← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 12318 | Posts: 42 | Started: 2004-02-14
2004-02-14 02:56 | User Profile
2-13-04
Gay Marriage/"Yids" Mailing
Our "Yids" mailing of 2-12-04
Yes, our e-mailing of yesterday [titled "Yids"] was another snotty one. Sorry. We sent it because of some Jewishness we had read just hours earlier, and we were still angry...
Gay Marriage In America
Our local newspaper just featured items about "gay marriage" in both Arizona and America. We are going to comment on that today.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. And it has nothing to do with the Bible's views on homosexuality, as some conservatives maintain. Nope.
What does homosexual marriage have to do with? There are people in the West pushing something called the NWO -- New World Order, which is really the Jew World Order since Jews push it more than anyone else. The NWO/JWO maintains that all human beings are equal -- a truly sick idea if ever there was one. Human beings vary in intelligence, talent, resourcefulness, thoughtfulness and other traits. Are you even "equal" to your father or grandfather? Ten bucks says no. Are we "equal" to our former college math teacher? Nope. He is smarter and more resourceful than we are. We have learned to accept our inferiority.
Homosexual marriage is designed to weaken traditional Western culture, to make all humans seem more equal. In other words, homosexual marriage is Marxism cleverly disguised as human rights. Don't fall for it, folks.
2004-02-14 03:46 | User Profile
Homosexuality and "Gay" marriage are an abomination. Just another symptom of the larger sickness that is killing the West. I give us another 20 years or so before critical mass is reached.
Ausonius
2004-02-17 13:20 | User Profile
Colorado County Had Sax-Sex Licenses
By BEN KIECKHEFER Associated Press Writer
February 16, 2004, 2:33 AM EST
DENVER -- As Clela Rorex sits back and watches the national debate unfold over same-sex marriage, she smiles. She's seen it all before.
After all, the former Boulder County clerk and recorder issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples back in 1975.
"Politicians in '75 didn't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole, not even Democrats," Rorex said Sunday, a day that saw hundreds of gay and lesbian couples lined up in San Francisco to get marriage licenses.
As a newly elected political rookie in 1975, Rorex was approached by a same-sex couple who asked if she would issue a marriage license. They told her they had been denied by a clerk in El Paso County.
After securing a legal opinion from the Boulder County district attorney at the time, who said state law did not preclude issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Rorex issued the license.
"I issued licenses because I didn't want to be legislating morality," Rorex said, adding she knew little about homosexuality at the time and did not know many gay people.
Once the media latched onto the issue, though, hate mail and calls from state politicians started pouring in, Rorex said.
As word spread, more gay couples came to her asking for licenses, and she would grant them. She said she issued licenses to about a half dozen gay couples in early 1975.
"The state Legislature was all in a panic over this, needless to say," Rorex said. "Even some of the Democratic legislators at the time were very critical of me issuing licenses because they did not want to have to address the issue, so they were trying to avoid it like crazy."
Legislators then asked for a legal opinion from the state attorney general at the time, J.D. MacFarlane. He said Sunday that his office drafted an opinion that state law was clear on the issue, and that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The same-sex licenses were deemed void.
"The statute was so clear, there wasn't any real question of interpreting it," MacFarlane said. "It wasn't ambiguous, as far as I recall."
Soon after, Rorex stopped issuing licenses. [She recalled that a man even came in trying to get a license for himself and his horse; Rorex told him the horse was too young to get married without parental consent.
"After I stopped, the furor kind of died down," she said. "I was just so inundated with mostly hate mail during that time period. It was really incredible the letters I got."
Rorex said she believes all the couples she licensed went ahead and got married, but she does not know what happened to them.
The brief frenzy she witnessed is replicating itself in San Francisco, where officials began issuing same-sex licenses and officiating at City Hall marriages on Thursday. Over 1,000 same-sex marriage licenses were expected to be signed by Monday.
And on the other coast last week, Massachusetts Legislature suspended debate on a proposed gay marriage ban after two days of tense negotiations and an angry walkout by lawmakers. The debate over changing the state's constitution resumes next month.
Rorex said she's enjoying the current debate over same-sex marriage, and applauds the politicians who stand up in favor of it. It also helps her put her role in the debate into perspective.
"I am prouder now than I ever comprehended then," Rorex said.
Copyright é 2004, The Associated Press
[url]http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-gay-marriage-history,0,6086133.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines[/url]
2004-02-17 13:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"I issued licenses because I didn't want to be legislating morality," Rorex said, adding she knew little about homosexuality at the time and did not know many gay people. [/QUOTE]
Well, lady, what else are laws supposed to do if they are not "legislating morality"? If we are all left to our own devices, we would be worse than Africa. I am so sick of hearing that statement. Anyone who repeats it is an idiot and it is pathetic in this case since this lady is a judge. Unfortunately, there are many like her, male and female.
2004-02-17 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]If we are all left to our own devices, we would be worse than Africa.[/QUOTE]
How's that possible?
2004-02-17 20:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]"I issued licenses because I didn't want to be legislating morality," Rorex said, adding she knew little about homosexuality at the time and did not know many gay people.[/QUOTE]
By granting the marriage licenses to homosexuals, she was legislating morality. If she didn't want the government to legislate morality, should should have done her part to keep the government out of homosexuals' relations.
2004-02-17 22:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]By granting the marriage licenses to homosexuals, she was legislating morality. If she didn't want the government to legislate morality, should should have done her part to keep the government out of homosexuals' relations.[/QUOTE]
A better way to legislate morality is to enforce the anti-sodomy and anti-homosexual laws on the books in most states. I believe gays, pedophiles, and other sexual deviants should be executed.
2004-02-18 01:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I believe gays, pedophiles, and other sexual deviants should be executed.[/QUOTE]
No, but seriously, how do you [I]really [/I] feel?
2004-02-18 02:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper] I believe gays, pedophiles, and other sexual deviants should be executed.[/QUOTE]
You know a lot of older fags are very nice and add goodness to the world. Like in my mother's building the resident old queen spoils all the older women in the building with gifts, attention, and invitations to his little get togethers. They adore him. A friend of my mother's, now deceased, was completely ignored by her son in Alaska, but was adopted by the old fag in [I]her[/I] building. I think every condominium complex should contain one old fag, by law, to amuse the old ladies. I hate the thought of old people spending their declining years abandoned and alone.
2004-02-18 04:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]A better way to legislate morality is to enforce the anti-sodomy and anti-homosexual laws on the books in most states. I believe gays, pedophiles, and other sexual deviants should be executed.[/QUOTE]
If Israel followed OT law, they'd be stoning the perverts. But, noooo, Israel gives special rights to homosexuals.
2004-02-19 01:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]If Israel followed OT law, they'd be stoning the perverts. But, noooo, Israel gives special rights to homosexuals.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know that. More proof that modern Israel is not a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. I wonder if the dispensationalists will start to pander to homosexuals as they do to the Jews? :lol:
2004-02-19 01:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]No, but seriously, how do you [I]really [/I] feel?[/QUOTE]
Well, it would be a better world. I agree with Old Teatament Law on this. It is a waste of taxpayer's money to keep them alive in jail for awhile and then rerealease them out into society where these creeps victimize children, teens, women, and even other men! I used to think that getting several years in the can was the answer but most are not "cured" but go on to more violent sexual crimes. Even if these creeps claim to have accepted Christ, they still need to pay for their crimes with death. As for the consenting adults argument, homosexuality is harmful to health, and causes early death for most. Anyone, male or female, who practices homosexuality is practicing suicide. We have laws against suicide, so why not laws against homosexuality? That is how I feel.
See here for more info and stats about how homosexuality harms health and affect longitivity from a study by Dr. Phil Cameron of the Family Research Council: [url]http://www.traviscase.org/Sermons/Sex/homosexuality1.html[/url]
2004-02-19 03:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Well, it would be a better world.[/QUOTE]
Better for who after you kill all the hairdressers, most of the men's store clerks, all the poodle washers, and a good many of the best waiters?
