View Full Version : Down with the 700 club

02-21-2002, 09:43 PM
I don't usually say things to the exreme, but I just recently saw a "report" by the 700 club, and my god......it was borderline KKK rhetoric! :mad: I've never seen anything like this... It was about Muslum AMERICANS.
They warned us that
1. Muslum Americans hate america
2. Muslum Americans "secretly" are just in the country to turn it into an Islamic nation
3. They don't support the war on terrorizm
4. Islam is a violent religion
5. Most Muslum Americans don't think Osama has anything to do with this
6. Most Muslum Americans support the terrorists.

I have never in my life been so disgusted. This was the EXACT same type of speech and propaganda that the KKK uses against blacks!
I really wish there was a way to shut down the 700 club...
I know that's harsh...but it's people like this who make honest and caring Christian people look so horrible.
I feel sorry for Christians.

Sorry....but I had to get that off my chest.


02-21-2002, 09:51 PM
Ryu, do they have a web site, someone is getting a email. I do not hate Christian, but I hate what Christianity has become because of Christians.

02-21-2002, 09:52 PM
Yes, but as a member of the 700 club, I know that I will enjoy a special seat at God's table in the afterlife while the rest of you heathens will be burning in a lake of eternal fire.

**** Heathens.

kungfu cowboy
02-21-2002, 09:53 PM
That is truly disgusting. I would not have a problem if all idots like that spontaneously combusted.

02-21-2002, 09:56 PM
Hehehe Merry.

02-21-2002, 09:57 PM
To me people like that are potentially MORE dangerous than Osama bin Laden and his Buddies.

02-21-2002, 09:59 PM
I don't know if they have a website, but I'm pretty sure they must have one. I want to send an email as well, but I feel like it accomplishes little... :(
Oh well.


02-21-2002, 10:05 PM
I agree, it will do little. I also fear I might make Moslems look bad ( I am not one ) because there will be no **** when I say "**** you!" lol.

02-21-2002, 10:06 PM
with an email. Those fu(kers can't read.

Maybe a singing telegram. Or a gangsta-rap-a-gram :D

02-21-2002, 10:07 PM
With their mass psichodomination they will buy a Tv channel in my country.

02-21-2002, 10:07 PM
People like Ryu and Respectmankind make baby Jesus cry.

**** Heathens.

02-21-2002, 10:07 PM
I don't see why you guys are reacting against THIS. It's pretty innocuous compared to most of their claims. Remember, these are the people who said the real people behind Sept 11th were "the gays."

02-21-2002, 10:11 PM
Your about to get a can of a little some'en some'en opened up on you.

02-21-2002, 10:15 PM
One of my ex-girlfriends used to offer up a little some'en some'en, and I was happy to get it.

Somehow, I don't think that's what you meant.


Respectmankind--you can get back into good graces by sending the 700 club a LOT of money. Don't you know they have a monopoly on the truth?

Geez... some people...

02-21-2002, 10:20 PM
Monopoly is fun, except when I am not the one monopolising. I wonder if I should establish a Bahai TV show that says the terrorist bs about 700 club. P.S. I like that kinda some'en some'en. Eskimo kind is best.

02-21-2002, 10:21 PM
This is a story about why idiots like these guys DO make a difference even on other sides of the world. They should be shut down and thrown in jail. Free speech does not give you the right to slander another race!

I know a VERY good professional comic by the real name of Akmal Saleh. I used to work with Akmal and at first he went by the name of Peter, when i questioned him on this he explained to me that orginaly he had not been able to get bookings with an Arabic name so he had changed it to Peter.
The topic came up again after work one night sitting around having drinks, me and a few other work friends including the manager were able to convince Akmal to go back to using his real name as by this stage he was famous and no longer had any problems getting bookings as his own reputation was enough.
He agreed and went back to Akmal feeling much better about being able to finaly use his real name.

After the Sep 11 stuff he has had to go back to using Peter, again people are not so hot on booking a comic with an Arabic name as they figure that people will not come along to see the show.
This disgusts me and i cant even begin to imagine how my poor friend Akmal feels about it all, as per usual he simply smiles and makes a joke of it.

This is what is wrong with the rubbish and lies that these people propagate. Whilst we all pretend to be above it there is STILL an effect on peoples judgements.
I feel very deeply about this issue and would LOVE to be able to give such people a first hand discription of my views...

02-21-2002, 10:26 PM
It was Jerry Falwell who blamed 9-11 on the gays. Up until that point I believe he was on good terms w/Pat Robertson, but not part of the 700 club. After Jerry's gay-bashing tho everyone denied ever knowing the guy. HAHAHA.

Of course, this is only my feeble understanding of Xian politics so righteously taking a stand.

However, I did read later (coupla weeks?) that Falwell,jr made a plea to their membership begging for funding (after Jerry,sr apologized) so they could continue to do 'God's Work'. It wasn't well received. HAHAHAHA.


02-21-2002, 10:30 PM
LOL, MerryPrankster are you on something tonight??
Oh well, you put me in a better mood anyway. :D


02-21-2002, 10:31 PM
My bad. You're totally right. I guess I get my mainstream religious fanatics confused. ;)

02-21-2002, 11:20 PM
I in no way connect myself to the kind of creatures that watch the 700 hundred club. My Value (yes I do have them) are not at all the same. Even though I can switch between worldviews.

My gut reaction is that they are for ill bred white trash who vote republican even though they get fuked by it and are easilly hypnotized when people say, "familly values" or "free trade" Some of them are nice, loving people that just havent evolved. These people have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity helps people link up to God, and that never causes anything but goodness. Its when they use Christianity to link to a subculture that creates some social darwinism. They must win people over to "christianity" which is really just a code word for their stagnant, ass backwards subculture.

These folks are the last to stop saying "nigg_er", the last to mean it, the first to bring hate and seperation all to preseve their pathetic subculture, with invented roots that don't lie in Christianity or their European herritage.

For God's sake, look at their hair. Some people sport beards or dots, but for those big blonde hairdo's just have to go.

Whats with that beady eyes guy, his eyes always look shut. I've often wondered if he wasn't really a puppet. Not figuratively, I'm talking made by Jim Henson. A muppet.

Well I'm gonna read the Koran and go to sleep.

It reads smoother than the bible, and is basically the same. Women below men, God is awesome and will kick your ass...the usual. It reads like prayer.

I don't trust the biblican cannon, I pick and choose my holy books and interpret them as far as my insight will allow.

02-21-2002, 11:23 PM
Some fat old white guy with silver hair and a fake tan yelling at you.

You ever see the guy (Robert Tilton?) who asks specific people in the TV audience to place their hands on the TV screen to be healed?

"I want Betty Bumpas in Tulsa, OK to grab hold of her TV. Thats right take HOLD of it right now! There are DEMONS inside of you EATIN on your KIDNEYS! I'm gonna break those SATANIC kidney stones into POWDER with the power of JAYSUS-UH!"

What a fu(kin nut job. All those guys need to ride thru the soopa D-Lux hot wax car wash on skateboards.


02-21-2002, 11:27 PM
what is wrong with jaysus-uh? sure he isn't anything like jesus, who he was ripped off of, but comon, he has his perks. like racist white retards who think they know jack.

02-22-2002, 12:21 AM
Saaaav meeee JEEEE-BUSSSSS!:rolleyes:

02-22-2002, 12:48 AM
I love that episode.

02-22-2002, 02:10 AM
"To me people like that are potentially MORE dangerous than Osama bin Laden and his Buddies"

Yep,I heard ole Pat took up flying lessions not too long ago,which reminds me of a story about planes.

The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are a short-tempered lot.
They not only expect one to know one's gate parking location but how to get
there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that
we(a PanAm 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground
control and a British Airways 747 (call sign "Speedbird 206") after landing:
Speedbird 206: "Top of the morning Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of the
active runway."

Ground: "Guten morgen! You vill taxi to your gate!"

The big British Airways 747 pulled onto the main taxi way and slowed to a

Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know vare you are going?"

Speedbird 206: "Stand by a moment ground, I'm looking up our gate location

Ground (with some arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, haff you never flown
to Frankfurt before?"

Speedbird 206 (cooly): "Yes, I have, in 1944. In another type of Boeing, but
just to drop something off, I didn't stop."

Merryprankster,Amen Brother!!

02-22-2002, 07:17 AM
Everyone should be allowed to say what they want, even if it's stupid. It's one of the things that makes our country great. They can say what they want, you can call them idiots. It's beautiful.
If you start restricting ANYONE'S freedom to speak it sets a dangerous precedent, and your right to speak may be curtailed later.
Just my opinion, worth about what you paid for it...

02-22-2002, 07:20 AM
Anybody who thinks we don't have our own little Taliban right here in the good ol' United States of America hasn't seen five minutes of the 700 Club.

I still say that Jerry Falwell and his lap dog Pat Robertson should be shot for saying that the attack on the WTC was caused by ****sexuals, feminists, liberals, humanists,--basically anybody who wasn't Southern White Baptist.

These people are ignorant, narrow-minded, intolerant racists and they too should be scourged from the face of the earth. Trust me, we'll all be better off if they were.

02-22-2002, 07:25 AM
I don't think the fundamentalist christians are as benign as some believe believe. These people slither there way into politics and DO have some influence. Pat Robertson and the 700 club are quite funny but at the same a bit scary. Have you ever
watched their Christian news reports?? ;) If you think the regular news is bad, just sit through one of these segments. Talk about propaganda.
I remember Falwell's abhorrent comments he issued THE DAY AFTER the attacks on the WTC. Something about how we had it coming....God is angry about the gays or some sh*t. Is there anything that is more contradictory to true Christian precepts than that?? If there ever was a modern day candidate for crucifixion he is it. I don't view Falwell or his peers any differently than I view leaders of Aryan skinhead groups. Really, the only difference is that Falwell is more respected and gets
national airtime.
Is anyone familiar with TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network)?? This is another rather disconcerting situation. It is basically a brainwashing christian network that is constantly bringing in obscene amounts of money from it's sheep and other large $$
supporters. Do you realize they have there own satellites that are up in orbit spreading there disease to the far reaches of our planet?? They send large groups into 3rd world nations to "save" the savages. This kind of thing really makes me sick. I'm not a paranoid conspiracy type or anything but it really concerns me. Not only that but these organizations are tax-free like every other church. Gee, think it's time for that law to change??
Christianity, while maybe valid years ago has now become a plague on our society. When I see the masses of people who have become brainwashed I sometimes question my faith in humanity. I mean, it's the year 2002 and people are still living by
the whole fire and brimstone thing.
I should stop writing now, one of the TBN satellites is up there right now watching everything I do and recording my every keystroke ;)

Chang Style Novice
02-22-2002, 07:29 AM



You make the call!

02-22-2002, 07:30 AM
Please don't confuse these TV preachers with true Christians.

Some people just flatout have the wrong idea.
There was this guy out in Mesquite,TX right after 9/11, started going to convenience stores capping everyone of Middle-eastern descent.
In fact everyone who even looked Middle-Eastern or had brown skin.
He's in prison now & insists he's The True American.
Man, The good people of Mesquite are gonna miss him.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Chang Style Novice
02-22-2002, 07:33 AM
Oh, come ON! That's a real URL! I wanted people to see that.

This censorship stuff is really getting annoying.

