Leaderboard

The interesting part about this is how similar this sounds to many apocalyptic stories and tales. I'm considering many in various Seventh Day Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians) in particular. There are conspiracy theories with other Christian sects, as well. And it's not limited to religions. If you look at the Alex Jones / Jeff Rense brand of political belief, they are big-time into conspiracy theories, as well. (I am not including all 9-11 Truth conspiracy types, though. While the full extent of that theory is that Bush did it, but he did it at the behest of the Bilderbergers, I think that most 9-11 Truthers just believed that Bush did it for his own jollies, without being ordered around by shadows beyond Cheney). I think that the common thread is that they are looking for some theory of theories that they can use to rationalize feeling powerless and small.

This weekend marks the 40-year anniversary of the Manson murders. For me, it is a chilling reminder to see the shocking outcome when blind allegiance to a cult leader runs its course. When I attended wierwille's advanced class, I was surprised to see all the conspiracy theories... ie the illuminati, the myth of the six million, the marxist minstrels, every denomination is headed by seed men etc. etc. Far removed from reading bible verses, this "advanced class" was ushering in ideologies, unsubstantiated theories, us-versus-them agendas. In this isolated class-setting, one needed to severely ante-up to be counted as a faithful advanced class grad. Then, the corps indoctrination included aspects of MAL-pack (more abundant life in survival settings) where each corps twig was required to map out a secret destination in the event of government collapse/takeover. More so in the corps indoctrination program, the mantra "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" was well-known and voiced by the corps coordinators. So, the "general" (wierwille) might suggest something in private...and the "soldier" was to follow orders. Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight. IMO, it's chilling to see the parallels of Manson's followers and the extreme subtle suggestions to the corps. Manson directed his followers' actions from behind the scenes. He didn't bloody his own hands. Thankfully, wierwille didn't project violent "prophecies" to his followers.....at least, not to my knowledge. BUT...........how close to the edge did we go???? When so many blame martindale for twi's downfall, they fail to recognize wierwille's ultra-smooth conning of one's conscience. Chilling reminders.......... :blink:

It was staged. One long time poster has detailed how she and VPW were sitting under a tree having a casual conversation, when a certain believer walked by. Wierwille jumped up and got in his face, delivering an enraged tirade. Then, when he had dismissed the person, he sat back down, smiled, made some off the wall comment about spiritual anger and casually resumed the conversation as if nothing had happened. It was all an act. He slipped in and out of character like a walk-on in a broadway show.

There's a significant body of opinion here at the Café to the effect that VPW knew that PFAL / TWI was a scam – out to get money, and that he wasn't a genuine minister but (wording differs) a shyster, charlatan, snake-oil salesman, etc. It was set up as a scam, right from the beginning. It is also widely believed at the Café that he plagiarized the principal books (PFAL and RHST) and also used other people's work which he passed off as his own. It was a scam. People here are happy to say that. And those same people are happy to give Mrs Wierwille, Dotsie, a free pass. She is seen as a victim of VPW's sexual profligacy, and there seems to be no doubt that she was aware of his behavior in that direction. But ... does she deserve the free pass? She was with him right from the beginning. She supported him in his early years. She was a woman who could speak and act for herself: she ran away with him (apparently). She wasn't cowed by his "greatness" then. She was around when he was thrown out of his original church. She participated in his trip to India. She was there when he began to get involved with BG Leonard. She must have seen BG's book in the house; probably read it. And surely the original founding trustees didn't get together without discussing it with their wives? And yes, it was "another time" when she was younger, when VPW got going with his "ministry," and it may have been harder for a woman to leave her husband – but women did leave their husbands and did divorce them. So…does she really deserve the free pass? Didn't her support help the TWI juggernaut get off the ground (before it crushed her too!)? She didn't speak up right in the beginning, when she knew and could nip it in the bud. Doesn't that silence, and her enjoyment of the "benefits" make her also a scammer?