[QUOTE] I agree with Old Teatament Law on this. [/QUOTE]
Old [I][B]Teat[/B]ament[/I]?
[QUOTE]It is a waste of taxpayer's money to keep them alive in jail for awhile and then rerealease them out into society where these creeps victimize children, teens, women, and even other men![/QUOTE]
Do you seriously believe that all homosexuals are criminals? Dude, you must really live an isolated existence.
[QUOTE]As for the consenting adults argument, homosexuality is harmful to health, and causes early death for most.[/QUOTE]
And [I]you[/I] have a problem with this? lol!
[QUOTE]Anyone, male or female, who practices homosexuality is practicing suicide. We have laws against suicide, so why not laws against homosexuality? [/QUOTE]
The answer is obvious, lethal injection for the crime of suicide. :clown: You would prefer rocks though, because that's how the Jews used to do it. :clown:
[QUOTE]Anyone, male or female, who practices homosexuality is practicing suicide.[/QUOTE]
Obvious grounds for execution. :lol:
2004-02-19 10:00 | User Profile
[I]I believe gays, pedophiles, and other sexual deviants should be executed. [/I]
The criminal law is all about protecting public welfare. Sodomy isn't a private act because it has such very public consequences. Sodomy thus should well be criminalized.
However, we need to distinguish carefully against homosexual desires and overt acts. The law should punish only overt acts. People who experience Same Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD) deserve our sympathy and support.
Sodomy is an inherently septic thing. It spreads all sorts of diseases, including the most deadly ones, and clearly constitutes a major public health risk. Those convicted (after a fair trial) of sodomy charges should be chemically castrated. This can be accomplished with DepoProvera implants.
A second conviction (after a free and fair trial, as always) should result in death.
Same for child molestation, rape, and so forth that doesn't result in death. Here full restitution is required, by means of temporary enslavement with wages paid to the victims. If the act resulted in death or grievous bodily injury, then an eye for an eye - they should be executed by lethal injection.
HIV positive people who contracted the virus via sexual contact should be quarantined, lest they infect others.
I don't know what to do about lesbians. Their sexual practices aren't nearly as septic, and they don't present the same sort of clear and present danger to society, as do sodomites. I guess that for legal symmetry and for the public's good morals it should be illegal, although I'm not sure how it could be effectively punished or even policed. I'll have to think about that.
Walter
2004-02-19 14:20 | User Profile
Tune in to the Walter Yannis Sodomy Trials and [I]stay tuned [/I] for the SKemper Justice in the Stone Yard. And for the sake of [I]symmetry[/I] the Lizzies get it too!
ONe thing I do agree on:
Sodomy is an inherently [B]sceptic[/B] thing.
2004-02-19 16:50 | User Profile
Wintermute:
I will watch The Hunger. Actually, I saw it when it came out way back when. I thought it was pretty good at the time. I don't see what point you're trying to make with it, but I'm game.
Guns are a problem only because we live in a multi-racial society. Jews in Israel, for example, feel very comfortable with Jews walking around armed. Same with Serbs. I'm the same way. I love the fact that one of my neighbors - a huge Polish fellow who was a marksmanship instructor in the military and who snowploughs my mom's lawn for free just because he's a swell guy - always walks around with a licensed weapon. My life is greatly enhanced by his presence. As our own dear NeoNietzsche rightly puts it, the only question is whether it is mine or not. The big Pollack on the tractor with the service forty five under his jacket is mine, and the large Negro with the uzi is not. Ergo, I like the big Pollack armed and close and the Negro disarmed and far away. I don't see the problem with this.
As to drugs, these mostly constitute victimless crimes. There's nothing good to say about drugs, but so long as an addict doesn't hurt anybody else in pursuit of his lowlife thrills, I think policing it is not worth the trouble. A man can sit in his room and inject cheap & clean legal (or decriminalized) drugs and kill only himself. That's fine with me. Like Bardamu says, it seems foolish to punish suicide attempts with death. If he - or a drunk driver for that matter - gets behind the wheel, then that's a real problem and he should be punished, given a single chance to stop, and if he screws up then society should eliminate them as well. After a free, fair and public trial, of course. We simply cannot afford irresponsible a$$holes killing innocents on the highway. We could go Singapore's route, I guess, but it seems excessive. Besides, I can't think of a worse fate that might befall any addict worth his salt than lots of cheap, pure drugs. That problem will largely resolve itself, after drugs are legalized and the first big self-inflicted cull takes place. Naturally, we should launch a media blitz against drugs, including the public execution of drug addicts who crossed the line into breaches of the public peace.
However, that isn't the case with faggots, whose primary indulgence is inherently - uh - interpersonal. Arsebandits are interested primarily in receptive anal intercourse, and that means NOT acting alone, but at least with one other, and usually with many others. The average faggot has hundreds of sexual contacts per year according to published reports. This comports with my considerable experience with the anal-obsessed - they lead lives of astonishing debauchery, and suffer nearly to a man from a broad range of just awful diseases. Sodomy spreads disease, and worse yet sodomites tend strongly to propagate their own kind through the seduction of vulnerable youths. Simply put, no sane society would tolerate sodomy or the unchecked presence of sodomites. Anybody can make a mistake, and I'm not for the full brunt of the OT injunction to have them summarily taken to the town gates and stoned to death. They should be given a chance to reform, and helped along with counseling and DepoProvera. But if they fail to control themselves, then their lives should be forfeit without further adieu.
There are far more important interests at stake than some pervert's butt pleasure. Society must protect itself. And if that means offing some rent boys, then so be it. After a fair trial and fully in accordance with procedural protections, it goes without saying.
You seem worried about the state being too powerful here, but I gently remind you that the criminal law, especially on these moral issues, is a local thing. The state or the country even would make all of these decisions, on a controllable level that is least threatening to liberty. I also kindly direct your attention to the fact that the terrible increase in federal power that does indeed threaten our freedom came about in tandem with the federalization of issues like the regulation of sodomy at the behest of organized faggotry and an activist federal judiciary. In short, the tolerance of all things mandated by the federal bench - including black/white marriages, sodomy, and so forth - is the thing that threatens to destroy our freedoms, and not locally enacted and enforced sodomy laws that you may find a tad harsh.
Please do see Andrei Rublev. There are powerful scenes of Christian persecution of pagans (based on historical fact) that you will find interesting.
Walter
2004-02-19 17:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Do you seriously believe that all homosexuals are criminals? Dude, you must really live an isolated existence.[/QUOTE]
Yes, by definition those engaging in sodomy are criminals, and they should be dealt with accordingly.
Walter
2004-02-19 17:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Tune in to the Walter Yannis Sodomy Trials and [I]stay tuned [/I] for the SKemper Justice in the Stone Yard. And for the sake of [I]symmetry[/I] the Lizzies get it too!
ONe thing I do agree on:[/QUOTE]
Okay, okay. Spellcheck run.
You're so strict.
Walter
2004-02-19 17:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The criminal law is all about protecting public welfare. Sodomy isn't a private act because it has such very public consequences. Sodomy thus should well be criminalized.[/QUOTE]
Right. Homosexuality, pedophilia, and other sexual deviations are determental to both the general health and safety of society.
[QUOTE]However, we need to distinguish carefully against homosexual desires and overt acts. The law should punish only overt acts. People who experience Same Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD) deserve our sympathy and support.[/QUOTE]
I agree. My statement is from the OT and refers to those caught overtly in the act. I agree that we should help those who are struggling with with the desires but I do think they must face the consequences if they are caught in the act.
