Woman to Woman

By norman

January 31, 2005 07:11 AM | Link to this

It is hard to be sure whether Christians see a gay agenda in children’s shows because this appeals to their repressed sexuality and prurient interests, or whether it is owing to their desire to create an agenda for their alleged “values” campaigns. In either case it does not redound to the honesty, mental health, or political propriety of the Christian attack dogs who are, in any case, pharisaical hypocrites. Christianity is a very evil religious tradition, it has caused countless death and misery for 1700 years, and has not yet been equalled by the death and misery created by 1300 years of Islam.

By Mara

January 31, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

I’ve never understood the Christian hysteria when it comes to homosexuality. Despite the danger of being brick-batted to death, I have to point out that their religious foundation is a 30-something virgin who never had sinful thoughts about women, traveled around with 12 other guys with whom, one assumes, he bathed, and slept with, and perhaps even discussed grooming tips with. He hung out with the marginalized, the shunned, and the socially unacceptable. Thank goodness that they didn’t have videos then with their subversive PC message that there are people who are different or “unacceptable”, be it physically, religiously, or socially. And that teasing, embarrassing, or beating them is not nice. That being nice is nice.
I suppose that some people believe that sexual attraction is a choice, therefore, those who deviate from the norm are selfishly trying to destroy the species. I don’t remember choosing to be hetrosexual, but obviously I must have at some point. I can pretty much rule out being terribly influenced by hetro cartoons though.

By John

January 31, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this

I think Norman watches to many cartoons!

By Francis

January 31, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

You are correct in your assessment that Christians do believe in tolerance but not acceptance where the message of homosexuality is concerned. But a lesson plan that attaches the term ‘gay’ to the term ‘elderly’ or ‘race’ clearly sends the message that ALL are ‘normal and inevitable’and should not be viewed as wrong.

To teach children tolerance as in the constitution of our country is not the same thing as teaching our children that homosexuality is no different from being ‘elderly’ or of a different ‘race’ is deceptive. This is a major difference in teaching tolerance while including something that many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe is wrong.

The schools have no right to attempt to educate our children on their version of ‘morality’. That is the responsibility of the parents.

Lastly, to peer pressure our children to sign a committment to this version of tolerance is wrong, and they KNOW it. That kind of ‘committment’ should be a decision between the children and their parents.

This agenda is clear.

By Brian Curtis

January 31, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Many Christians used to believe that mixed-race marriages were wrong too, until we schooled it out of their kids. Ditto for treating women as equals.

I must say I’m impressed though; every time I think this column couldn’t possibly get any more trivial and irrelevant, they manage to come up with an even less meaningful non-issue to quibble about. Cartoon characters, for pity’s sake….

By Boscoe

January 31, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Norman, let me ask you. What is wrong with teaching Family Values? It has been proven that children respond best when raised in a family. i.e. other , father, siblings ect.ect. Why would advocating this be hypocritical?

By John

January 31, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

It is ironic that the fundamentalist Christians who spew the kind of garbage that we regularly hear from Shaunti claim to be the devout followers of a religion that holds love and compassion to be paramount, yet react so strongly whenever asked to act tolerantly.

The only agenda at work is that of the Christian fundamentalists who, having lost all other targets for the fear- and hate-mongering they use to keep their weak-minded congregations in line, have arrowed in on that last acceptable target of bigotry, gay men and women. It is the height of hypocrisy when a televangelist who has stolen, lied to his flock, and committed adultery (that’s three Commandments broken - count ‘em) stands up on his pulpit and proclaims that above all else God hates and condems gay people.

Last time I checked, the main proscription against homosexuality is in the same section of the bible which also describes eating shellfish and pork as abominations, and explains the proper way to sacrifice animals in order to please God. But then - I don’t know why I’m surprised. Fanatics have never been particularly adept at reading comprehension.

By Mara

January 31, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

So Francis, bury your head in the sand if you like. Homosexuality and homosexuals have been with us since the beginning of times. Thousands of years and we have not managed to stamp out this scourge on our society. Therefore, let us pretend that hating homosexuals has nothing to do with religion. Let us pretend that NO belief or creed is tolerant of homosexuality, thus ruling out the religious bias. Let us pretend that homosexuality doesn’t even really exist, (it is actually a construct created by pedophiles to gain access to your little boys!). And let us not tell our children (God Forbid!) that homosexuals exist even in the Church. And if they actually find out about them, we absolutely must be sure that they know that gay people are not deserving of equality in any sphere of society. That they are worse than pedophiles (who can still marry), or wife-beaters (who can still adopt), or worse even than FRENCH people (they’re so vain about their clothes, you know).
Oh yes indeed. Let us not pretend that homosexuals are regular people deserving of civility and equality. And religion has nothing to do with it.

By Lyrazel

January 31, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Boggles my mind actually why people would study cartoons to find subversive messages! If the starfish had been a girl fanatics would have screamed pedophile/living in sin/and such. I believe SpongeBob is hot after some girl on the beach….dont watch it much to know but he wears clean underwear like mom spongepants taught.

Few mention the effect of Bullwinkle and Rocky living together in Frostbite Falls. The gay population at Wassamatta U has increased significantly. Do we dare remember the time Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble wife-swapped? O! O the unbridled lust of Dr. Benton Quest and Race Bannon! Remember phonograph records and playing them backward to collect subversive messages from Satan? I guess with Ipods nobody plays their music backward anymore to know.

Still, I agree with Shaunti: No matter how worthy its other goals are, it’s wrong to use children’s cartoons to capture attention for a message that undermines the will of parent. Now, lets ban McDonalds, Tyson and Kellogs from marketing bad food to children. Lets go after Coke/Pepsi/etc. because sugary liquid has zero nutritional value. Further lets hit Disney for marketing anorexic teens to young women for role models and keep boys away from sports celebrites who market shoes kids dont need and athletic wear that promotes a drugs and a freesex agenda.

By Holly

January 31, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Diane, please do your homework. Your take on this is so off-track from the original intent of Dr. Dobson it is frightening. Regarding your reference to European cheek-kissing I can only say “What the heck does that have to do with this topic?!?” Back on track…this forum should be for blasting the media for so misrepresenting a story. Upon hearing the media’s version of this story, I too, thought it was over the top. In an attempt to clarify all sides of the story (something the media has failed miserably to do) I went to Family.org and read Dr. Dobson’s actual comments. Once again, the mainstream media in an attempt to undermine Christianity, has basically “fabricated” an entire story! I never fail to be shocked as such irresponsible journalism. I implore every ill-informed writer (and columnist) to this forum to read Dr. Dobson’s comments before making judgment. As the parent of a 5-year old in public school, (and a Christian) I take serious issue with the fact this material is being distributed within public schools. It is not the school’s responsibility to teach my 5-year old tolerance of sexual differences. When I feel my child is of an approriate age to comprehend sexual preferences, I will teach it. You can bet I will be following up with my child’s school to find out their positon on showing this material, and I hope every responsible parent will do the same. As for Spongebob…still love him!

By Boscoe

January 31, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

John, do you know Norman? You sound just like him. Try reading further. Mara,With respect to the building of (legal) fences or boundaries we have done that and are right to do it with prostitution. But with homosexuality, we have no such boundaries. If a (heterosexual) brothel were to open in downtown, it would be closed pretty quickly. But if it is a homosexual bathhouse, it’s hands off because it is the gay community. So with regards to homosexuality, we have a double standard. Mara, it is not the homosexuals that we are intolerant of it is the act of homosexuality. It is an act against nature.

By John

January 31, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: I have no argument with Christianity, only fundamentalists who twist religion to their own ugly ends; and, by the way, with those who are unable to address the substance of an argument and resort to red herrings to detract from their lack of critical thinking.

Just so you understand the distinction, a bathhouse (which I personally find apalling) is not the same as a brothel. A bathhouse, for the purposes you are referencing, is no different from the many hotels littered around Atlanta with hourly rates frequented by heterosexuals. I don’t see any real push to shut those down, either.

As for the so-called “unnatural act” of homosexuality - if something occurs in nature, then by definition it is natural, yes? Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom. How, exactly, is it unnatural, then?

By norman

January 31, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Family values among religious people have often included incest, rape, wife-beating, and pedophilia.

By Angie

January 31, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

With the world such as it is today, isn’t there something more worthy of our disgrace? If a particular set of parents believe there is a hidden agenda in a cartoon….sit down, here it comes…..DON’T LET YOUR CHILDREN WATCH IT!!!!!! How more simple could the solution be people? Police what your kids see on tv, and this becomes a non issue. I have two girls, elementary aged. They think the “Bratz” dolls are so cool. However, their father and I think the way they are dressed is, for lack of a better word, slutty. They look like 10 year old Paris Hiltons or Play Boy Bunnies. So, even though some of their friends are allowed to partake of them…our girls are not. We have explained our views and they are ok with them. Give your children some credit for being intelligent. If you don’t like SpongeBob….you don’t have to go into exacting detail about why. Just say you don’t like some of the subject matter…nuff said. You’re the parent. This world is bad enough. If you look for the devil, you will find him. But if you look for good…you will most defintely find that as well. Agendas should forged at one place only….HOME.

By Akeya

January 31, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

sigh

The only things to which I can respond are:

Boscoe- that is the most idiotic thing I think you’ve ever written. No homosexual bathhouse would stand a chance. And anyway, isn’t the city writhe with “spas”?

Holly- The topic doesn’t specify Mr. Dobson’s comments. Diane does…. it was a general question about cartoon characters. And doesn’t the media misrepresent many things? Why waste our time on something as silly as this? And what are people so afraid of?
IMPO, I think anyone who is not okay with teaching children to be tolerant of those who are different condone children who gay bash other children. Let’s see how it is when it’s your son or daughter getting beaten to a bloody pulp. Maybe then your minds will change?

To answer the question: no, I don’t think that cartoon characters are liberal ploys for subversive messages.

By lozen

January 31, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

I understand parents wanting to teach their children their values. But what about the parents who teach their children that it’s okay to tease, pick on and beat up gay kids? What does the school do, just allow them to harass a gay child? I don’t think so and I think that’s what the program in schools is about. It’s not to teach children to be gay. It is to teach them to be tolerant of gay kids. If only the two guys who killed poor Matthew in Wyoming had been exposed to this program in their schools!

By Mara

January 31, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Yo Boscoe. Equating homosexuality with prostitution is quite a stretch, don’t you think? For one thing, prostitutes aren’t nearly as vilified as gays. For another thing, prostitution is a business transaction (which I dislike for its coercive recruiting practices, not its social stigma) and, in places where it is legal, it’s taxed and regulated. There are two ways to get into prostitution, by choice, or by being forced into it, whether by physical or financial coercion. Since I personally believe that sexuality is as much nature as it is nurture, one cannot choose gayness. The analogy is fallacious.

By Seaborn

January 31, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Spongebob?!! Oh please…give us gays more credit than that. I grew up watching Looney Tunes but it wasn’t Bug Bunny kissing Elmer Fudd that convinced me I was gay. Give me Spiderman or Aquaman any day..or that cute Johnny Quest (yes, I’m dating myself). Guys with great chests, chiseled good looks and wearing tights…mmmmm mmm.

By Angie

January 31, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Instead of being wrought with self-righteous pomposity about cartoons and their hidden demoralizing agendas….perhaps we should get p** off about something more note-worthy. Crappy parents!! Why don’t we focus our collective energies on protecting our nation’s children from their unattentive caretakers. Why is it that a parent who runs out for medicine for their sick child in the middle of the night….and then God forbid something horrible happens to that child in their absense…faces a litany of charges as a result?! But a parent who gives their 10 year old daughter money for toilet paper and then directs them 3 blocks away…ALONE….faces nothing but open arms when their child turns up dead?! Are both parents not gulity of endangerment? Do both parents not play a small role in the outcome of these situations? I am much more worried about bad parenting than I am about homosexuality. Its not the gay people who are hurting our children…..its the parents.

By AllaboutME

January 31, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

…what about waking up next to the Burger King in your bed? small wonder BK wanted SpongeBob…could somebody point me to the gay-subversive message website for product marketing please…shades of Bert and Ernie…everything put on tv for children passes a bureau of censors…tell me parents just who is supervising your childs tv viewing?

By Steve

January 31, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Back to the topic of discussion:

Please go to this link and read James Dobson’s own words concerning this incident:

http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0035339.cfm

If you take the time to read his words, you will see that this whole stink has very little to do with SpongeBob. No one is accusing a cartoon character of being gay.

For all of you mocking and making fun of Christians, how about showing a little TOLERANCE for those who disagree with you?

I know the facts will not get in the way of some people’s perceptions of others. But give James Dobson a break and actually read what he said.

By norman

January 31, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Perhaps we should ban those Christian videos where Jesus and John are very feminine and make goo-goo eyes at each other. And what about all those bishops and some priests going around in skirts? I remember Fulton J. Sheen on tv in the ‘50’s telling us all about “godless Communism” and why the Catholic Church was always right. He wore some pretty interesting cross-dressing stuff. He was pretty effeminate as well.

By AllaboutMe

January 31, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

…wasnt King James VI gay?

By Seaborn

January 31, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

We all know what Dobson said and it’s still paranoia.

I’ve never heard any gay person advocating where Christians can worship, or who they can worship with. When these so-called Christians start keeping their noses out of everyone else’s business, they might be met with less ridicule.

By RS

January 31, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Good grief, get a life! We all know Spongebob is having a passionate affair with Sandy The Squirrel, who is FEMALE. OK, maybe he’s cheating on her with Patrick but as long as Sandy never finds out, I see no problem with that (ha!)

By John

January 31, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Hey Steve - I don’t have to be tolerant of intolerant Christians, because I don’t claim to be the perfect example of Christianity like they do. And frankly, that argument is as flat as always…it’s like saying Jews should have been tolerant to the Nazis that persecuted them. It just doesn’t wash.

As for facts, Mr. Dobson’s own words condemn him: he claims that the message of the cartoon - you know, we should be tolerant and understanding of each other - is “sinister”. Make no mistake - we non-fundies know exactly what the fundamentalists of the world want. We need only look at the abuses of the Taliban to see what Mr. Dobson and his ilk would like to accomplish in the US.

By Seaborn

January 31, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Norman,

Ain’t that the truth. And look at some of these churchy McChurch politicians. If I saw Gary Baur walking down the street I’d swear he was gay.

By Zack

January 31, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Akeya—I find it ironic that you, who claims to believe in equal treatment for all, stood quietly while your big buddy Norman made a racist remark. Of course, I wasn’t surprised. I guess you draw the line at equal treatment if someone is Christian, Black, or heterosexual. Also, don’t tell me Norman didn’t mean that comment against Blacks. You know he did. I know he did. He knows he did. Of course, what has been your response to Norman all along? (“I like Norman.”) Gosh, you’re such a hate-filled, liberal hypocrite, not uncommon for those on the left.

People have told me I’m always expressing hatred. They’re right. However, in my case, I’m expressing hatred toward actions, not people, as opposed to the hatred Norman, Akeya, and others express toward those who disagree with them.

As for Disney, YES, cartoon characters are sending subversive messages, and it’s ironic that this question is being asked now, because I had a study on Disney advertising techniques in a class last week, which infuriated me greatly. Disney is trying to convince people that homosexuality is normal, and they’re attempting this with subtle, discreet messages. Kids in elementary schools are being shown pictures of same-sex couples, one-parent families, etc. in contexts where a normal, healthy lifestyle seems to be the case.

This is not supported by anything and never will be.

We need to address the REAL terrorism in this country. The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were bad, but an attack on our soul is tragic. We need to remember that our soul is the most important part of us, because that’s the only part of us that’s infinite. Disney is trying to sway kids into a worldview that rips apart their moral fabric and can lead them into a life of destruction. We must stop this. Boycott this complany, please. Also, don’t watch ABC or ESPN, and let these companies know WHY you’re not watching them.

We do not need propaganda being spewed to the minds of young kids. The liberal worldview is being plastered all over the minds of people throughout the country, and we need to stand up against it. (I went to a website yesterday where those boycotting Disney were referred to as “obsessed.” It’s very typical of the left to use such buzz words. If you dare to defend the life of an unborn baby, they call you an “extremist.” WHAT????? If you’re opposed to gay marriage, they call you a “bigot.” WHAT???? If you’re a liberal senator, you’re referred to as a “senator”; if you’re conservative, you’re called a “conservative senator”, as though it’s a stigma.

My, the liberal agenda does so many sick, subtle, DECEPTIVE (remember that) things over and over to spread its message. We need to return to the Christian values this country was founded upon and make sure that each person is treated with love and respect. We do not need tolerance and acceptance for evil actions!

I would love to see Disney go out of business immediately and be destroyed with a wrecking ball. THAT is a beautiful sight.

Remember: the devil is out to deceive you. What looks right is wrong, and vice-versa. For example, having premarital sex looks right, but it isn’t, and the consequences that come with it are harsh. Cheating on a test looks right but isn’t. Stealing from your employer looks right but isn’t. Beware of Disney. Just because something is animated doesn’t mean it’s safe. Wake up, naive parents!

By the way, the statement that kids miss out when they’re home-schooled is also a myth. Nowadays, they simply miss out when they’re schooled publicly. Of course, the left does an excellent job of lying and calling the right exactly what THEY (the left) are.

Stop the lies.

By Seaborn

January 31, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Zack,

I wouldn’t worry about it. You are probably going to have a coronary in the next six months.

By Randy

January 31, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Good subject, it gives Norman(or as we so lovingly call him, the VILLAGE IDIOT) a forum for his agenda, which is to attack all Christians. If you read last weeks subject he was attacking everybody in the forum(even non-Christians), he again has a purpose. Maybe we should get him a girlfriend(but what girl would we do that to)?

By Zack

January 31, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

seaborn—That’s exactly the kind of “love” the left has. You make light of something serious and are flippant in your showing of raw hatred.

Lewis Grizzard wrote an article against homosexuality back in ‘91 or ‘92 and received backlash from gay-rights advocates. One said it was too bad Grizzard’s heart surgery was successful…and they’re saying WHO is full of hatred???

By Angie

January 31, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

We will all disagree somewhat on religion…always. I am a part of one of the smallest “religious” groups around. I am a Messianic Jew. I know all too well the injustices done to my people over the last 2000 years. People think all the time that I am the same as a Christian, an enormous oversight on their part. And if they seem genuinely interested and they ask, I am happy to explain the differences…for they are many. I do not however push my moral and/or political beliefs on anyone. I am a deeply spiritual person ( as are the other members of my family )and we hold tight to one commandment given to Moses…..Love Thy Neighbor. I cannot in good conscience say what is worse in the eyes of God/Jesus. Is it stealing a piece of gum, being a homosexual, or killing and lying to support an agenda in the name of God Almighty? I do not pretend to know His heart. Nor should anyone else…Christian, Jew, Musslim, or otherwise.

By John

January 31, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

And the “I rant, therefore I am” award goes to…Zack!

Bonus points for suggesting that the word “conservative” is a stigma AFTER using liberal as a label and an insult, and for spewing venom and nastiness immediately followed by a call to return to Christian “Love and respect”.

Kudos to you!

By Mara

January 31, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Boscoes’ comparison of homosexuality and prostitution, along with my rebuttal, have given me a new (for me) thought. What exactly makes one “gay”? Is it merely whom one has sex with? Can one be forced into gayness? Certainly one can be forced into the act, but will you be gay afterward? People don’t choose their race, gender, age, or any other inborn trait that has led to discrimination in the past. Even now, how many would choose to be brown, or female, or old? If gayness was a choice, would millions of people actually choose to be vilified, ostracized, and marginalized? If the answer is yes, then indeed, homosexuality may actually be a choice. If the answer is no, then obviously gay is gay, and straight is straight.

By Zack

January 31, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Also, Diane Glass said suggested that tolerating and condoning were two different things. Wrong; they’re synonymous. (If you witness a murder in action and don’t do anything to stop it, you’re just as guilty—if not more so—than the person performing the murder.)

By Tim

January 31, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Zack… I would love to stand with you and boycott ABC… oh shoot I can’t cus I LOVE ‘Desperate Housewives’

By Seaborn

January 31, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Zack,

I actually liked Lewis Grizzard and was sad at his passing.

And I don’t wish you a heart attack…but man, you seem ready to blow.

By John

January 31, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

I’m afraid the murder example for the condoning -vs- tolerating argument is a false metaphor. Society agrees that murder is wrong. This is a universal more. Poor debaters like to play the “if you saw someone murdered” card for most situations because it is a high-emotion trigger that seems on the surface to be logical. However, a better comparison would be not approving of the unmarried couple living next door, but being friendly when you go out to get your papers in the morning.

And again, I find it incomprehensible that someone can spend three paragraphs explaining exactly why he finds you to be a morally and spiritually corrupt individual based on something inherent and unchangeable about you, and then act outraged when that person reacts to you with anger.

Zack: People who are attacked and vilified by an individual have an understandable urge to lash out at that person. For instance, Lewis Grizzard attacked gay people and one of them reacted, I suspect facetiously, by wishing him ill. How is this hard to understand?

By Akeya

January 31, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Zack,

As I stated to you before, I’m engaged. Please stop making passes at me.

And in all of your Christianly love, why did YOU not get offended by the comment?

By Steve

January 31, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

John -

You are a great example of taking quotes out of their context. You wrote of Dobson, “he claims that the message of the cartoon - you know, we should be tolerant and understanding of each other - is “sinisterâ€?.”

Here is the actual quote from Dr. Dobson, “But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister.”

There is a big difference there. According to Dobson, the video itself is harmless. What he views as sinister is the agenda behind the video from the We Are Family Foundation. The agenda behind them has been well documented - to reach young children with the message that being gay is just like being black, white, tall, or short, in other words, that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

Now what does Dr. Dobson actually say about tolerance? If you read his letter you would have read this, “Let me say it again for emphasis: Every individual is entitled to respect and human dignity, including those with whom we disagree strongly.” Sounds pretty tolerant to me.

By John

January 31, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry Steve - were you refering to the link you posted earlier…the one that leads to a letter that is some six or seven pages long filled with anti-gay rhetoric? It’s called reading comprehension…anyone with a modicum of good sense can read that “apology” and see it for what it is, the attempt of the religious right to advance their campaign to deprive an entire segment of the population of not only basic human rights but basic human dignity as well.

I don’t care if he says he believes every individual is entitled to respect and dignity; that statement is clearly belied by the content and substance of the remainder of his argument- this claim, typical of fundamentalists and other hate groups, is utterly disingenous when weighed against the remainder.

By lozen

January 31, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

John, a voice of logic has a hard time on this site! Your logic will be met with illogical responses no matter what you say. Please don’t give up. I believe Dr. Dobson’s agenda is sinister, to continue to try to make gays pariahs in our society.

By Seaborn

January 31, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

John,

I was going to respond to Steve with something like “Dr. Dobson’s full of crap”.

You said it much better.

By Steve

January 31, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

John -

No one says you have to agree with me or James Dobson or anyone else. My only point is that you, and many in the media, haven taken Dr. Dobson comments completely out of context in order to make your arguments. It is amazing to see what people say James Dobson said and compare it to what he actually said. There is a big difference. Oh well, at least you admit you did not actually read Dobson’s letter.

So fundamental Christians are a hate group? The religous right wants to take away your human dignity? Sounds like your painting a group with a pretty broad stroke. Is this an example of tolerance as you see it? Do you think there is even a hint of hypocrisy in your staments? Just curious.

By Angie

January 31, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Just playing devil’s advocate now. But why are people who think poorly of homosexuality considered disagreeable oafs who are devoid of any human kindness? Why is it demanded that those in disagreement exhibit tolerance of the situation when so few advocates of homosexuality show tolerance in kind? If it is acceptance and understanding we seek on this inately uncommon ground…..then why can’t we agree to disagree? We all have a right to our own opinions. And if we all ultimately want respect for the way we choose to individually live our lives, then shouldn’t that respect begin with the way we think and feel?

By John

January 31, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Steve,

You ask if there is hypocrisy in my statements, and do I believe that all fundamentalist Christians are hate groups. I’ll answer the second question first: By no means. There are many people whom I care about that are fundamentalist Christians, including my sister, I might add, who don’t hate me because I’m gay and don’t want to change the laws of the land to suit one religion. However, I DO believe that most, if not all, fundamentalist ORGANIZATIONS, such as the one headed by Dr. Dobson, do share many things in common with hate groups. Many of these groups spend far more time expressing condemnation of others than they do feeding the needy and sheltering the weary.

As for your first question - No. I don’t feel any hypocrisy and I’ll tell you why.

First - Christianity claims to be a religion built on love. Mark 31 says “And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” The hypocrisy is in those who claim to be the only true adherents of Christianity expending enormous amounts of energy ignoring this tenet. I do not claim to be a perfect Christian. I do not set myself up as the end-all, be-all of Christianity therefore there is no hypocrisy in my dislike of fundamentalism and many fundamentalists.

Second, I feel no obligation to be tolerant towards fundamentalism. You - and by “you” I mean fundamentalist groups - are the aggressors in this conflict. Frankly, neither I nor any other gay man or woman could care less if you want to speak in tongues, handle snakes, channel Jesus, dance naked around fires, spank each other shouting “Thank you Lord may I have another”, or do whatever it is you want to do in the church of your choice. On the other hand, you (remember the earlier definition of “you” before you get all irritable) want to control where I can live, where I can work, who I spend my life with, what happens to any children I might have, and otherwise control every aspect of my life that has absolutely no impact on you simply because you have some kind of religious objection to the way God made me.

So, do I feel hypocritical not liking you? Do you think slaves felt hypocritical for not liking their masters, or that the Jews felt hypocritical for not liking the Nazis, or that Matthew Sheppard felt hypocritical for hating the men that killed him? I think I’ve answered the question for you.

It is not incumbent upon the oppressed to feel positively about their oppressors. You may say I am being overly dramatic by painting things in these terms, but then you’ve never lived as a gay man in the deep South. You really have no clue.

By seaborn

January 31, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Angie,

Because we (gays) are in a defensive position while you people that think poorly of homosexuals (and you can’t separate homosexuals from homosexuality) are in an offensive position. And your opinions are thought of as oafish because they rarely seem informed. How many gay people do you know? Would it surprise you to know that our lives don’t revolve around sexual activity? You are free to say anything you want, and to teach your children anything you want, but you should not expect us to just take it when you disparage us.

By Angie

January 31, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

I don’t recall disparaging you. I was merely trying to merge the two schools of thought into just that….THOUGHT. People must be allowed their own ideals. I never said I have an issue with homosexuality. Please “inform” yourself and re-read my earlier posts. My, such rhetoric. I don’t know what is worse….the hipocrits on the religious side of the fence or the hipocrits on your side. Why can’t someone just be in the middle on this issue?

By Zack

January 31, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

akeya—I WAS offended by the comment and stated such. Making passes at you? Yeah, I’ve made plenty of them. Just another one of your many lies. I enjoyed pointing out one of your many double standards also.

seaborn—Shut up with your lies about hatred. You flippantly said I might have a coronary in six months, and you’re talking about hatred? By the way, yes, one can love a homosexual and hate homosexuality. Don’t tell me there’s not a difference. That’s a lie.

By Seaborn

January 31, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Angie,

I meant you in the plural sense. If you have no objections to gays I apologize for including you in that plurality, although I doubt if you would have raised the issue otherwise. Again, you are talking about a debate about my life (again methaphorically plural). As I said before, you (again the plural you) are certainly welcome to your opinion and even welcome to it publically. As far as the debate it really comes down to “you’re gay, you’re bad…don’t be gay” vs “No, I’m not bad. I’m made this way”. Frankly, I worked through all of that 20 years ago. By the way, the correct spelling is “hypocrite”

By Debora

January 31, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

All of you who don’t think hating homosexuals is wrong, explain how raping lesbians is ok? I just want a RATIONAL explanation. My nieghbor down the street honestly believes that it should not be against the law to rape a woman if that woman is a lesbian. He honestly believes that he is doing the work of his lord. He quoted me scripture to prove his beliefs.

By steve

January 31, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

John- Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my posts. Thank you for not thinking all fundamental (although I do not like that term, I will go with it for now!) Christians are part of a hate group.

I have seen seen horrible and hateful actions toward my lesbian cousin. She lives in a rural part of Alabama and makes me cringe to hear what people have said of her. She knows that I am an evangelical conservative Christian. She knows that I think homosexuality is wrong. I know that she thinks I am wrong. We love each other anyway. In fact, she was at my daughter’s birthday party on Saturday, I am so thanful for the way she loves my children. We have even had discussions (somewhat heatedly I confess) where we had to apologize to each other when it was over. I say all of that to tell you that I think you are wrong about conservative Christians and groups like Focus on the Family. Did you know that very little of the materials and information published by Focus on the Family actually deal with homosexuality? Most of it is to help dads be better dads and husbands, wives to be better moms and wives, etc.

Another thing, I am not, nor does any Christian I know of, “set myself (themselves) up as the end-all, be-all of Christianity”. We know Romans 3 too well to claim that. We are all sinners in the sight of God. ALL of us.

