← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 13773 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2004-05-19
2004-05-19 03:32 | User Profile
In the movie SALO, there's a memorably sick line that comes when the four politically-powerful perverts are addressing the dozens of terrified children they have kidnapped from their families for deviant purposes: "The punishment for any boy caught having normal sex with a girl will be [I]loss of a limb[/I]." It couldn't help but come to mind while reading this story: one that brings that deSadean scenario closer to fruition. For me, the most pukeworthy element of this is the [I]spin [/I] in articles like this (and I think it's safe to assume reporters Cooperman and Fine are in on the 'fun' and regularly mate on all fours like blue-point crabs).The phony [I]'we're no different than you heteros - we like long walks in the park, Rice Krispy Squares, Vivaldi records, the taste of petroleum-based lubricant...' [/I] tone is insulting the way a blatantly false promise made by a ludicrously transparent liar is insulting.
And wasn't it only 15 or so years ago when we were being scaremongered into thinking AIDS was going to kill 25% of the world population thanks to our [I]not [/I] quarantining these people? Okay, so it didn't happen - gays took a page from Jews and began crying 'holocaust' before they'd even gotten off the cattle car (and now, everywhere you look there's another 'survivor') - there was still enough of a real public-health threat there to maybe dissuade lawmakers from encouraging the virus to make a second-generation, twice-as-powerful comeback with legislation like this, no?
[COLOR=Indigo][QUOTE][B]Gay Couples Marry in Massachusetts[/B]
By Alan Cooperman and Jonathan Finer Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, May 18, 2004; Page A01
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., May 17 -- More than 600 gay couples rushed to town halls and courthouses across Massachusetts on Monday and emerged to cheering crowds, live bands and rice-throwing relatives as the state became the first in the nation to allow same-sex marriages.
Along with the party atmosphere came moments of somber reflection and deep emotion as the day marked two sorts of milestones: the leaping of a long-unthinkable barrier in American culture and the passage of a long-awaited turning point in many lives.
It was a day in which stereotypes were not only broken but turned inside out, in which liberal lesbians expressed unstinting patriotism and conservative clergy members denounced the nation's moral and political trajectory. The United States is now one of a handful of countries -- along with Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada -- to give some gay marriages the full protection of law.
The first to wed were Tanya McCloskey, 52, and Marcia Kadish, 56, of Malden, who said they had not sought the limelight but merely wanted to get the ceremony over with so they could enjoy the rest of the day. "I now pronounce that you are married under the laws of Massachusetts," Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury declared at 9:10 a.m. "You may seal this marriage with a kiss."
The newlyweds embraced, and Kadish jumped up and down excitedly. "Thank you. Thank you," she said. Said McCloskey: "What a way to celebrate the freedoms we have in this country. This country is fabulous. I'm just so proud to be a citizen of the United States of America."
But while those on both sides of an issue that has divided the nation acknowledged the historic nature of the ceremonies, many questions about the future of same-sex marriage remain. A federal appeals court will consider a request to stop the marriages in June, and a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage could go to a referendum in November 2006.
President Bush seized the occasion to renew his call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And a small but vocal number of protesters in Massachusetts gave notice that their fight against the state court decision that legalized same-sex marriage here was just beginning.
Across the state, gay couples lined up -- some as early as Saturday -- outside municipal clerks' offices to register to marry. By evening, 227 couples had filed papers in Cambridge, 154 in Provincetown, 113 in Northampton, 99 in Boston, 65 in Worcester, 37 in Somerville, and scores more elsewhere.
Some also dashed to court to obtain waivers of the three-day waiting period for a marriage license. They then went to justices of the peace to get married. Provincetown and Worcester reported the most same-sex weddings -- about 30 each -- and Cambridge had 22.
Across the state, cheering crowds serenaded and saluted gay couples leaving courthouses. Police estimated that nearly 10,000 revelers thronged Cambridge City Hall on Sunday night, when officials in tuxedos began taking application forms at midnight and the crowd, accompanied by a brass band, alternated between singing "God Bless America" and "Chapel of Love."
In Provincetown, a woman blew on a conch shell and a man in a dress burst into song after the town clerk announced the last couple of the day to file their intention to marry.