[QUOTE]Sodomy is an inherently sceptic thing. It spreads all sorts of diseases, including the most deadly ones, and clearly constitutes a major public health risk. Those convicted (after a fair trial) of sodomy charges should be chemically castrated. This can be accomplished with DepProvera implants. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]A second conviction (after a free and fair trial, as always) should result in death.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Same for child molestation, rape, and so forth that doesn't result in death. Here full restitution is required, by means of temporary enslavment with wages paid to the victims. If the act resulted in death or grevious bodily injury, then an eye for an eye - they should be executed by lethal injection.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean septic. I did the same thing as Bardamu caught me spelling "Testament", as "teatament" :lol: , the a and s keys are close. I have to disagree with chemicial castration as the first offense. Castrated men can still practice sodomy. Also, many, if not most sexual crimes, are commited for power as well as lust. Chemically castrated men still sodomize and molest children, women, and other even other men by other means. Castration may stop some, but even with the hormones gone, there are still power and mental factors to consider and physical removal of the male sex organs is not going to be enough. Also we need to take into account the mental anguish that the sexual predator inflicts on his ( or her) victims, which never leaves them. Many molested and abused children become homosexuals and pedophiles, rapists, and other sexual deviants when they grow up. Not all do, of course, but still the marks are there in the psyche when the children grow up and do become responsible. Talk to any woman who has been raped and let her tell you how it affects her years after the fact to get an idea.
Walter, I do have another punishment for first offense pedophiles, put them in prison for 30 years and make sure the other prisoners know that he is a pedophile and make his cellmates men who have children. His time there will be miserable guaranteed.
[QUOTE]I don't know what to do about lesbians. Their sexual practices aren't nearly as sceptic, and they don't present the same sort of clear and present danger to society as do sodomites. I guess that for legal symmetry and for the public's good morals it should be illegal, although I'm not sure how it could be effectively punished or even policed. I'll have to think about that.[/QUOTE]
I also think that lesbians caught in the act should be put to death. They also practice septic sexual practices and do seduce young girls. It is "safer" in that the victims are rarely murdered.
The problem with enforcing the laws on these crimes is how to police society for most of these crimes are conducted "in private." I, for one, don't want Big Brother watching my every move.
Walter, here is a great pamplet about homosexuality put out by the AFA. See pg. 14 about the "sceptic" practices of homosexuals.
[url]http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/homosexuality.pdf[/url]
2004-02-19 18:00 | User Profile
Bardamu / Wintermute,
I take it then that your position is that there should be no legal prohibition against sodomy or homosexuality whatsoever? Even on a state or local level?
2004-02-19 20:19 | User Profile
Walter, if you still think lesbians are less harmful to society, read this. The perverse acts perpetrated on these boys aree both evil and revulsive. They are clearly men-haters and took it out on these poor boys under their care.
[B]`I hate you both,' teen tells women[/B]
Appeals expected in Kenmore abuse case
By Phil Trexler
Beacon Journal staff writer
The 15-year-old stood before almost every news camera in Northeast Ohio as he eyed his mother for the first time since escaping from home last spring.
Mary Rowles barely returned her son's look. Neither did her partner, Alice Jenkins. In minutes, the two would learn how long they would be imprisoned for abusing the teen, his four brothers and a sister.
``My entire life has been horrifying because of the abuse, neglect and mistreatment that both of you have inflicted,'' Darrell Rowles began.
You are both hurtful people and need to be put away for a long time so that no other child has to go through what I went through,'' he said.I hate you both for everything you put me through.''
The long time'' the teen wanted was translated into 30 years in prison by Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia A. Cosgrove, who called the womenperhaps the coldest, most unfeeling, least empathetic criminals I have ever seen.''
Before the teen walked into court Tuesday, Rowles and Jenkins sat at a table for about 40 minutes, smiling, chuckling and whispering to each other. The tears they shed at previous court hearings where absent.
I hate you in the worst way, and it's not desirable to hate someone,'' Darrell told his mother and Jenkins when he stood to speak.I never want to see either of you ever again. If you happen to get out of prison soon, I don't want either of you to come near me.''
Time and a string of appeals will tell if the sentence or the women's pleas to a 55-count indictment hold up.
They pleaded guilty in October to kidnapping, felonious assault, child endangering, corrupting another with drugs, and marijuana possession.
In court, attorneys said the women will appeal last week's decision by Cosgrove denying their request to withdraw their guilty pleas and take their case to trial. An appeal on the length of the sentence is also likely.
For now, the women must serve the entire sentence without a chance of parole, prosecutors said.
They will probably be sent together to the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, where 1,737 of the state's female prison inmates live.
A prison spokeswoman said the couple would likely be housed in separate units inside the 250-acre compound northwest of Columbus.
During the sentencing hearing, prosecutors Gregory Peacock and Mary Ann Kovach told the judge about the life the children lived inside their Florida Avenue home, and about ``a household of chaos and deprivation.''
Before a mass of cameras, they told how Jenkins targeted the five boys because of their gender, and one boy in particular because he is biracial.
They told the overflowing gallery filled with family, friends and curiosity-seekers about the windowless, 3-foot-by-5-foot closet where the boys were forced to sleep in their own urine-soaked blankets for days or weeks at a time.
They told how the boys were forced to swallow human and animal feces, lick toilet bowls as punishment for urinating on the toilet seat, and eat cat food when Jenkins became angry.
Prosecutors showed pictures of the frail, waiflike boys, their ribs and collarbones protruding throughtheir skin. They showed photos of the family's refrigerator and pantry, overflowing with food.
Rowles looked at the photos but showed no emotion. Jenkins didn't look, her eyes focused downward on a piece of paper.
Peacock described the night last April when Darrell and his two younger brothers, 8 and 10, broke out of their upstairs closet, and how the youngest, stuck on the roof, begged not to be left behind.
``They were not simply running away; they were escaping their home,'' Peacock said.
All the children are in foster homes. A juvenile judge last year refused to give Rowles visitation.
One father walked out of court and passed reporters in tears without commenting. It was unclear if the other children's fathers were there.
Darrell told the court that Christmas and birthday memories were of the abuse he and his brothers endured in 2002 and parts of 2003.
``For example, on Christmas you beat us, then gave us gifts, but the next day you grounded us and destroyed our gifts. I remember not even getting gifts on Christmas. That really hurt,'' he said.
`I hate my birthday. I have no memories of a birthday. All I can remember is Alice hitting me in the face with a shoe and saying,This is for good will.' ''
The bespectacled teen, dressed in a navy blue sweater and gold chains, laughed and shook hands with his brother when he was done speaking.
Cosgrove commended the courage of the boys for escaping their home and telling their story to authorities.
She also asked the women if they had anything to say prior to sentencing.
Rowles, 31, replied defiantly: ``Not a thing.''
Jenkins, 28, said simply, ``No, your honor.''
Defense attorneys Don Malarcik and Kirk Migdal, who previously asked Cosgrove to appoint the women new attorneys to handle their appeal, said the women could not express any remorse and make any statements while their appeals were pending.
Last fall, Cosgrove rejected a plea offer prosecutors and defense attorneys reached. The judge reportedly felt the 15-year sentence the woman were prepared to accept was insufficient, and she wanted to retain discretion in sentencing.
In October, the women pleaded guilty to the entire indictment. In December, they tried to retract the pleas after an expert said four of the boys suffered from rumination, an eating disorder that caused them to regurgitate their food.
The expert refused to testify for the women, and after defense lawyers could not find another expert during Christmas week, Cosgrove denied the motion to withdraw the plea, saying the rumination defense was groundless and that the case had been delayed too long.
Migdal and Malarcik said their clients hope a successful appeal and trial will give them an arena to tell their side of the story.
``Alice has a lot to say. Today was not the forum. We hope the decision will be overturned, and she's going to have an opportunity to get her side of the story out, to get the facts out and have a jury decide this matter,'' Malarcik said. [url]http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/7706017.htm[/url]
2004-02-19 20:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE]However, I also recognize the difference between approving and celebrating something as opposed to tolerating its (inevitable) existence behind closed doors.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't seem to work out that way in practice. Tolerance quickly mutates into acceptance, which morphs into celebration, which molts into it being inflicted by law on us all.
