Another round in Oregon?

oca-yes-on-9 dot-com?

How ironic. I remember Measure 9. That was the year that persecuting gays was so important that two people were murdered in the name of Lon Mabon's zeal.

Yes, I can see the sense of hope. It's kind of like the sense of hope a "witch" was expected to feel as the Inquisitors set her on fire in order to "save her soul".

Yes on 9 ... a message of hope: We'll just put you out of your misery.

How should we give the gays hope, then? Fire? Ducking stool? Firing squad? Lynch mob? How about a good ol' mob beating?

Nine's a good measure, though. It shows exactly how stupid, how hateful, how dishonest, and how desperate Mabon and his ilk are. If you ever find the Voters' Pamphlet from the '92 election, read some of the absolutely dumb things Mabon and Ramsdell stuck into their campaign pitches. Gagging teachers is nothing compared to their ambitions then. Seems to me they're willing to settle for any victory, just as long as that victory involves hating people.

thanx for the memories,
Tiassa :cool:

PS--we could always flay the skin from their still-living bodies and know that the sound of their pain is pleasing to the Lord.

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited September 19, 2000).]
 
"PS--we could always flay the skin from their still-living bodies and know that the sound of their pain is pleasing to the Lord."

But that might turn them on.

------------------
It's all very large.
 
"PS--we could always flay the skin from their still-living bodies and know that the sound of their pain is pleasing to the Lord."
But that might turn them on.
Click to expand...

Yes, Bowser, it might. But only if the homosexuals are as dangerously perverse as their persecutors.

Since you have a problem with gay people, and a problem with the idea of a hate-crime, as well, here's a suggestion:

* Count people as you pass them every day. Every tenth person, stop as you pass, and advise them that you think they are immoral and should not be allowed the same rights as you based on your assessment of their immorality.

Now, on the one hand, you'll be expressing yourself and promoting the morality you believe is proper. To the other, I know you're worried that you're not allowed to hate people. But this isn't true, you'll be able to crush anyone who tries to drag you in on a hate-crime. Think about it, it's win-win. You get to hate 'em, you get to tell 'em, and there's nothing they can do to stop you.

Isn't that all you're asking for, anyway?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 09, 2000).]
 
Better to stop and ask each of them if they care for homosexuality--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

Better to stop and ask each of them if they think homosexuality is a normal behavior--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

Better to stop and ask each of them if they think homosexuality is a lifestyle which we want promoted within our public schools--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

Better to stop and ask each of them if they think homosexuality is a behavior worthy of federal protection--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

Better to stop and ask each of them if they are homosexual--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

I know that heterosexuals are the majority, but I won't make any apologies for this fact. And I don't see any reason to change our values to the satisfaction of a minority of perverts. We have been too sympathetic towards the gay community. It's time for a change.

Let's focus our attention on the pervertion. Honestly, do we really believe that anal intercourse between men is anything but abnormal? What of two woman? Men and boys? Woman and girls? Do we really want our children taught that this is okay...normal? It's abnormal as defined by natural law. Only fools would believe the opposite.

I pulled the following text from a link which Tiassa had shared while illustrating one of his/her arguments against bigoted Christian attitudes. I feel that it defines my point about this issue best:

<hr>

A phrase that has come up recently in this earth is "sexual orientation." This is a phrase made up by homosexuals to try to make themselves look less filthy than they really are. The purpose of the phrase is to take the spotlight from what these perverts do, and put it on the notion that they are just poor, mistreated people, who simply are attracted to members of the same sex. "Sexual orientation," as used today, has nothing to do with sexual activity (yeah, right), but only refers to who or what a particular person is attracted to. If you think that people of other "sexual orientations" are just fine, let's see what other "sexual orientations" you would necessarily have to accept as wholesome and pure. If you're not going to discriminate based on "sexual orientation", then you must not discriminate against any of the following. If you discriminate against any of these, you're a hypocrite. These "sexual orientations" are generally known as "paraphilias", and are mental disorders - just like homosexuality used to be.

Exhibitionism - involves people who are sexually aroused by the idea of exposing their genitals to a stranger.

Fetishism - involves people who are sexually aroused by nonliving objects.

Frotteurism - involves people who are sexually aroused by the idea of touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person.

Pedophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children (usually 13 years or younger).

Sexual Masochism - involves people who are sexually aroused by being "humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer."

Sexual Sadism - involves people who are sexually aroused by causing the psychological or physical suffering of a victim (e.g., "restraint, blindfolding, paddling, spanking, whipping, pinching, beating, burning, electrical shocks, rape, cutting, stabbing, strangulation, torture, mutilation, or killing").

Transvestic Fetishism - involves people who are sexually aroused by cross-dressing.

Voyeurism - involves people who are sexually aroused by watching unsuspecting strangers have sex.

Telephone Scatologia - involves people who are sexually aroused by making obscene phone calls.

Necrophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to corpses.

Partialism - involves people who are sexually attracted to exclusively one part of the body.

Zoophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to animals.

Coprophilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by feces.

Klismaphilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by enemas.

Urophilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by urine.

<hr>

As said in the above text, Tiassa, you cannot support the gay cause without also endorsing all of the other perversions that linger in the closet. They too could just as easily be classified as "Sexual Orientations" Tell me...please tell me that you would not fight so fervently for these perverts and their "Sexual Orientations"?