There was much I would like to address in your last post but do not have the time at the moment. Thanks again for your time in replying to my previous post.

By Seaborn

January 31, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Zack,

For someone with the peace and tranquility of the lord all around him, you certainly have some anger issues.

By Brian Curtis

January 31, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Quote from Zack, part 1: “Diane Glass said suggested that tolerating and condoning were two different things. Wrong; they’re synonymous.”

Quote from Zack, part 2: “…one can love a homosexual and hate homosexuality. Don’t tell me there’s not a difference. That’s a lie.”

What an interesting, and specialized, dictionary Zack must have! Full of absolutes of right and wrong, no room for interpretation or disagreement.

If no one else wants to go on record with this position, I will: Yes, fundamentalism is evil. Period. Fundamentalist religion is the enemy of humanity and the enemy of civilization. Fundamentalism is what causes people to join cults, commit mass suicide, burn “witches,” and fly planes into buildings. All people of good conscience should and must oppose fundamentalism at every turn—especially Christians of goodwill who are sick of seeing their faith twisted and distorted by hate-filled, screeching lunatics.

And the Reverend Doctor Dobson is an a*. How’s THAT for a clear-cut statement of intolerance?

Don’t settle for this, Christians! Stand up and declare that Dobson and his fellow loons don’t speak for you or your faith. It’s really a simple matter: Jesus commanded us to love all people. The government requires us to tolerate all people. Where you fall in between those standards is up to you.

But condemning them? That’s not even an option, so quit sniping at your neighbor’s sould and worry about your own.

By Zack

January 31, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

seaborn—Yes, I do. Like I said earlier, I have plenty of anger toward evil actions.

Look at Jesus. He had all the anger in the world against evil. Look at what His reaction to those who were using His house as a marketplace. I’d love to see His reaction to churches nowadays that barely mention the Bible at all but constantly promote their website, the pastor’s latest book, and their need for funds for the new church they want to build (a more sizable church, where even more people can hear a non-Biblical doctrine).

I’ve referred on here before to such a preacher. The man has no cross in his sanctuary (on purpose) and barely refers to the Bible. I’ve never heard of him preaching a sermon against abortion, homosexuality, stem-cell research, cloning, etc.. He talks a lot about not getting all upset when you’re stuck in traffic. You seldom hear the name “Jesus”, or the word “Crucifixion”, or “blood.” You sure see his face a lot, as well as his website, and his new book.

Yeah, I have anger in me. If you’re happy with the state of the world, there’s something wrong, very wrong.

By RokChik

January 31, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

This post I found on another forum expresses, not only my opinion, but I know many, many others. It’s excellent.

Sponge Bob is gay???

After seeing this on the news I had to share and give my two cents worth!! Is there not enough hate and discord in the world without supposed religious leaders trying to make children’s cartoon characters sexual active in any way…be it gay or straight!! Do these people have nothing better to do? I’ve seen the actual video. It consists of puppets and cartoon characters singing “We are family.” It contains only a general message that all “people” are family in the broadest definition of the term. Lets face it no matter our race, creed, color, sexual orientation or religion, all people are family in the biological use of the term. We all have the same basic structural basis for life. And this as I understand it is the main thrust of the message of the “We are Family Foundation.” The idea that all humans have more in common than we have differences and that those differences are what make us unique and that we should respect others differences as we would like others to respect our differences. Wait…could this be the new twist on the “Golden Rule”???? Was the “Golden Rule” that was posted in all of my elementary school classrooms a “pro-gay” slogan and we just never knew it?!

We look back at the world of slavery, the Holocaust, and segregation and say that we can not imagine how people could be that way. Well, in my humble opinion, this is how people can be that way. This is the voice of the small minded individuals that believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation that matters or is correct. So sorry that they missed one of the most important messages of all “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Mark 12:31 I have yet to find the passage that says that we should only love the neighbor who is just like us! I have become very passionate with this message…because I grew up in a world where Dr. Dobson was considered to be a religious authority. A man of integrity who would teach the lessons of a loving God who only wanted the best for his children. And for this man to be spewing such vile and hate filled messages convinces me that there is something terribly wrong in this country. As wrong as people who attend clan meeting and quote the Bible the support their view that they have a natural call to supremacy over anyone who doesn’t look or act just like them. In my Bible, there isn’t race, creed or color. In my Bible there are God’s children. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. But, my God is a god that ‘hates the sin but loves the sinner.’ That is the basic concept of redemption. I can completely understand why people are turned off by the concept of religion. It is messages like this one from Focus on Family. When you issue a statement that equates teaching children about diversity and multiculturalism to brainwashing children and assigning cartoon characters a sexual orientation, you truly set your religion out there as a beacon calling to the “Deliverance” crowd!! And then this is the vision of religion that reaches the mainstream media.

I know that my point of view makes me a minority. But, I still believe in the concept that love, peace and justice will always prevail over wrong, hate and war. But, as with any uphill battle it takes that one light in the darkness who isn’t afraid to shine. So, I proudly have written my opinion and have sent it into the darkness of the “Red state” in which I reside! I Love my God, and strive to live in a way that I hope will garner me a “well done, good and faithful servant.” Mt 25:21 when I leave this old world for my heavenly home. But, in a strange turn of events, I also am a very proud Democrat who is tired of hearing that I can not be a person of faith or values because of my choice of political parties. According to the Declaration of Independence I have read this countries forefathers in their austere wisdom choose to have a separation of church and state for the reason that the pilgrims had left the mother country due to religious persecution. Perhaps the righteous right would be best served if they referred back to a speech given by one of their greatest presidents. In the words of Abraham Lincoln: ” Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Equality for all is not the idea that liberty is only reserved for the few that agree with your ideology! Equality and democracy are for all the people that call this great nation of ours home. Freedom to all is what this country is based on. The roots of freedom must be based in the fundamental idea that all people are free from persecution due to race, creed, color, religious belief and yes even sexual orientation. When we have become a nation so frightened of differences that we must attack a cartoon characters perceived sexual orientation, we must truly inspect our culture and the basis on which we will build the future of our nation.

In context with my previous statements, I fully believe in each individual having the opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves and drawing their own conclusions based on their own different set of belief and circumstances. I urge you to examine the video in question for yourself. Please do not blindly be lead in any circumstance to follow a supposed authority figure into a decision of right and wrong without first doing your own homework and using your God given brain!

By Tim

January 31, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

The one point that I would like to make is that I thank GOD (yes I said God) that there is a group/groups out there that are trying to teach children tolerance and acceptance of those who may be different from them… from the time I was in 4th grade on up even into college (p.s. I went to a ‘Christian’ college… so much for love) I was CONSTANTLY tormented and called f*, queer, sticky buns (now I can just laugh at that one), etc for the simple fact that people thought I was gay (yes I am gay… but these people did not know that… they just did this because I wasn’t exactly like them)… not one day went buy that I was not scared that one or a group of those people were going to decide it was time to beat me up (and maybe even end up killing me)… can any of you even imagine being scared you were going to be seriously injured on a daily basis… not a fun way to live your teen years! luckily for my sake I knew how to fight and the one time someone did try to hurt me I gave him a bloody nose… I believe that is what saved me from a lot more altercations… unfortunately there are a lot more gay and lesbian teens out there who have not been as fortunate… so if these groups have to use Sponge Bob, or Barney, or Mickey Mouse, or even Jesus Christ to get through to the kids today to show them that what has been done in the past is WRONG then so be it!

By tom

January 31, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Please see the quotes below. The reason for this is that sexuality is not a choice. It is an inborn characteristic that no person gets to choose. That is why educated people try to teach others to respect those who may be different. Children should be taught to respect all other people. Don’t want to teach your child these things? Your child might have a gay teacher. Don’t you want your child to respect their teacher? When your child grows up, he or she may have a gay boss. Don’t you want your child to respect his or her boss? That’s why children need to learn tolerance for those who are different.

A quote from Steve’ post:

The agenda behind them has been well documented - to reach young children with the message that being gay is just like being black, white, tall, or short, in other words, that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

A quote from Shaunti:

While the group did not respond to my request for the 2005 lesson plan, the 2003 video curriculum showed teachers how to help students equate homosexuality with inborn characteristics like race, so they might understand why it deserves acceptance and not participate in the “hate� of not “tolerating� that behavior.

By Zack

January 31, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

rokchik—Do not misuse the word “hatred.” Defending the right structure of the family is no crime. Please don’t hate those who execute this defense.

By Tim

January 31, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Zack… how bout ignorance… does that word work for you… ‘Defending the right structure of the family’… what ‘right’ structure would that be… for as much biased research that has been done to show that the best way to raise children is in a home with a mom and a dad… there is more UNBIASED research that has been done to show that there are no differences in the children that are raised by a mom and a dad and those raised by gay or lesbian parents

By Rokchik

January 31, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

First of all, I didn’t write that post, as I stated above.

Secondly, did you know we didn’t ALWAYS have the idea of the mom-dad-child family as the dominate idea? That only started in the Victorian era.

Thirdly, saying that there is only on “right structure of family” is ignorant and demeaning. It ignore single parents (moms and dads who are single for WHATEVER reason. It’s not always divorce, which is not always a bad thing.), grandparents, extended family, neighbors and close friends who help in taking care of children. There is no “right” structure other than one that provides a loving (includes displicne and education), encouraging evnironment for the child.

Just b/c some structure simply LOOKS “right” doesn’t mean it IS right. It is what’s IN the book, not what it looks like that matters.

By John

January 31, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Brian:

I absolutely join you in condemning fundamentalism as an abstract. Fundamentalist thought stifles creativity and innovation, encourages a non-scientific world view, causes men to view those of differing faiths as inhuman, leads to an end-justifies-the-means worldview that allows the bombings of clubs and office buildings, make acceptable torture and murder in the name of religion, prevents reasoned criticism of policy (how can you question a President’s actions when he was appointed by God, I ask you?), and is responsible for such attrocities as the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, and - lest we forget - the attacks on the World Trade Center. It is, I agree, the single greatest threat to civilization as we know it, and the future of humanity. Failure to break free of the grip of fundamentalism will result in a spiritual return to the dark ages when the tyranny of the majority reigned supreme.

Sorry…got a little carried away with my rhetoric there, darn that Aristotle.

However, I think its also important to remember that many (most?) individuals, when taken as individuals, are not bad people. It’s the mob mentality and the charismatic and seductive words of the leaders who are the real danger. Taken as individuals, most people are decent and reasonable. There’s something about the group dynamic that makes them into slavering, dangerous maniacs.

By Zack

January 31, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Tim—Ohhhh, but that’s not true. Children suffer in households where a man and woman as parents are not present. You’ve got it backwards, actually. It’s the biased, dishonest reporting by the liberal media that would have you believe otherwise. (Of course, they’d also tell you that no guilt comes with an abortion—and that might be true with some people; some people are amoral and don’t feel guilt about murder, which is very scary.)

By Tim

January 31, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

ohhhhh but Zack you are wrong sorry… I majored in psychology at a CHRISTIAN university and got my research from there… so go try your whole ‘liberal media’ speal somewhere else… the research I obtained came from a CONSERVATIVE school

Would you explain what these children suffer from?

I will repeat… there is plenty of research to show that children are just as healthy (mentally and physically) and happy in a same-sex household as they are in a household with a ‘mom and dad’

By Whiley

January 31, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Zack, abortion isn’t murder. Why are you so obsessed with abortion? How many condoms have you handed out at bars this weekend? Have you written your govt. about the urgent need for birth control education? No? How much money have you donated to research for better safer birth control? None? Then you obviously don’t want to end the need for abortions.

Now…cartoon characters gay? now THAT is FUNNY ! LOLOL

By John

January 31, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Zack,

Please refer us to unbiased research that shows that children are only happy in a home with a mother and a father. Please note the use of “unbiased”, though you may need to look it up.

I’m going to use my sister as an example: She’s a very religious person herself, but is also a single mom. She divorced her alcoholic, abusive ex-husband, put herself through undergraduate and graduate school in her 30s, and started a career, all the while raising my niece on her own. My niece is one of the most well-adjusted, clever, funny, intelligent, well-educated 15 year-olds I have ever met. When she does have contact with her worthless, selfish father (that’s twice a year, by the way, by his choice) she is unhappy and angry at his behavior.

Are you suggesting that my charming niece would have been better off had that shiftless layabout remained in the home, and that my sister has been a poor mother because she lived in a single-parent home?

Or, how about the case in Alabama a couple of years ago when the beloved Grand Inquisitor of the Alabama Supreme Court (That’s Roy Moore, in case you need it spelled out) awarded custody of a girl to her father, a man who had been arrested on multiple times for domestic violence, rather than to her lesbian mother. Do you HONESTLY believe that she was better off because she was living with her “traditional� father?

If anything, studies have shown that the only requirement for a healthy childhood is love. As long as a child receives the love and attention of his parent or parents, whatever gender form those parents may take, the evidence is that the child will grow up to be a well-adjusted and happy individual. Oh…and there is absolutely no evidence to support the belief that a child raised by gay parents will turn out to be gay…they pretty much fall out in the same proportion that everyone else does.

You rant and rave about the “liberal media� and bias, and twist other people’s words around (speciously, I might add) to fit your case, but I have to say, you are the most biased, irrational and illogical person that I have ever had the displeasure of debating with. And that’s going a ways…

By lozen

January 31, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Many children suffer in households where a man and a woman are present, Zack. I have seen many of them in my 60 years. That’s because a lot of heterosexuals never really wanted their children; they have them because they slip up and get pregnant, or their parents keep hinting about grandchildren, or that’s just what everybody does. My two lesbian neighbors who have just adopted children are better parents than my parents ever were. They wanted these children enough to pay big money and jump through hoops of legalize to get them. They are mature women who have financial resources and the support of their families, friends and neighbors with their children. My parents never really wanted any of their children. My mother got pregnant and abortion was illegal so what could she do? To make a blanket statement that children suffer when one particular set of parents is not present is illogical. I see what great, devoted, concerned parents both my lesbian neighbors are and I know you are wrong. It is not the liberal media (or the conservative media) that influences me. It is my personal experience.

By Zack

January 31, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

John—

Let’s see…liberals say abortion is not murder, although there’s not a shred of evidence at all to support it. They say children don’t suffer in same-sex parental households, although, again, the evidence isnt’ there. They say that Creationism should be out of schools and that allegedly it isn’t supported by scientific evidence, although guess what? Yep, there’s all the scientific evidence in the world to support it (none for the big bang theory).

Children in schools and adults in universities are lied to. You went to a Christian school, but guess what? The liberal bias has found its way into those textbooks and professors also.

Liberals are bigots. They don’t want Creationism in schools. They don’t want the truth about contraceptives in schools (condoms don’t work). They want The Pledge of Allegiance out of schools. There’s a pattern here, and it’s not a good one.

I admire your sister’s resilience. I’m sure her daughter turned out well—but things would’ve been BETTER if her dad had been there working like his wife did. Please don’t insert words into my mouth (another things liberals do frequently). I’ve seen the words you insert into your own mouth, and believe me, I’m not impressed.

Thank you for telling me you consider me irrational. This is a compliment from someone who clearly doesn’t know the meaning of the word.

By Zack

January 31, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

whiley—I’d expect that post from you. Please, for once, just once, test your beliefs against reason and wisdom, as opposed to the “Well, this is what IIIIII think….” slogan of liberalism.

By Tim

January 31, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Zack all I can do is just laugh at everything you say… funny funny funny

‘Please, for once, just once, test your beliefs against reason and wisdom’

plllllllease practice what you preach… I mean good grief… come up with something better than ‘the liberal media this and that’… get some facts to back up your arguments

By RS

January 31, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Glad to see more gay men aboard! (Yes, I’m a card-carrying “f* hag” & will be delighted to show you the card!) Oh, gosh, anyone who sees “perversion” (not that I consider homosexuality as a perversion by any means) in innocent kids’ cartoons has a sick, filthy mind. Hear that, Zack? And you’re always lambasting others as being hypocrites. Well, doesn’t blathering about love & respect count as hypocracy when you are filled with anything but? Yes, maybe Jesus was filled with anger, but at sin, not sinNERS. You are hateful, hateful, hateful. Liking gays & lesbians to practitioners of vile acts such as necrophelia & incest, indeed! Oh, by all means, I shudder at the sorry state of the world too. Know why? Because it’s full of vitriolic hatemongers such as yourself. Tim, I truly feel for you. Teens can be so rotten. Yes, I (& my husband & ALL my close friends) know exactly what it’s like to literally fear for your safety & even life in your own school just because you are different in any way. Are you aware that people like us grow up to be more interesting & compassionate than the norm (although undoubtably Zack will invoke the names of the 2 Columbine shooters, as if we’re all like that)? I bet you’d fit in great with my circle of loved ones; hey, I’m making chicken soup tomorrow night!

By RokChik

January 31, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing how you ask ppl not to put words in your mouth Zack, but you go and assume the liberal media made it’s way into a Christian College that you DID NOT ATTEND!!

You’re finished Zack. It’s obvious you’re going on blind faith and ignorance. To the point that you simply IGNORE other people’s evidence and ASSUME things your could NEVER know just to try and make a point aganist gay people. You’re part of the witch hunt, you’re part of the problem.

It’s in your best interest to stop posting, you’ve said all you can say. You’re obviously not willing to debate, but just want to shout what you think, so you drop your pretense of politeness, because there’s not brain behind it.

By Tim

January 31, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

I can vouch for RS… she has her card updated regularly :)

By Tim

January 31, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Amen RokChik… I am the one who actually attended the University and I can vouch for the fact that there was not anything liberal about that school (except for the fact that the students were allowed to have body piercings… and that didn’t change until the 90s)… the University I was referring to is affiliated with the Church of God… there is not a denomination that is more conservative than them other than Southern Baptists (but the Church of God sure could give the SB’s a run for their money on conservativism)

By John

January 31, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

All I have to say to Zack is…wow.

I guess there is no point in arguing with you as you are so blind to anything but your own delusions that you are incapable of engaging in reasoned discourse.

Please continue ignoring all legitimate scientific sources, creating new and evil schemes being perpetrated by us liberals, etc. And please – continue to call us bigots…I’m going to chuckle over that one all night.

I do want to ask you one more thing before I stop banging my head against the brick wall that is you - your assertions that a husband/wife couple is the only way a child should be raised…are we talking HYPOTHETICAL people? Because, the world isn’t hypothetical…it’s real.

You accuse me of putting words in your mouth, but I merely presented an example that refuted your statement. You seem to think that my niece might have turned out even better than she has if some HYPOTHETICAL perfect father existed…well sir, let me tell you something. Perfect fathers and perfect mothers are few and far between. I was lucky and had, and still have, two perfect parents. For you to sit behind your computer and continue to parrot the “two parents are better than one, two parents are better than one” mantra of the religious right is an affront to every successful single parent and non-traditional family who have raised good children in this country.

Who cares if the family doesn’t fit the “perfect� example that you have burned into your brain? It’s the end result that matters. The problem is, you don’t care about the end result…you only care about your dogmatic adherence to the tenets of a narrow-minded sect that claims that its way is the only way. You live in a small, small world. Truth be told, I pity you more than anything.

Please – just go back to talking to God. I’m sure he’s just dying to hear your next inanity. Hey - that rhymes with Hannity.

By RS

January 31, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

John: Your sister sounds like an outstanding, exceptional lady & so does your niece. I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said except for one thing; you state all children need for a happy, healthy childhood is love. BUT; their parents/guardians also need to be able to financially take care of them properly. Lozen; I can sympathize 100%. My parents didn’t want kids either but this was before the days when we (knew we) had options. Children ARE sensitive creatures & can tell when they’re not wanted. Believe me, that leaves deep emotional scars, especially when the aforementioned child/teen gets no love, acceptanc or affection from the outside although luckily my parents’ & my relationship did a complete turnaround now that I’m a big girl. Zack, as always, you make NO sense. So John’s sister should have stayed with that loser & he should have been a responsible individual?? Well, yeah, in a perfect world. Duh! This is NOT a perfect world, though & subsequently the point is moot. The man is a bum & that won’t change. Just like you’re a hatemongering ignoramus & that won’t change either.

By Michael

January 31, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Let’s face it. Shaunti, Dobson, and the rest of that pack really, really (deep down) don’t like gay people. At all.

If you dig a little (look at the AFA web site), you’ll see that anti-gay animus pretty much drives what they do in the name of Jesus… and they don’t just want to stop gays from being legally married — they would prefer if gays were criminalized and marginalized out of society, period.

They’re very frustrated by strides made in civil equality for gays — why, in many places you can’t go out and beat up a queer without people calling it a crime (used to be you just had to say ‘he got what he deserved’).

This whole SpongeBob thing, however, is a calculated effort to raise money & distract from the real agenda: keep gay people second-class citizens.

By Angie

January 31, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

I agree….all children need is love. And lots of it. Not all believers in Yeshua/Jesus/Yahweh/God feel the need for the modern world’s ideal of a traditional family. What is a family other than a group of people who strive for a common goal of raising children? I said it before, I am not so bold as to think I know God’s heart and/or intentions when He made any one of us. He makes no mistakes…of that you can be darn sure. Loving your neighbor is one of the most difficult concepts to embrace. Every single one of us is a product of our environment…I feel it is definitely nurture over nature. All a child needs is love. Unconditional love and protection. If that comes from a gay couple….so be it. How many neglected and abandoned children does this country have to bury before it realizes that there are couples willing to give their all for a child? It isn’t what sex a child’s parents are, it is how they treat their child. Is this child being loved, fed, provided for, loved, loved, loved? A person can disagree with homosexuality for whatever reason….its their preogative. But you can’t disagree with a person or couple who only wants to love a child. It should not matter if they are gay. There are bigger and better fish to fry in regards to what a child is exposed to. Start with the heterosexual parents who serve neglect and abuse with the breakfast cereal.

By John

January 31, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

The choice over accident argument is a very cogent one. A child whose parents have gone to great lengths to have or adopt is far more likely to be raised in a proper environment and with the kind of care needed than a child who is an accident. That’s not to say that all “accidents” are raised poorly, by any means. Just to say that when you CHOOSE and WANT a child, you are more likely to be an attentive parent that otherwise.

By Jennifer

January 31, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

My husband is almost always wrong….in how he thinks, what he says, what he does, and how he acts…but I tolerate him anyway.

By Mara

February 1, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

HA-HAAA. I have posted questions that no one can (or will)answer! What makes one gay and can one be forced into it. The perfect way to stump a bigot! Ha-HAAAA!

By Lyrazel

February 1, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this

I guess I just cant grock why a cartoon causes such furry. Its a cartoon. If you dont like the cartoon, if you find your children hanging their underwear on coat hangers, if you see your son hold his buddys hand, or hear your teenage daughter quote Ted Kennedy, well, turn off the tv set. I do not see why parents need to scream about inuendo messages with subversive content to children over television when all they have to do is turn it off. If totally disgusted—turn off cable service and have Bible study instead of cartoon time. Why is turning TV off so seldom the option? Is it because the majority of people actually like cartoons, lusty housewives, soap operas? Or is it because parents dont want their lives inconvienced by kids? Disney is relentless about marketing to children but is there outrage? No. This double standard of seeing agendas where there are none—but bypassing major corporations that blatently hook children to buy products gets a ho hum. Barney, Big Bird and all the rest have toys and cool stuff for kids to buy—and kids might learn—reading and vowels but do they understand controlled product placement and marketing? Grocery stores always put high sugar content food exactly at kids eye view. I dont understand why some Americans demand a puritanical life for their elected officials, neighbors and strangers, but seldom to find the time to nurture their own children as to what should be valued and what is hype. The role of television is selling products and entertainment, tv is NOT there to teach kids moral values, lessons of faith or whatever, for even the most religious viewers who watch only faith tv are beseiged by products to buy. The role of a parent is to parent.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Mara, you need to read more carefully. I did not compare homosexuality with prostitution. What I said was laws were created to stop the immoral act of prostitution. There are no boundaries with regards to homosexuality. Despite what Akeya thinks as idiotic, nonetheless holds water. Anytime talk of a law, or any restriction to the homosexual “cause” is responded with accusations of hatred and intolerance. Clearly, the harsh treatment they receive is my fault. There is ZERO scientific evidence to verify the existence of a gay gene. Any evidence suggested to this point has been found flawed by other scientists. Thus, this is your choice take responsibility for it. John earlier you suggested that homosexual relationships exist in nature….SHOW ME WHERE! Tim I would suggest you read that research carefully and then tell me how a child is better off with one parent than with a mother and father. The roles each parent plays in the development of that child CANNOT be replaced by removing one parent or replacing a parent with one of the opposite sex.

By Randy

February 1, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Again there is what we as imperfect humans want(being selfish) and what God knows is best for us.

By E

February 1, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

If you think that there is a secret homosexual agenda to any given cartoon, then why don’t you find something else for your kids to watch? And lay off the drugs while you’re at it.

Also, some of you seem to have a hard time understanding that, here in the USA, the role of government is to protect life, liberty and property—not to serve as the strong arm of your national church. Everyone who supports the legislation of morality is unamerican.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

John Adams, just 21 days before he signed the Declaration of Independence, wrote:

“Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure, than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.�

By Tim

February 1, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Boscoe… I would suggest you read my post carefully… don’t try to undermine my intelligence by telling me to read the research carefully… guess what I already did… had to to graduate with high honors!

I never said that a child was ‘better off’ in any situation… I simply stated that there is plenty of SCIENTIFIC research that shows children who grow up in a home with gay parents develop just as well as those who grow up in a family with a mom and dad

By norman

February 1, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, your superstitious religion is the last thing John Adams had in mind.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

And I will repeat what I said earlier. Read it carefully. There is also plenty SCIENTIFIC evidence that suggests children who grow up with gay parents are at a distinct disadvantage to those who are raised by the traditional family. Clearly, and especially if this is “scientific”, both cannot be correct. Congratulations about your high honors. Kudos for being able to follow the curriculum. Bring it down a notch Tim. Just about everybody has a college education. Even Norman boasts of an Ivy league degree.

By Rick

February 1, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

OK. The funniest thing in this forum… Lyrazel can’t understand why cartoon characters can cause so much FURRY. That’s funny. Also, Boscoe, homosexuality has been well documented in all species of animals. Check out the book, Biological Exuberance among animals.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Norman, does the quote reference religion? Remember Norman, it’s not paranoia unless they’re all out to get you!

By Tim

February 1, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Boscoe… the ‘research’ you are referring to is done by individuals or groups who are BIASED and looking for those differences… UNBIASED research CLEARLY (you don’t even need to ready it carefully… even though I did read it carefully anyway) shows that there simply are NO differences

I will repeat… don’t try to undermine my intelligence… and you wonder why people on here think you are hateful? hmmmm let me think! it is ‘Christians’ like you who give REAL Christians a bad name :)

the condescension and disdain that you spew is simply discusting and I personally would be embarrassed to share a church pew with you

By John

February 1, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, a little research will yield these answers for you, though I suspect you aren’t interested in research - only the affirmation of your prejudices. I also suspect that you hold the scientific method and the entire process of objective science in contempt, preferring to rely on subjective superstition instead. However, in the interests of advancing this discussion for those who are open to new information.

The current definitive work on the subject is Bruce Bagemihl’s “Biological Exuberance,” which documents homosexual behavior in over 450 species including bottlenose dolphins and various primate families. However, research has existed for decades. I remember, when trying to come to terms with my own sexuality as a child, reading my father’s Encyclopedia Britannica, published in the late 50’s. While it didn’t discuss human sexuality – I guess it was taboo to discuss that in polite company then – it spent 10 pages outlining the frequent and common homosexual behaviors of a particular species of chimpanzee.

On a more current and well-publicized front, there is a pair of penguins (who mate for life, by the way) in the Central Park Zoo who have been a mated pair for eight years. Wendell and Cass have repeatedly gone to the same nesting spot each year, made a nest together, exhibited all of the mating and courting behaviors of their heterosexual counterparts, and even hatched and raised an egg that was slipped into their nest by one of the zoo scientists. Interestingly enough, neither penguin has been shunned, beaten, shot, marginalized, or insulted by the other penguins. They get to join in all the penguin games.

By Gary

February 1, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

As a gay man who has lived in the south his whole life, I would like to give you a different point of view.

First of all,(and this really pains me to say!!), I think Shaunti is right about this one. I do not agree with her very often, but here it goes. When I first heard the comments of James Dobson, I rolled my eyes and laughed it off as another religous right goofball comment. Then I read the actual comments for which he is being lambasted. Come on folks, he did not say anything about SpongeBob being gay or anything ridiculous. I don’t care for Dobson’s politics, but give the fellow a break - he is entitled to his views.

I read post from John that said that he is tired of the religous right wanting “to control where I can live, where I can work, who I spend my life with, what happens to any children I might have, and otherwise control every aspect of my life”. What are you talking about? I am a gay man. I do not feel like anyone is trying to control my life, where I live, who I spend my time with, etc.