02-22-2002, 07:43 AM
"For God's sake, look at their hair. Some people sport beards or dots, but for those big blonde hairdo's just have to go." --Stacey

Ever check out that 80-year old pink-haired b*tch with the inch-thick makeup and the false eyelashes on Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)? She looks like the oldest and ugliest wh*re in the world. She makes Tammy Bakker looke like Miss America. These people are a scream. Unfortunately, it's not a scream of merriment, but a scream of terror when you realize just how hateful and arrogant they all are.

And, no, they are not indicative of how most Christians think and believe. But they are true to Southern Baptist Dogma--which is nothing more than an American Taliban trying to dress itself up in acceptable terms.

Praise Jay-zus! Write me a $500 check and you will be HEALED!

02-22-2002, 07:47 AM
By the way, that godhatesfigs.com site is freakin' hilarious!:D Check out the FAQ for some real belly laughs!:D

Thanks for that link!:D

02-22-2002, 07:51 AM
Chang Style, where do you find that sh!t?

Hillarious. Truly.

Now, on to the matter at hand,

Ryu, can you or someone else PLEASE get me a copy of that report. There are quite a few laws now, even in Texas, that would put significant pressure on and or litigation against any organization that was inciting fear that could incite the nation's citizens to "hate crimes".


Chang Style Novice
02-22-2002, 07:57 AM
Glad you guys enjoyed that. As usual, I didn't find it myself, it was passed along from other internet buddies.

Personally, I think both sites make equally valid points!

02-22-2002, 07:58 AM
Let 'em know god hates intolerant freaks, and they will burn in hell for the hatred they preach unless they REPENT!!

700 Club "Contact Us" page with snailmail, email, and phone numebrs (http://web.cbn.org/cc/contact/feedback.asp)

Let 'em know it's never too late to make amends by sending money to my favorite charity, me. Heck I'll even make it easy for 'em, set up a webpage with PayPal and everything.


02-22-2002, 08:01 AM
Yea that pink haired thing is scary & she does make Tammy Baker look...No their both Butt-Ugly.
They make Bozo look pretty good though.


norther practitioner
02-22-2002, 08:07 AM
I wonder what type of devil I portray to them, at the end of the message there was a big fat aumitofu, with a translation.
(church lady)
Who is behind this......SATAN.....or buddha.....sounds like both are.......SATAN

Black Belt Jones 1
02-22-2002, 08:15 AM
.".free speech doesn't give them the right to slander other races."

If it didnt then it woulnt be free. Free speech was never meant to be defined by political correctness. Thats just a current trend.

Sam Wiley
02-22-2002, 11:50 AM
One thing about exercising free speech and defending the Constitution at the same time is that you must be willing to defend the free speech even of those who utilize it to spread a message that you have spent your life trying to convince people and believe in your heart is wrong. You can't have it any other way; you can't say that free speech is free to one and not to another, simply because their worldviews, political opinions, or beliefs, etc. differ from your own or even diametrically oppose your own. Suppress one voice, and you suppress them all; Americans refer to themselves as "we" the people, not "I" the person.

Pontificating aside, I say these guys should be burned at the stake. I'm going for my torch and pitchfork...who's with me?! Burn them! Burn the witches!...I mean, Christians!

The longer this goes on, and they are allowed to say their piece, the more people will see them as they are. And soon enough, Christianity will be on its way out the door, along with these clowns. Just keep church and state separate, and everything will be alright.

And maybe those concerned should write to the networks responsible for airing this trash anddemand that these HATE GROUPS have their programming taken off the air.

Only problem with that is paragraph one above. But it's also a blessing. Equal time for opposing viewpoints must be allowed. DEMAND IT! DEMAND TIME FOR YOUR VIEWPOINT! And for those interested, Radio 666 and Free Thought Radio air some very nice shows with opposing viewpoints. You guys should check them out.

One last note: The first rule of the theatre is, "SPEAK LOUD ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR YOU!" If you want your message to be heard and to make a difference, then SPEAK UP, SPEAK OFTEN, and SPEAK TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE WILLING TO LISTEN! Don't bother trying to get those people to change their opinions, because it ain't gonna happen! Get the people controlling the airwaves to listen to you and yank that crap off the air! Speak loud enough for your voice to carry to the people in power and change THEIR minds, or at least pressure them into doing what YOU want! If enough people SPEAK UP at once and speak LOUD enough, then you have a better chance of being HEARD!

02-22-2002, 12:03 PM
I just emailed them this message on their website:

The 700 Club is a bunch of biggoted a$$holes. Get a life and welcome to the 21st century.

02-22-2002, 12:42 PM
"Suppress one voice, and you suppress them all..." -Sam Wiley

Well said.

02-22-2002, 12:46 PM
Yes, in this country everyone has the right to voice his own opinion. But that DOESN'T mean I have to respect the contents of the message.

Unfortunately, a lot of people get the two confused...

02-22-2002, 12:48 PM
Swearing at them doesn't really help all that much. Probably just makes them feel more right. I agree about calling the station itself though...

My head's pretty full, I think I'll take a break.


02-22-2002, 12:53 PM
I bookmarked his comments, because they were so funny. I sent several emails to them, unfortunately, nobody responded, haha.

02-22-2002, 01:44 PM
Sometimes it is good to see stupid comments put out by the $700 club. They show the rest of the world how not to be. We are seeing in action what happens when people say hateful things. I believe they have turned a potentially great religion into $, greed, selfish, hatemongering cult (big cult). Deviants like the $700 club allow the "average" person to determine that the extreme and stupid actions are not to repeated and must be wrong.

What a bunch of ****s. They are making christianity (christ like) look bad. I guess that is why there is a movement(s) away from religion and more towards a relationship with God, Jesus, Allah, etc.

JWT, can they be labled a hate group? Or is there too much money backing them?

Peace to all but the $700 and evil folks...which would apparently include the 700 folks.

02-22-2002, 01:57 PM
Luckily for us non-morons, along with freedom of speech comes the right to bear arms!!!

02-22-2002, 02:29 PM
They can definately be labeled a hate group. They are a political pariah.


02-22-2002, 03:24 PM
I agree Budokan. My comments have been mostly directed towards those who indicated that the 700 club shouldn't be allowed to say what they want. If someone doesn't want to hear what they have to say, don't read the article or view the webpage...or just turn the channel.
Just for the record, I think they are ridiculous, close-minded and hurt the cause of Christianity...which almost anyone will agree is a message of love. I'm not a Christian myself, but I have enormous respect and close dealings with many who I'm proud to say aren't cut from the 700 club cloth.

02-22-2002, 04:06 PM
"Just for the record, I think they are ridiculous, close-minded and hurt the cause of Christianity..."

The problem with the old "turn the channel" argument (also for raunchy entertainment too) is that is suggests that everyone is an upstanding, educated individual who would rightfully know that something is "wrong" and therefore won't want to be a part of it. That's obviously not the case, and there are people out there who can be harmed by cults, hate rhetoric, etc.
Children too who are exposed to it know no real difference. "The adults say it so it must be true".
I'm not saying free speech isn't a wonderful thing, but just like any extreme how far does it go?


02-22-2002, 04:20 PM
What about start our own hate group against the fake christian cults, the KKK, NAMBLA, Nsync, Rosie O'Donnell, Police Academy movies, Etc.


Sam Wiley
02-22-2002, 04:22 PM
There is a Children's show on TBN (I think) aimed at brainwashing children. It indoctrinates them with the producers' sad view of reality. It even includes sorry Disney wanna-be full-body costumed actors and already-indoctrinated children interacting in some disturbing ways to make television viewing children let down their guard and accept the message with an open mind. Sadly, this program is considered "quality" television programming. Imagine that.

Children are not to be programmed. They are to be left alone until they decide what it is they want to believe and practice.

Sam Wiley
02-22-2002, 04:23 PM
Doesn't NAMBLA sponsor that children's show I talked about above?;)

02-22-2002, 05:09 PM
That's exactly my point. An educated adult might say "bah, this is no good" and change the channel. Good for him.
But a child will not and probably cannot make such a critical judgment. Therefore why should children be exposed if they cannot simply say for themselves "better change it."
It's the same for raunchy television and stuff too. Of course adults have to make their own decisions, but the "change the channel" argument implies all parents are educated and moral enough to do it. Some don't care, and let their small children watch whatever they want. Is that the child's "decision"?
Censorship is a dirty word, but one has to take into consideration ALL variables in something like that.


02-22-2002, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Badger
What about start our own hate group against the fake christian cults, the KKK, NAMBLA, Nsync, Rosie O'Donnell, Police Academy movies, Etc.

Police Academy Movies? Those are fightin words my friend. Where I come from people get shot for making derogatory comments towards Police Academy movies. You have been warned!:)

02-22-2002, 06:30 PM
But, but, BUT!
Yeah ok, your right thats all i got:(

I just wish people didnt use freespeach as a viel to launch racial attacks. Its a catch 22 and we are now starting to see just how nasty the flip side really is.

02-22-2002, 06:38 PM
CamWorld: "The only thing I hate worse than porn spam is religious spam" (http://www.cambarrett.com/misc/religious.spam.html)

02-22-2002, 07:35 PM
I will ask Benny Hinn to pray for your souls.

**** Heathens.

02-22-2002, 08:11 PM
Here's an idea...let's put Pat Robertson in a room with a 24 hour feed of "Irresponsible Hate Song" by Marilyn Manson.

"I'll hate the haters....I'll rape the rapers..."

Sounds fitting, no?

On a sidenote, I heard that after 9/11, Robertson and Falwell and their other h.ellspawn were quoting some biblical passage that claims this happened because "God turned his back on America and this happened as it happened to Sodom and Gomora...because there were no righteous people left..."

Last I checked, they lived in America too, so doesn't that include them?

"Greetings Marklar, I am Marklar. Welcome to Marklar!"

02-22-2002, 08:48 PM
Freedom of speach is no excuse for hateful speach, until everyone takes it aopn themselves to change their actions and speach there will be no peace. Freedom of speach being an excuse to display hate is bull**** and we all know it.

02-22-2002, 08:58 PM
Ya gotta be sneakier, I just posted this.

I had always thought that Muslims worshiped The God of Abraham and Moses.
Thanx to your show, I no longer beleive that lie. They are a hatefull group and I believe that God will kill them all through his holy vessel, the United States of America. I have read parts of the Koran, and although they sound exactly like Psalms and other Old testament books, they must be of Satan because Arabs are subhuman to Prodestant Aryans. Your show has oppened my eyes.
Praise the Lord,

Samuel Churchill.

02-22-2002, 09:47 PM
I wish I liked you better, princess - that was actually funny. But you're still a twit.

02-22-2002, 10:30 PM
But not a "twat", right Jas? :D

Stace, you're growing on me. LOL Better quit.


Black Belt Jones 1
02-23-2002, 07:24 AM
I respect your comments on this thread and I consider you to be a very good poster so please dont take this post the wrong way. But I must take issue with your statement

"Children are not to be programmed. They are to be left alone until they decide what it is they want to believe and practice."