It is a slippery slope which ends only when we hit bottom. I refuse to allow my children on that slope.



------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser--

And then ask them if they have any reason to worry about homosexuals, except for the fact that someone's asking. Those answers should be very, very interesting, eh?

I know that heterosexuals are the majority, but I won't make any apologies for this fact.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you would be expected to apologize for.

We have been too sympathetic towards the gay community.
Click to expand...

Like Reagan's sympathy when he let AIDS burn through America like wildfire because he thought it was a "gay measles" and the effects of their own sin?

Or is that the sympathy of the Inquisitors? That they're sorry it hurts to burn you at the stake, but they're saving your soul so you should be thankful?

Let's focus our attention on the pervertion. Honestly, do we really believe that anal intercourse between men is anything but abnormal? What of two woman?
Click to expand...

Yes, let's. As soon as you find some perversion, let me know so I can stop yawning.

Anal intercourse between men? Aesthetically, I don't find it beautiful, but aesthetics don't show spirit. And if two spirits are in harmony ... you're right. In this modern, forced version of normalcy, two spirits in true harmony would be abnormal. But otherwise, no.

Between women? Maybe I'm an utter chauvanist, but I generally think lesbianism is psychologically healthier than indentured heterosexuality. To be a little more mainstream about it, it's only abnormal if you have a preconceived reason for it to be abnormal. Thus far, no homophobe or even mere "don't think it should be forced on me" person has ever given me a reason to describe homosexuality as abnormal that didn't A) owe itself to a religiously-inspired bigotry, or B) bear serious ramifications for the organization of society when applied appropriately across the social spectrum (meaning you can't be arbitrary with your contrived morality).

Men and boys? Woman and girls?
Click to expand...

I would say this is no more normal or appropriate than heterosexually abusing children. What's the matter, did you forget that many, many Daddies like their Li'l Princesses? Or are those just closeted homosexual men abusing their daughters in order to exact revenge on their mothers? :rolleyes:

I'd say the above-quoted point is only relevant if you approve of heterosexual adult-child sexual relationships.

It's abnormal as defined by natural law. Only fools would believe the opposite.
Click to expand...

Then paint me pink and call me a foolish wedge of neon cheese.

See, here's the thing ... It's abnormal as defined by human institutional conceptions of natural law; that is, it is abnormal as defined by the artificial construction of natural law.

Natural law doesn't care about people.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, period. That pretty much covers "natural" law.

Now, as to your list ....

You're equating homosexuality to something two heterosexual people can do? At this point, I think it's a matter of sanitary considerations, effort, and taste. Sure, coprophilia and urophilia seem creepy, but it's not like they're coming to work with little bits of shite in their hair or under their nails. As far as I'm concerned, let them. It only becomes important to me when I have an offer to participate.

As far as equating homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality ... It's really a lot simpler than you seem to want to let it be. Two homosexual adults consent to take pleasure in each other's bodies. What your problem with that is, I can't figure out.

But having sex with children is not generally regarded as a consent issue. Having sex with animals most definitely isn't.

Frotteurism? Okay, you're reaching on that one, mostly because I'm well aware that most male humans have a thing about that ... we know well we're not supposed to, but it doesn't mean we don't. Ask any woman who goes to a rock concert, a dance club, and so forth. Quite frankly, it would be reassuring to my self image if just once a homosexual male would grab my ass. I mean, sure, I was about 13 when I went through that phase, but should I let that reflect on my assessment of the maturity of a woman who walks up to me and sticks her hands inside my clothes at a Screaming Trees show? (No ... if I'm, well, me, I figure she's having a nice ride on the Ecstasy and I can either pursue this from a perspective of advantage, or just enjoy the fact I'm getting attention. Really, it's all in what you choose to put into it and take from it.)

So I'm having sex with a corpse ... establish, please that there are two perverts involved. See, necrophilia ... really, I would love to see someone obtain consent there. :p

As said in the above text, Tiassa, you cannot support the gay cause without also endorsing all of the other perversions that linger in the closet.
Click to expand...

The ones that are consensual, I generally don't have much of a problem with. Crowley's maxim Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law accounts exactly for these ideas. Just because I can do many of those things on the list you've made does not mean that I must. You're sounding more and more like Phillip Ramsdell, who once wrote a voters pamphlet article describing the details of homosexual function so that he could complain in an editorial that the good heterosexuals had to know the intimate details of gay sex.

You've succeeded in one thing, though. You've let us know what you don't think people should be allowed to do while being allowed to participate in society. That's a big list, especially of the consensual acts and kinks that two adults can willingly share.

It is a slippery slope which ends only when we hit bottom. I refuse to allow my children on that slope.
Click to expand...

You and your slope .... :rolleyes:

Your children will ski where they want to. It's up to you to make it cost them their family.

I'll check out your Ejaculation Test links later. ;)

You know, it might be that if your kids do get around to buggery, they might surprise you by thinking they're the first to ever figure this out. After all, if you have your way, they'd never know homosexuality exists in the Universe. They'd never know that nature already got around to creating it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
I have no idea what you would be expected to apologize for.

A natural reaction to perversion. The voice inside most of us that says, "Hey...that isn't right!"

Like Reagan's sympathy when he let AIDS burn through America like wildfire because he thought it was a "gay measles" and the effects of their own sin?