Now, I am not a religous person at all. I am actually an athiest. However, most Christians I know are very decent, kind, and respectful people. Sure there’s a few nuts that get lots of the attention, but isn’t that true for every group? Comparing them to Nazi’s and to those that killed Matthew Shepherd does not help anyone’s cause. I work with several card carrying members of the religous right. They know I am gay. We disagree over most of everything. AND we get along great.

If we want others to show us respect and to be tolerant of us, we need to extend that same courtesy to them.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Rick, are you suggesting that because “homosexuality” occurs among animals it’s OK for people to behave just like the animals?

Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: *The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

• Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
• Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
• Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
• Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
• Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature. This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature? Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” “filicide” and “cannibalism” are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts. To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal’s instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal’s behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails. At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal’s instinctive impulses result in cases of animal “filicide,” “cannibalism” and “homosexuality.” To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.

Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man’s disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They “borrow,” so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.*

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena….We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer—in both the gathering and interpretation of data—come to the forefront in this situation…..With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)….With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.” Dr. Bagemihl’s interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, an imprint of St. Martin’s Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books.

By norman

February 1, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Boscoe is again quoting obscure Spanish Catholic pseudo-authorities whom nobody outside the seminary has ever heard of. Lay off! Can’t you find something in Aristotle?

Tim: do you really fear Boscoe can undermind your intelligence. Is it so weak? Don’t be afraid of that inquisitor.

By moveon

February 1, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Wow

I thought the point of schools was to teach. Silly me. When I was in school, that was the point of it, to learn. “Health” class taught how things worked, and how STDs, pregnancy, etc happened.

You know what the wierdest part was? I had friends of all sorts of backgrounds, religions, political affiliations, and even (gasp) sexual preference. We all had the same teachers and that was the common thread.

I should mention that I did not go to school in Georgia. Should we not be more concerned that the education system here is so pitiful first? What good is it to try and teach our kids to accept everyone if they can’t add?

By John

February 1, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry Gary, I just don’t agree with you. The fundamentalist organizations that helped to fund the Bush administration’s re-election campaign, the ones who are now claiming that they plan to use that “political capital”, to steal a phrase from the President, have clearly laid out their objectives for the next four years. Among other things, the limiting of rights for gay people and the rollback on laws forbiding sexual-identity based discrimination in housing and employment are first and foremost on their agendas.

Of the many anti-gay marriage bills that passed in the last election, several included highly suspect provisions that would specifically limit the freedoms of gay men and women in those states. Georgia, as I’m sure you know, included provisions that would make even the acknowledgement of civil unions illegal and provisions that would forbid state and local governments from voluntarily extending benefits to same-sex couples. Another state included a provision that forbids gays and lesbians from lobbying their congressmen. Do you really think the fundamentalists aren’t out to get you?

And please, notice that I drew a clear distinction between individuals who are religiously conservative and fundamentalist organizations. I DO understand that people as individuals are generally - with the exception of some of the posters here - reasonable, caring individuals. That’s really what’s sad - a person can know, work with, and even like, a gay person, but can then go to church on Sunday and nod happily as their preacher condemns those same people to Hell.

As for the Nazi, etc. remarks - it’s called Rhetoric. Pathos, to be exact. It’s a tool used to evoke a response. Apparently it worked ;)

By Tim

February 1, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Norman… good point… I shouldn’t be too worried… thanks for pointing that out :)

By John

February 1, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

So…Boscoe challenges us to show examples of homosexuality occuring in nature…then when we DO show these documented examples he changes his argument to say “Oh, well OK, but that’s not what I REALLY wanted…” or “Ok, but Natural has TWO meanings…there’s NATURAL and then there’s - you know - NATURAL”

Given that the two sources he has obviously cut-and-paste are biased (for instance the highlighted passage beginning “Not surprisingly…is clearly subjective”, I think we can safetly say that, again, he is full of hot air.

Glad to know that you can cut and paste, Boscoe…can you form your own sentences as well?

By Rick

February 1, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

OK Boscoe, I didn’t think I would have to tell you that heterosexuality occurs among animals too, but it does.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Tim, I understand your disdain. I even expect it. I have to ask though. Why is the research I reference biased but not yours? Why am I hateful for standing on my principals yet you can spew as much hatred as you like simply because people like me won’t relent and say “it’s OK to be gay”. BECAUSE IT’S NOT! Time and time again, those behind the homosexual agenda refuse to take responsibility for their actions. “It’s not my fault I was born this way”, “It’s OK to be like this because animals do it in nature”, Far and away the best one is “ God made me this way because He wants me to be happyâ€?. You couldn’t stop if you wanted to because you won’t resist the impulses. You’re a slave to that behavior. The urge is greater then the will. I wouldn’t want to see you in the pew next to me either until you can make an honest attempt to live a moral life. What you don’t see, or refuse to anyway, is that those that wish to change their life most always turn to the Church because after all is said and done the Church is still willing to help you. It’s not you Tim it’s the behavior that’s objectionable!

By gary

February 1, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

John, Maybe if we all tried a little more courtesy and respect and less “Pathos”, we would not be having this war of words.

I think most Christians are very sincere people. They believe that Bible is God’s word and they believe it teaches that homosexuality is a sin. So what? That is their view. Tolerance is not agreeing with the other side. Tolerance means being respectful of those with whom we disagree. I just do not think we can expect it of others if we are not willing to display it ourselves.

By Seaborn

February 1, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

So we can assume you are speaking from the voice of experience? You’ve had urges to be with someone of the same sex and you have repressed them or overcome them? So, the Church has helped you overcome your homosexuality? Because, if this isn’t the case, how should we believe that you know what you are talking about?

By Jodi

February 1, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

I’m just curious— a lot of you keep referring to the so-called “homosexual agenda.” Could you please explain to me exactly what this entails? World domination? Orgies in the streets? People sure attribute a lot of power and control to a group of people who are, perhaps, 10% of the population! Why, the Right is terrified out of their minds! A lot of fear and hatred for nothing…From what I can tell, most just want the same chance at happiness that the rest of us have. To me, this subject falls under the “mind your own business” category. As long as they are not harming you, what does it matter who they love? Nice comments, Gary. Everyone needs to be nicer on this forum. I know I get carried away from time to time, for which I apologize…

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

John, it’s clear to see I cut and paste. I also gave credit to the man who performed the research. It’s not so much of a reach that Norman could even get it. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain (Spanish Catholic pseudo-authorities whom nobody outside the seminary has ever heard of. - Norman he’s a scientist) gives the explaination and now you accuse me of changing the question. Somebody referenced Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity as proof but even the author states he cannot provide “scientific” evidence. You have proved NOTHING! That’s why you can expect more lobbying from the “Fundimentalists”.

By Randy

February 1, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Jesus loves the sinner but can’t look at the sin. Homosexuality is a sin, but me looking at someone other than my wife is a sin also. Also, taking Gods name is vain, coveting, etc. There is no difference in any sin, we must be forgiven for all of them. So I need to be forgiven for my sins, just as the homosexual has to be forgiven for their sin. Tim is a Christian and a homosexual, I will one day see him in heaven.

By John

February 1, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Here’s the standard fundamentalist argument:

Statement - “Homosexuality is a choice!”

Response - “Tell me when you chose to be heterosexual” sputtering and the smell of smoke burning

Statement - “Well…then…you should fight being homosexual and live like everyone else”

Response - “I tried that - I dated women throughout college in an attempt to change who I was. It didn’t work - it nearly made me an alcoholic and I wound up hurting several women that I deeply cared about” more sputtering, the sound of neurons misfiring

Statement - “You’re a slave to your urges!”

Response - “Yeah - I know you are, but what am I” cackling from the peanut gallery

Statement - “Then..you..should be celibate…because…that’s what God wants.”

Response - “God wants me to be miserable and unhappy and live out my life as a lonely, angry, spite-filled hermit that takes out his loneliness and anger on other people? Isn’t he supposed to be a LOVING God?” fundamentalist’s head explodes - the peanut gallery cheers

Boscoe, trust us…none of us would want to be on a pew next to you either. There are plenty of churches out there that actually care about people…we don’t need to subject ourselves to you and yours.

By Tim

February 1, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Boscoe… the reason it is Biased is because the people who do that research are looking for that answer… they will pick and prod until they can make the research fit their claims… the research I refer to is that done by people who are simply looking for an answer… they do not go in with a preconceived notion on the outcome… the do the research and then relay CORRECT data… that is why it is unbiased… simple as that

let me remind you that YOU were the one that brought up that it was unnatural… someone else just proved you wrong and you didn’t like that

again you wonder why people think people like you are hateful… hmmm let me think… you are trying to tell me that I don’t live a moral life… good grief… there is a great verse that says get the plank out of your eye before you worry about the dust in mine… or judge less though be judged… in todays terms… check yoself before you wreck yoself!

who are you to say that my lifestyle is wrong… I hate to break it to you but the Bible doens’t even clearly state that it is immoral! it has just been interpreted to state that

oh but I am an immoral person because the person I love and have committed my life to happens to be of the same sex… paaaalease

guess what we will also be having children one day and they will have the opportunity to be just as healthy and happy and well adjusted as any other child

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Seaborn, do you like shoving potato chips up your nose? If not, I’ll assume it’s because you have the experience to tell me you know what you’re talking about. See how ridiculous that argument sounds?

By Tim

February 1, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Boscoe… p.s. don’t worry I won’t be attending your church anytime soon… I am quite happy at the church I attend :)

By John

February 1, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Ok Gary, you’re ignoring pretty much everything I wrote about the difference between groups and individuals, my reasons for my philosophy, etc…but that’s fine. You want to be an appeaser - I understand. It’s a common impulse.

I restate - I feel no need to be tolerant of an ideology that seeks to heap legal discrimination upon my broad shoulders. Again - I’m not talking about individuals in general - except for Boscoe; that guy needs a good pummeling - but the organizations behind the philosophy. Naturally I don’t run around verbally assaulting my co-workers. I am actually good friends with pretty much everyone in my office. But, I will not simply be tolerant of groupthink ideologies that seek to define me as evil.

By Seaborn

February 1, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

That’s a fairly stupid comparison. For you to arrogantly tell me how to live, when you know nothing about my life, how I came to be who I am, and the struggle I went through to get on with living my life, is infuriating. Why should anyone be tolerant of that?

By Bruce

February 1, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Tim, Not to take anyones side here but what measure did you use to determine which research was BIASED and which were UNBIASED? It appears to me that from your research you formed your own opinion, as did Boscoe. But yet Boscoes research, seems to be coming from a great number of years on this subject where yours is fairly new. What I mean by that is Same Sex Falimlies are some what new and I really don’t think the research on these families can be as reliable as the years of experience. Before the sexual revolution of the sixties Same Sex Families were deep dark secrets, if they existed at all. So I as a simple minded person would much rather bank on the hundereds of years of proved experience as opposed to just 40 some few years. At best the research for Same Sex Families is still a work in progress.

By Debora

February 1, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Gary states “If we want others to show us respect and to be tolerant of us, we need to extend that same courtesy to them.” Gary, tell that to Richie Phillips or Mathew Sheppard, oh wait, you can’t, they were both beaten to death.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/020105kyMurd.htm

By Angie

February 1, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Gary, I agree with all your views. Thank you for being another voice of reason on this subject. It makes the world go round’, this thing called diversity. It is in the color of our skin, hair, intelligence, and yes….even our religion and opinions. We will never agree completely on an issue of such pomp and circumstance. But what we can do is simply agree to disagree. Not all people who are belivers in God/Jesus are hate mongers set out to destroy homosexuals. Just like all homosexuals are not flamers set out to destroy the fabric of modern morality. Again….regardless of your sexual orientation, there are bigger issues in this world that deserve our attention and/or outrage. At least there should be.

By John

February 1, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Seaborn can infer logically that shoving potato chips up his nose would be painful based on his own life experience. Children learn at a young age that shoving things into their noses hurts. That experience carries on with us through life. The question posed to you, Boscoe, was how can you tell someone that they can “overcome” their sexual identity through sheer willpower when you yourself have not had an experience with anything that would remotely allow you to make such a statement.

Thank you again for yet another stunning logical fallacy. The questions stands - what life experience allows you to make the determination that sexual identity can be “overcome”?

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

I hate to break it to you but the Bible doesn’t even clearly state that it is immoral! it has just been interpreted to state that you are in such denial it’s scary. I know Tim, I know….”Judge not lest ye be judged”. Tim, I know I’m biased ( I know you graduated with high honors but just so we’re clear..I’m mocking you when I say that.) That statement doesn’t relinquish me from the obligation I have, as a Christian, to inform you that what you do jeopardizes your soul. Whether you agree with me or not.

By Tim

February 1, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Bruce… it’s called you can research the people or groups that have done the research and it is clear who is biased and unbiased… a group funded by someone like say Dr. Dobson would be quite biased in their findings (most of the research that shows children are better off with a mom and dad is done by people who are funded by special interest groups that are headed by people like Dr. Dobson)… the research I studied was done by Scientist looking for answers… NO MATTER WHAT THOSE ANSWERS MAY BE… now that is not to say that there is faulty research out there that supports my side of the argument… you can find biased research all over the place… BUT reliable research falls on my side

and your argument that Boscoes research is better because it is older doesnt make it right

By Randy

February 1, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

I don’t think Christians on the whole “hate” homosexuals. I see less tolerance toward homosexuals from those people who don’t go to church. However, homosexuality is a sin and I believe should not be given legimaticy(like marriage). Just as I would not want other sins to be considered legimate.

By norman

February 1, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

I would trust children to gays more readily than to Dr. Dobson. I know a woman who used to beat her kids with a wooden spoon because Dobson said that was the Christian thing to do.

Tim: Boscoe’s church would welcome you. His views are contrary to those of his own church which does not hate homosexuals. But why do you need a church?

For centuries Christians “thinkers” have used their brains to find reasons for doing horrible things. It is time for common sense to prevail and nothing in religion comports with common sense.

By gary

February 1, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Deborah,

Richie Phillips and Matthew Sheppard were beaten to death by thugs with no respect for others. I’d like to think I am better than that. I am determined, whenever humanly possible, to be respectful of others. In my view, civil discussion works much better than disrepectful rhetoric.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

I see John, because I have never been gay I have no idea how to tell someone how to overcome this. John, I don’t do this because I know it’s bad for me. I didn’t have to experience it before I figured that out! Don’t do things that are bad for you. Experience isn’t needed to understand that.

By John

February 1, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I’ll answer on this one. It’s not the length of research that matters, but the manner in which it was conducted. Legitimate, unbiased research is carried out according to the scientific method, through observation, the formation of hypotheses, the testing of those hypotheses, and the publication of results. The legitimate scientific community frowns on scientists who falsify or fabricate results. Careers are generally ruined when a scientist does so. Legitimate scientific study undergoes significant peer review prior to publication.

Subjective junk-science, however, begins with a hypothesis and then systematically ignores all evidence that disagrees with it. These “researchers” bludgeon and twist all evidence until it fits their goal. There is no testing of their hypothesis, there is no objective peer review. Such reports are not published in legitimate national or international journals, but appear only in the publications of groups with names like “Christian Research” or “Family Values Foundation”.

That’s the difference between objective, unbiased research and subjective, biased research. However, most fundamentalists are strongly anti-intellectual, and tend to fear science as being inimical to their faith. Anything that smacks of education is suspect, so they tend to look on legitimate science as invalid.

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Maybe Boscoe can enlighten us… What exactly makes homosexuality “wrong?”

It’s “unnatural?” No, we already dealt with that; homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.

“But you should ignore your natural urges!” Why, exactly? Should straights likewise ignore theirs? Should I stay awake when I’m sleepy? Starve when I’m hungry? Of course not.

So why, exactly, should homosexuals refrain from seeking out relationships and making love the way heteros do? I’m curious to hear the answer… one that doesn’t involve talk of “abominations” like shellfish or mixed-fiber blends.

By Randy

February 1, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

I saw a special on Shepard, it was once thought to be a crime against homosexuals. Now it has been discovered to be a crime related to drugs, due to a confession of one of the murders. They did it for drugs, sexual preference was not even considered.

By Randy

February 1, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Really I think if homosexuality was “natural” it would produce an offspring.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

John, likewise your research done by pro homosexual groups would therefore also be void. Norman don’t count on it. Go to my church and see what happens when you wear your little rainbow sash.

By Jodi

February 1, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Boscoe—What would happen if someone wore his or her “little rainbow sash” to your church? Would you beat him up? Boy, that makes me want to go to church. Silly me, I thought Christianity was about inclusion and love…

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Pardon me, but you have not established that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. The author of the given reference even says so himself. Homosexuality is wrong because it IS against nature. You cannot reproduce the way heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals are urged to restrain themselves. Aren’t there laws against prostitution?

By Tim

February 1, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Boscoe you can certainly believe that and being raised in ‘the church’ I can certainly understand you believing that you must inform me that I am jeopardizing my soul… but we will obviously disagree about this… the fact still remains that gay people still exist… research shows there are no advantages to being raised by a mom and dad over being raised by gay/lesbian parents

Randy… thanks for what you said earlier about me… obviously we will disagree on gay issues… but that doesn’t change the fact I appreciate what you said about me

Norman… being a Christian I obviously disagree with some things that you say… but there are also things you say I agree with… and other things that I don’t agree with but can see where you are coming from… to answer you question I don’t need ‘church’… but I obviously do believe I need God… big differences there

John… thanks for the help… you said it better than I could :)

By Zack

February 1, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

MAN, I was attacked by a proverbial pack of wolves yesterday. Again, such attacks are based on bias and sensationalism. Have you not noticed that? It’s very simple: These “fairness to all” liberals apply this doctrine to everyone except Christians. If you’re a Christian, you receive the brunt of their hatred, and then they have the nerve to tell ME that I <—-am the one doing that.

RS—I didn’t say John’s sister would’ve been better off with her drunken husband back at the house causing trouble. I said they would’ve been better off if he had been there WORKING like her, as in working at a job, working at being a dad and husband. Don’t put words in my mouth. Do you just not pay attention when you read, or are you a liar? I wouldn’t rule either out.

I find it ironic that these staunch liberals, who claim to be out for liberty for all, are out for nothing of the sort. They deny that abortion is murder, although they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support their claim. (However, that doesn’t stop them from pushing this ideology.) They say that homosexuality is uncontrollable, although orientation changes HAVE occurred. (Besides, if genetics are the reason, why have there been cases where twins have turned out to be homosexual and heterosexual?) We’re told that condoms work, although using one makes about as much sense as jumping off a cliff and using an umbrella to float to the ground. There is NO CLINICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL to show that condoms work AT ALL against the vast majority of STDs. Thank goodness for people like Dr. James Dobson, who report this. The liberal media chooses to continue spreading its lies.

I could go on and on, but what I’ve written above is a compelling-enough argument. NOW these same liberals are telling ME to find UNBIASED sources!! After I’ve just exposed (AGAIN) the frauds of THEIRS! Unbelievable (almost).

I find it ironic that these loving, out-for-liberty liberals stood pat while one of their buds, Norman, made a racial slur last week. I’m the only one who called him on it. What’s the matter, liberals? Does showing hatred toward Black people not strike you as a hate crime?

I’m just so sick of the bigotry of the left. I have hatred toward actions, not people. I hate the fact that we live in a society where liberals have imposed their bigotry all over the place to the point where many who disagree are scared to speak up. As we all know, you’re not showing hatred if you oppose gay marriage; you’re simply defending an institution. You ARE showing hatred if you kill your baby. Of course, the left would have you believe those who do are just “choosing.” (I guess Hitler just exercised six million choices, then. Don’t tell me there’s a difference. Murder is murder—and it’s the same whether someone is 46, 94, or two months.)

Brian—You said that fundamentalism is bad. Yes, fundamentalist Islam, relativism, etc.. Let’s not forget that relativism (the “It might be wrong for the other six billion people in the world but not for me”) religion is growing across our country. Absolute truth scares people like you and RS and Rokchik because it’s a reminder that you’re living in denial.

Do something about the bigotry of the left, liberals. Reform your party. Ask yourself if you’re really satisfied that textbooks are lying to kids about evolution and are spewing bigotry to the point of not wanting evolution taught as anything but fact or Creationism even as a theory. THAT is bigotry. Science supports Creationism, not evolution. Evolution is just a manmade theory, dropped by the man who INVENTED it, no less. What does THAT tell you? (Are you all going to tell me that you believe scientists have had the answers over the last few years? About 2-3 years ago, they were shocked when they found out that the universe was NOT slowing down, as they had believed for such a long time. They were stunned and jaw-dropped to discover that it was speeding up! In other words, the universe, which is always expanding, is accelerating. Eventually, there will come a time when you can flip a coin and have it vacuumed up into space, not to see it again—IF civilization is around at that point, which I doubt.)

See? These scientists discovered one of their manmade theories to be disproven right in front of them. However, you all just want more lies and more propaganda to be shoved down the ears and minds of students of all ages, and you attack someone like Dr. Dobson who has enough concern for society to stand up for the truth.

Do not tell me that you all are concerned for society and the educational system. You’re not. Quit standing up for the killing of the unborn, for the desecration of the institution of marriage, for lies and propaganda about sex to be preached to kids (and adults), for lies and propaganda to be preached about the universe, etc.. You’re just out for your agenda to be spread and for anything that makes you feel uncomfortable to be tuned out. That’s what it is.

By Bruce

February 1, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Tim, I still say the research you suggest is at best incomplete, therefore any conclusion biased or unbiased on the subject cannot give credit to its findings. I have read here that children are just as happy with same sex families. Are these children in school yet? Do you really think, no matter what the schools teaches, that these children will not be subject to much of the same unhappy childhood their gay parents faced? If you think it will be different, guess again. .

By John

February 1, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Hey Boscoe - yes…because you have never been gay and willfully changed to being straight, or vice-versa, in fact you can’t tell someone else that it’s possible. If you do, you are being a sanctimonious, self-righteous…oh. Never mind.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Jodi, I didn’t say that. The only one who mentioned a pummeling was John - the homosexual advocate. Tim, again my original point was that there is research that contradicts yours. You refuse to allow any credibility to the research I presented whereas I never made that statement about yours. Seems your being the biased one.

By Zack

February 1, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Bruce—Not one positive argument for same-sex marriage is based on enough evidence to make even a roughly-credible claim. Even psychologists have admitted this. Yet again, the liberal media tries its best to hide it. (I guess the media wants to hide the evidence in the closet; there should be plenty of room since it’s basically empty now.)

By Tim

February 1, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Bruce… to answer your question on whether these children are in school yet… there have been studies conducted using people in there 20’s who were raised by gay/lesbian parents… so yes these children have obviously already gone through school and are still just as adjusted as any other person

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Simmer down John! I can say it can be done because people have done it. Everyone of those people say they are better for it as well.

By Steve

February 1, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

John, You said, “However, most fundamentalists are strongly anti-intellectual, and tend to fear science as being inimical to their faith. Anything that smacks of education is suspect, so they tend to look on legitimate science as invalid.”

There is truth in that as far as some individuals go, but it is far from accurate to imply that fundamentalists are that way as a group. In fact, fundamentalism as a movement was founded as an intellectual movement. J. Gresham Machem broke away from Princeton Seminary because increased liberal teachings in the early 1900s to form Westminster Seminary. All of the early “fundamentalists” were very intellectual leaders. The perception began to change with the revival era of the 30’s, 40’s, and 50s. I just read a book called “Christianity and Science, Conflict or Coherence?” It is written by Henry Shaeffer, a 5 time nominee for the Nobel Prize in Science, particularly, quantum mechanics if I remember correctly. He is, as you would label him, a “fundamentalist Christian”. Anyway, his book is fascinating. For one thing, it explores many from the scientific community, past and present, that are Christians.

I just think it is dangerous to use a broadstroke to describe a group. Making assumptions about people is part of the problem here in my opinion.

By Zack

February 1, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Boscoe—yeah, and what did he show you? Bigotry, the very thing they like to accuse Christians of.

Why is fundamentalist Christianity attacked? Fundamentalist Islam results in 9/11 (and don’t tell me these people were the exception to the rule; they were following the fundamental teachings of that religion). Fundamentalist relativism calls for bias and hypocrisy and no liberty for anyone who disagrees with them.

Fundamentalist Christianity calls for love and respect toward all and for intolerance to evil. This is what we need. I don’t claim to be perfect by any means, but at least I’m showing hatred toward actions, not toward people.

By Tim

February 1, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Boscoe… I never said there wasn’t research that contradicts mine… but the researchers were/are BIASED… if you read an earlier post of mine I even stated that there is even biased research that supports my statements… BUT any CREDIBLE research shows that there are no differences between children raised in a home with a mom and dad and those raised by gay/lesbian parents

p.s. I refuse to allow any credibility to the research you mention because there isn’t any that is credible

Zack… psychologists have admitted what? and what psychologists are you talking about?

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Tim, I just wanted to give you some examples of Biased reasearch! In their study in Family Relations, L. Koepke (Supports homosexual families)observed, “Even individuals who believe that same-sex relationships are a legitimate choice for adults may feel that children will suffer from being reared in such families.” Writing in the Journal of Homosexuality, J. J. Bigner and R. B. Jacobson describe the homosexual father as “socioculturally unique,” trying to take on “two apparently opposing roles: that of a father (with all its usual connotations) and that of a homosexual man.” They describe the homosexual father as “both structurally and psychologically at social odds with his interest in keeping one foot in both worlds: parenting and homosexuality.” In his analysis of human cultures, the eminent Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin argued that no society has ceased to honor the institution of marriage and survived. Sorokin considered traditional marriage and parenting as the fulfillment of life’s meaning for both individuals and society: Enjoying the marital union in its infinite richness, parents freely fulfill many other paramount tasks. They maintain the procreation of the human race. Through their progeny they determine the hereditary and acquired characteristics of future generations. Through marriage they achieve a social immortality of their own, of their ancestors, and of their particular groups and community. This immortality is secured through the transmission of their name and values, and of their traditions and ways of life to their children, grandchildren, and later generations.

By John

February 1, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Zack’s back -thought he had given up. No such luck.

I can’t even begin to wade through the garbage he has thrown out, so I’ll just make a blanket statement.

Zack, your arguments are all circular - It is because it is because it is because I say it is.

Your rebuttals are all ad hominems - You’re wrong because you’re a LIBERAL. You’re wrong because you HATE me because I’m a Christian. You’re a BIGOT.

You make baseless assertions, or cite research that has either been disproved (The APA has clearly stated that so-called “conversion therapy”, while possibly creating an overall aversion to sexual activity in general through the use of extremely vicious physical abuse, electroshock, etc. has unequivocally never converted someone who identifies completely as gay. In fact, the poster boy of the ex-gay movement was caught having an affair with another man recently) or was never considered valid by the legitimate scientific community in the first place.

You drawn false analogies - Hitler and Abortion? Please.

I don’t know why I’m even bothering to write this…maybe I hope I can goad you into an apoplectic fit, though I doubt we could distinguish the things you would write in that state from the things you are currently churnning out.

And yes, before you make some shrill statement about my being filled with hate, or being a bigot, let me say it for you…I really don’t like you, from what I have read. I really don’t think I could get to like you. I have no obligation TO like you, and my dislike of you does not, in fact, make me a bigot. A bigot is someone who discriminates against an entire class of people. I don’t - I just really don’t like you.

By Tim

February 1, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Boscoe… ok where have you shown that children suffer? maybe I am not reading it carefully… you quoted that ‘Even individuals who believe that same-sex relationships are a legitimate choice for adults may feel that children will suffer from being reared in such families’… that doesn’t mean that children are better off in another situation… it simply states that some people ‘feel’ that children will suffer… no proof there… furthermore you took a small quote from what I am assuming is a long study… same with your other quote… and the ‘institution of marriage’ as we know it today… has not been around very long… it has, contrary to what a lot of people would like to believe… evolved over time

By Debora

February 1, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

The murderers of Mathew Shepard were trying to get thier sentence reduced. What an awful world. You people here think murder, rape, and beating are just fine as long as that person is a gay or lesbian. You people need help. Oh, and Mr. “I am gay and I will turn the other cheek.” The people that are going to grab you and beat you outside the bar are going to beat, rape and kill someone else. So by your loving generosity of accepting and forgiving these evil people, you are causing future death to your gay brothers and rape to your lesbian sisters. You are the worst of all.

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

John, we may just have to deal with the fact that Zack ignores all logic, science, and evidence in order to tout his claims that “Evolution is anti-scientific,” “relativism is a religion,” and “science PROVES that abortion is murder” (neat trick, that! since murder is a legal concept, not a fact).

I’m more curious about Boscoe’s explanation of why homosexuality is bad: “Homosexuality is wrong because it IS against nature. You cannot reproduce the way heterosexuals do.”

Interesting. It’s also unnatural to live past 35, but I don’t see anyone complaining about medical care. And, hey—if I use birth control, am I opposing the Law of Nature the same way those awful “homos” are? Should sterile people be forbidden to have sex, since they can’t reproduce?

Let’s try it again: Sexual acts that don’t result in reproduction are not evil (duh). Homosexuality is not “against nature” (again, duh). So what’s left? What makes homosexuality so bad that it should be suppressed and stamped out?