Exactly!.......when roa was channeled to twi-hq grounds in '78, and every year to follow, the control and wayspeak escaled with each year. By circling the wagons, wierwille drew 'his people' closer to him, closer to his agendas. The WOW program was his sales campaign....and the corps program were his instructed sales force. Remember those slogans and song lyrics, "It's good to be Home Again, been away too long"........like twi's hqtrs was OUR HOME. Yeah, riiiiight. Sure.....and twi was our family, just like Charles Manson's buzz with his followers were "The Family." Same draw.....same pitch.....same with Jim Jones. Then......one finds out about wierwille's sex predation, alcoholism, abuse, plagairism, lies, snow-pump calling, liberty lobby connections, paranoia, butt-smacking on corps girls, sex-mentoring to martindale, etc......and the gripping realization that we were in the clutches of a sociopathic con-man. Could it be any clearer...?????????

Sometimes I think they allowed themselves to be "set off" by trivial stuff just to have an excuse to scream their lungs out, give the false appearance of being "spiritual" (Yeah but what kind of spirit, bucko?") and intimidate everyone else. One thing I'm very thankful for is that after living a few years in LCM-ville, I can smell a load of BS 50 miles this side of New Knoxville. WG

Uhhh - not by my experience in raising two kids. Every parent I know attends PTC's, other school functions, and is involved in school...as in every one I know...and if the kids got in some yogurt the parents were'nt all calling their attorneys. While I certainly cannot disagree with you that it does happen, and perhaps may happen a lot, it is not ubiquitous.

It would be interesting to see how many people could post about a meeting they were at where a leader got out of control and humiliated or verbally assaulted someone in front of everybody.

Bow jr (12 years old at the time) and I were there too - we were rather thrilled to be in that particular meeting, truth be told. Oh, the spiritually mature elite we thought we were! I've never heard a "pastor" or "reverend" or "minister" ever speak half that profanely before or since the way. In fact, if I ever did again, I'd not wait around to see if they were spitters or if veins burst in their necks or temples as they "lovingly reproved" "their" people. So many red flags as I look back - I'm so glad I'm not a kool-aid drinker anymore. The pastor whose church I attend now lives by "the right thing to do is always the right thing to do", not who else can I screw???

Does anyone know? I hope he recovered quickly.

WAIT if you have kids around the below is rated M - OK go ahead and read The Brothel The madam opened the brothel door in Winnipeg and saw a rather dignified, well-dressed, good-looking man in his late forties or early fifties. 'May I help you sir?' she asked. 'I want to see Valerie,' the man replied. 'Sir, Valerie is one of our most expensive ladies. Perhaps you would prefer someone else', said the madam. 'No, I must see Valerie,' he replied. Just then, Valerie appeared and announced to the man she charged $5000 a visit. Without hesitation, the man pulled out five thousand dollars and gave it to Valerie, and they went upstairs. After an hour, the man calmly left. The next night, the man appeared again, once more demanding to see Valerie. Valerie explained that no one had ever come back two nights in a row as she was too expensive. But there were no discounts. The price was still $5000. Again, the man pulled out the money, gave it to Valerie, and they went upstairs. After an hour, he left. The following night the man was there yet again. Everyone was astounded that he had come for a third consecutive night, but he paid Valerie and they went upstairs. After their session, Valerie said to the man, 'No one has ever been with me three nights in a row. Where are you from?' The man replied, ' Ontario .' 'Really', she said. 'I have family in Ontario .' 'I know.' the man said. 'Your sister died, and I am her attorney. She asked me to give you your $15,000 inheritance.' The moral of the story is that three things in life are certain. 1. Death 2. Taxes 3. Being screwed by a lawyer

I don't know, but it sounds more interesting than mbla.

BTW I would rather have a loving dad like him than one of those men that beat their wives and kids every time he drinks or sometimes just for the power it gives them to do so or just because he can. I saw many little kids get pretty bad beatings with a wooden spoon while in TWI. My freind never hit his kids, he loved them and they they were good kids because he loved them not because they were scared to death of him. Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735

