    "abusers of themselves with mankind" - again, the point is on the word
    "offenders" which refers to the DOING of homosexual acts, not merely to
    BEING a homosexual.

	.44
        
>    So, either being homosexual is something someone chooses, or it is
>    something that God made them. This person must overcome the temptation
>    to "sin" their entire life if they want eternal peace with God.
    
    	Heterosexuals are called to the same discipline, unless they are
    	given by God the gift of a spouse.
    
>    This doesn't wash. For one thing, evidence suggests that people do not
>    choose to be homosexuals. They simply *are* homosexuals. 
    
    	Evidence is also being presented that claims pedophilia is not 
    	a choice either.  Do you want your logic applied to these 
    	people too?
    
>    I hear all this stuff about homosexuality being in conflict with God's
>    will and it brings back very bad memories for me. As a kid, ...
>    I was openly persecuted at Catholic
>    HS, by teachers and students alike. 
    
    	Such is not God's will either.

    Ah yes, but here's the rub:
    
    If human nature is to sin...
    
    then it is human nature to sin by engaging in sex outside of
    marriage...
    
    it is also human nature to sin by persecuting. I hear a lot of talk
    about the sin of fornication. I hear next to nothing about the sin of
    persecution. I can switch on TBN or EWTN (?) and hear any number of
    people pointing a finger at gays and fornicators. Not many people
    pointing fingers at the creeps who beat the piss outta me on a regular
    basis though... or the teacher who made a lewd comment about my
    perceived sexuality in front of the class in 10th grade... or any other
    number of despicable acts I've seen. I have no patience or ears for the
    message against homosexuality while this kind of crap continues... and
    it continues unabated.
    
    -b

    So, if you could take some genetically engineered medication that would
    turn your homosexual brain into a heterosexual one, would you take it?

    Hypothalamusly speaking of course....

	Hey Jack, quick question. Do you think all sin is an abomination?

| <<< Note 56.50 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "The Pantless Snow-Bagger" >>>



| So, if you could take some genetically engineered medication that would turn 
| your homosexual brain into a heterosexual one, would you take it?

	Me personally? No. I'm happy being me. I am sure there would be people
that would though. I would hope that anyone who would has looked at the reasons
why they are unhappy being gay, and that they aren't based on other people's
expectations, but their own.

	Would you take a pill to become gay? 


Glen

Joe, do you consider heterosexual sex between unmarried people as big a sin as
homosexual sex?

    Speaking for myself, I believe that sin is sin, be it fornication
    between two unmarried hets or two homosexuals.  So to answer your other 
    question Glen, yes...I would have to say that all sin is an abomination
    to God.  I believe God singles specific sins out as abominations
    because they are the ones most likely to be taken for granted.
    
    Glen, the reason I brought up the things I did wasn't meant to piss you
    off.  At the time, I was thinking in CP mode.  Most of the CPers band
    together against myself and others with a conservative viewpoint.  If
    Patricia makes a point, typically the average participant will concur
    with her.  I know she considers Paul a homophobe so looking back, I
    want to openly apologize to you for clumping you in group think.  I
    know you are quite capable of thinking for yourself.  
    
    -Jack

    	re .53
    
    	Yup.

    By the way, CP is short for Christian Perspective.  This is a great 
    mode for people of different/twisted faiths who want to whine and
    bellyache at and about each other....including me!!! :-)

| <<< Note 56.54 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| So to answer your other question Glen, yes...I would have to say that all sin 
| is an abomination to God. I believe God singles specific sins out as 
| abominations because they are the ones most likely to be taken for granted.

	But how does that jive with the Bible's claim of no sin is greater than
another Jack? If all sin, regardless of what was done, is al = to each other,
why call attention to certain sins? It would seem to me that human intervention
would cause this. 

| Glen, the reason I brought up the things I did wasn't meant to piss you off.  
| At the time, I was thinking in CP mode. Most of the CPers band together 
| against myself and others with a conservative viewpoint.  

	Jack, in the future I wish you would do less lumping and more
individualizing. There will be some things that others say about you 
that I will agree with. If you blatently say that *I* said this or that,
please know that is my viewpoint, and not a lump viewpoint. It would make
things much easier.

| I know she considers Paul a homophobe so looking back, I want to openly 
| apologize to you for clumping you in group think.  

	Apology accepted. :-)

| I know you are quite capable of thinking for yourself.

	I just wish you'd remember what I had said! :-)


Glen

>	But how does that jive with the Bible's claim of no sin is greater than
>another Jack? If all sin, regardless of what was done, is al = to each other,
>why call attention to certain sins? 
    
    	Because some are nearly universally accepted as sin, and others,
    	as you clearly demonstrate, are prone to "interpretation".

| <<< Note 56.58 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

| >	But how does that jive with the Bible's claim of no sin is greater than
| >another Jack? If all sin, regardless of what was done, is al = to each other,
| >why call attention to certain sins?

| Because some are nearly universally accepted as sin, and others,
| as you clearly demonstrate, are prone to "interpretation".

	Joe, if this were true, then why not a list of what is and what is not
sin? To call any sin greater attention than another, clearly contradicts that
all sin is equal, no sin is greater than another. The Bible mentions other
sexual things as sin. It does not call them an abomination. Me thinks your
logic is flawed.


Glen

RE              <<< Note 56.58 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	Because some are nearly universally accepted as sin, and others,
>    	as you clearly demonstrate, are prone to "interpretation".

  They are all prone to interpretation.

  George

      re: .44
    
      Hi,
    
        Really had to reply to this.  I am a Christian and I'll respond
        from this perspective.
    
        The Bible clearly states that a change took place with the
        flesh of man (i.e. Adam and Eve) following sin.  It changed 
        from sinless to sinful.
    
        It also clearly states that there are forces that play on the
        mind.  The flesh motivates people to sin while God motivates
        people to love as He loves.  Scripture also states that Jesus
        took the same flesh wherein this pull to sin resides and with
        that flesh, He CRUCIFIED it and rendered a perfect obedience -
        all in the realm of faith, i.e. complete dependence on His
        Father just as we can.
    
        The above is all scriptural and (amazing!) it is in complete
        harmony with the accounts in here of how homosexuality can be
        a physiologically induced behavior (which I happen to believe 
        is a sinful behavior).
    
        What is being stated here is that the flesh does have certain
        characteristics which impact the MIND (which in and of itself
        is not of the physical/fleshly realm).  The flesh effects the
        mind.  In this case, some brain characteristics such that a 
        person with them has a higher propensity to desire homosexual
        behavior.
    
        This is 100% in agreement with the scriptures.
    
        The scriptures NEVER call a person to indulge the flesh, it 
        calls a person to walk after the Spirit and have the flesh 
        crucified.
    
        Personally, I believe that as one beholds the Spirit and really
        begins to drink in deeper and deeper revelations of God hung 
        for them, what were once awful temptations will become barely
        a gnat's worth of a desire.  The MIND will be so enamored with
        the love of God that it beholds that it will have begun to submit 
        to Him and allow Him to RECREATE it after His own image.
    
        Anyway, what you brought up in .44 is actually fully consistent
        with the scriptures.
    
                                                        Tony

>              <<< Note 56.62 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>
>
>    	re .58
>    
>    	Not surprising, coming from you.

Joe, you need to do something about your lack of self-esteem.

	.58
    
>	Joe, if this were true, then why not a list of what is and what is not
>sin? 
    
    	There are LOTS of them.  You have rejected them, or at least
    	the vector provided to us to list them.
    
>To call any sin greater attention than another, clearly contradicts that
>all sin is equal, 
    
    	I disagree.  I think you are just being over-sensitive to your
    	pet cause being specifically named in the Bible, that's all.

	Joe, for one what you have said makes ABSOLUTE sense. Go read .58 Joe.


               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 56.62                      Gay Issues Topic                        62 of 64
CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound"                        3 lines  23-NOV-1994 14:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	re .58
    
    	Not surprising, coming from you.

    	re .60
    
    	Not surprising coming from you.

    
    	re .63,.65
    
    	Thanks for pointing that out.  I've corrected it.

| <<< Note 56.64 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

| .58

	.58 is your note Joe.....

| >	Joe, if this were true, then why not a list of what is and what is not
| >sin?

| There are LOTS of them.  

	EXACTLY. They are all the same, yet they are not? 

| >To call any sin greater attention than another, clearly contradicts that
| >all sin is equal,

| I disagree.  

	Ok, now can you tell us why you disagree?

| I think you are just being over-sensitive to your pet cause being specifically
| named in the Bible, that's all.

	No, what I am doing is showing a contradiction in the Bible.

	.67
    
>| .58
>
>	.58 is your note Joe.....
    
    	I've been having a problem with that today, huh?  Glad to see
    	that you are smart enough to figure it out though!  :^)

>| >	Joe, if this were true, then why not a list of what is and what is not
>| >sin?
>
>| There are LOTS of them.  
>
>	EXACTLY. They are all the same, yet they are not? 
    
    	I was saying that there are LOTS of lists.  You've rejected
    	the source of the lists, thus you still ask for a list.
    
>| I disagree.  
>
>	Ok, now can you tell us why you disagree?
    
    	I simply disagree with you statement that x clearly shows y.
    
>| I think you are just being over-sensitive to your pet cause being specifically
>| named in the Bible, that's all.
>
>	No, what I am doing is showing a contradiction in the Bible.
    
    	I disagree.

| <<< Note 56.68 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| I was saying that there are LOTS of lists. You've rejected the source of the 
| lists, thus you still ask for a list.

	No, that wasn't what I was saying, sorry for not being more clear. What
I am saying is if all sins are equal with each other, then a sin is listed as a
sin, and that's it. To highlight a sin over another is the rankings, clearly
shows that there has now been a contradiction. Now you had said earlier because
it had to do with the interpretation factor. How does that fit in Joe. As it
was already pointed out to you, all sins are open to interpretation.

| >| I disagree.
| >
| >	Ok, now can you tell us why you disagree?

| I simply disagree with you statement that x clearly shows y.

	Thanks Joe. When you use the simplified way of just saying you disagree
without explaining why, it usually means that you aren't able to explain your
reasoning, it just is. Of course this does nothing to prove whatever point you
were trying to make, but that's ok I guess... it is up to you.


Glen

	.69

>To highlight a sin over another is the rankings, clearly
>shows that there has now been a contradiction. 
    
    	There.  You said it again.  I disagree that there is a clear
    	ranking.
    
>As it
>was already pointed out to you, all sins are open to interpretation.
    
    	Now here is a nice double standard.  You flat out reject my
    	statement that SOME are subject to interpretation, and try
    	to stand on another person's statement that ALL are.  Both
    	were made without qualification, and you somehow decide that
    	one is sufficient as a stand-alone.  Coincidentally, it is the
    	statement that supports you that you accept without support.
    
    	You are trying to weave a platform of required proof by using
    	spider web for thread.  Sorry.  I'm not particiapting in 
    	another Glen-hole.  I refused to get tangled in your web.

>| I simply disagree with you statement that x clearly shows y.
>
>	Thanks Joe. When you use the simplified way of just saying you disagree
>without explaining why, it usually means that you aren't able to explain your
>reasoning, it just is. Of course this does nothing to prove whatever point you
>were trying to make, but that's ok I guess... it is up to you.
    
    	I have no point to prove.  I simply disagree with you.  Sorry that
    	it bothers you so much.  I'm surprised you expected me to agree
    	with you on that point.  Currently I disagree because you haven't
    	provided me with a reason to agree.  You simply stated it without
    	support.
    
    	Tell you what.  Prove YOUR point and maybe I might see reason to
    	agree.  Until then, I disagree.

RE              <<< Note 56.70 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	Tell you what.  Prove YOUR point and maybe I might see reason to
>    	agree.  Until then, I disagree.

  I can prove my point about all sin being a matter of opinion, in the U.S.
anyway. It's right here in the 1st amendment.

     "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
 prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... "

  George

    	I know, George, that's why I said that I wasn't surprised that
    	YOU made the statement.
    
    	I was going to say (for example) that everybody considers Susan 
    	Smith a  murderer, but you'd be the wrong person to tell that 
    	to.  :^)

    Oh, boy.  Now George is using the Constitution to define sin (at least
    in the US).  
    
    If God had known about that, he could have skipped the whole burning-
    bush-and-graven-stone business.  He coulda just hired a lawyer.

RE              <<< Note 56.72 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	I was going to say (for example) that everybody considers Susan 
>    	Smith a  murderer, but you'd be the wrong person to tell that 
>    	to.  :^)

  I'm not so sure that everybody feels that way.

  Considering that the Republicans just won a majority in both houses of
Congress I have no doubt that a majority of people currently hold the 5th,
6th, and 14th amendments of the Constitution in contempt however to get them
overturned would require 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states and I
doubt you have that many votes on your side.

  Not "everybody", more like 53%.

  George

    
    There is no mention of sin in the US Constitution.
    
      bb

    Put it ll to levitical law.  can't wait to see what Joe O looks like
    with forelocks and a lot of the rest of the crew without blended
    fabrics.

    	Gee, Meg, do I bother you that much that you have to sneer at
    	me here too, where we don't even have a "discussion" going?

re .76:

There's no prohibition on all blended fabrics, just linen and wool.
But you knew that.  You also know that Joe's not Jewish, so the
prohibition against shaatnez and shaving the corners of one's beard
is irrelevant to him.

    But, if you shave the corners of your beard, aren't they still there
    when you're done?
    
    This troubles me.

RE              <<< Note 56.73 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    Oh, boy.  Now George is using the Constitution to define sin (at least
>    in the US).  
    
  No, I'm using the Constitution to point out that sin is a matter of opinion
in the United States.

  George

What's this baloney about the Bible saying that all sin is _equal_?

Chapter and verse, please.  (Hint: The Bible does not say that.)

/john

    KIf we follow levitical law, it will effect Joe and you.  Oh pity the
    poor men whose wives dont like beards.

RE              <<< Note 56.81 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>What's this baloney about the Bible saying that all sin is _equal_?

  Regardless of what the Bible says, the Constitution says that all religion,
and hence all sin, is a matter of personal opinion and hence all equal.

  If you don't believe in sin then zero equals zero.

  George

    John:
    
    All sin being equal, i.e. each sin, regardless of what it is bring
    death, (Romans 6:23).  I agree in the sense if you look in Exodus and
    it goes through the law, you will find the penalties vary from
    transgression to transgression.  However, each one of those sins,
    venial of mortal to speak in human terms, required the same sacrifice..
    the blood of bulls and goats.  My stealing a candybar vs. my killing
    another person equally have to be washed away by the blood of Christ. 
    Each of the two earn eternal separation from God!
    
    -Jack

re .84

Romans says "The wages of sin is death."  It does not say that all sin
is equal.

In fact, in John 19:11, Jesus refers to "the greater sin."

Sin separates humanity from God.  The greater the sin, the greater the
separation.  Lifted up on the cross, God drew all humanity, no matter
how great their sin, back to himself.  His outpouring of grace is
sufficient for all sin, small or great.

/john

    the university of MN has a segment of its quarterly tuition (paid by
    each and every student) doled out to various university organizations.
    one student has brought suit to stop contributions given by the
    univeristy to the U of MN Gay and Lesbian Organization. the amount is
    26 cents per quarter per student. added up over the course of a year
    this organization is funded by the students tuition to the tune of
    nearly $100,000/year. the student says support of gay and lesbian
    peoples sexual orientation is against his religion.
    
    only problem with the lawsuit is it doesn't go far enough. that damn
    univeristy soaks students to fund dozens of organizations from the
    african american cultural society to native american historical
    research to just about any "minority" group you can think of. they also
    fund a group called the democrats for progressive societal change. i'd
    be damned if i would give those folks a dime. 

| <<< Note 56.70 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| >To highlight a sin over another is the rankings, clearly
| >shows that there has now been a contradiction.

| There.  You said it again.  I disagree that there is a clear ranking.

	Then what do you call it Joe? If no sin is greater than another, and
one is called out as an abomination (actually, one of many), what about the
contradiction part do you disagree with?

| Now here is a nice double standard. You flat out reject my statement that SOME
| are subject to interpretation, and try to stand on another person's statement 
| that ALL are.  

	Actually Joe, when it was listed by someone else that all are prone to
interpretation, I was thinking verses, not sins. But my response in .59 should
have cleared it up, I thought. When I asked for a clear cut list. 

| You are trying to weave a platform of required proof by using spider web for 
| thread.  

	It worked for Spiderman.... :-)  All I am saying is a book that uses
itself as it's proof proves nothing. It says that no sin is greater than
another, yet points one out as being an abomination. That's kind of
contradictory to me. You have offered no proof that it isn't, just words that
state, "I disagree".

| I have no point to prove.  

	I know, I know..... that's why you didn't bother to prove it.

| I'm surprised you expected me to agree with you on that point.  

	Actually, never thought you would. But I thought you might offer some
insight as to why you view it otherwise. But I guess that was stupid of me to
think.

| Tell you what.  Prove YOUR point and maybe I might see reason to agree.  Until
| then, I disagree.

	I already did Joe. Nice diversion, but you use it too much. It is not
hard to see if someone or something makes a statement:

                       no X is greater than any other X

	But comes back later with:

                             X is an abomination

	That there is contradiction...



Glen

| <<< Note 56.73 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>


| If God had known about that, he could have skipped the whole burning-
| bush-and-graven-stone business.  He coulda just hired a lawyer.

	I think Ben Matlock was around then....

| <<< Note 56.78 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>


| There's no prohibition on all blended fabrics, just linen and wool. But you 
| knew that. You also know that Joe's not Jewish, so the prohibition against 
| shaatnez and shaving the corners of one's beard is irrelevant to him.

	Do you think he, or any other Christian, should point these things out
to the Jewish community anytime they see them breaking an OT Law? The one I
want to see them do is:

Leviticus 15:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying, 
  2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a 
    running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean. 
  3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his flesh run 
    with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his 
    uncleanness. 
  4 Every bed, whereon he lieth that hath the issue, is unclean: and every 
    thing, whereon he sitteth, shall be unclean. 
  5 And whosoever toucheth his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself 
    in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
  6 And he that sitteth on any thing whereon he sat that hath the issue shall 
    wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the 
    evening. 
  7 And he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue shall wash his 
    clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
  8 And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean; then he shall 
    wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the 
    evening. 
  9 And what saddle soever he rideth upon that hath the issue shall be 
    unclean. 
 10 And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him shall be unclean 
    until the evening: and he that beareth any of those things shall wash his 
    clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
 11 And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not rinsed his 
    hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and 
    be unclean until the evening. 
 12 And the vessel of earth, that he toucheth which hath the issue, shall be 
    broken: and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water. 
 13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall 
    number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and 
    bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean. 
 14 And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young 
    pigeons, and come before the LORD unto the door of the tabernacle of the 
    congregation, and give them unto the priest: 
 15 And the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the 
    other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him 
    before the LORD for his issue. 
 16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash 
    all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
 17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, 
    shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. 
 18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they 
    shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
 19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she 
    shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean 
    until the evening. 
 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: 
    every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. 
 21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself 
    in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
 22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his 
    clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
 23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he 
    toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the evening. 
 24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall 
    be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. 
 25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of 
    her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the 
    days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her 
    separation: she shall be unclean. 
 26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her 
    as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be 
    unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. 
 27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his 
    clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
 28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself 
    seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 
 29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtledoves, or two 
    young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the 
    tabernacle of the congregation. 
 30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for 
    a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before 
    the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness. 
 31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; 
    that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle 
    that is among them. 
 32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth 
    from him, and is defiled therewith; 
 33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of 
    the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean. 

>	Do you think he, or any other Christian, should point these things out
>to the Jewish community anytime they see them breaking an OT Law?

Glen, what's your point?  BTW, the stuff you list is inoperative because
there's no Temple in Jerusalem.  Leviticus 18:22 is operative, as are all
the preceding verses forbidding incest.

    	.87
    
>	Then what do you call it Joe? If no sin is greater than another, and
>one is called out as an abomination (actually, one of many), what about the
>contradiction part do you disagree with?
    
    	All are abominations.  Reminding us of those that are more often
    	subject to human misunderstanding does not diminish those that 
    	are more universally understood.
    
    	I see neither contradiction nor ranking.
    
    	I see an over-sensitivity on your part to having something pointed
    	out to you that is striking too close to home.  You do not get my
    	sympathy, no matter how much you complain about it.

>	All I am saying is a book that uses
>itself as it's proof proves nothing. 
    
    	Duh.  You've said it hundreds of times here and in other
    	conferences.  And I disagree with you.  There is no "proof"
    	that will make any difference to you, so why do you ask me
    	to bother trying to convince you otherwise?
    
>It says that no sin is greater than
>another, yet points one out as being an abomination. That's kind of
>contradictory to me. 
    
    	You have already stated that you understand it is not just ONE
    	that is an abomination, so your insistence on addressing this
    	point in this way merely reinforces my impression that your
    	argument is nothing more than a reaction to your oversensitivity
    	to that one particular transgression being specifically named as
    	a sin.
    
>You have offered no proof that it isn't, just words that
>state, "I disagree".
    
    	Well not "proof", but certainly my reasoning, and you've ignored it.
    
>| I have no point to prove.  
>
>	I know, I know..... that's why you didn't bother to prove it.
    
    	So why do you continue to ask about it?

>                       no X is greater than any other X
>
>	But comes back later with:
>
>                             X is an abomination
>
>	That there is contradiction...
    
    	That is not a contradiction if the conclusion is that ALL are
    	abominations.

    .76:
    
    Meg, thanks for explaining that to me!  My wife goes out of her way to
    buy 100% cotton clothing, and all this time I thought she did it
    because she expected the articles to last longer and feel better.
    
    Dick

| <<< Note 56.90 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| >	Do you think he, or any other Christian, should point these things out
| >to the Jewish community anytime they see them breaking an OT Law?

| Glen, what's your point?  

	My point being is so many perceived Christians will tell others when
they have sinned on CERTAIN things, but not all. I would think the OT laws
would be one area that they might also look into. A sin is a sin, right? 

| BTW, the stuff you list is inoperative because there's no Temple in Jerusalem.

	Wait, are you telling me that what's in the Bible, which is supposed to
be written by God through man, has parts that are inoperative because of
something man has or hasn't done? Now there would be a contradiction for ya.
Not due to the Bible, but due to man.

| Leviticus 18:22 is operative, as are all the preceding verses forbidding 
| incest.

	Are we on the pick and choose method???

| <<< Note 56.91 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>



| I see an over-sensitivity on your part to having something pointed out to you 
| that is striking too close to home.  

	This is funny Joe. Go read your Bible. It mentions a lot of things that
are abominations. But glad to see you're tying it all in with just one. There
is no over-sensitivity on my part Joe. Just explainin the facts to ya.

| You do not get my sympathy, no matter how much you complain about it.

	Yeah... like that would ever happen.... :-)

| >	All I am saying is a book that uses itself as it's proof proves nothing.

| Duh. You've said it hundreds of times here and in other conferences. And I 
| disagree with you. There is no "proof" that will make any difference to you, 
| so why do you ask me to bother trying to convince you otherwise?

	You're right about one thing Joe, there is no proof. Even you have
stated that the only proof for the Bible's validity is the book itself. If
someone murders someone with a gun, will any gun do? No, you need the correct
gun. Can a gun be found next to someone and by the gun alone prove it was the
murder weapon? No. Tests need to be run to prove it. There is no test to prove
the Bible meets it's claims.

| Well not "proof", but certainly my reasoning, and you've ignored it.

	cuz it ain't proof. 

	.93
    
>	My point being is so many perceived Christians will tell others when
>they have sinned on CERTAIN things, but not all. 
    
    	So now you want people to point out EVERY sin you do?
    
    	Ever consider that you get the attention you do because you
    	try to "prove" that homosexual behavior is not sinful?  If you
    	were to try pushing robbery as a matter of interpretation, don't
    	you think you'd be bombarded with scriptural references about
    	that sin instead?  Why should people quote you lines a about
    	lying (for example) under those circumstances?
    
    >	Are we on the pick and choose method???
    
    	You seem to be.
    

	.94
    
>	You're right about one thing Joe, there is no proof...
    
    	Please finish the sentence with, "...that I am willing to accept."
    
    	Thank you.
    
>	This is funny Joe. Go read your Bible. It mentions a lot of things that
>are abominations. But glad to see you're tying it all in with just one. 
    
    	Well I'm glad to see that you find it funny, because it is you
    	who keeps saying ONE, whic is what I was commenting on.  Here, 
    	let me help you:
    
.87>	Then what do you call it Joe? If no sin is greater than another, and
>one is called out as an abomination 
    
.87>It says that no sin is greater than
>another, yet points one out as being an abomination. 

re .93:

The laws of ritual purity are only binding when there's a Temple because
they only affect one's ability to enter the Temple and to handle the
utensils of the Temple and its offerings.  Since the Romans destroyed
the Temple 1924 years ago, these laws haven't been in the realm of the
practical.  When the Temple is rebuilt, they will become operative again.

| <<< Note 56.95 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| So now you want people to point out EVERY sin you do?

	I'd like to see them be a bit more consistant if they feel they really
need to do it at all.

| Ever consider that you get the attention you do because you try to "prove" 
| that homosexual behavior is not sinful?  

	There isn't anything to prove Joe, as a book doesn't say anything about
it. But you knew that. But I suppose those people who want to remarry who are
told they can't are in the wrong? It applies to much more than just gay issues
Joe. Maybe someday you'll see that.

| >	Are we on the pick and choose method???

| You seem to be.

	How?

| <<< Note 56.96 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| >	You're right about one thing Joe, there is no proof...

| Please finish the sentence with, "...that I am willing to accept."

	But then Joe, it would not be the truth, but just more of your
assertions.

| >	This is funny Joe. Go read your Bible. It mentions a lot of things that
| >are abominations. But glad to see you're tying it all in with just one.

| Well I'm glad to see that you find it funny, because it is you
| who keeps saying ONE, whic is what I was commenting on.  Here,
| let me help you:

| .87>	Then what do you call it Joe? If no sin is greater than another, and
| >one is called out as an abomination

	Joe, what happened to this part of that note:


                                (one of many)


	which followed the above cut and paste entry of yours? Funny how that
got cut off from everything....

| <<< Note 56.97 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>


| The laws of ritual purity are only binding when there's a Temple because
| they only affect one's ability to enter the Temple and to handle the
| utensils of the Temple and its offerings.  Since the Romans destroyed
| the Temple 1924 years ago, these laws haven't been in the realm of the
| practical.  When the Temple is rebuilt, they will become operative again.


	I seem to recall that a Temple was made several times out of rocks. It
was the symbolism behind it, not the building. Could that be it maybe?

	 LONDON (Reuter) - Fourteen homosexual protesters stormed into
Sunday mass at Britain's main Roman Catholic cathedral and denounced
Vatican opposition to contraception as they released helium-filled condoms
that floated to the ceiling.  [They would have been arrested in the U.S.
under the Freedom of Access to Clinics and Churches Act.]

	 ``Condoms stop AIDS, condoms save lives,'' [a lie] they chanted as
a stunned congregation watched 55 inflated condoms and a huge banner
carried by balloons lodge themselves in the 123-foot-high central dome of
London's Westminster Cathedral.