By John

February 1, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

I particularly like the “My fundamentalism is different from their fundamentalism” argument. Under the right circumstances, Christian fundamentalists are as likely to kill, maim and murder in the name of their religion as Hindu Fundamentalists, Islamic Fundamentalists, Insert-Religion-Here Fundamentalists, etc. It’s the world view people…when you believe that you are infalible and that you have not only the right but the responsibility (I believe Boscoe made some mention of his responsibility to tell you when your soul was endagered) to share or force your innerant beliefs on others, you become every bit as dangerous as an Al-Qaeda member. Period.

By norman

February 1, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

When is Boscoe going to cite Fray Roderigo de Santa Maria Peligroso who wrote in 1151 (Christo amorado) that gay love is love of Satan. Then there is Fray Raimundo Malabar who wrote in 1244 (De Carburando eretico) that heretics offend God even in tbeir sexual parts. Or Senor Costa Maria Fabulosa who in 1301 advised that all gypsies, homosexuals, Muslims, and Jews be buried alive (Propositiones morales). Come on Boscoe, more scholars and research from Spain’s medieval glory, your favorite place.

By Zack

February 1, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

John—Nice try, pal, haha. (Not really.) I’d like to know what makes you think you have a leg to stand on and reason to support your claims. All you have is bias.

GOOD ARTICLE: The author is right that same-sex couples have a bad influence on children, but he’s wrong that that’s the main reason same sex marriage is bad. It’s wrong primarily because God is against it and because it tears yet another rip in our moral fabric.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38331

By John

February 1, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Zack - thanks…exhibit A

John�Nice try, pal, haha. (Not really.) I’d like to know what makes you think you have a leg to stand on and reason to support your claims. All you have is bias.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Tim, you stomp your feet and cry that research which represents my point of view has no credibility. Now when I show you documents written by people who either support your lifestyle or who represent top scholastic universities you still insist it amounts to nothing. Clearly, the only reason it’s biased is because it doesn’t support your opinion. Further more there are historic documents which show that marriage existed years before the Bible was written. Enlighten me as to how the “Institution of Marriage” hasn’t been around that long.

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Am I the only one amused by the irony here?

“Homosexuality is bad because the kids they raise are damaged.” “Homosexual behavior is bad because they can’t have kids.”

Neat trick!

So if homosexuals agreed not to have kids, you’d be okay with them, right? Of course not; your real reason remains unchanged: gays are bad, mmmkay? God said so!

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

John you nitwit. I am a Catholic. The Pope, the head of the Catholic Church. Not just this Pope but many Popes have declared the use of birth control as intrincically evil JUST like homosexuality. Next

By RS

February 1, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Brian, the reason homosexuality is “so terrible” is because the most militant gay-bashers secretly fear that they themselves are gay. Of course this comment will probably egg Zack on. Go for it, buddy! I’m ready for you.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Brian, do you have a point?

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Actually, I was the one who mentioned birth control, Boscoe.

So, your church is against unnatural things, eh? I assume you don’t eat processed foods, drive a car, wear clothes, take medicine, etc.

Sucks to be you, don’t it? I’m sure glad we live in a free country where the rest of us can ignore your Pope’s bizarre pronouncements and live the way we choose.

By norman

February 1, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: Some of us are persuaded that the Catholic Church is “intrinsically evil.” Put that in your wimple and smoke it~

By RS

February 1, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, which do you consider more evil, utilizing birth control or bringing unwanted, deformed children into the world to live in poverty, neglect & abuse. “Oh well, the Pope says”…How nice you have the Pope to do your thinking for you. poor me, I have to do my own….

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Sure do! And that point is, make up your mind.

Are you against gays because they’re “unnatural” (tough to support that one!). Or because they make lousy parents (then childless gay couples are OK!)?

Either way, you’ve really got nothing to work with but your core declaration, “God and my church sez it’s bad.” Which is an irrelevant argument, since your church doesn’t make our nation’s laws (thank god).

If YOU want to live that way, fine; but nobody else has to even pay attention to it, let alone follow your example. Again I say: ain’t freedom great?

By lozen

February 1, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Boscoe tell me the verse and chapter where it says someone is jeopardizing their soul by being homosexual. Maybe then I’ll believe your claims. Zack, your whining about christians being attacked by liberals is amazing. Did the people of Georgia just pass a law restricting who you may or may not marry? NO! There’s a church on every corner, a church that is tax exempt, many of them with a huge gym and an even bigger church in the near future. From that church will come several more when various groups can’t get along with the big group anymore. Your obsession with abortion is also amazing. You never answer the question are you for or against women and children being killed in Iraq or where do you stand on the death penalty. Because you are probably for the war and for the death penalty but you continue your “all murder is wrong so abortion is murder” diatribe. If you admit that you are for the death penalty then you would have to stop with the “all murder is wrong” wouldn’t you?
There is a wonderful movie “Big Eden” (available from Atlanta library) that all gay people/ friends of gay people/open minded people should see. It is a story about what the world could be like if there were no Boscoes and Zacks and people like them and if we really did love and treasure and take care of each other.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Good job Brian, homosexuality, birth control, lunchmeat….you are well on your way to becoming Norman.

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

And you may have surpassed Zack in irrationality… what of it?

Do you have anything you can point to that legitimizes homosexuality, or don’t you? And just saying, “God said so” doesn’t qualify. For us to listen to your god’s rules, he has to provide some damn good reasons for them. Yes, he really does have to justify himself if he wants obedience!

So the rule against murder: that’s fine, you can point to a demonstrable harm there. But who’s hurt by homosexuality? Can you describe the damage done by gays? And if not, why should we care what someone’s pet interpretation of their faith says about it?

By Whiley

February 1, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

So birth control is evil?

Funny how men decided that. If it were men that needed the birth control, it would be encouraged in the bible. Birth control monuments would be built. Everyone would be told that God wants them to give 5% more of their income just so men would only get pregnant if they really wanted to.

May I ask why any woman would follow ANY religious group that declares birth control evil? I still can’t believe my ears that ANYONE would consider it EVIL. How ignorant & backwards is that?

I also can’t believe ANYONE would even discuss the possibility that cartoon characters are gay & the left is just trying to train our kids to be homosexual. lol

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

typo there… should have said “Anything that legitimizes your opposition to homosexuality.”

I can’t wait to see if anyone comes up with something other than Bible-thumping.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Brian, you don’t have to live that way. But I don’t have to support your lifestyle either. I am free to continue to make donations to lobbists that petion our government to make laws that make that kind of life illegal. Lozen In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the apostle Paul speaks of homosexuals as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” The terms he uses here seem to be specific references to both active and the passive participants in a homosexual relationship. Such people are “unrighteous,” he says, and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned.

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

But WHY should the gay lifestyle be criminalized? Because your particular religion says so? Nonsense. If we let our laws be determined by religion, we wouldn’t allow meat eating on Fridays, pork consumption at ALL, stores would all be closed on Saturday AND Sunday, etc.

Do you not see that religious freedom can only exist where each faith is permitted to practice their own beliefs so long as they don’t impose them on others? Trying to make your faith into law would automatically make all other beleifs ILLEGAL. And that’s the end of freedom.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Brian, why should the gay lifestyle be legal? For the longest period of time it was against the law. The stores were closed on Sunday. ect ect. Is the world a better place because we have reversed these laws? If I did show you some way in which homosexuality is damaging to society would you actually stop doing it? I doubt it.

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: By default, all choices and actions should be legal unless a compelling reason otherwise is shown. In other words, the burden of proof is on those who want to outlaw something.

Yes, our society IS better off since Sunday-closing laws ended. Other things that ended included segregated drinking fountains, women’s servitude laws, and slavery. Every time we’ve moved in the direction of greater freedom and equal treatment, it’s been a step forward for civilization.

But if you truly CAN show some objective, demonstrable harm caused by homosexuality, let’s hear it. Because “God says so” just isn’t a good enough reason to pass a law.

P.S. I’m straight, not gay. But I’ll defend to the death th rights of gays to be treated the same as any other citizen in this democracy.

By Chris

February 1, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

It is absolutely ludicrous to believe SpongeBob SquarePants has an insidious hidden agenda to convert America’s otherwise good Christian children into satan-worshipping homosexuals. Afterall, everyone knows that “the sponge” is an IUD that was formerly used by straight woment to prevent pregnancy.

Therefore, I claim that SpongeBob is REALLY a ploy hatched by the secret straight agenda to promote heterosexual promiscuity. Beware children - they will turn you into breaders!

By John

February 1, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

No Brian, he doesn’t see that. He can’t see that because in his mind, he is imposing God’s will and that’s all that’s important. It’s a flawed syllogism. A) My religion is infallibly correct. B) Others are behaving in opposition to my religion. C) Therefore, My religion must be impressed on those behaving in opposition to it.

People like him will never understand or accept the concept of a secular government. They will continue to shout from the rooftops that they believe in Freedom, but forever lack the ability to understand what freedom actually entails – to paraphrase Voltaire: I disagree with what you do, but I will vigorously defend your right to do it.

He will - almost certainly - say that because we do not accept his religious indoctrination graciously and eagerly that we are discriminating against him. He will continue to believe wholeheartedly that his way is the only way that anyone should want to live, and be indefatigable in his non-stop quest to share this with other people, whether they want his assistance or not.

He will never understand that the rest of us could care less about how he lives his life or how he worships, that the only aspect of his life that is in any way relevant to anyone else are the things he does to prevent them from living their lives as they chose.

He is a fanatic, probably always has been a fanatic, and probably always will be a fanatic. He is a sad, pitiable man who has trapped himself in a dogmatic box because beneath it all, he is absolutely terrified that he is wrong and seeks constant affirmation from other like-minded individuals so that he can continue to reassure himself that he is not.

I wouldn’t kick him if I walked by him on the street. Truth be told, I probably would just ignore him.

By RS

February 1, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, you cited, as an example, stores being open on Sunday. That’s a GOOD thing; it’s good for the economy, provides for jobs/hours & helps accomodate those whose work schedules may not otherwise allow time to shop. And why Sunday & not Saturday? Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath. Are you saying Jews are inferior & their (well, our) Sabbath doesn’t need to be acknowleged? My, now you’re starting to sound just like Zack. I hope the 2 of you will be very happy together.

By Tim

February 1, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Boscoe… first unless you are watching me somewhere how would you know if I were stomping my feet and crying (hmmm that is a lil creepy)… second, NOTHING you cited showed any proof of how children rasied by gay/lesbian parents are worse than their counterparts raised by straight parents… I didn’t say the research was wrong… I didn’t have to because it didn’t say anything about what we were discussing… and also seeing as you only cited two very small quotes I would have to be suspicious about the entire research stated

as for marriage… read a history book… men used to marry more than one woman… there was a time when divorce was illegal in England… only about 30 years ago a white person was not allowed to marry a black person in this county… therefore… the definition of marriage has changed throughout history… there are countries now in Europe that allow same sex marriage… haven’t seen any of them fall yet (oh yeah I guess we just need to give it time, they will be destroyed)

By mit

February 1, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

tim, childern of same sex couples suffer when they go to school and get beat up because of their parents, hence the video.

dobson may not have come straight out and said spongebob is gay but he definitely got out the message that school kids should not be taught tolerance to gays. therefore he (dobson) condones the mistreatment of gays and encourages it. In other words, he is a moron.

By Randy

February 1, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Boscoe I agree with you on your points. However, if this forum proves anything, it proves that you can’t change non-Christians minds until their heart have been changed and only Jesus can do that. Everyone will accept him before their death, is the prayer that I pray.

By Randy

February 1, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

James Dobson is the most loving man I have seen on TV. He is no moron and didn’t call Spongebob a Homosexual. Just a mistake by the liberal media, looking for anyway to discredit the right.

By mit

February 1, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

heres a good sentence for zack and bos.

you stupid liberal queers spreading your liberal media agenda to undo the fabric of this god fearing conservative nation that liked the way things were when them coloreds drank from their own fountains and women were happy spittin’ out babys.

ya’ll can use that one without a copyright.

By Texas

February 1, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

A 91-year-old woman died after living a very long dignified life. When she met God, she asked Him something that had really bothered her for a very long time. “If Man was created in God’s image, and if all men are created equal, why do people treat each other so badly?”

God replied that each person who enters our life has a unique lesson to teach us. It is only through these lessons that we learn about life, people and our relationships with God. This confused the woman, so God began to explain:

“When someone lies to you, it teaches you that things are not always what they seem. The truth is often far beneath the surface. Look beyond the masks people wear if you want to know what is in their hearts. Remove your own masks to let people know who you really are.

When someone steals from you it teaches you that nothing is forever. Always appreciate what you have. You never know when you might lose it. Never take your friends or family for granted, because today and sometimes only this very moment is the only guarantee you may have.

When someone inflicts injury upon you, it teaches you that the human state is a very fragile one. Protect and take care of your body as best as you can, it’s the one thing that you are sure to have forever.

When someone mocks you, it teaches you that no two people are alike. When you encounter people who are different from you, do not judge them by how they look or act, instead base it on the contents of what is in their hearts.

When someone breaks your heart, it teaches you that loving someone does not always mean that the person will love you back. But don’t turn your back on love, because when you find the right person, the joy that one person brings you will make up for all of your past hurts. Times a thousand fold.

When someone holds a grudge against you, it teaches you that everyone makes mistakes. When you are wronged, the most virtuous thing you can do is forgive the offender without pretense. Forgiving those who have hurt us is often the most difficult and painful of life’s experiences, but it is also the most courageous thing a person can do.

When a loved one is unfaithful to you, it teaches you that resisting temptation is Man’s greatest challenge. Be vigilant in your resistance against all temptations. By doing so, you will be rewarded with an enduring sense of satisfaction far greater than the temporary pleasure by which you were tempted.

When someone cheats you, it teaches you that greed is the root of all evil. Aspire to make your dreams come true, no matter how lofty they may be. Do not feel guilty about your success, but never let an obsession with achieving your goals lead you to engage in malevolent activities.

When someone ridicules you, it teaches you that nobody is perfect. Accept people for their merits and be tolerant of their flaws. Do not ever reject someone for imperfections over which they have no control.”

Upon hearing the Lord’s wisdom, the old woman became concerned that there are no lessons to be learned from man’s good deeds. God replied that Man’s capacity to love is the greatest gift He has. At the root of kindness and love, and each act of love also teaches us a lesson. The woman’s curiosity deepened. God, once again began to explain:

“When someone loves us, it teaches us love, kindness, charity, honesty, humility, forgiveness, acceptance, and all of these can counteract all the evil in the world. For every good deed, there is one evil deed. Man alone has the power to control the balance between good and evil, but because the lessons of love are not taught often enough, the power is too often abused.

When you enter someone’s life, whether by plan, chance or coincidence, consider what your lesson will be. Will you teach love or a harsh lesson of reality? When you die, will your life have resulted in more loving or more hurting? More comfort or more pain? More joy or more sadness? Each one of us has the power over the balance of the love in the world. Use it wisely!”

Don’t miss an opportunity to nudge the world’s scale in the right direction!

Pass this lesson of love on to those you love and those you have hurt, and those that have hurt you, hopefully with each person that receives this, there will be far less evil and a great deal more love!

By C

February 1, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

This is an interesting forum - specifically, that cartoon characters can influence an individuals sexual orientation. However, there does seem to be debate even about that issue.

Obviously, there are a lot of strong emotions for people on either side. Likewise, there seems to be much debate over the relevance and bias of research. Being that this is the case, I recall a study done at UGA several years ago that equates homophobia with repressed homosexuality. The men, all self-described heterosexuals, were shown images of gay sex. The results showed that the most arousal was experienced by the men who rated as most homophobic and felt most threatened by homosexuals. Do any of you know of that study?

Also, I am curious as to why the church reacts so strongly to homosexuality? Of course, there is the reference to Peter in the New Testament. Yet, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, did he? (I am uncertain.) However, Jesus did say that anyone who divorces and remarries while their spouse is still living is committing adultery (Matthew 19:11, I think). Also, in Malachi he stated that he hates divorce. Therefore, since that is legal in all states, doesn’t it make more since to ban that practice first and then proceed to outlaw other things that are viewed as sinful or bad in the eyes of God, if the law is to be influenced by a particular religion? Or, is it just that a majority of Americans partake in divorce and that pursuing a Constitutional Amendment against divorce would alienate too large a segment of voters and church-goers?

Furthermore, just because the law of the United States grants a divorce, does that mean that the vows those people professed before God are no longer valid and that the Lord must adhere to that man made decree. Likewise, if homosexuals were allowed to marry or legally unite, would God be beholden to honor those commitments?

Just curious as to what the people who reference God and the Bible for their justifications against homosexuality might think about these questions.

Also, there was some comment made about people wearing a rainbow sash or the like to a church and then see what happens. I am curious as to what church that is.

By mit

February 1, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

the media said that dobson called spongebob gay to get you to stay tuned, the story i saw was him talking, word for word. and i said he did not call spongebob gay, re read my post.

you can use that line to randy

By lozen

February 1, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Okay I copied the King James verse (and more because meanings get twisted out of context) quoted by Boscoe. Paul was giving instruction to the church of Corinth about how they should live. This is rather long but after reading it I can better understand the way Boscoe and Zack communicate.

7: Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8: Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 12: All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13: Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14: And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15: Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16: What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17: But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”

Paul had a problem with the flesh and with human nature as so many early christians did. They had such a big problem with women because women bleed every month and give birth and feed babies from their body. Paul was human and the man had issues with gay people and with women. He’s been quoted over and over to prove that women should not be ministers. I don’t believe that Paul is a good guide for my life and I reject him as a guide. Somebody made the point that we all don’t have to follow what the Pope says because we aren’t all catholic. We all aren’t bibliolaters either. Hate is evil; loving another person is not evil.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Brian, John, Tim the following are taken from Government or Professional organizations. They are not in anyway associated with any religious organization. These statistics are only a select few from a many available. The effects of this behavior on society as a whole endangers the physical health of this society. The government has an obligation to protect it citizens. It is enough to merit laws against it.

The Centers for Disease Control reports the following about AIDS and gay men:

The rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) is nine times higher than that of women and heterosexual men.

The CDC reported in its 1998 Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report that, “Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized world.

The American College of Pediatricians states the following about homosexual parenting research: “Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.

Perhaps the predominant reason homosexual parenting is harmful to children is the high prevalence of sexual molestation among gay men. Not only does it happen, it has been celebrated in the homosexual community, demonstrated by the formation of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). NAMBLA’s Web site states, “We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies… We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults.”

By Tim

February 1, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Mit… children used to (and sadly still do) suffer by being beat up because they (and obviously their parents) were/are black… all children have hardships no matter who their parents are… my point was that children raised by gay parents are just as healthy and happy as those raised by straight parents

I think I understand where you were going with that though… the video is definitely needed

By Randy

February 1, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Mit, Look in the entertainment section of this paper and it will clear up the spongebob misunderstanding.

By mit

February 1, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

randy i know what dobson said and it was not a message of love. i don’t need to see the entertainment section. the link to his letter about the matter (posted on this forum) gave me all the evidence i need to say this man is a moron.

tim, i am one, i am happy, and my dad and mom did an excellent job as single parents. though i know have 2 step-dads. one isn’t legal though. but it doesn’t matter to me.

By Tim

February 1, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Mit… glad to hear that you have parents that love you… that is what matters

Boscoe… you have a discusting mind! to think we shouldn’t be parents because we may molest… you are sick… if you so worried about children being molested go hold your priest accountable for what they have been doing to boys for years and years!

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you asked me to show you the text were it says that engaging in homosexuality jeopordizes your soul. I did and still you justify it. I don’t think there is anything I could tell you to get you to see my point of view. People call those of us against homosexuality hatful. Given the jeopordy those souls are in I would think it hatful just to let them go.

By John

February 1, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Incidence of disease means that education about the transmission of disease and the consequences of such transmission is needed - it does not imply anything fundamentally flawed in any group. Look at parts of Africa - in some cases more than 50% of the population is HIV positive. Are you saying we should make laws preventing Africans from entering the US, because they may pose a health risk?

And please. The myth about gay men being molestors has been debunked over and over and over again. Most child molestors self-identify as HETEROSEXUAL, Boscoe. HETEROSEXUAL. The NAMBLA group you mentioned is revilled and disliked by gay people as much as it is by heterosexuals.

By mit

February 1, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

nice try boscoe, those reports are old and that is not what is going on today. black women is the group catching HIV like crazy you want to outlaw them now? NAMBLA is not a gay-rights group (just crazies) and they are against child molestation just as much as you are, but probably more so than you.

hepA has always been a problem for heteros not homos, hence the report.

just repeat that sentence i wrote for you and keep to that. quick trying to act smarter than your bible lets you.

By mit

February 1, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

my abbreviation sux. homosexuals don’t be offended pls. quick = quit before boscoe turns into an english teacher.

By Tim

February 1, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

The American College of Pediatricians… Boscoe great example of a biased organization

By Bruce

February 1, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Somehow I get the feeling that we are equating love with condoning. I have no problem with loving someone who is gay. But I do have a problem condoning that life style. To me these are two different things. If my 16 year old daughter has a baby because of a mistake she made in the heat of passion, does that make me love her any less? Of course not! However, do I condon her actions? Again, of course not! Just because I do not condon her actions an speak out against does not make me a bad person. I certainly do not deserve to be called some of the names I have been called in the above post. I think you, whoever you are, that has said something about showing love and then belittling others because they disagree with you should take 5 minutes every day for a week and just simply look at yourself in the mirror. Do nothing but look at yourself.

By Angie

February 1, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

You will all find that in every major religion, which was recorded by MAN, is subject to that man’s personal interpretation. Particularly in Christianity. Pope Gregory Xlll for example is the one responsible for making Mary Magdalene seem a prostitute. Constantine was the one responsible for the mass consumption of Christ worship when he saw the political and financial gains that could befall him and his kingdom. Before that, it was all basically Pagan. No religion is original in it’s worship. Man is highly fallible (sp?) By virtue of being human and inately greedy, man has taken away from and added to Christianity’s history. Catholics, being the first Christians as we know them, are infamous for this. I personally have more of a problem with praying to saints and a man in Rome than I do with homosexuality. The entire purpose of religion is meant to give people a way to The Creator. A personal relationship with God. Please keep in mind that the Bible, while a tool to help everyone live their absolute best life, was written by men beginning decades after Christ died. Things were pulled by Catholics that were deemed unworthy or too controversial. But all major relgions are guilty of this to some extent. It is the spirit in which you live your life that ultimately matters.

By Debora

February 1, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Bruce, PLEASE explain to all the good people that are reading this post, how gay people are responsible for your illegitimate grandchild. I want to hear this from someone who has the knowledge. I finally want a rational explanation of how I caused your teenage kid to sleep with someone.

By Craig

February 1, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

First off, I must say that much of the back and forth here is just worthless mud slinging and moronic posturing…

But the award for the most unknowledgable comment must go to Boscoe with his ignorant comparison of homosexuality with prostitution… He compares a Hetorsexual brothel to a homosexual bath-house…. what one has to do with the other is lost… oh, except that in both locations, sexual acts are performed…. Wow… Yeah, he must be 100% correct in his argumen….…. Wait a minute… in prostitution (which is COMPLETELY ILLEGAL in 99% of the US - the exception being Nevada, outside of Clark County - that’s Las Vegas area, for the slow witted) is the ACT OF GAINING MONEY FROM THE PERFORMING OF SEXUAL ACTS…. as far as I know, when homosexuals are at one of those ‘bath-houses’, nobody is paying anybody for the sexual act… it’s all just human nature, baby… nearly naked bodies seen by other nearly naked bodies and the God given act of arousal takes place…

Again, for Boscoe’s sake (and for crying out loud, get a REAL name), prostitutes are SELLING sex… homosexuals are NOT selling sex… So, Boscoe, your argument is NOT valid…. YOU need to do some homework, man… pay attention to the details, not just the big things that hit your puny intellect over the head….

Oh, and in regards to Dr. Dobson’s comments - just like nearly every pro-sports celebrity that has made a comment and been blasted by it, it is just SO easy to come back and make nice-nice by saying they were mis-quoted or misinterpreted…. Oh, but I won’t… Boscoe is a dimwit.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

John, according to the Bureau of Justice satistics 2000. The greater percentage of sexual assualt against male chrildren under the age of 12 was HOMOSEXUAL MALES Angie, stop reading the Da vinci code.

By Gary

February 1, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Deborah,

You said, You said “You people here think murder, rape, and beating are just fine as long as that person is a gay or lesbian.” Maybe its me, but I do not remember anyone saying that.

Also, of me you said, “Oh, and Mr. “I am gay and I will turn the other cheek.â€? The people that are going to grab you and beat you outside the bar are going to beat, rape and kill someone else. So by your loving generosity of accepting and forgiving these evil people, you are causing future death to your gay brothers and rape to your lesbian sisters. You are the worst of all.”

What are you talking about? I think I am now more scared of you than I ever could be of James Dobson.

By Bruce

February 1, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Debora, If you can explain how you gleened I blame gay people on an illegitimate child, mine or otherwise, I will be glad to explain that I was only using that situtation as an example of how you can love but not condon. Please read my post again.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Craig, the only difference is that homosexuals have the same number of partners they do for free. God forbid we speak up against a group subject to a wider variety of STDs endangering the public and hurt their feelings.

By RS

February 1, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Craig, if you think BOSCOE’S a dimwit, get a load of ZACK!

By John

February 1, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

From the Georgia Center for Children:

MOLESTER CHARACTERISTICS

One of the myths regarding child molesters is that they “look different� or behave differently from others in some way. Here are some statistics describing child molesters:

97% are male 91% are heterosexual 91% are religious 75% are married or formerly married 73% are Caucasian 65% earn a middle income or above 48% are college educated

Hmm…91% are religious…that must be all of Boscoe’s Catholic priests.

As for scandals of his beloved, loving Catholic church, my personal favorite is the recently revealed missive from Pious XII, where he commanded the French parishes, monasteries and abbeys that had taken in the children of Jewish parents sent to the concentration camps to NOT RETURN those children to their parents upon liberation. Again - he commanded that these children not be returned to their parents who had just been liberated, citing that it was his responsibility to save their souls. Of course, Pious was a notorious anti-Semite.

This is not to suggest that all Catholics are terrible people - only that the leaders of church groups are as prone to commit evil acts as anyone else.

By Angie

February 1, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

I’ve actually not had the pleasure of reading that particular book. I am married to a man who holds a degree in Historical Theological Studies…so when I speak on the subject of religion and it’s origins…I happen to know what I am talking about. A little difficult to live with a man for 34 years and not gain some knowledge on religion and why people love to love or hate it. I have heard from my husband’s students however that Dan Brown has some interesting things to say about Catholics as a whole. I suppose he was once scorned by the faith himself….but who knows?! I also suppose I know slightly more than you do on this particular subject. Although, frantic postulating is also a path to enlightenment.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

That’s great John, the Georgia Center for Children is part of the Nation Children’s Alliance. The NCA is a Canadian organization funded by the pro gay Canadian government. Angie, That’s like saying your husband is a doctor so you know how to do surgery. I study the same subject myself before you boast about how much you know..

By Bruce

February 1, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Debora, I will accept your apology any time you are ready to give it.

By Boscoe

February 1, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

John, it didn’t quite work that way with Pius XII. Give me the text in which read that.

By Angie

February 1, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

My husband and I however are impartial students of the subject. I see the good and bad of all religions, as does my husband. Please don’t forget that I too believe in Yeshua. I simply don’t see the point of shoving my opinions and beliefs down every throat I come across. Isn’t the point of Christianity for people to come to God of their own free will? I know you think you are giving people the facts… but they are the facts as you see them. There are facts and then there are opinions. I believe in heaven and hell, not because it has been documented, but because of my own spiritual journey. And this journey can be taken even if you happen to be gay or God forbid…a lover of cartoons.

By Debora

February 1, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Bruce don’t hold your breath. Straight people are always yapping about how gay people ruined their lives, caused their divorces, made all of these illegitimate children, packed foster care. You have an illegitimate grandchild. I would like a rational explanation as to why I had anything whatsoever to do with that.

By Bruce

February 1, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

John, I am sorry to butt in on your conversation but, you quoted the following statics:

97% are male 91% are heterosexual 91% are religious 75% are married or formerly married 73% are Caucasian 65% earn a middle income or above 48% are college educated

Then you pulled only this one out:

Hmm…91% are religious…that must be all of Boscoe’s Catholic priests.

I have a few questions for you: What is you gender? What is your sexual orientation? How about your education, your income, or your material status? Do you fit into any of these? Why did you only pull out the religious one? Is it only a bad thing to molest a child if you are religious?

By Debora

February 1, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Oh another misconception. We gays don’t WANT your foster kids that you have managed to screw up beyond repair. Go ahead, amend the constitution again to say we gays can’t foster your children. Amend the constitution up a storm. Have at it! We don’t want the kids you have messed up and thrown away. Take care of them yourself.

By Angie

February 1, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Now lets be fair Deborah…given enough time I’m sure gay couples will become just as capable of messing up their kids as any heterosexual couple.