Okay, let's call it a privilege. I get the distinction. Sort of. Main Entry: 1priv·i·lege Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&- Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law : a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor (From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary online) Well, lookee there. It says a privilege is a right "granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor." So when a couple marries, their married status affords them special (peculiar) benefits, special favor, and an advantage over single people and couples who do not enter into that legal contract. Correct? The difference, then, is that heterosexual couples have a choice in whether they'll enter into that legal contract or not, but homosexual couples, in most states, do not have that choice. Heterosexual couples can make a lifetime commitment without the "piece of paper" if they so choose, and thus relinquish the special rights marriage would give them. For homosexuals in most of the states, that right is relinquished for them. They do not have an equal choice. It reminds me of that old saying, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." Why?????? Will letting homosexuals marry threaten my heterosexuality? Of course not. Will letting homosexuals marry raise my taxes? I don't think so. Just as both parties in many heterosexual married couples work and pay taxes, so do both parties in many (maybe most) homosexual couples. Will letting homosexuals marry raise my health insurance premiums? Given the small percentage of homosexuals in this country, I doubt it. Will letting homosexuals marry prevent heterosexuals from marrying? No. Will it take anything away from heterosexual, married couples? I don't see how it would. Long Gone said: "The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences." In other words, the majority rules? Sorry, I don't buy that. And a freedom is involved. The freedom to choose to marry or not. Like many Midwest-reared people who grew up in the 1950-60s, I'll be the first to admit that I squirm a bit when I see men holding hands or women kissing. Even though I have gay friends, I'm still a product of my upbringing. The word "homosexual" was seldom uttered when I was a kid, and I wasn't even sure what a homosexual was by the time I was a teenager, because of the era I was living in. But my emotions and leftover prejudices aren't the deciding factors for me. My sense of fairness is. I can't debate about whether it should be legislators or courts that have the right to decide this stuff. Mark may well be correct on that. But it seems to me that someone ought to fix this inequity. Courts, lawmakers, someone. I don't care who. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that if homosexuals are given an equal right to choose marriage or not, and if these unions become somehow more "acceptable," that there will be some kind of an explosion in the homosexual population? I see no reason why that would happen. I have not known one homosexual who didn't, at some point, struggle with wishing he or she could have the same attraction to the opposite sex as the majority, to "be like everyone else" if they could. So why would the numbers of homosexuals drastically increase. It's not some sort of societal "fad" that's going to spread like wildfire. It's not contagious. Your kids aren't going to say, "Hey, it's cool to be gay. That's what I'm going to be" despite the fact that they came from the womb "hardwired" to be heterosexual. Good grief. Linda Z

Linda Z. wrote, "Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence? ***** Garthella Z., Your questioning of the authenticity of various biblical passages is seemingly a way of maintaining and wielding plausibility for some unscriptural viewpoint concerning homosexuality. The issue you raise is speculative and is more intellectually autobiographical than historical. From an evangelical viewpoint, a detestable thing about the affirming revisionism practiced by some church folks is that such revisionism denies both Law and Gospel. Ministering such a thing as affirmation to a homosexual in his sin is an act against both the condemnation and the grace that is ministered through the Scriptures. There is no conviction concerning sin ministered where the sinner is affirmed and his sin denied. There is no need for the atonement and forgiveness that is in the Gospel for a person who refuses to repent from affections and practices that are not sin.

Trefor wrote, "Culture changes, the understanding of the bible changes and marriage occurs in cultures that have not been biblically influenced. What you are saying is that because we have always done something a certain way based upon a set of beliefs influenced by society that nothing should be amenable of change. The fact that they have been 'historically viewed as aberrant' does not mean that this view was ever right. Again I challenge you to look at the bible from another viewpoint. Dr Truluck is a biblical scholar and there are many other scholars who have reached the same or similar conclusions. It might be shocking for you to discover that this 'historical view' is in fact wrong but nevertheless the possibility is indeed there." ***** Trefor, I have looked at Mr. Truluck's site. It is not exegesis or biblical theology that informs his arguments. He does victimology, self-pity, loudmouthed denunciations, heresy and some spoof-texting. He is a manipulator. Again, why should ideas about equality and liberty form a controlling basis for evaluating whether a government should offer recognition for homosexual relationships, yet not form such a basis for evaluating whether a government should do the same for a wide range of aberrant relationships that occur or that might occur among adults?