As a society we moved from arresting faggots at Stonewall to mandatory homsexualist indoctination at public schools in thirty years.
Tolerance is just a codeword for surrender, after all. The more intolerant we are on these basic matters, the stronger we will be as a society. Long live the Holy Inquisition. We need another one ASAP. :alucard:
No, AY, you can never be too zealous in enforcing these basic social norms.
The OT had it right - sodomy cannot be allowed, for once it gets it gets a toe hold it moves through society like an infectious virus.
It is a deadly cultural meme, and it must be confronted with lethal force.
As to married couples, they don't come into play here since we're talking about homosexual sodomy. Sexual acts between married couples are presumably monogamous (and departures from that norm would otherwise be punished under the anti-adultery laws) and thus do not present the dangers inherent in the homosexual lifestyle.
As to enforcement, the cops at Stonewall had it right. Find where they congregate, get vice cops in there, and make arrests for overt acts. Close down their bars and bathhouses, make public examples of those who are caught. Fear is a great motivator for others to keep their disordered desires in check and indeed to seek help in overcoming them in order to achieve marriage.
Walter
2004-02-19 20:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Walter, if you still think lesbians are less harmful to society, read this. [/QUOTE]
All right, you convinced me.
Let's take out the dykes as well. :clap:
Walter
2004-02-19 21:56 | User Profile
The thing to remember is that in California, Supreme Court judges can be and have been recalled. Should any of them ever uphold this gutless mayor, they would surely face a challenge to their office. Remember Rose Bird? And she took a spic and hebe down with her.
If only this were the law nationally, we would be a different country.
2004-02-19 22:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Walter,
Just to see if your Biblical instincts are consistent, would you also support a death penalty for adultery (at least for adulteresses, I forget what the somewhat less strict punishment is for philandering husbands)?
What I notice about most "Biblical" crusaders for "morality" is that they are quite vehement in their opposition to homosexuality, but their crusading attitude disappears when it comes to (heterosexual) fornication and adultery in spite of equally strict Biblical tenets against it. Yet I would argue that adultery far more socially corrossive than homosexuality (wrecked homes are a disaster for the children) yet adultery and heterosexual promiscuity is even more glorified by the mass media than is homosexuality, and is outright fashionable in many circles.[/QUOTE]
Even though you are addressing Walter, I want to say that I agree that adultery should be punished by death also. The punishment in OT law was stoning both parties, not just the woman as it is in quite a few cultures. As for fornication, a man who had sex with a virgin who was not betrothed to him had to either marry the girl or if the girl's father refused to give her to the man, the man and his family had to pay the bride-price to the girls's family, which was roughly equal to the price of a sizable house these days, at least that is what I read in an article about this biblical law. I will look it up later for a more exact monetary value. I think more people will keep in their pants and skirts under those conditions.
2004-02-19 23:10 | User Profile
skemper:[QUOTE]Walter, if you still think lesbians are less harmful to society, read this. The perverse acts perpetrated on these boys is both evil and revulsive. They are clearly men-haters and took it on these poor boys under their care.[/QUOTE]
Male homosexuals are inherently more dangerous to society than their female counterparts on account of their assembly line approach to sexual relationships, the nature of the sex act, and their peculiar fascination with pre-pubescent persons. Enacting criminal law laced with sex based double standards seems appropriate given the consequences and the priority viable societies would assign to protecting youth.
Walter may be flexible but I suspect that his earlier need to mull over the lesbian issue has biological basis. The overwhelming majority of heterosexual men think the male homosexual sex act revolting. To conceive it is to at once beg for a mind wipe. This is true even of many liberals and parrots of political correctness, as ample instances of careless indiscretion and episodes of intoxication attest. There is no uniformity among men regarding lesbians; there is a wide spectrum ranging from disgust (approaching but never quite reaching the loathing for homosexuals) to bemusement, indifference, and intrigue.
Why the dichotomy exists, I havenââ¬â¢t much. From an evolutionary standpoint it makes no sense for males to be hostile to those whose behavior essentially removes them from competition for females, and then, demonstrate relative latitude regarding identical behavior from objects of their affection, alas, no longer amenable to male pursuit.
The only thing my mulling engendered is the absolute necessity of doing away with [I]any[/I] male sexual ambiguity. Absence of civilizing constraints, any man can have his way with any woman. The reverse does not hold. Throw in significant suppression of testosterone production or skewing of sexual targeting and all the mating signals in the world will not help the female, no matter her strength or talent for conveying. Perhaps nature sought to endow the walking male ape with a genetically coded taboo. Efficiency mandates that women would not be so predisposed.
As for the abuse/neglect perpetrated by the lesbians -- it is revolting, of course, but I know of no studies linking dual female households with increase instances of child abuse. Iââ¬â¢m more than willing to be corrected on this point, given that out PC environment is not exactly conducive to honest inquiries in this direction, but Iââ¬â¢m inclined to think that there exists no correlation (for lesbians [I]only[/I]). Iââ¬â¢ll grant that growing up in a fatherless, dual mother home can be viewed as child abuse of another sort, but that is going outside our scope.
In any event, this would be a mute point since a rational society would prohibit adoption by all couplings save those holding a marriage license-- not of the Frisco variety. Where marriage crumbles due to one party ââ¬Ådiscoveringââ¬Â their homosexuality, the revelation would be prima facie evidence of parental unfitness.
2004-02-20 03:39 | User Profile
Evem unenforced anti-sodomy laws can do good. Consider public education. A teacher pressured to promote homosexuality can point to sodomy being illegal to protect herself. A parent who objects to his child being taught about sodomy can object that it's illegal.
But, if it's legal, a teacher who refuses to promote sodomy could get fired. A parent who objects would be easily dismissed.
2004-02-20 04:52 | User Profile
Most queers have hepatitis from rectal rooting.
"Oooohhhh.....Steve...!!"
"Ooooohhh......Frank!!"
"Deeeeper, Steve!!"
2004-02-20 11:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Most queers have hepatitis from rectal rooting.
"Oooohhhh.....Steve...!!"
"Ooooohhh......Frank!!"
"Deeeeper, Steve!!"
----[/QUOTE]
Oooo, nauseating!
Volcanic hurrrrllll!
Did you know that most fags suffer from diseases resulting from eating medically significant amounts of feces.
Mmmmmm - good!
Q. Did you hear about the two Irish faggots? A. Patrick Fitzmichael and Micheal Fitzpatrick! (get it - Patrick "fits" Micheal? Bwahhaaaa!)
Walter
2004-02-20 12:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Male homosexuals are inherently more dangerous to society than their female counterparts on account of their assembly line approach to sexual relationships, the nature of the sex act, and their peculiar fascination with pre-pubescent persons. Enacting criminal law laced with sex based double standards seems appropriate given the consequences and the priority viable societies would assign to protecting youth.
Walter may be flexible but I suspect that his earlier need to mull over the lesbian issue has biological basis. [/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I was stammering on about, very well put indeed.
Lesbian sex simply isn't as dangerous as sodomy, for the reasons you indicate. In fact, I recall studies showing that lesbians tend strongly to pair off and then they hardly ever have sex. Lesbianism is by nature a different phenomenon than homosexual sodomy.
I am unaware of any OT prohibitions on lesbianism, but I could be wrong (Tex please chime in here!), which if true would be in sharp contrast to the OT's death sentence for sodomy. Of course, St. Paul in Romans condemned lesbianism along with sodomy and drunkenness, so we Christians must condemn it even though I think that the Natural Law makes it less a threat to the commonweal than homosexual sodomy.
I'll have to give it more thought. Maybe I'm far more willing to tolerate it than sodomy for all the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean.
AY: I'm for strict adultery laws. There should be no divorce, as demanded by our Lord.
However, I don't think that adultery is the clear and present public health threat that sodomy clearly is, and so I think that death may be a tad harsh.