In Boston, a string quartet played Monday morning for a crowd of a few hundred well wishers on the plaza in front of City Hall. A hundred yards away, about 30 protesters called for the legislature to remove the Supreme Judicial Court judges who ruled in November that the state could not deny the legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples and gave the legislature 180 days to change state law to comply.
"Where is the president of the United States and where are our religious leaders?" Yehuda Levin, an Orthodox rabbi from Brooklyn, asked the demonstrators. "There should be 1,000 religious leaders standing here today."
Bush said the "sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges." His Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), steered clear of the debate on a day when he was commemorating the 1954 Supreme Court ruling that desegregated the nation's schools.
Kerry opposes gay marriage but also opposes Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment. He has said he supports civil unions and domestic partnership benefits.
By the end of the day, all seven gay couples involved in the Massachusetts court case had tied the knot. The lead plaintiffs, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, were married by the Rev. William G. Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, at the association's headquarters in Boston. "Here comes the bride, all gay with pride," about 100 friends and family members sang as the Goodridges walked down the aisle in Giorgio Armani pantsuits, preceded by their 8-year-old daughter as flower girl.
"This isn't anything anybody should be threatened by," Julie Goodridge told reporters after the ceremony. "We intend to uphold marriage as it exists today for the rest of our lives."
The vast majority of couples who applied for marriage licenses are Massachusetts residents. But town clerks reported that some out-of-state couples also filed papers, despite warnings from Gov. Mitt Romney (R) that their licenses would be considered "null and void."
After several unsuccessful attempts to stay the court ruling in recent months, Romney sought to limit its scope by invoking a rarely enforced 1913 law -- designed in part to preserve other states' laws against interracial marriage -- that bars couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriages would not be legal in their home states.
Somerville City Clerk John Long, who along with colleagues in Worcester and Provincetown had publicly rejected Romney's guidelines, said he took applications from at least six out-of-state couples.
Worcester's clerk, David Rushford, said that 12 out-of-state couples had filed intentions to marry there, and that he had performed a wedding for a Connecticut couple.
Edward Debonis and Vincent Maniscalco of New York City filed their intention to marry in Somerville. "We've had other opportunities, but we wanted to be part of what we consider to be civil rights history," Debonis said. "We had heard this was coming, and we wanted to wait for Massachusetts."
It is not yet clear how such marriages will be handled when the couples return to their home states.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer (D) said in March that while gay marriage is illegal in New York, the state will recognize such marriages granted elsewhere. But Gov. George E. Pataki (R) said last week that he agreed with Romney that it is illegal for out-of-state gay couples to wed in Massachusetts.
On Monday, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch (D) said that state law "suggests that Rhode Island would recognize any marriage validly performed in another state unless doing so would run contrary to the strong public policy of this state." His Connecticut counterpart, Richard Blumenthal (D), would not take a position. "An answer would require me to make law, not interpret it," he said.
The controversy over same-sex marriage began in 1993, when a Hawaiian court deemed a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
In response, at least 38 states, including Hawaii, have outlawed such unions, and in 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act.
In 1999, Vermont became the only state to offer civil unions -- which confer similar benefits to marriage -- to same-sex couples.
After the Massachusetts court decision in November, officials in San Francisco; New Paltz, N.Y.; and Multnomah County, Ore., granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Each of those processes has since been interrupted. California's high court will hear arguments next week over what status should be granted to the more than 4,000 couples issued licenses before the court intervened.
Staff writer Philip Kennicott in Provincetown, Mass., contributed to this report.
é 2004 The Washington Post Company[/QUOTE][/COLOR]
2004-05-19 05:35 | User Profile
It is just more anti-state advertising. People will stop looking to the state for guidance on sexual matter, including ones having to do with the supposed goodness and rights of Latinos and blacks impregnating white women.
2004-05-19 15:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The phony 'we're no different than you heteros - we like long walks in the park, Rice Krispy Squares, Vivaldi records, the taste of petroleum-based lubricant...' tone is insulting the way a blatantly false promise made by a ludicrously transparent liar is insulting. [/QUOTE]
"To know us is to love us" is basically the mantra. Some nonsense about "polls show that the key factor in losing homophobia is getting to know gays or lesbians."
