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?

There is a provision in the law for disobedient children to be taken to the elders and stoned. . . . are there accounts of this ever being carried out? Sadly, I have no problem believing this was taught as justifiable behavior.

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

I doubt we'll ever know. Don't hold your breath while you wait for our young friend to give us that insight.

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.

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

oh... don't give up (unless you want to)... and I don't think you're really a 'hater'... I was just surprised the island boy took off like this... and when I said "LCMish" I guess it was just me envisioning your blood pressure rising on some of these... but, hey, if it's your belief and feeling, it's yours... I'm not here to try and tame it, I just thought it wasn't the island boy I knew (or have come to know)... but then, we all have hot buttons of one type or another... you can still enjoy my "laid back posts" and my "humor"... and I'll enjoy yours... and I'm by no means P.C. (just ask my wife about that one!)... I'm just trying to keep on keepin' on... I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

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.

The Ten Commandments do not, of course, constitute all OT commands

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?

Question: If God is so opposed to homosexuality, why weren't there 11 commandments instead of 10, to include: "A man shall not love another man, and a woman shall not love another woman"? I'm not arguing that homosexuality was something God necessarily wanted or designed. After all, when he created Adam and Eve, He made their bodies wonderfully compatible--and I'd venture that the design hasn't changed a whole lot since then. And Adam and Eve had to populate the earth, so it made sense to have them be attracitve to each other. But I'd say by now the earth is more than adequately populated, and letting the small percentage of homosexuals on this planet marry sure as heck isn't going to keep the heterosexuals from having children. Do you think God din't know there would be homosexuals? Why, then, if He wanted so badly to condemn homosexuality, didn't He outlaw it in the days of Moses? I can't think of one crime man can commit against man that isn't covered by those 10 commandments. Not one. Yet, wonder of wonders, homosexuality is glaringly absent. 'Splain that to me, please. Linda Z

Mistaken opinion on various points? No doubt, as sooner or later I'll get something wrong. No denial there. But a deliberate liar I am not. And the fact that I have little regard for John Calvin is of no consequence in such. And I see no need to have any more respect nor honor for Calvin than I have for Weirwille. And whatever killing of intelligent debate is just as much to do with your anal and derisive attitude as it is to my 'polemics'. And with that, I'll leave this thread back to Trevor with my apologies for my part in the derailment. I wonder if the other party will do the same. 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

Cynic, "Blood-libels". Wow! Such a strong term. I had no idea that that little French preppie meant so much to you. "despite their possible imprecision" Really? Now what *did* your denomination teach you about Calvin's life and example? Was it some sort of Reformist version for Calvin of Elena Whiteside's "The Way: Living in Love" whitewash of VPW's life and example? That Calvin ran Geneva with an iron fist from behind the scenes is well documented to anyone who has read about Calvin from sources that aren't directly funded by the Reformed Church. Nothing unique there; as lots of churches and church leaders back then were quite strict and punative towards those whom they considered 'heretics' (Need links to prove that too, a$$wipe?). For example, Martin Luther had a serious anti-Jewish problem that made VPW's anti-semitism look pale by comparison. And of course you have your Catholic Church who was famous for the Inquisitions, a fact not lost on Calvin himself in his rantings against the 'Popish Church'. So I seriously don't think that its a 'blood libel' to nail Calvin's a$$ to the wall when he partakes of that same or similar practice. So blow me. And no, I'm not going to provide you with each and every link to 'prove' every point I make, as I'm not presenting a historical doctrinal thesis to some university board of regents here. If you don't want to believe me, fine. But heck, since we're on the 'prove it to me or else' approach, why not you show me counter evidence to support your claims that Calvin didn't do these things. And bringing up (or should I say hiding behind) these 'blood libels' is an effective means of challenging what I said re: your ad hominum snide swipe at Excathedra? Or anything else that I might bring to your attention? "Hi Cynic. Nice weather we're having, isn't it?" "Well?? Where are the other 23 victims of Calvin, you Unitarian, blood libeling, polemic, heretical hack?!? Huh??" ??? --> "Damn man, take some Midol!" Perhaps you need to take a more reasoned approach to deal with me 'getting in your face', y'think? --> 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

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

Rocky, I like Excathedra, but I decided to respond to her disruptive questioning and railing with a guttural get-off-my-case. I doubt that you would agree with the result of our comparative psychological soundness being evaluated by a competent professional.