Coolwaters raised the most clearly stated, logical argument for permitting same-sex marriage I've yet seen in this thread: It's a legal contract. So why should anyone be denied the right (or privilege--either way) to enter into that legal contract? Denying one segment of the population this right/privilege certainly doesn't seem just or right to me. Zix, you're calling upon tradition to argue against homosexuals marrying? (Why do I picture you dancing around like the Zero Mostel in Fiddler on the Roof? "TraDItion!" Some traditions are good; some can stand a tune-up, and I think this is one of them. Cynic, you're invoking the inerrancy of your denomination's take on the Bible to bolster your argument. I also hold the Scriptures in extremely high regard, but I am willing to acknowledge: (a) that my understanding of portions of the Bible could be incorrect, or (b) that over the centuries, maybe, just maybe, the men who chose what went into the Bible and what didn't, and how it all should be interpreted into English, might have been mistaken on some points, or they might have had their own agendas that crept in, whether intentionally or not. Tradition is no basis for such determinations, Zixar. Others have made that argument in this thread, and made it well. Traditions change as people's needs change, as society changes. (And NO, I'm not saying let's have a free-for-all and let everyone do as they like. I'm talking about permitting something that doesn't cause harm to anyone else.) Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence? Excath: You did NOTHING to disrupt this thread. Cynic's just diverting attention from the flaws in his argument by calling your opinions/questions disruptive. Ignore him and ask/say what you want. laleo: Your argument that marriage affords women and children protection is good in terms of being a reason why marriage is beneficialfor heterosexuals. But I don't understand how extending the right to marry to people of the same gender would compromise that protection. Please explain. Linda Z [This message was edited by Linda Z on February 07, 2004 at 8:26.]

(checking to see which forum this thread is in!) so nice to be in a forum where such civil discourse is appreciated. goodness! A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle.

I intend to do some investigation of Garth's links, though on a cursory reading only one of the links seemed relevant to the question at hand. For tentative consideration, here's another: http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/mara...9202geneva.html

Rocky, Rocky, Rocky: It's "abstruse."

Zixar, your examples of the RC church and the Armed Services are clear enough, but those are closed communities. Marriage is an institution that crosses all boundaries, cultures, religions, and for that matter, sexual orientations. I don't see how any one culture, or age, can claim the only true definition. Marriage is defined, like it or not, by many differing doctrines, and the only common denominator is voluntary commitment. We call it a vow, but it's a contractual commitment. Everything else marriage is depends upon what we believe. Suppose you attend the First Church of the Heterosexual Truth and Premarital Abstinance. Your fellow church members needn't consider a homosexual union legitimate, on spiritual grounds. On legal grounds, it only matters in limited circumstances, and they have no effect on your own definition of marriage. And the same goes for "Jim and Bob." My only concern is fairness. For instance, it's obvious to me that when they have the married-couples' three-legged race at the county fair, the gays will have a leg up, so to speak. In that case, the rules may need to be amended. Other than that I don't see a major problem.

cynic, first off, are you talking to me or garth about tref ? and if you want people to get a liking to your way of thinking, you should try to talk ?

zixar, i have tried to read your post once again but i have decided to just let it go due to your ignorance ?

excuse me ? no one can be HOW dense ? haven't gotten past that part of your post but i have a strong feeling that you and i disagree be back soon ?

Bob and Tom have the same right to engage in a marriage as any other person, they simply cannot get married to each other, or any other member of their own gender. Neither can marry his sister, either, no matter how much the two might consent, even if both are sterilized. Nor can either marry a six-year old unrelated girl. It doesn't matter how much any of them whines about it, the fact is that the state has always reserved the right to dictate marriage restrictions for the greater good of the society as a whole. As has been repeatedly asked and avoided, there is no apparent societal plus side for the defense of homosexuality whatsoever, whereas there is an obvious downside to it, just the same as incest, polygamy, and pedophilia. One always has to take the responsibility for every single privilege they wish to claim. They do not get to transgress the rules just because they want to have their cake and eat it, too. If a person wants to be a Catholic priest, they cannot also have sex with women. If a person wants to enjoy base purchase privileges, they must be a member of the Armed Forces. If you refuse to pay the price, you don't get to have the goods. I don't see why that's so difficult for anyone to grasp. If you want to be married, you can only be married to one unrelated person of the opposite gender. That's the price of being married. Attempting to change a long-established institution is very much seeking special privilege. Homosexuality is not a disability. Just as the priest-wannabe must choose to repudiate his sexual preferences in order to become a priest, homosexuals must currently make the same choice if they want to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If they cannot choose that path, no one will force them to. But just as single people must also marry if they want marriage benefits, should they be able to just claim they don't want to marry and receive them anyway? Of course not.

thank you ?

what i'm getting is the bible is your only rule of faith and practice did i get it right ? ?

ohmygosh is that the best you can do ? can you talk like a person ? okay okay sorry i'll go read that again ?

i so confused ?

well i'm glad you cleared that up for me, cynic laughing my head off. i'm sorry...... ohgod..... ?