What a crock. The fags I've known (and I've known lots of fags, especially from my days in the service, the university theater, and as a much younger criminal defense lawyer in California) led lives of ASTONISHING debauchery. These guys thought of themselves as great sexual athletes - sort of the Olympian Team of Sodom. They frequented fag bathhouses where they'd "do" dozens of guys in a single night - places with free ten gallon drums of mouthwash in the center of the locker room. They told me about dark basements of fag porno shops with "glory holes" for anonymous fellatio. Lots of these guys liked nothing better than getting chained to a floor in a leather mask and getting gang-shtupped by passersby, or hung from hooks with other dudes shoving their arms up their arses to their elbows.
Please forgive the graphics, but Sally Soccermom needs to understand that. These are the cats who want to take little Billy Soccerson on overnight camping trips.
And almost without exception, those guys I knew from college are DEAD.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD. Beastly dead, as Buck Mulligan said in Joyce's Ullyses.
And this continues. The average life expectancy for a 20 year old sodomite in America is 28 years. They have eight years on average - most of them sick years - to look forward to.
And I've known plenty of dykes, too. Talk about a sick bunch. Alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence (yeah, they beat the crap out of each other, famous for it in the criminal defense bar).
To know them is to love and accept them? Not on your life.
Almost without exception, the fags and dykes I've known were dangerously sick people. My very considerable experience with fags and dykes compels me to conclude that no sane society would tolerate their existence. And it's not that I don't like some of them on a personal level. But it simply cannot be denied that they're a real and present danger to the public health that must be extirpated.
The Old Testament had it right. We must take the harshest measures against them out of simple self defense. (I mean exclusively lawful measures, of course).
Walter
2004-05-19 16:48 | User Profile
Walter, excellent post, and I identify with some of your observations. Think about it. Nothing's going to change in this country without massive bloodshed...or take these abominable developments in our country as a sign that God's Judgement is upon the United States, and He's preparing something BIG to happen here. It can't go on like this for much longer. He's given us up to reprobate minds, as it says in Romans, and the end results are going to be....well, read Revelations.
Pray to Jesus for forgiveness of sins. Believe on the only true God, Jesus Christ for salvation. His time is nigh.
2004-05-19 18:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Walter, excellent post, and I identify with some of your observations. Think about it. Nothing's going to change in this country without massive bloodshed...or take these abominable developments in our country as a sign that God's Judgement is upon the United States, and He's preparing something BIG to happen here. It can't go on like this for much longer. He's given us up to reprobate minds, as it says in Romans, and the end results are going to be....well, read Revelations.
Pray to Jesus for forgiveness of sins. Believe on the only true God, Jesus Christ for salvation. His time is nigh.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am compeled to agree.
By the way, the Empire just bagged another forty innocents, this time at an [URL=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040519/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_4]Iraqi wedding[/URL]. How very fitting that the Amerika that on the day it legally sanctioned the vomituous union of semen and feces in a satanic mockery of God-ordained marriage should choose to target for destruction a celebration of natural and fecund love in other nations.
Imperial America is indeed the Great Satan, and this latter day Whore of Babylon must die so that the rest of humanity may simply live.
Walter
2004-05-19 20:24 | User Profile
After several unsuccessful attempts to stay the court ruling in recent months, Romney sought to limit its scope by invoking a rarely enforced 1913 law -- designed in part to preserve other states' laws against interracial marriage -- that bars couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriages would not be legal in their home states.
Somerville City Clerk John Long, who along with colleagues in Worcester and Provincetown had publicly rejected Romney's guidelines, said he took applications from at least six out-of-state couples. What would happen to a City Clerk who refused to issue applications for same-sex marriage?
2004-05-19 20:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yes, I am compeled to agree.
By the way, the Empire just bagged another forty innocents, this time at an [URL=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040519/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_4]Iraqi wedding[/URL]. How very fitting that the Amerika that on the day it legally sanctioned the vomituous union of semen and feces in a satanic mockery of God-ordained marriage should choose to target for destruction a celebration of natural and fecund love in other nations.
Imperial America is indeed the Great Satan, and this latter day Whore of Babylon must die so that the rest of humanity may simply live.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Yea, I heard about our little 'wedding gift' delivered by the US Army, with a big kiss, of course. :oh: You see, the Iraqis and other Arabs execute homosexuals according to their laws and the United States of Satan can't tolerate that intolerable attitude, so they bomb weddings now.