	 Peter Tatchell of the homosexual pressure group OutRage told
Reuters that he preached an alternative sermon during a protest that
provoked giggles among younger churchgoers.

	 ``The Catholic ban on condoms discourages a safe, effective method
of HIV prevention. The church is condemning millions of people to becoming
infected,'' he told the congregation.

	 ``Catholic teaching kills.''  [No it doesn't.  Catholic teaching
	   forbids all sex except with one lifelong partner.]

	 The Vatican is opposed to contraception.  Condoms cut down the risk
that HIV, the virus which leads to the fatal Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome.  [This has been shown to be a false security due to failure rates.]

	 OutRage said the 55 condoms represented the number of people in
the world who would contract HIV during the 10-minute protest.  The condoms
were still in place, they said later.

	.98
    
>	I'd like to see them be a bit more consistant if they feel they really
>need to do it at all.
    
    	They only reason anyone points out a particular sin to you is 
    	that you, who try to claim some sort of christian practice, go
    	to great length to expouse practices that are generally considered
    	sinful by most other Christinans.  People are merely consistently
    	pointing out to you items related to the subject matter.  As I
    	already said, they wouldn't be consistent to quote you scripture
    	on stealing when you are going on about homosexual behavior.
    
>But I suppose those people who want to remarry who are
>told they can't are in the wrong? It applies to much more than just gay issues
>Joe. Maybe someday you'll see that.
    
    	Uh.  I don't understand what you're saying here.  People who want
    	to remarry *ARE* told that it is wrong under certain circumstances,
    	and if they go through with it anyway, they *ARE* in the wrong.
    	Like I've been saying, wrong is wrong.

	.99

>	Joe, what happened to this part of that note:
>
>                                (one of many)
>
>	which followed the above cut and paste entry of yours? Funny how that
>got cut off from everything....
    
    	Look, it was in .91 that I pointed out how you keep referring to 
    	it as ONE, and how you seem extra sensitive to that one being
    	singled out.  In that reply I gave you credit for noticing that
    	it really wasn't the only one, thus I questioned why you continued
    	to only refer to one sin being singled out:
    
.91>    	You have already stated that you understand it is not just ONE
.91>    	that is an abomination, so your insistence on addressing this
.91>    	point in this way merely reinforces my impression that your
.91>    	argument is nothing more than a reaction to your oversensitivity
    
    	In .94 you responded:
    
.94>	This is funny Joe. Go read your Bible. It mentions a lot of things that
.94>are abominations. But glad to see you're tying it all in with just one. 
    
    	This stupid bickering about "one sin" git derailed right there.
    
    	What I'm saying is that while you admit that there are many other
    	things that are also listed as abominations, your oversensitivity
    	to one particular sin makes you complain that that ONE gets singled 
    	out.  Many are listed.  You parenthetically admitted it in .87,
    	but after that one admission you went on to continue referring
    	to ONE sin.
    
    	You ask me what happened to your one parenthetical phrase when
    	I cut and pasted your reply.  I'm asking you what happened to
    	that phrase every other time you complained about ONE sin being
    	singled out.

	John.... I love the way you added your own comments to everything. You
certainly crack me up..... 

| <<< Note 56.102 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>




| They only reason anyone points out a particular sin to you is that you, who 
| try to claim some sort of christian practice, go to great length to expouse 
| practices that are generally considered sinful by most other Christinans.  

	Ya mean like obesity? Funny how they don't have groups out there with
signs telling these people they're going to hell or anything. But then I guess
a lot of them would be headed that way if they did. That's what I'm talking
about when it comes to consistancy. 

| People are merely consistently pointing out to you items related to the 
| subject matter.  

	And ignoring the perceived sins for others. It's really pretty clear
Joe.

| Uh.  I don't understand what you're saying here.  People who want
| to remarry *ARE* told that it is wrong under certain circumstances,
| and if they go through with it anyway, they *ARE* in the wrong.
| Like I've been saying, wrong is wrong.

	Not universally though, right?


Glen

| <<< Note 56.103 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| >	Joe, what happened to this part of that note:
| >
| >                                (one of many)
| >
| >	which followed the above cut and paste entry of yours? Funny how that
| >got cut off from everything....

| Look, it was in .91 that I pointed out how you keep referring to it as ONE, 

	But why in .91 even wonder when in an earlier note which you were 
referencing as your proof, it clearly stated otherwise. You're great at painting
pictures Joe, but you're not great at painting accurate ones.

| This stupid bickering about "one sin" git derailed right there.

	Joe, one thing you should do is go back and reread the notes. You will
find that you were the one who singled it out as homosexuality, not me. Go on
Joe.

| What I'm saying is that while you admit that there are many other things that 
| are also listed as abominations, your oversensitivity to one particular sin 
| makes you complain that that ONE gets singled out.  

	Actually Joe, again you're wrong. You have used this oversensitivity
crap all along, and it never washes. Joe, if no sin is greater than another,
and one gets singled out, then it makes some greater than others. There are
many that get singled out. I was not talking about any of them in particular,
just sins being singled out and not others. It's a contradiction thing Joe. If
you go back and read your notes, you'll see that you tied it in with
homosexuality.

| Many are listed.  You parenthetically admitted it in .87, but after that one 
| admission you went on to continue referring to ONE sin.

	Any one sin Joe. In your mind you have just one sin that I could ever
talk about. And that's where you seem to be wrong.

| You ask me what happened to your one parenthetical phrase when I cut and 
| pasted your reply.  

	Which you still haven't answered.

| I'm asking you what happened to that phrase every other time you complained 
| about ONE sin being singled out.

	It's explained above Joe. I can't help it if your mind is limited to
only thinking I could talk about homosexuality. But that's ok....


Glen

	.105
    
>	Ya mean like obesity? Funny how they don't have groups out there with
>signs telling these people they're going to hell or anything. 
    
    	I haven't heard of anyone trying to contort the Bible to justify
    	their obese-causing behavior.  However, if they did, you can be
    	sure that their claims would be countered, just as yours do.

>	And ignoring the perceived sins for others. It's really pretty clear
>Joe.
    
    	You're just being oversensitive.

>| People who want
>| to remarry *ARE* told that it is wrong under certain circumstances,
>
>	Not universally though, right?
    
    	So?  Is homosexual behavior universally condemned?  What are
    	you complaining about?

	.106
    
>	Joe, one thing you should do is go back and reread the notes. You will
>find that you were the one who singled it out as homosexuality, not me. Go on
>Joe.
    
    	You are too transparent to hide behind this.  In fact your
    	indignance is even transparent.

>	Actually Joe, again you're wrong. You have used this oversensitivity
>crap all along, 
    
    	'zat so?  I don't recall using it before .91.  What "all along"
    	are you thinking of?
    
>if no sin is greater than another,
>and one gets singled out, then it makes some greater than others.
    
    	I disagree.  And we've been through this before.  The 10
    	Commandments single out certain things too.  Do you have a
    	problem with them on this basis?
    
>	Any one sin Joe. In your mind you have just one sin that I could ever
>talk about. And that's where you seem to be wrong.
    
    	Hey, you (not I) have painted yourself that way.  Don't go trying
    	to pull feigned surprise on us here.  Don't go trying to tell us
    	that you'll rathole any topic with gay subject matter if you see
    	the opportunity, but here in the GAY ISSUES topic you are talking
    	about some random sin.  It just doesn't wash, no matter how much
    	you stomp your feet and pout.

| <<< Note 56.107 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| >	Ya mean like obesity? Funny how they don't have groups out there with
| >signs telling these people they're going to hell or anything.

| I haven't heard of anyone trying to contort the Bible to justify
| their obese-causing behavior.  However, if they did, you can be
| sure that their claims would be countered, just as yours do.

	Joe, if the groups only started when people made a rucus, you might
have a point. The views have been around since the days of old. The hatred of
SOME too. Why do you think it took so long for people to come out? Because they
thought they had some sickness. Funny how that was disproven. But it comes down
to this Joe, the views aren't something new.

| >| People who want
| >| to remarry *ARE* told that it is wrong under certain circumstances,
| >
| >	Not universally though, right?

| So?  Is homosexual behavior universally condemned?  What are you complaining 
| about?

	But then this opens the ole pandora's box, doesn't it Joe? Because
anyone who doesn't condemn the behavior is not seen as a Christian in your
eyes, am I right on that one? If so, then the inconsistancies of the many
denominations must really have you upset.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.108 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| >	Actually Joe, again you're wrong. You have used this oversensitivity
| >crap all along,

| 'zat so?  I don't recall using it before .91.  What "all along" are you 
| thinking of?

	Old version of the box, .64 in this one. 

| The 10 Commandments single out certain things too. Do you have a problem with 
| them on this basis?

	It does not say one is worse than another. There is your difference.

| Hey, you (not I) have painted yourself that way. Don't go trying to pull 
| feigned surprise on us here. Don't go trying to tell us that you'll rathole 
| any topic with gay subject matter if you see the opportunity, 

	Serious or kidding around stuff Joe. If the latter, have I got stuff
for you!

| but here in the GAY ISSUES topic you are talking about some random sin. It 
| just doesn't wash, no matter how much you stomp your feet and pout.

	Very funny Joe. Even I got a chuckle out of it. We were, at one point,
talking about contradictions of the Bible. We were talking about sin. Then you
jumped in.



Glen

	.109
    
>| I haven't heard of anyone trying to contort the Bible to justify
>| their obese-causing behavior.  However, if they did, you can be
>| sure that their claims would be countered, just as yours do.
>
>	Joe, if the groups only started when people made a rucus, you might
>have a point. The views have been around since the days of old. The hatred of
>SOME too. Why do you think it took so long for people to come out? 
    
    	What views?  Are you talking about homosexual behavior, or obesity
    	here?
    
    	FYI, obesity isn't a sin.  Gluttony is.  Self abuse is.  Behavior
    	that might cause injury to self is.  Obesity in itself is not.
    	Same thing with homosexuality.
    
    	And what ruckus are you talking about?  
    
    	I'm really confused about what you are trying to say here in
    	this paragraph.
    
| >	Not universally though, right?

>	But then this opens the ole pandora's box, doesn't it Joe? Because
>anyone who doesn't condemn the behavior is not seen as a Christian in your
>eyes, am I right on that one? If so, then the inconsistancies of the many
>denominations must really have you upset.

    	I wouldn't say they are not Christian, but they certainly not
    	holding true to Christian teaching.  And yes, the inconsistencies
    	are disconcerting.

	.110

>| The 10 Commandments single out certain things too. Do you have a problem with 
>| them on this basis?
>
>	It does not say one is worse than another. There is your difference.
    
    	Nor does saying that a particular list of sins are abominations
    	make any on that list worse than another.  As I already said,
    	I disagree with your claim that calling something an abomination
    	without saying the same about another makes one any worse than
    	another.  I still believe that your claim is based on
    	oversensitivity.  You are welcome to disagree with that.  OK?
    
>| but here in the GAY ISSUES topic you are talking about some random sin. It 
>| just doesn't wash, no matter how much you stomp your feet and pout.
>
>	Very funny Joe. Even I got a chuckle out of it. We were, at one point,
>talking about contradictions of the Bible. We were talking about sin. 

    	Pretty short attention span you got there, pal.  Why were you
    	trying to show contradictions?  Why were you talking about sin?
    	In particular, why were these things being discussed in the gay
    	issues topic if you weren't talking about them with respect to
    	gay issues?  For the purposes of having an interesting rathole?
    	I'd wager not.

| <<< Note 56.111 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>



| >	Joe, if the groups only started when people made a rucus, you might
| >have a point. The views have been around since the days of old. The hatred of
| >SOME too. Why do you think it took so long for people to come out?

| What views?  Are you talking about homosexual behavior, or obesity here?

	Views towards homosexuals.

| >	But then this opens the ole pandora's box, doesn't it Joe? Because
| >anyone who doesn't condemn the behavior is not seen as a Christian in your
| >eyes, am I right on that one? If so, then the inconsistancies of the many
| >denominations must really have you upset.

| I wouldn't say they are not Christian, but they certainly not holding true to 
| Christian teaching.  

	Isn't that more like, "not holding to the Christian teachings you have
been brought up with"? Otherwise, you would have to know everything about the
"true Christian teachings". Do you Joe?



Glen

| <<< Note 56.112 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| Nor does saying that a particular list of sins are abominations make any on 
| that list worse than another.  

	Joe, you have seen or heard about Rev. Phelps and company. Look at the
picture they paint of the homosexual. Look at the picture the average Christian
would paint. Which seems worse? The words used will highten the meaning behind
them. 

| Pretty short attention span you got there, pal. Why were you trying to show 
| contradictions?  Why were you talking about sin?

	Read further down me boy, and you'll have your answer.

| In particular, why were these things being discussed in the gay issues topic 
| if you weren't talking about them with respect to gay issues?  For the 
| purposes of having an interesting rathole? I'd wager not.

	It's a good thing you did not wager Joey. You'd only lose. The Bible
was brought into all this because in another note (64.108), Jack Martin made the
claim that I use the Bible to determine whether or not a person is a homophobe. 
I extracted that note and responded in THIS topic (.46) because it delt with 
homophobia. I explained my position, expressed my disapointment in him for
thinking this, as it was not true, and Jack then apologized. He was confused
as to who was thinking he was a homophobe based on the Bible. 

	In note .51 I asked Jack if he thought all sin was an abomination. In
.54 he responded. My reply to that, which was .57, went into the thing about no
sin being greater than another. It was also in THAT note, the words, "certain
sins" appears, not ONE in particular. And that was right at the beginning of 
the whole sin mess Joe. But from there you twisted it to mean ONE. Funny how
that worked.

	So it started in another topic, and through the process we started
talking about sin. Certain sins. So good thing you don't wager Joe. 



Glen

	.113
    
>	Isn't that more like, "not holding to the Christian teachings you have
>been brought up with"? Otherwise, you would have to know everything about the
>"true Christian teachings". Do you Joe?

    	It is inherent upon every person who wants to claim the mantle
    	of Christianity to seek out "true Christian teachings" rather
    	than just settle for what they WISH those teachings were.
    
--------
    
    	.114
    
>	Joe, you have seen or heard about Rev. Phelps and company. Look at the
>picture they paint of the homosexual. 
    
    	Anyone can call himself a christian.

>| In particular, why were these things being discussed in the gay issues topic 
>| if you weren't talking about them with respect to gay issues?  For the 
>| purposes of having an interesting rathole? I'd wager not.
>
>	It's a good thing you did not wager Joey. You'd only lose. The Bible
>was brought into all this because in another note (64.108) Jack Martin made the
>claim that I use the Bible to determine whether or not a person is a homophobe.
    
    	Looks like I win the bet.  Or is "homophobia" no longer a gay
    	issue?

| <<< Note 56.115 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>



| It is inherent upon every person who wants to claim the mantle of Christianity
| to seek out "true Christian teachings" rather than just settle for what they 
| WISH those teachings were.

	This is pretty funny Joe. I truly believe what I do, yet you would
probably put it under the, WISH list. Funny how that works.

| >| In particular, why were these things being discussed in the gay issues topic
| >| if you weren't talking about them with respect to gay issues?  For the
| >| purposes of having an interesting rathole? I'd wager not.
| >
| >	It's a good thing you did not wager Joey. You'd only lose. The Bible
| >was brought into all this because in another note (64.108) Jack Martin made the
| >claim that I use the Bible to determine whether or not a person is a homophobe.

| Looks like I win the bet.  Or is "homophobia" no longer a gay issue?

	Gee Joe, where is the rest of my note? The note explained how we got
onto sin. Jack's note on homophobia was the lead into how it got turned to the
Bible, and the rest of the note explained how it got turned to sin. But of
course you always do seem to cut off all parts that pertain to proving you
wrong.


Glen

	.116

>	This is pretty funny Joe. I truly believe what I do, yet you would
>probably put it under the, WISH list. Funny how that works.
    
    	Dahmer believed what he did too.  (No, I am not equating you to
    	him.)  And that Rev. Phelps guy believes what he does too.  What's
    	your point?  Once you believe something you no longer need to 
    	seek out the truth?  Or belief makes it truth?

>| Looks like I win the bet.  Or is "homophobia" no longer a gay issue?
>
>	Gee Joe, where is the rest of my note? The note explained how we got
>onto sin. 
    
    	The original basis was a homosexual issue.  We agree to that.
    	It's not my problem that you revel in ratholes.

| <<< Note 56.117 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>



| >| Looks like I win the bet.  Or is "homophobia" no longer a gay issue?
| >
| >	Gee Joe, where is the rest of my note? The note explained how we got
| >onto sin.

| The original basis was a homosexual issue.  We agree to that. It's not my 
| problem that you revel in ratholes.


	And it's funny how you never entered into the discussion with me until
I asked Jack about sin. This alone proves that the homophobia issue didn't play
into all this Joe. But you are fun. I mean, it's so easy to prove you wrong. I
do wonder why you allow it to happen so much. My GUESS, and it's only a guess,
is that you write before you put any thought into it. When you cut and paste
you stop reading where you find a line that works. What you fail to do though
is read on which shows you're wrong. But you do it so many times, with so many
people, it must be old hat to you. BUT, it's just a guess.


Glen

	.118

>This alone proves that the homophobia issue didn't play
>into all this Joe. 
    
    	I disagree.
    
>But you are fun. I mean, it's so easy to prove you wrong. 
    
    	Gee.  Maybe someday you'll do it then!
    
>My GUESS, and it's only a guess,
>is that you write before you put any thought into it. 
    
    	You know, I was going to put this in the P&K topic, but it would
    	have been wrong to do it.  I suspect you put plenty of thought
    	into your replies -- it's just that your thinking is faulty.

	Joe.... yer pathetic.... but quite humorous. Funny, I bet you don't
mean to be either....

    	Boy, if I were meowski I'd consider that a towel!
    
    	But at least you can laugh in the face of defeat...

    
    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuter) - In a surprising decision, a military board
    of inquiry recommended yesterday that a Navy lieutenant who has
    publicly declared she is a lesbian should remain in the service.
    The decision was handed down by a three-member Navy administrative
    board of inquiry that began meeting Tuesday at the Treasure Island
    naval base.  
    
    Lieutenant Zoe Dunning's attorneys said the ruling was the first in 
    favour of a homosexual soldier under Clinton's controversial compromise 
    policy, dubbed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
    

	Cool......

	I thought the policy was don't tell, she told everyone ????

	Doesn't this invite more folks to state their preference ??


	Doesn't matter to me either way, but I tought they wanted to
avoid the issue by not talking about it. That's the military for you.

	Had a most interesting chat with my son yesterday about
	the word "gay."

	He's heard it quite a bit as sort of an all-purpose
	insult from other kids, and it's been flying out of his
	mouth more frequently.

	I'd been waiting for my moment to stop and discuss that
	word and what it meant, and the time arrived.  Gave him
	a basic factual definition (which nearly knocked him
	off his feet)>  I also mentioned that I have several
	friends/acquaintances who are gay.  

	Now all we have to do is get thru the definition of
	"having sex!"  The meter's running on that one, too.

	joanne

	joanne, great news on the conversation!

	Yeah, Glen, except I'll be in deep poop with either my
	parents or in-laws when word gets back to them about our
	non-emotional, non-judgemental, here's-the-facts-mull-them-
	over-and-form-an-opinion type of talk. (Only 1/2 kidding.)

	I expect follow-up questions from Josh once he's rolled
	the idea thru his brain (he's 7), so that should also make
	for interesting talk.

        Had _that_ talk with Rob (step-son) a few years ago when he was
        15 and I  had  introduced  him  to a lesbian couple from UK who
        were staying with us  for a couple of days while house/business
        hunting in the area.
        
        "But they're so _nice_, Dad!?!"
        
        Great to watch the penny drop sometimes :*)
        

    When I told my son who was also 7 at the time what the "gay" insult
    meant [guess its common across the country], he looked at me with utter
    disbelief. Then my oldest whom I've never had such a conversation with
    and who knew everything already... confirmed it for me.
    
    Of course the typical morality questions flooded thereafter.  
    
    Afterwards, I reminded my oldest and informed my youngest that their
    cousin and his friend were gay.  
    
    It helps ... really helps to not only inform but to demonstrate and
    cast off fears regarding homosexuality.
    
    Nancy
    

	Nancy, you couldn't have said it any better! :-)

    "Thou shalt not lie with a man as one does with a woman.  It is an
    abomination."  Leviticus 18:22
    

    
    <-- great, now what am *I* supposed to do?!

    Mz. Debra:
    
    Too bad...you lose!! :-)
    
    The whole chapter is directed verse by verse to different audiences.
    Mothers can't sleep with sons, daughters can't sleep with fathers, men
    do not lie with animals, etc.  Verse 8 of the chapter to the end is
    directed to the men of Israel.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.131 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| "Thou shalt not lie with a man as one does with a woman.  It is an
| abomination."  Leviticus 18:22

	What's so hard about this Jack? If a man lies with another man as he
does with a woman, wouldn't it be out of lust that this is done? This says
nothing about men who lye with men, women who lye with women. 


Glen

  >>>    -< LUST Jack, LUST! >-
    
    Wrong Glen...Wrong.  The chapter doesn't focus on lust.  Lust is a
    given, considering the 10 commandments had already been ratified.  The
    whole chapter focuses on the protocol and guidelines of who one may
    devote themselves to in areas of sex and marriage.  
    
    Men cannot sleep with daughters.
    Sons cannot sleep with mothers.
    Sons cannot sleep with Step mothers.
    Men cannot lie with animals.
    Men cannot lie with men.
    
    Take point 1 for example.  If I as a father truly fall in love with my
    daughter and desire to marry her and make love to her, by your
    standards I should be permitted to do this.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.135 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Take point 1 for example. If I as a father truly fall in love with my daughter
| and desire to marry her and make love to her, by your standards I should be 
| permitted to do this.

	How did you get all that out of what I said. I was talking about what
the verse meant, not the whole chapter Jack. Get a grip man!


Glen

    re: .134
    
    DUCK!
    
    BOB!!
    
    WEAVE!!!
    
    SPIN!!!!
    
    You are the master, Glen.  No doubt.  Your semantical acrobatics are
    unequalled.
    
    -steve

    Glen:
    
    You get a grip.  You are taking one verse out of context to meet your
    needs.  Gods commandments in the whole chapter, including verse 18
    Focus on the protocol of onenesss and sex in its proper context.  
    
    The question I'm asking you is very pertinent.  If the verse stating a
    man cannot lie with his daughter is focusing on lust as you claim verse
    18 is, then is it permitted to lie with my daughter if it is truly not
    lust, but pure love?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.137 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>



| You are the master, Glen.  

	Actually, that was played by Roger Degardo (who died) and I believe
Christopher Ainley on the Doctor Who series. I am not the master. You will not
obey me!

| Your semantical acrobatics are unequalled.

	Maybe after you explain what you mean in the evolution topic, you'll 
explain this one too. 


Glen

| <<< Note 56.138 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| You get a grip. You are taking one verse out of context to meet your needs.  

	That's where you're wrong Jack. You saw my reply. Tell me how that
doesn't fit into the marriage/sex scheme of things? If someone lays with a
woman in a sexual manner, they would have to be married, correct? Well, back
then anyways. So of course it's going to be wrong for one who does this to then
be sleeping with a man. Remember, in those days a man was supposed to be
married to a woman in order to have sex. Married men are not supposed to be
sleeping around. 

| The question I'm asking you is very pertinent. If the verse stating a man 
| cannot lie with his daughter is focusing on lust as you claim verse 18 is, 

	Verse 18:22 was what I was claiming.

| then is it permitted to lie with my daughter if it is truly not lust, but 
| pure love?

	Jack, back in those days one would have to be married to the woman in
order to have sex. So go marry your daughter. 


Glen

 >>   Jack, back in those days one would have to be married to the woman in
 >>   order to have sex. So go marry your daughter.
    
    Therein lies the question.  Do YOU believe it is sin to do this?  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.141 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| >>   Jack, back in those days one would have to be married to the woman in
| >>   order to have sex. So go marry your daughter.

| Therein lies the question.  Do YOU believe it is sin to do this?

	Jack, what does this have to do with what we have been talking about? A
man can not lie with a man as he would with a woman. When can a man lie with a
woman? When they are married. If someone is married, are they to have extra
marital affairs? No.

	Now to answer your question, no I do not think it would be right to
have sex with your child.


Glen

 >>   Now to answer your question, no I do not think it would be
 >>   right to have sex with your child.
    
    Cleverly worded Glen...Glen, I'm going to haunt you on this.  The way
    you worded it sounded as if I asked if it was okay to exchange sex with
    a child who loves you.  
    
    Say I'm 45 years old and my daughter is 25 years old...and we mutually
    love each other.  Is it sin for me to marry her and have the same
    relations with her as anyone would have with their spouse?
    
    The reason I ask Glen is because the chapter forbids this...I don't see
    it as a lust issue.  The Israelites COULD NOT marry their parents if
    they were widowed.  I believe the initial verse about man lying with
    man is the same.  It is not reference to lust.  It is the act of the
    love relationship itself that is abomidable to God.  This is why I keep
    asking you what I do!!
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    it is more like a violation of genetics issue.  However, I haven't
    forgotten LOT.  did you say maybe it is ok if you do it to two
    daughters with excuse that you were drunk?

    re: .144
    
    I always thought the Bible portrayed Lot's daughters as being deceptive
    and cunning...it certainly didn't white-wash the incidents.

| <<< Note 56.143 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| Cleverly worded Glen...Glen, I'm going to haunt you on this.  

	Ohhhh God.....

| The reason I ask Glen is because the chapter forbids this...I don't see it as 
| a lust issue.  

	Errrr, Jack, I will admit that until you brought it to the level that 
you're dealing with adults, I thought it was father/child. That to me would = 
lust of the father, the child being too young to know better. Now, according to 
your religious beliefs, sex outside of marriage is pure lust, ain't it? Still
lust. 

| The Israelites COULD NOT marry their parents if they were widowed. I believe 
| the initial verse about man lying with man is the same.  

	That is your interpretation of the piece of Scripture Jack. That is not
mine. If a man lyes with a man as he would with a woman, he could not be
married to the woman. 

Glen

    What is your interpretation of..."The nakedness of thy father or the
    nakedness of thy mother, thou shalt not uncover; she is thy mother;
    thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." Lev 18:7
    
    My interpretation is that sex with parents is transgressing God's
    law... be it based on lust or love.  
    
    Incidently, sex can happen outside of marriage without lust.  Millions
    of individuals live together outside of marriage and don't always lust
    after each other.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.147 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| What is your interpretation of..."The nakedness of thy father or the
| nakedness of thy mother, thou shalt not uncover; she is thy mother;
| thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." Lev 18:7

	Jack, why would it say nakedness here, a few lines down say lie with?
Why 2 versions for the word sex?

| Incidently, sex can happen outside of marriage without lust.  

	I agree 100% Jack. But isn't it the teaching of the Bible that states
it's out of lust, and therefor your belief?

Glen

    	Jack, why are you wasting your time with this garbage?

    
    Conclusion?
    
    Zebras don't change their stripes....
    

| <<< Note 56.150 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>



| Zebras don't change their stripes....

	But thank God they change their underwear!

    Glen:
    
    The whole chapter is focused on the protocols of sexual relationships.
    Uncovering nakedness is the act of making love, consummating a
    relationship.   These instructions are in the context of NOT
    transgressing the law.
    