If an appeal to equality and liberty should be sufficient for an agenda to obtain state recognition for homosexual "marriages," why should a numerical issue matter when it comes to polygyny?

zix: You seem to be making the argument that priestly celibacy is in some way an eternal truth that is set in stone. It is in fact only a discipline of the western rite of the Roman Catholic Church and is subject to amendment at any time (although not under the current Pope). There are in fact married Catholic priests of other rites and some who were Anglican priests who came over are also married. Yes, homosexuals have entered into heterosexual marriages for some of the reasons you stated, I even did so myself. Even when you make the argument that you can always go to another church that becomes difficult to apply unless you are suggesting that all homosexuals should desert the USA for Canada or other more progressive nations, which in itself creates all sorts of difficulties, and in any case why should a significant group of people have to be exiles from their own land? The USA is not some institution that people can easily choose to leave for a competitor. It is not a theocracy run by celibate old men who do not allow decisions to be made by others. It is "we the people" and gays are people. If it is truly the land or opportunity and equality, the beacon to the world that it is always proclaiming itself to be, then it has to acknowledge that a take it or leave it attitude will no longer wash. People have a right to make their voices known and heard. The fact that you might not like what they have to say is neither here nor there. I have little time for "political correctness" myself. But I do have time for freedom and equality. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

that's more where i'm coming from it is about PEOPLE. i know everyone makes it about religion and political agenda, whatever. but what i myself am talking about is people deserving to be treated equally, you know ? ?

Abigail, I was serious in the first part, but I thought about some of the possible permutations we might see once the M/F requirement was lifted. I think churches have always managed to certify and sanctify marriages according to their beliefs, and I don't think that should change. If you only believe in heterosexual marriage, get married in a church that believes likewise. If you are an Episcopalean, change churches. Maybe this relates to Zixar's point - churches associate themselves around scriptural doctrines which do not change with "every wind." If the church has members who wish to change the rules, it must decide, as many have, whether it is a theocracy bound to scriptural edict, or a democracy bound to change with the trends. There is plenty of room for both, and nobody is preventing anybody else from joining or switching to the church that teaches what you want to hear. I can understand the anger JL might harbor from his early experience, and how it translates into his current perspective. I think it's wrong though. He experienced what countless girls his age have experienced and come to expect from older men, and unlike them, he had considerable physical strength to defend himself. On the other hand, the girls may handle it a lot better than he has, emotionally speaking. (No offense, JL, but your conclusion - "if there weren't any it wouldn'a happened" - just sounds way over the top.) Girls have a lot more practice at fending off advances and so they are more resiliant. It's the guys who tend to be "girls" about it, so to speak. M&A your anger seems a lot less focused. Maybe I missed it but you never explained why it is so heated. What happened? My own problem with the various activist groups has more to do with their politics. They are fairly predictable when November rolls around. Since liberalism is on the surface more permissive, I can understand it, but some of the more radical groups are pretty hard to take. Act Up, for instance, is like a PETA for people. I do believe the law should adapt. If a couple wishes to marry, there is a spiritual component provided by the organization they choose, and there is a legal component, provided by the state. Where children are involved, if married couples receive tax deductions (they ain't much), then all couples with children should. There will be additional costs, but there will be benefits as well, many intangible though palpable. Social stability for one. Marriage is a debt of faithfulness which makes one stop and consider more than just "#1." There is a "marriage penalty" that probably more than offsets any deductions for kids (but I don't know), and everybody will have to pay it until Congress 86's it. If a friend from work invited me to his or her "alternative" wedding, I would want to attend. I'd even be honored. I haven't forgotten the Judeo-Christian socio-theocratic prohibitions-by-fiat I once accepted. I no longer accept some of them. It's just about people, and the people I know are good people. We've all adjusted our lives to the times, and in most ways, much for the better. We keep the commandments that need keeping. The others belong to the past, by most measures a darker age.