By Bruce

February 1, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Debora, God loves you and so do I!

By lozen

February 1, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I don’t believe it just because you interpreted the bible to say it. I notice Paul didn’t say men who beat their wives are unrighteous and shall not inherit the kingdom of god. He didn’t say those who own slaves are unrighteous, or people who hate their neighbors because they are different won’t get to the kingdom of god. He didn’t even make reference to bible tales and say that men who give their virgin daughters to a mad crowd to keep the angels safe are not righteous, or that a man who tosses his concubine and her/their child out into the desert without food or water is not a righteous man. He didn’t say men who call others witches and burn them at the stake can’t enter the kingdom or that men who cut off the hands and feet of native americans to force their religion on them are unrighteous. I see things very differently from Paul, and other bible authors. If the bible did say, “It is a sin for a man to love a man and for a woman to love a woman,” I still would not believe it. I am not a bibliolator; do you know what that means?

By RokChik

February 1, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

By Randy Really I think if homosexuality was “natural� it would produce an offspring.

Wow. This is trully ignorant. What about heterosexual couples who can’t produce children? Are they unnatural?

And do we really NEED more children anyway? I mean what about those waiting to be adopted? I think it’s a perfect fit. Gay couple wants child, child needs to be adopted, everyone (except those you can’t mind thier own business) is happy!

And ZACK How dare you! I’m afriad of the truth because I’m living in denial?! You don’t even know me, yet you attempt to make a judgement on my entire life?! You’re out of your mind and way far-reaching. I am not in denial nor am I afraid of the truth. I’m only attacking you on what you’ve shown here and I’d apperciate it if you kept to the same.

That’s all anyone needs and that is what I follow.

By John

February 1, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Bruce:

Male, gay, not particularly religious, Master’s Degree, my income is none of your business, Caucasian and not married, obviously. Now that that’s out of the way, it should be apparent that my statement was a jibe at Boscoe who claimed that the compelling reason for gay parents not to be able to have children was that so many gay men were pedophiles. This particular statistic shows that 91% of pedophiles identify themselves as religious…I’m guessing you don’t see the irony of that statistic.

Boscoe:

First - you seem to see conspiracies in everything…every group that you don’t pick is linked to some other group that is linked to some other group that is linked to the great GAY AGENDA…wow. I guess I’ve not been getting the newsletter…I wonder if I’ve missed out on my free toaster.

Second, here’s a statistic from the Department of Justice. 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys are molested before the age of 18. Let’s crunch that number, shall we? If you estimate a roughly equal distribution of boys to girls (it’s actually a little higher on the female end according to the last census) in a sample population of 200, that means that of the 100 girls, 33 are at risk and of the 100 boys 14 are at risk. So my question for you is this, Boscoe - why are all these supposed gay molestors molesting all these girls?

Oh, and here’s your link:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4461958

Though, I’m guessing that there’s some great conspiracy behind NPR as well.

Ciao!

By RS

February 1, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

RokChik: It’s not just you, my dear. According to Zack, anyone whose opinions don’t mirror his ignorant, vitriolic, self-righteous way of “thinking”(?!?) is afraid of the truth because they’re living in denial. You’re in very good company

By Gary Brooks

February 1, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Do you actually consider yourself to be intelligent! If you would only do your homework before you spread all this ignorance.

Just DO THE RIGHT THING, is that at all possible!

By Bruce

February 1, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

John, No I can’t see the irony in molesting a child NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. If we use your statics you and I are MORE likely to molest a child than a regilious person. Just because we are of the male gender. I’ll ask again, why did you single out only regilious people? If these pedophiles are not gay why do they prey on young males? Isn’t being gay pursuing a relationship with someone of the same gender?

By Victor Kulkosky

February 1, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

I’m more in Diane’s camp on most issues, but when it comes to strength of arguments, I have to give the nod to Shaunti most of the time. Diane often displays attitude, rather than builds a reasoned argument from clearly laid out evidence. Her commentary on the Dobson-Sponge Bob affair is representative. Diane takes broad swipes at what she deems homophobia in the Christian right. Some people in that camp may well be homophobic, but Diane simply takes broad swipes rather than addressing the question at hand. Shaunti, on the other hand, gets to the point: James Dobson never argued that Sponge Bob promotes homosexuality, only that the Sponge Bob character was used in a video, part of whose message Dobson and Shaunti argue most parents disagree with. You can agree or disagree with their argument, but at least Shaunti makes a clear argument. In the listservs I frequent, the posters often lament that progressives rely too much on “better arguments” rather than political strategy. In “Woman to Woman,” Diane usually doesn’t even offer better arguments. The result, more often than not, is Shaunti by a knockout.

By norman

February 2, 2005 07:16 AM | Link to this

Well, instead of talking about whether cartoonists and film makers are pushing homosexuality, the discussion is about homosexuality as a whole. That’s not my fault.

I have just one more thing to say. Homosexuality is not a choice but a condition. One can probably fight against it but not very successfully or happily. On the other hand, one should not applaud homosexuality; it is obviously a misfortune not a blessing. In saying this I am probably offending both Christian bigots and gay rights people. So be it. The truth can cut many ways. The only thing clear is this: if there is a God, in creating gay people he has obviously fouled up — yet again. In fact, the fact that there are gay people, like the fact that there are disastrous tsunamis, works mostly towards proving there is no God. At least no God you would want to have around.

By Randolph

February 2, 2005 07:27 AM | Link to this

Far in advance of Dr. James Dobson’s recent revelations, in late 2004, in Freehold, Iowa, complete shock and disbelief filled the Reformed Evangelical Church main sanctuary as Deacon Leviticus Jones revealed in detail the decadent hidden sexual messages in the popular cartoon series, SpongeBob SquarePants.

Mrs. Ida Denkins, who was seated in the first pew, fainted in the middle of the presentation and had to be rushed to the Miraculous Cures Hospital. All total, at least a dozen church members became physically ill after being told about SpongeBob SquarePants

Deacon Jones was laying on the couch with his grandson and fell asleep. When he awoke, he was looking at the television set upside down and noticed that his grandson was watching SpongeBob SquarePants. He reacted immediately and was able to grab his grandson by his hair and fling him across the room, knocking him unconscious long enough to get to the remote control and switch back to FOX News. Deacon Jones had discovered that, when viewed upside down, SpongeBob SquarePants had two unmistakable reproductive organs hanging from his face!

Thank Jehovah that children are not watching this terrible program standing on their heads. As true believers we know that one of Satan’s favorite ways of communicating to his followers is to do things backwards and upside down. Now we know that this technique is being used in the secular agenda of the Public Broadcast System in children’s cartoons.

By Lyrazel

February 2, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Wow! All this over a talking sponge!

By Vincent

February 2, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

How about Buster?

“Postcards from Buster” features Buster in animated travelogues for children. Buster is a gay-looking cartoon bunny who also appears in PBS’ long-running “Arthur” series. Buster meets real children and sends “video postcards” back home. In the Vermont travelogue, a girl introduces Buster to “my mom and Gillian,” and the group sits down to dinner.

Public TV stations that don’t mind an animated bunny breaking bread with a same-sex couple in Vermont (which recognizes same-sex unions) have the option of airing or not airing the show. However, Margaret Spellings, the new U.S. Secretary of Education, finds the show highly objectionable. Spellings is in such a wad she wants PBS to kill the Vermont episode and refund the money used to shoot the footage.

John Wilson, PBS’s senior vice president for programming, says PBS wont refund the money, but that PBS officials had already decided to make the episode in question optional before Spellings’ letter arrived. Wilson maintains that the Vermont episode is too good to discard because it contains highly educational scenes showing maple syrup production. When asked how Buster reacted to the two moms, Wilson replied, “Buster is a very caring, tolerant and accepting rabbit, and he just sort of took it at face value.”

Somebody needs to alert Dr. Dobson and have him really jump Buster’s frame. These dimmed cartoon characters has gone plumb crazy. The next thing you know ol’ Bugs Bunny will be doing funny stuff just like Buster!

By norman

February 2, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

People like Dobson, Fallwell, and Robertson are either honest or not, that is they are either honest fools or manipulatory hypocrites. I don’t know which is worse but the fact so many Americans harken unto them is more than disturbing. But a nation which respects Billy Graham, probably a sincere fanatic and fool, among the most admired men can never be laughed at enough.

By Texas

February 2, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

I’ve been reading this forum for a couple of months now and no matter what the subject, it almost always comes back to Religion and Homosexuality. There’s always the same people on the left and always the same people on the right. Nothing changes. And never does anyone try to meet anyone half way. It’s deadlocked! A historic event occurred this weekend. People risked their lives for freedom. We on the other hand continue to bicker over SpongeBob. Actually, it isn’t SpogneBob, it’s freedom. Freedom to express Religion in School was recently rejected by the left on this forum. Now these same people want Sexual Diversity Pledge honored by elementary students. With them it’s all or nothing, and as long as they continue to move at all cost to get their way, the more it moves the right to take a stand at all cost. No compromise! No middle ground. The left finds approval in Vermont, the right changes the Constitution. When will we find common ground, when will we realize that both sides have merit. Just maybe we can find a mutual arrangement. Why those it take lives before we finally put up a stop light. One of the most important trips a person ever takes is “to meet someone halfway.” It’s no wonder our governmental officials can’t get anything done. We need to inject understanding and reject criticism in our posts. Tolerance has not been displayed very often on either side. PS Boscoe I’d be HONORED to sit with you in church. Peace and Love People, Peace and Love.

By Randy

February 2, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Norman, I really feel sorry for you, if you really believe the garbage you print. These are sincere men and are great men. People who are not Christians don’t want to here what they are saying, but it is the truth none the less.

By Randy

February 2, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Texas, That sounds good to me. However, what you have with people like Norman is, this is probably his only reason for living(I doubt if I wrong, but I hope that I am) so he is not going to change his position no matter what. The same is true with a few other people on the left. I heard it said a few days ago by someone, “the heart controls the mind” their heart is hardened against the truth and good. They don’t want to know, or they don’t know that they don’t know.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

I hold firm to the notion that everyone is entitled to to his/her own opinion…no matter how intentionally inflamatory it may seem. It is the inherent right of every one of us. But I have to ask you this Norman….if you don’t mind. Were your parents religious? And if so, were they what you would consider “Bible thumpers”? It is a condition seen very often. When a child is force-fed a certain food or ideal, they shun it in it’s intirety as an adult. I respect your dogged determination in defending your opinions. At least your are not a waffler. Just curious to know if your ideals were born out of a self-perceived “bad” childhood or through a spiritual (or spiritless) journey.

By norman

February 2, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Watch out, Texas. Going to church with Boscoe might be horrifying. He will inspect your privates to see whether you have committed the judaizing sin of circumcision. Then he will inspect your clothing to discover if you have the madatory hair shirt or not. Then you will have to sign a statement accepting all the articles in the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX which condemned every modern notion and reaffirmed fascist-like Tridentine Catholicism. You might want instead to sign the 39 Articles of the Episcopal church which no one cares about anymore, or better yet, go to a bar for a stiff drink.

By James X. Brown

February 2, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Victor,

In case you really don’t understand, Ms. Glass is under the same pressure that the religious right are under when they “out” cartoon characters. If a minister goes on national television and condemns a specific homosexual, they would be considered to be hypocritical (and stereotypically so). Thus, the entire discussion about a cartoon character’s sexuality.

Don’t you get it? If the Conservative Christian ranks attack a cartoon character instead of an actual homosexual then they still get their message across — mind you, they can look a little silly doing it. By abstracting the issue, religious leadership can condemn homosexuality without putting a human face on it. And let’s not forget the “for the children” factor; I believe that the underlying message here is that it’s alright to hate homosexuality if it keeps your children safe. I also believe that, generally speaking, people can’t make the transition of “hate the sin, love the sinner”. So, basically, they end up hating homosexuals.

But, back on point, you cite Ms. Glass’ use of “broad strokes” (and let me say that using the word “broad” to describe anything about Ms. Glass is in poor taste). What would you have her do? Name names? Create a list of people who hate homosexuals? Launch a Web site?

And as to Ms. Glass’ ability to argue her point, if you were a little more sophistcated reader (that means that you’d read something outside of your favorite listserv where people are emboldened by the anonymity of email to spew anything that may make sense to them at that moment without having to deal with regrets or retractions) you might actually be able to see that Ms. Glass is not only answering the question at hand, but informing you of the obviously transparent nature of certain Conservative Christian organizations. And doing so with great wit.

Face it; you just aren’t sophisticated enough to “get” Diane.

James X. Brown

By norman

February 2, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

There once was a fathead named Boscoe, Whose Dad was delighted with Moscow. The boy was apprenticed To a Communist dentist, And ended up sweeping at Cosco.

By Steve

February 2, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

James X. Brown -

Be easy on us simpletons, we are not as sophisticated as you, but…

You said “If the Conservative Christian ranks attack a cartoon character instead of an actual homosexual then they still get their message across â€â€? mind you, they can look a little silly doing it.”

Who in the Conservative Christian ranks attacked a cartoon character? Perhaps you need to reread Dr. Dobson’s comments. He did NOT attack a cartoon character. Perhaps you are just not sophisticated enough understand his message.

By James X. Brown

February 2, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Steve,

Thank you for quoting me. Please read what you quoted.

I used the word “if” at the start of the sentence.

And thank you for proving my point about sophistication, or lack thereof.

James X. Brown

By Terry

February 2, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Nothing brings out the crowd like a good old-fashioned “Gay” discussion. Even if it isn’t one.

So, if James Dobson and religious others find something wrong with Spongebob - what’s the problem?

If we are supposed to be tolerant - why does tolerance only work in one direction? Should religious folks oppose the Gay lifestyle - shouldn’t we be tolerant of their beliefs and opinions? If tolerance is that which you agree with - it is not tolerance at all. How do you ridicule, condemn and oppose those who you label intolerant - by showing your intolerance for theirs?

And how is it, that in this supposed tolerant society, we are free to ridicule and belittle the religious - with no limits or bounds: Brainless, Stupid, Morons, Bible-Thumpers, Fools, Idiots, Snake-handlers, on and on…

But make the slighest insult towards any other group and you are: *Bigoted, Mean-spirited, Hateful — and given an “‘ism” to identify your “intolerance”.

And the answer to the topic is yes - Liberals are cartoon characters with subversive messages!

By Louis

February 2, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Since I am a compassionate and tolerant person, I hate to generalize about any particular group. Because people are so wonderfully diverse, proudly independent and gloriously unique, any racial, ethnic or religious pigeonholing would be deeply insulting, not to mention inaccurate.

So when I hear the word “Christian” these days, I don’t assume good or bad. All sorts of people fall within that category. In my humble opinion, Jesus Christ was an important and influential figure in world history, and I respect that. Because he was a symbol of love and understanding, the term “What Would Jesus Do?” resonates powerfully. If we all acted as Jesus would, I believe the world would be at peace, and love would wash over all of God’s children.

But of course, not all Christians are alike. Many, if not most, Christians understand the true message of Jesus. But there is a frightening number of so-called Christians who can be best described as creepy, rigid, arrogant, cruel, know-it-all, pompous, obnoxious and treacherous - better known by the acronym C.R.A.C.K.P.O.T.

These CRACKPOT Christians are nothing new. Throughout history there have been dangerous fools of all persuasions who have perverted religious text for their own selfish purposes. What they like to do, in essence, is force-feed their twisted beliefs on others while hiding behind a respectable label, thereby conning folks into thinking that their mean-spirited behavior is really born out of kindness and generosity.

But the CRACKPOT Christians may have gone too far. Now they’re messing with SpongeBob.

SpongeBob SquarePants is a hugely popular cartoon character. He lives inside a pineapple underneath the sea. The CRACKPOT Christians, however, would like you to believe that he really lives in a loft in Greenwich Village above an antiques store with his longtime companion.

The CRACKPOT Christians want to warn Americans that a music video being sent to 61,000 U.S. schools in March featuring SpongeBob and promoting a message of tolerance is really a surreptitious attempt to turn straights into gays. Specifically, they’re upset by a “tolerance pledge” on the website of the nonprofit We Are Family Foundation, the producer of the video, that asks people to respect the sexual identity of others along with their abilities, beliefs, culture and race.

I’ve only caught bits and pieces of SpongeBob, but I never noticed any Bette Midler playing in the background. Nor have I seen SpongeBob shopping for china at Williams Sonoma, or French-kissing another male sponge. He does, however, hold hands with his sidekick Patrick and enjoys watching the imaginary TV show, “The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy,” so I can see why the CRACKPOT Christians might get their knickers in a knot believing that the moral foundation of our nation’s schoolchildren is in grave peril because a couple of cartoon characters touched each other.

But why stop at SpongeBob? I’m sure the CRACKPOT Christians are, at this very moment, gathered somewhere in a secret location, scrutinizing old clips of Tom and Jerry to detect any signs of mutual arousal. I know the CRACKPOT Christians are all over the rumor that whenever Scooby-Doo humps a leg, it’s always a man’s leg. And have you noticed that Ed, Edd N Eddy hug each other quite a bit? I guarantee you the CRACKPOT Christians have noticed.

The now-infamous SpongeBob video ” or as it is more commonly known now among CRACKPOT Christians, “The Insidious Perpetuation of the Undersea Gay Agenda By Animated Phylum Porifera” - also features such notable characters as Barney, Winnie the Pooh, Bob the Builder, the Rugrats and others. By their participation, I have to assume they are targets as well. The CRACKPOT Christians will ask, “Why is it we never see Barney with a girlfriend?” Or “Is Winnie’s preoccupation with honey just a smokescreen?” And “Exactly what type of ‘tools’ is Bob the Builder busy with these days?”

This situation might be funny if it wasn’t so insane.

Yet rather than dump on the CRACKPOT Christians for placing their heads in an anatomically impossible position, I feel a little sorry for them. By turning SpongeBob into a controversy, they’re destroying the miniscule amount of credibility they might have had in the eyes of real Christians and others. These CRACKPOT Christians have succeeded in doing something I thought would be impossible:

They’re giving Jesus Christ a bad name.

For a lot of people, this might be unforgivable. But I’m more compassionate than most. I would like to help the CRACKPOT Christians redeem themselves. After all, they’re human, or at least they started out that way. Guiding these CRACKPOT Christians along the path of righteousness will be a Herculean task, but as the Bible tells us, miracles do happen. How can I preach tolerance and then turn my back on those who need it most?

The first step for the CRACKPOT Christians is to accept that they have a problem. I know programs exist that can reprogram the insufferably preachy and transform them back into normal people like the rest of us. They have to get the message that taking the Good Book, living by the parts they agree with and disregarding the parts they don’t, is a learned behavior and can be cured. They need to be taught that looking for secret messages where none exist is an urge that should be resisted.

Maybe they could use an instructional video.

By norman

February 2, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

If a person believes that a bunch of writings two or almost three thousand years ago, a combination of wisdom and superstition, comes from a God and is a guide to existence, accurately predicts the future, and proclaims timeless truth — well, that person IS an idiot, a fool, and of course a bible-thumper.

By Texas

February 2, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

A water bearer in India had two large pots, one hung on each end of a pole which, he carried across his neck. One of the pots had a crack in it, but the other pot was perfect, and always delivered a full portion of water at the end of the long walk from the stream to the master’s house, while the cracked pot arrived only half full.

For a full two years this went on daily, with the bearer delivering only one and a half pots full of water to his master’s house. Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments, perfect to the end for which it was made. But the poor cracked pot was very ashamed of its imperfection, and was miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do — or so it thought.

The cracked pot, after two years of what it perceived to be a bitter failure, spoke to the water bearer one day by the stream. “I am very ashamed of myself, and I want to apologize to you.”

“Why?” asked the water bearer. “What are you ashamed of?”

“For the past two years, I have only been able to deliver half of my real capacity, because this crack in my side allows water to leak out all the way back to the master’s house. Because of my flaws, you have to do all of this work, and you don’t get full value from your efforts,” the cracked pot said.

The water bearer felt sorry for the old cracked pot, and compassionately said, “As we return to the master’s house, I want you to notice the beautiful flowers along the path.”

As they went up the hill, the old cracked pot did notice the sun shining on the beautiful wild flowers growing along his side of the path, and this cheered it some. However, at the end of the trail, it still felt bad because it had again leaked out half its load, and so it apologized to the water bearer for its failure.

The bearer said to the pot, “Did you notice that there were flowers only on your side of the path, but not on the other pot’s side? That’s because I have always known about your flaw, and put it to good use. I planted flower seeds on your side of the path (for the return trip), and every day while we walk back from the stream, you’ve watered them. For over two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate my master’s table. If you weren’t the way you are, he wouldn’t have the flowers for his house.”

Each of us has our own unique flaws. We’re all cracked pots. But if we will allow Him, the Lord will use us, in spite of our flaws, to grace His Father’s table in some way. In God’s great economy, nothing goes to waste.

So as we seek ways to minister, and as God calls you to the job He has appointed for you, don’t be afraid of your flaws. Acknowledge them, and allow Him to use them, so you too can help add beauty along the pathways He has chosen for you.

Addendum — 2 Timothy 2:21 “Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.”

By Bruce

February 2, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

James X Brown, In your post to Victor you stated:

“I also believe that, generally speaking, people can’t make the transition of “hate the sin, love the sinnerâ€?. So, basically, they end up hating homosexuals.”

Isn’t that using Broad Strokes? Very unsophistcated!

By Gayle

February 2, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Louis,

All I can say is WOW! & Well said & it’s about time! I am in complete and total awe of you! This is great! I love it! I so absolutely agree with you. CRACKPOT Christians, oh I know so many of those. Maybe a 12-step program? No, I doubt that would help. I am printing your post, and I NEVER print any posts.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

When the Crackpots take a stance - it becomes an issue.

When another group opposes the wearing of T-Shirts with an emblem of the Confederate Flag on school grounds - we must address their concerns.

Another group wants the Pledge of Allegiance removed from school - we need to take their concerns under consideration.

Some feel that miniature toy guns would represent the condoing of violence in school and need to be prohibited - their voices need to be heard.

There are those who think that children need to be strip-searched everyday to inspect for child abuse - their proposals need to be looked into.

Some people want to have competitive games and sporting events removed from school because they think they are dangerous and can hurt the self-esteem of those who do not compete well. We must listen to their ideas.

…On and on it goes with this group or that which continually come up with ideas that could be considered over-reaching, unnecessary and/or harmful in some cases. But nevertheless, we must accept these ideas as they come along, as valid opinions and suggestions in the arena of ideas and debates.

Except. Except when the ideas come from Christians. Or Crackpots. No, THEIR suggestions, ideas or concerns are to be summarily rejected because THEY are said to be trying to FORCE their ideas or beliefs on everyone else!

Everyone and his brother can try and force their beliefs on anyone or anything and it is acceptable. Christians not withstanding.

By RS

February 2, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Kudos to you, Louis! You hit the nail right on the head! It’s pretty scary when adults sit around trying to read sex into innocent childrens’ cartoons. makes me think these folks have no lives an/or incredibly filthy minds

By norman

February 2, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Louis: you broke the bank! I mean the pot. Congrats!

By Texas

February 2, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

WOW TERRY and WELL SAID. I am in complete an total awe of you! Well said, and it’s about time! This is great, I love it. I absolutely agree with you. Maybe we can get a 12 step program to allow us to accept their intolerance! I am printing your post. I NEVER printed a post before!

By Terry

February 2, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

“If a person believes that a bunch of writings two or almost three thousand years ago, a combination of wisdom and superstition, comes from a God and is a guide to existence, accurately predicts the future, and proclaims timeless truth â€â€? well, that person IS an idiot, a fool, and of course a bible-thumper.”

Norman,

Of course you have the right to those beliefs.

Now watch what happens when someone says: That if you believe that 6 million people; whom it was never proved they ever existed, were killed in a shower and their bodies vanished into thin air - you probably believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well!

There won’t be as many people respectful of that opinion as they are of your mindless and childish insults towards Christians!

By Texas

February 2, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Terry, those same people will insist that Saddam didn’t gas his own people. Saddam didn’t have WMD’s and the Iraq people where better off under his tyranny! These same people called our President Hitler. These same people say Saddam was not a brutal murderer and we should have left him in power. The world is worse today because Saddam is out of power. Funny, they can’t see that because of the uncontrolable sexual preferences and their lack of responsibility 40 million unborn babies where killed. I don’t get it.

By Zack

February 2, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Rokchik—-DON’T YOU yell at me like you did yesterday on here. Show a little etiquette next time. I know that’s hard for the likes of you, Akeya, RS, John, and Norman, who have hatred toward Christians spewing from your mouth like water from an open fire hydrant.

Louis—Would you not agree that there are problems in the world? Yes, I’d say you would. You’d probably disagree that homosexuality is one of them, but I’ll focus on the point of tolerance. Jesus is loving and compassionate, yes. He is the Son of God, and such is to be expected. Nowhere is He tolerant. If God were tolerant, there never would’ve been a need for the Crucifixion in the first place. Being tolerant of evil is being an ACCOMPLICE to evil.

Norman—This “book” written “2,000 years ago”, as you put it, is supported by all the reason and wisdom in the world. Have you ever tested reason and wisdom against it? If not, why don’t you? Have you ever examined its prophecies and seen how accurate they are? If not, why don’t you? You’re always in here ranting and raving and doing your best to convince yourself that the Bible is untrue. My friend, you can’t change the truth, no matter how many times you try. As much as you offend and frustrate me with your posts, I don’t dislike you. (I hate your actions but not you.) I want you to quit being in this denial.

To the person who told me yesterday that relativism wasn’t a religion, yes, it is. Unfortunately, it’s a quickly-growing religion also. If you’re a communist, that’s your religion. If you’re a socialist, same thing. If you’re an atheist, that’s your religion. Whatever your worldview is is your religion. This is why it baffles me when people say that all religions are right. That is impossible.

By Michael

February 2, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Lots of heat, not much light on this forum… but most of the discussion comes down to:

Do gay people have the same civil rights (and responsibilities) as straight people?

Let’s assume (and as a gay man, I can say I believe it to be a wrong assumption), that being gay is a lifestyle choice.

Well, frankly, so is Christianity (and any other religion).

The difference between these lifestyle “choices”, is that religion is in a protected class — which comes with special rights.

The other difference is that gay people aren’t looking for special rights — simply the same as other citizens: The right not to be fired or lose employment opportunities because of their sexual orientation; to be able to create and support their families (have and raise kids or not) — and have their families be as protected as any other; the right not to be targeted for harrassment or bodily injury because of their sexual orientation.

That’s pretty much it. Real radical stuff.

Oh — and just as an FYI, mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools was banned because of a lawsuit in the 30’s by an evangelical Christian sect (namely the Seventh Day Adventists) who objected to the Pledge because (in their view) it violates the 10 Commandments. (Pledging allegiance to an inanimate object = idolatry.)

By Zack

February 2, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Michael—As a gay man, you have the right to work, vote, etc.. You even have the legal right to live with a gay man.

As for a constitutional acceptance of gay marriage, though, that’s different. That is asking the country to expand the definition of marriage to something defined by man rather than by God, and obviously it is a knock against the principles of which this nation was founded upon.

By Ross

February 2, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Reading these comments, I found one that I was intrigued by, but never saw a response or answer to it. It said:

**I am curious as to why the church reacts so strongly to homosexuality? Of course, there is the reference to Peter in the New Testament. Yet, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, did he? (I am uncertain.) However, Jesus did say that anyone who divorces and remarries while their spouse is still living is committing adultery (Matthew 19:11, I think). Also, in Malachi he stated that he hates divorce. Therefore, since that is legal in all states, doesn’t it make more since to ban that practice first and then proceed to outlaw other things that are viewed as sinful or bad in the eyes of God, if the law is to be influenced by a particular religion? Or, is it just that a majority of Americans partake in divorce and that pursuing a Constitutional Amendment against divorce would alienate too large a segment of voters and church-goers?

Furthermore, just because the law of the United States grants a divorce, does that mean that the vows those people professed before God are no longer valid and that the Lord must adhere to that man made decree. Likewise, if homosexuals were allowed to marry or legally unite, would God be beholden to honor those commitments?

Just curious as to what the people who reference God and the Bible for their justifications against homosexuality might think about these questions.**

I would enjoy seeing the questions answered.

By norman

February 2, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Michael: all Christians place their belief in an inanimate object. Have you forgotten?

By Angie

February 2, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Terry, Are you insinuating that the Holocaust did not happen?

By Terry

February 2, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

“Terry, Are you insinuating that the Holocaust did not happen?”

Norman,

See what I mean? There’s the first one that can’t wait to call me a Neo-Nazi, Racist, Anti-Semite or Jew-Hater or some such.

And over what - an event that supposedly happened over 60 years ago?

Let’s see how much “tolerance” is displayed here.