Or is that the sympathy of the Inquisitors? That they're sorry it hurts to burn you at the stake, but they're saving your soul so you should be thankful?

No, more like swallowing our disgust while perversion slaps us in the face then parades in our streets. Now it knocks on the classroom door.

"Yes, let's. As soon as you find some perversion, let me know so I can stop yawning."

Don't open your mouth too wide. Someone might take that as an invitation. Ah...but that wouldn't be a problem because perverts are the real victims in our society. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon11.gif">

Anal intercourse between men? Aesthetically, I don't find it beautiful, but aesthetics don't show spirit. And if two spirits are in harmony ... you're right. In this modern, forced version of normalcy, two spirits in true harmony would be abnormal. But otherwise, no."

Yow! Harmony can be found through same gender sexual relations! What kind of farce is that? Let's think about this for a moment. You're telling me that two men assuming sexual roles in a relationship which are, normally, those of a man and a woman is somehow a harmonious relationship? How the hell could you justify this harmony even in spirit. It's doomed to be a failure from the start.

<hr>Men and boys? Woman and girls? </hr>

"I'd say the above-quoted point is only relevant if you approve of heterosexual adult-child sexual relationships.

It's relevant if you are a champion for the cause of sexual perversion. What of all the other perverts? If we are to allow homosexuality to hide behind a veil of words such as "sexual orientation" or "lifestyle," why then should we not allow those other minorities to do the same?


"See, here's the thing ... It's abnormal as defined by human institutional conceptions of natural law; that is, it is abnormal as defined by the artificial construction of natural law"

Artificial constructs of natural law...what, are you blind? Okay, let's consider what is normal for homosexuality. The following information I gained through a link supplied by you. It really has hardend my position on this issue.

<hr>
One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978).

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

50% of male syphilis is carried by homosexuals as a rectal infection and can enter through the urethra of another homosexual during anal sex (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE).

Around 67-80% of homosexuals lick and/or insert their tongues into the anuses of their partners (called "rimming", anilingus, fecal sex, etc.) and ingest biologically significant amounts of feces (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.), which is the chief cause of hepatitis and parasitic infections among homosexuals (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.).This practice is called the "prime taste treat in sex" in the bestseller The Joy of Gay Sex.

78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53).

12% of homosexuals give/receive enemas as part of sexual pleasure (Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.).

In one study, the average homosexual fellated somewhere between 20 and 106 men, swallowed 50 seminal discharges, had 72 penile penetrations of the anus, and ingested feces of 23 different men EVERY YEAR (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.).

33% of homosexuals admit to fisting (inserting the hand, sometimes part of the arm, into the rectum of his partner) (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.).

Urinating on each other ("golden showers") and torture has doubled among homosexuals since the 1940s, and fisting has increased astronomically (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.).

Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior" (MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.).

Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States ("Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987.). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.).

Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

In large cities, hospitals are often called on to remove objects from the rectums of homosexuals. Sometimes, the homosexuals do so much damage that they have to wear colostomy bags for the rest of their lives (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

The median age of death of homosexual woman is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (Newsweek, 4 October 1993.).

There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.).

Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.).

<hr>

Yes, there is something to be said for homosexuality. Our schools should be teaching the dangers of homosexuality. I am truly pro-education.

"You've succeeded in one thing, though. You've let us know what you don't think people should be allowed to do while being allowed to participate in society. That's a big list, especially of the consensual acts and kinks that two adults can willingly share."

I think there are limitations to what I want exposed to the public view. I really don't want to be involved with perversion on the street. It doesn't need to be there, and it only brings attention to itself when doing so. As for what people do in their homes and behind closed doors, that really is their affair within reason. It seems that people are not satisfied with that liberty, and maybe their perversions cause them to force us into a position where we have had enough of their sexual orientation. The gay community really is begging for a public spanking, but does this surprise us.

"Your children will ski where they want to. It's up to you to make it cost them their family."

I hope that they choose better than what some would teach them as being an "alternative."

"You know, it might be that if your kids do get around to buggery, they might surprise you by thinking they're the first to ever figure this out. After all, if you have your way, they'd never know homosexuality exists in the Universe. They'd never know that nature already got around to creating it."

Well, we need to educate them so that they understand the difference between ignorance and perversion.

<hr><blink>Vote Yes on Measure 9</blink>
Our Children
Our Schools
Our Vote<hr>




------------------
It's all very large.
 
Yes on 9? I think I hear Phillip Ramsdell!

Yes on Nine, my right eye. ;)
http://www.eserver.org/cultronix/Kent/default.html

Measure 9 is overtly contradictory regarding the public visibility of gays and lesbians. In sections (1) and (2), the amendment provides that the state "shall not recognize any categorical provision such as 'sexual orientation,' 'sexual preference,' and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism" and that state monies shall not be used, directly or indirectly, to "promote, encourage, or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism." Simultaneously, and in identical language, section (3) requires that the state "recognize homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse." Thus, within the text of the measure (and under the force of the proposed law) homosexuality is both denied and affirmed as a meaningful category of persons. The first two sections of the measure want to barricade gays in the closet, erasing visibility and prohibiting self-representation. The third section wants to parade gays and lesbians through the streets, but dressed in the tar and feathers of state-mandated condemnation. The combined effect of the three sections of the measure is to take the power of self-representation away from gays and lesbians and assure that they are known only through the state's condemnation. The measure wants gays and lesbians to be visible, but only on its terms.
Click to expand...