OMG...this is why I didn't jump into this fracas before now... Let's see if I can answer from memory and with some sense of sanity... ******* Zix, Polygamy? Go for it. Who really cares? ******* Rocky, Actually, I think Trefor brought up the point at the very beginning. I didn't know that when I posted, but found it on one of his earliest posts. I was kinda half joking and half serious...because "happiness" is a relative term...but "the pursuit of happiness" can be specified. In this society the bonds of marriage are legal, not emotional or religious. Marriage is a legal contract that gives certain rights to each party...and certain responsibilities. (If anyone wants to argue with that, well, then they must not have ever been through a divorce.) IMO, to deny any class of consenting adults the ability to enter into such a contract is the same as denying them the ability to enter into contracts such as mortgages, car loans, business partnerships, etc. The marriage contract allows people the opportunity to build a life together much in the same way an LLP or other such business partnerships allow people to build a company together. Would anyone deny two people to build a business together just because they are gay? Would anyone deny several people to build a business together? Gawd forbid! ********* Now I think I'm going to try and go back to reading only...this thread is dangerous! ????????????? [This message was edited by CoolWaters on February 07, 2004 at 0:18.]

Dan: What the hell are you talking about? Excathedra: I'm a little tired of your snits. It's a complex issue that you obviously don't agree with me on, but if all you can bring to the table is ad hominem wisecracks, then perhaps you should take Cynic's advice after all.

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 ?

According to my research, I think cynic's use of the word polygyny is meant to limit the discussion to the practice of allowing a man to have more than one wife or female mate at the same time --- as opposed to polygamy, which by definition (but not by mormon practice) means that either spouse may have multiple mates of the opposite sex. In other words, if the doggone mormons were honest, they wouldn't have called their practice polygamy, but used the word "polygyny" instead, because polygamy would have allowed a wife to have more than one husband at the same time. Now that that distinction has been made clear, what do we do now?

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

i so confused ?

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

ps. what would constitute a sufficient appeal to equality and liberty ? seriously is this really a discussion about freedom or is it about religious beliefs ? my god i'm trying to understand ?

okay, well then regarding numerical issues, let's talk about equality and liberty and happiness..... i don't think anyone should be allowed to get married.... just have stuff on the side like all good politicians :)--> ha ha ha ?

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!"

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.

Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created problems between states over slavery, the rights of states to secede from the union (ok in principle but if they do in fact secede we will fight a bloody civil war), the rights if states to discriminate against their own citizens etc. They could not foresee how some provisions they made would be abused - the right to bear arms, the separation of church and state etc. Not could they foresee that a time would come when people who had always been there in the population would have aspirations to equal treatment in the area of marriage. That is one reason why the Supreme Court is there - to interpret the Law where there are no specific provisions one way or the other as to whether they can be applied under other provisions or not. As society evolves new things have to be taken into consideration, new tensions and conflicts resolved, areas of doubt and disagreement highlighted. Such experiences are not unique to the USA but the system by how this is done varies from country to country. There are additional tensions and problems that a federal system creates and all legislation has to be tested to see if it is in fact watertight or a dogs breakfast with flaws. Maybe that is why so many politicians are lawyers! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

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

Some background that might shine a little light: Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

In terms of the sovereignty of the individual citizen, Trefor, your argument made complete sense.

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!"

I mentioned nothing about sodomy laws either. My focus was your points as regarding society's duty to perpetuate, what would be missed if there was no homosexuals, and why that is largely irrelevant as relating to government involvement, (which has a more vested interest, Constitutionally-wise, as to the protection of our personal and private freedoms). And since when was equal regard as to full rights within the marriage context 'special consideration'? (Is it because homosexuality is specifically mentioned in these cases? Is that what makes it 'a special right'?) Or any other right that the homosexual community requested for themselves. No difference than the rights enjoyed by anyone else. Correct me specifically if I'm wrong as to this point. 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