Angie,

Of course not.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Then Terry, darling, what exactly are you saying? I certainly can wait to place those labels on anyone. Just as I would rather not place the label of homophobe on someone…though obviously there exists a need. But your comments were inflamatory at best. You have waxed “poetic” on just about every issue posed on this forum. And you my friend, are intitled. However, when you insinuate something so sinister….”Over what-an event that SUPPOSEDLY happened over 60 years ago?” You will get a firm and rapid response. Simply explain yourself….you seem to like doing that.

By Michael

February 2, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Actually, as a gay man, I can be fired for being gay in nearly every state in the Union (except for about 8 states like NY & CA).

Excuse me for noting the among the many definitions of marriage as espoused by the world’s religions (assuming that God had something to say about it):

Concubines to bear children if the wife is barren

Multiple wives (polygamy)

Arranged marriages

Monogamy (with no divorce allowed)

Monogamy (with divorce allowed)

Polyandry (multiple husbands — among certain African tribes)

One of the biggest problems with the Federal Marriage Amendment is how sweeping it is in terms of not allowing gays and lesbians to form legal relationships. Make no mistake, when you read what the organizations pushing this amendment want it’s very broad. No civil or legal recognition of ANY relationships between two people of the same sex who are not related by blood… including joint property rights, inheritance, hospital visitation or other “incidents of marriage”.

The recently enacted Ohio amendment is now being used to negate domestic violence charges against men who beat up their girlfriends. Since they are not legally married, then no “incidents” (read protections) can be applied. Other state amendments are being used to ensure that no one has to “see” a gay or lesbian family.

I would like to see this compromise in the civil arena:

1) The state issues civil licenses 2) Couples are free to have their marriage recognized or performed in the church of their choice 3) Everyone has legal parity — at both the state & federal level 4) Any religion that feels the need to “denounce” or not recognize (religiously) a marriage is free to do so 5) No church is required to perform a marriage against their tenets (which is currently the state in Mass & VT)

By Seaborn

February 2, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Well this forum is now three days old and evolving into free-for-all venting. I only have one more question for any of the anti-gay posters out there, if you choose to answer. Do you personally know any gay persons or gay couples? I mean someone who’s name you actually know (gay forum posters not included).

By Terry

February 2, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Angie,

How was there anything “sinister” about what I stated?

Did you murder someone in your backyard last night? You must have, because if no one can find a body, the murder weapon or any proof that a murder was committed — it’s obvious that you hid everything so no one could find it!

That’s the proof - that it happened!

By Angie

February 2, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

I have always equated the agendas of homophobes ( and if you dislike someone on the basis of their sexual orientation, then you are indeed one)somewhat to the agenda of Hitler. Not literally mind you, but at times, in spirit. The Jews were considered dirty and unworthy. A campaign was launched to purge a nation of this uncleanliness. To take away their rights and declare them sub-human. I am not saying their are thousands of Hitler wannabes running around. But the message still resonates. Factions in the US are trying very hard to declare homosexuality wrong, dirty, and evil. This was the mind set of Hitler and his legion. A feeling of superiority wafted through Germany and beyond. It is still “wafting” today. What if, what if….this is a lesson in humanity and humility crafted by God Himself? Some of us are missing the point completely. I taught my children tolerance. But I taught it in such a way that it wasn’t a decision they made…it was simply something they did, without thinking about it. Terry, I find it to be a difficult pill to swallow that you made that comment to simply prove a point. That is why I asked for clarification.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Terry, you have a very round-a-bout way of proving your points. It was just a bad example. The Holocaust did indeed happen and gay people deserve the rights enjoyed by other air breathing creatures. I wonder how God will receive you at the gates? Will he commend you on your faith or hang His head in shame and sadness that you weren’t kinder to His children?

By Tim

February 2, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Terry… I am not attacking your stance… just simply would like your take on something… how do you explain the literally tons of hair the soldiers found that had gas residue (or whatever they call it) in it?

By Zack

February 2, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Angie—Again, it’s one thing to dislike a lifestyle, another thing to dislike a person.

Here’s a question (although I already know the answer): Why do liberals hate Christians?

By Terry

February 2, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Angie,

Hitler and the Germans did no such thing. The World Zionist Organization declared war on Germany (factual - you can look it up) and publicly vowed to break the back of Germany through economic sanctions. The Nazis took away the rights of the Jews because the Jews held no allegiance to Germany - not because they thought they were “dirty and unworthy”. I am not arguing the right or wrong of it - just stating what happened.

It is perfectly clear that you know nothing of what you speak. You simply believe the propaganda and hearsay about it all and have never studied it. But of course, as with many people, it doesn’t stop you from accusing someone of something “sinister” about something that you think you know about.

By Bruce

February 2, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Michael, Even your compromise has flaws. If you enforce compromise number 5 the church will be sued on the grounds based in compromise number 2.

Seaborn, Do nephews count, how about an uncle, or my sisters sister-in-law.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

If you know the answer, then why ask? Emotional opposites will always strongly disagree. I, am not a liberal. One’s political affiliation should be built upon something more than just a couple of hot-button issues. I simply believe that all people are God’s creatures and I regularly entertain the notion that He does things I will never comprehend. And that is as it should be. I trust that He knew what He was doing when He created my gay son.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Tim,

There was no hair found with Zyklon-B residue. Deloussing chambers were used for many purposes, one of which was to kill lice that was a big problem back then and could/did cause many deaths as a result of the disease: Typhus.

There were no gas chambers used for killing people.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

We could argue this point for days on end Terry. I have visited Germany and Poland and I have seen the reels of footage where Hitler declared the jews unworthy and yes…even dirty. And I do know exactly of what I speak. I am a continuing student on the subject…due to my husband’s Professorship in this very area. And propoganda? Terry please. That seems to be all you spout. I do not agree with Norman on most of his points. But I do believe he has you pegged.

By ROSS

February 2, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

ANYONE:

Reading these comments, I found one that I was intrigued by, but never saw a response or answer to it. It said:

**I am curious as to why the church reacts so strongly to homosexuality? Of course, there is the reference to Peter in the New Testament. Yet, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, did he? (I am uncertain.) However, Jesus did say that anyone who divorces and remarries while their spouse is still living is committing adultery (Matthew 19:11, I think). Also, in Malachi he stated that he hates divorce. Therefore, since that is legal in all states, doesn’t it make more since to ban that practice first and then proceed to outlaw other things that are viewed as sinful or bad in the eyes of God, if the law is to be influenced by a particular religion? Or, is it just that a majority of Americans partake in divorce and that pursuing a Constitutional Amendment against divorce would alienate too large a segment of voters and church-goers?

Furthermore, just because the law of the United States grants a divorce, does that mean that the vows those people professed before God are no longer valid and that the Lord must adhere to that man made decree. Likewise, if homosexuals were allowed to marry or legally unite, would God be beholden to honor those commitments?

Just curious as to what the people who reference God and the Bible for their justifications against homosexuality might think about these questions.**

I would enjoy seeing the questions answered.

By Seaborn

February 2, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

yes, of course they count. I was just curious of your relationship with them….admittedly none of my business…but I was interested on how you felt about them and if you are close or distant. Aside from my parents I’ve never had any negative reaction to confiding that I’m gay, ( and my parents and I worked out our issues long ago). To be honest, you don’t seem to have the animosity towards gays that Boscio and Zack have (and Zack seems to hate everything). I was just interested in that perspective…again, ignore me if it’s just none of my business.

By Collin

February 2, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Everyone that thinks Terry hides a swastica tatoo raise your hands!

By chuck

February 2, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

John

There has never been a single occurence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom EXCEPT in humans. It does not occur in nature. It is TOTALLY unnatural and is nothing more than a choice made by those individuals. That lie that you repeated is based on a “study” done by a PRO HOMOSEXUAL group that was flawed in EVERY ASPECT. Any claim that homosexuality appears in any species other than humans is fraudulent. Find one legitimate study that proves otherwise and post the link to it. It does not exist. The only species that practices this unnatural act is the only one that has the ability to do so. It is wrong.

By Randy

February 2, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

In answer to Zacks question on why liberals hate Christians. I believe liberals see Christianity as a restriction on what they want to do. In essence they don’t want to answer to God, they want to be God. They have not allowed themselves to be blessed by God.

In response to the holocaust, I was a history major in undergrad school and the holocaust absolutely existed, Hitler needed a enemy to unite his people and the Jewish people are a easy target. As they tend to separate themselves from other peoples.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Angie,

If you have really studied this, you could simply look at the official declaration made by the Nazi Party which stripped the Jews of their rights.

And in your husband’s “professorship” - ask him how the supposed greatest tragedy in modern history happened and no one knew about it. Ask him where the proof is that millions of people were gassed in showers, yet there are NO records whatsoever than can prove that there was anywhere remotely near those amounts even IN the camps - much less having been killed there. Ask him how 6 million bodies would have just vanished into thin air without a trace. Not 6 - but 6 Million!

Ask him to show you where there is any PROOF of an extermination effort - rather than CLAIMS of it. There is none.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

And Chuck, your opinion should also be given consideration. That is all this really boils down to. When we learn to be tolerant of the opinions of others, then and only then will be tolerant of individuals……and this comes from a conservative-ish Bible/Torah thumper.

By Randy

February 2, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

While everyone has an “opinion”, really opinions are just what someone decides he or she is going to think. What we really need is the truth, like the universe didn’t create itself in the beginning(so a creator does exist) and why would a creator create something if he wasn’t going to make himself known? What it really comes down to is, none of us are God and we should listen to what he has to say and what he has shown us(which is massive).

By Bruce

February 2, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, I have no problem with gay people. My relationship with those I mentioned are not and never have been strained on my part, I love them. However, their lifestyle is not one, and they know this, I can or will accept. In my opinion, knowing all I know about these three people and the enviroment they grew up in, this lifestyle is a choice they made not born with. I for one, regardless of what some will say, can love the sinner but hate the sin. Does that mean I do not sin myself? Nope, I am no where near perfect, but I live for a God who is prefecting me. As long as I remember that I can love the sinner but hate teh sinner.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Collin,

You could be the first to employ some logic! Why would anyone conclude that someone who doesn’t believe that millions were killed in gas chambers - would somehow be a Nazi…?

It would seem to me, that if someone were a Nazi and an Anti-Semite — they would believe it to the fullest! And be proud of it! Probably exaggerate the total number!

Seems to me.

But somehow, morons like you, want to believe that someone who doesn’t believe it happened, well, that’s PROOF that they’re a Nazi!

Norman,

What did I tell you pal?

By Angie

February 2, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Terry, not only are you a snarky little twit….you are proving to all on this forum that you are an Anti-Semite. Unbelievable to me that someone who serves up Jesus on a platter to anyone that will listen and expounds on all the wonders of God….which I absolutely hold to be true….can demand undeniable proof as to the Holocausts existence. You are undermining your own rhetoric.

By Collin

February 2, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

So Terry, are you now changing your previous statement on your Holocaust views.? Lets settle this once and for all….do you or do you not believe that the HOLOCAUST actually happened? Your true colors are shining brightly. Where is your portion of tolerance that you claim others should have? Your role of DEVIL’S advocate fits you like a glove.

By Michael

February 2, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

We’re getting far afield from Sponge Bob… but some of the cr*p spouted here needs to be refuted. Not that Terry or John would believe anything from these source, but:

US Holocaust Museum FAQ

[http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/index.utp?content=faq/right.htm]

Holocaust Denial & The Big Lie

[http://remember.org/History.root.rev.html]

By Terry

February 2, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Angie,

Not only do you know nothing of the events surrounding the Holocaust - you have not paid attention to anything I have stated in my posts!

If you had, you might have seen me state on several occassions on different topics - that I am not religious! I do not believe in God!

I just happened to think that Christians happen to be people too and point out how they are the ones who are continually being ridiculed. You apparently, are only concerned about the possibility of someone being offended by an event that happened over 60 years ago! And quite naturally, anyone who doesn’t agree with your take on it - is an Anti-Semite!

By Seaborn

February 2, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

Thanks for your comments, although I’m still not sure what “accept” or “not accept” really entails. “Disapprove” would describe my parents for several years..now they really don’t care.

I just don’t remember “choosing” to feel that way…although, I’ll admit it is my “choice” to act on those feelings. I haven’t really experienced too much dispair though, except being out of style occasionally :).

But thanks for a thoughful response.

By Randy

February 2, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Well Terry you don’t believe in God or the holocaust. You are not real bright are you?

By Angie

February 2, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

My apologies for confusing your rhetoric with some of the other’s. That not withstanding….it is the way in which you word your opinions that give me pause. As I am sure it does others. The spread of denial regarding the Holocaust is in some ways more evil than what the Jews suffered through. No matter though…..for every opinion and event in this world….there will be a counter claim. And it serves absolutely no purpose to try and explain one’s self to someone like you. I do hope however that you have not procreated. What a ghastly thought that is indeed. To each his/her own I suppose. Even though you believe in nothing….you still believe in something. Perhaps your life, in the end, will have some modecum of meaning and substance. That is what God is about after all….giving hope to the hopeless and the lost. And to quote Collin, that fits you like a glove. My prayers are with you and anyone that has the misfortune of being reared by you.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Collin,

Here is what the Holocaust was:

100’s of thousands of Jews (and others) were taken from their homes, their property and wealth seized, and they were taken to Labor Camps to perform as slave labor for the Germans and their war effort.

Many people died as a result. Some died from the work and many others died from various diseases. Towards the end of the war when Germany was so devestated, there was hardly food and medicine enough for the German Soldiers - much less the inmates in those camps. As a result of that, many of the inmates died of starvation and diseases (the pictures you have probably seen of the dead bodies from the camps that were liberated (Belsen and Dachau)).

What happened to those people throughout - was horrible! We can only imagine how bad that was - especially for those who suffered through the starvation and disease at the end.

BUT, there was no attempt at genocide. There were no gas chambers that took the lives of millions of people. The stories of that are just tales, fables and legends. Six million people were not taken into little showers and gassed! That would have been impossible and it has been proved as such!

And so if you don’t believe in the absurd and preposterous claim that 6 million people were killed in a shower, for which NO ONE has ever shown any proof of it ever happening - you’re called: An Anti-Semite.

So be it.

By chuck

February 2, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Ross,

The Bible speaks against homosexuality in many passages. For instance in the Book of Romans the Apostle Paul wrote:1:24 Therefore God delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves.
1:26 This is why God delivered them over to degrading passions. For even their females exchanged natural sexual intercourse for what is unnatural.
1:27 The males in the same way also left natural sexual intercourse with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty for their perversion.
In another passage it says that homosexuality is an abomination to God. As for your statements about divorce,the Bible teaches that divorce is acceptable under 2 conditions: 1) when the spouse commits adultery and 2)when the spouse abandons the marriage. For other instances of divorce the Bible teaches that it is not acceptable, however the divorced person doesn’t actually sin unless he or she remarries.

As for your idea in addressing divorce through making it illegal, I am certainly in favor of restricting divorce and making it more difficult to get one. I see the results of divorce every day as a teacher. So many of these kids are messed up because of what their parents have done to them. At different times in history, adultery has been against the law. Based on what it does to society as a whole and children individually, that’s probably not a bad idea.

God of course is not obligated to abide by any man-made laws or to “honor” them. Christians are taught to be submissive to the governmental authority God has placed over them, EXCEPT when the laws of the state would cause a believer to sin. The believer is not obligated to follow those types of edicts, but is still subject to the human consequences of breaking them. The Bible also teaches something very important about what is legal. That is, just because something is legal, does not mean it is profitable. It is legal for me to eat as much food as I can afford to buy, but that would not do much for my health. Just because something is legal that doesn’t mean that it isn’t sin. For instance, abortion is legal in man’s laws but it is a sin in God’s laws.

By Tim

February 2, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Terry… what is your answer for the eye-witness accounts of people who saw their loved ones put in another group of sent to a shower and were never seen again?

By Tim

February 2, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

p.s. and Terry… even though I may not agree with what you say… I do at least appreciate you actually answering my questions so I can understand where you are coming from

By Terry

February 2, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Angie,

Thanks for you deep concern. But somehow, I’ll try to make it without all the wisdom and compassion that you have. I’ll try.

Some of you folks have no idea how incredibly funny you are! I don’t mean it personally, nor do I wish for you to stop. Not at all. But you’re damned hilarious!

By Terry

February 2, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

“Terry… what is your answer for the eye-witness accounts of people who saw their loved ones put in another group of sent to a shower and were never seen again?”

There were people placed in different groups. But does being put into a separate group mean that those in the other group were gassed?

Auschwitz is one of the places that is most talked about by the prisoners as being where they were split-up. There were split-up because Auschwitz consisted of three separate complexes. They were split-up upon arrival and farmed-out to the different complexes and some were actually moved to other camps as the workloads dictated. The “testimonies” only testified to the separations, NOT to anyone being sent to showers. This was just implied by those who tell the tale.

Some folks that served in the U.S. Military were separated from people that they met along the way - after they arrived at Boot Camp. I doubt those people who went the other way - were gassed though.

By RS

February 2, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Terry: My parents KNOW people who were in Nazi death camps & saw their friends & relatives herded into the gas chambers. They heard the screams & smelled the odours. These are first-hand accounts. What more do you want? If you hate Jews, you hate Jews. That’s how you feel. Your bigotry is your own business. But don’t go telling me that something that hppened never DID happen & expect me to believe you.

By Whiley

February 2, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

God is a woman & she’s pro choice & p** off there isn’t a better birth control for her daughters.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

If it makes you feel better to laugh at others…..please…continue. Not believing in God does not make you a sad individual. What makes you pitiful is your apparent inability to discern fact from fiction. Believing in nothing is your preogative. But it is this disbelief that has caused you to place your faith and/or belief in anything. You come across as very belittling and condescending. Demanding that others respect your right to be a soul unto yourself, while admonishing those same people for finding meaning outside your realm of disbelief. You are an oxymoron.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

RS,

I don’t remember trying to convince you of anything.

But since you jumped in - no, no one saw anyone being “herded” into gas chambers - because there weren’t any “gas chambers”!

And BTW - Just so that I can prove you wrong, where did this “herding” supposedly take place?

By Terry

February 2, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Angie,

So that we can discern “fact from fiction” - show me where the facts are that millions of people were gassed in showers.

I’ll be waiting here for your “facts”. So that we can separate them from “fiction”, that is.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

You are indeen vile Terry. You mock the terror that took place at the concentration camps. You show such blatant disrespect for the atrocities commited against an unassuming group of people. Deny God all you wish, but you are plain stupid if you deny the Holocaust. You share more than a common thread with the people clogging our jails and prisons…..disrespect is at the heart of every crime. You commit a crime every time you spew forth your venom regarding the evils at the camps. You act as though these people went off for a semester abroad doing manual labor! I pity you, how desolate your heart is.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Angie,

How can I be “mocking” something - that didn’t happen? And no, I don’t “deny” God - I just said I don’t believe in God. And without wanting to go into a long drawn-out explanation, it is simply that I don’t believe in “God” as most people depict it.

Thanks for your pity - but I am still waiting for the “facts” that support 6 million people being killed in a shower!

By Adam

February 2, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Can we get the editors of this forum to please disallow Terry’s entries? He is undermining the original purpose of this column, turning into his personal anti-Jewish podium. I implore the powers that be at AJC to stop this racial bigot from any further posts!! I will be sending a letter to the editor regarding you Terry. I hope anyone else who wishes this forum to return to its roots to follow suit.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Norman,

Can I predict it or what! All these people who run around out here preaching tolerance of others, take quite a different stance when it comes to something that they are opposed to!

Even have one of them wanting to have me BANNED from the board! He’s going to write a letter to the editor - he’s so tolerant. Then he’ll be back out here demanding that everyone’s opinion must be respected - when it’s something that he agrees with!

Some of these folks are as phony as they come!

By Angie

February 2, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

It is a fool indeed that attempts to reason with a fool. It is a fruitless endeavor. There are countless websites and articles that you can pull from to support your bigoted analysis. Published by other fools that want to further thier uneducated agendas. How ironic that this column began as a question about agendas against homosexuality. And ends with the realization of your own personal agenda for hate….against another group of people. It must be lonely where you are, if it were not , you wouldn’t be trying to cultivate a meager following for your fantasy. I will not argue with you, you are not worth the time. You are, however, worthy of flogging…..6 million times.

By Seaborn

February 2, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Adam,

If they ban Terry he’ll have nothing to do all day and he might venture back out into the public. I’ve read his posts for about a year and he’s yet to saying anything positive or substantial. He just likes the fight.

The best thing you could do is just ignore him. I don’t even read his posts anymore…they’re all the same.

By Adam

February 2, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

You’ve been reading him for a year??!! Is this all he does? I may vomit.

By Boscoe

February 2, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Terry, what did happen to all those people in the concentration camps? I’ve been to a few of them and they were by no means small. There were also lots of them.

By Terry

February 2, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Let’s see. Not believing in a tale about shower gassings, means that I am:

Anti-Semitic, a bigot, Vile, deny God, have an agenda for hate, a “racial” bigot, mock terror, spew venom, believe in “nothing”, hate Jews, and have a “Swastika” tatoo…

…All for not believing that people were killed in showers.

Of course, I could be out here all day long bashing and disrespecting Christians all day long - and no one would be outraged. But talk about an event that ended over 60 years ago - and the sky is falling!

This is good psych material. It gets no better!

By RS

February 2, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

See, Terry? Everyone knows what you are, a horse’s backside. Sadly, the only one who doesn’t know it is you. Oh, & Zack, who “thinks” (?!?) just like you. The 2 of you should ride off into the sunset together. I’m sure you’ll be very happy. You need to get in sync w/the 21st century. Your sick, twisted views went out with 1930’s Nazi Germany. Hey, I read/participate in this blog. You’ve seen my posts. Therefore, when you post examples of your evil, vile agenda, I am among those you are trying to convince. You want to know where these gas chambers were? For one, does the name Auswich sound familiar or did that not exist either? You are truly a pitiful, soulless excuse for a human being.

By RS

February 2, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Oooh, Terry! GOTCHA! “..I talk about an event that ended over 60 years ago”. So you admit it happened, albeit a long time ago. DOes the fact that it happened so long ago make it any less tragic or believable? What would your opinion be of your grandkids (Omigod! The thought of YOU breeding! Shudder!) going around saying 911 was made up??

By Terry

February 2, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

A great many of them died from diseases and starvation. I can only imagine how horrible that must of been. ALL I am saying is that there were no gas chambers where people were being killed. That’s all. Period. Nothing else.

People have just been so conditioned to believe than anyone who doubts the gas chambers - MUST be Anti-Semitic. Not because they have thought that through, but because they have been conditioned to believe that. And because of that, they have to portray their self-righteous compassion and concern and CONDEMN those of us who don’t believe. Plain and simple. And funny as it can be.

That’s why I started the whole thing - to show Norman how he could come out here and ostracize Christians on a daily basis and no one think anything of it. But deny something that happened over 60 years ago - and people come unglued! They’ve been conditioned to. Pavlov’s Dog…?

By RS

February 2, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Terry, why do you acknowledge that disease & starvation existed but not the gas chambers? Haven’t you ever seen pictures? I have. Have you ever spoken to someone who was there? Oh, I doubt it. Why would you want to talk to a JEW? Oh, you better believe Norman has flack heaped on him daily for daring to voice his opinion. Admittedly, not as much as you because he’s at least somewhat decent about it. You are just a PIG (add THAT to the other charming descriptions we’ve, understandably applied to you).

By Collin

February 2, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Terry seems to care a little too much what Norman thinks. I wonder if Norman gives this much time and energy to Terry, or is this an unrequited love? You really are a silly old fool. Angie has proven herself the voice of absolute reason today. I know it must really chap your back side that she had the audacity to rebuke you, oh holy King Of Crap. But everything she said, was said with tolerance and respect. She even celebrates your right to be a worm. I think all on this forum recognizes who came out on top. Certainly not you. Welcome Angie and here’s hoping that you stick around to knock Terry off his throne some more!

By Terry

February 2, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

RS,

Anyone who doubts that 9/11 happened - will be paid no attention to. There will be no groups out here steadfastly trying to prove that it did happen. The reason for that, is because 9/11 is self-evident. No one will be trying to dig up papers of who said what to who - as proof of it. No one will be out here compiling “Survivor accounts” as proof of it. And no one will be out here trying to label someone a “racist” if they don’t believe in it.

9/11 stand on it’s own - the Holocaust does not. That’s why there have been so many people trying so hard to label anyone who doesn’t agree with the “Gas Chamber” tales as a racist, etc - because they don’t won’t anyone listening to what they say. If the Holocaust was self-evident as is 9/11 - there would be no need for that.

That should tell you something.

By norman

February 2, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Terry is a Nazi pure and simple. I have just read a new biography of Eichmann (published in UK, not yet here) which tells of the notion that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany; it is clearly not true and part of Nazi self-justification.

By Angie

February 2, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Collin, it does no good to fan his flames. There are people like Terry all over this world. There is seldom anything you can do to soften their hearts. The very things that fuel them are the things that others find repugnant. I see no use in trying to prove something that has already been proven. My husband and I were joined by his great aunt who survived the camps as a very young girl. She settled in Poland after the Holocaust because she wanted to raise her family to understand the evils set against their people. She chose to guide us through the camps so we could better understand the horrors our family became intimate with. It was very real and will continue to be so even in the face it’s detractors. Terry cannot be swayed. And his vile sentiment serves a purpose. To fuel those who will educate the young ones today as to the power of evil and the triumph of human spirit.

By Adam

February 2, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Well Terry, it seems as though your self perceived alliance with Norman has been effectively trounced. And even though your fall from grace has been well documented, you can always say that “it never really happened”

By lozen

February 2, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Ross, I believe the church is so strongly opposed to homosexuality for the same reason it’s opposed to heterosexuality (unless you only do it one way, according to their rules). Imagine, if people went around having lots of sex without guilt, when would they go to church? Would they? Would they worry about hell? Which would you rather do, have sex or listen to some preacher threaten you with hell fire? And how could a man own a woman if that were the case? And how would a man know which child was his and should inherit the kingdom? Some religious used to believe sex was only to reproduce and it was a sin, even in marriage, to enjoy it. The church has fought women having birth control information and the pope still goes to Mexico and Africa telling people birth control is a sin! Preachers in the 19th and 20th centuries used the bible to prove that god meant for women to multiply over and over and bring forth children in pain because that was god’s punishment for disobeying him in the garden of eden. (Besides sex and birth control were disgusting.) Margaret Sanger, among many others, went to jail in the 1870’s for having clinics and publishing a magazine telling women in the U.S. how to prevent pregnancy. There was a law called the Comstock Act making it a crime to teach women about birth control. Comstock was like some people on this forum. He was a religious fanatic who spent his life on a personal crusade for moral purity - as defined, of course, by himself. Comstock bragged just before his death in 1915 that he had been responsible for the criminal convictions of enough people to fill a 61-coach passenger train for giving women birth control information! Margaret Sanger is one of my heroes because she stood up against Comstock, the church and the government to give women this information after watching her mother’s health broken by having child after child. According to some, it’s a sin to fornicate so if you never marry you’re not to ever have sex whether you’re gay or straight. No, Jesus never said homosexuality is a sin. Paul did though and some of the old testament writers did. So people who are against gay sex go and pick up those things as proof that god hates homosexuality. As always, they create their god in their image. Of course Paul also said men were the head of the wife as Jesus was the head of the church, and that women should not speak in church. This has been preached from the pulpit and used to support the view that women should not be allowed to vote in this country until 1920. This is used to support the patriarchal bull that women should not be priests in the catholic church and ministers in the southern baptist church. There isn’t one word in the bible against slavery so many people could believe they were good christians while they owned another human being. The bible does not say abortion is a sin. But there are people who rant and rave about “murder is a sin and abortion is murder” but those same people think it’s just great to murder people in another country when your government tells you to. And they think when the state murders a murderer to show others that murder will not be tolerated that’s fine too. In other words some murder is great but not abortion! They don’t feel sorry for the innocent 14 year old who was raped by her father and is pregnant. Abortion is a sin! They don’t care about the tired mother with five children already who finds herself pregnant again at the age of 50. Abortion is murder they scream! The bible just hasn’t been very helpful to me and I don’t think it’s been helpful to women in general. That’s one reason I don’t use the bible as my guide. I’ve also studied Greek mythology, Roman history, Egyptian, native american and pagan religion and history. There is truth and wisdom in the bible as well. Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, Remove the beam from your own eye before you worry about the mote in someone else’s eye, and a lot of other good stuff. But there are so many who prefer the jealous, vindictive, judging, angry god of the old testament to the loving, compassionate, forgiving god of the new testament. They’d much rather quote Paul than Jesus.

By norman

February 3, 2005 07:07 AM | Link to this

We have come to an interesting point, the intersection between conservative religious belief and anti-Semitism. Once a taboo subject, it is now clear to scholars that traditional Christian belief and Jew hatred are closely related. This does not mean all conservative Christians hate Jews or that liberal Christians love them; sometimes that is totally not the case. What is true is that Jew hatred as a “redemptive” philosophy of life (or death) is found only in Christian or ex-Christian societies and it stems from the traditional anti-Jewish teaching of the Church once it broke with the Jewish Christian community rather early and declared “gentile” Christianity the only orthodox version of belief in Jesus.