    Glen, if you believe Moses was a homophobe and put that in there
    himself, then that is your perogative...I would at least understand
    where you are coming from as I know you are an errantist.
    
    This is why I believe a strong character is needed to overcome the
    desire to sleep with one of the same gender.  I don't claim to have all
    the answers and I don't claim to have a pure heart.  But I do believe
    Leviticus 18:22 is addressing the act of lying with another man...lust
    or not!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.152 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| Glen, if you believe Moses was a homophobe and put that in there himself, 

	Jack, please, do me a favor? If I say so and so is a homophobe, then
talk about it. If I don't and you are curious, then ask. But we've been down
the Bible/homophobe crap earlier in this string, and it wasn't a fact then, and
to imply it now makes no sense to me.

| I would at least understand where you are coming from as I know you are an 
| errantist.

	We went down this route before Jack, you know where I stand already.

| This is why I believe a strong character is needed to overcome the desire to 
| sleep with one of the same gender. 

	That is your belief Jack. That's fine. It is not mine.

| But I do believe Leviticus 18:22 is addressing the act of lying with another 
| man...lust or not!

	It is.... but I don't think we see it under the same circustances. One
can't lie with a man as they would with a woman, unless the man was first
married to the woman. That would be adultry.

Glen

    	re .-1
    
    	Sounding mighty over-sensitive there...

    This all sounds shockingly familiar for some reason...

    AMA no longer backs gay `aversion therapy'

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American Medical Association, reversing a
    13-year-old policy, has stopped recommending efforts to turn unhappy
    gay men and lesbians into heterosexuals.

    In a report adopted by the AMA's governing House of Delegates earlier
    this  month, the association calls for a ``non-judgmental recognition
    of sexual orientation by  physicians.''

    ``All patients, regardless of their sexual orientation, have a right to
    respect  and concern for their lives and values,'' says the report,
    titled ``Health Care Needs of Gay  Men and Lesbians in the U.S.''

    ``However, gay men and lesbians face ostracism and discrimination from
    some  health professionals.''

    The policy paper, adopted at a meeting Dec. 6, replaces a 1981 paper
    titled  ``Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population.'' The 1981
    paper supported treatments aimed  at changing the sexual orientation of
    gays. The notion that gays could not be  turned into heterosexuals, it
    said, was a myth.

    ``There are some homosexuals who would like to and probably could
    change their sexual orientation,'' the old policy read. ``Because some
    homosexual groups  maintain, contrary to the bulk of scientific
    evidence, that preferential or exclusive  homosexuality can never be
    changed, these people may be discouraged from seeking adequate
    psychiatric consultation. What is more important is that this myth may
    also be  accepted by homosexuals.''

    In its new policy paper, the AMA notes that gays may have ``some unique
    mental  health concerns'' related to disapproving social attitudes
    regarding homosexuality.  However, it says, most of the emotional
    disturbance gays may feel about their orientation  ``is due more to a
    sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.''

    For this reason, it says, ``aversion therapy'' -- such as showing a gay
    man nude  pictures of men and then administering electric shocks or a
    substance to induce vomiting  -- ``is no longer recommended for gay men
    and lesbians.''

    ``Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable
    with their sexual orientation and understand the social responses to
    it,'' the new policy  says.

    Dr. M. Roy Schwarz, the AMA's vice president, said Wednesday that the
    report is  an attempt to educate physicians about the unique health
    care needs of the gays.

    Published 12/22/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.

	Another repub, another comment. Dick Armey was talking about Barney
Frank when he called him, "Barney Fag". And then he follows the repub theme by
screaming at the media for airing it. This is too funny. Was it something he
normally calls Barney when he's not around and it just happened to slip? Don't
really know, as he wouldn't say. Ya got one guy who told the prez he had better
have bodyguards when visiting his state, another one who calls Hillary a bitch,
and now this one calling Barney a fag. Who would have thought it would be this
easy for the repubs to say stupid things? Throw in a giraffe or two and it's a
pretty funny repub party we got here....

>	Another repub, another comment. Dick Armey was talking about Barney
>Frank when he called him, "Barney Fag". And then he follows the repub theme by

Oh please... when I first heard this, I thought "oh great! another one..."

but then when I actually HEARD the quote, I knew it was just a common 
speaking mistake we all have (i.e. can't get the words out of our mouths...)
Maybe some will say it was a fruedian slip, but that's about all you can
really comment about it... I remember hearing some Clinton slips in a speech
that made this sound like nothing at all. Something about where he meant to
say "tragedy" and said "stategy" instead! But the press... nope, not a word
on that one...

You guys will have to do better then this... it's a blantant lie to say 
he was calling him Barney Fag... he wasn't.

/scott

    
    
    Tell the rest of the story, Glen.  Armey said it was acidental and
    apologized for the comment.  Keep looking under your bed for the
    boogeyman. 

    Well, I hate to toe the party line here, but I find it amazing that
    Dick Armey would coincidently commit such a freudian slip.  I
    personally feel  that Dick Armey got caught with his pants down on this
    one.  As far as Newts bitch remark, he never denied saying it so I have
    no problem with him.
    
    But Glen, don't use this to try to persuade Soapbox land that the pubs
    are evil and the dims are lilly white...then I'll start laughing!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    
    I find it hard to believe that anyone would do that in public
    intentionally.  

| <<< Note 56.158 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>



| but then when I actually HEARD the quote, I knew it was just a common
| speaking mistake we all have (i.e. can't get the words out of our mouths...)

	Yeah, Frank and Fag sound so much alike. I think Barney said it best
when he talked of his mother. You see, no one has ever referred to her as Mrs.
Fag before. 

| Maybe some will say it was a fruedian slip, but that's about all you can
| really comment about it... 

	Gee, if you read my note you would have seen my position on it. 

| I remember hearing some Clinton slips in a speech that made this sound like 
| nothing at all. Something about where he meant to say "tragedy" and said 
| "stategy" instead! But the press... nope, not a word on that one...

	Maybe someone should have spoke up? Remember, Armey was in the middle
of an interview when it was said.... were they not supposed to air it? 

| You guys will have to do better then this... it's a blantant lie to say
| he was calling him Barney Fag... he wasn't.

	He did.... what would be a blatent lie is if anyone said they knew why
he did it. he hasn't said why, but he did say it. Or are people in the habit of
apologizing for nothing? 


Glen

| <<< Note 56.159 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>


| Tell the rest of the story, Glen. 

	Mike, considering I wuz talking about the many repub screw-ups when it
came to talking and then crying about it afterwards, why did I need at that
point to talk about him apologizing. Hell, Scott seems to think he didn't even
say it.

| Armey said it was acidental and apologized for the comment. Keep looking under
| your bed for the boogeyman.

	Already found him. It's Eye of Newt. :-)  

| <<< Note 56.160 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| But Glen, don't use this to try to persuade Soapbox land that the pubs are 
| evil 

	I'll let their words take care of that Jack... :-)

| and the dims are lilly white...then I'll start laughing!

	I'd start laughing too jack. I could only say the dems are lilly white
in a sarcastic voice.... :-)

| <<< Note 56.161 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>




| I find it hard to believe that anyone would do that in public intentionally.

	I agree. But it could be something he normally calls him. But Armey
wouldn't say as he was too busy crying that the media played it.


Glen

    The reason I am calling it like I see it is this.
    
    Down in Connecticut, I have an Aunt Arlene and Uncle Al.  Aunt Arlene 
    has always been great...a real sweet woman who is always cogniscent of
    Bdays, etc.  Uncle Al is a great guy and it's always a pleasure to have
    them when they come up!
    
    However, years ago for some reason, Al was a pain in the ass...no two
    ways about it.  He was the annoying relative who used to come over and
    visit...he'd whittle and was anti social...I think he got the hint
    somehow when he called somebodys kids retarded and the father had to
    be held back! :-)  Anyway, my father started referring to him as Aunt
    Al...no offense ladies, that's how my father used to be!  Anyway, for
    years we referred to him as Aunt Al.  Well, one day when Arlene and Al
    slept over my brothers house, his wife said, "How many eggs do you want 
    Aunt Alllll--een"?  Ooouu...thank God her name also started with an A.
    Frank and Fag start with an F, that is all.  I realize, like poor Aunt
    Al, Barney Frank was victimized behind his back...and Dick Armey put
    himself in a very embarrassing position.  So, what else can he do?  He
    certainly isn't going to admit it!  Hey, look at this as a good thing. 
    It will make us think twice before we habitually call our colleages and
    family members Aunt Al and Barney Fag!!!
    
    -Jack

    unbelievable.
    
    DougO

	that about sums it up, dougo.

    oh, well if armey apologized... ha, wake up will ya. i saw the
    clip. in my opinion, it wasn't a tied-tongue that the remark
    drolled off from. 
    
    personally, i can see someone making an intentional remark like that.
    particularly a conservative. of course he apologized. what else could
    he do... wait around until connie chung wrung it out of his mother?
    
    Chip

    Yes, Aunt Al was definitely unbelievable!

    
    
    I thought it was a tongue tied thing as well.  But the dems are busy
    grabbing at straws, grab away.  I didn't see it, but it was a bit
    garbled and wasn't FAG as plain as day.  As I said, grab away at them
    straws.
    
    
    Mike

    much ado about nothing.

| <<< Note 56.166 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| Frank and Fag start with an F, that is all.  I realize, like poor Aunt
| Al, Barney Frank was victimized behind his back...and Dick Armey put
| himself in a very embarrassing position.  So, what else can he do?  He
| certainly isn't going to admit it!  

	Well, why not? You make it sound like this is a good thing he won't
admit it. If it's how he feels, then say it. The cats already out of the bag.

| Hey, look at this as a good thing. It will make us think twice before we 
| habitually call our colleages and family members Aunt Al and Barney Fag!!!

	Yeah.... to their faces maybe....

| <<< Note 56.171 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>



| I thought it was a tongue tied thing as well.  But the dems are busy grabbing 
| at straws, grab away. I didn't see it, but it was a bit garbled and wasn't FAG
| as plain as day. As I said, grab away at them straws.


	Mike, why did he apologize then? I don't think anyone is grabbing at
straws, they are just talking about what was said.

    
    
    Did you hear the snippet, Glen?
    
    Why apologize?  If I do something causing someone harm by accident, I 
    apologize, don't you?
    
    
    
    Mike
    

    i'm not a dem, i saw the snipet and, finally, if this is a "dems
    grabbing at straws" thing then the repubs can assume the noble
    role of "lord hayseed" from time to time...
    
    pot&kettle doncha know...
    
    Chip

| <<< Note 56.175 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>



| Why apologize?  If I do something causing someone harm by accident, I
| apologize, don't you?


	But then he is also admitting he did something Mike. That was the point
I was making.

  I don't think it was intentional but I agree with the Aunt Al thing. I think
this was one of those cases where the good ol boys have some rather colorful
language they use when talking about Barney in the back room and it slipped
out. 

  The guy apologized and Barney accepted it, they both went on to make some
political points, that should put an end to it.

  George

    -1 until...?

>Hell, Scott seems to think he didn't even
>say it.

Well - I can't keep this back... Glen. You are wrong. I didn't say or 
imply that he didn't say what he did... Of course he did. What I said is
that he wasn't calling him that (barney fag), i.e., he wasn't CALLING him
names.

That's a big difference...

And anyways, he didn't say it on purpose... do you really think a republican
is so stupid to call him a name such as that? no... I don't believe...
And I suppose it really was "strategy" that Clinton meant, instead of 
"Tragedy" regarding the events in Somolia (I believe it was Somolia in
which his slip-of-the-tougne happened... Why no big news for that?? HMMM????)

/scott

    -1 Scott, get in the ballpark... the BC analogy is so far out it
       need life support...
    
       Chip

>    -1 Scott, get in the ballpark... the BC analogy is so far out it
>       need life support...

No it's not... 2 people had slips of the tounge... some might call 'em
freudian slips... I was amused by BC slip of the tounge... I knew it was
just that, a slip. The same goes for this one as well... 

It's just frigging words anyways... jeez...

/scott

| <<< Note 56.180 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| Well - I can't keep this back... Glen. You are wrong. I didn't say or imply 
| that he didn't say what he did... Of course he did. What I said is that he 
| wasn't calling him that (barney fag), i.e., he wasn't CALLING him names.

	My mistake, sorry. I thought you were saying he never said the word. As
far as calling him names or what not, we really don't know if that isn't
something he calls him normally or not. If it is, then yeah, he was calling him
names, and got caught. if you think about it, Barney stated that his mother has
had the name for a long time now and has never been referred to as Mrs. Fag.
Can we say we KNOW the reasons behind it? No, you can no more say that he
wasn't calling him names and I can no more say he doesn't. He hasn't stated it
so we don't know.

| And anyways, he didn't say it on purpose... do you really think a republican
| is so stupid to call him a name such as that? 

	I NEVER said he did it on purpose, just that he did it.



Glen

    
    Armey has been noted (on record) to make many such verbal blunders
    throughout his career...

    
    Armey really did stick his foot in his mouth, didn't he ?
    
    I've done this myself (though I had a strong drink first), and made an
    enemy for life (without intending to) out of a friend's wife.  For all
    my redfaced apolgies, you can never really make up it seems.
    
    Frank and Armey will both be there forever, barring term limits.  I
    hope they have thicker skins than most of us do.
    
      bb

    i hope frank's skin is thicker than armey's.  we don't need closet
    homophobes governing what's left of this country.

    
    <--------
    
    Harsh assumption for one slip of the tongue... no Dick?
    

>    i hope frank's skin is thicker than armey's.  we don't need closet
>    homophobes governing what's left of this country.

One term I can not stand is "homophobes"...

give me a break... that term is a joke, and means nothing in my book. I
do not even believe that it is a recognized phobia. Rather it is something
that was started by the gay community and when you repeat a lie often 
enough, people think it's true.

/scott

	Aagagagag.  Scott, it's an aversion to the lifestyle of gays
	or lesbians.  You don't think such an aversion exists???
	Surely you jest.

  If there are no people who hate gays, then how do you explain gay bashing?

  Group boxing?

  George

    .187
    
    a slip of the tongue like that betrays what's in the back of a person's
    mind, andy.

    .188
    
    > One term I can not stand is "homophobes"...
    > give me a break... that term is a joke, and means nothing in my book.
    
    so fine. ignore the realities of the world.  i can make you a deal on
    sand for playing ostrich.
    
    fact is that there are lots of straight men who actually do fear gay
    men.  they're afraid that every gay man is going to hit on them and
    they won't be able to get out without embarrassment.  they're afraid
    that gays are watching them in locker rooms and thinking ... thoughts.
    they're afraid that gays will corrupt their children into the gay
    "lifestyle."
    
    it's bunk, but then so was hitler's insistence that jews are inferior
    by nature.  people have a deep-seated need to divide things up into
    "us" and "them."

    Where does this leave us?!?
    
    Glenn/Deirdre/Pamela/Franny/Ned/Dierdre/Anton/Sean/Alice/Jimi/Pauline/Rex/
    Nathan/Melanie/Ursula/Hildegard/Nigel/Boutros Boutros
    
    

>                                -< homophobia >-
>
>
>	Aagagagag.  Scott, it's an aversion to the lifestyle of gays
>	or lesbians.  You don't think such an aversion exists???
>	Surely you jest.

I didn't say such an aversion didn't exist. I know it does. I know gay
bashing goes on... 

What I'm talking about is the WORD homophobia... It's bunk... it's not 
a real phobia, as you'd find in pshycology. It's simply a term invented
by the gay community to use as a label on ANYONE who doesn't agree that
being gay is fine, OK, whatever... If I saw I don't think it's right or
normal to be gay, then I'm automatically a homophobe, intollerant, etc.

Basically, for what the word is suppose to mean, it's not used properly
at all... 

/scott

>    > One term I can not stand is "homophobes"...
>    > give me a break... that term is a joke, and means nothing in my book.
>    
>    so fine. ignore the realities of the world.  i can make you a deal on
>    sand for playing ostrich.

You failed to understand what I meant... look at .-1

/scott

    Scott, i'm not entire sure what your phobic reacton to the word is
    all about, but...
    
    it's recognized as proper word (n), has a definition attached, and
    was probably labeled that by some clinician to describe the condition.
    
    if you can prove it isn't recognized by the psychiatric profession
    please do. otherwise, your statement is empty.
    
    smile...
    
    Chip
    

    
    Tis funny how many people in here can read Armey's mind and know what
    his true thoughts regarding homosexuals are.  As I said earlier, unless
    you know for a fact differently, accept his apology and move on. 
    Unless you have another agenda that is.
    
    
    

    .Tis funny how many people in here can read Armey's mind and know what
    .his true thoughts regarding homosexuals are.
    
     You aren't suggesting people actually question their own stereotypes
    are you?!!! Consider their own biases? Shirley, ewe geste.

    agenda? agenda? what's that? 
    
    my observation on what's really going on here is the "tit-for-tat"
    thing.
    
    Chip

    
    I don't think Armey said it on purpose.  I do think, however, that it's
    likely that he calls Barney Frank "Barney Fag" in private, and it
    accidentally slipped out.
    
    I did the same thing once with a sales rep named Tony Falotico - put a
    call from him on hold and announced to the entire office and warehouse 
    over the paging system that Tony Fellatio was on the line for the shipping
    department.  I didn't even realize I had done it until people down the
    hall started rushing into my office laughing.
    
    Hey, you get used to calling someone something; you're going to slip
    sooner or later 8^).
    

  Perhaps there is something to the argument that homophobia is not really a
phobia but rather a slang use of the word phobia to describe those who are
bigoted against gays.

  It's sort of like the label Klu Klux Klan. I have no idea what a Klu or a
Klux is but the KKK is not technically a clan in that the members are not like a
family that all know each other. 

  So Homophobs, KKK, they are all bigots reeking with hate but in the
technical sense they are probably not exhibiting a phobia or members of a
traditional clan. 

  George 

    
    I really think people are not paying attention to what Scott said. he
    is correct in that the word is bandied about without regards for its
    meaning. 
    
     Dick's description can certainly be classified as a phobia and in that
    sense a person like he described can be labeled a homophobe, but Armey
    cannot be pegged as such without getting inside his head. 
    
     I have no such fears as Dick described, but am revolted by the act....
    I have used the term 'fag' and 'queer' as a decriptive with no venom or
    hatred attached.... Does that make me a homophobe?
    

    
>>    I really think people are not paying attention to what Scott said.

	I think _you're_ not paying attention.
	What he said was that homophobia was a lie made up by the gay
	community.  To this, exception can surely be taken.  Yes, it's
	a word that is no doubt bandied about, like so many other words
	describing neuroses, irrational fears, etc., but that was _not_
	the thrust of his .188. 

    
    <-------
    
    See .194..... not .188
    

    
>>    See .194..... not .188

    See the fact that most of the reactions were to .188, not .194.
    Don't tell us we're not paying attention.
    

| <<< Note 56.185 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


| Frank and Armey will both be there forever, barring term limits.  I
| hope they have thicker skins than most of us do.

	Frank already has accepted his apology. I'm sure it will be in the back
of his mind for quite some time, but I'm sure Barney will move on.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.187 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>



| Harsh assumption for one slip of the tongue... no Dick?

	I don't know if he's missing his D... oh well, never mind....

    
    RE: .205
    
    Fine.... Think whatever you want... I'll make sure to qualify my
    replies with a "RE:" next time so there's no allusion to anyone's
    attention span...

| <<< Note 56.188 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>

| One term I can not stand is "homophobes"...

	I agree. It is such a sad word. But when it fits...... I will say that
it does tend to get thrown around a lot more than it should. A better
understanding of the situation at hand for both sides of the coin would clear
up a lot of things. I know a lot of people who have misconceptions about gays
are wrongly given this label. But I have known people who truly lived up to it.

| give me a break... that term is a joke, and means nothing in my book. 

	Ok, that must mean because you don't recognize it, that it isn't real.
Ok, thanks.

| I do not even believe that it is a recognized phobia. Rather it is something
| that was started by the gay community and when you repeat a lie often enough, 
| people think it's true.

	It's really funny how some will say lie this, lie that, but if you were
to turn it around back at them, they would cry. Oh well.... when you can prove
that it is a lie, then you'll be able to errrr... truthfully state the above.
Otherwise, you really can't, which makes it just yho.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.190 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

| If there are no people who hate gays, then how do you explain gay bashing?
| Group boxing?

	George, that was too funny! :-)  Maybe someone should tell them to wear
boxing gloves.....

| <<< Note 56.188 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>



| give me a break... that term is a joke, and means nothing in my book. I
| do not even believe that it is a recognized phobia. Rather it is something
| that was started by the gay community and when you repeat a lie often
| enough, people think it's true.

	I was going to put this in my last note, then decided not to. But the
more I read this, the more I see that reality just isn't in your realm on this
subject. Before I came out I fit the homophobic label in many ways. While I
wasn't into physically bashing anyone (which is only part of the whole picture
and may not apply to everyone), I would ridicule gays every chance I got.
Whether they were there or not. I did almost everything possible to distance
myself from "them". It was a pretty pathetic part of my life. I had societies
views of gays back then. They would all die of AIDS, they would rape little
kids, they were all effeminate, they are lesser human beings, etc. If this was
all there was to it, then all I would have would have been misconceptions. I
would not have worn the homophobic label. But I did fear gays, because I was
fighting who I really was, and because of that reason I took it out on them.
Now, not everyone who fears gays are really gay themselves, but that is ONE of
MANY reasons. Am I proud of what I did. No. I wish I never did the things I
did. But it has helped me grow into realizing phobias are real, and they just
don't deal with gays when it comes to people issues. So Scott, the word is VERY
real, it exists. I know, I lived it.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.194 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>



| What I'm talking about is the WORD homophobia... It's bunk... it's not a real 
| phobia, as you'd find in pshycology. It's simply a term invented by the gay 
| community to use as a label on ANYONE who doesn't agree that being gay is 
| fine, OK, whatever... 

	Scott, this is a true statement for a lot of gays. But it is something
that has been changing over the years. Gays are starting to look at the real
picture themselves, and are noticing that other people can believe the lifestyle
is wrong to them, as long as they treat gays as human beings, everything is
fine. 

| If I saw I don't think it's right or normal to be gay, then I'm automatically 
| a homophobe, intollerant, etc.

	That would depend more on your reasoning, how you handle gays because
of your reasoning. You could have misconceptions about gays, without ever
hating them. If these misconceptions were to be cleared up would that mean you
would all of a sudden thing the gay lifestyle is ok? Nope. Let's say you
thought that gays raped the majority of the children. You find out that it is
not true, but it doesn't change that you do not see the gay lifestyle as being
normal to you. So while it may clear up some stuff, in the end it's your own 
view to own as to whether you feel the gay lifestyle is normal. How you treat 
the individuals will determine if you would ever be a real homophobe.

| Basically, for what the word is suppose to mean, it's not used properly
| at all...

	I will agree that this happens a lot. But because the word is used
wrong, doesn't mean the word doesn't exist, doesn't mean the word isn't real.
Can you see this?


Glen

| <<< Note 56.197 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>


| Tis funny how many people in here can read Armey's mind and know what his true
| thoughts regarding homosexuals are.  

	Mike, I haven't heard anyone say they KNOW what Armey's thoughts are.
People have speculated, but no one has come out and said it is a fact. Is it
any different than you speculating about Clinton?


Glen

>	Scott, this is a true statement for a lot of gays. But it is something
>that has been changing over the years. Gays are starting to look at the real
>picture themselves, and are noticing that other people can believe the lifestyle
>is wrong to them, as long as they treat gays as human beings, everything is
>fine. 

If this is true, then it's a good sign...


>	That would depend more on your reasoning, how you handle gays because
>of your reasoning. You could have misconceptions about gays, without ever
>hating them. 

For myself, I have no misconceptions... I know several gay people. One very
close friend is gay. But that doesn't mean I accept it. However, for me I don't
think it's any worse then cheating on your spouse, or murder, or stealing,
or anything that is wrong... It's all sin to me, and all people sin. But
because I say it's wrong (and because my viewpoint is based on religion) I
have been labeled intollerant/homophobe/etc...

My experience with the term homophobe has been that it is used too much,
and because of this it has lost it's original meaning. It no longer holds
a valid definition. If the gay community is trying to lower the amount of
times it's used, it will help homophobe to regain it's original meaning which
I can see and understand... 

>	I will agree that this happens a lot. But because the word is used
>wrong, doesn't mean the word doesn't exist, doesn't mean the word isn't real.
>Can you see this?

I can see what you are saying, but for me, if a word is used wrong for
enough times, it's looses it's original meaning... Homophobe has come to
label anyone who doesn't agree it's OK to be gay. Originally it didn't mean
this, and from what you said it sounds like the gay community is trying to
tone down their use of this word. That is good. 

As for me using the word "lie" in previous notes, it wasn't so much regarding
to original meaning of the word homophobe, but rather it's current meaning
and use...

For an example of it's wrongfull use, look at .186

>    i hope frank's skin is thicker than armey's.  we don't need closet
>    homophobes governing what's left of this country.

The word is used as a label here... Just because Armey said "Barney Fag"
he's been labeled homophobe... a closet homophobe actually. This is all
homophobe means now, it's just acts as a derogatory label. This is wrong.
It's a lie. 

/Scott

>    See the fact that most of the reactions were to .188, not .194.
>    Don't tell us we're not paying attention.

You are not paying attention since you don't want to read my clarification
of .188 in note .194.    

/scott

    Anyone have more information about Helm's bill regarding homosexuality
    and school funding?
    
    

>>You are not paying attention since you don't want to read my clarification
>>of .188 in note .194.    

	And what makes you jump to that conclusion?  It's nonsense - I've
	read all the notes in the string.  Yes, you did clarify.  I was
	responding Krawiecki's assertion that people weren't paying attention.
	Nothing more.    

| <<< Note 56.214 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>

| For myself, I have no misconceptions... I know several gay people. One very
| close friend is gay. But that doesn't mean I accept it. However, for me I don't
| think it's any worse then cheating on your spouse, or murder, or stealing,
| or anything that is wrong... It's all sin to me, and all people sin. 

	A couple of years ago I would probably have been all over what you
wrote above. But the key is not to look at the words written, but to look at
what it meant. I do realize that anything that a Christian considers a sin is
no greater or less than any other thing they consider a sin. So for *me*,
anyway, I do realize that throwing it in with murder isn't putting it into a
worse catagory, but just one. Of course we are in disagreement that it is a sin
to begin with, but that's another story. :-)

| But because I say it's wrong (and because my viewpoint is based on religion) I
| have been labeled intollerant/homophobe/etc...

	That really is changing. Maybe not as quickly as it could, but I think
that might be because you see some very vocal people out there doing some
pretty sad things. People will associate it with all religion, instead of
taking it a case by case thing. I know several people who are very religious,
who do not think the lifestyle is right, but don't treat the individual any
differently than anyone else. It's people like these that people see more and
more of, and are realizing not just with gays, but with issues in life period,
not all Christians are like the vocal minority. 

| My experience with the term homophobe has been that it is used too much, and 
| because of this it has lost it's original meaning. It no longer holds a valid 
| definition. 