Note - and this is something you seem to miss - that there are usually other interests at stake in adultery, for the obvious reason that married sex tends to produce children whereas fudge packing does not.
In other words, the interests of children might be affected by the application of the adultery laws in ways that the sodomy laws normally would not. For example, an adulterous father can be punished and then returned to his family and support his children where he can go on to contribute to raising the next generation. Killing him, while perhaps providing nice legal symmetry for all sexual transgressions to the delight of ivory tower law professors, would tend strongly to work an injustice on children and wives. I think that caning (like they do in Singapore) combined with counseling and of course social pressure is the way to go. Certainly, killing an adulterous father or mother is worse for society than giving them a good sound beating and forcing them back to hearth and home to continue working and raising children for the race. Such considerations obviously do not arise in the context of sodomy, because their "sex" is a biological error and leads to nothing positive for society (especially children) but rather only to sickness, death, and epidemic perversion.
The mistake that you make, if I may be so bold, is to view the thing only from the perspective of the individual. That's a common assumption here - I think that Bardamu and Wintermute make the same false assumption about the primacy of the individual's interest. But that simply isn't the case.
The fact that sodomites are singled out may appear as unequal justice before the law when viewed as an individual up against the power of the state (how we Americans love that old movie!), but when viewed from the perspective of society-as-organism, asymmetrical laws make perfect sense. Killing sodomites is good for society because their lives are of zero value compared to the damage that their mere presence wreaks, whereas killing adulterous fathers and mothers almost certainly is not good for society.
Society is best served by beating the living snot out of adulterers and returning them to productive work just as it is best served by chemically castrating sodomites and then executing them for repeat offenses.
It all seems straightforward to me, but then again I'm no libertarian.
And that's really the root of most of our problems - this modernist notion that humans are individuals and only individuals. That notion is demonstrably false, as proved even by my superficial reading in sociobiology.
Read Darwin's Cathedral. The tribe is a single organism, and when we talk about crimes we're dealing with offenses against the organism qua the organism. We very rightly call crimes culpable acts against the "public order." In contrast, offenses against individuals that don't involve serious threats to the organism aren't crimes - these are civil torts dealt with in civil courts, not criminal courts. Of course, often crimes involve civil torts, but the point is that the criminal-civil dichotomy exists because it reflects the underlying reality of both the individual and the collective.
We're talking about the criminal law here, and the question is not whether the individual sodomite has some right to anal pleasure but rather whether sodomy is a threat to the vital interests of the social organism. The answer is clearly yes, at least to my mind, and so the organism must move to protect itself. If the threat is to the very life of the tribe/organism as in the case of sodomy, then society obviously must take corresponding measures, as I've outlined above.
We all need to shed out residual "libertarianitis." Never forget that libertarianism is simply a tactic - a rhetorical position of convenience that we racialists adopt to protect ourselves from the latest attack of the Racial Extortion Coalition. We deny the reality of race only when it suits us in getting Freepers and similar sheeple to vote against the latest affirmative action initiative. But we know that the strategic situation is just the opposite - we know that the white nation is a living, breathing organism, that the collective is real, and that the nature of our struggle is the white organism resisting the ravages of its parasites. Libertarianism is merely a defensive tactic - it's a lie that we tell our enemies when it suits us. But we must never believe our own propaganda, for Heaven's sake.
Now, organized sodomy is an attack on our collective life - a mere glance at the facts is sufficient to prove that. Average life expectancy of an 18-year-old newly minted queer is a mere 10 years, and those are usually sick years. AIDS is only the most deadly health risk Hershey Highwaymen suffer, as sickeningly listed above. Indeed, it seems to me that this Sodomite thing is part and parcel of the Tribe's general line of attack against us. You do agree with that, don't you? Does the name Larry Kramer ring a bell? Who coined the term "polymorphous perversity?"
Sodomy is a threat to the very life of our white, social organism that mostly comes from the outside, and must be dealt with accordingly. That is, when a man comes to kill you, kill him first. And the sodomites are here to kill us, whether they understand that or not.
Conversely, adultery is a major problem, but it is an internal offense against the good ordering of our society, and likewise appropriate measures must be taken. Severe pressure on offending individuals - mainly societal but also carefully measured and administered state-sponsored torture - is the best way to deal with that threat.
You're comparing apples and oranges. These are separate threats, and the response must be tailored to fit the circumstances as they really are, and not to satisfy some esthetic need for legal symmetry.
Walter
2004-02-20 15:55 | User Profile
[url]http://badonicus.blogspot.com/[/url]
gary Bauer says "I don't get it"
Olasky's li'l buddy, gary Bauer, is bummed. He just can't figure out why a weak, pathetic, imitation Christianity, that's replaced the worship of Jesus Christ with the worship of Jews, can't seem to have any impact on the culture. He says it may be time to "think outside the box". Hear, hear! To that end, I've added a few comments to an email I got from him today. (theyââ¬â¢re in bold)
To: Friends
From: Gary L. Bauer President American Values
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Why We Always Lose
If I had to identify the one question I am asked most often by average people who care about family and faith, it would hands down be this: "Why do we always lose?" Well, first off, gary, we don't even know who "we" are.
It is the right question to ask. After 30 years of political activism on behalf of hearth and home we are still losing the battle over values and unless we are prepared to start thinking "outside the box," we will continue to lose. The events of the last couple of weeks are a perfect example of what is happening. It is a story that has been repeated time and time again. Best get used to it, li'l buddy, until we reject the worship of Jews, and their doctrines of Equality, Tolerance, and Diversity, and return to the Christian Faith.
In Massachusetts and California, five people (four Massachusetts judges and one California mayor) are well on their way to changing the definition of marriage in the United States. Well, sort of...Actually, we changed the definition of marriage a long time ago, when we began granting marriage licenses to interracial couples, and then completely abolished the definition when we ruled laws against miscegenation unconstitutional. These five people are simply annotating that ruling. As repugnant as I find what they are doing, I am in awe of their boldness on behalf of a bad cause. I can't help but compare it to the timidity of our own leaders on behalf of a noble cause - the preservation of marriage as the union of only one man and one woman. See what I mean, gary? Until very recently, marriage was the union of one man and one woman of the same race. You can look it up. The Massachusetts judges have essentially reversed the American Revolution in the very state in which it started. Substitute four robes for one crown and the effect is the same. They have ordered the elected representatives of the state to recognize same-sex "marriage" - regardless of what the people may or may not think. Can you remember a previous time in our history when the courts were accused of the very same thing? How about Brown v. Board of Education? How about the rulings against anti miscegenation laws? Remember those, gary? And do you happen to remember what small group was doing all the agitating until they got those rulings? And do you happen to remember what court cases both the judges and the mayor referred to in defense of their rulings on gay marriages?
In California we are in the middle of a cultural "twilight zone." No, not yet we're not. It's nowhere near twilight. Just about half past noon. You ain't seen nothin' yet when it comes to cultural decay. We signed a suicide pact with the synagogue of Satan back in the sixties, when we overruled anti miscegenation laws, gave non whites the vote, and threw open the floodgates of non white immigration. We made a conscious decision as a White, Christian nation, that we had no formal objection to our disappearing off the face of the earth. Until we repent, God is going to honor our wishes. We're just getting warmed up, and God's laughing in our faces about our idiotic attempts to outlaw abortion and queer marriage. Think baby killing and sodomy will bring God's judgement? Think again-they ARE God's judgement on a people that doesn't care if they live or die. Did you know that the "marriage" licenses which the out-of-control San Francisco city government is issuing to thousands of homosexual couples from all over the world had to be altered? Reportedly, the original forms had a space for the couples to sign labeled "husband" and "wife." Whoops! What are "Bill" and "Tom" and "Mary" and "Sue" to do? So, the "marriage" forms were changed to read "applicant number one" and "applicant number two." (Need I mention that our children need mothers and fathers - not applicant 1 and applicant 2?) Need I mention that the people you worship have declared that view HATE? It will only be a matter of time before San Francisco city officials have to add a line for "applicant number three" when the polygamists demand their rights too! Don't be silly, gary. Do you understand anything about anything? Polygamy won't be legalized, for several reasons. First, the Bible doesn't condemn polygamy. Second, most polygamists are white, and they tend to have lots of children. They also tend to have some very old fashioned religious views, especially concerning patriarchy and female submission. That's the last thing the people you worship want. The issue with gay marriage has never been personal autonomy; it's always been Equality, and destroying CHRISTIAN values. Get a freakin' clue, dude. And besides, if they would happen to try it, you'd be leading the opposition to polygamy as an assault on the "homo/hetero" roots of marriage.