Now I don't want to jump the gun and infer something that you didnt intend, but children, no matter what culture or social class they are from are ALWAYS programmed by their parents in one form or another. Christians will raise their children according to what is their individual belifs just as redneck white trash parents will program their kids to be racist, n!gger hating thugs, as terrorists will raise theirs to hate jews, the west etc... No children the world over are exempt from some entity vieing for their attention. Today too many special interest groups realize, as Hitler did, that the success of their cause depends on indoctrinating the youth. IF children are "left alone" to decide what is right for them in effect your jusrt turning them loose into a den of wolves waiting to sink their teeth in. The two kids who shot up Columbine were, by definition, "left alone" by their parents. Now I dont agree with every sect of the Christian group but I'll bet that the outcome might have been different had these two went to church and had some kind of moral guidance. AS for kids being indoctrinated by progermas such as the 700 club. Honestly, what kid is gonna sit down and spend an hour watching Pat Robertson and even halfway comprehend or at least care what he says or thinks? As a father, I know that children need guidance or they run amuck and turn into the very types of people that we often complain about on this forum. i went to school with two twin brothers whose mother would never discipline them no matter what they did. She was well off and used her influence to get them out of every scrape at school that they ever gort into. Now one is dead and the other is serving a life sentence in federal prison. I think that regardless of the ineptness of the parents and in spite of how you agree/dissageree with their personal beliefs that it is the parents responsibility to raise their children. I adhemately oppose the current trend in our nations schools to push gay and lesbian based material into the classrooms of public schools. Children are very impressionable and sexuality is an extremely touchy subject especially for those who are not at the level of maturity of comprehending what it entails. Like it or not, gay and lesbian groups are special interest groups, as are churches which are not allowed into the classroom (or shouldnt be) either. Would you want an executive from Enron soliciting your children at his or her school and having programs to Boost PR? Hell no, and these groups shouldn't either.

Sam Wiley
02-23-2002, 09:50 AM
Kids don't watch Pat Robertson or any of that other trash on television. They watch children's shows. And those networks are producing children's television shows in order to brainwash children now. While I doubt most children watch them at all, they ARE Barney-esque, and smaller children will be sucked in. That's the plan, "hook 'em while they're young."

I don't mean left alone as in left to fend fo themselves. And I don't mean left alone as in their parents not having any influence. Guided by their parents, sure. Given a basic set of principles to go by, yes. Taught to think for themselves, most definitely. But programmed with a set of pre-fab morals, slapped with a label and all the baggage that goes with it, and made to accept whatever they are told to...that's where I disagree. These people are doing this to line their own pockets and to make sure that they have sheeple for years to come to keep them filled.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about Columbine and those two kids. Do you know what one of them asked a girl not long before the affair ended? He said, "do you believe in God?" When she answered in the affirmative...he shot her in the head! Do you know what that's a sign of? Having had enough! It's an indication that his parents and others tried to control him, his thoughts, beliefs and decisions. It's a sign of others having too much influence over him and he knew it and rebelled! Maybe if his parents hadn't shoved their own belief system down his throat he wouldn't have spit it back in their face and maybe the world wouldn't have caught the splash.

The reason people are introducing gay and lesbian based material into schools is because they want kids who are discovering their sexuality to know that they can be honest with themselves. In the past people had to repress their sexuality if they weren't straight. And it led to far more problems than letting them know they have nothing to hide. They're not recruiting. You don't just turn gay. That's stupid. But whatever.

Here's the bottom line: If you don't want your kids to learn the way they do or the subjects they do in public schools, then you have two choices here. Private schools, where they'll not only be indoctrinated but also made to look alike and act alike. Or home schooling, where you can safely guide them, teach them to think for themselves, and make sure they're not brainwashed. Just talk to the people in charge, prove you're not a moron, and home school them. Don't have the time to home school them?...then you don't care enough, because there is always time.

02-23-2002, 10:52 AM
"It's an indication that his parents and others tried to control him, his thoughts, beliefs and decisions. It's a sign of others having too much influence over him and he knew it and rebelled! Maybe if his parents hadn't shoved their own belief system down his throat he wouldn't have spit it back in their face and maybe the world wouldn't have caught the splash. "

I was with you there up until this point. :) I disagree that the actions of those kids were simply because they "rebelled against indoctrination." Not only is that very broad statement, but it almost gives the kids a "Robin Hood" type flare that I'm sure you didn't mean. I have also rebelled against belief systems, cultures, etc. But I don't take a gun and kill innocent people.
There's more to it than just that.


Sam Wiley
02-23-2002, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Ryu
I was with you there up until this point. :) I disagree that the actions of those kids were simply because they "rebelled against indoctrination." Not only is that very broad statement, but it almost gives the kids a "Robin Hood" type flare that I'm sure you didn't mean. I have also rebelled against belief systems, cultures, etc. But I don't take a gun and kill innocent people.
There's more to it than just that.


According to those two kids, the ones they shot were not innocent. Maybe the statement seems broad because your perspective is narrow.;)

Chang Style Novice
02-23-2002, 11:19 AM
There is no such thing as freedom without responsibility. If you seperate responsibility from freedom, all that is left is licentiousness.

That said, I am pretty close to being a First Amendment (that is; freedom of speech and the press) absolutist. In my opinion, all citizens should be absolutely free to say or publish whatever they want, and absolutely responsible for the consequences of what they say or publish.

02-23-2002, 11:47 AM
I adhemately oppose the current trend in our nations schools to push gay and lesbian based material into the classrooms of public schools. Children are very impressionable and sexuality is an extremely touchy subject especially for those who are not at the level of maturity of comprehending what it entails.

I fervently hope you never have children who are born gay. Kids know what they feel, when something is right or wrong for them. You can't shield them from their own feelings. This "blinders-on" attitude is precisely why the suicide rate among gay teens is 10 times higher than in straight teens.

How would you like to be told incessantly by everything and everyone around you (the media, your peers, strangers on chatboards) that who you fundementally are is not acceptable? Did you "choose" to be straight? Would anyone actually "choose" a "lifestyle" that carries such incredible hatred attached to it? Who the hell would voluntarily "choose" to be attacked, verbally, emotionally, and physically by society at large??

Re-think this one. You are indulging in a hateful, harmful prejudice. Please move into the 21st century with the rest of us. :D

02-23-2002, 12:01 PM
Sam, read the signature at the end of my posts. :) Just because those kids thought that doesn't make it so. It's that kind of relativism that brings about all that kind of violence anyway. Maybe deal with the issue itself next time instead of just attacking my "narrow perspective"? ;)

"How would you like to be told incessantly by everything and everyone around you (the media, your peers, strangers on chatboards) that who you fundementally are is not acceptable?"

I'm not gay, but I definitely know what this feels like.
A lot of people probably don't know exactly how it feels to continually search for meaning in life, morality, philosophy, theology, etc...
It can get pretty frustrating. The above quote can be literal of lots of people, and not just ones who are gay.

No real point to that, just making an observation. :)


Sam Wiley
02-23-2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Ryu
Sam, read the signature at the end of my posts. :) Just because those kids thought that doesn't make it so. It's that kind of relativism that brings about all that kind of violence anyway. Maybe deal with the issue itself next time instead of just attacking my "narrow perspective"? ;)


They believed it and therefore it was so. Perception is reality. Think about it, what was real to them is fake to you and a lot of other people. But what is fake to you is also real to someone else still. "Belief" is a very powerful thing. What makes you believe that the man in the gutter proclaiming himself a king isn't? Does it make him any less of a king if he has no subjects? What if he has subjects? Are they crazy for believing him to be a king? Do you still believe that he's a crazy bum? More important than that: what if you are the one who is crazy for believing he's not a king?

2000 years ago, a man proclaimed himself the Son of God. People thought he was crazy. They even executed him. He had followers, though, this bum. In fact, today people actually worship him. Are you saying that these people are crazy for worshiping a dead bum? Was he crazy for believing he was the Son of God? Are his followers crazy for believing this bum was the Son of God? Or are you crazy for believing he was not?

What if all it takes to make something real is belief? Is it any less real to the man who believes simply because you do not? What exactly is real, and upon whose word are we to take something as real? What if he was the one who was crazy? Does it make you crazy to accept his word? Or blind?

I'll tell you what is relative, here. What is relative is your idea that, simply because you fall into the opposite category as them it is your opinion that is right, your morals that are correct, and your point of view that should be adhered to. By saying that things are not "so" simply because they believed them to be, is attempting to make things "so" simply because YOU believe them to be. That is also relative. And therefore, your perspective is narrow; just as narrow as theirs.

The issue is not whether the kids they killed were innocent, as you claim they were. The issue is whether the two who killed them believed they were innocent or not. They did not believe that. And the issue is whether or not their actions were the result of rebelling against oppression, or lack of it. Eric Harris' writings say to me that he felt oppressed by people he viewed as inferior and stupid (since he states it plainly), and he lists their transgressions, for which he believed they should receive the death penalty. He also clearly lists his reasons for doing what he eventually did, one of which is seeing what he loves disgraced, another of which is constant criticism from those who were supposedly his "peers," as well as betrayal and being labelled as something he wasn't. And the "theme song" for these kids' spree, Stray Bullet , includes obviously anti-Christian lyrics, so nobody in their right mind would say that religious oppression didn't have a hand in creating these monsters. If you want to solve a growing problem, you must cut the root. The people killed were at the root of his problems, at least according to him.

Now, what made him have a problem in the first place? Let's start with Christianity, so prevalent in our society that we can't even maintain separation of church and state. Don't think so? Look at our currency, where you will find the statement that Americans believe in God. Listen to the revised version of the Pledge of Allegiance, which children across America are expected to recite every morning in school, "one nation under God , indivisible..." Automatically labelled a believer simply by being a citizen. Can't have the "liberty and justice for all" part of that pledge if you automatically label everyone something they're not, now can you? Especially not if immediately after labelling them as such you also label them as a part of the indivisible whole! That diametrically opposes the first amendment's guarantee of "pursuit of happiness" when it affects a person's life as Harris felt it did his. He wasn't part of the group, and was punished for it. So he decided to punish the group. The punishment he outlined in his writings for those who transgressed against him was death.

Should Harris and Klebold have payed for their crimes had they lived? Yes, by all means. A person must be responsible for their actions, and that includes paying the price for whatever those actions might be. (And in the case of the people Harris and Klebold felt had betrayed or punished by, that price turned out to be death.) Harris and his friend knew the consequences for their actions and prepared ahead of time to take matters into their own hands on that account as well. However, if we really want to keep this from happening again, we must be diligent in our efforts to make this society live up to the standards it set for itself, including guaranteed rights. Part of that effort must be to find the cause of society's problems and eradicate them. It does no good to continue treating th symptoms if the disease goes uncured. And part of the responsibility for society's problems fits squarely on the shoulders of the Christian religion, which is responsible for much of the oppression going on in America today. Christians start brainwashing people while they're still children, imposing a set of beliefs and values on them, and when they begin to grow out of those set boundaries, questioning those beliefs or coming to grips with the fact that they can't live up to those values or that no matter what they do they always will fit into a group deemed as "evil" or "perverse," that's when the problems start.

Sound like I'm blaming a broad institution? Yes and no. I also blame the ones forcing this abhorrent, messianic, decrepit prejudice masquerading as a benevolent religion. They, too should pay for their actions, and they too should be held responsible for what their actions and words have set in motion.

02-23-2002, 02:41 PM
"They believed it and therefore it was so"

Some people believed the world was flat. It's not so.
Some people can believe 2+2=5. It's not so.