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

Datway: I know you were joking, but the question is dead serious. No one has yet given me any reason at all to protect, respect, or advocate the recognition of homosexuality by the state. It's entirely a question of behavioral choice. While it's frequently purported that homosexuality is not a choice, the engaging in homosexual behavior certainly is a choice. Roman Catholic priests and nuns are (usually) completely capable of performing heterosexual acts, yet deliberately choose not to, despite what their biological make-up might be. One might argue that they were "born" to feel that way about their religion; to be able to commit enough to make the conscious decision to remain celibate. Since there's no true physical handicap or disability preventing homosexual men from engaging in intercourse with heterosexual women, they are in no way prohibited from being joined in marriage NOW. They have the same right to marry a woman as any other man. In that light, gay marriage is very much a special privilege, and not an inequity to resolve via legislation. For those who think it's all just about some religious edict against homosexual acts, consider this: Why can't two STRAIGHT men, (friends, roommates, whatever) get "married" in order to get tax breaks, insurance breaks, group health insurance, etc., etc., WITHOUT engaging in any mutual sexual activity? If the law were truly discriminatory against sodomy alone, then two heterosexuals could "marry" for the benefits, and "divorce" when no longer mutually beneficial. As I said above, I actually do think that each person should be able to designate a sole beneficiary with power of attorney. But that's hardly all there is to marriage. Perhaps the whole thing could be resolved rationally if there were no particular governmental benefit (or penalty) for marriage, rather than claiming injustice when there really is none.

JL: I'm sorry that happened to you, but assault is not unique to homosexuals. In this matter, the crimes of an individual are as irrelevant as the contributions of an individual. That's why I said I wasn't talking about eliminating individual homosexuals. There's no guarantee that your assaulter wouldn't have assaulted a teenage girl instead, were he heterosexual, just like there's no guarantee Elton John or Oscar Wilde would have been any less successful had they NOT been homosexual.

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.

Rocky- I looked it up. I had added an extra s in there. You had it right-Massachusetts- But you mentioned, and I quote: I think you may have misunderstood me when I mentioned something similar, but I think I didn't carry my thought through when I wrote it. Let me clarify. The gay community has often said, "What difference does it make what a man or woman does in the privacy of their own home?" I guess what I wanted to say was, even though I disagree with the whole homosexual scene, I agree that they should have the right to do whatever it is they do with each other in the privacy of their own homes. And maybe that won't have a negative effect on society. My concern is not about unmarried gay couples, but rather, if the marriage right is granted to gay couples, I feel that there is a possibility that the marriage of an underaged gay person to a much older gay person-with parental-consent could logically follow suit, which , I think, would be way weird and would open the doors to what I refer to as legalized homosexual pedophilia. Here is a possible scenario, that I don't really think is too far fetched: Adam and Frank get married, and with it comes the full legal rights that heteros have. Since it is biologically impossible for them to have children, they adopt a cute little baby boy. This baby boy grows up around the gay scene, and learns from his "parents" (sorry, I have a hard time saying "parents" in this case) that "gay is ok". And as could very well happen, the little boy, at fourteen, discovers that he too is in fact gay. (I am not saying that all kids in this parental situation will end up gay, but they very well could end up gay.) Now, once this young kid discovers that he is now gay, and has had a few gay relationships, at sixteen, he finally meets a much older man who really understands him, has a gay relationship with him, and they want to get married and settle down. And so, even though Adam and Frank put their foot down and say "No Frankie no! He's much too old for you! Can't you see that he's just an a** bandit?", they finally relent and give young Frankie their blessing. Like I said before, At that point, why should we deny thirty eight year old "Robert" and sixteen year old little Frankie the same legal right which is presently afforded to thirty eight year old "Robert" and sixteen year old "Allison", if the young girl's parents have given consent? It is this marriage aspect of gay people that I think could lead to the opening of certain doors that I think could be harmful to our society. Not just "gay people doing things in the privacy of their own home". Sorry I wasn't clear on that Rocky. Thanks for the heads up. I was wondering if anybody else had ever considered this possibility, or, now that I have presented this possibility, does any one else consider it a concern? [This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 05, 2004 at 11:20.]

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

hello mr. o'malley and thanks for your post not all of us.... big ;)--> i hear what you're sayingas far as the trinity or not.... i could care less how it works out in the long run.... :)--> again, thanks for posting ?

"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

loving ? humble ? pleading ? what the heck was he doing in the way ? ;)--> i don't mean that really against nice people i meant that against arrogant leaders ?