This is a momentous time. The issue at stake is much bigger than whether President Bush was "AWOL" or whether Senator John Kerry once hung out with Jane Fonda. This is bigger than marginal tax rates or going to Mars. We will suffer but we can survive bad economic policies. What we can't survive is this constant attempt to strip our Judeo-Christian roots out of every nook and cranny of American life. What we won't be able to overcome is the redefinition of America as a place of merely "do your own thing." What we can't survive is political cowardice. **Here we go....you think it's perfectly alright to lie about America's roots, but you're upset over a little thing like gay marriage? Jews played no part in America's founding, and since the founding their influence has been extremely destructive. They are the ones responsible for creating a climate in which fag marriage can be proposed out loud in public, and even taken seriously. And you lie, in order to pander to the ones most responsible for the thing you claim to be against. And don't worry your soft little head about America becoming a "do your own thing" kind of place. That's not the plan. Oh, it's the plan, as long as "your own thing" is anti Christian. But if "your thing" is Christian, you will find it increasingly difficult to practice in this country. Christianity is HATE and ANTI SEMITISM; don't you read the papers? This is not a libertarian revolution-it's an anti Christ Jewish revolution.
And we can't survive political cowardice? Then what are you doing in the political arena? Aren't you the same person who [URL=http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/local_news_04420700064c502b001d.html]recently denied believing what the Bible says[/URL] about who's responsible for killing Jesus, simply because you fear being called anti Jewish? Have you spoken out against those "Christians" who say that [URL=http://www.worldmagblog.com/archives/000853.html]Jesus deserved to die [/URL] ? Have you confronted your friend Olasky about his recent post which says that the[URL=http://www.worldmagblog.com/archives/001079.html] Apostles Peter and Paul weren't Christians,[/URL] because they pinned the crucifixion on others, and not on themselves? But you're going to lead the fight for Biblical values? How, when you've rejected a clear teaching of the Bible, simply because it's unpopular?**
So, what is the reaction of our political leadership in this time of crisis? The Republican governor of California initially did nothing. Then after being pummeled with demands to take action to stop the blatant violation of California law currently underway, he manages to flex his muscles and comes up with a statement "encouraging San Francisco officials to obey the law." Wow, what a terminator! If you expected him to vigorously oppose the furtherance of the Jewish agenda, you are a fool.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, D.C., a leading Republican senator tells me there is very little stomach on Capitol Hill to pass a constitutional amendment simply stating the obvious - that marriage is between a man and a woman. **No kiddin', Sherlock. Maybe you're not paying attention. Opposition to the expansion of the Jewish religion of Equality is HATE. Who needs that? Certainly not "conservative" Republicans. They want to be re-elected so they can help defeat Israel's enemies in the Middle East. **
The president, in the middle of a tough reelection campaign, was asked again today for the umpteenth time what his reaction was to the most recent efforts to redefine marriage and, once again, he declined to endorse an amendment to the Constitution, but he did let the reporter know, "I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen." With all due respect, the time to be "troubled" has long since past. The time for "watching" is over. What more do we need to see? Mr. President, we need your strong moral clarity now! A front page article in today's Washington Times quotes "Republican homosexual rights advocates who speak often with administration officials" as saying that, "reasonable political minds at the White House have decided there's no reason to say anything right now." LMAO! Absolutely pathetic. See above. Maybe it's time to face the fact that your thirty years of slavish devotion to the Republicans haven't gotten you a damned thing. They want your votes, and they'll utter some nice platitudes about your "issues" every now and then, but their fondest wish is to drive "social issues" out of the party. So they keep talking nice, and doing nothing, and you charlatans keep talking about their commitment to "family values". Get another freakin' clue, dude.
Wrong! This silence is deafening. And this is why for 30 years we have been losing. No, we've been losing because we wished for national suicide, and God is granting our wish. Not because the polls are against us - they are not. No, most people oppose queer marriage. But why should that be a concern? Even bigger majorities opposed interracial marriage when the courts said it was a constitutional right. Why should we listen to "the people", when they're obviously filled with hate? Not because of media bias - there are plenty of conservative media alternatives. Oh boy...you really are hopeless. We are losing because the political leaders we have elected have consistently either run scared or have been unwilling to spend their political assets to defend our values in the war over our culture. The result is that we live in a country where it is against the law for kids to see a copy of the Ten Commandments on school grounds. And who has always led the fights against displays of our Christian heritage? It's your Jewish friends, that's who. Later this summer there is a 50/50 chance the "supremes" will outlaw the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes the words "under God." They're hearing an appeal of a case, brought by a Jew, against the pledge. And the judge who wrote the ruling against the pledge is a Jew. Why do you never mention these facts in your battle to save America? Prayer of any kind at football games or high school graduations is banned because someone might be offended, but taxpayer subsidized condoms or birth control pills are okay for your 13 year-old kids whether you like it or not. And after 30 years of effort, we remain a country operating under court order that destroys one million innocent babies a year and calls it merely "a choice." What do you expect? Dead babies for a dead nation.
Let me bring this back to the issue that has set off my anger - the destruction of marriage. This battle can be won and should be won. But we will prevail only if those who will be avidly seeking our votes in a few months quit stalling and start vigorously defending our values. If they don't, history will judge them accordingly. What do you think? I think God IS judging us right now, and He's found us wanting. That's why we have abortion, gay marriage, and Christian leaders like you and Olasky.
2004-02-20 23:09 | User Profile
Students Fear 'Lesbian Gang' At School
The gang is allegedly called DTO (for Dykes Taking Over) and made up of self-styled lesbian students. "Don't nobody wanna be gay. Don't nobody wanna be harassed. Don't nobody wanna be scared to come to school," said Kendra Branch, a student.
[url]http://www.nbc10.com/news/2857417/detail.html[/url]
2004-02-22 03:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Bardamu / Wintermute,
I take it then that your position is that there should be no legal prohibition against sodomy or homosexuality whatsoever? Even on a state or local level?[/QUOTE]
Linking sodomy with homosexuality is not accurate. Considering the differences in numbers I reckon there are far more heterosexual sodomist than homosexual. Therefore the answer to your question is in the first instance, [I]hell no[/I]. The government has no business presuming to dictate my sexual practises with my woman. It is definitely beyond the government's jurisdiction.
Whether there should be any legal prohibition against homosexuality whatsoever I don't know. Are there any now? Seems to me, but I am open to correction, that libertarian market forces will take care of the issue. Hotel keepers should not be forced to cater to homosexuals. The Boy Scouts certainly not. Public schools no. etc.
So far as executing poofters: I know when my leg's being pulled.
Walter and Skemper: All I have to say to your Final Solution is that when the roundups begin you don't fob the dirty work off on the blue-collar boys, but you guys, and those in your SS, go out and kick in the doors of the hair salons, every restaurant in town, and the poodle beauty salons, round up all the screaming queens and muscle boys, and you guys personally administer your capital justice against them. Remember a man is measured by his enemies. :lol:
2004-02-22 07:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Walter and Skemper: All I have to say to your Final Solution is that when the roundups begin you don't fob the dirty work off on the blue-collar boys, but you guys, and those in your SS, go out and kick in the doors of the hair salons, every restaurant in town, and the poodle beauty salons, round up all the screaming queens and muscle boys, and you guys personally administer your capital justice against them. [/QUOTE]
Have you taken leave of your senses? Some of those girls are some of the toughest guys you'll ever meet. No way a fat middle aged guy like me is going up against them. Sorry.