What you have just said there is vastly extreme, and does not in any way try to find anything within a given situation. If everything is "right" because someone believes it than why bother doing anything? Why even have this discussion? who cares what you and I say? It makes no difference because there is no "truth". Moral relativism is a fallacy and it's a proven fallacy in the higher levels of philosophy and sociology. Relativism is a contradiction in itself considering that "there is no truth" cannot be true according to its very premise. It's simply a big paradox and nothing real or rational can be taken from it. It helps no one.
To simply attack me and put words in my mouth is nothing but another fallacy. Deal with the issues at hand. I'm not insulting you, nor do I intend to. I don't have to because I have a solid argument. When we talk about reality and perception we have to distinguish between "perceptive reality" and true reality. Every scientist in the world will tell you that there is indeed true reality around us. The world would exist (and has for billions of years) without us and our "preceptions" about it. Doesn't mean the world isn't real, and anyone who claims otherwise is not really holding up to what is already proven fact in science. Somewhat silly in my opinion.
Indeed these kids believed a perception of someone. However I can have the preception that all blacks are gangsters, and all Asians have bucked teeth but that doesn't make it "real" in reality either.
Asking rhetorical questions about belief patterns, Christ, Buddha, their followers etc is not "reality"
There is realism involved with our world. Like it or not. Perception or not.
Yes my view and others views oppose the views of the columbine kids, but that doesn't mean we throw out all views all together and say "well there is no truth" That is simply folly, and also is running away from real issues. To find truth in reality, sociology, philosophy, and human behaviors we must study, refine, test, understand, and have precepts that can be challenged.
If we don't do that then we should simply stop thinking all together...because thinking is just our "preception" and should not be given any "real" credit.

On a final note. When one rejects the search of truth completely, says "well no one is right or wrong" and that "everyone's opinions are different therefore they are all right for them"
......how does that help anyone? How does that help our world progress forward?

It doesn't. :)

Thanks for the conversations.


02-23-2002, 03:01 PM
Also wanted to mention that I completely agree with you about
looking at the root of the problems, and understanding the mindsets in these kids. Just labeling them "evil" won't stop the actions from happening again.

While I think that right and wrong are very much a part of the "reality" of our world, the concepts are extremely hard to pinpoint, and take a vast amount of knowledge, study, understanding, cultural experience, etc. to truly grasp in any real way. This is why they give the illusion of being nonexistent if you ask me.

Well, off to read and meditate. LOL


Sam Wiley
02-23-2002, 04:26 PM
I have already told you how you can solve the problem earlier. And b!tching about it to people who don't matter wasn't part of the solution. I frankly think you're wasting time and energy typing away on this message board whe you could be doing something constructive, like letting your concerns be known to people who matter.

Take your case to people who can help you and you'll get an answer one way or the other. Take it to people who can't and you'll get exactly what I've been giving you these past two posts: a whole lotta bull.

There's no such thing as "higher levels" of philosphy and sociology. That's a bullsh!t term, and the reason is because the whole thing is bullsh!t. It's mental masturbation performed by people with too much time on their hands, and it's the garbage your monkey adorns himself with.

"Why even have this discussion?"

That's what I explained to you earlier. You're wasting energy here. Put your energy to use by taking your problem to people who can actually help you.

(I'm encouraging you, here, man.)

02-23-2002, 04:28 PM
2000 years ago, a man proclaimed himself the Son of God.

Actually, Jesus went to great pains to state that he was NOT proclaiming himself the son of god, that other people were saying that about him. The only thing he ever said (if you believe the writers of the bible) is that "we are all the children of god".

Folks have been running away with that little technicality and making a whole lot of mischief because of it for a couple of thousand years. I'm sure it ticks Jeez off, although apparently not enough to come back and do anything about it. :D

02-23-2002, 04:32 PM
:rolleyes: Now all you're doing is cussing and swearing at me and my words, etc. That's not discussion anymore.

I'm not biching, just posting something people will post about. This is a discussion forum :)
Glad you're encouraging me to do something about it. I have been, and will continue to do so. This internet forum is fun, but not who I really am. Do you not think I work in my community and put my philo into my writing and try to publish, etc.?

Give me a bit more credit than that :D

Well let's just leave it at that then. If everything is bullsh*t then there's nothing worth thinking about, don't you think?

For what it's worth it was a good conversation. Let's drop it then. :)

Take care,

02-23-2002, 05:03 PM
I'm of the opinion that if the neo-facist Christians want to teach their kids to be little neo-facists, that's their right. I know a few KFO members have mentioned teaching their kids martial arts, which I feel is their right (I intend to do so myself someday). But I GUARANTEE that there are folks out there who feel they/we are being irresponsible parents, and "indoctrinating" our helpless children into a "violent paradigm". My freedoms can only be preserved by allowing others their own freedoms.

Sam Wiley
02-23-2002, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Ryu
...put my philo into my writing and try to publish, etc.?

Well, that explains a lot. Didn't mean to insult you. But I still think philosophy is a waste of time. :p

Well let's just leave it at that then. If everything is bullsh*t then there's nothing worth thinking about, don't you think?

No. I said philosphy is bull. There's plenty of stuff to think about that isn't a waste of time, though.;)

"Son of God," "Son of Man," they're the same things, since Man invented God. But if you want to get technical, he was executed for blasphemy because he said "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds." He didn't commit to being the son of God, but they took his words as blasphemy just the same. Anyway, I was using that to make a point. I wasn't meaning that I actually believed it.

02-23-2002, 06:09 PM
No insults or offense taken. :)

No worries.


Black Belt Jones 1
02-24-2002, 06:54 AM
"I fervently hope you never have children who are born gay. Kids know what they feel, when something is right or wrong for them. You can't shield them from their own feelings. This "blinders-on" attitude is precisely why the suicide rate among gay teens is 10 times higher than in straight teens."

Despite the blitzkreig of propaganda from the gay left in the past 20 years there has never been any hard scientific evidence that supports the claim that gays/lesbians are geneitically predisposed to being the way they are. In fact lots of anthropological evidence involving cross-cultural ethnographies tends to suggest it is a cultural manifestation. Being gay genetically flies in the face of traditional Darwinian evolutionary theory. Fist the initial claims of such were blasted by most in the scientific community. Why then is there so much dissagreement. Well, due to the nature of the arguement you cant find too many scientists willinfg to take up the issue. The reason being is that any 1 single scientist who would present evidence to the contrary would be immediately blasted by the gay left and branded as a "****phoebe". They would by ridiculed by the likes of Oprah, Ricki Lake, etc.. and probably have most of their grants denied because of the onslaught of public opinion. Dont think so? Well how many scientist have stepped up to the plater to hotly debate the issue when someone starts making claims about having some type of proof? Hardly any. And how many people have stated "We have conclusive proof that gays/lesbians are genetically influenced in their behavior."? This is because the "evidence" is so shaky that to make such a bold statement would innitiate taking on the entire scientific community, which would, given the current credibility of such research be in effect, suicide for gays/lesbians who actively pursue such avunues not to mention gays/lesbians in general. You see science is not ****phobic. The scientific community(although they never agree on much of anything) would shred their arguments in a heartbeat. Not because the recieving party is wrong definately, but thats just the way science is. You cant just stand up and call all of them ****phobes because they found numerous faults in their research and methodology. To do that to a battery of professionals who professionally dissagree with you would seal your fate andthats why it hasnt happened. Its mucch easier to make vague claims and references which will not draw fire from the empirical crowd and go after public opinion through the pro gaymedia outlets as has been and is still being done .

02-24-2002, 08:09 AM

I have a large family, which includes several gay members. We always knew, they always knew. It's not a choice, bubby, it's a preference, like being born predisposed to like the flavor of chocolate better than the flavor of strawberry.

When exactly did you choose to be heterosexual? When did you make a conscious choice put aside your feelings for men and only act on your feelings for women (I am assuming you are male)? Did you? My guess is no, you never "chose", you just "knew". If the law and society declared that being heterosexual was a crime, could you then "choose" to conform to the dictates of society by only having emotional and sexual relationships with men? My guess is that at that point you would argue very loudy for the concept of preference over the concept of choice.

We know only a miniscule amount about the workings of the most complex organic system in the world, the human brain and body. Our understanding of endocrinology and the human chemical balance is mostly educated guesses.

To make the kinds of open-ended leaps and circular logic statements that you have in order to bolster a viewpoint that is inherently intolerant is irresponsible. "Science has not proven it is so" does NOT mean "science has proven it is not so". It simply means we don't know anything for a fact.

Face it. People come in all different shapes, sizes, likes and dislikes. The range of humanity is truly astounding. To say "this kind of human being good, this kind of human being bad" is arrogant. Beware of those that would say that - they may next turn their divine right and wrath upon you. I'm not waiting 'till they come for me - I'll speak up now ;)

Black Belt Jones 1
02-24-2002, 10:12 AM
The fallacy "When did you decide to become heterosexual?" is really ringing old. NATURE decided this for us. If you are born with a d!ck then you are a man and your role in nature is to copulate with a FEMALE to insure the survival of your species. ANY other behavior than this is done at the expense of this survival and does not contribute to the survival of that species. If gaynes/lesbianess were genetic then that shunts your arguement right then and there because gays/lesbians are a genetic dead end. They dont produce gay/lesbian offspring because they are too busy fooling around with someone of the same gender. Last time I checked men still could't get pregnent and women couldn't ejaculate. A good genetic analogy of NATURE at work would perhaps be that maybe ****sexuality is a form of poulation control? It might be wise for researchers to look through history and compare estimations(I know thats difficult) with the rise of numbers of gay and lesbians with current poulation stats, social conditions etc.. Seems like a better use of time than trying to find the "gay gene" when simple Darwinian evolutionary theory(and last time I checked this was the reigning paradigm)makes this concept impossible.

02-24-2002, 10:31 AM
Being a person who has had a few anthro classes I have to agree somewhat with BBJ. Hey jasbourne you said that there were a couple of people in your family who were gay. Well were any of your ancestors that you know of gay or suspected of or maybe effemminate/masculine(as applies) natured? If so then maybe it could be an example of a genetic trait. The fact that lots of people who may have been gay in the poast were forced to lead a "double life" or never "come out" at all might explain why they did reproduce. But then to produce in successful numbers as seems so prevalent today, Mendelian Genetic theory would mean that it is a genetic mutatiion. And a mutation is only beneficial to a species if it contributes to the reproductive success as BBJ outlined above. This would qualify them as a form of poulation control or in the most extreme case a "dying species." Face it, if ****sects practice their lifestyle in its most pure form they are sentencing themselves to extinction. I would be interested in comparing your family to other families who had similar manifestations to see if maybe there was a social connection. A fewe researchers have done this in the past but their reasearch isnt highly publicised because many of the findings did suggest some social causes which didnt sit well with gay groups who were trying to say otherwise. But on the scientific level which I believe that BBJ is trying to argue on most of the rhetoric coming from the gay groups is just that - rhetoric.

02-24-2002, 01:12 PM
"NATURE decided this for us".

Nature certainly seems to have decided that for you. Kindly explain the myriad of examples of naturally occurring h0mosexual behavior found in nature.

And do you also advocate copulation solely for the purpose of procreation? Please explain how you manage to comply with this stricture. Do you truly believe that humans have no needs beyond copulation for procreation? We are talking about highly complex beings (humans), not bugs in a petri dish.

Are you defining h0mosexuality solely as the act of copulation between two persons of the same gender? Because it is my understanding is that is much deeper than that, it is emotional and psychological bonding at the deepest levels as well.