I mean, why, oh why, are you dragging Nine Itself out of the Closet of Evil History? Are you trying to demonstrate just how lost a cause Mabon's Menagerie Ministry of the Gospel-According-to-Lon really is?

Here's a quote that should tell you how well Mabon's Menagerie has "protected" children:
In my own experience, I can recall first learning the term "gay" in just such a narrative, during orange juice queen Anita Bryant's 1979 crusade against homosexual teachers. (Le'a Kent)
Click to expand...

And I liked this one a whole lot:
Simon Watney discerns the paranoid point of truth behind the fear of homosexual contamination--the gay man, he says, really is a threat to the artificial rigidity of gender identity:

Above all, homosexuality problematises the casual identification of primary power with the figure of the biological male as masterful penetrator. It equally problematises the parallel identification of powerlessness and passivity with the figure of the biological female as submissive and penetrated. For the gay man is truly polymorphous: he may f--k and be f--ked...
Click to expand...

(I have done the profanity censoring and accenting above.)

The OCA's list of "homosexual practices" is probably the only place or way many Oregonians would ever have learned this particular definition of "water sports," or, indeed, any of the listed practices. This will become important in some of the Arguments in Opposition, which object to Measure 9 precisely on the grounds that it could mandate the description of these sexual practices in the schools in order to educate against them. In the OCA's enumeration of practices and diseases, disease is framed as a crossing of boundaries, or as the inevitable result of a crossing of boundaries, in discourse that echoes early AIDS reports implying that homosexuality somehow "caused" AIDS. Significant among the borders violated in the OCA's list is the border between public and private sex. OCA rhetoric constructs homosexuality itself as a contagion, and reinforces this semiotic slide through the assertion that homosexuals, in addition to being a contagion, carry contagion. When uncloseted, homosexuality spreads (like) disease.
Click to expand...

(I have accented the above. I have added no parenthetical notes, however, to the text excerpt.)

At any rate, there's a big paper about Measure Nine, at the above address. It's what I've been quoting from.

But, come on ... you're using in defense of your ill feelings toward homosexuality a ballot measure that asked the constituency to fire every gay state employee, from the colleges down to the typing pool? That asked the constituency to legalize the beating of gays in the street? (Unable to discern that homosexuality is anything but detrimental, the courts would be obliged to allow the "good" citizens to aggressively "protect" themselves; the offense of the homosexual that would allow such aggressive protection would simply be, by legal definition, their presence within Oregon.)

Or are you coming around to the Temple of Ramsdell? What I fail to understand is how one person's decision to not like something becomes their solemn right to tell other people how to behave. Now if it's bossing you around too much to demand that you regard a homosexual human being as a human being, then I suppose this country just ain't free enough yet. I mean, what's wrong with the US of A? Hmmm? We're tyrants because we won't let you be a tyrant?

Oh, Wah! :rolleyes:

Measure Nine impacted people's lives severely. I feel fairly confident in the declaration that Had Lon Mabon not asked the state of Oregon to Constitutionalize hatred, Brian Moch and Hattie Cohen would still be alive.

This started over a library book, you know ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:


------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot


[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 12, 2000).]
 
I just had a scary moment. I had left work to go grab some lunch, and was returning to my office when two women passed me. One was slightly overweight, the other grossly. Said the Gross to the Slight, "Hey, look, there's a McDonald's bag. Let's just grab his."

And sure, we all laughed, but you do what you have to in those scary times. You gotta do what you can to protect yourself and your property.

I shouldn't be subject to that kind of threatening harassment at the hands of fat people who just want to steal my food, and the food of my children.

Chris Cornell sang, I don't mind stealing bread from the mouths of decadence; but I can't feed on the powerless when my cup's already overfilled.

When I think of the costs of obesity .... Businesses have to order special chairs to accommodate the overweight; and I'm endangered by the mere presence of a fatty if I'm on an airplane--I might not be able to get by, around, over, or through them to escape from the sinking or burning wreckage. Have you ever been trapped in an elevator with a smelly fatty? Ugh!

And the obese people in America: how many starving Africans would the "extra" food required by fatties for mere sustenance feed?

Anywhere there's a publicly-financed health plan, I'm paying for the fatties' irresponsibility. Should I have to pay for your bypass surgery, when all you had to do was lay off the Twinkies and leave my Quarter Pounder alone! :mad:

And I want my children to be healthy, damnit! I don't want them growing up thinking it's "okay" to be stinky and grossly overweight. I want them to know that it's immoral, and socially detrimental to be fat. I think they need to be taught at school that fat people are immoral. In fact, it's my right to demand that my kids be protected from fatties trying to stuff sugary, lardy treats down their snackholes.

Think about it, people! The fatties are trying to steal your children, to lure them away with sinister promises of nacho cheese and deep-fried delicacies.

And all the while trying to sell you the lemon-idea that obesity is a "disease". Hey, fatty! Try choosing not to be sick! That food is an "addiction"? Fine ... hey, it's just a matter of not eating, you know? I'd say, Just quit cold turkey, but you know those fatties, they can't see a pun without thinking of a pat of butter and a gravy boat.