	Scott, this is puzzling.... you origionally stated that it was a word
invented by the gay community, and that if people hear a lie long enough, they
start to believe it. Now you say it lost it's origional meaning. Which is it
Scott?

| If the gay community is trying to lower the amount of times it's used, 

	Lowering the amount of times it's used isn't a goal anyone is trying to
acheive. Using it correctly is.

| As for me using the word "lie" in previous notes, it wasn't so much regarding
| to original meaning of the word homophobe, but rather it's current meaning
| and use...

	Yer behind the times Scott.... :-)  

| The word is used as a label here... Just because Armey said "Barney Fag" he's 
| been labeled homophobe... a closet homophobe actually. This is all homophobe 
| means now, it's just acts as a derogatory label. This is wrong. It's a lie.

	Scott, Armey COULD be a homophobe. He MAY not be a homophobe. Based
just on his comment, no one can say it is a true or false statement. People
will speculate, but it doesn't mean it = reality. The only thing that can
really tell us about Dick Armey's position on all this is his own mind. Of
course people could know of past expieriences with him and gays. I haven't
heard any, so I don't know. But until we know what's in his mind, all anyone
could do for being or not being a homophobe, is speculate.



Glen

    just for the record Scott, i don't know you. and even though i don't,
    from your writings i don't think you're homophobic.
    
    i do agree with your position that you can be opposed to something
    without being phobic about.
    
    Chip

>| My experience with the term homophobe has been that it is used too much, and 
>| because of this it has lost it's original meaning. It no longer holds a valid 
>| definition. 
>
>	Scott, this is puzzling.... you origionally stated that it was a word
>invented by the gay community, and that if people hear a lie long enough, they
>start to believe it. Now you say it lost it's origional meaning. Which is it
>Scott?

I believe (MHO) that the gay community did define that term, to mean a fear or
hate towards gays. I don't think we'll find it in any psych books under a list
of known phobias... but that might change with pressure from the gay community
just as that pressure changed the psych outlook on homosexuality itself (i.e.,
originally it was views as abnormal... later, they changed their minds due
to pressure from the gay community)

Anyways... the ORIGINAL definition I can agree with. However, people began to
use it too much, and it simply took the definition of a derogatory insult
or label to put on people who didn't agree with the gay lifestyle, thus
changing the defintion of it... this is where the lie comes in... 

So the lie is that anyone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle is
homophobic... it was said enough in the past years that many people began
to believe that was true... thus my statement about repeating lies often
enough, etc.

Understand better know? Or did I confuse you more?  ;-)

BTW, I knew someone might ring some bells putting homosexuality with murder
in the same sentence... but I figured I was safe since I also included 
adultery and stealing as well.

/scott

    Is it true that Sen helms wants to cut all federal funding to school
    districts that teach tolerance around homosexuality?  Seems Frank read
    this in the paper I haven't had time to go through.
    
    meg

| <<< Note 56.220 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| I believe (MHO) that the gay community did define that term, to mean a fear or
| hate towards gays. I don't think we'll find it in any psych books under a list
| of known phobias... 

	Anybody got any p-siked books?

| but that might change with pressure from the gay community just as that 
| pressure changed the psych outlook on homosexuality itself (i.e., originally 
| it was views as abnormal... later, they changed their minds due to pressure 
| from the gay community)

	Ahhhh.... and you can honestly say you have no misconceptions about
gays? I think you have just killed that thought. I suppose it would be
impossible that those who saw that homosexuality is not abnormal (who once
thought it was) couldn't actually believe that, right? 

| Anyways... the ORIGINAL definition I can agree with. However, people began to
| use it too much, and it simply took the definition of a derogatory insult or 
| label to put on people who didn't agree with the gay lifestyle, thus changing 
| the defintion of it... this is where the lie comes in...

	So it is only a lie if it is wrongly used, correct? I can live with
that, as it is the truth. 

| So the lie is that anyone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle is homophobic..
| it was said enough in the past years that many people began to believe that 
| was true... thus my statement about repeating lies often enough, etc.

	Ahhhh.... at least you've cleared that part of it up. Thanks. You had
made it seem that if the word is ever used, that it was wrong to do so. Could
you do me a favor for the future? If you hear the word homophobic mentioned,
instead of jumping down the persons throat about it, talk to them and see where
they are coming from. I think in order for us to understand, we need to know
that you will ask/listen/talk also. Does this make sense?

| Understand better know? Or did I confuse you more?  ;-)

	You cleared things up, but threw a new twist into things. 

| BTW, I knew someone might ring some bells putting homosexuality with murder
| in the same sentence... but I figured I was safe since I also included 
| adultery and stealing as well.

	Any of the above could set someone off. 



Glen

>    Is it true that Sen helms wants to cut all federal funding to school
>    districts that teach tolerance around homosexuality?  Seems Frank read
>    this in the paper I haven't had time to go through.

Haven't heard about this one... was it in today's paper? Hm... if the word
tolerance is being used as I think it is (i.e. saying it's OK to be gay)
then I'd have to be on the side of Helms for this.

/scott

| <<< Note 56.223 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| Haven't heard about this one... was it in today's paper? Hm... if the word
| tolerance is being used as I think it is (i.e. saying it's OK to be gay)
| then I'd have to be on the side of Helms for this.

	Define OK for me Scott. 


Glen

>| but that might change with pressure from the gay community just as that 
>| pressure changed the psych outlook on homosexuality itself (i.e., originally 
>| it was views as abnormal... later, they changed their minds due to pressure 
>| from the gay community)
>
>	Ahhhh.... and you can honestly say you have no misconceptions about
>gays? I think you have just killed that thought. I suppose it would be
>impossible that those who saw that homosexuality is not abnormal (who once
>thought it was) couldn't actually believe that, right? 

Hmm? What is the misconception... All I said is that there was pressure from
the gay community to change the view of homosexuality in pshycology...
Eventually it did change due to that pressure... That doesn't imply anything
about if those who changed there minds believe or don't believe it's abnormal.
Simply that pressure from the gay community helped to change their outlook.
I don't understand your point. 

>	Any of the above could set someone off. 

I suppose so, if they have a weak understanding of sin and how Christians
view it...

/Scott

    
      You mean, somebody actually READ those books you had to buy at
    the beginning of the term in psych ?  I'm impressed !
    
      bb

>	Define OK for me Scott. 

OK = OK.

;-)

But seriously... If by tolerance, they mean to teach kids that it is 
not wrong to be gay, then I'd be against teaching that to kids. So I
guess OK would mean "not wrong" a.k.a. "right" a.k.a. "moral" a.k.a.
"ethical"... If they want to teach kids that type of moral or ethical
code, then I'd have to be against it. 

To me, we might as well teach tolerance of stealing, as well. Or 
tolerance of mur... (Uh... I won't say it, I don't wanna set you off,
Glen...)

However, if by tolerance they mean to teach kids that gay people are 
people too, and while you might regard what they do as wrong/sin/whatever,
they still are human and should be treated as such, then I'd be for that.


/scott

| <<< Note 56.225 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>

| >| but that might change with pressure from the gay community just as that
| >| pressure changed the psych outlook on homosexuality itself (i.e., originally
| >| it was views as abnormal... later, they changed their minds due to pressure
| >| from the gay community)
| >
| >	Ahhhh.... and you can honestly say you have no misconceptions about
| >gays? I think you have just killed that thought. I suppose it would be
| >impossible that those who saw that homosexuality is not abnormal (who once
| >thought it was) couldn't actually believe that, right?

| Hmm? What is the misconception... All I said is that there was pressure from
| the gay community to change the view of homosexuality in pshycology...

	If you had worded it like this, then I would think that the pressure
came from the gay community to relook their position. But you attributed their
minds changing due to the pressure of the gay community, not that they felt any
differently about it being abnormal. Would you agree that because of the gays
wanting them to re-examine their views that they believe that it is not
abnormal? OR, do you think the gays just pressured them into saying this, but
they really didn't mean it? I'd like for you to clarify please.

| >	Any of the above could set someone off.

| I suppose so, if they have a weak understanding of sin and how Christians
| view it...

	Or they listen to the vocal "God Hates Fags" minority Christian
community.


Glen

>Would you agree that because of the gays
>wanting them to re-examine their views that they believe that it is not
>abnormal? OR, do you think the gays just pressured them into saying this, but
>they really didn't mean it? I'd like for you to clarify please.

Well... I wasn't addressing that aspect at all, but since you ask... I'd
have to say there was a combination of both... Some might have felt forced
into changing the classification of homosexuality. Some might have 
actually changed their view on it. 

/scott

| <<< Note 56.227 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>



| But seriously... If by tolerance, they mean to teach kids that it is not wrong
| to be gay, then I'd be against teaching that to kids. 

	So it would be a perceived moral dilema to teach this, right? I would
be against teaching it was wrong based on this. Moral this or that is still all
relative at best. There is only one absolute for Christians. That's God.
Anything else is not even close to perfection for Christians. Now throw in the
fact that many people are NOT Christian in the schools to begin with, and you
end up with a school of many people, of many non/beliefs, etc. Anything related
to ones religion should be taught in one place only, a church. 

| However, if by tolerance they mean to teach kids that gay people are people 
| too, and while you might regard what they do as wrong/sin/whatever, they still
| are human and should be treated as such, then I'd be for that.

	This I could live with if they also throw in that people may or may not
think what they do is wrong/sin/whatever. Your version above gives the flavor
hinting towards it being wrong, while I believe the version I mentioned gives
more of a nuetral flavor.



Glen

    Do the people who say "I don't want homosexuality taught as an
    alternative life style" think that it will cause anyone who is
    not a homosexual to become one? Do they also think that by not
    teaching this that someone who is otherwise inclined will decide
    to become a heterosexual?
    
    Frankly, I don't think Christians have a very realistic outlook
    on this. God makes homosexuals. One assumes God has a reason. The
    "this is a test" explanation is simply inadequate in that it
    no more explains why God would make someone homosexual than
    it explains why God makes baby with genetic disorders (not that
    I'm suggesting that homosexuality is a disorder, I'm suggesting
    it just _is_).
    
    The entire church is thrown into disarray over some comments
    in Levitical law. Well, if we're going to be this serious about
    Levitical law, then we should stop playing football as touching
    pig skin is going to get us into deep doo doo with the Big Guy.
    
    -b

>	So it would be a perceived moral dilema to teach this, right? I would
>be against teaching it was wrong based on this. Moral this or that is still all

Ok... but I wasn't saying to teach it was wrong... I'd be against that as well.

I've been thinking this over... and changed my mind...
Overall, I have to say I'm against it no matter what they want to teach.
The school is not the place to teach any set of moral or ethical rules...
While the school will need to have a set of moral codes for behavior,
and setting limits on what the students can do, I don't believe they should
be teaching anything except what the schools rules for conduct will be.
That should only take 1 hour at most on the first day of school.

So, I guess I'm with Helms on this, no matter what they mean by "tolerance".

/scott

>    Frankly, I don't think Christians have a very realistic outlook
>    on this. God makes homosexuals. One assumes God has a reason. The

Frankly, I don't think you have a very realistic outlook on this.
What makes you think God "makes" homosexuals? Do you know for sure
it's something you're born with? There has been no proof for that
idea, just as there is no proof that it's a choice... 

(well actually, I have meet people who've DECIDED to be gay, for 1
reason or another... that's what they said, not me...)

/scott

    I have brought this up on a few occasions and it still holds water.
    
    Regardless of whether or not somebody is victimized, God created us...
    some with predispositions and some without.  I believe there are people
    in this world who are predisposed to attraction to five year old girls
    for example.  Whether the five year old is victimized or not, the fact
    still remains that it is NOT normal, and has to be dealt with
    personally.
    
    Some predispositions are unfair, and are a thorn to a persons
    side...sometimes for life.  How we deal with our predisposition is what
    is moral or immoral.
    
    -Jack

    There have been studies to recommend that Homosexuals are missing
    certain gene`s from their brains.

| <<< Note 56.232 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| I've been thinking this over... and changed my mind... Overall, I have to say 
| I'm against it no matter what they want to teach. The school is not the place 
| to teach any set of moral or ethical rules...

	They do talk about ethics all the time in school Scott. Should we stop
all classes that teach this? I think it is vitally important that ANY group of
people that are looked down upon for no good reason should be talked about in
school. Passing judgement is for God only in the Christian belief system, so I
don't understand why it should be wrong to talk about not passing judgement on
these groups. By not talking, misconceptions are kept well in place. I, myself,
would much rather see these things eliminated, not kept in place. 

| So, I guess I'm with Helms on this, no matter what they mean by "tolerance".

	I'm sorry you feel that way.

    >Frankly, I don't think you have a very realistic outlook on this.
    >What makes you think God "makes" homosexuals? Do you know for sure
    >it's something you're born with? There has been no proof for that
    >idea, just as there is no proof that it's a choice... 

    It's probably unprovable, but there is evidence to suggest
    alterations in brain chemistry.
    
    >(well actually, I have meet people who've DECIDED to be gay, for 1
    >reason or another... that's what they said, not me...)

    Anecdotal evidence. Well, that proves it...     I guess I'll
    just have to introduce my own evidence: my college roommate was
    gay, two of my best friends at work are gay, my closest cousin
    is gay, one former line of work I had was a dancer, and I was
    about the only male dancer they knew who was _not_ gay, a
    former girlfriend is a lesbian (this can mess with your head
    a bit), etc. Not one, not _one_ of these people has ever indicated
    that they "decided" to be gay. Not one. They all tell of painful
    experiences of dealing with their homosexuality and all said
    that if they had a choice, they would be heterosexual. They
    wouldn't have to face all the crap they get...
    
    Look, I don't like having gay sexuality waved in my face any
    more than I like seeing heterosexual people make a spectacle
    in public, but I refuse to let the private matters of other
    adult human beings occupy any cranial CPU cycles.
    
    
    All I know is:
    
    1. My life has been enriched by many gay people, both those that
       I've known and those that have contributed to the world of
       art that I so enjoy (Freddie Mercury, Walt Whitman, etc.)
    
    2. I'm as rotten a sinner as there is and I have a whole lot
       of housecleaning to do before I start worrying about who's
       shagging who.
    
    -b

| <<< Note 56.233 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>

| >Frankly, I don't think Christians have a very realistic outlook
| >on this. God makes homosexuals. One assumes God has a reason. The

| Frankly, I don't think you have a very realistic outlook on this. What makes 
| you think God "makes" homosexuals? Do you know for sure it's something you're 
| born with? There has been no proof for that idea, just as there is no proof 
| that it's a choice...

	Are you then saying Scott that you chose to be straight at some point
in your life? Yes or no will do.

	I for one tried that route. That was one of 2 choices I made. 
Realization set in and the 2nd choice I made was to deal with reality, not his
fantasy I was living in. Brian made a very good point that if someone was not a
homosexual, they aren't going to be converted because now that person is seen
as just that, a person. It goes much deeper than that. In fact, his 1st
paragraph was one of the best I've seen in a long time on this subject. It
states the obvious. Why should you care if people are told that gays are ok?
They are, aren't they? Do you believe that people will change one way or the
other through people talking about accepting gays as humans and not a lesser
form of life? I for one would liked to of had that in school to get the
realizations to me, so those things I did in school and later in life towards
gays might not have happened.

| (well actually, I have meet people who've DECIDED to be gay, for 1 reason or 
| another... that's what they said, not me...)

	Could you share some of those reasons Scott?
    

Glen

| <<< Note 56.234 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Some predispositions are unfair, and are a thorn to a persons side...sometimes
| for life. How we deal with our predisposition is what is moral or immoral.

	You mean like judging......

| <<< Note 56.235 by MAIL2::CRANE >>>


| There have been studies to recommend that Homosexuals are missing certain 
| gene`s from their brains.

	If a person is wearing their jeans on their head, they may be see as
queer, but not gay! :-)

    
    Note 56.235

    >There have been studies to recommend that Homosexuals are missing
    >certain gene`s from their brains.
    
    Could you be mistaken on this, or would you like to rephrase it?
    

>	They do talk about ethics all the time in school Scott. Should we stop

What ethics do they talk about? I said that the only moral set of rules I can
see the school dealing with is it's code of behavior for students in school.

learning math doesn't need ethics.
learning science doesn't need ehtics.
learning history doesn't need ethics.
learning english doesn't need ehtics.
learning a 2nd language doesn't need ethics.

What I mean by teaching ethics is having a class in it... It's one thing
for a class on ETHICS (as in a philosphy class...) but it's different 
when a class is meant only for teaching 1 set or moral codes.


/scott

| <<< Note 56.237 by MPGS::MARKEY "Llamas are larger than frogs" >>>



| 2. I'm as rotten a sinner as there is and I have a whole lot of housecleaning 
| to do before I start worrying about who's shagging who.

	Gives a whole new meaning to that movie, "The Shaggy DA" :-)

	Scott, since when is psycology have anything to do with teaching moral
codes? 


Glen

>| (well actually, I have meet people who've DECIDED to be gay, for 1 reason or 
>| another... that's what they said, not me...)
>
>	Could you share some of those reasons Scott?

No... they are very personal and while the persons would not be know,
I'd rather not get into the reasons...

BTW, I've seen studies which might suggest DNA or chemical factors in
being gay, but I've also seen studies which counter those findings...
So far, nothing has been proven either way...

/scott

>	Scott, since when is psycology have anything to do with teaching moral
>codes? 

huh?  Where did you get this question from? 

/scott

	The last paragraph of .242

    Glen:
    
    Judging...discrimination...every single person in life does this...yes,
    you too Glen.  You decide day by day who is a bigot, who is self
    righteous, etc.  And you make these determinations by standards you
    hold to or standards you learn.
    
    If your remark about judging was directed at me, then I like yourself
    make judgements in life based on the standards I live by.  For example,
    I consider scripture inerrant and you make God in your own image.  This
    is the nature of our different ways of drawing conclusions.  If you
    hold my perceptions of gay living as judging then I wear your scorn
    with honor.
    
    -Jack

>	The last paragraph of .242

Oh... OK. Glen, you didn't read close enough. I said "philosphy" not
"pshycology".

/scott

    .241
    I don`t know if I would want to rephrase this comment. I have seen it
    on something like 48 hours or 60 minutes.
    
    Don`t shot the messinger.

| <<< Note 56.248 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Judging...discrimination...every single person in life does this...yes, you 
| too Glen.  

	Agreed, but it doesn't mean it is right. ONLY God is capable of
knowing.

| You decide day by day who is a bigot, who is self righteous, etc. 

	By the etc, does that include people with mile wide butts???? :-)
Sorry, forgot that the butt thing is based on fact. :-)

| If your remark about judging was directed at me, then I like yourself make 
| judgements in life based on the standards I live by.  

	And it does not mean you are correct on any of them. Look at the
judgements you made in the abortion topic (which I hope you addressed) that
were flat out wrong. That alone should show you that humans will make mistakes
when it comes to judging people, and it helps prove that we should leave it to
God to decide.

| For example, I consider scripture inerrant and you make God in your own image.

	Jack, the 1st part is fact. The 2nd part is a bad judgement call by
you. Thanks for helpin me out.

| If you hold my perceptions of gay living as judging then I wear your scorn
| with honor.

	Jack, did you know that being prideful is a sin.....


Glen

    
    .250:
    
    Maybe you had in mind something more along the lines of 56.11?  It
    seems unlikely that a person's *brain* would be missing genes that 
    other parts of his or her body are not.
    

I'm here to do away with any rumors that Gene's brain is missing.

	Wouldn't he need one to begin with?

    > All I said is that there was pressure from the gay community to change
    > the view of homosexuality in pshycology... Eventually it did change due
    > to that pressure.
    
    Of course, it helped that these are trained professionals, and that
    their professional experience eventually lead them to reverse their
    previous opinions.  Or are you saying that these professionals have
    abdicated their responsibility simply due to 'pressure'?  I think you
    have no appreciation for the integrity of that profession, or at the
    least, no understanding of what it means when they offer their
    professional judgement on such a societally contentious issue.
    
    For more information on their approach, see .156 in this topic.
    
    DougO

    
    Oh, please.  More "experts".  The opinions in .156 are fine to express,
    and represent a view of life that has support in a good-sized segment
    of our society.  But just like the "expert" (and opposite) opinions
    prior to that, they get no special exemptions here or anywhere.
    
    Neither do the opinions of the CBO, or the Pope, or "scientists" or
    "historians" or any other group of so-called "experts".  Appeals to
    some yellowing sheepskins on a wall may appeal to you, but they mean
    precious little to most people, because our experience is that we
    have been lied to by experts more systematically about more things than
    any culture ever.
    
    Don't bother me with credentials.  I've seen them lead to just about
    every gross miscalculation you can imagine.
    
      bb

	bb, experts and miscalculations? Never! :-)

    oh, yeah, its fine when the 'experts' tell you that 'gays can be
    cured', the bigots have been using that one to justify bashing for
    years, but now that the AMA has reversed itself, suddenly you don't
    want to listen to experts anymore.
    
    How conveeeenient for you.
    
    DougO

 >>       I think you
 >>       have no appreciation for the integrity of that profession, or at  the
 >>       least, no understanding of what it means when they offer their
 >>       professional judgement on such a societally contentious issue.
    
    It would be a hasty generalization to say all psycholoogists cannot be
    trusted.  I know some very good ones myself.
    
    I call psychologists the priests of secular humanism...always trying to
    control the problem but never curing it!  
    
    -Jack

	Doug does have a point that people were backing the expert theories
when they were saying being gay is abnormal, but seem to now say that experts
aren't really that anymore. And yes, he also made a good point that people have
used info like that to justify their actions towards gays in general. I know I
did. So while maybe the realization that experts aren't really what they claim
is true, but if anyone believes that, it's gotta be held across the board that
they aren't and not just that way when one disagrees with their findings.
(provided the findings are based on fact)


Glen

>So while maybe the realization that experts aren't really what they claim
>is true, but if anyone believes that, it's gotta be held across the board that
>they aren't and not just that way when one disagrees with their findings.
>(provided the findings are based on fact)

Well - the only expert I listen to has never changed His mind about what is
wrong or right, so I don't worry about what these human "experts" claim to
know or not know.

/scott

    	re .256
    
    	Does psychology claim that mere disapproval of homosexual 
    	behavior is "homophobia"?  I'd guess not.  But it is that very 
    	use of the term (and similar bastardizations) that Scott and 
    	others are arguing against.

    
>>    	Does psychology claim that mere disapproval of homosexual 
>>    	behavior is "homophobia"?  I'd guess not.  But it is that very 

	The dictionary claims it.  I'm wondering what psychology
	claims too.

    	Please post the dictionary's definition.  Thanks.

>>    	Please post the dictionary's definition.  Thanks.

	Again, it's the AHCD, third edition ('93).

	homophobia n. 1. Aversion to gay or lesbian people or their
		      lifestyle or culture.  2. Behavior or an act
		      based on homophobia.

    	Even the dictionary is turning politically correct...  :^(
    
    	Of course, that's the same edition that dropped pre-plan, right?
    
    	It must be like one of those cars that was made on a monday...

    It does sound to me that the definition is wrong. I thought a phobia
    was a fear and not an aversion.

    I have an aversion to giant mounds of pig feces, but I do not fear
    them..... Anymore.

| <<< Note 56.262 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| Well - the only expert I listen to has never changed His mind about what is
| wrong or right, so I don't worry about what these human "experts" claim to
| know or not know.

	Scott, you can listen to Him all you want. It comes down to how you
interprete what He says/shows you that's key. I mean, look at all the
denominations there are out there with so many differences. Apparently we
humans aren't interpreting correctly....

| <<< Note 56.263 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| Does psychology claim that mere disapproval of homosexual
| behavior is "homophobia"?  I'd guess not.  But it is that very
| use of the term (and similar bastardizations) that Scott and
| others are arguing against.

	Joe, the word has been delt with already. Go back and read. If ya got
something new to add, cool. Otherwise, there ain't no reason to talk to you.

I'd guess that the term "homophobia" was coined by homosexual activists,
and therefore is open to the suspicion that the use of "-phobia" for "aversion"
is agenda-based.  Does anybody have a cite?

| <<< Note 56.268 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "hapless-random-thought-patterns" >>>


| I have an aversion to giant mounds of pig feces, but I do not fear
| them..... Anymore.

	But maybe one of your other personalities do?

    .268
    
    > It does sound to me that the definition is wrong.
    
    WAKE UP AND SMELL THE TOAST, PEOPLE!!!  dictionaries do not PRESCRIBE
    the right way to use words.  they DESCRIBE how people have been using
    words.  the definition isn't wrong.  it reflects the way the word has
    been used over the past few years, not how editors think it should be
    used.

    I agree with you Dick.  So it just goes to show you that the dictionary
    has adequately depicted how idiotic the term really is!
    
    -Jack

    .274
    
    no, jack, the dictionary hasn't depicted the term's putative idiocy. 
    that idiocy is the cast that YOU are placing on the word.

    Well, it sounds to me like a certain element of society is misusing the
    word, and the dictionary is only reflecting how the word is being
    misused!

| <<< Note 56.276 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| Well, it sounds to me like a certain element of society is misusing the word, 
| and the dictionary is only reflecting how the word is being misused!


	Then stop misusing the word Jackal.... and go to topic 20!

    Hahhh!!!  Yes Glen...convenient to use the word for your agenda...but
    inappropriate to use it for mine!!!

    re: .269 
    
    Broken record...
    
    [I know I will regret jumping into this discussion...]

    re: .273
    
    I agree.  It is a very accurate description as to HOW the word has been
    used over the past few years.  By looking at the suffix "phobia", we
    can see that technically, it has been used incorrectly in most cases.
    
    -phobia (suff) An intense, illogical, or abnormal fear of a specified
                   thing.
    
    
    -steve

    re. .280 This is what I was driving at. The word "aversion" does not appear
    in the definition of phobia. 

    Taking into account Dick's point on what a dictionary is used for, it's
    obvious that there's no middle of the road when it comes to opinions of
    the gay lifestyle. This is certainly inaccurate.
    
    Glenn

    .281
    
    horsepuckey.
    
    there are advocates for gays.
    
    there are opponents for gays.  stipulate that these, and these alone,
    are the homophobes.
    
    and then there are the probably vast numbers of people who really don't
    give a rodent's patootie what other people do in their own bedrooms. 
    that appears VERY middle-of-the-road to me, and there's nothing in the
    use or form of the word "homophobe" that implies these people don't
    exist.

    
      I guess I have to clarify my distrust of "experts", although it
     ought to be clear I've always distrusted them, whether they agree
     with me, or not, or are just pontificating about subjects I know
     not.  You see it in lawyers, doctors, even us engineers, everywhere.
     
      There are indeed areas of knowledge that are well understood but by
     only a few people.  There are many more areas that DO NOT fall in this
     category.  All of the latter are matters on which, in our democracy, a
     majority of ordinary citizens set our society's course, with certain
     very limited exceptions enumerated in writing as the rules we call
     our bill of rights.
    
      It is up to us, not some panel of experts, to decide all sorts of
     matters.  The proper state of those who behave differently from the
     majority is a matter of politics.  Some minorities (for example,
     communists or cannibals) are very unlikely to escape persecution,
     more or less.  Others (Mormons, for example) are tolerated.  There
     are also cases in which the situation changes over time.
    
      I don't believe this is due to some miraculous discoveries by
     experts.  It is simply because the minority in question is large,
     or perceived as non-threatening, or the majority's or minority's
     norms change.
    