"Normal" is simply the mid-line, the "norm". It does not exclude that which does not fall into the norm, since by definition, those edges MUST exist in order for the norm to be in the middle.

Likewise, the norm is not immutable. 50 years ago it was not "normal" for blacks and whites to eat at the same table, much less have sex. To some benighted folks, "dat still ain't right!"


Ok, tell me honestly - how much does this concept turn you on: two gorgeous women having hot sex together.

Compare it to your feelings on this one: two gorgeous women having sex together but YOU CAN"T WATCH.

Or this concept: two ordinary looking women having sex together.

Or this one: two masculine looking women having sex together.

Or this one: two gorgeous men having sex together.

I bet your hard and fast rules about h0mosexuality are not as hard or as fast as you like to think. I bet anything you were fine on number 1, with an increasing discomfort factor as you went down the list. That's shallow, man.


02-24-2002, 02:11 PM
This thread went from 700 club dogma, to debate on religion in school, to debate on moral relativism, to debate on gay "biological/environmental" issues.

I really don't have much info on the issues you guys are speaking on now, so I'll leave it up to the ones who know more about it than I do. Though I suppose if you did put the Kantian maxim to the extreme in both cases (everyone is heterosexual, and everyone is ****sexual) then it is true that life would cease if ****sexuality was done by all humans. But that's not saying much considering there's lots of variables. I'll let Jas and BBJ duke this one out. :D

I'm done with this thread :D


02-24-2002, 03:26 PM
hehehe Ryu. No, no "duking out". But I do have a further idea to put out, a little food for thought.

See what you think:

It has been proposed rather vehemently that h0mosexuality is against nature because Darwinism necessitates only traits that will ensure the survival of the species, and h0mosexuality precludes sex for procreation.

I contend that h0mosexuality is Darwinism at its very best, acting in direct protection and betterment of the species.

The thesis:

1) Darwinism is survival of the species, not the individual.

2) The human species has now overrun its ecosystem, having no natural predators and rapidly consuming its environment. The single biggest problem we currently face is that of over-population. With over 6 billion individuals, the last thing we need to be doing is overbreeding at the rate we are.

3) It has been shown that in evolution, not all changes are gradual, that much more common are "epochs" and "turning points" that are dramatic in their suddeness. For example, a species will have almost negligible mutations for thousands of years then *bam* something drastic, like growing lungs.

4) With no natural predators, a very natural and elegant way for a species to regulate unbridled population growth would be to produce a sufficiently large number of individuals who by their nature, will not normally engage in activities that will produce offspring. Therefore, the individuals who do breed will be enough to ensure the continuation of the species, while the number of individuals not prediposed to breeding will maintain the balance of numbers at an equitable level.

5) The rise in the number of queers in the last century is Mother Nature's way of making up for all the irresponsible people who will not practice birth control. It is merely yet another epoch in our evolution. As our population has risen in numbers, so has the number of h0mosexuals. Its a percentages game, a built-in failsafe against rampant overpopulation. It is Darwinism in action.


02-24-2002, 03:41 PM
That's actually very interesting! I hadn't thought of it in that way.
Hmm so basically your stance then is that hom0sexuality might be the evolutionary "mutation" brought about by human beings being too "promiscuous"? :D
In all seriousness it's an interesting thought. Have you been influenced by any particular study on the matter or was it your own thesis? (If it is, it's very impressive :) )
Anyway, I suppose that very well could be possible. But does that mean that if human kind had NOT overrun the world as they had then hom0sexuality would be non-existent? Also as you said before, there are cases of hom0sexuality in the wild too, but I don't think those animals are in danger of "overpopulating" so how would the theory fit into that? (not heckling you, just wanted to know how you'd account for that)
I personally don't give much energy to figuring out if being "gay" is inherintly "bad" in itself. I hold them to the same moral standards I'd hold to heterosexuals. (which is why I disagree somewhat to some of the arrogance and flash I've seen displayed by a few of them...I'd disagree with that if heterosexuals did it too, and they do.) Obviously I've met gay individuals who were opposite the "stereotype" too. Just goes to show the diversity of human beings.

Well like I said, you probably have more knowledge then me on this issue. :) So I bow to you guys on this one....
if you want to argue the universal truths of ethics and morality, give me a call :D LOL

But seriously, it's very interesting. I'm enjoying just reading it.
BBJ makes intersting points to.


02-24-2002, 03:53 PM
Just sitting here thinking about Darwinism, is all. :)

"non-existent", no. I think there would merely be fewer of them, a sort of recessive trait that hums along until it's needed. I think this is why you do see h0mosexual behaviors in nature, it's there but in reserve. Until now, there has never, that we know of, been a species that was in danger of breeding itself into extinction, and this trait has simply not needed to be activated in other species before.

Who knows for sure. Maybe thats what REALLY happened to the dinosaurs *two snaps up* :D :D :D

Sam Wiley
02-24-2002, 04:04 PM
It's not a new theory, but it's still a controversial one. A lot of people have come to believe that nature employs certain countermeasures against a species overpopulating to the point of environmental disaster. One of the proposed measures nature puts into action is mass murder and on a larger scale genocide, according to the theory. Another is having growing numbers of the species become sterile, barren, or ****sexual to slow down population growth. Some studies of sea gull populations, from what I have heard, have found numerous accounts of ****sexual activity among the gulls. I can't say that's true, as I haven't read the studies' results, but it's interesting. And if you've ever been ot a beach, you know how numerous they can be in some areas. Sometimes there are so many you can't see through a flock of them.

So I guess if theories such as this are true, then ****sexuality would be a natural trait someone is born with.

If not, then someone wasted a lot of money to find out how many gay sea gulls there were on the beach.

02-24-2002, 04:15 PM
ROFL at the gull study, Sam :D

"One of the proposed measures nature puts into action is mass murder and on a larger scale genocide, according to the theory. Another is having growing numbers of the species become sterile, barren, or ****sexual to slow down population growth. "

That makes a lot of sense - we're already pretty comfortable with destroying huge amounts of people in conflicts (we speak of the wartime death of millions in casual tones, we barely flinch at starvation casualty rates of the hundreds of thousands per day, etc), studies show an increase in infertility across all "modern" countries, and the number of multiple murderers at large in metropolitan society has skyrocketed in the last 40 years.

Sounds like momma nature is takin' care of business.

02-24-2002, 04:31 PM
If that's the case, one can make the argument that "mother nature" can be stopped by living more respectfully and without destroying natural resources, overpopulating, etc.

Wasn't that called the "Gaia" theory by the way?


Sam Wiley
02-24-2002, 06:09 PM
I don't remember the name of the theory, but that sounds about right.

It doesn't do any good to tell most people that they have to live, eat, sleep, think, etc. correctly and in harmony with nature. Most people have forgotten what nature IS, at least in America anyway. But yeah, that's the solution, along with not destroying the environment and not using up all the resources we have.

Maybe the growing numbers of ****sexuals, barren and sterile adults, etc. is the beginning of nature's "cleaning house" in regards to the human species. Maybe we've been slated for elimination through natural selection because of our actions against nature in recent years. I'd imagine thatafter a hundred years of pollution and razing the landscape nature would be pretty p!ssed and strike back. It's kind of like that old biblical saying, that if your hand offends you to cut it off, I guess.

02-24-2002, 08:23 PM

The problem with your concept is that humans are social animals.

If we were solitary creatures, such as tigers, or bears, that met simply to procreate or challenge for mates, space, or food, then your insistance that darwinian theory says it's impossible would very likely have more credence.

Unfortunately for that viewpoint, human society is more complicated. We talk. We interact. We have economy, social systems and developed culture that varies from place to place, not to mention language.

In a social environment, selection sometimes selects for things that would be useless or anathema to survival on your own.

We are peculiarly unadapted to life as solitary individuals. We have no natural weaponry, no protective skin, hair or even any ingrained survival strategies. We are, to put it bluntly, hairless, naked and soft. As solitary critters, we'd get slaughtered. Our big brains require an enormous amount of calories to run, one broken big toe, and we might be done for.

However, in a social environment, none of this is a decided disadvantage---division of labors, social structure to help the sick, teachers to assist the new generation develop, etc. I can have a physically weak person (a stephen hawkings or bill gates, for instance) who would be helpless on their own, who contribute greatly to the survival of the social unit and thus, their hopeless physical genes get passed along. So, society sometimes subverts the "obvious," advantage. Alpha females in baboon troops are frequently not the biggest and strongest--they are sometimes the ones that have cultivated the greatest number of bonded relationships--same with the males. The alpha male might sometimes be alpha because he's cultivated strong bonds and there is no such thing as a one on one fight. These are phenomenally basic examples, and the more complicated the social system, the more complicated and intertwined the effects on natural selection (and vice versa).

There is a possibility that ****sexuality served some currently unknown purpose in the early development of human society--obviously, we couldn't ALL be ****sexuals or it'd be goodbye species, but to say that "natural selection is against it," is kind of silly because societal species have VERY complicated survival mechanisms that are sometimes counter-intuitive.

Maybe ****sexuals served some social purpose in the distant past--and that kind of genetic selection can't be undone over the course of a thousand or so generations. Just because there is no "evolutionary use," for ****sexuals in the current scheme of things doesn't mean that there wasn't once--and who knows, even within the current scheme of things there might be some "evolutionary use," that nobody has hit upon.

So... could it be a choice? Maybe. I think the jury is still out on whether it is partly concious, nature vs, nuture, and all that... there's good evidence that it is at least genetically influenced, if not due solely to genetics. So to say that it's "not possible," from a natural selection perspective is a bit shortsighted, in light of the hideously complex social underpinnings of human society.

02-25-2002, 06:22 AM
"there's good evidence that it is at least genetically influenced, if not due solely to genetics. "

Care to share this with the rest of us. And I mean sources. As of yet I havent seen many besides a few gay researchers(a few of whom were dying of AIDS, that were in a desperate attempt to justify their lifestyles before they , or someone they knew bought the farm - no disrespect intended.) I am currently trying to locate some research by some students working on their PhDs at the University of Michigan. They did studies on former inmates that had turned to ****sexuality after being raped in prison. As I recalltheir findings didn't exactly support the "born that way" theory. I'll get back with you on this.

02-25-2002, 06:46 AM
I'll see what I can find. I go off work in a few minutes, so I may not be able to get back to this right away

02-25-2002, 07:15 AM
First, I'd like to make it clear that my post was supposed to suggest that the "jury is still out." Nobody has come out and said it's solely genetic. In fact, I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I wasn't suggesting it's entirely genetic... I was simply pointing out that there is a possibility that it is genetically influenced--not the same thing... intelligence is genetically influenced, but not strictly dependent on genetics. Eye color, on the other hand, appears to be directly genetic.

Queer ICONS The gay gene in The Pink Paper, 19th. July, 1996, issue 439, page 39. "HASN'T THE DEBATE ABOUT GAY GENES BEEN RAGING FOR AGES? Well, it all started in 1993 when Dean Hamer <deanhamer.html> of the US National Cancer Institute studied 40 pairs of gay brothers and found that many gay men carried an identical version of a small segment of the X chromosome's DNA known as Xq28. The family histories of 114 gay men showed their brothers, maternal uncles and maternal male cousins were more likely to be gay. WHY'S THE X-CHROMOSOME SO SPECIAL? Men get an X chromosome from their mother, and a Y from their father. Women are XX. Because the genes on a son's X chromosome are an extremely variable combination of the genes on the mother's two Xs, there are major differences between brothers' genetic structures. But similarities in Xq28s between those who are gay, scientists claim, is unlikely to be coincidental. Some suggest the X chromosome is also responsible for the smaller numbers of dykes. SO THEY'VE ISOLATED A GAY GENE? No, but they think they have isolated the genetic basis of male ****sexuality. Research is ongoing as to the existence of a lesbian gene.