And it's leading to a moral breakdown in society. The words of the Lord are being slowly eaten away by the army of gluttonous devils creeping across the land to take your children away! Is not gluttony a deadly sin? Yet the fatties work hard to convince people that they, the fat sinners, are the victims. Can you believe that? Soon enough, the fatties will have your kids sustaining their food habit by prostitution(*), or dealing Ho-Ho's on the black market.

Thus I propose a law. No more coddling. No special rights for this gluttonous army coming to rape your refrigerator and brainwash your kids into believing it's okay to be fat.

It should be illegal for the government to encourage, endorse, or promote obesity.

After all, if we keep allowing people to glorify the gaining of weight ... are they not simply delivering your children into the fatty's sticky, dirty hands?

No more state funding for workplace accommodations. Hey, if you're too fat for the stairs, get a job on the first floor. Leave the handicapped elevator for the people who need and deserve it. Special chairs ... workstation redesigns ... I'm tired, as a consumer, of having fatties pushing up the overhead with their special demands.

When our classrooms are protected from fat teachers, when our libraries are protected from pro-fatty literature, when our police no longer have to waste their time persecuting people for not liking fatties, then we will finally live in a free society. We will finally be able to raise our children without fear of the spectral fatties, reaching and clutching and stuffing and gorging on your children.

We shall call it the Child Protection Act of 2000.
____________________________

Note:

* Prostitution: In Germany, a restaurant has opened which serves sushi, several varieties, to be consumed off the body of a naked woman. Yes, they put the tuna where you think they would. Such debauchery can only come from the twisted minds of fatties!
____________________________

This is an outre ... yadda ad nauseam. I wouldn't actually bother with such a disclaimer, but history demonstrates that one cannot guard against conservative literalism too strongly. And y'all can put that in the bloody Congressional freakin' Record! :D

thank you,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 12, 2000).]
 
Interesting, I'm sure.

I've been checking many of those gay-activist sites--they do have some very good ideas on gathering support for a cause...very imaginitive people. Those thoughts about feeding ideas to the young...that does sound like a good way to make a change in our society. I really do like that one. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

I'm busy so forgive me if I neglect the topics over the next 30 days or so.

Take care




------------------
It's all very large.
 
Yow! Harmony can be found through same gender sexual relations! What kind of farce is that? Let's think about this for a moment. You're telling me that two men assuming sexual roles in a relationship which are, normally, those of a man and a woman is somehow a harmonious relationship? How the hell could you justify this harmony even in spirit. It's doomed to be a failure from the start.
Click to expand...

Yes, Bowser, it can.

It's not a farce. This harmony allows human beings to choose and know what their spirit considers harmonious. If a spirit cannot sing, it cannot be part of the harmony. Yet we live in a society which would order spirits not to sing sheerly out of bigoted jealousy. I think I'm safe in saying that you probably aren't the type experimental enough to see how your spirit reacts to a good, long, homosexual lay. On that grounds, I know I'm safe in saying that you, then, have no idea that such a harmony exists. As such, it would seem that you have no way of understanding that a spiritual harmony can exist between two men.

Does God exist in the Universe, or is what we see all that's there? Why, then, do I find a book purporting to know God and ordering me to obey, in every motel room I've ever seen? I've never seen that God. Should I simply assume he doesn't exist and the followers of this "God" are as stupid as the conditions would then assert? I would have to deny the whole of human spirit in order to get away with that. And you must deny the whole of human spirit in order to write new confines for what is spiritually allowable.

I would say "because it feels good", or "because it makes me happy" are better reasons for being homosexual than "Because God says so," or, "Because Lon (or Bowser) say so," is a reason for not being a homosexual.

Thus I would say, "Good luck" in your explorations. I hope they bring you some comfort which you have not yet attained. In the meantime, take good care of the kids: watch out both for Twinks and Twinkies. (And Ho-Ho's, delights named Alfredo, and other perverted stuff.)

We'll see you when you're ready ... ;)

take it easy,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
To Oregon Voters:

Tomorrow, November 7, 2000, you are asked to make a choice. You are asked to legalize discrimination and to move Oregon into a legislative class by itself among the many states.

In 1992, the People of Oregon rejected the OCA.

In 1994, the People of Oregon rejected the OCA.

Across the state, for several years, communities fought hard to resolve the divisive issues created by the Oregon Citizens' Alliance in its quest to purge the state of homosexuals.

For those who have stood against the OCA's proposed tyrranies, the world at large can only thank you.

For those whose lives these measures have stolen, I, at least, still remember you. Brian Moch and Hattie Cohen did not need to die, and had Oregon not been embroiled in Measure 9, they may not have been murdered by a firebomb.

Now, Lon Mabon says he will protect your "children" by censoring the libraries of the Universities, and writing their curriculum. Think about it ... any Oregon Health Sciences University graduate entering the medical industry could do so believing, like Ronald Reagan and many others, that AIDS is God's punishment for the homosexuals.

Lon Mabon has asked you to fire your schoolteachers, and to censor your school libraries, textbooks, and internet resources. The OCA and its supporters have asked you to look among your neighbors and have moral difficulty where you never have before. They ask you to join them in fear, though what they fear is demonstrating a legitimate cause for their concern, for it cannot be done.

The OCA is asking that you gag your school counselors, restrict their options and order them to condemn young people for asking certain questions.