      I've said nothing about "Gay Issues".  All I meant was, I doubt we
     could do any good whatever by having society's response be ruled
     by some association of experts in this case (or many others).  That
     looks to me like a moral cop-out.  As Christians, we are supposed
     to love our neighbors.  But also as Christians, we agree to the
     notion that sexuality should concern our "moral sense".  Not all
     Christians resolve every such case of conflict the same, and there
     is room for disagreement over which way to go.  I refuse to mindlessly
     follow the psychiatrists, or the Pope on a matter of this kind.
    
      I have free will, and the sin of doing the wrong thing will be mine.
     It is MY soul, not the priests or the scientists.  So sure, you can
     listen to people you trust.  But how you react is YOUR business, not
     some committee of pundits'
    
      Does that clarify ?  bb
    

    now the dictionary is getting bashed! where, or where will it all end?
    
    Chip

>>    now the dictionary is getting bashed! where, or where will it all end?

	Of course, it's just this apparently highly-suspect dictionary of
	mine, Chip, the only redeeming quality of which, so far, is that
	it doesn't list "pre-plan".  ;>  What's the definition in Webster's,
	Richard?  Just out of curiosity.  

    
    Lexicaphobia 8^)

    So the dictionary is only inerrant if it supports an agenda.
    
    Seems to me I was slapped for explaining that dictionaries also report
    common usage as well as correct usage.  
    
    I will kep this in mind for another topic being the nasty woman I am.

    
    I couldn't find `homophobia' in my Websters, but my Roget's II has the
    following definitions for `aversion':
    
    - Extreme repugnance excited by something offensive. (Thumpers ought to
      love that `offensive' part!)
    
    - A feeling of fear and repugnance.
     

	.288  heheheh - the plot thickens!  ;>

    my american heritage (2nd college edition):
    
    .n fear of homosexuals or homosexualty.
    
       homophobic being the adjective (of course)
    
     Chip

    
    What's the term for fear of hookers?
    

    AIDS!

    
    .291:
    
    ...and the price of potatoes in China is...?
    

    
    <--------
    
      .29 cents per lb.
    
    
     We were talking about the dictionary definition of "phobia", and I
    asked a question... besides, this is soapbox.. remember?
    
     I have a deathly fear of snakes.... and I still don't know what the
    "phobia" term for that is... do you?

    
    Note 56.294
    
    >...besides, this is soapbox.. remember?
    
    It IS?!?!  I'm afraid of Soapboxes!  :^(
    

    .291
    Tracy Lordsaphobia....

re: .287, Meg

>    So the dictionary is only inerrant if it supports an agenda.
    
Kinda like the Pope.

re: Andy

Herpephobia?

    .285
    
    oddly enough, my webster's, the merriam-webster ninth new collegiate
    dictionary does, unlike .288's webster's (probably a ripoff of poor
    noah's name), contain a definition for homophobia:
    
    	homophobia n : irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals
    
    since homosexuals and homosexuality in themselves pose ZERO threat to
    anyone, any fear of them is irrational and hence homophobic.

    Herpaphobia? Isn't that the fear of the Tijuana Brass?

    gay snarf!

>    What's the term for fear of hookers?
    
trixaphobia???

/scott

Trixaphobia is a fear of silly rabbits.

    
    .298, Dick:
    
    Webster's New Collegiate, 1980.  It's a small one, as these things go.
    

>>      since homosexuals and homosexuality in themselves pose ZERO threat
>>  to    anyone, any fear of them is irrational and hence homophobic.
    
    In your opinion.   Some may feel homosexual acts are a sin.  Since I
    am of that belief, I recognize the right of others to practice but I
    don't accept teaching society that it is normal.  
    
    -Jack

    	.270
    
>	Joe, the word has been delt with already. Go back and read. 
    
    	I specifically asked about how Psychology defines it.  And THAT
    	has not been defined here.
    
    	Go back and read.
    
>	If ya got
>something new to add, cool. Otherwise, there ain't no reason to talk to you.
    
    	And what did you add with this entry?
    
    	Still taking those nasty pills, eh?  It's time to start getting
    	civil, Glen.

	.298
    
>    since homosexuals and homosexuality in themselves pose ZERO threat to
>    anyone, any fear of them is irrational and hence homophobic.
    
    	Do you equate disapproval of gay behavior with fear of gays?

    
    Note 56.306
    
    >Do you equate disapproval of gay behavior with fear of gays?
    
    Since the disapproval is irrational, one might be led to believe
    that it is based on fear.
    

    >>> Since the disapproval is irrational,
    
    That's awfully assumptive of you isn't it?!  That's like saying it is
    irrational to disapprove having multiple wives.
    
    -Jack

    
    Note 56.308
    
    >That's awfully assumptive of you isn't it?!  
    
    Yes, Jack, it is.  It assumes that since I can see no reason why gay
    behaviour amongst consenting adults would be problematic, I can think
    of no reason to disapprove of it.
    
    >That's like saying it is irrational to disapprove having multiple wives.
    
    I don't disapprove of this, either (amongst consenting adults :^).
    
    jc
    

    Disapprove... well. Apparently, approval is necessary for adult
    human beings to engage in what they see fit behind closed doors.
    Only problem is, Sarah Brady disapproves of my guns. Tipper Gore
    disapproves of my music. Bill Clinton disapproves of my pay
    check. Hillary Clinton disapproves of my health plan. And so
    on and so on.
    
    No one is asking anyone to like homosexuality, or approve of it.
    It's simply no one's business. If you think sleeping with another
    man (or woman) is a terrible sin, by all means, avoid doing it.
    
    As for teaching it's normal? Nah... just teach that people
    sometimes aren't exactly what you'd like them to be, but
    that's the way it is... live and let live.
    
    -b

    I can go along with -b's last remarks.  I have no problem with anybody 
    who wants to exercise their freedoms in the privacy of their own life.
    
    What I have a problem with is the imbecels for example out in Colorado
    who state that if you disagree with homosexuality, then you are
    mentally impaired.  It is then that I get on my Soapbox and start
    making my personal views known.  If somebody insists on telling me they
    are gay, then I have the right to respond as I see fit.  This is why
    the term "homophobia" is silly and ridiculous!
    
    -Jack

    
    Note 56.311
    
    >What I have a problem with is the imbecels for example out in Colorado
    >who state that if you disagree with homosexuality, then you are
    >mentally impaired.
    
    Jack, I may be wrong, but I don't think that's what Colorado was about
    at all.  I think the issue was: "If you disagree with homosexuality,
    AND are prepared to discriminate against individuals on that basis,
    then you are in for a fight."
    

    	re .312
    
    	Actually, there *are* people here in Colorado (and elsewhere) 
    	who say precisely what Jack said.
    
    	The anti-A2 movement as a whole did not say it, but individuals
    	certainly did (and do).

imbecile

    uhhhh...sorry!

    
   re .313
    
    	>The anti-A2 movement as a whole did not say it, but individuals
    	>certainly did (and do).
    
    And, of course, there are individuals involved in various religions
    that say considerably less complimentary things about gays...but you
    knew this, and likely don't wish to be broadbrushed in with them.
    

    What's this business about consenting adults? Homosexuality is wrong
    unless you 18? What don't you approve of? What do you approve of? It's
    all very subjective but we judge the world we live in on a daily basis
    whether we hold on to tenets of faith or not. Let's not pretend that we
    are so noble and admit that how we feel about something may not have much 
    to do with objectivity or fear.

    Glenn

    I have nothing to hide...never did.  I do not fear homosexuals...I have
    proven this.  What I do fear is the same thing a parent might fear if 
    somebody went into school to tall the kids about Jesus.  Namely, this
    notion of trying to social engineer the mores of our children.  An
    example of this is the FORMER school superintendent of the NYC school
    system promoting the idea of teaching kindergarten students from a book
    called, "Mommy's Roommate"  First it teaches that homosexuality is 
    a normal function...of which I disagree.  And secondly, even if it was
    a normal function, it teaches about sex outside of marriage, another
    thing I am opposed to teaching little minds.  
    
    So the bottom line is, you don't push your morality on me...and I won't
    push my morality on you.  
    
    -Jack

Nit: I think you're confusing "Daddy's Roommate" with "Heather has Two Mommies."

	.316
        
>    And, of course, there are individuals involved in various religions
>    that say considerably less complimentary things about gays...but you
>    knew this, and likely don't wish to be broadbrushed in with them.
    
    	Of course I don't want to be broadbrushed.  And I believe that
    	Jack was not intending to broadbrush with his statement that
    	started all this, nor was I with my statement in .313 -- in fact
    	I would hope that people would see that I was attempting to
    	be perfectly clear that I was not broadbrushing in .313.  The
    	sentence that you quoted from me should demonstrate that!

    
    RE: .319
    
    Heather's from Egypt???
    

    Thanks...sorry, got the two books mixed up!

    
    Note 56.317, Glenn:

    >What's this business about consenting adults? Homosexuality is wrong
    >unless you [are] 18?
    
    All I'm saying is...sexual or romantic activity between heteros is no 
    better or worse than sexual or romantic activity between gays (although
    my preference is firmly on the hetero side of things).  Just about every
    society puts a low age limit on consensual sex, but it's often lower for
    sex between a boy and a girl than it is for sex between two boys.
    I can't think of a good reason why.
    
    >What don't you approve of? What do you approve of?
    
    Countless things, Glenn.  :^)
    
    >Let's not pretend that we are so noble and admit that how we feel about
    >something may not have much to do with objectivity or fear.
    
    Or (in some cases) reason, or logic, or compassion, or generosity.

    jc
    

    Precisely.

    
    Precisely?  Are you playing Devil's Advocate here, Glenn?  :^)
    

    Well, you did agree with a lot of what I said.... Are you calling me a
    devil?!?

    
    Sorry, Glenn...I think I've lost track of your take on this issue...
    must be due to all those joints we've both been smoking.  :^)
    

    You did agree that how we feel about something has little to do with
    rational thought or tenets of faith or logic, right?
    
    Roll me another cyberjoint.

    
    ummm, yeah.  I guess.  
    
    Don't hog the smog, man.  :^)
    

    .305>   I specifically asked about how Psychology defines it.  And THAT
            has not been defined here.
    
    Perhaps because pschology doesn't 'define it'.  The AMA does have this
    to say about the role of psychotherapy for gay people:
    
    .156> However, [the AMA] says, most of the emotional disturbance 
    gays may feel about their orientation  ``is due more to a sense of
    alienation in an unaccepting environment.''
    
    .156> ``Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become
    comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the social
    responses to it,'' the new policy says.
    
    DougO

    .311 you have a right to respond as you see fit only if it doesn't
         ingringe on that individual's civil (or inalienable) rights.
    
         any phobia has the word "irrational" attached to it. there are
         people who genuinely fear homosexuals. there are people who
         are repulsed, there are people who hate them, there are people
         who oppose them on religous grounds, etc... 
    
         there are many reasons why the aversion exists other than simple
         fear, but fear is legitimate and your argument still doesn't go
         anywhere...
    
         Chip
   

    >    any phobia has the word "irrational" attached to it. there are
    >     people who genuinely fear homosexuals. there are people who
    >     are repulsed, there are people who hate them, there are people
    >     who oppose them on religous grounds, etc... 
    

   A phobia is usually based on an uncontrollable fear (usually accompanied by a
   an uncontrollable physical response). I've never met anyone
   who have had an uncontrollable fear of homosexuals. I've met people who
   disagree with their lifestyles, people who make jugdements
   on their moral character, and people who are repulsed by such behavior.
   You can characterize these folks a lot of ways (predudice perhaps)

   Somehow, homophobia just doesn't fit 99% of the folks who have  been
   labeled as such.

   Those who dish out this label... well ...  never mind.

   Doug.
   
  

    -1 i agree with the casual throwing around of the term...
    
       i personally know people who fear them. they won't admit it,
       they may not be clinical, but the fear is there.
    
       Chip 

    From PEDIATRICS Vol. 94 No 1 July 1994 (Journal of Amer. Acad. of
    Pediatrics)
    
    ARE CHILDREN AT RISK FOR SEXUAL ABUSE BY HOMOSEXUALS?
    by Carole Jenny, MD, MBA; Thomas A. Roesler, MD; and Kimberly L. Poyer,
    MSW   (From the Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics,
    University of Colorado Health Sciences Center)
    
    ABSTRACT
    
    Objective.  To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently
    accused of the sexual molestation of children.
    
    Design.  Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for
    sexual abuse.
    
    Setting.  Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital.
    
    Patients.  Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred
    to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual
    abuse.  Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).
    
    Data collected.  Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of
    the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and
    whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or
    bisexual.
    
    Results.  Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases.  Seventy-four children were
    allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years
    old.  In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified.  In the
    remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or
    lesbian.  In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a
    heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child.  Using the data
    from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would
    identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are
    from 0% to 3.1%.  These limits are within current estimates of the
    prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.
    
    Conclusions.  The children in the group studied were unlikely to have
    been molested by identifyably gay or lesbian people.   
                    

re .334:

A rather strange study.  There were almost four times as many girls as boys.
I don't think anybody would claim that girls are at much risk for sexual
abuse by homosexuals (male or female).

 >      i personally know people who fear them. they won't admit it,
 >      they may not be clinical, but the fear is there.
 
  The mere presence of fear does not indicate any type of phobia.

  Doug.

	.337  phew.  a voice of reason from out of the wilderness.

>    like "anglophobia" and "francophobia". These are not scientific terms for
>    crippling fears. They are common language labels for particular kinds of
>    cultural bias. 

 Since I can not find reference to these 'phobia', I'll assume they are 
two more examples of the misuse of the 'phobia' suffix.

Doug.

    .339
    
    > Since I can not find reference to these 'phobia', I'll assume they are
    > two more examples of the misuse of the 'phobia' suffix.
    
    mebbe you should learn to look a little harder.
    
    page 86, w9ncd:
    
    Anglophobe n [ prob fr. F, fr. anglo- + -phobe ] (1860) one who is
    averse to or dislikes England and things English -- Anglophobia n --
    Anglophobic adj
    
    page 489, w9ncd:
    
    Francophobe adj (1891) marked by a strong dislike or fear of French
    colture or customs -- Francophobe n

Given these definitions you expect folks to take these phobias seriously?

What a laugh!

>   Anglophobe n [ prob fr. F, fr. anglo- + -phobe ] (1860) one who is
>    averse to or dislikes England and things English -- Anglophobia n --
>    Anglophobic adj
>    
>    page 489, w9ncd:
>    
>    Francophobe adj (1891) marked by a strong dislike or fear of French
>    colture or customs -- Francophobe n

	.341  oy.  it's hopeless.

	A phobia is an aversion to or strong dislike of something, not
	just a fear.

    Doug, i agree again... i should've explained a little more.
    
    Chip

Anglophobe is even in the DEC-issue paperback AHD.

    Well now that this has been explained to me, I now realize that our
    dearly departed SCOTTK was an Anglophobe... he most certainly had an
    aversion to English.
    
    -b

>Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers
>less than 18 years old.

So tell me this:

When I was a little pre-teen pre-pubescent kid, and took off my clothes with
the neighborhood girls my same age and checked out how body parts fit together
and such things, were they abusing me or was I abusing them?

/john

    .347
    I`m surprised at you John....

    
    RE: .342
    
    >A phobia is an aversion to or strong dislike of something, not
    >just a fear.
    
    Good!!!
    
    I'll make up one so the dictionary can pick up on it...
    
    "heteraphobia" - the aversion to or strong dislike homosexuals have for 
    heterosexual couples who mistakingly walk into one of their bars/social
    parlors...
    
      Did it once.... and if looks could kill...

>	.341  oy.  it's hopeless.
>

Yes I suppose it is ...

>	A phobia is an aversion to or strong dislike of something, not
>	just a fear.

Phobia, when used as a suffix, defines an intense, abnormal fear. 

If you'ld like to water that definition down to suit your needs then by all
means. I shall choose to use more appropriate adjectives. 

Doug.

>>Phobia, when used as a suffix, defines an intense, abnormal fear. 

	That depends on what reference you look it up in.

>>If you'ld like to water that definition down to suit your needs then by all
>>means. I shall choose to use more appropriate adjectives. 

	I don't write the dictionaries, pal.

    
    What a rathole, eh?  :^)
    
    From my Webster's New Collegiate (published by C. & G. Merriam, 1980)
    
    When used as a suffix...
    
    -phobic   1. having an aversion for
              2. lacking affinity for 
    

    re: .335
    
    Your response reflects the a priori thinking that child molesters
    prefer to prey on children that are the same sex as the molester's adult
    sex partner(s).
    
    The study indicates that boys are overwhelmingly more at risk of being
    molested by their female relative's heterosexual partners then they are
    of being molested by "openly gay" men.   
    
    From the study:
    
    "The male children allegedly victimized by adults were likewise abused
    primarily by men.  Of the male children 74% (37/50) were allegedly
    molested by a man who was, or had been, in a heterosexual relationship
    with the child's mother, foster mother, grandmother, or other female
    relative."
    
    "The majority (222/269=82%) of children in this sample were suspected
    of being abused by a man or woman who was, or had been, in a
    heterosexual relationship with a relative of the child.  In other
    words, in this sample, a child's risk of being molested by his or her
    relative's heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by
    someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or
    bisexual.
    
    "While homophobia is not a new phenomenon in our culture, the attempt
    to discriminate against perons living a homosexual lifestyle as offical
    social policy represents a significant change from the status quo. 
    Religious beliefs often underlay peoples' motivations for restricting
    civil rights of gays and lesbians.  However, the issue of child abuse
    has been a prominent argument used in support of these measures.
    
    "While conclusions made from this sample must be treated cautiously
    because of the retrospective nature of the study, no evidence is
    available from this data that children are at greater risk to be
    molested by identifiable homosexuals than by other adults.  There is no
    support for the claim to this effect by groups advocating legislation
    limiting rights of homosexuals."

    My Websters says what I posted a while back...intense, irrational fear.
    
    Which is it?
    
    I guess you can't be precise in this day and age since all words are
    being systematically neutered.
    
    -steve

    I never discriminate against perons of any sort.

    
    I agree with Glenn...I have nothing against fibulas.
    

    
    Not even Juan?

    Not a single Juan.

    
    That response was in-evita-ble.
    

    
      Just a personal opinion, didn't read any statistics on this or
    anything. Also, I haven't read through all of these replies so maybe
    someone else already said this. I'm also speaking as a survivor
    of child sexual abuse, I've been in many groups and conferences so
    I've met a lot of survivors. There's never any mention of "Well, my
    abuser was gay."  It's more like it was a father, uncle, god-father
    as in  my case, aunt, priest (I've met a few that were molested by
    priests), mother, family friend, teachers. I've also met men. It's
    a child incest issue, not an issue as to whether the person was
    gay or heterosexual. 
    
       I think that people or society or whomever needs to realize that
    being gay, and being a child molester is two separate issues. 
    
       Being gay is basically having a sexual preference for the same
    sex. Being heterosexual is having a sexual preference for the opposite
    sex. A child molester is just that, no sexual preference, just the
    need to overpower and control someone smaller than themselves. They
    are sick, weak people that  abuse children. A lot of them abuse
    both sexes. 
    
              
         Rosie
       

>    re: .335
>    
>    Your response reflects the a priori thinking that child molesters
>    prefer to prey on children that are the same sex as the molester's adult
>    sex partner(s).
>    
>    The study indicates that boys are overwhelmingly more at risk of being
>    molested by their female relative's heterosexual partners then they are
>    of being molested by "openly gay" men.   
>    
>    From the study:

Unfair!  First you quote the abstract, which presents some rather meaningless
statistics in relation to molestation by homosexuals.  When I point out that
these statistics don't prove much, you practically accuse me of bigotry, and
then go on to quote statistics from the body of the report that bear some
relevance.

| <<< Note 56.278 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| Hahhh!!!  Yes Glen...convenient to use the word for your agenda...but
| inappropriate to use it for mine!!!

	Jack, here is a hint.... the part about misusing the word comes from
you. You're applying it where it shouldn't be again. It's that grouping thang
you do.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.279 by CSOA1::LEECH "I'm the NRA." >>>

| re: .269
| Broken record...

	What, you don't want consistancy???  Ok, how's this then. The way
anyone interpretes the Bible is correct, if it agrees 100% with the Steve Leech
version. If this is something you don't want to agree with, theyn what I said
in .269 is one, consistant, and 2, the truth.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.304 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

| >>      since homosexuals and homosexuality in themselves pose ZERO threat
| >>  to    anyone, any fear of them is irrational and hence homophobic.

| In your opinion. Some may feel homosexual acts are a sin.  

	Jack, you can still have that belief without being considered
homophobic. If you fear a person because of this, that might be different. It
would depend on a lot of factors. You do see the difference between something
you perceive to be a sin and the person themselves, right?


Glen

| <<< Note 56.306 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| >    since homosexuals and homosexuality in themselves pose ZERO threat to
| >    anyone, any fear of them is irrational and hence homophobic.

| Do you equate disapproval of gay behavior with fear of gays?

	Too broad a question to answer. Too many factors come into play. If you
could give a more descriptive explaination as to how far does the disapproval
of gay behavior goes, it will be easy to give you an answer. (ex: does it
effect the person who you feel has had "gay behavior", explain what "Gay
behavior" is, etc)


Glen

| <<< Note 56.311 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| What I have a problem with is the imbecels for example out in Colorado who 
| state that if you disagree with homosexuality, then you are mentally impaired.

	Oh Jack... while I agree it is wrong, it could have a lot to do with
that Focus on Family group going around saying God hates Fags and stuff. Both
are wrong, but we need to spend more time showing what's real, and dispell what
isn't.

| It is then that I get on my Soapbox and start making my personal views known. 

	We know..... <groan>... :-)

| If somebody insists on telling me they are gay, 

	Errr.... Jack????  I don't know how to tell you this.... but, well...
I'm ahhh..... gay.... :-)

| then I have the right to respond as I see fit.  

	Yes, you do. But you need to also realize while your speaking, the
words that come out could be wrong.

| This is why the term "homophobia" is silly and ridiculous!

	No, only when it is used improperly. Do you agree that there are people
in this world that would fit that term? If so, then you just have disproven
your own statement.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.318 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| An example of this is the FORMER school superintendent of the NYC school
| system promoting the idea of teaching kindergarten students from a book called
| "Mommy's Roommate" First it teaches that homosexuality is a normal function
| of which I disagree.  

	You can disagree Jack, but it does not mean you are correct. I mean,
have there ever been times in your life where you thought you were 100% right
to only find out you weren't? Think about it.... 

| And secondly, even if it was a normal function, it teaches about sex outside 
| of marriage, another thing I am opposed to teaching little minds.

	Jack, where does the book talk about sex? I'm very curious to see if
you really read the book or are just talking out of that mile wide thing again.

| So the bottom line is, you don't push your morality on me...and I won't
| push my morality on you.

	I'd like you to include not broad brushing the whole thing too. :-)



Glen

| <<< Note 56.332 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>


| A phobia is usually based on an uncontrollable fear (usually accompanied by a
| an uncontrollable physical response). 

	Well everyone knows anyone who has closetphobia is gay. And you know,
I've known many to take it out on gays because of it. Hmmmm..... btw, taking it
out on does not have to be a physical thing. 

| I've never met anyone who have had an uncontrollable fear of homosexuals. 

	I'm sure we will meet at some point.

| I've met people who disagree with their lifestyles, people who make jugdements
| on their moral character, and people who are repulsed by such behavior. You 
| can characterize these folks a lot of ways (predudice perhaps)

	Do you believe that predudice can have the fear aspect thrown into it? 

| Somehow, homophobia just doesn't fit 99% of the folks who have  been labeled 
| as such.

	Ok, prove it.



Glen

| <<< Note 56.339 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

| >    like "anglophobia" and "francophobia". These are not scientific terms for
| >    crippling fears. They are common language labels for particular kinds of
| >    cultural bias.

| Since I can not find reference to these 'phobia', I'll assume they are
| two more examples of the misuse of the 'phobia' suffix.

	Here is one of your problems Doug. Because you don't have the info
right at your finger tips, you write them off. The word assmume seems to fit
you nicely though.

| <<< Note 56.347 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| When I was a little pre-teen pre-pubescent kid, and took off my clothes with
| the neighborhood girls my same age and checked out how body parts fit together
| and such things, were they abusing me or was I abusing them?

	You mean there was a time your body wasn't covered with hair???

  re: .366
    
>	Oh Jack... while I agree it is wrong, it could have a lot to do with
>that Focus on Family group going around saying God hates Fags and stuff. 
    
    No, it can't.  That Focus on the Family group has never said "God hates
    Fags".
    
    
    -steve 

| <<< Note 56.349 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| "heteraphobia" - the aversion to or strong dislike homosexuals have for
| heterosexual couples who mistakingly walk into one of their bars/social
| parlors...

| Did it once.... and if looks could kill...


	yeah.... that means that it will always be this way everywhere.... and
did ya talk to anyone Andy or did you just assume as usual? 

| <<< Note 56.371 by CSOA1::LEECH "I'm the NRA." >>>


| >	Oh Jack... while I agree it is wrong, it could have a lot to do with
| >that Focus on Family group going around saying God hates Fags and stuff.

| No, it can't.  That Focus on the Family group has never said "God hates
| Fags".

	Steve, who is the leader of FoF? 

    Glen:
    
    Dr. James Dobson is head of Focus on the Family.  It would be out of
    character for him to sanction such a statement.  Did he ever do such a
    thing???
    
    -Jack

RE:               <<< Note 56.366 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>	Oh Jack... while I agree it is wrong, it could have a lot to do with
>that Focus on Family group going around saying God hates Fags and stuff. Both
>are wrong, but we need to spend more time showing what's real, and dispell what
>isn't.


 Get your facts straight, bub.  I'd be the first to condemn any Christian
 organization that makes such a statement.  It is NOT Focus on the Family
 who has said that.



Jim

    
    RE: .372
    
    "Assume as usual"??  You mean borrow your forte'??
    
    
    Naaahhh... you got a lock on that!!! You be the champ!!
    
    FYI... I went up to the barkeep, who was just about the only one not
    throwing daggers, and said... "ummmm, we're in the wrong place..
    right?"
    
      He kindly steered us over to a side fire exit and let us out as
    discretely as possible...
    
      so as not to disturb all the heteraphobics...
    

| <<< Note 56.374 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Dr. James Dobson is head of Focus on the Family.  It would be out of
| character for him to sanction such a statement.  Did he ever do such a
| thing???

	Opps... I was thinking of Phelps. FoF are the group of people that
passed out pamphlets that were distortions, and later had someone who did the
writing admit this. Sorry about the confusion.

I'm curious, Glen - if Andy (or anyone else for that matter) walked into
a gay bar with a date and was perceiving ill-natured looks, why on earth
should he do anything other than discreetly absent himself as quickly as
possible? And, above all, what would be the benefit of attempting to
converse with anyone casting such looks?

If you walked into an ethnic bar, for example, and encountered such
a situation, would you push the issue?

It would seem to me that better judgement leads one to correct their
error in as quick and riskfree a manner as possible.

RE:               <<< Note 56.377 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>	Opps... I was thinking of Phelps. FoF are the group of people that
>passed out pamphlets that were distortions, and later had someone who did the
>writing admit this. Sorry about the confusion.