As my dear departed father wonce said as he sent me out to pitch manure while he stayed in the house "son, I think it best that I plan the work, and you work the plan!" Amen to that. Age and rank have their privileges.
But seriously, the mistake you're making is in viewing people only as individuals. That is simply wrong. The collective exists, as a matter of biological science. The individual's freedom of movement is established by the needs of the collective, and not vice versa.
This error is the reason you equate anal intercourse between (I presume) married couples and the same among homosexuals. The damage (and there is damage) to the collective caused by the former is by its nature limited to the couples involved, whereas the damage caused by homosexual sodomy extends to the entire society. One is a minor nuisance, the other is a lethal threat, and so the cost-benefit analysis to determine whether enforcement is feasible or desirable comes out differently for the two cases.
Again, I beg you to shed this destructive focus on the individual - his interests, his desires, his privacy, and so forth. Focus instead on the living organism that is our nation, and what's good for it. I think you'll see that the thing that we call individual rights are shorthand for the sphere of autonomy granted to individuals that is naturally necessary to ensure the collective's proper functioning.
Individual rights are a function of the needs of the collective, and not the other way around.
Walter
2004-02-22 15:23 | User Profile
Okay Walter you convinced me. Off with their heads!
2004-02-22 15:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Okay Walter you convinced me. Off with their heads![/QUOTE]
Great!
But only a second conviction after a fair trial and a failed attempt to reform, IMHO.
Also, I think lethal injection is a better way to go.
Walter
2004-02-22 17:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Great!
Also, I think lethal injection is a better way to go.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Lethal injection is good because they are already conditioned for it psychologically .
2004-02-23 11:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Lethal injection is good because they are already conditioned for it psychologically .[/QUOTE]
Hah!
Good one.
But that's not what I meant.
Walter
2004-02-23 12:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leaf Dragon]I agree.
That would be sad beyond belief, and dead against the American tradition of 'don't tread on me'.
Which brings to mind a news story I recently read about some Texas gal who got busted for selling sex toys to housewives. For the life of me I don't understand why that's a problem at all, let alone one calling for legal intervention. Marital aids are aptly named, they can only help a marriage. Going after sex toys (and non-demeaning erotica) doesn't strengthen the family, only the reverse.
Maybe all this fuss about sodomy and ticklers is just a way to keep people's minds off the issues that really matter. Like jewish control of the mass media, for one.[/QUOTE]
You're comparing apples and oranges. Homosexual sodomy does not equal heterosexual sodomy between married couples. The threat to the public health and morals presented by the former is real, present and lethal, whereas the threat to the public health by the latter is (I suppose) not negligible but it's not nearly as dangerous as the former.
To repeat, you erroneously assume the moral ascendancy of the individual. This is simply not true. The collective - the tribe - is the ultimate reality here.
As a thought experiment, I kindly ask you to consider our society as a biologist might consider a beehive or an ant colony, except where the individuals instinctively coordinate their activities based on visual and verbal symbolic cues and not on scent codes. Then observe that the social acceptance of homosexual sodomy is a terribly destructive meme resulting in epidemics of deadly diseases and resulting in the recruitment into the sodomite lifestyle by many who would otherwise grow into contributing breeders. Observe also that sodomy between married couples doesn't cause nearly as much damage to the hive. Based on those observations, please design the symbolic memes that will govern the lives of individuals and the human hive, and the incentives and disincentives for failure to comply with them.
This is really what we're talking about. The individual's interests are not an autonomous thing. The human individual can be understood in a moral sense only in terms of his or her membership in a family, extending to a tribe, extending to a nation.
It seems clear to me that viewed from the point of view of what is good for the human hive, the suggestions I listed above (and which historically most sane societies institute) are eminently reasonable.
Walter
2004-02-23 15:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Male homosexuals are inherently more dangerous to society than their female counterparts on account of their assembly line approach to sexual relationships, the nature of the sex act, and their peculiar fascination with pre-pubescent persons. Enacting criminal law laced with sex based double standards seems appropriate given the consequences and the priority viable societies would assign to protecting youth. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. An it is worse than you image, read this for accurate statistics:
"Homosexuality and Violence" [url]http://familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html[/url]
Homosexuals are like black males in that they have higher abnormal crime rates compared to the rest of the population, including white males in the areas of pedephilia and violent sex crimes. Your reason for not proscuting lesbians does not hold up. You could apply the same logic to this: Women commit less crimes percentage-wise than men in all areas, violent and non-violent. They are less of a threat to society tham men, so why bother proscuting women in general for crimes? Lesbians like young females also. A famous example is the US Women's Tennis Tour, the older lesbian athletes try to go after the younger teen-age rookies on the tour. Young females as well as young males need to be protected from these perverts. Lesbians commit violent sex crimes, from the same article above:
"In 1992 two Jeffersonville, Indiana lesbians, aged 17 and 16, abducted a 12-year-old girl whom they accused of trying to "steal a girlfriend." The little girl was pushed into the trunk of a car, stabbed repeatedly, and beaten with a heavy metal bar. While still struggling, they poured gasoline on her and set her ablaze. "
And there are many others, but not as numerous as homosexuals. I can also say that homosexuals are less threatening to females because they commit little violence against them, so why bother proscuting them? Applying a sexual double standard to a crime because it is less threatening to the other sex and less numerous does not apply here. The results are the same to the victims no matter who commits the crime. It also implies that one sex is more important to society than the other. Statements like the above give meat to the feminists.
[QUOTE]Walter may be flexible but I suspect that his earlier need to mull over the lesbian issue has biological basis. The overwhelming majority of heterosexual men think the male homosexual sex act revolting. To conceive it is to at once beg for a mind wipe. This is true even of many liberals and parrots of political correctness, as ample instances of careless indiscretion and episodes of intoxication attest. There is no uniformity among men regarding lesbians; there is a wide spectrum ranging from disgust (approaching but never quite reaching the loathing for homosexuals) to bemusement, indifference, and intrigue. [/QUOTE]
The real reason comes out. Well, I can say the same as how females regard homosexuals. Many women like homosexual hairdressers and designers. Also, many women like to talk to gays and have them as friends because they are less threatening and are "a man that talks like a woman" . The only difference is that they don't have fantasies about the homosexual act. The fact that some men do says something about the higher level of depravity among men. But I can tell you the majority of women find lesbian sex act revolting.
[QUOTE] Why the dichotomy exists, I havenââ¬â¢t much. From an evolutionary standpoint it makes no sense for males to be hostile to those whose behavior essentially removes them from competition for females, and then, demonstrate relative latitude regarding identical behavior from objects of their affection, alas, no longer amenable to male pursuit.
The only thing my mulling engendered is the absolute necessity of doing away with [I]any[/I] male sexual ambiguity. Absence of civilizing constraints, any man can have his way with any woman. The reverse does not hold. Throw in significant suppression of testosterone production or skewing of sexual targeting and all the mating signals in the world will not help the female, no matter her strength or talent for conveying. Perhaps nature sought to endow the walking male ape with a genetically coded taboo. Efficiency mandates that women would not be so predisposed. [/QUOTE]
God programmed this genetically coded taboo against having same-sex sex to both males and females. Since homosexual sex in the opposite sex provides no threat to the other, then both are indifferent to it. True, a man can have his way with most women absent of any civilizing constriants, but sex with a woman who doesn't want you doen't seem too exciting to me.
