GarthP2000

The anti-gay concept that I find most hilarious (and even bordering on insane) is how homosexuality is supposedly a threat (immediate or ultimate) to: 1) marriage, 2) family, 3) the entire Western civilization, and 4) G rated movies. Amazing how much crap someone can extrapolate from that one account of Sodom and Gommorah in the Bible. -->

Squirrels = Arkansas' version of McNuggets. :D-->

... or innocent until proven homo? -->

Nahh, I disagree. As much as I come to the defense of equal rights for homosexuals, and with no apologies for doing so, that particular gay was not only out of line for doing what he did, but since there was a bite involved, that can also be rightfully judged as an assault. I mean, if any guy here tried to grab a girl and force a move on her like that, how many of us here (both men and women) would go to her aid, and pound on the perp, hmmm? So be it homo or hetero, unwanted sexual advances are worth a punch in the face, at least. I know thats what I would do to the guy, and I would offer no apology nor repentance for doing so. At all.

Tell me something, Oldies. Do you think that those who went after TWI in court only or mainly did it for money? Is that only what suing them for $$$ means to you? Or is it Yet Another Way of whitewashing/making excuses for/downplaying TWI's already documented abuses throughout the years? And this doesn't even concern your teacher, VPW. Just LCM and Rosie and Co. So why the doubt and cynicism towards someone willing to go the distance to nail them in a court of law? ... Will it be the end of the Movement of The Word as you know it? ... Is it really that frail and fragile?

Have Steve! dress up as Austin Powers. G-r-ooo-v-y-y Baby! Yeah!!

Ron! PUT THE GUN DOWN PLEASE!! ..... Hehehe Jes' kidding you, dude. Good to see ya again. So, when did your new wifey start giving you internet priviledges? ;)-->

What does that have to do with getting beyond the dictates of some prophet to the testings of medical/scientific world to see what the actual cause of the mental disturbance is? And this line of yours? No, you *believe* He does, whereas KNOWING something is based on something proveable, something you can show consistantly. ... Big difference. And your belief in the spiritual as tho' it has been proven true, is based on the presupposition that such a world exists (and in your terms). The scientific/medical world is (supposed to be) based on observable, proveable facts/conditions with which to deal with. Trying to maintain this 'spirit influence' argument as a clinical means of treatment is flawed because its based on the defense/faith in the 'spiritual' argument regardless of what the physical facts may show. (Plus, can you imagine trying to get Blue Cross/Blue Shield to cover that treatment? :P) And trying to show the proveability of something spiritual simply because there might be a possibility of it? So basically what you're saying is that you can control/deal with the higher, spiritual cause (demons), with the lower, physical solution (medicine, therapy)? Wow! That's rich! :D--> Gotta remember that one. NOW look at who's being absurd! Demons? Being driven away due to some pills? ... But hey, can't prove it, but we don't need to, do we, cuz all we have to do to get around that minor annoyance is call it 'spiritual'. ... Hmmmmm, seems kinda convenient to me. ... TOO convenient. Same kind of 'convenience' that's used regarding 'treating' homosexuality. Uh huh! :P Really? Then why do you use it as such? Or as one who doesn't believe that the Bible is infallable, you ever think that what's written, even if it was against homosexuality, was more based on human ignorance re: that area, than on theopnuestos of the Scriptures?

Galen, Okay, I see your point about the 'promiscuity' part. My apologies on that point, as you were talking about promiscuity. But I still see a bias here in your trying to put the 'higher risk' factor on homosexuals (at least that's what it appears to me), than on heterosexuals, never mind that STDs don't discriminate. Read what I posted again. I was addressing the 'general public perception' as it were, of homosexuals being more sexually promiscuous than heteros, and that's what I thought I saw in your post. Seems we could both use some reading comprehension improvement skills. Well, you got to admit. Trying to put the 'homosexuals made a pass' locker room smear was out of line, especially for you. Frankly, I still oppose your bias against gays, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm straight. (I'm not Jewish either, but I can still oppose anti-Semitism.) Look, I used to have the same 'homophobia' that I see plenty of here on this thread, both subtle and overt, and I've come to realize that there is nothing in homosexuality that is the *dire threat* against Western Civilization that many try to make it out to be, regardless of how some people try to use/twist/mangle bible verses to drum people up with, and usually it's the gays (and their friends/family) that wind up getting hurt/burned/ripped off. ... And for what? Some ignorant and rabid fear of some vengeful god/fear of not being 'man' enough/some other *stoopid* reason to make them the **vile evil ones**. And all for doing something in private that doesn't touch anyone's life here at all! ..... Been there, done that, burnt that damned t-shirt. ... With no repentance thereof. None! Now if that goes against your sense of ((cough)) 'morality', .... Deal with it!