Gay evolution in the New Scientist 19th. October, 1996, No. 2052, page 56. Letters responding to the article in the New Scientist, 28th. September, 1996, No. 2049, pages 32-5. William Hoppitt suggests that kinship theory would account for a gay gene through altruism towards sisters rather than brothers. Alan Turland complains that the use in the article of a ****phobic quotation from Robert Mugabe did not fairly represent general hostility to ****sexuality. Being bisexual he also asks for the evidence that sexuality amongst men is largely bimodal and that male bisexuality is incommon.

Simon LeVay, (1991), "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and ****sexual men", Science, vol. 253, pages 1034-7.

Simon LeVay, (1993), "The Sexual Brain", Cambridge: MIT Press, 168 pages, ISBN 0262121786, SBU Library Main Bookstock 155.33


02-25-2002, 07:18 AM
From Frontline:


.... [T]he work of Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, and a small group of researchers concerned to distinguish biological and genetic influences on sexual behavior has discredited much of the loose rhetoric that has been used about ****sexuality. In August 1991, LeVay, a neuroscientist who now directs the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education in southern California, published in the magazine Science findings from autopsies of men and women of known sexual preference. He found that a tiny region in the center of the brain--the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 3--was, on average, substantially smaller in nineteen gay men who died from AIDS than among sixteen heterosexual men.[7]
The observation that the male brain could take two different forms, depending on one's sexual preference, was a stunning discovery. The hypothalamus-a small, intricate mass of cells lying at the base of the brain-was long believed to have a role in sexual behavior, but direct evidence that it did so was weak. Yet LeVay expressed caution. Although his data showed that human sexual preference "is amenable to study at the biological level," he noted that it was impossible to be certain whether the anatomical differences between the brains of gay and straight men were a cause or a consequence of their preference.[8]
In the thirteen persuasive essays that make up The Sexual Brain, LeVay takes account of the current bio-behavioral controversy over the science of sex. From the union of wiry sperm and bloated ovum to the child-rearing practices of mammals and humans, for which mothers are largely responsible, he writes (metaphorically), the "male is little more than a parasite who takes advantage of [the female's] dedication to reproduction." He goes on to draw from a wide range of sources to support his contentious assertion that "there are separate centers within the hypothalamus for the generation of male-typical and female-typical sexual behavior and feelings." He argues that a connection--the details of which remain mysterious--between brain and behavior exists through hormones such as testosterone.
The most convincing evidence he puts forward to support his view comes from women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This condition, in which masculine characteristics, such as androgenized genitalia, including clitoral enlargement and partially fused labia, become pronounced in women, is caused by excessive testosterone production and leads, in adulthood, to an increased frequency of lesbianism affecting up to half of all the women who have the condition. The theory, still unproven, that is proposed to explain these behavioral effects of hormones is that one or more chemical signals act during a brief early critical period in the development of most males to alter permanently both the brain and the pattern of their later adult behavior. Unless this hormonal influence is switched on, a female pattern of development will follow automatically.
What might be the origin of biological differences underlying male sexual preference? In 1993 Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute discovered a preliminary but nevertheless tantalizing clue.[9] Hamer began his painstaking search for a genetic contribution to sexual behavior by studying the rates of ****sexuality among male relatives of seventy-six known gay men. He found that the incidence of ****sexual preference in these family members was strikingly higher (13.5 percent) than the rate of ****sexuality among the whole sample (2 percent). When he looked at the patterns of sexual orientation among these families, he discovered more gay relatives on the maternal side. ****sexuality seemed, at least, to be passed from generation to generation through women.
Maternal inheritance could be explained if there was a gene influencing sexual orientation on the X chromosome, one of the two human sex chromosomes that bear genes determining the sex of offspring.[10] Men have both X and Y chromosomes, while women have two X chromosomes. A male sex-determining gene, called SRY, is found on the Y chromosome. Indeed, the Y chromosome is the most obvious site for defining male sexuality since it is the only one of the forty-six human chromosomes to be found in men alone. The SRY gene is the most likely candidate both to turn on a gene that prevents female development and to trigger testosterone production. Since the female has no Y chromosome, she lacks this masculinizing gene. In forty pairs of ****sexual brothers, Hamer and his team looked for associations between the DNA on the X chromosome and the ****sexual trait. They found that thirty-three pairs of brothers shared the same five X chromosomal DNA "markers," or genetic signatures, at a region near the end of the long arm of the X chromosome designated Xq28.[11] The possibility that this observation could have occurred by chance was only 1 in 10,000.
LeVay takes a broad philosophical perspective in his discussion of human sexuality by placing his research in the context of animal evolution. Hamer, on the other hand, has written, with the assistance of the journalist Peter Copeland, a more focused popular account of his research. He conceived his project after reflecting on a decade of laborious research on yeast genes. Although the project was approved by the National Institutes of Health after navigating a labyrinthine course through government agencies, it remained rather meagerly funded.
Taken together, the scientific papers of both LeVay and Hamer and the books that their first reports have now spawned[12] make a forceful but by no means definitive case for the view that biological and genetic influences have an important--perhaps even decisive--part in determining sexual preference among males. LeVay writes, for example, that "...the scientific evidence presently available points to a strong influence of nature, and only a modest influence of nurture." But there is no broad scientific agreement on these findings. They have become mired in a quasi-scientific debate that threatens to let obscurantism triumph over inquiry. What happened?
To begin with, we must ask what LeVay and Hamer have not shown. LeVay has found no proof of any direct link between the size of INAH 3 and sexual behavior. Size differences alone prove nothing. He was also unable to exclude the possibility that AIDS has an influence on brain structure, although this seemed unlikely, since six of the heterosexual men he studied also had AIDS. Moreover, Hamer did not find a gene for ****sexuality; what he discovered was data suggesting some influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 is clearly not a sine qua non for ****sexuality; it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause by itself.
And what about women? Although the genitalia of women as well as men are clearly biologically determined, no data exist to prove a genetic link, or a link based on brain structure, with female sexual preferences, whether heterosexual or ****sexual. Finally, neither study has been replicated by other researchers, the necessary standard of scientific proof. Indeed, there is every reason to suppose that the INAH 3 data will be extremely difficult to confirm. Only a few years ago INAH 1 (located close to INAH 3) was also thought to be larger in men than in women. Two groups, including LeVay's, have failed to reproduce this result.
Most of these limitations are clearly acknowledged by both LeVay and Hamer in their original scientific papers and are reinforced at length in their books. But reactions to their findings have nevertheless been harshly critical. For instance, after pointing out several potential weaknesses in Hamer's study and criticizing his decision to publish in Science at a time when gay "lives are at stake," two biologists, Anne Fausto-Sterling and Evan Balaban, asked "whether it might not have been prudent for the authors and the editors of Science to have waited until more of the holes in the study had been plugged...."[13] Fortunately, their somewhat hysterical reaction has been followed by more careful comment by other scientists.[14]

This is all I'm going to chase down right now.

Just for the record Studd, just because Levay is gay doesn't make his body of work any less serious. It looks like his work has been taken seriously, and people are, like any other theory, debating it and testing it to see if it's valid. Like I said... jury is out. I suspect we'll find genetic predisposition coupled with "whatever" factors that lead to ****sexuality, just like not all genetically aggressive persons become violent offenders.

Black Belt Jones 1
02-25-2002, 08:01 AM
Interestingly Jasbourne what you just said is what I was hinting at , but you wont get a warm reception from the gay community on this one. This is because that if indeed ****sexuality is Darwinian evolution at its best then this implies a foreboding PR nightmare for all ****sexual or lesbians. I will ask who is it that is selected? Well, with that in mind you could make the statement that ****sexuals are being selected by nature to die so that the rest of us can live. Gee isnt that politically incorrect. In natural selection fittness is determined by the environment and the less fit ndividuals are marginalised (killed off) so that the "more fit" individuals can live to reproduce thus insuring the survival of the species by producing genetically strong(with respect to selection pressure) offspring. As to the poster who gave examples in nature of ****sexuality among animals - lots of that research has been discredited as anthropomorphism(applying human behavioral traits to animals) such as the scientist(who was a lesbian) who observed primates of the same sex "kissing" in short treetop encounters. She was proven wrong by another researcher who demonstrated that it was a method of identification by pressurized stimulating of scent glands arond the mouth as these primates' visual acuity was not great. Also lots of studies have been done on the Bonobos (Chimpanzees) that exhibit same sex behaviors. but what has recently come to light is the seemingly dysfunctional aspects of the Bonobo "culture. It was assumed that the Alpha female was the ruling member of the group but when researchers went back some other time a male was n control. This and many other manifestations has led some researchers to the conclusion that some substatial dysfunctionality exists in the society. Whether or not the sexual matters are the cause or a symptom has not been determined as of yet.

02-25-2002, 08:18 AM
what is this thread doing in a kung fu forum????

it has nothing to do with the Chinese martial arts!!

02-25-2002, 08:33 AM
"****sexuals are being selected by nature to die so that the rest of us can live. "

Nobody ever said that, what rubbish. Read again.

wolfkiller: This thread is here because martial artists have working brains and lives that encompass more than just martial arts. This thread is here because we are friends and enjoy discussing interesting issues. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, or start another one to your liking as you see fit.

KC Elbows
02-25-2002, 08:39 AM

I'm curious to know which scientists clain one male animal buggering another is not an example of hom0sexual behavior in the wild, because that happens in a vast number of species, from domestic cats on up.

Also, the hom0sexuality as an extinction process is somewhat questionable, seeing as many gay males have children early in life. The case could be made that it is not an extinction process, but a process of population control, but to suggest that hom0sexuality is a process to weed out the genes of ****sexual individuals doesn't hold up to reality. Many gays have children, therefore their lines are not ended with those individuals. In fact, persecution of ****sexuals more guarantees the continuance of their lines, as many more would be "closetted" and leading normal lives, and would be more, not less, likely to have children.

On the statistics for higher sterility in developed countries, where are these statistics coming from? Sometimes, all these numbers that people use to demonstrate how "bad" things have gotten only really show that humanity hadn't been aware of some of this stuff all along. Whenever someone tells me that serial killers are a product of modern times, I ask them what they make of Elizabeth Bathory, or Vlad the Impaler, etc.

And without the gays, where would western civilization be? Half of Greece's contributions would never have occurred, and a good chunk of the foundation of western thought would never have been achieved.

Survival of the human species is dependant more on advancement of thought than it is on survival of specific lines of breeding.

Black Belt Jones 1
02-25-2002, 09:12 AM
"On the statistics for higher sterility in developed countries, where are these statistics coming from? "

Didnt know I gave any. Please reread and find out who did I didn't.

KC Elbows
02-25-2002, 09:29 AM

BBJ, only the first question was to you. The rest was just to members in general. Forgot to make that distinction.