but 6er... I don't think your analogy holds... one is a set of rules for a particular religious sect that some may or may not want to belong to, the other is for society as a whole... and before you say "it's just for the homosexuals" it's not, it's for "people" wanting to share in the same societal and governmental benefits that everyone else does... isn't it? I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

I think it is meant to be satirical ex - implying that the Catholic church is full of poofs... Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

The Massachusetts law when written was intended for a man and a woman because at the time it was written it was inconceivable that a marriage would take place any other way. The Massachusetts Supreme Court absolutely knew this and instead of interpreting the law as it should have been interpreted, became the activist jurist body they were and "re-wrote" it to include their own political beliefs without changing a word of the language. It once was that I used to just tolerate homosexuals if they kept to themselves and did their own thing. I could have cared less. But now, I am the opposite. I have had enough. I am opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to gay civil unions. I am opposed to any more protection by the law based on sexual preference. I believe now in the right to discriminate against them and to practice it, because it is the right thing to do. I believe it must be now said they are either spiritually "off" or mentally ill. If it is due to a genetic flaw, then it is just like any other genetic flaw, such as cystic fibrosis or Downs syndrome, and the American medical and psychiatric communities must be compelled, and forced if necessary, by law, to find the problem and the cure. I believe in re-enacting and re-establishing every sodomy law on the books dealing with homosexuality. Jailing them won't do any good, but gives great ground to close down and eliminate every gay bar and gay sexual establishment in the country. I believe in breaking up every "gay" community in the country. We should punish any lawmaker or publically elected or appointed official that backs anything even remotely related to homosexual agendas. I have lost what tolerance I have had, and that wasn't much. My sympathy is gone. Anger has replaced it. Marked and Avoided

Don't feel bad Exie, I am too. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage, beyond terminology. Perhaps this has been explained somewhere in this thread already and I just haven't seen it. I started reading on the last page and am working my way back. But given that something like 50+% of all marriages end in divorce anyway, what makes marriage such a sacred thing? See QQ, you made some statements about modifying or modernizing marriage, and I'm not certain but I think you said it tongue in cheek, but the thing is, I agree. Maybe it is time to take a new look at this contract we call marriage and what it means. Seems to me at this point, the people who benefit the most from marriage contracts are divorce attorneys. In fact, one of the attorneys I work for is a conservative from the east coast and I asked him what he things about all of this. He laughed and said, "well I guess it means I can expect business to boom." ;)--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Zix - any sexual behaviour is a matter of choice or circumstance. But choice is made according to nature - to imply that hetero people would deliberately choose to be anything but hetero is as illogical as saying that gay people can choose to be hetero. If your nature found sex with women to be repugnant to you, then you would not do it just as you do not because the idea of sex with another man is repugnant to you. What you approve or disapprove of in your own personal sexual life is not pertinent to the right of others to choose to follow their natures. When you would force people to get married to someone they are not attracted to just because it is permitted, you are creating tragedies for later - the person would be living a lie and a deception - it is not fair to their spouse or to any children that might result from the marriage. Gay sex goes on already, with or without marriage and it has co-existed with hetrosexual sex for millenia and your Supreme Court has now ruled that the state has no legitimate interest about what occurs in private. A restaurant is a business offering a service - there are always alternative restaurants that will meet the requirements of the customer. A nation state is a monopoly and this is too often reflected in the "take it or leave it" attitude. When one is born into a nation, unless one moves to another country that will not only be more to one's taste, but will accept one as a citizen then it is a monopoly. Why should that citizen be expected to pay their taxes and even fight and die for that country and yet not, in return, be given the credit and respect which they are due? You try to divorce homosexuality from the individual and make it some kind of impersonal, amorphous concept. You forget that society is the sum of its individuals, that part of that society is made up of individuals who are homosexual. Even if you don't think that homosexuality per se is worthy of any kind of consideration (and I challenge that it is special consideration), the fact remains that the homosexuals in that society are worthy of consideration and again that is equal, not special consideration. The Massachussetts judges observed that the constitution of the Commonwealth did not discriminate as written. They effectively therefore said that gay marriage must be allowed, unless and until discrimination was written into that constitution - ie what is not specifically disallowed but be allowed unless amended. This is a great embarassment to Mitt Romney the Mass Governor because he is a promininent adherent of the Mormon Church who are going especially ballistic over the gay marriage issue. So his eye is less on the people and more upon his Prophet. The people whipping up the most noise are people from out of state and the big religious battalions. As the USA wishes to lead the world it should also be telling other, more progressive countries, what they think about arrangements they have made regarding same sex marriage but they won't. Bush won't say a dickiebird to Blair about the gay partnership arrangements his government is bringing in. We are so fortunate over here not be in the thrall of religious domination. We have learnt the lessons of the centuries about what that does and the edicts of the Pope are cheerfully ignored in even the most Catholic of european countries. Religion has the freedom to make its own decisions, but is not allowed to impose them upon others. People fled europe in past centuries to find freedom on US soil. The irony is now that gay people may find themselves forced to be pilgrims in the opposite direction, not feeling wanted or accepted in their own country. The US would be in danger of becoming a heterosexual dictatorship which stamps on the rights of minorities. The founding fathers might well have problems recognising the country they founded. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Incest definition and laws have nothing to do with the age of the participants.