Oscar Wilde and Truman Capote are the first to jump to mind; books will be removed from school curricula and libraries. Will your high school band be allowed to play YMCA at halftime? Here's a counterpoint: they would still be allowed to play Gary Glitter's stadium rally song (I forget the title; just say, Da-dada-dada-da, Hey! dada-dada, and you'll be close) even though he's a convicted child molester. What, exactly, is Mr Mabon and his cadre trying to achieve?

There's over 80 printed pages in this thread arguing the latest Mabon Frankenstein, last I checked, spread across the several html pages. If you've the time to take a sampling of our debates, please do so.

I lived in Oregon for several years; I never realized how much a part of my existence the OCA was until I got somewhere else, and enjoyed an election season without having to deal with them.

It is, therefore, my sincerest hopes that Oregon will reject Lon Mabon and the OCA, and reject their latest attempt to legislate their religiously-prescribed opinions as fact in your lives.

Please say No to discrimination.

Please say No to censorship.

Please say No to the OCA.

It's your state. It's your life. Don't let the OCA make it theirs.

thank you,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
I've been following this thread for a while, but haven't responded. Tiassa, one question, (I haven't looked into it), who won?

------------------
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music---George Carlin
 
According to CNN.com, it's still too narrow to call. As of 17:51 Eastern time today (11/9), the count favored the "No" vote by a 51/49 margin. The official vote difference is about 11,400 out of 1,175,000 or so counted.

The state-level measures the OCA sponsors usually turn on a couple of points; if I recall, 1992 (the original Measure 9) saw a 52/48 split at the same time that Colorado passed Amendment 2, developed by Colorado for Family Values, which involves the Promise Keepers, somehow. (McCarty? McCarthy?)

I'll stop before I begin grandiose editorializations. (I'll wait until it's a declared race to break out the soapbox.) ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Well, Tiassa, I think it's safe to say that M9 has failed to pass the Oregon vote... again. We will try again later--maybe place two on the next ballot. Let's now focus on this Bush-Gore fight. It really has overshadowed the Measure 9 issue and is much more interesting.

We are living in an exciting time. <img src ="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.
 
Honestly? Go right ahead and put two measures on the ballot. I should warn you, though, that historically, Oregon voters choose one or the other, thus splitting the vote.

I think it was 1996 when two virtually but not quite identical measures made the ballot regarding pornography, child pornography, and the First Amendment. Either ballot measure, it seemed, would have shored Oregon's definition of obscenity up with the Supreme Court standard (though I have no idea what the difference is/was), but Oregon conservatives voted for one or the other, while Oregon liberals voted against both. On an essentially split ticket, I recall that both anti-obscenity measures failed. Let me simply advise that part of the problem there was a marketing issue; I'm not sure the ballots' sponsors had reliable statistics, and may have written two measures to accomodate a faux-schizophrenia. On the other hand, I can see people generally being unwilling to tinker with the First Amendment at a state ballot box; it almost makes sense that way, too.

But it's been an incredibly close election; again, I would assert that Mabon keeps rescaling the scope of his measures in an attempt to woo that last 2% of the electorate that just doesn't seem to want to be fooled. But I offer my applause to Oregonians; I think it's right to put such a measure down. One decade down; how many does Mabon have left in him? ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Thanks for the advice. That is something to consider. It is time for a new approach. Also, I should note that the opponents to this measure spent about $7.00 for every $1.00 spent by the OCA. It looks like votes can be purchased.



------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser--

It looks like votes can be purchased.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Huffington. Tell that to Perot. At least, in the sense you're using. ;)

On the other hand, does that mean that Coca-Cola is "buying" your patronage with those silly Christmastime polar-bear ads?

I think it's fair to say that money is more important a resource than creativity. On the other hand, it helps if one can be creative; I don't think Measure 9 permitted it. It had a clear point: cause the schools to assert opinion as fact. It had a clear source: the Bible. It had a clear cause: this is (the Christian) God's will. The point, the source, and the cause are all pretty rigid.

Of course, 7:1 isn't a bad ratio, in my opinion, when you're preserving equality. Any cash price is workable, actually; at least nobody had to die for this one.

Campaign spending isn't purchasing, per se, but I get your point. Purchasing? Would the invention of a trillion-dollar surplus for the candidates to argue over constitute purchasing?

In 1992, out of state concerns (fuel, textile, pharmaceutical) outspent grass-roots to prevent marijuana decriminalization in Oregon. Out of state concerns (railroads, fuel companies) also outspent grass-roots in a fight over the number of trailers attached to your truck in Oregon. The anti-marijuana concerns won; the anti-triples group, as I recall, did not. (Correct me on that last one, as needed.)

I'm just curious what's left to try to score with this measure? The whole state? Nope. The schools? Nope. Hmmm ... where will the constituency allow y'all to discriminate? Looks like it's county-to-county and town-to-town again.