Our buddy Terry demonstrates how easily conservative belief can come out with anti-semitism. So does Zack, whose anti-semitic phantasies have been apparent here for some time.

By Boscoe

February 3, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom. Norman was going to explain evolution to the children. Norman asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside? TOMMY: Yes. NORMAN: Tommy, do you see the grass outside? TOMMY: Yes. NORMAN: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky. TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
NORMAN: Did you see God? TOMMY: No. NORMAN: That’s my point. We can’t see God because he isn’t there. He just doesn’t exist. A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. Norman agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside? TOMMY: Yes. LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside? TOMMY: Yessssss! LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky? TOMMY: Yessssss! LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see Norman? TOMMY: Yes LITTLE GIRL: Do you see his brain? TOMMY: No. LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today, he must not have one!

By Young

February 3, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this

Zack, Randy, Texas: You guys have a job to do. Terry needs to be converted, and showed the error in his ways when it comes to not believing in God. Texas, I’m sure that you have a lengthy, fatigue-inducing parable for him to read. Let’s get to it Super Best Friends.

By norman

February 3, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

Boscoe lives in a world beyond our senses, which to a Platonist is real and to a realist is nonsense. Boscoe comes from an old religious and philosophical tradition which in its day was respectable and even impressive but which with the march of science, including psychology, has been found more than wanting. It is simply primitive. Boscoe’s interpollations and jokes are also primitive. He is a PRIMITIVE.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

“Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping…. we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.” - Samuel Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933. Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933.

“We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany.” - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in “I Testify Against The Jews” by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and “The Jewish War of Survival” by Arnold Leese, page 52).

“There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.” - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

“Germany is our public enemy number one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her. One may be sure of this: We will lead that war!” - Bernard Lecache, the president of the “International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism,” in its newspaper “Droit de Vivre” (Right to Life), 9 November, 1938.

“The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years.” - Rabbi M. Perlzweig (head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress), Toronto Evening Telegram, February 26, 1940.

“The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.” - Rabbi Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942.

“Played golf with Joe Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to Britain). He says that Chamberlain stated that America and world Jewry forced England into World War II.” - James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy (later Secretary of Defense), Diary, December 27, 1945 entry.

…There is tons of information out there; Newspaper reports, official documents, speeches, etc… Tons! All you have to do is be willing to look at it for yourself rather than believing some childish fairy tale about a monster wanting to exterminate an entire race of people because he was a “racist”.

I am not arguing about who was right and who was wrong in all of that - but things happen for reasons and not some simplistic notion equalling that of Santa Claus sliding down a chimney and leaving toys for all the boys and girls!

By Lyrazel

February 3, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Dear Terry, I know there were blueprints of camps, showers, dorms and crematoriums done with fabulous attention to details, from lists showing name age country and transport of prisoners to photographs taken by soldiers involved in daily camp life. There were detailed electrical diagrams, plumbing charts—everything. Indeed there are photographs showing the creamitoriums in operation, the prisoners arriving and of the stacked dead. There are, of course, survivors even in Atlanta and other Georgia towns. Perhaps talking to an actual survivor might change an opinion of a hoax, or not. The name of the people responsible for hauling corpses to the ovens were: sonderkommando  (my spelling may be off). Of course, there were bodies, pits of corpses, in trenches half covered by earth because there so many. But it wasnt just Jews who were killed, there were political prisoners, gypsies, homosexuals, christians, intellectuals and anyone who disagreed with the regime. There were military prisoners. Mainly, there were trophies, like perfectly drawn watercolours of prisoners faces done with loving care all for the sake of ethnic identification. Trophies like piles of teeth, hair, shoes, combs, and eyeglasses, suitcases, clothing and toothbrushes. Worse yet there are childrens illustrations showing their confusion and perspectives. Certainly any nation is vunerable as Germany was to fanatics attempts of ethnic cleansing. Percecution has long been practiced in the USA. Guantanamo Bay prison is actually one of many holding centers the USA uses. We rounded up asians in WWII, in WWI we rounded up subversives of German/Balkan persuasion, and other nationalities we didnt want to hear speak out against American Policy. Our involvement has taken us to Latin America to assist dictators, to arab nations to keep shahs in power, to asia where our need to end communism, once the great EVIL of EVILS almost destroyed a once great nation—USA. American policies were responsible for the genocide of nations of native americans, and slavery was accepted because our nation believed blacks were less than human. So what does this have to do with SpongeBob Squarepants? Maybe one should step back and read these posts, some plea for decency toward all humanity, some shout of intollerance. Realize how easy it is to catapult from being a nation of honor to a nation in fear of its own peoples differences. Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it. Lyrazel.

By Boscoe

February 3, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Norman, do you have anything useful to add? Thanks, but go get a girlfriend!

By Boscoe

February 3, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Terry, history also reports that Hitler started the war to take “Over the world”. Do you find that plausable?

By Angie

February 3, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Terry, I invision you sitting diligently at your computer typing all your key words into Google, in a desperate attempt to lend credence to your “the Holocaust never happened” theory. The silly thing is you seem to base this argument on the fact that the showers were just too little. You also say that the thousands of pounds of human hair found in the camps were a product of lice extermination. In all your omnipotence Terry, why do you think the Nazis would take care of the lice problem and not the other issues running rampant through the camp? It certainly wasn’t for their own protection against the lice. If their personal safety was paramount, they would have also been sure to take care of the myriad of bacteria and viruses making the rounds… another set of bugs that posed a very real problem for the Nazis that had contact with the Jews. No, the mounds of hair belonging to babies, little girls and boys, mothers and fathers, and their grandparents, were not shaved off in an attempt to temper the lice issue. They were shaved off in an attempt to temper the stench of burning hair and the noxious fumes that follow. It was simply to up the comfort level of the Nazis. The Jews were persecuted in big and small ways for years prior to the Holocaust. Yes, there were indeed prominent Jewish leaders who expressed outrage at this inequity. Even challenging thier brethren to boycot German industry and goods. You, Terry, will always be able to find schools of thought that wish to dilute the truth of the Holocaust. But for people that actually survived it, and chose to tell of the horrors and evil that they witnessed daily, you and your cohorts are an abomination. One more thing dear….how many do you think on this forum stayed up all night researching their responses? I can think of only one….

By RS

February 3, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

Terry, re all the stuff you quoted: Sure, believe everything you read. And you talk about the rest of us believing “fairy tales” about the gas chambers. You replied to my query of yesterday by responding that 911 stands on its own yet the Holocaust does not but you didn’t back it up, so now I ask you..why is that? Precisely what is the difference? And how can you predict the future & be so certain that our descendants will not question the fact that 911 did happen? Yes, I know, there is plenty of documentation but there also is, of the Holocaust. Maybe 60 years from now terrorist countries/sympathizers WILL insist 911 is fiction, not fact. You know, my parents always told me if you keep your mouth shut, people may only THINK you’re an imbecile but if you don’t, they’ll KNOW you are..need I say more?

By Terry

February 3, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

Of course there were “blueprints, crematoriums, showers” etc…

Of course there were because the Concentration Camps were real - they existed. They existed and housed thousands of prisoners. No doubt about that. But the existence of concentration camps, pictures of people being taken to them, pictures of piles of shoes, jewelry, etc… — is not in any shape manner or form: Proof of people being gassed in showers.

All of that stuff that supposedly proves the gassing of millions of people is nothing more than diversionary minutia. Don’t get bogged down by all of that — see the forest!

Take Auschwitz for example. It was originally claimed that 4 million people were gassed there. Yet, there are no records, witnesses or any other supporting evidence that substantiates that there was anywhere remotely close to that amount of people who were ever IN that camp - much less murdered there. Not even David Copperfield could make 4 million people magically appear somewhere, kill them all and then make their bodies magically disappear - and there be no trace of it whatsoever!

Three Civil Rights workers were murdered in Mississippi back in the 1960’s and hundreds of people searched and searched for weeks and weeks on end; combing the woods, dragging rivers and lakes - before they finally found those “3” bodies. Yet, 4 MILLION people were supposedly killed at Auschwitz and no one has ever been able to find the remains of any of that! And you may have noticed - no one, no group or organization has ever tried to look for those remains! 4 million people!!!!

4 million people somehow magically appeared somewhere, killed there - and there’s not a trace of them to be found? About the equivalent of Turner Field, filled to capacity 80 times - and somehow there’s no trace of the remains of those folks? No one has ever worked there has come forward (out of the thousands) and shown the world what happened to the remains of 4 million people? And no one has ever bothered to look?

Come on!

By Angie

February 3, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Forum friends, I say once again….it is a fool indeed that tries to reason with a fool. It yields nothing….except possibly a migraine. Terry will not change his views. He has been polluted, let us move on to the next topic of discussion. Perhaps the esteemed Ms. Glass and Mrs. Feldhahn can forge a new column for us all today. This topic for me, is closed.

By Texas

February 3, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

All you people attack Terry for making a statement about whether or not he believes people where gassed. He’s not for gassing people, he’s not in support of the Holocaust. He just wants proof. Proof exists, but for some, it takes a 2x4 to the head. 6 million Jew’s died under Hitler’s rule. Whether Terry believes that or not is his right. Nothing can change the past. It was horrible, and Terry admits that.

FACT 40 Million babies have been killed since 1973. (Six Plus times as many as the Holocaust). As ridicules you people say Terry’s comments are, isn’t it just as ridicules for other people to say ABORTION is NOT KILLING? I guess sucking a living human being out doesn’t qualify as does gassing. Fact, a person is declared DEAD when there is no brain waves. However, those same brain waves exist in a baby most of you say is not a baby. How ridicules!

Terry is being blasted for his opinion on the Holocaust which happened 60 years ago and nothing is going to change that, but you people who kill and allowing killing to take place yesterday, today and will allow it tomorrow don’t give a D*! You are the same people who called our President Hitler because of Iraq. Iraqis where being gassed. There’s proof! Where’s the outrage? Mass graves. There’s proof! Where’s the outrage? In addition, the anniversary of the Holocaust was held a couple of weeks ago at the UN. Where’s the outrage about the boycott from the Islamic nations? Aren’t they as confused as our friend Terry? But the left and the media ignored that!

Dr. Dobson was concerned that a pledge containing Sexual Diversity in elementary school. You people twist the facts and distort the truth every bit as much as Terry’s example. There’s no question people get harassed whether they be black, handicapped, gay, long hair, short hair and the list goes on. I don’t think our children in elementary school are capable of distinguishing sexual diversity at that age, nor does the good Dr. Dobson. COM’ on people, Sexual Diversity in Kindergarten. How bloody Ridicules!

By Bruce

February 3, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

What I find so unbelieveable is how we quote the good things in the Bible yet condemn the rest of it when it doesn’t suits our needs. How we say we shouldn’t believe the Bible because it was written by men a long time ago, yet we believe and live by words written by past and present scientist, or some researcher only trying to make a grade or keep their funding so they can keep a job. In one post George Carlin’s words were even used to prove a point. Come on, George Carlin?

The Bible is more that just laws or rules to live by. It provides Hope! Hope that one day things like injustice, hate, bigotry, pain and suffering will be no more. Until recently the Bible was given respect. Now we only use it, we as in everyone, when it suits our purpose. I tell you this country is going to hell in a hand basket if we don’t get back to the basics of the Bible. That being: Have no other Gods before me and love your neighbor as yourself.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

RS,

There is alot of “documentation” about alot of things that happened during that time. Tons of it. But there is no “documentation” or proof that millions of people were gassed in showers. It doesn’t exist.

Pictures of dead people at Dachau and Belsen who tragically died from diseases and starvation towards the end of the war - is NOT proof of gassings.

Pictures of piles of shoes taken from the inmates at Concentration Camps - is NOT proof of gassings.

Pictures of mounds of Jewelry - is NO proof of gassings.

Testimonies from Allied Soldiers about the horrific conditions of the camps they liberated; where piles of bodies were seen and many many others dying from starvation - is NOT proof of gassings.

The fact that there were crematoriums in the camps (for obvious reasons) - is NOT proof of gassings.

Pesticides (again - for obvious reasons) found in the camps - is NOT proof of gassings.

The claim that showers could be used as gas chambers - is NOT proof that they WERE used for that purpose.

The fact that people were split-up when they were taken to the camps (for obvious reasons - again) is NOT proof that anyone was gassed. If being split-up from a group means that you are going to be gassed - I would have been dead a long time ago!

The fact that open pits were used for burning - is NOT proof that humans were being burned in them. How many large open pits have been used in history to burn waste? Are we to believe that everyone is burning humans in open pits?

…All of those plus many other ancillary pieces of evidence - does not PROVE that millions of people were being gassed in showers. What would prove it, is the proof that millions of people were even in those camps and the remains of millions of dead bodies! Interestingly enough however - those are the things that none of the Holocaust supporters want to talk about!

For obvious reasons.

By Tim

February 3, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Texas… you are not giving children enough credit… they can be just as cruel and judgemental as anyone else… people are called f* and queer in elementary school (yes even in Kindergarten… I have heard it with my own ears) just like they are in any other grade… I applaud any group willing to teach these children about understanding and acceptance of those who are different from them

By Terry

February 3, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Some logic questions:

…As we know that anyone who doesn’t believe in the gassings during the Holocaust is a “Hater of Jews* — where does the “Hate” lie in those examples above?

By Terry

February 3, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Texas,

The fact that you believe I am foolish in my beliefs - is quite alright with me. Your perogative.

Addressing your questions. The answers to your questions are quite simple: Many people don’t think for themselves. Many people can’t put things together and reach their own conclusions - they wait to be told something and taught something. And when you don’t have the Media and Acadmia conditioning people to have certain beliefs - they can’t reach them on their own.

My previous posts are the perfect example. You don’t agree with them and that is fine, but it is preposterous, illogical and unreasonable for ANYONE to conclude that you must be a “Jew Hater” if you don’t believe in the gassings. But so many people have been “conditioned” to conclude that - and don’t think twice about it!

By RS

February 3, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Terry: Want proof of people being gassed in showers? Visit a Holocaust museum. Talk to survivors. Or are you afraid of the truth? Do you fear your twisted, anti-Semitic agenda being challenged & toppled by stark reality? Texas: The reason I’m ok with abortion & not ok with mass genocide is because 6 million HUMANS lost their lives needlessly during the Holocaust but abortion is just scraping out a clump of cells. I tried explaining that to Zack but he couldn’t process it..

By lozen

February 3, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

I agree completely with RS on the abortion issue. It is very different to me to murder a living, breathing human being and to have an abortion. A clump of cells is not a baby! If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament and men would be honored for not selfishly bringing every foetus to term! As far as the gas chambers: I wasn’t there and I don’t know. Terry wasn’t there either and he doesn’t know. I see his point about being able to state an opinion although it is an emotional minefield and he should also expect the response he’s gotten. The holocaust was a terrible example of how low men can sink. But psychologists have done experiments that show most people will torture others, under certain conditions, if they’re told to do so by an authority figure.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Angie,

Go take a look at all the pictures of the survivors of the camps that were taken right after they were liberated. How many of those folks had hair? And since we can obviously conclude that survivors were not dead and thus were not gassed - why did these folks not have hair, since you apparently believe that the only reason for the shaving of heads was so as to prevent a stench from a burning?

And why would anyone be concerned about the smell of burning hair, when the horrid smell of burning human flesh would have permeated throughout? No, your story about the hair is just another concoction that was drempt once so much hair was found. And of course the real reason for saving the hair: Wigs. It’s well documented. All you have to do is check.

And no sweetheart - I don’t have to do Google searches. I have actually studied this event for many years. Unlike the vast majority of you, who are told the most incredibly ridiculous tales and believe them because you think you are supposed to. Otherwise, you would be a “Jew-Hater”, right?

By Seaborn

February 3, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

We can cut the top off of Norman’s head and then see his brain and thus prove it exists (sorry Norman).

By Terry

February 3, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

RS,

Why would any rational person visit a Museum and talk to Survivors about whether or not millions of people were gassed? Wouldn’t it be much easier if we could have just seen the remains of MILLIONS of people who were supposedly killed?

I mean, we’re not talking about one or two bodies that could have been disposed of and no one know where - we’re talking about MILLIONS of them!

Isn’t it also amazing that one of the main pieces of so-called proof of extermination is: THOUSANDS OF SURVIVORS…?

By norman

February 3, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Hey, Seaborn! Boscoe reminds me of Hannibal Lector. He would probably like to dine on my brains, with a little Beaujolais slightly chilled.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Angie,

I almost forgot. When you mentioned the crematoriums it made me think of something that I know you’ll enjoy.

Are you familiar with the cellar room (really a mortuary) at Auschwitz which was supposedly used for the gassing of millions of people?

Here are some of the particulars of that room:

Just thought you might like to know some of the particulars of the little morgue that was claimed to have been a gas chamber for killing millions of people!

By lozen

February 3, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Weren’t the people who were gassed cremated? I’ve seen video of smoke pouring from the crematories in the camps. Where are the remains of 40 million abortions, Texas? I don’t think there were 40 million abortions. Where are the remains of the thousands who died on 9/11? Is this the same Terry who argues that Martin Luther King, Jr. never did anything good for anybody and the civil rights movement didn’t change anything? I’m guessing it is!

By RS

February 3, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Yes, Lozen, the gassing victims WERE cremated. Obviously you (& Angie) have done your homework, unlike a certain person who just runs off at the mouth in order to justify his hatred. Terry, do you really think the SS were going to leave the remains around to be seen/scrutinized? And thousands of survivors in no way is tantamount to 6 million brutally murdered.

By Whiley

February 3, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

OK so, back to the dumbest topic ever brought up. Can the Woman to Woman creators PLEASE bring up better discussions in the future? Woman have bigger issues to talk about other than homosexual cartoons. As far as the cartoon conspiracy, people see what they want to see.

Now, please start a better topic please.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Yes, the people who were supposedly gassed were supposedly cremated. But even if the bodies would have been cremated - there would have been millions of pounds of bone fragments that would have to have been disposed of. A human body cannot be burned to a fine ash. You can check that out with specialists at crematories - today.

And why would the Nazis have gone to all the trouble of cutting hair (Angie’s response), burning bodies, cleaning out the ash of the portals and then hauling that off somewhere - when all they would have to have done was take the bodies directly to a landfill and dump them in mass graves?

And are you suprised that smoke may have been coming from a crematory? Crematories are made for cremation, you know? And a good number of people died in those camps from Typhus and other diseases. That’s why the crematories where put their in the first place. Not for extermination purposes.

And those Germans must have been mighty stupid people, hunh? I mean, they had a number of crematories - and only one small room that they were supposedly using as a gas chamber. Yep, they were going to round-up all the Jews in Europe (11 million) and transport them all back to Auschwitz so that they could kill them in one little cellar.

They must have been some mighty stupid folks!

By Dustie

February 3, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Terry has every right to express his opinion. This is a country with freedom of speech. I do not agree with Terry about the Holocaust. I find anti-Semitic propaganda of any kind from anyone despicable. But Terry can express his opinion and we can disagree with him with civility and without name calling. Is that asking too much? Do you want to change our freedoms because you don’t like what is being said? Such an endeavor violates the very principles of our country. Disgust is one thing. Rejection of our fundamental laws is another.

By norman

February 3, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

With all the “data” Terry has to disprove the gassing of Jews at Auschwitz he must have access to some Holocaust-Denier webcite. They specialize in providing “proof” that the Jews made up the whole story of the Holocaust. I would have no further dealings with him. He is obviously OCD about this issue and unquestionably a Nazi.

Even Boscoe I venture to say has a more traditional, Catholic way of dealing with Jews.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

RS,

Exactly who is it - that the Nazi’s would have been worried about finding out?

The whole world knew they invaded Poland. The whole world knew they invaded Russia. The whole world knew of everything they were doing. And when you combine that with the fact that the Germans were absolutely CERTAIN that they were going to win the war - who would they have been hiding the “atrocities” from?

And if the Germans did such a good job of hiding the “atrocities” - that brings up another very good point. If the answer to every question that concerns “proof” of the gassings is that we don’t have it because the Nazis hid all the evidence - then how on earth do we KNOW that it happened?

By Terry

February 3, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Norman,

You should thank me. There are people out here siding with a lunatic like you - because of me.

Deep down though - you really do hate the Jewish don’t you? I have never once said that the “Jews” were responsible for the fiction, have I…? But you infer that because of what you have been conditioned to think about the Jews. But you’re just par for the course. It’s common for some people to want to accuse others of what they are.

It’s a barrel of laughs watching the mentalities at work. One minute demanding respect for the opinions of others - the next wanting to hang someone for those you disagree with. It’s all part of this hilarious “tolerance” pretending.

By Collin

February 3, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Ok, now. When Norman finds you inexcusable, you have really sunk to new levels. At least Norman is entertaining and at times provides a new way to slice the pie. Does this Terry have a job? And if so, you may want to update that resume’ there Terr. I don’t think you’ll have it much longer when all your productivity is dedicated to anti-Semitic rants. Angie has proven herself a lady with class and taste and has cleaned your clock for two days straight. I also include Lyrazel in that group. Very classy formation of facts and opinions. Terry, you are indeed a fool.

By Michael D

February 3, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

I must agree with Shaunti 100% on this one. The liberal left, for their “cause,” will use ANY means to subvert ANY person, anytime, anywhere. An example you ask…I saw recently a photo of the “Will and Grace” cast.

I guess Will, Graces once boyfriend, has an ice cream cone jammed in his mouth whilst the other “flighty fellow” has vanilla ice cream all over his face. Their isnt much mistake about their message.

Many would see this as passe’ or perhaps not notice at all. Yet it is nothing more than passive subversiveness. “Be ye therefore watchful…”

By RS

February 3, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Terry, well, duh, even the best-laid plans..First of all, the Nazis (who were many things, but stupid was not one of them) weren’t going to leave so much evidence should they be tried for war crimes later on. I already explained how we know these atrocities did, indeed, occur. What part of “Visit a Holocaust” museum and/or “Ask a survivor” don’t you understand?

By Adam

February 3, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Re-read Angie’s posts Terry baby. She said many times that you were very much intitled to your opinion. Doesn’t mean she has to let them go unresponded to. PLease continue to hide behind your silly wall of logic. Perhaps we will permantly lose you behind that wall.

By Tim

February 3, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Micheal D… so how did the ‘Will and Grace’ picture ‘subvert’ people?

By Terry

February 3, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

RS,

But obviously they did leave evidence - they WERE tried for War Crimes! Nuremberg ring a bell?

How can you say on one hand that they did such a good job of hiding all the evidence - then turn around and tell me that there is plenty proof of the atrocities?

Oh. Maybe I am missing something. The Nazis hid all the evidence, but the evidence is now in a “Museum”? So the millions of people who vanished into thin-air without a trace, are now to be found in a “Museum”!

And maybe you’re right, we wouldn’t need to have the evidence of millions of dead bodies - when we can just talk to “Survivors” about how they and thousands like them weren’t killed. Thousands of live people testifying to their extermination…

By Boscoe

February 3, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Can you do that yourself Seaborne? At least not without risk to Norman. He has far to many clever things to say to allow you anyway. So still you don’t truly know the answer.

By Texas

February 3, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

RS and Lozen,

Human life is considered void/dead when a person has no brain activity based on what brain waves or the lack of which are measured/registered on a EKG.

In your words that human is now a mass of tissue. (Clump of cells).

If Death is determined by no brain activity, shouldn’t life be considered life by that same measurement? How can one honestly ignore that simple fact? If you hold a persons dignity in such esteem, shouldn’t you extend that same courtesy to the unborn? You constantly stand for the rights of someone’s sexual behavior, yet, a person who is innocent has no rights?

A unborn baby at 10 weeks old has brain waves, features, sucks his thumb and is not a clump of cells you so blindly adhere too. There is proof you know! Pictures, the remains of an aborted babies. Have ya ever seen an aborted baby at 10 weeks, yet alone 16? I think you would not adhere to your clump of cell logic! (40 Million) Oh, by the way, the doctors performing those abortions must record each one, in addition, our TAX dollars are paying for most of them! Shouldn’t I have a right to stop paying for something I so disaprove of?

Lastly, answer why you think it’s ok for Saddam to gas hundreds of thousands of people, and do nothing! Why is it ok for the UN to ignore the Holocaust and then use them as our deciding factor on whether or not to protect ourselves.

Terry, I don’t think your foolish, just missing the facts you seek.

By Mac

February 3, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

I find it “par for the course” as you say Terry that you hid your views in the beginning under the guise of conducting an experiment to guage people’s levels of tolerance. I say “par for the course” because people like you are very rarely honest, that is until you have established some kind of familarity. Then you slowly let your “truth” be known. If you will page up a bit, you will find that yesterday you posted to Norman that people were ok with defacing Christianity, but that no one would tolerate defacing the memory of the Holocaust. When Angie quipped back to ask you pointedly if you were insinuating that it never happened, you shot back…”of course not”. You are nothing more than a silly little man who enjoys instigating and bating people. Your points hold as much water as cheese cloth.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Mac,

Thanks for that enlightened view. Now, would you like to try and rebut some of my points that “hold as much water as cheese cloth”…? Or do you, just like the others, simply want to call me a “Jew-Hater” and pass that off as some enlightened rebuttal?

My: “Of course not” to Angie was to state that no, of course I don’t think that the Holocaust didn’t happen. I have never said that the Holocaust in its entirety didn’t happen - just that there were no “gassings”.

And if some of you folks could think for yourself rather than trying to run to the front of the line and call me “Racist” and a “Jew-Hater”, you might have noticed that all of my comments have to do with the “gassings” and the “gassings” only.

And it’s amazingly funny that my beliefs on the gassings have never offended Jewish friends that I have had over the years, but it causes all of you who don’t even know me whatsoever - to come completely unglued! All over an event that ended over 60 years ago!

By RS

February 3, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Texas: Yes, I agree that when a person registers no brain activity, they are no longer a viable human being. I also believe that a blob that’s still a part of its host’s (i.e. mother) body is not a viable human being. Now let’s examine the lesser of 2 evils, so to speak. I’d rather see my taxes paying for abortions than the raising of welfare kids who will undoubtably grow up (well, I say grow up but nowadays those kids start their lives of crime before puberty) to kill us for our wallets without a shred of remorse, so if it’s my life vs someone like that, well, firgure it out. Terry, you dare put quotation marks around the word survivors as if they’d lie about a thing like that?!? Even from YOU, I am appalled! You may not believe their words, but the numbers tattooed on their arms tell the story. Yes, the vile beasts of Nazi Germany hid their evidence very well-at the time. But, as in the case of evil, the chickens eventually came home to roost. So keep rationalizing your anti-Semitic, homophobic agenda behind a wall of so-called “facts”. Believe me, WE all know better

By Collin

February 3, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Terry, you keep ignoring the most pressing issue here. Where do you work? I think we would all like to apply for a job that is so lax in it’s supervision that it allows us scads of time to pontificate in an online forum. Of course, you will no doubt post that you, in fact, are the boss. Somehow, I think we all know better.

By RS

February 3, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Terry, again you tripped yourself up by admitting the gassings did, indeed occur, albeit quite awhile ago. Notice you said “..event that ended 60 years ago”. Well, you must believe it on SOME level, as you did not preface the word ‘event’ with the word ‘alleged’. Anyone else notice that? And, YOU have had Jewish friends? Actually, you’ve had FRIENDS? Are you referring to people you go out for coffee with, or fanatics in Neo Nazi chatrooms?

By Terry

February 3, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

“Terry, you keep ignoring the most pressing issue here. Where do you work? I think we would all like to apply for a job that is so lax in it’s supervision that it allows us scads of time to pontificate in an online forum. Of course, you will no doubt post that you, in fact, are the boss. Somehow, I think we all know better.”

What kind of idiot would post something like that? Some nut who is obviously on the blog himself - is wondering how I can be on it. And after asking the idiotic question -answers with his own idiotic response.

My goodness.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

RS,

Quit trying to be stupid - you have enough naturally.

The “event” is the Holocaust. I don’t happen to believe that “gassings” were a part of that event.

Can you cycle that through your “mind” - without getting confused?

By Collin

February 3, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Wow, you are quick on the uptake aren’t-cha Terry? Of course I’m on the blog…we all are….but we also don’t seem to have the kind of time that you do. You respond to EVERY comment. And was it really neccessary to copy (in italics no less) my entire post? Face it man, you are a monumental idiot and a boil on all our butts.

By Mac

February 3, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Speaking of cycles, I think Terry has missed one regarding his meds. How many times do we have to tell you Terry, take your pills! You know how you get when your cycle is interrupted.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Collin,

You better get back to work. I don’t know how you can even hold a job - not if there’s any thinking involved. And take care of those butt-boils - don’t want you having to stand to post all that wisdom!

By Whiley

February 3, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

I think Barney is a Religious-Right conspiracy created to teach our kids how to act like dorks.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Jay Leno beware!

Mac - it took you an hour to come up with that juvenile response?