As for the sodomites, the last time they was partying this hard was 5000 years ago, when Sodom and Gommorah was a hopping place. We know what happened there after Lot split. I can't think of another time in history when massive widespread buggery was so openly paraded and accepted as normal than it is today in the 'Kwa. Yes, there were always homosexuals in every age, in every nation, but can you imagine 'queer pride parades', open homosexual clergy and gay marriages in the Centuries past? No way.
Judgement is coming to the United States of Satan. There's no way we can turn it around on our own and restore the old order without massive, uncompromising horror. Either way, we're on our way out. Got Jesus?
2004-05-19 21:59 | User Profile
I was watching a television news show on a regional station called "It's Your Call with Lynn Doyle". Doyle was interviewing two homosexuals who had gotten married in Canada and a man who was to marry his lover of fifteen years. In typical Media fashion Doyle mentioned to her guests, in a starry-eyed golly-gee-whiz-isn't-that-something tone of voice, that the Massachussetts ruling came on day of the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board Of Education (as if black and gay "civil rights" are the same no matter how you cut it). When they did a poll asking viewers what they thought of the ruling, 70 percent said they were against it as opposed to 26 percent who said they were in support of the ruling (the remaining four percent were undecided).
2004-05-20 00:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]How very fitting that the Amerika that on the day it legally sanctioned the vomituous union of semen and feces in a satanic mockery of God-ordained marriage should choose to target for destruction a celebration of natural and fecund love in other nations. [/QUOTE]
Very well said, WY.
This entire state of affairs is unbelievable.
2004-05-20 00:22 | User Profile
It is my unalterable opinion that homosexuality is a mental disorder that results from brain damage. Nearly all homosexuals are naccissists with little or no impulse control or regard for their own safety or the safety of others. Also, nearly all homos are pedophiles. The only difference between a male homosexual and a serial killer is in how their psychopathology manifests itself in deviant behavior. Serial killers kill; gays have sex with each other (and kids whenever possible).
2004-05-20 00:58 | User Profile
As usual, the Nazis were on the ball. Himmler on homosexuals:
"I wish to explore a few ideas on the subject of homosexuality. Amongst certain homosexuals there exists the following point of view: "what I do is of no importance to anyone else, it is a personal and private matter". Everything which touches upon sexual matters ceases to be private when the life or death of a nation depends on it. It is the difference between world domination or annihilation.
A nation with many children can gain supremacy and mastery of the wordl. A pure race with few children already as one foot in the grave; in fifty or a hundred years it will be of no significance; in two hundred years it will be extinct. It is essential to realise that if we allow this infection to continue in Germany without being able to fight it, it will be the end of Germany, of the Germanic world. Unfortunately this is not the simple matter it was for our forefathers. For them, the few isolated cases were simply abnormalities; they drowned them in bogs. Those who found bodies in the mire did not know that in 90% of the cases they found themselves face to face with a homosexual who had been drowned with all his belongings. This was not punishment, more the simple elimination of this particular abnormality. It is vital we rid ourselves of them; like weed we must pull them up, throw them on the fire and burn them. This is not out of a spirit of vengeance, but of necessity; these creatures must be exterminated.
Heinrich Himmler, 18 Feb 1937
[url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/naziviews.html[/url]
And history is proving Himmler right right before our eyes.
2004-05-20 07:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]It is my unalterable opinion that homosexuality is a mental disorder that results from brain damage. Nearly all homosexuals are naccissists with little or no impulse control or regard for their own safety or the safety of others. Also, nearly all homos are pedophiles. The only difference between a male homosexual and a serial killer is in how their psychopathology manifests itself in deviant behavior. Serial killers kill; gays have sex with each other (and kids whenever possible).[/QUOTE]I also believe it's a mental disorder. Now I've heard that most mental illnesses emerge during adolescence, but it might be the case that something that happens to a fetus' brain during prenatal development can cause the disorder -- that would explain why most fags claim to have known they were gay for as far back as their memory reaches. (We normal people can relate to that in our own way, as many folks can remember having heterosexual crushes from a very young age. I had a very real crush on my kindergarten teacher when I was only five years old, and I had my first crush on a female classmate when I was six.)