You may want to check your facts on this assertion as well.  I believe it
was somebody from CFV (or whatever that org in Colorado is called) who 
did this.




Jim

| <<< Note 56.376 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| "Assume as usual"??  You mean borrow your forte'??

	No, to use yours.

| FYI... I went up to the barkeep, who was just about the only one not
| throwing daggers, and said... "ummmm, we're in the wrong place..right?"

	All based on ASSUMPTIONS Andy. That does NOT equal fact. I can think of
one club in particular that when I went to I thought one thing, and after
talking to the people there, I saw the club in it's real light. I remember how
I felt when I went into the Poor Farm in Hudson MA. It was a dive place where a
lot of people went to after work. I saw that place in pretty much the same
light. And again, it didn't last very long once I started talking to people.
Looks can be deceiving Andy. That is what I am saying. 




Glen

| <<< Note 56.378 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>



| I'm curious, Glen - if Andy (or anyone else for that matter) walked into a gay
| bar with a date and was perceiving ill-natured looks, 

	Perceptions are one thing, but they do not always = reality.

| And, above all, what would be the benefit of attempting to converse with 
| anyone casting such looks?

	Yeah, let's throw everyone into the "bad" catagory because of how they
look. You aren't making sense here Jack.

| If you walked into an ethnic bar, for example, and encountered such a 
| situation, would you push the issue?

	I did, down in DC. I didn't have a problem. I got looks, but from
talking with people I found the place to be pretty cool.

| It would seem to me that better judgement leads one to correct their error in 
| as quick and riskfree a manner as possible.

	And then we can continue to live our lives in fear. Sounds good. NOT!

    
    RE: .380
    
    >All based on ASSUMPTIONS Andy.
    
    Your assumptions evidently.... 
    
    
    The barkeep made it a point to get us out of there ASAP... He did not
    say... "Nah, you're okay... just mingle and get to know everyone..."
    
    Gee... it seems there's folks out there who along with not admitting to
    homophobia, will not admit to heteraphobia either... huh?

| <<< Note 56.382 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| The barkeep made it a point to get us out of there ASAP... He did not
| say... "Nah, you're okay... just mingle and get to know everyone..."

	Gee, the way you described it all Andy you probably didn't have the
greatest look on your own faces, which could be why he escorted you out.

| Gee... it seems there's folks out there who along with not admitting to
| homophobia, will not admit to heteraphobia either... huh?

	Who ever said anything about not admitting it exists? It Does. I just
hate to see that word get misused like homophobia. If ya got facts, ok. If ya
got assumptions, don't bother. In this case ya only got assumptions.


Glen

re: .381, Glen

Well, different strokes, I suppose, Glen, but having grown up in a neighborhood
where it was pretty clear that there were places where certain "types"
weren't wanted, as evidenced by the police blotter, I guess I tend to
err on the side of caution rather than risk. It's not necessarily a matter
of "bad" or "good" or "fear". It's a matter of avoiding conflict. I'm sure
you may be correct that some or all of the folks in any given establishment
may be the salt of the earth, but that's no reason to tread the edge of
the envelope if there's doubt in your mind.

    re: .383
    
    >Gee, the way you described it all Andy you probably didn't have the
    >greatest look on your own faces, which could be why he escorted you out.
    
    
      And you talk about assumptions????  Grow up!!
    
    
    FYI.... I already had a few drinks at the time, and was mellow as could
    be.... All I wanted was to have a good time, and would have stayed
    except the daggers finally got to me...
    
     Yep... definitely heteraphobia....

| <<< Note 56.384 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


| Well, different strokes, I suppose, Glen, but having grown up in a neighborhood
| where it was pretty clear that there were places where certain "types" weren't
| wanted, as evidenced by the police blotter, I guess I tend to err on the side 
| of caution rather than risk. 

	Well, if it is a known place where someone gets the crap kicked out of
them, I agree. But to put people into a catagory without really knowing doesn't
make much sense. 

| you may be correct that some or all of the folks in any given establishment
| may be the salt of the earth, but that's no reason to tread the edge of the 
| envelope if there's doubt in your mind.

	One Halloween we were walking home from a party. I saw a group of black
kids sitting down on one of the front door stoop steps. (say that 10 times fast)
I saw them and my initial reaction was to go down a side street. But then I
thought, "No, i'm not going to allow color to be an issue". We walked past
them. We did get egged in the process, but I think this had more to do with the
fact it was Halloween than anything else. 



Glen

    re: .378
    
    Nope...it only works one way...the PC way.  If you aren't PC you must
    give ground (correct your error).  If you are PC, you don't have to
    correct your error, but are free to call the offending element names
    and force laws through to see to it that no one can look at you the
    wrong way.
    
    -steve

	Andy, your saying heterophobia in that situation is as stupid as
someone calling you homophobic. Based on what we know, neither can be proven
and without proof, it would be wrong to use the statement.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.387 by CSOA1::LEECH "I'm the NRA." >>>


| Nope...it only works one way...the PC way. If you aren't PC you must give 
| ground (correct your error). If you are PC, you don't have to correct your 
| error, but are free to call the offending element names and force laws through
| to see to it that no one can look at you the wrong way.

	Steve, I have to admit, while it being completely wrong, it was
actually funny. :-)

> 	Well, if it is a known place where someone gets the crap kicked out of
>them, I agree. But to put people into a catagory without really knowing doesn't
>make much sense. 

Well, if the place is unknown to one altogether, one hasn't any way of knowing
its reputation. If the place appears inhospitable, I'll still err on the side
of caution, thanks. The only one who'll lose out on an opportunity is me,
anyway, right?

> We did get egged in the process, but I think this had more to do with the
> fact it was Halloween than anything else. 

Well, as I said, different strokes . . . 

| <<< Note 56.390 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


| The only one who'll lose out on an opportunity is me, anyway, right?

	Depends. If you go on about the place afterwards, it then involves the
people from that place, colour, etc. Can you see this Jack?

| > We did get egged in the process, but I think this had more to do with the
| > fact it was Halloween than anything else.

| Well, as I said, different strokes . . .

	I know.... I would have used FAT FREE eggs.... :-)

    
    RE: .388
    
    
    BINGO!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    Now, you go spread that news far and wide as will I....

| <<< Note 56.392 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

	I thought you gave up on the Catholic Church?

| Now, you go spread that news far and wide as will I....

	Have you even been reading this string? wow....

    I've gotten that "look" at various places (although I admit it's
    never been at a gay bar), and my take on it is this:
    
    1. Staying proves nothing; absolutely nothing.
    
    2. Situations do get ugly, people do get hurt. I don't want to be
       hurt, nor do I want to put myself in a situation where I might
       have to hurt someone else.
    
    3. People have their favorite places and it is theirs... if
       they don't want me there, should I be willing to offend
       them just to prove my own "polician correctness"?
    
    No, of course not. Split. Pushing your luck is one thing, but
    it only takes one wrong decision, and you might never get the
    chance to push your luck again.
    
    It really doesn't bother me if someone doesn't like me because
    I'm straight, white, male, Scottish, AmerIndian or whatever...
    no point in getting in their face over it. Other places to go
    where people like me just fine...
    
    -b

    re: .381
    
    Now you are telling him that he didn't really see ill-natured looks? 
    Incredible.
    
    Actually, my old roomate was out with some buddies one night and went
    into a bar downtown...the wrong one, if you are not gay.  He also must
    not have seen the ill-natured looks, either, right?  His friends didn't
    see them, either (though that's not what they will tell you).  One of
    his buddies (who was mildly intoxicated at the time), made an off-color
    comment (not at anyone)...  let's just say that they left in a hurry.
    Might touchy folk in that there bar, it seems.  Of course, I'm sure
    alcohol has something to do with it.
    
    You may throw up possibilites that Andy's perception is wrong, but in
    all honesty, you are arguing out of ignorance since you were not there.
    The same with my story above...I tell it in complete ignorance to the
    facts.  My telling is second hand, and I cannot back up any of the
    'facts' given to me. 
    
    If Andy says they were giving him ill-natured looks, I believe him. 
    This is not a difficult situation to grasp.
    
    -steve

>	Depends. If you go on about the place afterwards, it then involves the
>people from that place, colour, etc. Can you see this Jack?

Yes - I see what your saying, Glen, but -

How on earth did we get to this? I was talking about discreetly leaving
a public gathering place and being done with it, and now you're talking
about writing a letter to the editor and taking out full page ads in
the New Yorker?

Andy, what sort of "daggers" did you get thrown at you?
Also how did they know so quickly you didn't 'belong'?
(I assume you went with a SO of the opposite sex)

    
    RE: .393
    
    >I thought you gave up on the Catholic Church?
    
     Typical of what's to be expected of you...
    
    
    > Have you even been reading this string? wow....
    
     Don't be a jerk... I read what YOU think about the situation.... now
    go convince thy brethren of the same...
    
      And don't give me that crap about you know them well enough to know
    they're not like that blah, blah, blah....
    
      I have/had enough friends to know that many of them are various
    closet <name your favorite bigotry>... where I "thought" I knew them
    better...

    
    RE: .397
    
    The place wasn't well lit (as are many such places), and when we got in
    there, everything seemed normal ie. people chatting, dancing, smoking,
    drinking, laughing... 
    
      You (generic) don't stand at the entrance but make your way in to try
    and find either a seat or some empty space... 
    
     Still mellow, as I mentioned, I wasn't noticing anything, as there was
    no need for me to. There were couples there who looked perfectly
    "normal" to me.... Why worry/panic? 
    
      Things started to hush up and as we passed people/tables it was as if
    the avenging angel was descending on Egypt... the laughing stopped, the
    chatting stopped... people looked at me as if I just got out of a pig
    sty... (I even checked my underarms to see if I was the offending
    party)...
     
      I still didn't "get it"... not until I was about 10-15 ft. from the
    bar and noticed a bunch of guys hanging all over each other... 
    
     That's when it hit me... and the fact that these boys all looked like
    they could kick the snot out of me, and the "dagger" looks started in
    earnest...
    
      That's when I turned to back-track, but things closed up... I
    searched for anyone who wasn't looking like they wanted to take a
    baseball bat to me, and the barkeep was the only one...
    
     The rest you know...
    
      After we got out of there, I was really pissed (almost literally) and
    the only thought I had was "Why the hell don't they put up some kind of
    sign!!!"

 I'm no snarfaphobe

    But do you disapprove of them?

 Hey, some of my best friends are snarfs!

| <<< Note 56.395 by CSOA1::LEECH "I'm the NRA." >>>


|Now you are telling him that he didn't really see ill-natured looks? Incredible

	What's incredible is that you would say that. I said perceptions don't
always = reality. I have never said anything about whether what he saw was
accurate or not. If so, could you show me?

| Actually, my old roomate was out with some buddies one night and went into a 
| bar downtown...the wrong one, if you are not gay. He also must not have seen 
| the ill-natured looks, either, right?  

	When I say something like this, call me on it. until then....

| One of his buddies (who was mildly intoxicated at the time), made an off-color
| comment (not at anyone)...  

	Steve, do you happen to remember the comment? The comment alone could
easily cause problems regardless of whether it is directed at any individual. 

| let's just say that they left in a hurry. Might touchy folk in that there bar,
| it seems.  

	Go make an off color remark in a bar filled with <insert type of bar>
and see if you don't get the same responses.

| You may throw up possibilites that Andy's perception is wrong, but in all 
| honesty, you are arguing out of ignorance since you were not there.

	Steve, if I come out and say Andy's perceptions are wrong, then you
would be right. What I DID say is that they may not = reality. You would agree
that perceptions can at best possibly = fact, right? Take for example Jack 
Martin. I know many who would think he is a homophobic person. That is based on 
their perception of him. Is it right? No, it is not. Does that mean they were 
wrong to perceive this? Yup. Does it mean Andy was wrong? We'll never know. For 
all we know they may have thought he wasn't cute.... :-) (remember what group
Andy put them in)

| If Andy says they were giving him ill-natured looks, I believe him.
| This is not a difficult situation to grasp.

	You seem to forget he was talking about heterophobia at the time. That
was the part I was talking about when it came to perceptions. He can't
accurately make that statement because he never found out. 

	Are you thinking I was arguing over his thinking they were looking at
him in an ill-natured way? Hell, I see that happening to gay people too! It's
they label of why they were looking at him that I had a question with.



Glen

| <<< Note 56.396 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


| How on earth did we get to this? I was talking about discreetly leaving
| a public gathering place and being done with it, and now you're talking
| about writing a letter to the editor and taking out full page ads in
| the New Yorker?


	Jack, if you go into a place and feel people are looking at you
ill-natured, and you leave, no prob. But upon leaving if you go on to others
and say they did it for <insert reason>, then I feel it is wrong. 


Glen

| <<< Note 56.398 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| > Have you even been reading this string? wow....

| Don't be a jerk... I read what YOU think about the situation.... now go 
| convince thy brethren of the same...

	When I see a wrong, I try to correct it Andy. 

| And don't give me that crap about you know them well enough to know they're 
| not like that blah, blah, blah....

	Uhhh.... you lost me on this. Who is the "they're" you're refering to?



Glen

| <<< Note 56.399 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


	Andy, was this a Boston Bar? If so, where was it? I've seen many people
come in with women who have never gotten a second glance. So if you know the
name of the place, or where it was located (as I'm sure you remembered so you
wouldn't go there again) and possibly what year this happened, that would be
great.



Glen

RE: .368 BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me"

> Well everyone knows anyone who has closetphobia is gay. And you know,

I know I shouldn't ask but ... what is closetphobia?

> Do you believe that predudice can have the fear aspect thrown into it? 

Absolutely, ignorance and arrogance as well. My aurgument isn't that there
aren't people out there that don't dislike, fear, or have an aversion
to gays. 

My aurgument is that the term homophobia as it is used in todays society
is an abuse of the english language. I think there are far more accurate
adjectives that can be used that do not foster such abuse.

Websters' have been adding new words and slang terms, and 'enhancing' the 
definitions of existing words for several decades. A phobia had always implied
a high level of intensity. Today apparently, all that is required is an
adversion. To me, the definition of phobia has been watered down to a point
where it has lost it's intended meaning, so I reject its new definition.

> I'm sure we will meet at some point.

I'm looking forward to it.

| Somehow, homophobia just doesn't fit 99% of the folks who have  been labeled 
| as such.

Prove that it does.

The term homophobia was invented for it's shock value as best I can tell.
And anyone who in anyway opposes any part of homosexuality is labeled
homophobic. Well I don't buy it.

Doug.

>	Here is one of your problems Doug. Because you don't have the info
>right at your finger tips, you write them off. The word assmume seems to fit
>you nicely though.

Nonsense.

Glen, either I have not been clear in stating my position, or you have 
misinterpreted my position, or a little of both has occured.

Give the definition of the two terms "anglophobia" and "francophobia" lack
any high level of intensity (again, were back to aversion I guess) it
is difficult to believe that these words, common or not, fit the original
intended meaning of a phobia. I could not find any other definition than those
provided here and so made my judgement based on the definition provided here.

I didn't write anything off.

Doug.

    New York... Manhattan, Upper East Side... mid 80's
    
    No idea what the name of the place was anymore...
    

| <<< Note 56.407 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>


| > Well everyone knows anyone who has closetphobia is gay. And you know,

| I know I shouldn't ask but ... what is closetphobia?

	It was actually in line with the other words being brought out today.
Heterophobia was one used earlier. Closetphobia is when one is afraid to come
out of the closet. (being gay)

| > Do you believe that predudice can have the fear aspect thrown into it?

| Absolutely, ignorance and arrogance as well. 

	Agreed. 

| My aurgument is that the term homophobia as it is used in todays society
| is an abuse of the english language. I think there are far more accurate
| adjectives that can be used that do not foster such abuse.

	Well, find one and see if it catches on.

| To me, the definition of phobia has been watered down to a point where it has 
| lost it's intended meaning, so I reject its new definition.

	The world according to Doug? :-)

| > I'm sure we will meet at some point.

| I'm looking forward to it.

	Coming to any of the bashes???

| | Somehow, homophobia just doesn't fit 99% of the folks who have  been labeled
| | as such.

| Prove that it does.

| The term homophobia was invented for it's shock value as best I can tell.

	The best you can tell does not = fact Doug. While yes, it can be your
opinion that 99% blah blah blah, it can not be used as a blanket statement like
you have done. 

| And anyone who in anyway opposes any part of homosexuality is labeled
| homophobic. Well I don't buy it.

	Neither do I. Stop putting it in such a broad base, and you might 
actually see some changes. 


Glen

| <<< Note 56.408 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>



| Give the definition of the two terms "anglophobia" and "francophobia" lack
| any high level of intensity (again, were back to aversion I guess) it
| is difficult to believe that these words, common or not, fit the original
| intended meaning of a phobia. I could not find any other definition than those
| provided here and so made my judgement based on the definition provided here.

	Doug, did gay always have the default in this country of homosexual?
Words can gain added meanings and still have their origional one. Can you see
this?


Glen

    	It would seem to me more appropriate for "closetphobia" to
    	mean fear of going IN the closet, not coming OUT of the closet.

    <----
    
    That would be Binkley's....
    

    
    Well, I have an overwhelming fear of trying to make my closets
    orderly.  Does that count ?
    
      bb

    re: .389
    
    Not completely wrong at all, but merely exaggerated a bit (and worded
    bluntly).  Or is it really exaggeration these days?  I wonder.
    
    -steve

    
    
    "Soapaphobia"
    
    
     The fear of a read-only to enter into the fray...
    

And I don't even _have_ any closets in my house.



I think perhaps the issue centers around the fact that what homophobia,
by today's standards, actually is, is more similar to an anti<blank>ism than
to a phobia. Somebody please fill in the blank with something respectable
which still rolls trippingly off the tongue, and we'll have our word.
Use it ten times and it's yours for a lifetime.

    
    antisemitism.  with just as much validity, too, i might add.

    
    I've heard the term `homosexualist' coined to refer to people (gay or
    straight) who support a pro-gay agenda, so how about...instead of
    homophobic...`heterosexualist' or `heterosexist'?
     

    I don't think the term "heterosexual couple" is a positive one. I would 
    prefer a euphemism like "different sex couple".

    
    RE: .419
    
    Steve...
    
     Please get it right!!!!
    
    
    It's my term and if you don't use it correctly, I'll take my bat and
    ball and go home!!!!
    
    
     :) :)
    

re: .418, Dick

Well, yes, it's cleary parallel to antisemitism, which is why I chose
that as a pattern. But what's the appropriate replacement for "semit"
when it comes to the issue with gays?

    I deleted my .419...on second read I saw how it could be misinterpreted
    to mean all manner of things not intended.  
    
    I'm not leaveing myself *that* open for a Friday feeding-frenzy.  8^)
    
    -steve

    re: .423
    
    antihomotism?

    re: .422
    
    Okay, okay...heter'a'phobia it is.   8^) 

>	Well, find one and see if it catches on.

Is this the litmus test for new words or definitions in our language?

>| The term homophobia was invented for it's shock value as best I can tell.
>
>	The best you can tell does not = fact Doug. While yes, it can be your
>opinion that 99% blah blah blah, it can not be used as a blanket statement like
>you have done. 

Feel free to enlighten me then.  Were are the roots for such a term? Is it a
clinical definition? The word is not in my dicitionary so any help in finding
an accurate definition would be most helpful.

>| And anyone who in anyway opposes any part of homosexuality is labeled
>| homophobic. Well I don't buy it.
>
>	Neither do I. Stop putting it in such a broad base, and you might 
>actually see some changes. 

Perhaps you don't, but would you disagree that this is not the general rule
amongst homosexual activists?

> 	Doug, did gay always have the default in this country of homosexual?
>Words can gain added meanings and still have their origional one. Can you see
>this?

Sure. Gay meaning happy or gay meaning homosexual are two separate meanings.
      Gay still retains its original meaning.
      The recent changes for Phobia seek to change it's original meaning.

Doug.

| <<< Note 56.427 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>


| >	Well, find one and see if it catches on.

| Is this the litmus test for new words or definitions in our language?

	No, it was a sarcastic comment. :-)

| Feel free to enlighten me then.  Were are the roots for such a term? Is it a
| clinical definition? The word is not in my dicitionary so any help in finding
| an accurate definition would be most helpful.

	I can't tell you exactly where the term came from. And seeing you can't
either, it would make sense to not say <insert person or group> invented it
like it was some sort of fact or something.

RE: Homophobic & use

| Perhaps you don't, but would you disagree that this is not the general rule
| amongst homosexual activists?

	Yes and no. I really think you need to define which group. One like
ACT-UP uses the word a lot. Other groups that I have known do not. 

| > 	Doug, did gay always have the default in this country of homosexual?
| >Words can gain added meanings and still have their origional one. Can you see
| >this?

| Sure. Gay meaning happy or gay meaning homosexual are two separate meanings.
| Gay still retains its original meaning. The recent changes for Phobia seek to 
| change it's original meaning.

	But it STILL retains it's origional meaning as well. Gay = homosexual
gave a different meaning to gay = happy, right? It's the SAME thing, and why
you can not see that is beyond me.


Glen

>	But it STILL retains it's origional meaning as well. Gay = homosexual
>gave a different meaning to gay = happy, right? It's the SAME thing, and why
>you can not see that is beyond me.

The meanings are unrelated to each other in this case and therefore do not
influence each other. The new definitions of Phobic change the depth of the
original definition (by removing the intensity requirement).

Doug.

	I guess it is the world according to you, as there are many words in
the dictionary that have similar meanings... guess we should throw them out
too???? :-)

	Then you can accept the term phobia taking on new meanings then, like
the rest of the words, right?

    After reading about the four Priest`s in Washington yesterday I think
    we should consolidate this note, Church/Sate, Politics to the left and
    right into one note :').

    Yabbut yabbut, it's when the "Church" tries to get "Sate"d that they
    get in trubble!!
    

    
    
    Yup, focus on the few bad apples.  We all know the church does no good
    at all......

    .435
    I don`t think I ever said the Church does no good at all. My Church
    does as much as the next but because it is DIFFERENT the beleifs are
    DIFFERENT.

>	Then you can accept the term phobia taking on new meanings then, like
>the rest of the words, right?

Come on Glenn, is it really that difficult?

Different words with similar meanings are not the same as changing the
meaning of an existing word.

I put Homophobia right up there with assault_weapon. Both words are inaccurate
in their definition and are wildly applied to fit whatever the user finds 
convenient to their cause.

Its a joke really. The problem is that its being played on the american public
with full cooperation and support of our irresponsible media giants.

Doug.

    re .433-
    
    pedophilia (sexual abuse of children) is orthogonal to
    heterosexual/homosexual orientation.
    
    DougO

    prove it.  

    
    .439   ugh!  If that's true they better go back into the closet. I
    have nothing against gays, if that's all they are.
    
         But if they honor NAMBLA,,,,string them all up!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
       Rosie

  What's NAMBLA?

  George

    
    North
    American
    Man
    Boy
    Love
    Association
    
      Real sweethearts they be...
    

    
    Last I heard...NABMLA *had* been excluded from a Gay Pride parade.
    Might have been SF's or Boston's, not sure which.
    
    Another group had been excluded as well...might have been `Dykes
    On Bikes', for insisting on riding topless.
    

    <<< Note 56.437 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

Why the sudden concern for the fate of the English language?

The fact is, phobia has been a term used outside of the psych professions 
to describe a distaste or aversion for a very long time. "I have a phobia 
about driving in city traffic" "I have a phobia about visiting my in-laws." 
When its used that way, no one is saying that they're in fact going into 
classic phobic response. And no one is jumping up and down about how 
they're misusing the term.

The fact is, the general public has a long tradition of borrowing words 
that have very narrow meanings within professional vocabularies, and 
giving them a broader, every-day application.

As far as I can tell, there's no plot by the gay movement to corrupt our 
language nor to overstate the state of mind of those with expressed or 
hidden aversion to anyone with a homosexual orientation. 

    these are the very "clown platoons" that give the gay community a
    fringe "handle"...
    
    Chip

    
    You're right.  Everybody uses "phobia" just to mean aversion, and
    the "gays" are just doing what everybody does.
    
    What bothers me more is, if they are "gay", I guess that makes my
    wife and me "somber".  Maybe we should have somber-pride rallies ?
    
      bb

    
    "Clown platoons"?  You mean, as opposed to those Shriners and their
    stupid little cars?   :^)
    

    -1 those are shriners? i guess so...

>    throughout North America and Mexico.

Mexico's in North America.

    RE: .451
    
    So what's "Central America"??
    

The countries between Mexico and Colombia: Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.

    
    Yep...
    
    That's what my National Geographic map sez too...
    

So (getting back to the topic), what's the story with the Guatemalan Gays
in the Guatemalan Day Parade?

| <<< Note 56.435 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>



| Yup, focus on the few bad apples.  We all know the church does no good
| at all......

	Mike, do you ever watch Christian news? If so, do you ever see them
going out of their way to correct the wrongs some of the bad apples have done?
I don't get that channel, so don't know what goes on with it.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.437 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

| >	Then you can accept the term phobia taking on new meanings then, like
| >the rest of the words, right?

| Come on Glenn, is it really that difficult?

| Different words with similar meanings are not the same as changing the
| meaning of an existing word.

	Now which position does phobia hold for you again Doug?

| Its a joke really. The problem is that its being played on the american public
| with full cooperation and support of our irresponsible media giants.

	I someday hope ya can prove this....

>	Now which position does phobia hold for you again Doug?

To clarify:  Different words like Little, small, tiny, not different words with
the same suffix with a different meaning for that suffix.

>| Its a joke really. The problem is that its being played on the american public
>| with full cooperation and support of our irresponsible media giants.
>
>	I someday hope ya can prove this....
    
    I may have mispoke here. I do not believe that this particular word
    has been promoted by the media, I did mean to imply that it was
    established for its shock value, much like the media does (and has done
    with 'assault weapons'. Same principal applies.
    
    
   You see a new shock word/phrase almost every week. Some stick, some don't.

Back in the sixties, we didn't have 'negrophobia', we had predudice, a label 
which carried a stigma, whether accurately applied or not. At least prejudice
was used accurately. (A strong feeling formed before the facts are known, irrational
hostility towards a particular group). 

BTW: Lacking a definition in my dictionary, perhaps someone can transcribe a
definition of homophobia from theirs ...

Doug.

    -1 been done numerous times already (dictionary question)

| <<< Note 56.459 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

RE: predudice


	I think one can be predudice against gays. I think one can be so and
not be homophobic. It really depends on if one fears or not, don't you think?



Glen

>It really depends on if one fears or not, don't you think?

Isn't that part of the point I'm trying to make? Lots of people have been
labeled homophobic for reasons other than fear (intense or not).

I can't think of anyone I've met that feared homosexuals in any way. 
But it is clear (to me anyway) that many people with strong negative 
feelings about the lifestyle (for a wide variety of reasons) have been 
labeled as such (mostly by members of the gay community). 

If there are people out there who fear homosexuals they are doing a good job
of hiding themselves (perhaps their in the closet :-).

Doug.

	fear tr. 1. To be afraid or frightened of.
	         2. To be uneasy or apprehensive about.



	hope this helps.  ;>

| <<< Note 56.462 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

| Isn't that part of the point I'm trying to make? Lots of people have been
| labeled homophobic for reasons other than fear (intense or not).