By RS

February 3, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Terry, you’re hardly in a position to question the intelligence of anyone else. My, doesn’t the pot just love to call the kettle black? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your extreme ignorance.

By Bruce

February 3, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

OK Girls of Woman to Woman it is certainly time for a new topic. This dead horse has been beaten enough.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

I’ve got an experiment for some of you Scholars:

Stop after work and buy a six-pack of beer - everyday for the next year. Don’t keep any receipts - and don’t tell anyone that you’re doing it.

After a year, someone is going to claim that you have been drinking every day and wants anyone who has any evidence of it to come forward with it.

See how many of your neighbors will tell how they often saw you carrying beer in to your home. Watch how many people from the store that you have been buying the beer from - can testify to you frequenting the store and buying it. The folks that pick-up your garbage would probably be able to testify about how many times there were bags filled with beer cans and bottles when they picked up your garbage. See how many other folks could swear that on many occassions you seemed intoxicated during phone conversations with them.

All of these folks’ stories could be corroborated to make the case that you were indeed drinking on a regualar basis.

Now, let’s go to Auschwitz. 4 million people were supposedly killed - but no one can testify to it.

There had to be trainloads of an average of 2,000 people (approx) arriving everyday at the camp. These trains would have stopped at several depots everyday, where workers could testify to the approximate number of cars and their loads of passengers that the routinely saw. Lots of workers at several depots. Yet, nobody could ever testify to that happening.

The trains would have traveled right through many towns and communities where literally thousands of people who lived near the rails could testify to the amounts of people they saw in cattle-cars going by on a regular basis. No such testimony.

There were numerous civilian workers at Auschwitz who certainly could have testified to the routine trainloads of that size that they saw everyday when they were there. No such testimony.

…You couldn’t go unnoticed taking home a six-pack of beer everyday, but 4 million people were supposedly being sent to a “Death Camp” right under everyone’s noses - and no one noticed it?

By lozen

February 3, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Wow, this is amazing how quickly this has degenerated into name calling and insults. I love to debate on this forum but I hate this!

By Mac

February 3, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

I just realized who Terry reminds me of. Napoleon Dynamite! “Its the worst day of my life, what the heck!” Perhaps some of you have seen it. It is highly entertaining, just like our good friend Terry

By Terry

February 3, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Have you been in a coma? These blogs are full of name-calling and insults - on a daily basis!

It’s just that you probably don’t notice them when they’re directed at Christians. Or maybe it goes unnoticed by you and yours when people are called “Homophobes” simply because they don’t agree with Gay Marriage

Perhaps it’s the accusations of “racist” that slip by you. You know who gets accused of being a “racist” right? Right - anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action

But it could be the charges of “Sexist” that get hurled at someone anytime they don’t agree with some “politically-correct” idea with the topic about women.

Or those who get accused of not caring about Senior Citizens, or whether or not the “Homeless” wither-up and die — simply because the person doesn’t agree with a particular government program that is related to either of those groups.

But I am sure you’ve noticed those who get called “War-Mongerers” - supporting the deaths of innocent children in Iraq. Just because they agree with the War on Terror

Maybe it’s the “Anti-Hispanic” insult that you’re missing. That’s the one thrown out towards anyone when they are fed-up with illegal immigration.

…Oh, there’s all kinds of insults being thrown around Lozen — it’s just that some are so routine and accepted that many of you don’t seem to notice!

By RS

February 3, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Mac, you’re right. If nothing else, Terry IS highly entertaining. How sad he doesn’t realize he’s being laughed AT, not laughed WITH. My jaw dropped when I saw the beer/mass genocide analogy. My goodness! That’s like comparing a paper cut to the Tsunami tragedy.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

RS,

You have no idea how much real “laughter” is taking place!

But let me try to help you out - because I am a good guy. The Beer story was not meant as a comparison to genocide.

It was a simple story, which I had hoped that even a simpleton might get the point. Obviously not. But of course the point was, RS, is that things don’t just happen in a vacuum. In real life, things happen and are observed by real human beings through ordinary and routine means. Stories about millions of people being murdered and no one noticed any of the events which would have surrounded the event - is for fairy tales only. They don’t happen in real life.

Millions of people don’t just magically appear somewhere, be killed - and then magically disappear.

By Zack

February 3, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

RS—There you go. You’re always trying to run someone else down, aren’t you? I guess since you and Norman don’t have any credible posts to put forth, you just stick to calling others Fascists and anti-Semitic, as well as general other insults. My, you two are desperate.

As I’ve said before, I find it ironic how you, after claiming to be fair to all, can sit quietly when Norman takes a shot at the Black community. (I’ve said it before and will again: A Jewish person who likes a Black person is a rare thing.) Maybe you and your Norman, your friend, can ride a white horse down to Alabama this weekend. There’s probably a Klan meeting down there somewhere. Oh, yeah, you wouldn’t feel welcomed because the Klan doesn’t like Jewish people, either. Well, maybe you could be exposed to some of the hatred you dish out on a daily basis, and maybe it’ll make you take a better look at yourself.

By lozen

February 3, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Texas, As a woman I’d like to remind you that women have rights now too. We are guaranteed “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. A woman cannot pursue life, liberty and happiness if she’s forced to have children she does not want. A child has little chance of happiness if that child’s mother did not want the child. A foetus (still a parasitic growth entirely dependent on the host for life and unable to live outside her body) has no rights. What you want is for that clump of cells to have rights that override the rights of the woman carrying it. Scientists do not agree that a 10 week old foetus has brain waves. Some of the anti-abortion groups show photos of 6 month old foetuses and claim they are 2 months. It is not good for anyone, woman or child, to force women who don’t want children to have them.

By Plethera

February 3, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

We have grown weary of you Terry. Your dull diatribe was endearing at first. But now, well, Terry…you must be destroyed.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

“As a woman I’d like to remind you that women have rights now too”

You have more rights than anyone else on the entire planet!

And it’s high-time to get off this “woe is us” crap.

Trying to defend the killing of a baby who can’t defend itself against the murderer, as some sort of “right” simply because you don’t want the child — is the most arrogant and self-serving thing I have ever seen!

“We should have the right to kill our baby - if we don’t want it!”

Insanity.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Plethera,

Spell out your threats for me. Let’s see what you are.

By Adam

February 3, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Fact: The Holocaust happened. Not only was it real, but millions of people did in fact die. Some were burned, gassed, starved, shot, stabbed, choked, beat…you name it. Death is death. Fact: Being gay is not a crime and/or unnatural. Its kind of like being left handed vs right handed. Righties out number lefties by the droves. But the lefties are still out there, writing at a slight slant, but writing nonetheless. Hey, someone should do a study on the correlation between the two:) Fact: Affirmative Action should be done away with. It has out lived its purpose. Minorities should be insulted that it still exists. It says that they are still somehow beneath all others and need that little hand up. Its disgusting. Meanwhile, people who are educated and experienced for a particular job are passed over because some black/hispanic/Native American/what have you was born with a certain skin color. It borders on reverse racism. Just like parachute pants, its day has left us. Fact: Illegal Immigration is (as it is at this moment) a crock of poo. Where I live, there is an automobile accident involving an illegal imigrant every week. And yes…I am talking about Hispanics. My town has built a center for them so as to expedite their opportunities for employment. But, they continue to loiter and ultimately clog our jail and ER because they have all this free time on their hands which in turn gets spent on illegal activity. My tax dollars are going to fund their inactivity! If you want to be a part of this great country…learn the damn rules of the game. My daughter, who learned to read at 4, was not allowed to do so once in kindergarten because the teacher was afraid that her reading would allienate the other children who couldn’t. Some of the other children couldn’t even speak English! My wife had to fire 32 Hispanic workers at a warehouse she recently took over the supervision of. Imagine her shock when she discovered they were all using a small variant of the same SSN!! She was literally left with 4 employees. It isn’t right that we as tax payers are paying for their idleness. There are programs that allow you to aquire citizenship….look am up! Fact: Terry wears women’s underwear.

By Terry

February 3, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Angie (Plethera),

I see you haven’t responded, so I guess I’ll close for the day and let you Scholars get back to patting each other on the back for your self-righteousness!

The study of human behavior is a wonderful thing - thank you all very much!

By Whiley

February 3, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

hehehehe ! A fetus isn’t a baby. And an apple isn’t a hamburger either.

I think there are a lot of people that can’t handle the idea that women own their own bodies & are THE ones to decide when to make a baby. That’s just a little bit too much power in a world full of controlling men.

By PLethera

February 3, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Please don’t confuse me with that passive wind bag. Your arrogance is oddly exciting though

By Mac

February 3, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Hey Plethera, don’t worry pal. We know you aren’t Angie. I think she would say (type) something if she felt like wasting her breath on this jerk. And don’t bother explaining your scheme to do away with Terry. Unless of course you have a translate to idiot button on your key board…he just wouldn’t understand.

By Collin

February 4, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

In the immortal words of Pat Benatar: We belong to the light. We belong to the thunder. We belong to the sound of the words we’ve both fallen under. Whatever we deny or embrace, for worse or for better….We belong. We belong, we belong together.

By Texas

February 4, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Good Morning All! Lozen, you certainly do have rights, and I’m sorry if I lead you to believe that I would want to limit any of your rights. I don’t! I wish you and yours happiness and peace. I would never, nor could I impact any of your rights. I understand all kinds of horrible things occur today. Incest, rape to name only a few. However, over the past 30 years, very, very few abortions have been preformed for those reasons, and even if the law would change, I believe those would still remain valid reasons for abortion.

The problem as I see it, “is Abortion on demand”. I believe there should be consequences for peoples actions. Sex in society today is certainly out of control, and we certainly do not want millions of unwanted children. The Catholic Church I attend is probably the most active not only in trying to end abortion, but when women who have aborted and suffer from the affects are always welcome to seek support through several organizations within the Catholic Church. We don’t turn our backs on anyone, we are all sinners and we believe forgiveness for those who seek atonement. Compassion, Love and Kindness are trademarks of Christians.

You have made several post condemning Christians for their hypocrisy. Using quotes such as cleaning one’s dirt prior to cleaning others, and that’s correct. When I post, I comment from the heart. I know my sins are greater and I’m certainly not Holier than anyone. I’m just advising on how I see things, and you know what they say about opinions. So when you get discouraged with one of my posts, please know that I’m not judging you or anyone, I’m just posting how I feel about certain issues. May God Bless you and your family.

By Texas

February 4, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” (Matthew 5:7 NIV)

There was once a man who owed another man a great deal of money. The borrower had been repaying his lender faithfully for several months. Then he was hurt on the job and could no longer work. He had some insurance, but it was barely enough for him and his family to survive. The lender saw all of this and, in spite of the fact that the man still owed many thousands of dollars, he instantly and quietly forgave the debt.

The quality of mercy is not strain’d. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless’d; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

The Bard certainly had it right. Mercy, indeed, blesses both the one who gives and the one who receives. Mercy is not only a quality in God, but a quality that he demands from his people.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines mercy as “compassionate treatment, especially of those under one’s power.” We are under the power of God — believers and non-believers alike. Mercy is the foundation of God’s covenant with his creation. It is the driving force that helps Him forge his relationship with His children.

Our God is a merciful God.

“I will tell of the kindnesses of the LORD, the deeds for which he is to be praised, according to all the LORD has done for us — yes, the many good things he has done for the house of Israel, according to his compassion and many kindnesses.” (Isaiah 63:7 NIV)

While God shows us mercy, He also directs us to show mercy to others. The “compassionate treatment” that defines mercy includes forgiveness. No matter what someone does to you, God directs you to forgive them and not to seek retribution.

“Do not hate your brother in your heart… Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself….” (Leviticus 19:17-18 NIV)

This familiar refrain was repeated by Jesus a thousand years later.

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31 NIV)

Forgiveness and mercy go hand in hand with both God and man. The two are inseparable because the prerequisite of forgiveness is mercy. Without mercy on earth, there can be no forgiveness in Heaven.

“For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matthew 6:14-15 NIV)

O God, Father of all things, we thank you for the infinite mercy you have shown us, your children. May we love one another as you have loved us. Give us strength so that we may forgive our transgressors as you have forgiven us. We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen

By Angie

February 4, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

I agree with you Texas. Abortion today has become a form of birth control in its own right. The problem does not lie however in banning abortion. So many think in those extreme terms. I commend you for seeing how abortion is neccessary for those girls and women who are victims of incest and rape. I feel the solution lies quite literally in even more rigorous education. To be frank, abortion will continue to happen no matter what is done. The notion of crack-pot doctors taking over the procedure is asurd at best. There will continue to be highly qualified physicians willing to perform abortions on principle. Children are learning of sex regardless of the wishes of their parents. If we can catch them early, let them know more specifically the dangers they face regarding sex….protected or otherwise…..perhaps a difference can be made. If a young woman or teenager that grows up above the poverty line gets pregnant, she often has options available to her. Frequently, these woman have access to money or others who have money that are willing to help. These women will always find a way to get the abortion. However, the women who grow up in poor minority and poor white neighborhoods tend to get pregnant much more often and have much fewer abortions. This is typically where the garndparents raising grandchildren come into play. Frequently, women and girls in these socio-economic classes have highly unstable families, almost always are without a father, and look to sex to fulfill whatever void they perceive to be in their lives. Now, the girls in the middle to upper middle class families often have the same issues. They just seem to have more options…ie..money. Like it or not, this is a social-class issue. Religion should have nothing to do with ammending abortion laws. What these girls need is confidence to say no to whatever father figure comes their way. This truly does boil down to the addage of the village raising the children . I would really like to see birth control shots being offered to some of these girls in high risk areas. The chances of them NOT having sex is very low. As a society we simply need to accept that and move on. But we can help educate them and give them a way to empower themselves. Abstinence is not realistic. Is it the preferred choice? Of course. A reality check is what this problem needs.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Good morning. Texas, you do seem to be one who really tries to walk his talk. I understand that your religion teaches that abortion, contraception and divorce are all very bad things. My spiritual path does not. In a perfect world there would be no need for abortion. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. I’ve seen what happens to children born to people who don’t really want them, and are too immature to treasure them, take care of them, love them. Quality of life seems as important to me as quantity. We can agree to disagree because I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine. Neither of us are horrible people because we disagree. We can discuss and debate issues as two civil human beings remembering we have more in common than some of our beliefs. I wish you and your family the very best.

By Zack

February 4, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Lozen—If you believe innocent children in the womb don’t deserve their constitutional right to be born, that’s a bad message to send your kids (as well as everyone else). What makes you think you are fit to have children, with this kind of attitude? It is not our place to decide who is born and who isn’t. Abortion is a civil rights issue, and as long as it’s legal, we are lying when we call America a free country. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, period. It was a very dark day in this country and in the world when this holocaust became legal.

Now we have elementary schools and cartoon characters sending subliminal messages to kids through pictures. (It’s no wonder that more and more parents are turning to home-schooling. By the way, the media would tell you that home-schooling is bad for kids. Guess what? That’s another lie. The facts don’t support that liberal statement, either.)

I’d like for naive parents to wake up and realize that something animated isn’t necessarily safe. Harry Potter is an example. So are Disney movies. You have a ton of animated filth on TV nowadays. My goodness, don’t people realize that animation can be just as bad as regular TV?

I don’t plan to patronize the pro-gay company of Disney. I don’t need ESPN commercials advertising its magazine telling me they want all homosexual athletes to come out of the closet. I don’t need ABC trying to portray same-sex couples adopting children as a perfectly-normal environment. (This, coming from the company that has televised such garbage as “NYPD Blue” and “Desperate Housewives.” Obviously, I’m not surprised.

I’m tired of the liberal agenda being force-fed to us all, and even more, I’m tired of it being sent to us in a subtle, discreet way.

By Angie

February 4, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

If you don’t like what you see in the media…and I tend to agree with you ….then simply don’t watch it. But it is not going away. I too wish that Pax was around when I was raising my children. But it wasn’t. You make due with what you have. I have no opinion on the possible evil intentions of Disney and/or ABC. But I will say this….if you make your fears known to your children regarding hidden anti-religious, pro-gay messages in their movies…they will look for it as well. Why can’t we just let our children be children? Even if such secret messages exist….do you really think your babies will pick up on them? Not likely. They are more apt to see the Little Mermaid as just that…a mermaid. Kids tend to take things at face value. Admittedly, it is your right to put whatever face on it you wish. But sometimes Zack, a mouse is just a mouse.

By Tim

February 4, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Zack… if you don’t like it then don’t buy it and don’t turn it on… you’re an adult… no one can ‘foce feed’ you anything

Paul and Jan Crouch are on a lot… may try to watch them :) (TBN)

By Tom

February 4, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Come on now people, if you are worried about a CARTOON influencing your children THAT much, maybe you need parenting class. Oh, and lets banish the tele-tubbies too….Mercy!

By RS

February 4, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Terry: Hitler’s mass genocide certainly WAS noticed, just not intercepted. The world turned a blind eye, which is just as evil as the deed itself. And why are you putting words in Lozen’s mouth? She has never said anything about killing babies. A fetus is not a baby, it is part of the host body, just like fingernails & toenails. You cut THOSE regularly right? Adam, I agree with EVERYTHING you said! I can really feel for your little girl. You know political correctness has gone too far when they drag an American child down to the level of the lowest common denominator. Those kids need to be in their own remedial English class. Although our taxes would probably have to subsidize that, as if we don’t have to pay for enough uselessness. And gee, I have no problem with Terry wearing women’s underwear as long as he doesn’t look better in it than I do (LOL). Angie, you’re right. I don’t feel kids should be having sex. At age 14, you’re going to do stupid things & for all the wrong reasons & believe me, the consequences will be dire. But let’s be reaslistic. Teens WILL have sex. And I’d rather it was without the risk of STD’s & pregnancies. Zack: Norman did NOT take a shot at the black community. You just took his remark that way; maybe YOU’RE the one with the problem? I can’t speak for every Jew on earth but I don’t have a problem with black people; ask any of my black friends. And most of the Jews I know feel as I do. Lozen would make a GREAT parent, her values are sterling! YOU may not feel it’s your place to decide who’s to be born & who isn’t, but if it’s MY body we’re discussing, it’s certainly MY right. If it’s me against a clump of cells, well then…I’m not about to ruin my husband’s & my lives for something neither of us wants. You think kids can’t sense when they’re not wanted? Guess again, buddy! And how many crack/AIDS babies have YOU adopted? Hmmm, didn’t think so. Home schooling CAN be bad or it can be good. It depends on the parents, the methods employed & whether socialization is provided for the children. I’m not surprised you see filth in innocent cartoons. My, what a smutty little mind you have. What a great career you can have writing porn. You mentioned Harry Potter. Imagination, whimsy & fantasy are GOOD for kids & Harry Potter embodies all 3. There is plenty of TV programming I don’t care for either. Know how I deal with that? I don’t watch it! But I respect the rights of others who DO. Who am I, or you, or any of us, to say who can watch what? And Disney is not pro-gay as much as pro-equality for all. My goodness, you & Terry are a perfect pair. The 2 of you should hook up & that is NO compliment.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Angie, you have a real understanding of how complicated this is. It’s a complex situation that will not be resolved by banning abortion or wishing teenagers would remain abstinent. Teenagers are having sex; teenagers have always had sex. I know a family whose sixteen year old boy and his thirteen year old girlfriend got pregnant. Being a preacher’s daughter, abortion was never an option for her. They had to get married and have the baby. Of course, neither of them finished high school. Their little girl has been brought up in poverty by two uneducated, immature, irresponsible people in a filthy trailer. They stay stoned all the time, relatives support them, they have been arrested for growing and selling pot. The grandparents got custody once, but then the parents got her back. It breaks my heart to see this pale, dirty, uncared for, love-starved child. The cycle goes on. If there had been an abortion, perhaps the parents could have finished school and finished growing up (the families are unstable and it’s not a certainty). They would have had a better chance to become independent, productive human beings. And this poor child of theirs would not have been brought up this way to continue this cycle. I don’t know how this story will end. Maybe the child will overcome all this and break the cycle. I hope with all my heart that happens, but I also know how rare it is.

By Tom

February 4, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Lozen- You hit the nail on the head. Pro-lifers should realize that if abortion becomes illegal, women will be forced to do as in the past, get it done by someone who may or may not be qualified, get it done in another country($ permitting), or break out the coat hanger.

By RS

February 4, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I hold very little hope for that poor child’s future. Sadly, you are right. In most cases of this nature, subsequent generations just follow the pattern. Of course Zack will rationalize the completed pregnancy by spouting “It’s God’s will!” (I know, it’s a SIN to do your own thinking) & who knows what kind of nonsense Terry will treat us to. I’m guessing Texas is probably thinking it might have been a good idea to give the baby up for adoption & that would have been imminently sensible, as the girl wasn’t about to have an abortion.

By Mac

February 4, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Could it be that the editor of this forum has ousted our resident racist? Good Lord, here’s hoping. Normally he would have inserted his flavor of the day venom by now. Listen….can you hear the choir of angels singing?!

By norman

February 4, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

He’ll be back, as will our medieval Catholic bigot, our bible-thumping ninnies, our paranoics, and our pharisees. And I, the only one with a bit of humor I am told, will be back too.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

You’re right Zack, a clump of cells have no legal rights. I do however, just as you do. I have every right to decide how to live my life as do all women in this country. Abortion is legal in the U.S. I remember when it wasn’t. I remember when women had coat hangers rammed up them in the 60’s and I don’t want to see that again. No woman I’ve known had an abortion without a lot of soul searching. They took responsibility and weighed the costs of taking on a very heavy committment for at least 18 to 22 years. They thought about whether they could create a good life for a child. They decided, for various reasons, that they could not. If only the poor woman who drowned all her children and her husband had done that soul searching! I admire women who realize they can’t be good mothers for whatever reason more than those who have children with no thought of whether they can give the child what it needs. Some choices in life aren’t easy but we all have to decide what’s best for us. You are a man and will never have to face that choice and it’s ridiculous for you to want to tell women what they have to do. Women should never be forced to have children.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

And Zack, I am a mother. You certainly are not qualified to judge whether I should be a mother or not! You really do think you’re god, don’t you? You are not.

By RS

February 4, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I, and really, any rational person knows you’re right & that it’s far better to not have children you don’t want and/or can’t afford but try telling that to someone whose only response is “The Bible says..” I TRY to see Zack’s & Terry’s points of view, but I physically cannot get my head that far up my you-know-where. I know Zack will rejoin us (oh, yay..) as soon as he finishes nursing the fist he injured thumping his Bible. I stated in a previous post that if Zack feels as he does, where are the legions of crack/AIDS babies HE’S adopted? Predictably, I got no response & when/if I do, it will be a load of nonsense.

By rokchik

February 4, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

It’s so odd how people believe they know the will of God, instead of trying to do what is fair for everyone.

I am much too concerned with the children who are already here than to be so concerned with abortion. They are children how are alive who are living in personal hells with abusive, negelectful, heterosexual parents. Why don’t we see marches for them?

If just for medical reasons alone, abortion has to be legal and that’s it. I get the impression from a lot of pro-lifers that they’d rather have the mother do what she plans to do in unsanitary situations with unskilled workers, where she might get an infection and/or bleed to death and tht it would “teach her”.

It’s so sad.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

RS, have you ever wondered if Zack and Terry are the same person? Maybe Terry is Zack letting his “wild” side out! Whatever, I think Zack would love to be dictator of the world. Since when did home schooling become a conservative cause? Zack said criticism of home schooling is another “liberal” thing. I know more “liberals” who are home schooling their children than conservatives.

By RS

February 4, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Good point, Lozen, except Zack is a “Christian” (& I use the word loosely), whereby Terry claims to be not religious. Yet, he’s so militantly against gay rights & abortion. And, like Zack, he displays NO logic to back up his rigid, mid-Victorian beliefs. Shhh! Zack thinks(?!?) he already DOES rule the world. Well, for some reason, he disapproves of home schooling, so that automatically makes it part of the liberal agenda.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Excellent points RS and Rokchik. Why aren’t there marches for the living abused and neglected children? How many homeless children are adopted and taken care of by the Zacks of this world? I heard a news story recently about the 520,000 adoptable children in this country. Why is there so little concern for the children who are already here? I think a lot of men who are so outraged about abortion really can’t stand the idea of women having the freedom to decide for themselves when or if they want to have children (and/or sex). And I believe as you do Rokchik, they seem to want punishment for women who dare to be sexual more than anything else.

By RS

February 4, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Lozen, Zack (aka Mr. Caveman) needs to put his money where his big mouth is!

By Bruce

February 4, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Question: If a man beats up a woman that is pregnant by him and as a result of the beating the unborn (clump of cells as you put it) dies, why is he (the man) charged with feticide? Why is it that, in this case, the unborn is considered a human being and was murdered? But if the woman, without consideration of the man desides to terminate the unborn it is called choice? After all in both cases it was just a clump of cells and they were both responsible for its conseption.

By RS

February 4, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Bruce, you’re right. He shouldn’t be charged with murder, but definately should for assaulting the lady

By Debora

February 4, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

From CNN.COM “Authorities in Florida sorted through tips Friday from as far away as Michigan in their search for a couple accused of torturing children under their care by starving them and pulling out toenails with pliers. Arrest warrants have been issued for John Dollar, 58, and Linda Dollar, Linda, 51, on one count of aggravated child abuse/torture in the cases of five children.”

Well, at least, thank God, that these kids were being raised by wonderful heterosexuals instead of gay people.

By Puck

February 4, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Lord, what fools these mortals be!

By Tom

February 4, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Bruce, a man should NEVER hit a woman. If a man were to beat a pregnant woman, he should be killed. Even if the female is welding a knife,you don’t hit her. Period!

By Debora

February 4, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Well, this gay person is going to the gym for a few hours, then put on my new size two Ralph Lauren leather skirt, a great silk shirt and top it off with a mink, jumping in my Mercedes, going to dinner where most folks can’t afford to eat on special occassions much less regulary, and then home with my wonderful lady and a gorgeous woman.

Bosco, Zack, Terry, all the rest of you homophobes, enjoy your loney weekend. Hey, I heard Swanson has out a new dinner and TNT is showing “manly movies” all weekend. Something for you lonely, pathetics to look forward to.

By Bruce

February 4, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

They should be sentenced to endure the same punishment they inflected on these poor kids.

By Tim

February 4, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Deborah… you go gurrrrl :)

By Bruce

February 4, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Tom, I carried a many a beating from my younger sister because my Dad taught me that lesson I know it too well. But I think you missed the point of that post.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Puck, Tatania wants to know, is that all you have to say?

By Puck

February 4, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

That covers it all.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Okay Puck,

If we shadows have offended, Think but this (and all is mended), That you have but slumber’d here, While these visions did appear. And this weak and idle theme, No more yielding but a dream, Gentles, do not reprehend.

By Jodi

February 4, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Bruce—I’m guessing that a lot of people see abortion and killing a pregnant woman as different situations because in the case of abortion, the woman is in control over her own body. In the case of murder, someone else (a man, usually) is making that choice. This may or may not be correct, but I think this is how people see it. Also, I think, like in the case of Lacy Peterson, there’s a difference between a 9 month pregnant woman and a two-week one. Finally, I think it makes a difference in that most pregnant women who are murdered want the child they’re carrying, whereas in abortion, many do not. I personally am pro-choice only because I’m uncomfortable making such personal decisions for someone else. I, like a lot of pro-choicers, am not pro-abortion. Abortion is horrible for mom and obviously, for baby. But I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve felt so completely hopeless, abused, or alone as to consider an abortion, so I have a hard time telling someone under those circumstances that she must have a child she doesn’t want or can’t take care of.

By lozen

February 4, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

I hope this gives everyone a good laugh until we meet again.

Heavenly Voice Mail Most of us have now learned to live with voice mail as a necessary part of our lives. Have you ever wondered what it would be like if God decided to install voice mail? Imagine praying and hearing the following:

Thank you for calling heaven.

For English press 1 For Spanish press 2 For all other languages, press 3

Please select one of the following options: Press 1 for request Press 2 for thanksgiving Press 3 for complaints Press 4 for all others

I am sorry, all our Angels and Saints are busy helping other sinners right now. However, your prayer is important to us and we will answer it in the order it was received. Please stay on the line.

If you would like to speak to:

God, press 1 Jesus, press 2 Holy spirit, press 3

To find a loved one that has been assigned to heaven press 5, then enter his social security # followed by the pound sign.

(If you receive a negative response, please hang up and dial area code 666)

For reservations to heaven, please enter JOHN followed by the numbers, 3 16.

For answers to nagging questions about dinosaurs, life and other planets, please wait until you arrive in heaven for the specifics.

Our computers show that you have already been prayed for today, please hang up and call again tomorrow.

The office is now closed for the weekend to observe a religious holiday.

If you are calling after hours and need emergency assistance, please contact your local pastor.

Thank you and have a heavenly day.

By Puck

February 4, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Ye not be tricken me to drink…….more of this poison?

By Tia

February 4, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Zack- I was ignoring you but I have to respond to something that caught my eye- I lived for many years in a very diverse community, many Jewish and Black people- all got on, no hate. Sorry to burst your bubble