Brain disorder or not, I do think overt homosexual activity is harmful to kids and disgusting to most adults. While I don't believe it would be right to kill off fags, I tend to think some kind of segregation from the rest of society would be appropriate. Maybe they should all be sent off to live in a penal colony. Get it? A penal colony! Har har! :lol:
2004-05-20 10:33 | User Profile
Well, I didn't [I]intend [/I] to kick off a tent-revival meeting, but so be it.
But whither [I]this[/I]?
[QUOTE]"The average life expectancy for a 20 year old sodomite in America is 28 years. They have eight years on average - most of them sick years - to look forward to."[/QUOTE]
Walter, I've never in my life heard this - I tend to think if this were true, we'd be inundated with sob-sister media coverage, queer activists blaming heteros for some bizarre reason, and billions of tax dollars appropriated (or [I]mis[/I]appropriated) towards alleviating the condition. I mean, part of the problem is that AIDS [I]doesn't [/I] kill them....they just hang around, pale and gaunt for another 25 years, and bugger five partners a night instead of twelve and fifteen (a la Andrew Sullivan - who's certainly been ass-up/face-down since [I]before [/I] he was 20, and is [I]well [/I] past 28 today.)
Wherever did you dig up this 'fact'?
2004-05-20 10:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Wherever did you dig up this 'fact'?[/QUOTE]
I admit that I was going from unaided memory - I believe that I read it in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover. I think that it was limited by geography and maybe before the advent of the powerful drug cocktails available today. I will be more careful in the future.
However, it's still really bad. A quick google gave me this linke with a somewhat less [URL=http://www.ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=26&firstpage=657&journalcode=intjepid]horrible prognosis[/URL].
[QUOTE]Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. [/QUOTE]
So, 34 years on average life expectancy on the low end, but I'll bet that if you limit the sample by geography a bit you'd get the 28 year figure that stuck in my head.
Here's another: [url]http://cfeweb.hivnet.ubc.ca/Vanguard/PAPERS/IJE1997.html[/url]
Here's a quote:
[QUOTE]Vital statistics were obtained for a large Canadian urban center from 1987 to 1992. RESULTS: Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years.The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32%to 59%. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%. CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently age 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. [/QUOTE]
Here's another set of statistics, that places life expectancy for all fags at 41, with less than 1% living to 65.
[QUOTE]MEN(heterosexuals, married): Life Expectancy = 75 years; % still living past age 65 = 80%
MEN(heterosexuals, unmarried): Life Expectancy = 57 years; % still living past age 65 = 32%
MEN(homosexual): Life Expectancy = 41 years; % still living past age 65 < 1%
WOMEN(heterosexuals, married): Life Expectancy = 79 years; % still living past age 65 = 85%
WOMEN(heterosexuals, unmarried): Life Expectancy = 71 years; % still living past age 65 = 60%
WOMEN(homosexual): Life Expectancy = 47 years; % still living past age 65 < 8% [/QUOTE]
Again, that's overall. I'll bet that life expectancy is MUCH less for the denizens of the Castro District in SF or The Village in NYC. Like I said, all the fags I know in the 1980's who were into that lifestyle DIED young. I'll see if I can find the 28 year statistic - I think it might be more accurate for the real fudgpackers out there.
I must say that my google search showed that there just don't seem to be a lot of reliable, up-to-date figures on this. I also note that when some of these life expenctancy statistics were being published, the Andrew Sullivans of the world were all over them to denounce them as homophobic.
So it doesn't appear to be the case that fags react like heartsick nellies begging for pity - I think they understand that these figures prove just how diseased their lifestyle is, and there's a media blackout in effect as to just how bad the problem is, and perhaps more importantly how very limited it is to the usual suspects. Those statistics are dangerous because folks like me might start to think that the real problem isn't an easily-avoidable virus like HIV, but rather these subgroups themselves.
Get rid of the people, get rid of the problem. At least, that's the first thought that would enter my head.
Walter
2004-05-20 23:30 | User Profile
Checking Townhall.com, the neocon columinists have been mostly silent on the the judge-created sodomite marriages in Massachusetts. The couple of exceptions I did find were written from a purely religious prespective.
Bush has only provided a little lip service in opposition.
The proposed constitutional amendment to "ban gay marriage" is a con that does nothing more than provide a slight check on judicial activism on this one issue. Every legistlator in the country will still be free to create "gay marriages."
Many libertarian-types have, strangely, approved of expanding government into homosexual relationships. Maybe they're not so libertarian after all (including Charlie Reese).