	And no one disputes that. But you can't say a word is nonexistant
because some misuse it. 

| I can't think of anyone I've met that feared homosexuals in any way.

	That's only because you haven't met me yet. And there are plenty more
than me, and for reasons other than the ones I had.

| But it is clear (to me anyway) that many people with strong negative feelings 
| about the lifestyle (for a wide variety of reasons) have been labeled as such 
| (mostly by members of the gay community).

	Again, no one disagrees. But it does not take away that the word is
valid. It just shows it is like any other word in the english language,
buthered beyond belief.

| If there are people out there who fear homosexuals they are doing a good job
| of hiding themselves (perhaps their in the closet :-).

	I guess if you could see them first hand, you'd have a better grip on
it. I have talked with people who said they think the sex part of homosexuality
was wrong. This alone would not have anything to do with homophobia. Upon
talking with them I have found that they thought sex between women is ok, but
looking at it deeper it was because for most they thought it was either a
turn-on, or that they could join in. When it came time to talking about why
male to male sex was wrong, it usually came down to the same thing. They were
afraid the person would try it on them. They admitted they feared that. The
fear does not have to be = to something outrageous. I have found that a simple,
"why do straight men flatter themselves so much" is a good ice breaker, and
then you can talk about the situation. 

	So it does exist, but not being exposed to it can make it seem like
it's made up.


Glen

    Speaking of homophobes, ...
    
    A Republican state senator from Leadville, CO, has introduced a bill to
    the Colorado State Senate to add an extra penalty to someone convicted
    of a hate crime against old people, handicapped people whether mentally
    or physically, and of people based on their sexual orientation.  Note
    his choice of evenhandedness by using the phrase "sexual orientation."
    It would be applied if a gay did some hate against a straight, or a
    straight against a gay.
    
    So far so good, but Will Perkins one of the founders of Colorado for
    Family Values and author of our notorious, poorly-written Amendment 2
    goes to the statehouse to lobby against this bill.  He's got this phobia
    that the bill will put gays on an equal footing with straights.  So 
    technically that would say he has a homo-equal-footing-phobia.
    
    I suspect he worries that this potential law could be used against him and
    his CfFV cronies.
    
    -- Jim

	Jim, it's fun to watch him go on about this. Scary, but fun. Like you
said, using the words sexual orientation, it covers both sides of the coin. I
kind of get the feeling he is just looking at it from it ONLY protecting gays.
But seeing I haven't gotten the chance to talk to the guy, I really don't know.


Glen

               <<< Note 56.467 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>Like you
>said, using the words sexual orientation, it covers both sides of the coin. I
>kind of get the feeling he is just looking at it from it ONLY protecting gays.

	This could very well be a unintentional admission that while straights
	have nothing to fear from gays (from the perspective of physical
	violence), gays are right to fear physical attack from some straights.

Jim

| <<< Note 56.468 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>


| This could very well be a unintentional admission that while straights have 
| nothing to fear from gays (from the perspective of physical violence), gays 
| are right to fear physical attack from some straights.

	Jim, I'm sure your point is obvious, but I'm somehow not getting it.
Could you clarify this for me? It's one of those days.... :(

    	What's wrong with the laws already on the books?  Why can't
    	they be applied to all these crimes?  Why do we need more
    	laws?

    	And it is my personal belief that were there no political 
    	gay movement, there would be no hate crime bill at all.  The
    	political movement is clever enough to gift-wrap its cause
    	in the cloak of politically non-devisive issues such as
    	the concerns of the elderly, and to disguise its own concerns
    	with broad terms such as sexual orientation, but that does not 
    	change the underlying motivation behind this bill.
    
    	I applaud CFV for having the courage to stand up and speak out
    	about this, even at the risk of being labeled homophobic and
    	taking a lot of political heat for it.

               <<< Note 56.469 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Jim, I'm sure your point is obvious, but I'm somehow not getting it.
>Could you clarify this for me? It's one of those days.... :(


	The law, as written, protects both straights and gays from violence
	due to their orientation. Will tells us that it is strictly a law
	to protect gays. If he really beleives that, then it follows that
	1) he believes that straights DO attack gays because of their 
	orientation and 2) gays do not attack straights because of THEIR
	orientation.

Jim

      <<< Note 56.471 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


	It would appear that the logic in .472 also applies to you.

Jim

    
    A similar Hate Crimes law is currently being drafted in Canada, and
    the Justice Minister is under a lot of pressure to drop sexual orient-
    ation from the list.
    
    I think that if such a law goes through, then sexual orientation should
    be included.  But I really wonder about the concept of this law.  You
    attack someone, then you should be charged with assault.  I'm not sure
    I like the idea of an additional charge of `hatred'.  How can we say
    that it is against the law to hate someone?
    
    Seems kinda strange to me, that's all.
    
    jc
    

| <<< Note 56.471 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| And it is my personal belief that were there no political gay movement, there 
| would be no hate crime bill at all.  

	Joe, hate crime bills have been out without sexual orientation added.
Gays did lobby to add sexual orientation into the existing laws in some states.

| The political movement is clever enough to gift-wrap its cause in the cloak of
| politically non-devisive issues such as the concerns of the elderly, and to 
| disguise its own concerns with broad terms such as sexual orientation, but 
| that does not change the underlying motivation behind this bill.

	Joe, it is a bill that is in line with other hate crime laws. Like ones
where sexual orientation was added into it after it was a law. But nice try.
It's nice to know you equate sexual orientation to = homosexual though. I guess
that makes you a big homo yourself, huh?

| I applaud CFV for having the courage to stand up and speak out about this, 
| even at the risk of being labeled homophobic and taking a lot of political 
| heat for it.

	Lets see.... sexual orientation applies to everyone, but a group of
people that you figure consists of 3% of the entire population are the only ones
you and the CFV feel this bill will benefit. You applaud the CFV for having the 
courage to stand up and speak out about this. Is it courage or fear/lies that is
making them talk about something that is all inclusive, and applying it to just 
3% of the entire population? Applaud them if you like Joe, but the reality of
the situation is that they are making themselves look foolish for crying wolf..
AGAIN.


Glen

    Re: .471
    
    I haven't heard the connection before.  Are you stating that the
    Republican State Senator from Leadville that introduced this bill,
    with the "gift-wrapping" you spoke of, is part of, or friendly to, 
    the gay political movement?
    
    -- Jim

| <<< Note 56.472 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>


| The law, as written, protects both straights and gays from violence due to 
| their orientation. Will tells us that it is strictly a law to protect gays. If
| he really beleives that, then it follows that 1) he believes that straights DO
| attack gays because of their orientation and 2) gays do not attack straights 
| because of THEIR orientation.

	Ok, it was obvious. Thanks for making it so simple for me... sigh...
btw, it is a very interesting point.

          <<< Note 56.474 by TROOA::COLLINS "Distributed being..." >>>

>But I really wonder about the concept of this law.  You
>    attack someone, then you should be charged with assault.  I'm not sure
>    I like the idea of an additional charge of `hatred'.  How can we say
>    that it is against the law to hate someone?
 
	Agreed. If Perkins had come out and said "Hate crime laws make no
	sense" it's likely that I would agree with him.

Jim

.473>	It would appear that the logic in .472 also applies to you.

    	Sure it does, which is why they cleverly worded it that way.
    
    	I don't need this additional law to protect me.  What's on
    	the books is good enough.
    
	.475
    
>It's nice to know you equate sexual orientation to = homosexual though. I guess
>that makes you a big homo yourself, huh?
    
    	It's nice to know that you can't read.

.476>    I haven't heard the connection before.  Are you stating that the
>    Republican State Senator from Leadville that introduced this bill,
>    with the "gift-wrapping" you spoke of, is part of, or friendly to, 
>    the gay political movement?
    
    	Yup, it appears that way to me.

    re: .474
    
    Sounds not too disimilar to the Orwellian mind police.

    As I interpret their notes, I have to agree with one thing that both 
    Percival and Oppelt stated, we really didn't this "extra" law.  Had
    Will Perkins gone to the statehouse and made his case on that point,
    there would not have been any need to bring this up.
    
    Instead, for CfFV he argues against the bill on account of its even-
    handedness in reference to "sexual orientation."  This suggests that 
    he favors the bill as long as it is written in the under-handed fashion 
    that his poorly-written Amendment 2 was, that is, to pass a law that 
    would put a group at a disadvantage.
    
    -- Jim

| <<< Note 56.479 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| .473>	It would appear that the logic in .472 also applies to you.

| Sure it does, which is why they cleverly worded it that way.

	You crack me up. You'd bitch if it said gay, you bitch when it's all
inclusive. Face it joe, you just like to bitch.

| .476>    I haven't heard the connection before.  Are you stating that the
| >    Republican State Senator from Leadville that introduced this bill,
| >    with the "gift-wrapping" you spoke of, is part of, or friendly to,
| >    the gay political movement?

| Yup, it appears that way to me.


	Not a Republican..... :-)

    Glen:
    
    Include me in as one who is bitching.  Further legislation is not
    needed.  It only makes to create more victim categories and we don't
    need it.  We already have enough victims as it is.  
    
    We already have assault and battery regardless of the intent...and it
    is being used Glen.  Has been since the days of Joe Friday.  Get your
    head out of the 60's Glen and join society here in the 90's.
    
    

| <<< Note 56.483 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| Include me in as one who is bitching.  

	That goes without saying..... :-)

| We already have assault and battery regardless of the intent...and it is being
| used Glen. Has been since the days of Joe Friday. Get your head out of the 
| 60's Glen and join society here in the 90's.

	You use Joe Friday and tell ME to get my head out of the 60's???? uh
huh.... :-)

	.482
    
>	You crack me up. You'd bitch if it said gay, you bitch when it's all
>inclusive. Face it joe, you just like to bitch.
    
    	No, I'm bitching because I just don't think we need the new
    	law at all (any hate law for that matter.)  Heck, Glen, you 
    	already said that I was being consistent, yet now you BITCH 
    	about that too.  So who's really the one that "just likes to 
    	bitch" anyway?

>| Yup, it appears that way to me.
>
>	Not a Republican..... :-)
    
    	Drop some of your prejudices, and you might not be so surprised
    	as much.

| <<< Note 56.485 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| >| Yup, it appears that way to me.
| >
| >	Not a Republican..... :-)

| Drop some of your prejudices, and you might not be so surprised as much.


	Joe, you know what a smiley is for? Jeeze.... I voted for 2 repubs last
election.... like I have been saying though, you make great assertions, but
they are baseless....

    no matter how much things change, they always stay the same

	Whadda ya mean 'tine? 

	Thought it would be better to move this here and not rathole the
prostitutes topic, even though this is similar to what was talked about
earlier....

================================================================================
Note 289.149            Prostitution/Red Light Districts              149 of 149
BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me"                         31 lines  17-FEB-1995 10:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 289.141 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>



| no it doesn't sound familiar. it sounds stupid.   

	Jeff, are those gay people who are converted to straight really 100%
cured, or are they just hiding who they really are??? I know of one person who 
was supposed to have converted, still had trouble when it he saw cute men. In 
fact, I remember that very person had a hard time even answering that question. 
So it really is NOT stupid, as they are very similar.

| Glen, do yourself a favor,  spend just a few more minutes thinking before
| posting and maybe we can have a conversation.  

	Oh... I did plenty-o-thinking before I posted that and this note. Trust
me on that one bud.

| i personally know of no forced conversions of homosexuals.

	yeah... I guess when people say, "You will GO TO HELL if you remain
gay!" or, "Let the Lord save you from such a terrible eeeeeevil", or what not
has no force with it. Sorry Jeff, guilt can make people try and hide in a
conversion. Even the false guilt that can be spewed. Oh... and to hide behind
a, "You must make the decision" after saying the above, and/or blowing the
person off if they don't make the conversion choice, and then try to say there
aren't any forced conversions, is laughable at best. It is very much similar to
the Inquisitions and stuff of the past.


Glen

    Glen, you take up such a strong cross against Christians, while
    professing to be one yourself.  Why do you do this?

| <<< Note 56.490 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| Glen, you take up such a strong cross against Christians, while professing to 
| be one yourself.  Why do you do this?

	Nancy, I am not a fundie Christian. My beliefs are different. I talk
about those differences. You have Christians who believe the Sabbath is on
Saturday, some on Sunday. To NOT attend church on the Sabbath, is a sin. You
have some who feel drinking any kind of alcohol is a sin, while others feel as
long as you don't drink to get drunk, you're ok. You have some who believe a
kiss has everything to do with sex, while others do not. Every Christian has
different beliefs. I talk about those differences. 

	If Jeff Benson wants to talk about how when the Inquisitions happened 
the people were forced to follow church practices, but then say that those who 
are gay who errr..... convert aren't, I will talk about it. 

	Is there something wrong with talking about the differences? I mean,
really Nancy, how many times have you gone and done the same thing about me? I
got the messages to prove that one. 


Glen

    Talking about the differences?? Bother me??? You've got to be kidding.
    :-) :-) :-)
    
    I was just curious why you want so much be considered Christian by
    those whom you seem to abhor?  It is my opinion that that the term
    Christian has been twisted today into meaning more than a faith in
    Christ.  This concerns me.  Perhaps it would be easier to understand
    debates and dialogue if the term wasn't so loosely used.
    
    I understand that you say you believe in Christ, so let me ask you this
    question;  Do you believe that eternal life is offered to those outside
    of Christ?

| <<< Note 56.492 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I was just curious why you want so much be considered Christian by those whom 
| you seem to abhor?  

	Nancy, here is your first mistake. The ONLY one who needs to know I am
His is Christ Himself. It does not matter if you or anyone considers me a
Christian. It shouldn't matter if I don't think you are. (speaking
hypothetically of course)

| It is my opinion that that the term Christian has been twisted today into 
| meaning more than a faith in Christ.  

	Then you should get back to what it means then Nancy. Think about it.
Is it or is it not part of your belief that one must believe in the Bible, and 
consider it His inerrant Word in order to gain access into Heaven?  It is my 
belief that I have to believe in Him ONLY. Who's adding what to the picture 
Nancy? Certainly not me?

| I understand that you say you believe in Christ, so let me ask you this 
| question;  Do you believe that eternal life is offered to those outside
| of Christ?

	This has always puzzled me Nancy. I believe it is there for anyone who
wants it. (ie, those outside can be brought inside) What I have always wondered 
about though, is the different religions and their God(s). Is it all the same
God brought out in a different light, or is it a false God for the other
religions? This is one thing that has yet to be answered.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    What aspect of Christianity were you referring to as "Crap" last week?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.494 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| What aspect of Christianity were you referring to as "Crap" last week?

	Refresh my memory to the note number Jack.

    I was just looking for it and the note alludes me...but you did say it!

    Hmmm, they guy down the road here has an apple orchard, therefore I
    know he is an apple grower.
    
    Hey! You're right! It works!

| <<< Note 56.496 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I was just looking for it and the note alludes me...but you did say it!

	Jack, if I know the context of which I was speaking, I can and will
address it for you. But without it, I can't. Looks like your memory is only
slightly better than mine.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.497 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

| -< By their fruit you shall know them... >-

	Well, if it's fruit we're going by, then this is the correct topic. 

    RE: .498
    
    And if this same guy told you that there's oranges in that there grove,
    what would you think of him?

| <<< Note 56.501 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| And if this same guy told you that there's oranges in that there grove,
| what would you think of him?

	If it were her/his grove, you would think they might know what they
have. 

    I'd think he had a good sense of humour. Arranges don't grow well up
    here.

    
    RE: .502 - Clueless
    
    RE: .503 - Nice ostrich act...
    

	RE: .504 - Assertive but not accurate

Glen, the first response, .1119 contradicts what you saidabout the importance 
of believing in him...especially since the teachings of believing in Him are
only from the Bible.  By the way, I couldn't find the place where you called it
crap and I find it hard to believe Diane saw this as RO. 


           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 20.1119                        Abortion                        1119 of 1285
BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me"                         11 lines  30-JAN-1995 15:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 20.1118 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| By the way, sorry you feel the gospel is crap!  Have a good one!

	You know I don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but the word
written by men. So the above statement is an accurate one when people try to
claim it's "the" word to follow.


Glen





           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 20.1106                        Abortion                        1106 of 1285
BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me"                         14 lines  30-JAN-1995 09:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 20.1101 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| I can't respond to this because I found the last version of Soapbox has been 
| destroyed. I was going to take the first ten replies to Greg Griffis basenote 
| just to show what a bunch of fearless men and women we have in the conference!

	Jack, that would not have proven anything like that. All it would have
proven was people were sick of him coming in here, starting outrageous
basenotes, and then only coming back every now and then when the topics started
to die. It would have also shown that many thought he was a loon.


Glen

--------------------------------------------
Glen, you mean that it is their opinion the notes were outrageous, not yours 
right?!
-Jack

    US Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on Colorado's poorly
    written Amendment 2.  It's the one that attempted to give unequal
    treatment to G/L/B's, was passed by the majority of voters and
    subsequently overruled by Colorado's Supreme Court.
    
    -- Jim

| <<< Note 56.506 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


	Jack, I hope when I am done with this you'll address it and not blow it
off like the other notes where you've made some great outrageous claims about
me that were wrong (the abortion topic)

| Glen, the first response, .1119 contradicts what you said about the importance
| of believing in him...especially since the teachings of believing in Him are
| only from the Bible.  

	Jack, here is your first mistake. You have taken YOUR belief, and made
it mine. My belief is NOT the same as yours. If you go by my belief, which is
teachings are done by Him, and as His tools it can include ANYTHING, then what
I said in .1119 does NOT contradict what I said about the importance of
believing in Him, as like I stated to Nancy, my belief is in Him, not in Him +
<insert other items to believe in>.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.1119


| | By the way, sorry you feel the gospel is crap!  Have a good one!

| You know I don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but the word
| written by men. So the above statement is an accurate one when people try to
| claim it's "the" word to follow.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Jack, insert my beliefs, and not yours, and this makes sense. The
Bible, imho, does not = Jesus' inerrant Word. To believe in the Bible as your
belief will have you do, takes away from believing in Him exclusively, and
shares it. Sorry Jack, I can't live that way. One can gain access into Heaven
without the use of the Bible, as long as they truly believe in Him with their 
hearts. Nor you, nor I, can make a claim of anyones belief. Only He can.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.1106                        


| | I can't respond to this because I found the last version of Soapbox has been
| | destroyed. I was going to take the first ten replies to Greg Griffis basenote
| | just to show what a bunch of fearless men and women we have in the conference!

| Jack, that would not have proven anything like that. All it would have
| proven was people were sick of him coming in here, starting outrageous
| basenotes, and then only coming back every now and then when the topics started
| to die. It would have also shown that many thought he was a loon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Glen, you mean that it is their opinion the notes were outrageous, not yours
| right?!

	Jack, what does believing in Him have to do with whether or not I or
anyone else thinks Gregs notes were outrageous? 



Glen

    
    RE: .505
    
    >RE: .504 - Assertive but not accurate
    
    Very accurate... you just don't want to see it...
    
    From your .502
    
    >If it were her/his grove, you would think they might know what they
    >have.
    
      If YOU knew it was an apple orchard... and the guy told you there
    were oranges growing there, he was doing what to you? Perhaps... lying?
    
    You would then know him to be a liar.... or a hypocrite at best...
    
    Accurate... no?
    

    ZZ One can gain access into Heaven
    ZZwithout the use of the Bible, as long as they truly believe in Him with
    ZZtheir 
    ZZhearts. Nor you, nor I, can make a claim of anyones belief. Only He
    ZZcan.
    
    I wasn't making any outrageous claims.  I was simply asking the
    question and I ask again...based on your statement above, how do you
    know this?  How did you come across this true revelation?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.509 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| Very accurate... you just don't want to see it...

	No, you are not accurate. You assume too much.

| If YOU knew it was an apple orchard... and the guy told you there were oranges
| growing there, he was doing what to you? Perhaps... lying?

	Not if he truly believed there were oranges there. 

| You would then know him to be a liar.... or a hypocrite at best...

	Again, you assumed too much, and then asserted.

| Accurate... no?

	No.

| <<< Note 56.510 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| I wasn't making any outrageous claims. I was simply asking the question and I 
| ask again...based on your statement above, how do you know this? How did you 
| come across this true revelation?

	Jack, these seem like different questions from everything is crap. But
I'll play along. Things were drilled into my head when I was a kid. When I grew
up I weighed the evidence, saw from expierences what was there, and then with
His help, came to conclusions. 


Glen

    Convenient that you believe some parts of scripture but other parts are
    crap...Hmmmm\

| <<< Note 56.513 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Convenient that you believe some parts of scripture but other parts are
| crap...Hmmmm\

	Jack, here you go asserting again. Nice try, but what you wrote above
is 100% false. To me the Bible was God inspired. But inspired does not equate
to His inerrant Word. It equates to men were inspired by God & Jesus, so they
wrote many books, which were translated over the years through many languages,
and were chosen by other men from many such writings to be included included
into a book which people have named, the Bible. If God leads one there to help
solve a problem, then it becomes a useful guide. But He could also lead you to
your answer from using human words, a street sign, a song, anything. The Bible,
to me, is more of a history book, which we know are not inerrant. Free will
plays into it all Jack, which is why for *me*, I can not believe it to be the
inerrant Word of God. But we've been down this path before Jack. That's why I
am puzzled by what you wrote above, as you know I have never believed some
parts, and not others when it comes to the Bible.


Glen

    
    RE: .511
    
    >Not if he truly believed there were oranges there.
    
    non sequitur...
    
    But you knew that.... 
    
    and you talk about others using deflection!!

| <<< Note 56.515 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| >Not if he truly believed there were oranges there.

| non sequitur...

	Andy, the above is NOT non sequitur. Otherwise you, me, and everyone
else in here would be considered a liar, or hypocrite at best. You can not ever
prove the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, yet you believe it is. Is this a
non sequitur thing? I can tell you it isn't, but you say it is. How is it
different? 

| and you talk about others using deflection!!

	No deflecting going on here....on my part anyway.

| -< If I truly believed I'm a homophobe... am I? >-

	Yes, you certainly are.

    
    Would you kindly go and look up what the definition of the term is?
    
    TYVM...
    
    
      You are still clueless...
    
    >Yes, you certainly are.
    
    
      IYNSHO.....

    Exactly Glen...so the Bible is inspired but not inerrant...so what
    determines whether or not Jesus ever even existed...considering 
    that part could be inerrant!
    
    -Jack

    Faith determines it.

| <<< Note 56.517 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| Would you kindly go and look up what the definition of the term is?

	I know what the meaning is. If someone says they have oranges in their
apple orchard, and truly believes they are oranges, then they are not lieing or
being a hypocrite, which you keep elluding to. It's like you saying the God of
the Bible is the real God and the proof is in the Bible. Someone different
reads the book, but ends up believing differently. Both have the same thing to 
look at, (as with the apple orchard) but both have different beliefs. 

| You are still clueless...

	Baseless assertions..... but you knew that.

| IYNSHO.....


	Care to splain?

>	If someone says they have oranges in their
>apple orchard, and truly believes they are oranges, then they are not lieing or
>being a hypocrite, 
    
    	And they are also not correct, no matter how much they argue to
    	the contrary.

| <<< Note 56.518 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Exactly Glen...so the Bible is inspired but not inerrant...so what determines 
| whether or not Jesus ever even existed...considering that part could be 
| inerrant!

	Faith Jack. One, it was drilled into my head. Two, I questioned things
as I grew older, so I could understand, and not just think that everything that
was drilled in was the honest to God truth. For me it helped me see that a
formal Saturday afternoon confession in the church with a priest is ONE method 
to ask God for forgiveness, but it surely is not the only one. Just asking Him
period does the job. Things He has done for me, things He has used me with to
help others, and for the simple things He shows me that are not only beautiful,
but His creation. And of course He is there to show me the correct path I must
take, which could be a very hard one, but the one He wants me to take. He
Himself has shown me many things. True, I have not always made the right
decisions, but no human ever has. Free will plays into this as well. 


Glen

| <<< Note 56.521 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| And they are also not correct, no matter how much they argue to the contrary.

	Agreed.

    
    RE: .520
    
    >I know what the meaning is. 
    
    No you don't.... if you did, you wouldn't write what you did below.
    
    
    >If someone says they have oranges in their apple orchard, and truly
    >believes they are oranges, then they are not lieing or being a
    >hypocrite,
    
    
      If someones house is on fire and they don't believe it's on fire and
    continue to sit there in their living room, truly believing all is
    well... are they lying to themselves?
    
      Will they live if not rescued?
    
    
    >IYNSHO
    
    
      In Your Not So Humble Opinion
    
    NNTTM
    
    
     

| <<< Note 56.524 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| >I know what the meaning is.

| No you don't.... if you did, you wouldn't write what you did below.

	You are thick, aren't you....

| If someones house is on fire and they don't believe it's on fire and continue 
| to sit there in their living room, truly believing all is well... are they 
| lying to themselves?

	If they truly believe the house is not on fire, no. Why is it so hard
for you to understand that one can believe something is true? 


Glen

    That's great Glen...I'm glad to hear you have accepted Him.  Too bad
    though that you apparently feel you are better qualified to determine
    what pleases God, what God's standards of Holy living are than the
    Bible...considering the Bible could all be completely erroneous in that
    light.
    
    That is the danger of your thinking Glen.  You have accepted Christ in
    your heart as you have stated.  The next question you have to ask Glen
    is, whose in the drivers seat?  Are you the pilot or just a passenger?
    If you have determines by Glens standards what is considered Holy and
    sanctified, then you are determining the rules of your own conduct. 
    This my friend is very chancy!
    
    -Jack

    
    and you're trying to tell me I'm thick??????
    
    
    You have taken deflection to its finest art form Zeb!!!
    
    
     Statement by me:  I am not a homophobe!!
    
    Zeb: Yes you are!!
    
    
      Who's right Zeb??
    

    it rained a lot up north, and there was a mother-of-all-floods
    downriver a ways.
    
    the water was risin' terrible fast on ol'henry's place, it was up to
    the porch, but he wasn't scared.  he'd read his bible every day, and he
    knew as how it says trust in the lord thy god, so he was safe.
    
    well, along came a couple of guys in a rowboat and said, henry, it's
    time to leave.  come along with us while there's still time.  henry
    said, no, fellers, thanks, but i'm trustin' in the lord, he's gonna
    save me.  so they floated on down.
    
    the water kept risin' and pretty soon henry had to go up to the second
    floor.  he was sittin' in the upstairs parlor lookin' out, and a raft
    came bumpin' along the clapboards.  there was a family on it, with a
    couple trunks, but there was still room for henry.  the man on the raft
    said, henry, come with us, please!  your house is gonna float away! 
    but henry said, no, thanks, i've got my bible and my lord, and he's
    gonna save me.  so the rafters pushed off and continued on downstream.
    
    well, the water still kept on risin' and pretty soon henry was perched
    on the peak of his roof.  a national guard helicopter came along, and
    the men hollered to henry that they'd let down a rope and he could
    climb up.  henry said, no, thanks, go save somebody who needs you.  i'm
    safe in the lord, and he's gonna take care of me.  the guys yelled at
    henry some more, but he just kept wavin' 'em off, so finally they left.
    
    well, the water rose over the roof, and henry was carried away and
    drowned.  when he came to stand before the lord, the said, what
    happened to you, lord, i trusted in your promise that you'd take care
    of me.
    
    the lord said, henry, i sent you a boat and a raft and a helicopter,
    what more could i do?
    
    moral:  your version of the bible may not be quite right.  don't be so
    smug and sure you have the only truth, because you might end up like
    henry.
    