02-25-2002, 09:50 AM
There's been a few concrete ones, I'm at the office and don't have time to track everything down, but here's a couple of classic studies about decreasing sperm quality that originally made a lot of waves:

Carlsen, E., A Giwercman, N Keiding, N Skakkebaek. 1992. Evidence for Decreasing Quality of Semen During Past 50 Years. British Medical Journal 305:609-613.

Swan, SH, EP Elkin and L Fenster. 1997. Have sperm densities declined? A reanalysis of global trend data. Environmental Health Perspectives 105(11):1228-1232.
study link (http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1997/105-11/swan.html)
chart from study (http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Images/graphs/swan.jpg )

I'll see what I can find concerning female infertility ratios as well as toxicological and other factors studies as they apply to fertility in 'modern countries' if I get a chance.

Black Belt Jones 1
02-25-2002, 11:42 AM
"I'm curious to know which scientists clain one male animal buggering another is not an example of hom0sexual behavior in the wild, because that happens in a vast number of species, from domestic cats on up. "

Yes KC, and cats also possess scent glands around their mouth as did this group of primates. But when cats touch noses do we say they are "eskimo kissing"? Im just demonstrating how unargueable it is to make comparisons between a behavior that is exhibited in us to other animals. In the example that I gave the researcher (an English lady) suggested that the monkeys were romantically involved when another professor(from India) working in the U.K. set up a series of experiments that proved they were using the behavior as a method of recognition. But gay and lesbians still site the original research as "proof" of genetic predisposition. My iguana sometimes shakes his head when I try to feed him but is he saying "No, I dont want this"? More than likely he is posturing because he percieves me as a threat. Dogs do ride other male dogs but also some will ride your leg as well so does that mean that they are sexually attracted to legs? A person who masturbates using their hands - are they specifically attracted to hands or are they just the available tools of stimulation? As for "buggering" which I assume to you means sexual intercourse, in species I used the example in Bonobos since they are the closest relation to us. Originally gays and lesbians thought that this would be a watershed of research for their cause but as of yet it has not proved so. Comparative studies in other chimpanzee groups has failed to demonstrate same sex intercourse as found in this group. What my point was is that lots of gays / lesbians make these claims when they see other animals "petting" or performing a similar behavior that might amount to nothing more than a grooming session. A tribe in Africa has a very interesting method of showing friendship among males. Two males will grab each others genetilia. Oh a ****sexual act right? No. This is a method of showing the depth of friendship and respect as you would only let a person whom you truly trusted punt their hands on your genetilia as such. (n ememy in doing so could crush them.) This IS NOT a display of ****sexual behavior as demonstrated by Anthropologists as in that particular society ****sexual behavior is taboo.

KC Elbows
02-25-2002, 11:50 AM
So buggering(intercourse) between males out of convenience is not h0mosexual behavior? Is this only true of animals, or does this carry over to humans as well?

Never mind, I reread your post. What gets me is that we try and validate our own behaviors through other species, yet, were our species a subject of study by some other species, they would undoubtedly make statements like, "The human species contains individuals who practice monogamy, those who have many spouses, many humans practice ****sexuality, and a great number of humans, for reasons unknown to science, eat milk duds."

Sam Wiley
02-25-2002, 11:58 AM
That's like the debate about what makes people gay. A couple of friends of mine are involved in a debate. They asked me, "if a guy goes down on another guy, he's gay, right?" I said yes. Then they asked me, "if a guy won't go down on another guy, but let's another guy go down on him, then he's not gay, right?" I said no, that guy is gay, too. They didn't get it.

02-25-2002, 12:02 PM
Sam you have strange friends.


KC Elbows
02-25-2002, 12:04 PM
I think its a rather useless distinction, fairly unscientific in most ways. Was Alexander gay? He had wives, but he had a male lover. You could say he was bi, but the people who are asking these questions are only concerned with whether men sleep with men, not any other behaviors on their part. So, to those so concerned with people's sexuality, being bi is basically being gay.

What gets me is that many ultra-right conservatives want the government out of their homes, but want the government in the homes of gays/lesbians. Much like the 700 club members.

02-25-2002, 12:11 PM
Nice bringing it back around to topic, KC. :D

Seems to me that the folks most worried about queers are those who have issues about their own sexuality in some way. Folks who are secure seem to be pretty much "yeah, whatever" about the subject. Folks just need to quit minding other folks' business for 'em, is all.

Ever see that sketch on MADtv about Jerry Fallwell and the "gay ray" that gets beamed into your living room when you watch stuff like "Will and Grace"? Classic :D

KC Elbows
02-25-2002, 12:42 PM
:D I forgot about the Gay Ray!

Once, in a psyche class, the topic of sexuality came up, and one class member, who was decidedly ultra-right on the topic of sexuality(WAAAY ultra-right, like women in the home is the only way to go sort) brought up supposed shows trying to "teach" children to be ****sexuals, and how kids run everything, and ended his argument with how things would be better if everyone remembered the saying "Spare the rod, spoil the child". The instructor said"First, that is not psychological theory, so please refrain from using maxims when there is research to take its place, and Second: don't use symbollic language like "rod" and "child" in a class on Freudian psychology. It just leaves you open for analysis."

I can't tell you how nice it is to have you on board, Jas. I was beginning to think I was the only liberal left.

02-25-2002, 12:55 PM
First of all read, "The human zoo" by Desmond Morris. Its about how monkeys act differnently while caged. Just as humans in overpopulated areas are more gay, masterbate more and have more pent up rage. IE Japanese porno industry. German ShiBe videos

Sea otters scar up their women durring coitus. Does that justify me biting the ear off of my girlfriend? Not at all. Is it natural? Maybe, but not for me.

The Massai have sex with little girls so they don't get pregnant in their warrior camps. Humans do lots of biologically unproductive things. The Nambla pervs claim its natural.

Maybe Hitler was right and its scientifically destined that the races will fight for superiority, maybe thats science, but its not for me, or my way of life.

pooping in public is natural, but if we did, the world would be a far less enjoyable place.

02-25-2002, 01:01 PM
"don't use symbollic language like "rod" and "child" in a class on Freudian psychology. It just leaves you open for analysis"


Don't say the "L" word here. It can get you shot. ;)

Actually, I'm more of a libertarian. I would actually vote libertarian if they didn't keep fielding complete nutjobs for office :mad:

Sam Wiley
02-25-2002, 01:11 PM
Now simple ****sexuality is on the same level as scheisse videos, pedophilia, and pooping in public, eh? Dude, even I think those things are a bit...beyond...but I don't see why anyone would compare the two.

Oh, wait a minute...this is coming from the guy who originally posted as a girl...should have considered that. I'll bet that opens up whole new areas for the Freudians here to study, doesn't it?

KC Elbows
02-25-2002, 01:17 PM
My wife would tell you the sea otter women have it good. She's been begging me for years to take off her ears so that she wouldn't have to listen to the constant kung fu talk.

****, I didn't realize I had openly mentioned I was a liberal. What was I thinking?

There are some things even the Freudians won't touch. Of course, their mothers are fair game.:D

Sam Wiley
02-25-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by KC Elbows
There are some things even the Freudians won't touch. Of course, their mothers are fair game.:D


KC Elbows
02-25-2002, 02:41 PM
If you all send me a dollar, and hold your mouse pointers up to this thread, I will apply the pahr u god to HEEL your hammertoes!

I see a forum member out there with a chronic constipation. Holda your mousa to the threada!


02-25-2002, 02:56 PM
LMFAO @ this thread, funny stuff :D

02-25-2002, 04:15 PM
"studies show an increase in infertility across all "modern" countries,"

An unexpected new finding,disputed by some scientists,is a precipitous recent decline in America,Western Europe,and elswhere in sperm counts-possibly from chemicals and plastics that mimic the female sex hormones,the decline is so steep,some say,that,if it continues,men in the west could in consequence start becoming sterile by the middle of this century.

Hardly Mother Nature.

The Ultra left complaining about the Ultra right has become so extream its hard to seperate the double standard from both sides.

Those of you that complain about and bash Christians should live under Iran's goverment for a while.

But don't put us all in one big oppressive brainwashed bag.
To do that would contradict yourselves thus sliding into
ethnocentrism,which may not be a bad thing,as long as you don't force it upon me and those I love.

"Folks who are secure seem to be pretty much "yeah, whatever" about the subject. Folks just need to quit minding other folks' business for 'em, is all."

You took the words out of my mouth.

I consider h0m0sexaul life style deviant behavior and theres other forms of deviant behavior(before some of you go off half-c0cKed,look the word deviant up),ONLY when these types of behavior
are forced into the school systems and my child HAS to hear it by the powers that be I take issue.
If some parents don't want prayer in schools,then I think they should be the ones to decide that its not forced opon thier children,by the same token if I don't want my children subjected to the way
the extream-gay community is teaching then that should also be my equal right!
They can be JUST as bad as the 700 club!


" What gets me is that many ultra-right conservatives want the government out of their homes, but want the government in the homes of gays/lesbians. Much like the 700 club members"

I want the goverment out of my home and I want the goverment out of the gays/lesbians also!

Once again I consider h0m0sexaul life style deviant behavior,that does not mean I'm anti-gay or that I don't have friends that are gay.

02-25-2002, 04:23 PM
tnwingtsun, good points all around. Just curious, not argumentative - what would you do if your child was gay?

KC Elbows
02-25-2002, 04:39 PM
Obviously, I agree about the double standards. However, I don't agree on the "Christian nation vs. Iran" argument, as we're technically supposed to be a nation of laws, not religions.

On the "****sexuality taught in schools" argument, I haven't seen any cases where it is being taught. Most of the cases were people upset that a ****sexual writer's works were included in a curriculum, and, IMO, if the writing is good, that should be what is included(when discussing literature).

As far as mother nature vs. man made, its a hard topic to really argue. For instance, if another human culture, somewhere else, developed technology and architecture and the other achievements of man independent of ours, then the case could be made that industrialization is an instinctual process particular to humans. Just talking out of my arse here, so don't take this too seriously, but we don't have the benefit of knowing several industrialized human cultures that rose up independantly of each other, so we don't really know if there is a logical progression that all humans follow.

And the reason that prayer can be kept out of school is that the school is part of the state, and church and state are to be separate, so that we don't become a christian Iran. Hom0sexuality is not a religious issue, it is a social issue, and social issues are important in the schooling process.

So, which school is actually teaching hom0sexuality?(links to articles would be nice, its not that I don't believe it could happen, its just that I've known more than a few far righters that argued that, but only had third hand info that turned out to be cr@p when looked at more closely)

I wouldn't say I'm far left. On certain issues, yes, but not most. And I recognize that the far right is by no means the majority, but a few of the arguments from each side originate in the extreme members, and get mistaken for valid concerns by all.

Although I am on the left, I strongly believe that both are very important to our way of culture. With just the right, I suspect that we'd have already become an empire even more like the roman one, with all the fatal pitfalls of that system, and with just the left, we'd have been too militarily weak to become the super power we are or defend ourselves against would-be aggressors.

02-25-2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by tnwingtsun
"studies show an increase in infertility across all "modern" countries,"

the extream-gay community is teaching then that should also be my equal right!
They can be JUST as bad as the 700 club!


Yeah, but you know they would dress better and have cooler hair styles. Even the dykes.

02-25-2002, 07:22 PM
This is great!!

I'm much too tired to respond in detail at this time(beddy-by-time)

but most of your words ring true although I need to address

some points both of you made!!

Will get back on this issue ASAP.