As far as the next ballot is concerned, I'd like to run you through a simple series of idealized steps, just for kicks:

* Mr Jones tells Johnny (age 10) it's OK to be gay, so we fire him. OK, gay advocacy is out.
* Next week, Ms Jackson tells Johnny about watersports and how much fun it is when she and her husband piss on each other. Guess what? You have no law like you do about the gays. OK, pass a law and fire Ms Jackson for watersports talk.
* Week after, Johnny hears about coprophilia from Mr James. New law, OK, fire Mr James.
* Week after, Johnny hears about oral sex from Ms Jolson. New law.
* Week after, Johnny hears about doggie-style. It's just kickin', says Mr Josephson. New law.
* And so forth and so forth until we're down to missionary heterosexual intercourse intended solely for reproduction. New law? Or is it enough that you've finally proscribed speech so much that one can only describe reproductive, missionary heterosexuality to students. Or sex isn't part of schools at all, biology or otherwise.

Why not focus on sexuality in general? Why not address sexual mores as applies to people? Why not order the schools to limit their sex ed to reproductive biology only, and leave it to the parents (even while we bear Lysander Spooner in mind) to raise or screw up their children on that level? In other words, why start with such a broad, exclusionary restriction? Does a prohibition about watersports somehow not apply to both hetero- and homosexual intercourse?

Why make twice the effort to return to Puritanism?

Or is it, simply, that everyone knows that society at large won't stand to be told how to have sex?

I guess I just don't understand what makes one person's opinion the criteria for dividing society.

That, and I don't see how one's sexuality predetermines the quality of employee they will be.

In 1997 or so, the Washington legislature passed a law that allows your employer to lie about you intentionally in a job reference. (There's no ifs, ands, or buts, about it, either.) Why not start with a law like that, except that it allows employers to lie about homosexuals. That way, you can chase them all out of the economy without actually firing them. Why not just write child-stalker laws that make it illegal for a gay man to speak to a child?

I mean, I know Mabon's not out to burn the gays in concentration camps--it costs too much and it's bad PR--but his solutions lead us no closer to resolving moral crises in our society. In fact, I think Mabon's ilk inflame our troubles.

Honestly? I'd say "Good luck" to your future ballot endeavors, as such, but I think you know what I mean. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> LOL! Hey, I missed this stuff while I was away.

A message can be placed in the faces of a great many people if you have the money to purchase the resources. Considering the amount of support which Measure 9 rallied by simply being on the ballot, I imagine that a little advertising for that measure would have gathered the winning votes. You tell me if 1.5 million can't influence the opinions of people.

Another thing that bothered me about the opponents' campaign against Measure 9 was their message on TV which asserted that, if M9 passed, there would be no AIDS education in our public schools. Do you believe that?

I disagree with you about your assumption that Measure 9 would have forced the schools to encourage an opinion other than an objective observation. The measure would have prevented the schools from promoting, encouraging, or sanctioning homosexuality. For certain, it would have prevented our schools from promoting a subjective opinion that homoseuality is good. Also, the evidence of religious restrictions which so many opponents claimed to be "clear" could not be found in the text of the Measure itself. I understand your point about its source, but that wasn't reflected in the measure itself.

<hr>
"I'm just curious what's left to try to score with this measure? The whole state? Nope. The schools? Nope. Hmmm ... where will the constituency allow y'all to discriminate? Looks like it's county-to-county and town-to-town again."
<hr>

Well, I believe that this last measure needs to be reworded. There were some problems which need to be fixed. Untill it reaches the ballot, it will be an ongoing public campaign.

<hr>
"Why not focus on sexuality in general? Why not address sexual mores as applies to people? Why not order the schools to limit their sex ed to reproductive biology only, and leave it to the parents (even while we bear Lysander Spooner in mind) to raise or screw up their children on that level? In other words, why start with such a broad, exclusionary restriction? Does a prohibition about watersports somehow not apply to both hetero- and homosexual intercourse?"
<hr>

And that just might pass with a majority vote, Tiassa. Why can't we teach the human reproductive cycle whithout going into the depths of sexual perversion?

I believe that homosexuals are noticed here because their sexuality has become a public issue. Honestly, does it belong in our school curriculum? Can we talk about homosexuality without promoting it?

<hr>
"I guess I just don't understand what makes one person's opinion the criteria for dividing society."
<hr>

I agree with the above statement, but I see it from the other point of view.

<hr>
"That, and I don't see how one's sexuality predetermines the quality of employee they will be."
<hr>

It shouldn't, but how much of ourselves should we share? Do you smoke pot with your coworkers during your breaks? Should a dope smoking teacher share the mechanics of a bong with his students.

Look, it's about sexual preference and personal values. I think the point that is being driven home is that half of Oregon doesn't like homosexual behavior. The truth of this is evident when you recognize that they voted for Measure 9 without the encouragment of a well-funded campaign.


It will hit the next ballot, but not as we have seen in the past.



------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser--

Another thing that bothered me about the opponents' campaign against Measure 9 was their message on TV which asserted that, if M9 passed, there would be no AIDS education in our public schools. Do you believe that?
Click to expand...

I think it's that just about anyone can make the connections to crystallize the argument about AIDS education. That's the point, that no sharp-talking lawyer is required to show this allegedly logical progression. Suffice to say that any proper HIV and AIDS education involves sensitivity to homosexuality. Rather, we could choose to leave the 1980's out of AIDS-related education, and skip the whole debacle when Reagan believed--Africa notwithstanding--that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuality, but I think the history of how to create an epidemic is important to teach people.

I think the social history of AIDS will have to discuss, in addition to the demonization of Ryan White, and the terrorization of AIDS patients in the 80's will eventually spill over into homosexuality. Fear of HIV fueled much homophobia in the 1980's.