Zix, You brought up these points before, and they are still either irrelevant, have no real effect on society, and clearly needs no government intervention. Here's why. 1) Society does indeed have a duty to self-perpetuate. And that duty is more than covered by humanity's natural urges to have sex. And that is in no danger of seriously waning (to the point of having a negative drop in the population) anytime soon. As a matter of fact, it has been often said that this society, if anything, is *over*sexed. Yet Another Indicator that there is no danger of society 'not perpetuating'. That alone puts a serious damper in your argument. 2) Despite your argument of society's duty to self-perpetuate, there is nowhere in our governing documents that specifically gives government the means to see that the duty is carried out by society. Again, see point one as to why this is (and should be) a non-issue to the powers that be. 3) The question on whether society would lose anything if there were no homosexuals is the irrelevant part, and really, a question that civilized people have no place in seriously asking. It is very similar to asking whether society would lose anything if there weren't any retarded/handicapped people. I don't know what it does for you, but the mindset behind such questions, particularly if the asker was very serious about those questions, gives me the willies. Need I say more? Besides, isn't society fluid and flexible enough to take care and work around whatever 'irregularities' that 'non-normal' sexual practices between adults just might bring up? Hell, society has been propagating itself for thousands of years, and homosexuality has been practiced right along with it. ... I mean, when you have over *6 billion people* on this globe, self-perpetuation isn't exactly the foremost problem here, y'think? Maybe the over-crowding problem might be a little more relevant? Just something to think about. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

oh... OK... were any inventors or historical figures who had a positive effect on society homosexual? I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

AIDS and ugly cross dressers? WAYWho?

A quote from John Lynn, many years ago -------- God did not create ADAM AND FRANK. Still applies today --> :rolleys:

"what drives his intellect is beyond me..." Intellect? What intellect? This guy is an idiot wrapped in a moron encased in an anal orifice. He was always thinking with the wrong head anyway, if he did any thinking at all. WG

No need to apologize, good man. Next cup of coffee is on me.

Freeman, That quopte just bugs me. It would have been easy to handle "it" in a loving manner? What was "it?" As far as I can tell, there was no "it" that needed to be handled. LCM was just being an obnoxious bully. There was no "it" that needed handling here. See what I'm getting at? Anyway, that quote just nags me. Welcome to the cafe. Raf

Good point Evan and ex10 about Wierwille squelching arguments as well. From very early on TWI was an organization that did not tolerate dissent. Wierwille usually wasn't as vulgar about it (although I dare say some might dispute that), the incident at the ROA Twig Coordinators meeting was a natural outgrowth of an attitude that had been there for years if nor decades. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Dang I'm almost sorry I left so early I missed all the fun. Without Coffee I Would Have No Personality At All SOME PEOPLE SEE THE GLASS HALF FULL OTHERS SEE IT HALF EMPTY I JUST WONDER WHO THE HELL IS DRINKING MY BEER