    .528
    
    No the moral of the story is:
    
    God helps those who help themselves.  Sheesh!  I've heard that over and
    over and over and over again.
    
    The truth is God has given us a Bible to read in which to find His
    nature and attributes.  It is the living word of God, which is why
    after centuries of years old, it still applies to our every day lives
    in 1995.
    
    Glen what was drilled into your head and where did it come from?  Not
    the person, but the source of the information drilled in your head.

    taking your moral, nancy, glen seems to have helped himself by using
    the brain that god gave him instead of blindly believing everything
    that was shoved at him.  i don't say he's got all the right answers,
    but i KNOW that many in the bible-believing camp(s) haven't got them,
    so it's still an open issue, i think.

| <<< Note 56.526 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| That's great Glen...I'm glad to hear you have accepted Him. Too bad though 
| that you apparently feel you are better qualified to determine what pleases 
| God, what God's standards of Holy living are than the Bible...

	Jack, I could follow a book that I believe mere men wrote. Would I be 
better off? I don't believe so. I believe in Him, and therefor I believe that 
He will show me what I need to know. It's called faith Jack. We both have faith 
in Him Jack, the only difference is I keep my faith to Him, while you keep your 
faith to Him + the Bible. 

| That is the danger of your thinking Glen.  

	My thinking or yours Jack?

| You have accepted Christ in your heart as you have stated. 

	Ok, so we are on my beliefs here.

| The next question you have to ask Glen is, whose in the drivers seat?  

	Now I see we are talking about your thinking Jack. I don't need to ask
who is in the drivers seat Jack. He is. True, I am not perfect, like anyone
else, I make mistakes, but He is there for me when I make these mistakes. It's 
really simple Jack. Let me ask you something. Who's in the drivers seat for you?
God? You? The Bible? 

| Are you the pilot or just a passenger?

	Jack, even with your belief in the Bible, are you always JUST the
passenger? I think we both know that is not a true statement for anyone,
because there is free will. Free will might be the reason, but it surely
doesn't make being the pilot correct. Only He should be. 

| If you have determined by Glens standards what is considered Holy and 
| sanctified, then you are determining the rules of your own conduct.

	If you used my standards, then you have let Him determine the rules of
conduct. If you follow your standards, you have let the written Word do it. The
difference here is I do not believe the Bible to be God's inerrant written
Word. By both of our standards, one of us is correct. By reality, one or both
is wrong. Only He knows for sure.

| This my friend is very chancy!

	This my friend is faith in Him, nothing else. If that is chancy, then
it's a chance I'll GLADLY take.


Glen

    Binder,
    
    I don't think that being a Christian = mindless obedience.
    
    Unfortunately, you do.

    .532
    
    > I don't think that being a Christian = mindless obedience.
    
    no, nancy, as a christian i don't think so, either.  but i know many
    bible-believing christians who do, whether they even realize it or not,
    think that way.  they refuse to question anything.  they have all the
    answers.  even if their answers can be proven false, they still hold to
    them.

| <<< Note 56.527 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| and you're trying to tell me I'm thick??????

	Why yes, I am.

| You have taken deflection to its finest art form Zeb!!!

	Wow, a nickname from a nickname. How cool.

| Statement by me:  I am not a homophobe!!

| Zeb: Yes you are!!

| Who's right Zeb??

	Not you, that is for sure. Go reread your OWN title for note .515. It
states, "If I truly believed I'm a homophobe....am I?"  I just agreed that yes,
you would be. Unless of course your statement equates to some hidden message
that you are not a homophobe..... but at least the words state otherwise. Go
read your OWN message Andy, and then report back to me. 



Glen

    
    Stop deflecting and answer the question in .527!!!!
    

| <<< Note 56.529 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| The truth is God has given us a Bible to read in which to find His nature and 
| attributes. It is the living word of God, 

	Nancy, that is YOUR belief, and you keep going on believing that. I
believe He has shown me otherwise.

| which is why after centuries of years old, it still applies to our every day 
| lives in 1995.

	Hey, are we gonna be unclean after sex all day and at night offer two
sacrafices, one burnt, of either 2 doves or pigeons so we can be clean again?

| Glen what was drilled into your head and where did it come from?  

	People's interpretation of the entire Bible, from beginning to the end. 
Seems that when the priest would change, so wouldn't the messages. The same
passage would be used, but to mean a different thing. That led me to wonder
about the people interpreting, and the book itself. 



Glen

| <<< Note 56.532 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I don't think that being a Christian = mindless obedience.

	You're right, it doesn't have to.

    .536
    
    
    I understand why you'd feel this way about the Bible, when looking at
    the "different interpretations" of scripture.
    
    The idea of a personal relationship to God is that it is personal and
    not listening so much to what others tell you the Bible says, but
    reading it for yourself with Holy Spirit as the interpreter.
    
    You can say you've done this, but then I see you ask questions
    regarding things such as "Where did all these other gods come from" and
    I can't help but wonder.  The Bible all through the new testament
    speaks of Paul's missionary journeys and the many different gods and
    religions he came upon.
    
    Why even in the old testament it tells you where muslim and
    Christianity were split.
    
    You refute so much of the Bible, and yet I find your not very versed
    in the same.
    
    The Bible says that God is rewarder of those who diligently seek him? 
    Are you still relying on what others say about the Bible or do you
    diligently study the Bible?
    
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 56.535 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| Stop deflecting and answer the question in .527!!!!

	No deflecting Andy. I really thought you were referring to .515. Sorry.

	If you state that you are not a homophobe, it is a statement. If you
TRULY believe you are not a homophobe, then your belief is not a lie, is not
being hypocritical to you. Plain and simple. It does not mean your belief is
correct. But the reasons you have for believing you are not a homophobe have
not been proven wrong to you yet, if they ever will. Until those reasons are
changed, if ever, you will always believe yourself to not be a homophobe. It is
a REAL belief. Note .521 talked about this.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Since we disagree on the inerrancy issue, it's pointless to continue. 
    Suffice to say, by what you have said, faith is not a grab bag.  Faith
    is the sum of the whole package.  We cannot meet God on our terms, we
    must meet God on His terms.  If you believe that Moses was anti gay
    by what was written in Leviticus about man lying with man as one lies
    with a woman, then that is your faith foundation.  I think your robbing
    yourself of truth but hey, that's your perogative.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 56.538 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| I understand why you'd feel this way about the Bible, when looking at the 
| "different interpretations" of scripture.

	Oh, it goes further than that. My notes in the CHRISTIAN notesfile,
well, back when one could talk about what they believe when it came to the
Bible not being the inerrant Word of God, showed all that. I've also written a
lot in CP as well. We've had many a conversation about the different parts of
the Bible which lead me to believe it to be written by men. But I thought I
would save you the trouble of going over it all again. What was drilled seemed
contradictory at times. While young, like I said, it made me question the
people speaking and the book itself. When I grew older, it made me question the
people. From reading the book, and with His help, my belief became that the
Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, but a book written by men. 

| The idea of a personal relationship to God is that it is personal and not 
| listening so much to what others tell you the Bible says, but reading it for 
| yourself with Holy Spirit as the interpreter.

	Done.

| You can say you've done this, but then I see you ask questions regarding 
| things such as "Where did all these other gods come from" and I can't help but
| wonder.  

	Nancy, maybe it is wrong to wonder about these things, but they are
facinating to me so I do wonder. I don't have all the answers, and even your
belief says something can be written in the Bible, but the understanding hasn't 
been revealed. 

| The Bible all through the new testament speaks of Paul's missionary journeys 
| and the many different gods and religions he came upon.

	Is this the very same Paul who also said in what is supposed to be the
inerrant Word of God, "What I am about to tell you is not from God, but my own
opinion"? Yeah, a human opinion in what is supposed to be God's Word. 

| Why even in the old testament it tells you where muslim and Christianity were 
| split.

	Now what parts of the OT aren't we Gentiles to follow? Just the rules 
and regulations or the whole thing? 

| The Bible says that God is rewarder of those who diligently seek him? Are you 
| still relying on what others say about the Bible or do you diligently study 
| the Bible?

	Nancy, if God leads me to the Bible for something, then that's where I
go. He could also lead me to a street sign for an answer. Your belief seems to
be one that takes someone who studies the Bible as the only way one can truly
diligently study Him. Is this true? I seek Him, not a book.

	BTW Nancy, if I rely on what others told/tell me about the Bible, would
I think of the book as just that, a book? 

Glen

| <<< Note 56.540 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Since we disagree on the inerrancy issue, it's pointless to continue.

	Ok.

| Suffice to say, by what you have said, faith is not a grab bag.  

	Agreed.

| We cannot meet God on our terms, we must meet God on His terms.  

	Agreed.

| If you believe that Moses was anti gay by what was written in Leviticus about 
| man lying with man as one lies with a woman, then that is your faith 
| foundation.  

	Man, I swear you do this to get a rise. :-)  To help you out Jack, I do
not believe, have never believed, that Moses was anti-gay at all. Let's look at
the Scripture:

 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 


	If man lies with mankind as they would with womankind, then doesn't
that mean this man was heterosexual to begin with and is having sex with men?
Considering the text this one line is coming out of, I believe they are talking
about lust, nothing more. Here Levitcus 18:


Leviticus 18:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 
  2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your 
    God. 
  3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: 
    and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye 
    not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. 
  4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am 
    the LORD your God. 
  5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, 
    he shall live in them: I am the LORD. 
  6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover 
    their nakedness: I am the LORD. 
  7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou 
    not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 
  8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy 
    father's nakedness. 
  9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of 
    thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their 
    nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 
 10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even 
    their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 
 11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, 
    she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 
 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy 
    father's near kinswoman. 
 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is 
    thy mother's near kinswoman. 
 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt 
    not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 
 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy 
    son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 
 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy 
    brother's nakedness. 
 17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither 
    shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover 
    her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. 
 18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her 
    nakedness, beside the other in her life time. 
 19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as 
    long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 
 20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile 
    thyself with her. 
 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, 
    neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 
 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 
 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: 
    neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is 
    confusion. 
 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the 
    nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 
 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon 
    it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 
 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not 
    commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any 
    stranger that sojourneth among you: 
 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were 
    before you, and the land is defiled;) 
 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out 
    the nations that were before you. 
 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that 
    commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 
 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of 
    these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye 
    defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. 


| I think your robbing yourself of truth but hey, that's your perogative.

	According to your belief, I guess I am.... but I'll let Him decide.


Glen

    
    regarding last statement in Glen's .541
    
    Yes.. because it seems you are reciting again other men's arguments
    against the Bible.  I haven't seen anything new from you in 2 years.
    I'd think if one were truly interested in the truth there'd be some
    studying going on.  You've been given ample refutations regarding your
    Biblical contradictions.  Where's the study to refute them?
    
    Glen, this is a very important decision in one's life.  You've chosen to
    believe in a God or Christ and then refute the very means
    of transportation by which we even have knowledge of God and Christ.
    
    In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with "wondering" about the
    things of God, but when doing some of the wondering, why not pick up
    the Bible and see if there's anything on that subject?
    
    Your answers regarding different gods are in there... 
    
    Nancy
    
    
    
    

| <<< Note 56.543 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Yes.. because it seems you are reciting again other men's arguments against 
| the Bible.  

	Pauls opinion is from the Bible itself Nancy. If I let other people
influence my belief of the Bible, then one common thread would still be in
place. I would still have to believe it is the inerrant Word of God. But that
ain't the case.

| I haven't seen anything new from you in 2 years. I'd think if one were truly 
| interested in the truth there'd be some studying going on.  

	Nancy, you don't want to see the books I've been studying. 

| You've been given ample refutations regarding your Biblical contradictions.  

	I've always loved that. Lets see, it has not been revealed yet, even
though Paul stated his own opinion, it did not go against scripture so it is ok,
etc. Sorry Nancy, these things do not refute what I have said. How does it
refute that a human stated what he was about to say is not from God is a book
of God's Word? All it's done is gloss over it rather lightly. 

| Glen, this is a very important decision in one's life.  You've chosen to
| believe in a God or Christ and then refute the very means of transportation 
| by which we even have knowledge of God and Christ.

	That is your belief, and you are certainly entitled to it. I do not
believe that is the "very means" at all. 


Glen

    
    RE: .539
    
    Well... there it is... Thank you for entering your reply. Now... in
    your paragraph, take out the word "not" and replace the word homophobe
    with the word christian and see what you get...
    
     This was my whole point in this "discussion"...

| <<< Note 56.545 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| Well... there it is... Thank you for entering your reply. Now... in your 
| paragraph, take out the word "not" and replace the word homophobe with the 
| word christian and see what you get...

	Hey, that's cool. But Andy, I can no more tell you that just because
you make a statement that you're a Christian, that you're not. Only Christ can.
I hope you remember that incase anyone ever says you're not a Christian.


Glen

    
    Let me make myself a little clearer...
    
    Tha paragraph can also state, with the edits I suggested, that one may
    not be a christian and think they are...

| <<< Note 56.547 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>



| Tha paragraph can also state, with the edits I suggested, that one may
| not be a christian and think they are...

	I fully agree with that concept Andy. But just remember, unless Christ
tells you that you're not a Christian, it doesn't matter what others may view
you as. Your relationship with Christ is just that, between you and Christ.
True, you may in reality not really be a Christian, but I truly believe He will
tell you if you are not. Hope this helps

    if a personal relationship with god is the goal of christianity in this
    life, then once that personal relationship has been attained what need
    is there for the books that tell how to attain it?  the bible becomes
    unnecessary to a fully involved christian; it becomes a guidebook that
    can be referred to as a memory refresher, as a comfort, and as many
    other things.  but not a rule book.
    
    christians who base everything on the words in the book are so busy
    being religious that they don't have the time to be spiritual.  in the
    spirit we are all the same, and it is up to the lord to talk to us as
    individuals, guiding each one as he sees fit.

    
>>    christians who base everything on the words in the book are so busy
>>    being religious that they don't have the time to be spiritual.

	Amen to that, mon ami.  Exactly what I was thinking.  They can't
	see the forest for the trees.

    False.  Dick, I would say in all honesty I am the furthest thing from
    religious as I could get...thank God.  The Bible does show the way to
    eternal life.  The Bible is also a guide to positive living, but the
    Bible is something that takes a lifetime to understand and know
    intimately.  In the context of gay issues for example, Glen sees
    Leviticus as referring to lust.  The original Hebrew refers to man
    sleeping with man as one who lies with a woman as the act, not the
    heart condition.  This is an abomination to God.  So, if I am correct
    in this matter, then would a practicing gay individual be pleasing God
    His actions?  I don't believe a Bible should be collecting dust on a
    shelf.  It is a continual character molder as the reader grows in age
    and in faith.
    
    -Jack

    .551
    
    jack, you might wish to remember that leviticus was written as a set of
    RULES, not as a spiritual guide.  do this, get stoned.  do that, pay
    with your life.  among the prohibitions is the eating of pork.  does
    that law make sense today, once you understand that it was passed to
    prevent trichinosis from undercooked pork?  no, and the fact that we as
    christians are not bound by it should tell you something about the
    validity of many of those old laws.  or do you still support stoning
    adulterers?
    
    i hate to throw water on your warm fuzzy blanket, but the old
    testament's rules are the antithesis of spirituality.  jesus summed
    true spirituality up in the two great commandments.  and i gotta tell
    you, pointing fingers and passing discriminatory laws are not the acts
    of a loving person.
    
    times change - but it's obvious that most people, in their need to
    think themselves better than their fellows, don't.

      |      Amen to that, mon ami.  Exactly what I was thinking.  They can't
      |      see the forest for the trees.
    
    
    	More like they can't see the desert for the sand.
     

    Sorry to disappoint you Dick.  In the Christian conferences, I am very
    careful to state up front that I am as sinful as the next man/woman,
    worse in many cases.  I have a grip on my self image not to have to use
    religion as a tool to boost my ego or what have you, so you can take me
    out of that little box right now. 
    
    As I HAVE STATED...multiple times I might add, peoples sex lives are in
    fact between them and God and I have no intentions of fingerpointing as
    you so aptly put it.  If gay people want to sleep with members of their
    own gender, they have to live with it.  If hets want to sleep around,
    they have to live with it...and most definitely the consequnces which
    by the way alot of times spill over into a societal problem which you
    don't seem to mind reaping on those who chose not to live
    dysfunctionally.  HOWEVER, once society starts parading their sex lives
    in public...calling right what I personally think is wrong and tries to
    change the mores of a whole society, then I have every right in the
    world to stand up for what I believe in.  As the saying goes, you don't
    push your morality on me...and I won't push my morality on you. 
    Abortion initiatives and gays demanding to be in the parade and all
    that crap...nothing more than forced morality Dick.  Again, your
    chitting on my front lawn...thanks alot!
    
    -Jack

    .554
    
    calm down, jack.
    
    > careful to state up front that I am as sinful as the next man/woman
    
    isn't that special.  define sin.  in terms applicable to EVERY form of
    morality on the planet.  what?  you can't?  why am i not surprised? 
    
    obtw, you are in actual fact boosting your ego simply by asserting that
    you have the only right path.
    
    "abortion initiatives"?  what are those?  the oft-quoted line "if you
    don't like abortions, don't have one" happens to be correct - in all
    aspects.  nobody is trying to force you, who don't like abortions, to
    have one or to participate in the obtaining of one for anyone else -
    but the converse of that position is most certainly not true.  the only
    abortion-related initatives i know of are those being pushed by people
    whose MORALITY prohibits abortions, to make it impossible for people
    whose MORALITY does not include prohibiting abortions to obtain them.
    
    you (generic) can stand up and say abortion is bad, but you have no
    right whatever to force your MORALITY on someone else by passing laws
    preventing that person from doing something not anathema to her.  as
    long as the law does not define a fetus as a human person with all the
    rights and privileges appertaining thereto, abortion is not murder in
    the eyes of the law.  and scotus has decided that they're not persons
    under the law.  what's more, scotus - a conservatively weighted scotus
    - has upheld the earlier ruling.  so it devolves back onto morality.
    who is pushing whose morality on whom?
    
    "gay initiatives"?  i agree wholeheartedly that too much has been made
    by gays of this.  but it is readily apparent, to me at least, that if
    certain groups were not pointing fingers and agitating for laws that
    discriminate against gays, much of the gay movement might have stayed
    in its own bedroom - which is where it belongs.  fwiw, jack, i'm an
    easygoing guy.  but when you (generic) start passing laws that might
    prevent me from getting a job just because i happen not to agree with
    your religious MORALITY, you can bet i'll snap like a dog with a
    trampled tail.  so here again, who is pushing whose morality on whom?
    

    Dick,
    
    There is a difference between using morality as an argument for or
    against something, it is quite different to use morality as a
    legislative basis. I have heard Jack, John and Joe (among others)
    validly use morality as an argument, I have not heard any of them
    propose to enforce their morality through law. They are often
    accused of doing this by various "liberal" factions in this
    conference, but in fact, I see no evidence which suggests that
    they actually support this. What Jack has said, and with which
    I agree, is that he does not support laws which force him to
    act contrary to his morality. Is this distinctions so hard to
    grasp? What Jack is saying seems clear enough, to me anyway...
    
    -b

	RE: .549


		Dick, that was one excellent note!

    When you require Deaconess Hospital to provide training for
    abortions...which you are, then you are forcing your morality on
    somebody else.  I see Planned Parenthood as the great Satan
    here...crossing the line if you will.  In their event to not be the
    only ones who have the stench of cow dung on them, they are attempting
    to drop piles of poop from an airplane amongst the masses...and
    justifying it inadequately to say the least.  It's like I said and is
    being said in a calm collective tone, please keep your chite on your
    own property and keep it off mine...Thank You!
    
    As far as being the only way, consider me a parrot here.  I didn't say
    I know the only way.  Jesus said he was the only way and based on what
    he said, I choose to believe this and share it with those who might be
    interested.  I see manmade alternatives to reaching God as an insult to
    what Jesus did on the cross...but that's my own personal observation.
    
    Jack-Who-Is-Completely-Calm!!!!

    ZZZ                Dick, that was one excellent note!
    
    
    Of course it was Glen, it was directed against me after all!

| <<< Note 56.551 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| False. Dick, I would say in all honesty I am the furthest thing from religious
| as I could get...thank God.  

	Jack, could you clarify something for me? Do you mean what Dick said
was false, or that you thinking it applied to you was false? My guess would be
that it applied to you, as after stating the word false, you went on to paint
yourself as the complete oppisite of what Dick had stated. 

| In the context of gay issues for example, Glen sees Leviticus as referring to 
| lust. The original Hebrew refers to man sleeping with man as one who lies with
| a woman as the act, not the heart condition.  

	I see it that way too Jack. If one is heterosexual, and she/he has sex
with someone of the same sex, then they are doing this out of lust. The act.
When the Bible states, "as one who lies with a woman", I know they are talking
about the sex part of it. You see, if they were talking about the heart part,
then lust wouldn't be involved, love would be.

| This is an abomination to God.  

	According to your belief, yes.

| So, if I am correct in this matter, then would a practicing gay individual be 
| pleasing God His actions?  

	If you were correct, you would have a valid point. I do not believe you
are, and I believe He has shown me that.

| I don't believe a Bible should be collecting dust on a shelf.  

	I agree. God could lead one to it at any point in time.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.553 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Ooo Ah silly me" >>>

| Amen to that, mon ami.  Exactly what I was thinking.  They can't
| see the forest for the trees.

| More like they can't see the desert for the sand.

	Maybe we should take them out of the forest, out of the desert, and
dump them in a lake..... oh.... but then they couldn't see the shore for the
sharks....

| <<< Note 56.554 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| If gay people want to sleep with members of their own gender, they have to 
| live with it. If hets want to sleep around, they have to live with it...

	And if people watch Beavis and Butthead, they have to live with it too,
right? :-)

| and most definitely the consequnces which by the way alot of times spill over 
| into a societal problem which you don't seem to mind reaping on those who 
| chose not to live dysfunctionally.  

	Would you call someone who watched Beavis and Butthead dysfunctional?
Be careful how you answer this now.

| HOWEVER, once society starts parading their sex lives in public...calling 
| right what I personally think is wrong and tries to change the mores of a 
| whole society, then I have every right in the world to stand up for what I 
| believe in.  

	Jack, it is ok for those who may view your beliefs as being wrong to
stand up for what they believe in, right?

	BTW, who parades their sex lives in public. I'm curious.


Glen

| <<< Note 56.558 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| When you require Deaconess Hospital to provide training for abortions...which
| you are, then you are forcing your morality on somebody else.  

	Are you saying abortions are moral now Jack? :-)  (sorry, couldn't
resist)

| <<< Note 56.559 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| ZZZ                Dick, that was one excellent note!


| Of course it was Glen, it was directed against me after all!

	I think it was directed at certain types of Christians Jack. I didn't
see where you were mentioned in there. I did see ya scream you weren't like the
ones Dick was talking about though. So why do you believe it was directed at
you? (btw, did ya answer 20.1284 yet?)


Glen

    > once society starts parading their sex lives in public...
    
    by means such as wearing wedding rings?  for all PRACTICAL purposes,
    EVERY person who wears a wedding ring (specifically excluding religious
    such as nuns) is saying, "i boink.  but it's okay, because i do it with
    motos."  that, jack, is parading one's sex life in public just as much
    as a gay's announcing his or her preference.

 ZZ   And if people watch Beavis and Butthead, they have to live with
 ZZ   it too, right? :-)
   
    Uhhhhhhhhh...uhhhhh
    Beaivs and Bumhead..what...what are you talking about?  I know not how
    these fictitious characters fit into the context of this conversation.
    From what I heard B&B portray two dysfunctional fictitious characters
    but I fail to see the connection here.  By the way, how about them
    Patriots?!!
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    by means such as wearing wedding rings?  for all PRACTICAL purposes,
    EVERY person who wears a wedding ring (specifically excluding
    religious such as nuns) is saying, "i boink.  but it's okay, because i do it
    with motos."  that, jack, is parading one's sex life in public just as
    much as a gay's announcing his or her preference.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Yes...and if a gay individual wants to identify themself through a
    symbol, that's ok too....freedom of expression and all that.  I happen
    to think kissing contests amongst straights are inappropriate in public
    too.  Gay pride day...stuuupid.  I don't care...you don't need a parade
    for this.  Keep it to yourself...Most people could care less.
    
    -Jack
    

    .566
    
    > Most people could care less.
    
    you're right, although you didn't mean it.  most people could indeed
    give less energy and thought to the issue than they do.  gay-bashing is
    on the upswing, thanks to self-righteousness and hate groups.  both of
    which are largely the property of the reichwyng.  if these people would
    ignore the issue instead of aggravating it, it would soon recede into
    the background where it belongs.

| <<< Note 56.566 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Beaivs and Bumhead..what...what are you talking about?  I know not how
| these fictitious characters fit into the context of this conversation.

	Easy, you watch them. They are part of what leads up to dysfuntional
people, according to some Christians (not sure if you are one of them seeing
you do watch it), which like the other stuff you mentioned, all fit together
nicely, don't they?

| I happen to think kissing contests amongst straights are inappropriate in 
| public too.  

	How about walking arm and arm, looking at each other, and giving a
quick smack on the lips. Is this inappropriate? I agree with you that kissing
contests in public, regardless of who does it, are inappropriate. But why take
it to the extreme when every day life can be put to the test.

| Gay pride day...stuuupid.  I don't care...you don't need a parade for this.  

	Tell me what the parade represents to gays Jack.



Glen

    .556
    
    bri, it's possible that /john and hack and joe are among the christians
    who do not favor laws that would declare abortion illegal.  but they're
    certainly not ALL the christian - and nonchristian - voices being heard
    these days, and there is a LARGE, VOCAL and in some cases VIOLENT group
    (several allied groups, actually) that are working for such laws.  that
    is forcing morality by legislation pure and simple.
    
    colorado's a2 proves that such people are working to discriminate, with
    the force of law, against gays, which is more forced morality.  but you
    cannot cite even ONE instance of ANYONE working to pass laws that would
    force people to become gay.

    
    RE: violence...
    
     I would venture to guess one should stop worrying about the christians
    and start worrying about the moslems...
    

    .552
    
>    i gotta tell
>    you, pointing fingers and passing discriminatory laws are not the acts
>    of a loving person.
    
    	Are you doing any less, Dick?

    Re: Beavis and Butthead.
    
    I categorically deny it!
    
    Re: Gay Pride day...I don't know Glen.  What does it signify to
    gays...considering alot of conservative gays feel it's nonsense!?

| <<< Note 56.572 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| I categorically deny it!

	Want me to post the mail?

| Re: Gay Pride day...I don't know Glen.  What does it signify to gays

	Jack, you said it does nothing for you. I want to see if you even know
what it is about. Do you?

| ...considering alot of conservative gays feel it's nonsense!?

	Can you be more pacific? :-)