One thing Jas that I will commit on,

"Just curious, not argumentative - what would you do if your child was gay?"

I have three boys,if anyone of them turned out to be "Gay",I would skin him alive slowly while giving him a sun tan with a blowtorch.


I would be frustated and hurt,but at the same time I would be

behind him(no pun,lol) and do EVERYTHING in my power to protect

them in ANYWAY!!

As I tried with two of my friends,both started shooting cocaine,

One I pretty much forced into re-hab,he's alive and clean,the

other friend ran and hid,we buried him Dec. 15, 2001.

Danger is everywhere!!!!

Any parent (worth a $hit) will worry about their kids.

I'll finish latter,much more to be said.

BTW,its nice to have a discussion without being argumentative(even if it is with a couple of fairys,lol,just KIDDING!)


02-25-2002, 07:56 PM
"Yeah, but you know they would dress better and have cooler hair styles. Even the dykes"

I hope you're joking,LOL!!

Were you really born 7/9/83???????

With some years comes wisdom,before you were a dirty thought

I was partying with h0m0s and having a good time,they knew where I stood,after that, being around them didn't bother me,I ran across my fair share of the bull H0m0s(they found out quick and in a painful manner to them where I stood).
I bonded better with hetros because(its a military thing,will explain latter) of where I was and what needed to be done.

Do hetros fight better than h0m0s??

As a general rule YES!!!(don't misunderstand me here,I said,as a general rule,its more hardwired into hetros hunter-gather genes)

Do H0m0s dress better than hetros???

As a general rule,maybe!!(maybe the better dressed hetros have h0m0s dressing them!)

Good night Princess,we'll chit-chat minyatta.

In the meantime feel free to enjoy one of the funnest h0m0s
out there!!!

http://www.shirleyqliquor.com/ :D

02-25-2002, 08:04 PM

You've missed the point again--you're trying to approach ****sexuality in a vacuum. IF humans were not social critters, than what you say about "****sexuals being selected to die (in the evolutionary sense) over heterosexuals, would be true. However, societal life does funny things to natural selection.

I find it ironic that you keep saying that animal research cannot be used to discuss human behavior and then turn around and completely ignore the effects our complex social interactions--well beyond those of other animals--on natural selection, as though we were solitary fish that meet others only to mate.

02-26-2002, 02:38 AM
Hey I wanna chime in on the original "700 Club" junk! Forget all this sexual deviancy talk! All I gots to say about faulty f a g s is that it was just recently that the DSM (The Shrinks' Bible) dropped it from its sexual malfunction section. Seems a lot of those afflicted were Social workers and Shrinks. Hey craziness don't discriminate based on intelligence. Just watch "A Beautiful Mind". If having parades about who you escrew ain't crazy, then I'm nuttts!

Now back to our regularly scheduled program....
The thing is, with these charlatans masquerading as enlightened holy folkkks, they are doing just that- putting on a show. They don't believe what they preach, but they want the unknowing to, because it'll make them rich (the preachers)! This is only about capitalizing on peoples kindness and naivete. Heck, by now with all the money that is sent to them in the name of God, you'd think that even with a 33% cut of the profits the big "G-O-D" should at least be a multimillionaire! Why would those proposing to be the Creator's messengers, need your monetary blessings anyway? Why don't they ask their employer God to send them some moolah?!

If there is no evil, you can rest assured that there is definitely an absence of good in many instances! It's obvious that there can be no one truth and that all of us and none of us are wrong. That is the truth!

I totally agree with Ryu in that this hogwash is abhorrent, but as long as there are people, there will be sheisters! In the words of the infamous unHolyman Robber Tilton, who likes to claim that the Holy Ghost gives him the gift of tongues, "Bala-kakkka-lakka-do-sho-rot-toot"! Amen Ra to that!

KC Elbows
02-26-2002, 09:20 AM
TN, in response to:
"Do hetros fight better than h0m0s?? As a general rule YES!!!(don't misunderstand me here,I said,as a general rule,its more hardwired into hetros hunter-gather genes)"

I worked as a bouncer at a club out here for a while. It was a pretty eclectic club, some nights were rave nights, some nights were women's nights, and without a doubt, the WORST nights to work were on the gay nights. Not from being hit on, that doesn't phase me much, and I'm very good at projecting a "Don't touch me" field to men and women alike(frankly, I look like a psycho sometimes-its the massive incisors, I think). However, all the bouncers agreed, there were so many fights on those nights, and some of those dudes were huge and mad as hell. There were a group of transvestites who terrorized the place, got into nasty brawls, and fought very well. I have yet to see any proof that straights fight any better, even in general. Also, I hate to bring up the Alexander the Great thing, but the man charged a besieged city on his own, took a spear through the side, and survived. Name the straight equivalent in history.

02-26-2002, 10:57 AM
Thanks for your post but...

"It's obvious that there can be no one truth and that all of us and none of us are wrong. That is the truth!"

Don't get me started again. Can't you see that very statement is a contradiction, and makes no rational sense? Am I the only one who realizes that? Can't anyone else see it?

Forget it. I'm in a real p1ssy mood today, and I don't even feel like explaining things through again.


KC Elbows
02-26-2002, 11:02 AM
I can see it Ryu. Of course, I can't see those magic eye 3D pictures, so I wouldn't take anything I say very seriously.

To me, the Magic Eye thing is the biggest cult.

"Just look at it a while, you'll see it."

"After looking at it a while, I could see it, and it all became so clear."

Pretty soon they're gonna sell those things with their own packet of jonestown flavoured kool aid.

KC Elbows
02-26-2002, 11:27 AM
Oh god, I saw it!

Now I am at one with the group mind.:eek:

I'm mixing the kool-aid.

I'm adding sugar(a little extra, don't want it too tart!)


Its the end, everyone!

Oh crap, how'd I get the draddle song stuck in my head?

This really isn't the way I wanted to go.:(

KC Elbows
02-26-2002, 11:35 AM
This is sooo not 700 club!

02-26-2002, 12:44 PM
I'm sorry I was rude up there.
I'm not having the best of days if you haven't noticed. :D


KC Elbows
02-26-2002, 12:54 PM
No problemo.:D

02-26-2002, 01:05 PM
I thought you were joking...

02-28-2002, 10:53 PM

As a general rule.


And I have bounced at "Gay Bars" also.

As for ATG,I can name several that would put him to shame.

I don't have the time now but I will find time to go into your point in more detail.

On the general rule thing it can applie to numbers but more so genes or behavior(if you by that threroy).

Don't be offended,but to base "My general Rule" on bouncing at "gay Bars" is shallow compaired to fighters/shooters in general.

Yes,I've seen some nasty ones at the the gay bars but nothing compaired to the trained hetro operators in action.

Plus,if you're on the line,we both know that both hetros can be passive and hoM0s also,there just tends to be more passive H0mos unless we get into the prision system where I've been a correction officer years ago,now we're into talking something all together differant.


I now look foward to meeting and talking to you when I get to KC
in the future,something tells me we are not to far alike:cool:

02-28-2002, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Ryu
Thanks for your post but...

"It's obvious that there can be no one truth and that all of us and none of us are wrong. That is the truth!"

Don't get me started again. Can't you see that very statement is a contradiction, and makes no rational sense? Am I the only one who realizes that? Can't anyone else see it?


I think that was directed at me. What's contradictory about it? Can you use syllogism to prove it wrong? I understand what you're saying dude. If it wasn't meant to be then it wouldn't. Does that make more sense? Later, bruh...

02-28-2002, 11:23 PM
Dude, this very close friend of mine once told me that in Esparta some of the soldiers were line up as gay couples.
And they were the best fighters becouse the gay lovers would look out for each other in battle.
Dont know if its truth...

KC Elbows
03-01-2002, 07:18 AM
First of all, forgive this
posting of mine
For two weeks now I must
rhyme all the time

But TN, I can see what you say
has merit and worth.
And always, some theories
lack substantial girth
but trained men I've seen
both straight and so gay
that skill (in my eyes)
can go either way
But regardless of view
in what we each see
It'll be interesting to train
when you come to KC.

For those who are wondering
why with rhyme you are cursed
Just read the old thread
"The Morning After: What Hurts Worst?"

03-01-2002, 12:27 PM
Well the contradiction lies in saying that the "truth" is that there is "no truth" If there is no truth then that truth is false too, implying there really is a truth. It just goes in a circle. Not saying people don't need to understand that you can find parts of truth in various things, or that one man's truth is better than another man's truth. But in some circumstances that very well is the case. One man's truth can be more "true" than another.

But regardless of that, it gave me no right to snap at your post.
I'm sorry about that, and I apologize to you. It wasn't a good day that day. :)
Forgive me.

See you all later.


03-01-2002, 02:05 PM
Your truth sux. My truth rulz. Send money and I'll forgive you.

Hey look, I just started my very own 700 Club! :D

03-01-2002, 02:13 PM
This is too cool.


03-01-2002, 02:37 PM
I love you, Jas :D
Don't tell Wushu... ;)


03-01-2002, 02:44 PM
You two-timing man-w hore.;)


03-04-2002, 02:44 AM
There is "thing", "no thing" and "no-thing-ness". Perhaps what seems contradictory is complimentary; is actuallly a validation of my original premise. Some things are more correct for a certain cultural or social architecture, but in the Multiversal scheme of things they are human machinations affecting an illusory, microscopic, local occurrence. Unless the Omegapoint Theory is correct...

It is well known in science that you can apply empiricism to any perceived truth to create the desired outcome. Even more misleading is the attempt by organized religion to produce Christian, Hebrew, Muslim and Buddhist automatons, so that Chaos can be brought to Order. If you gots proper hometraining and use common sense, all the things that religion professes to teach can be learned without "programming". What I'm getting at is, without any real "proof" for a religious claim, the concrete reality neither supports nor invalidates it. Religion is personal, and can't be marketed or packaged to fit every single person.

All that BS aside, I understand the bad day thing all too well, and I can see how my manic banter can grate on someone's nerves.

P.S.: I'm a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic. Now you see where I'm coming from!

03-04-2002, 07:02 AM
"Some things are more correct for a certain cultural or social architecture, but in the Multiversal scheme of things they are human machinations affecting an illusory, microscopic, local occurrence."

That's true, however that's not to say that all cultural values brought about by people are "equal" in how they help people progress, understand, or achieve "ethical" soundess. (Case in point is the Taliban who thinks it "ethical" to kill thousands of people and hijack planes to achieve their end.)

A better example would be this. I was helping a girl through some problems once. She was talking to me, and crying because of the things she was going through. She told me that in her "culture", crying was seen as weak and a worthless thing to do. So the more she cried the more she felt worthless, and the more worthless she felt the more she cried. ;) It wasn't until I told her that I saw her crying as a strength (since she was unafraid to show me her emotions, honest with her deepest feelings at the moment, etc.) that she was able to finally stop crying and feel much better about herself. :)
Her "culture" while having a value standard, did not help her when she was in pain. In fact it made her feel worse. So in that parcticular case, my "value" was of greater "value" to her.

But I agree with the rest of your post 100% because I sometimes think it is dangerous to assume that "ethics" is JUST a religious thing. That implies that people who are not "religious" have no ethics (which is untrue) and that people don't naturally come to learn those conclusions either. (they do)
So yes, the religion aspect of your post is right on the money I feel. No disagreements here.

and you have good posts, don't worry. ;) No banter.