Jerry, Have you ever thought about the fact that that same line of 'demon oppression-possession' line of ((cough)) 'reasoning' has also been used, with the same amount of scientific sounding detail, about mentally ill people in centuries past? What they used to call 'demon possession' is now known as schizophrenia, paranoia, and various other kinds of mental illnesses, that can be treated with medication, rather than 'driving the demons out'? Which results in far better treatment nowadays than back then in the dark ages. --> And more and more research has shown that homosexuality is more of natural causes, even in animals. And you think that the 'demon' explanation can get around that? Never mind that that explanation can't be clinically proven. ... But we don't need that now do we, since its all 'spiritual', and can't be tested via medical/scientific methods. Nahh, just some 'Man of God operating all nine all the time' making the determination that homosexuality is demon driven, and we're supposed to take his Word for it? Can you say ..... scam?

Speaking of dealing treacherously, .... Galen, "Even if what I saw was flavored by my prejudice, or bad-lighting, or if I truly did not understand what I saw; if I give an honest assessment of what I saw then it is honest. Rather than dishonest." What you posted was flawed and dishonest was because you portrayed your own perception of homosexuals hitting on you AS tho' it was the general promiscuity of homosexuals. It's like a white guy being ripped off by a black person, and then uses his own POV to judge all blacks from that, rather than looking around, and learning that that's not what all black people do. While its an understandable and human thing to do, both you and I know that its a flawed judgement nonetheless. Yet here you are trying to add to that judgement, a flawed judgement regardless, that homosexuals are overall more promiscuous than straights. ... And I think that deep down, you know that it's a flawed argument, but to stay loyal to your biblical beliefs, you run with it anyway. ... Now I could be wrong in that rendering, but just call it a hunch that I have. And I would be willing to make that particular judgement for another reason, which shows me how much of a jerk you are, ie: "It has not been my experience that non-promiscous-heterosexual men have ever made passes at me [unlike you]...". Hey d*ck, I never had that experience happen to me, and if you were honest enough and read the WHOLE of what I said previously, ie, "... Ahhh, what about heterosexual men? And no, not in coming on to you, BUT in coming on to women. So how promiscuous is that, hmmm? I notice that you leave that out in your 'observation'." you'd know that. But then again, being loyal to your biblical beliefs kinda holds you back from doing that, huh? And I put it in there because I thought you'd catch that and not come back with your juvenile crack. (Tell me something, is that a little locker room humor they taught you in the Navy, hmmm? Please, the Navy has a bad enough of a rep w/o you adding to it) And all this .... in the Name of your God?? One that expects worship?? I don't think so!

Galen, That 'observation' is so flawed and dishonest, even on it's face, ... and you know it. (So why do you make it?) L'see, where to begin. First off, using ONLY women on the heterosexual side compared to homosexual men in your example of coming on to you, as a means of showing why homosexuals are more promiscuous than heteros. ... Ahhh, what about heterosexual men? And no, not in coming on to you, BUT in coming on to women. So how promiscuous is that, hmmm? I notice that you leave that out in your 'observation'. --> Two, when you are going to include your own observation in a conclusion about a group of people, it would be more honest to include what you have observed other people doing in the same context to come to a more well rounded observation. Come on, Galen. You can do better than that.

I've heard once that smell is the one sense that is the most effective at evoking memory of things past.

Galen, Speaking of being a jerk, go over what you posted previous to your last post, and you'll see what 'being a jerk' is all about. When did the gays specifically ask to be given rights that no one else has? Oh, and I don't mean remedial legal actions that correct previous discrimination against them either. And besides, what is it about renting to a gay person or couple that really takes your rights away, hmmm? And this thing about 'seperating them to be a separate caste in our society' is hardly what the vast majority of gays/lesbians want. That's Yet More Propaganda from Focus on the Family machine. You know, and I know that this 'special rights' song-and-dance is just a straw man argument covering up for this 'gays are sinners and do not deserve equal rights' mentality. Hell, how many times has a Christian gotten special treatment one way or another, and you didn't raise this much of a fuss over it, hmmm? I know that mentality well; hell, I used to embrace it myself, so I know the game plan, chief.

There is a big difference between 1) a theory (a tentative conclusion based on the preponderance of the where the evidence points to), and 2) a theory (determinations based on nothing more than on presumptive and predetermined beliefs of the authority of the bible, and whatever evidence scrounged up to back it up; all else being discarded) The theory of evolution is based on the first definition, particularly with the increasing and verified related information coming on an almost daily basis. ... Want to give an 'educated' guess as to which one creationism is based on?