[QUOTE]As for the abuse/neglect perpetrated by the lesbians -- it is revolting, of course, but I know of no studies linking dual female households with increase instances of child abuse. Iââ¬â¢m more than willing to be corrected on this point, given that out PC environment is not exactly conducive to honest inquiries in this direction, but Iââ¬â¢m inclined to think that there exists no correlation (for lesbians [I]only[/I]). Iââ¬â¢ll grant that growing up in a fatherless, dual mother home can be viewed as child abuse of another sort, but that is going outside our scope.
In any event, this would be a mute point since a rational society would prohibit adoption by all couplings save those holding a marriage license-- not of the Frisco variety. Where marriage crumbles due to one party ââ¬Ådiscoveringââ¬Â their homosexuality, the revelation would be prima facie evidence of parental unfitness.[/QUOTE]
I admit that there are no statistics that I can find linking lesbians withhigher rates of child abuse but I predict there will be some in the near future if you combine the higher rate of domestic violence in lesbian couples compared to the general population and children reporting childhood differculties in homosexual households. All I can say that this is a relatively new area of study, so stay tuned for further developments.
Excerpt from the following pamplet:
[url]http://familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html[/url]
Fact #3: Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence. Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid 'battered women' have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians.
In 1996, (21) Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center, said that "domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse... in terms of sheer numbers and lethality."
The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey (22) of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report (23) higher rates of violence, a rate of about 20% to 25% per year.
When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges: In 1987, (24) 48% of 43 lesbian, and 39% of 39 gay Georgia couples reported domestic violence. In 1988,(25) 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward for reporting by only one partner in the couple (i.e., "only one side of the story"), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year. In 1989, (26) 284 lesbians were interviewed who were involved "in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship" during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reporting by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year. In 1990, (27) nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in "violent" and 11 in "nonviolent" relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence. Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.
Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest V=http://familyresearchinst.org/FRR_02_11.html The Majority are gay but constains a few lesbian molesters.
Another article: Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties [url]http://familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html[/url]
Most of the children interviewed here are from lesbian parents. Add Higher rates of domestic violence for lesbians compared to the general population and children and you will likely find higher rates of child abuse.
2004-02-23 17:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Lesbian sex simply isn't as dangerous as sodomy, for the reasons you indicate. In fact, I recall studies showing that lesbians tend strongly to pair off and then they hardly ever have sex. Lesbianism is by nature a different phenomenon than homosexual sodomy.[/QUOTE]
For a fuller answer to this see my previous post. But Lesbians aren't as monogamous as you think. As for Lesbians staying in longer term relationships, not true, for,
"The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7, for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples."
[url]http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html[/url]
And as for hardly ever having sex:
Radical Lesbian Festival Featured Homosexual Acts Performed in Front of Children
[url]http://www.americansfortruth.org/michfest.html[/url] [WARNING: GRAPHIC SEXUAL REFERENCES AND SLANG FOLLOWS]
Walter, it may interest you that the article above is from a Catholic lay newspaper. If you read it , then you would see that it wouldn't take much imagination for AIDS to spread in the lesbian community if it was introduced enough. I don't think it has been introduced because lesbians have to have contact with a bisexual males to get it and the twain seldom meet.
[QUOTE]I am unaware of any OT prohibitions on lesbianism, but I could be wrong (Tex please chime in here!), which if true would be in sharp contrast to the OT's death sentence for sodomy. Of course, St. Paul in Romans condemned lesbianism along with sodomy and drunkenness, so we Christians must condemn it even though I think that the Natural Law makes it less a threat to the commonweal than homosexual sodomy. [/QUOTE]
There aren't any restrictions on lesbianism in the OT. A possible explantion that I can offer is that there may not have been any. Not all cultures have lesbianism. And as Paul noted in Romans 1, lesbianism only appears in a falling culture when the culture is near its lowest levels of rot. Male homosexuality makes it appearance at a higher stage of decay. A healthy community or culture kills the rot before it has a chance to spread, so if you kill homosexuals, lesbians are less likely to appear. That is why I am for the death penalty for homosexuals and lesbians. We are in a very advanced stage of decay.
[QUOTE]In other words, the interests of children might be affected by the application of the adultery laws in ways that the sodomy laws normally would not. For example, an adulterous father can be punished and then returned to his family and support his children where he can go on to contribute to raising the next generation. Killing him, while perhaps providing nice legal symmetry for all sexual transgressions to the delight of ivory tower law professors, would tend strongly to work an injustice on children and wives. I think that caning (like they do in Singapore) combined with counseling and of course social pressure is the way to go. Certainly, killing an adulterous father or mother is worse for society than giving them a good sound beating and forcing them back to hearth and home to continue working and raising children for the race. Such considerations obviously do not arise in the context of sodomy, because their "sex" is a biological error and leads to nothing positive for society (especially children) but rather only to sickness, death, and epidemic perversion.[/QUOTE]
I could say that caning is good for a first offense and may stop many. But there are some stubborn cases in both sexes where even the threat of a painful caning wouldn't be enough, in fact, some would show it as a badge of honor to seduce a potential lover, as in, " See this is what I would suffer for you." So, for second offenses, definitely death. Also people who commit adultery, especially serial, do not care for their spouse and children, but only for their carnal pleasure. The spouse and children would be better off without them.
I think the death penalty would be more effective than caning in the long run, because when potential cheaters see people being convicted and dying for cheating, then they will less likely to risk it. Most people don't want to die and adultery is not worth it.
[QUOTE]The mistake that you make, if I may be so bold, is to view the thing only from the perspective of the individual. That's a common assumption here - I think that Bardamu and Wintermute make the same false assumption about the primacy of the individual's interest. But that simply isn't the case.
The fact that sodomites are singled out may appear as unequal justice before the law when viewed as an individual up against the power of the state (how we Americans love that old movie!), but when viewed from the perspective of society-as-organism, asymmetrical laws make perfect sense. Killing sodomites is good for society because their lives are of zero value compared to the damage that their mere presence wreaks, whereas killing adulterous fathers and mothers almost certainly is not good for society. [/QUOTE]
That is not how the OT law saw it. Killing the sin in its infancy prevents a larger outbreak later on nd is better for the society. This is the same for adultery and sodomy. Just because there is more heterosexual adultery than male and female homosexuality does not make it more righteous.
2004-02-25 13:41 | User Profile
Skemper:
Great stuff, and I'll need some time to think it over.
Like I said, my mind is wide open on the subject.
Leaf Dragon: I'm not sure you understood me correctly. My position is that sodomy is not good no matter who does it. It's a violation of the Natural Law, pure and simple. The question boils down to a cost-benefit analysis that always applies when we think about the criminal law. Do the social benefits derived from outlawing something outweigh the administrative costs? That's always the question, and reasonable minds can differ.
My position is that homosexual sodomy - men having anal sex with other men - is so rife with lethal danger to the public health and morals that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. Furthermore, that the dangers are so clear and so present that stopping homosexual sodomy justifies the harsh measures I suggest above.
I'm questioning whether the same applies to lesbians, because they can't physically engage in sodomy for obvious reasons as can men, and thus their sex, while perverted and to be condemned, does not present the same sort of clear and present danger to the public health and morals, and that therefore the cost benefit analysis underlying the criminal law would come out differently than it does with males. Skemper's making the case that the benefits of treating lesbianism as harshly as homosexual sodomy between men also passes this cost benefit analysis, and he presented some powerful facts to back up his argument. (Skemper, please correct me if I'm wrong). I find Skemper's arguments convincing, but again my mind is wide open on the subject.
I also am saying that although anal sex is always a violation of the Natural Law, it is probably least harmful among married couples where the damage is localized (although if it's used as a birth control method of course this isn't good for society which needs more children), and the dynamics of the situation make it nearly impossible to police without disturbing the vitally important aspects of the marriage bed to society. To repeat, none of those mitigating factors apply to males engaging in anal sex with each other, and again the cost benefit analysis that underlies the entire criminal law comes out differently here than in the aforesaid cases.
I just wanted to clarify that. I think that we agree, please advise.
Walter