Yes, I think Measure 9 of 2000 would definitely hinder an AIDS education. Prevent it? Only in smaller districts without the resources to work around such silly restrictions.

Well, I believe that this last measure needs to be reworded. There were some problems which need to be fixed. Untill it reaches the ballot, it will be an ongoing public campaign.
Click to expand...

How many times should Mr Mabon re-write his measure? How many times should it be rejected before the OCA realizes they're just wrong?

I believe that homosexuals are noticed here because their sexuality has become a public issue. Honestly, does it belong in our school curriculum? Can we talk about homosexuality without promoting it?
Click to expand...

* Homosexuality is only a pubic issue because people have, for so long, chosen to perceive gays as "others". Just like the Castro, just like today--when gay people asks people to treat them equally, they mean it. That they're gay should not be the first and only reason to deny them. That heterosexual moralists have made this their cause is the choice of heterosexual moralists. But as long as homosexuals are marginalized, they will ask to be included in society and treated equally. It does not seem, though, as if the heterosexual moralists are asking the gays to apologize for being gay; apparently, such is unforgivable to the point of legislation. It does, however, seem that heterosexual moralists are asking gays to apologize because the heterosexual moralists are homophobic.

It shouldn't, but how much of ourselves should we share? Do you smoke pot with your coworkers during your breaks? Should a dope smoking teacher share the mechanics of a bong with his students.
Click to expand...

* As much as we're comfortable with.
* No, I don't. But neither are the teachers having gay sex with their students, or have you forgotten to mention the lunchtime bathhouses in the high-school gymnasia?
* Mechanics of a bong? Depends. I think the Drug War's bogus, and that marijuana is a victim of massive disinformation. Presently, the answer is no. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be a question merely because, well ... would you let the kids build a still? But only because they're minors, and that's a fair line to draw in a legalized drug world.

Look, it's about sexual preference and personal values. I think the point that is being driven home is that half of Oregon doesn't like homosexual behavior. The truth of this is evident when you recognize that they voted for Measure 9 without the encouragment of a well-funded campaign.
Click to expand...

How many campaigns has Mabon failed to win?

You're right, though, it's about sexual preference and personal values. As in yours for you, mine for me, and Johnny Flamer's for Johnny Flamer. We have decency standards, period. I don't see how homosexuality isn't included in sexual decency standards. Indecent liberties are indecent liberties. Sexual communication is sexual communication. Why do you insist on categorizing people even further based on your own personal values? And only so you can prohibit and restrict that category you invent?

One of the pains a leftist such as myself generally endures is the smarmy taunt of Capitalism. However, in this case, such a taunt comes to my aid. For it is not my fault that Mabon and Company can't raise money. This is America, the OCA just apparently need to spend more. Or, I could simply say that people are a lot more willing to donate money in defense of liberty. It's one of the problems of being the persecutor; your allies know that they could become your targets.

The fact is that Mabon's campaigns are born to lose. No amount of rewriting will change that fact. Mabon's campaigns are wrong. No amount of money will change that fact.

Personal anecdote: When I was 11 I was playing dodgeball and got knocked senseless. A classmate dragged me off the floor in a quasi-heroic moment (you had to be 11 and there, y'know?) Anyway, he and I might have become friends, except you could see his regard for me change, a shift in his very expression when someone mentioned that I have Asian descent; strangely, I was conditioned to the idea that it showed nakedly on my face, but whaddaya gonna do? From that change of facial expression forward--literally, the day after dodgeball--he was a violent assailant whose deeds would, in the later 1990's, have scored big points with the hate-crime folks. After all, he thought I was cool until he learned I was slightly not white.

Personal anecdote, likewise: A guy wanted to beat me up because he thought I was sleeping with his girlfriend. It hadn't happened, and wasn't. But he was one of those--seemingly very typical--types that couldn't understand how two people of opposing genders could associate so frequently without a business pretense without having sex. So she told him I was her gay shopping buddy. Nice move, dear, for he has thereafter held the sentiment that he needs to kick my ass because I'm gay.

In either case, what is the difference in who or what I am before and after the other person's perception of otherness? My friend's boyfriend is no longer her boyfriend, but that's what happens when you have the mentality of an 11 year-old, eh?

I'll give you a hint: the only difference between before and after when I was 11 and it was ethnicity was the opinion of the guy who didn't like me. The only difference when I was 23 and it was homosexuality was that the guy had a new reason to dislike me, despite the fact that he neither had one to begin with, nor needed one except to fulfill his own craven psychological needs. In other words, the difference was with the other people. The only difference about me is that I have one more person disliking me for ethnic reasons, and one more person disliking me because he thinks I'm gay.

Mr Jones the teacher is gay. The only difference to consider about his quality of life as a teacher and a human being is your knowledge that he is gay. Before you knew, he was a fine teacher. Now that you know? Well, apparently, he's unqualified to teach because you've decided he wants to rape your son? How do you know he's gay? Does it matter? If he stands up on Coming Out Day and announces himself at a rally, it gives you no right to discriminate. If it comes up because kids are egging his car or tagging his house, you have no right to discriminate. If it comes up because he's inappropriate to a child, it matters not whether he's homosexual or heterosexual in his advance.

You're just looking for one more thing to hold against people. Why?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top