Galen, Uhhmm, so when laws were passed giving blacks and women the right to vote in 1865 and 1920 respectively, are we setting up laws that give blacks and women 'Special Treatment'? When laws were passed that gave non-land owners the right to vote back in the late 1700s-early 1800s, were they getting 'Special Treatment'? No Galen, they are getting rights that other people already have. Same thing that goes for gays too, and why folks like you want to whine about 'Special Treatment' and act as tho' our country is headed for the toilet because of that is beyond me. ... All of which basically serves as a straw man argument that covers for the REAL fear driven complaint that "Gays are breaking God's Law, and we must do something about it!". You know it's interesting. Quite a number of 'God's Laws' are being broken by the more (((cough))) 'godly' people, yet the homophobe crowd doesn't seem to go ape.... over those. No, its basically this rabid fear about 'homosexuality is going to bring the entire Western civilization down in flames' and like arguments that keeps getting a bunch of fundies panties in a knot. Well believe me, there are far worse things than a homosexual couple making out in public to be 'righteously concerned' about. Crap like this, for instance: "It is easy to say that we should never discriminate. Wonderful, but here on planet Earth, we must." Oh really? Is this and the 'logic' that follows that the arguments that justify getting bent out of shape about homosexuality? You must discriminate? (In your apartment renting example) Even if they have the $$$$ to rent it with, and they don't trash the place? In one place of your post about renting, you say that homosexuals have rights that 'non-members' of that group don't enjoy. Yet a few sentences down there are others who enjoy that same right. ... So which is it guy? Can't have it both ways. Your arguments are weak. Very weak. And like I said before, what is it about homosexuals NOT being treated 'like sinners' that pi**es you folks off so much? God, just leave them alone if you can't do anything else. I'm amazed now that I used to believe much the same way against homosexuals, .... and it was based on *nothing* more than stupid, ignorant fear, and whitewashed up in the Name of God. Now doesn't that motivation sound familiar, hmmmm?

Trefor, I wouldn't call it a miracle. I'd call it something else .... :(--> Tell me something Evan, why is it that equal treatment in society and under the law qualifies as 'special treatment'? Or treating someone as tho' there is something morally wrong with them because of their sexuality qualifies as equal treatment in the same context?

Retirement? *Retirement*?? ... Not while I'm able to work a computer keyboard! ((image which shows a smiley typing away at a computer keyboard would have been inserted here, but for some reason, *I can't find one* )) That's the nice thing about using a computer for work. Turning 65 doesn't make you incapable. Just as long as you have the brain on how to use it.

Galen, Regardless of who handcuffs a little 5 year old kid, it's *still* 'over the top' as Linda so plainly put it. Allan, So what part about this situation is 'develish'? The handcuffing of the child? That the school had to call the police instead of just the parents? The parents deal in all this? What? And keep in mind that the changes in the school system that were brought about to this point has often been at the prodding of the parents (you know, the ones who DO have kids?) themselves, ... then they squawk when their own kids get busted by the 'socialist' (an economic theory which has nothing to with how one raises kids) system. I guess it depends on who gets the 'gummint' check, ehh?

Sorry, but I don't accept the conservative sounding "we now live in a 'politically correct society' so we can't do nuthin' except let the little girl throw a tantrum" party line in this instance. Sure the little girl was throwing a tantrum and hitting the teacher, but come *on*. Her blows weren't doing any damage whatsoever. And as outofdafog noted, the girl was calm *before* Officer Tackleberry threw the cuffs on her. --> And they wanted to hold the girl overnight and charge her fer crying out loud! It's political correctness all right, ... from the other side! The parents are indeed at fault for not disciplining the girl to not behave like that, but they did call it right in coming down on the school, because the school overreacted.

Yup. That means that your anti-virus software nailed that sucker before it could go to town. Do a thorough virus check on your system anyway, as there could be others.

It comes from the archaic--err Aramaic phrase "Kissus Loyius Buttockus", meaning "To kiss Martindales foot-ests" with the not so subtle implication of being a splotch of Crisco oil by the stroke of midnight otherwise. (Never mind that Crisco oil is as unkosher as pig meat to a Jewish person) Retreived from the ancient Bull****ta texts and manuscripts. ..... oh Ohh, you mean where from the Bible!

... with no Superman to come flying out of it too. :D-->

Actually, I have heard a good number of atheists openly and directly deal with this very issue; ie., being radical and blindly loyal to atheism by those who are so certain that there is no god, and/or that religious people are 'mentally ill' for believing in 'some sky daddy', and have heard various atheist individuals chastise those 'fundy atheists' for acting in such a rabid manner. And keep in mind that atheism means simply a 'non-belief in any god or spiritual being'. Period. Nothing more than that. There are those (and I know of quite a few) atheist who will say that they don't have proof that there is a god; they just don't believe that there is until it is proven to them. There are different levels of atheism/agnosticism, and even I-don't-care-if-there-is-a-god-ism (more formally known as apatheism). Just a little information for you to help get over your ignorance of atheists/agnostics/other freethinkers.

So Wayfer Not, would Benedict Arnol--ahh I mean XVI qualify as a 'cult leader'? Think about it. :D-->