I've never been under the delusion that the Libertarian Party is libertarian: "Government has no role in blocking gay marriages." That's a lie, homosexuals are not blocked from "marriage" in any state of the union, they're just not getting government recognition, except now in one state. That government recognition will be followed by taxpayers money being spent on promoting and blessing homosexual behavior (e.g. the public school teacher teaching your children that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, and you being sent to jail for the "hate crime" of calling sodomy immoral).
Massachusetts citizens will eventually get to vote on a Constitutional Amendment that creates homosexual unions rather than marriages. The people will not be given an oppertunity to vote on anything that would just simply ban the government from giving any kind of approval to homosexuals.
As usual, the deck is stacked.
If only homosexuality were genetic, AIDS would be putting an end to the genetic disorder -- as if numerous other diseases (once fatal STDs) wouldn't have done it in the past, and as if homosexuals have the same tendancy to have children as heterosexuals to pass on their genetics.
2004-05-21 00:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]And I've known plenty of dykes, too. Talk about a sick bunch. Alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence (yeah, they beat the crap out of each other, famous for it in the criminal defense bar).[/QUOTE]
From what I hear the Gays also have quite a reputation among ER physicians. My ex-college roomate used to work in an ER, and he claims that gays were always coming in to have the damage from fisting sessions repaired.
2004-05-21 03:23 | User Profile
It's ironic that the butt-ugly man-hating dykes like to self-righteously accuse the Patriarchy of "brutalizing" womyn when the stats prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a straight relationship is safest for women by far.
2004-05-21 05:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]From what I hear the Gays also have quite a reputation among ER physicians. My ex-college roomate used to work in an ER, and he claims that gays were always coming in to have the damage from fisting sessions repaired.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my best friend as a kid grew up to become an ER physician. I really love his gross-out bottle-of-wesson-oil-up-the-butt stories. Happens every day.
Man, the stuff those guys do to their keesters. Whoa.
Walter
2004-05-21 06:30 | User Profile
If Buchanan ever decides to devote a book to this topic may I respectfully suggest he title it [I]An Exit, Not An Entrance[/I].
2004-05-21 06:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]If Buchanan ever decides to devote a book to this topic may I respectfully suggest he title it [I]An Exit, Not An Entrance[/I].[/QUOTE]
:clap:
2004-05-22 11:23 | User Profile
More on the nauseating truth about sodomy:
[URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=23893&vm_id=90]What Science Tells Us About Same-Sex Unions[/URL]
5/22/04
[Caution: Explicit Language used. Use Prudence with young children and some adolescents.]
Our immune system, certainly one of the great marvels of nature, equips us with 100 billion (100,000,000,000) immunological receptors.
Each of these tiny receptors has the uncanny natural capacity to distinguish the self from the non-self. Consequently, they are able to immunize or protect our bodies against the invasion of foreign substances that could be harmful to us.
Marvelous as nature is, it is never extremist. From a purely immunological point of view (from the standpoint of an all-out defensive strategy), a woman's body would reject the oncoming sperm, recognizing it as a foreign substance. But this is precisely the point at which nature, we might say, becomes wise. If our immune system regards sperm as a potential enemy, then fertilization would never take place, and the human race would have come to an early demise with the passing of Adam and Eve.
But something extraordinary occurs, which makes fertilization and the continuation of the human race possible. Traveling alongside the sperm in the male's seminal fluid is a mild immunosuppressant. Immunologists refer to it as consisting of "immunoregulatory macromolecules." This immunosuppressant is a chemical signal to the woman's body that allows it to recognize the sperm not as a non-self, but as part of its self. It makes possible, despite the immune system's usual preoccupation with building an airtight defence system, a "two-in-one-flesh" intimacy.
We have noted two important features about the content of male semen: 1) the capacity of the sperm to fuse with the nucleus of the woman's egg (fertilization); and 2) the mild immunosupressant that allows the woman's immune system to welcome the male sperm as part of her own flesh.
Now that sodomy is talked about as a human right to be exercised by male same-sex couples without discrimination, we may ask the pertinent question: what happens when sperm is deposited in the rectal area rather than in the vaginal area?
Male sperm, being blissfully unresponsive to political ideologies or cultural trends, go right ahead and behave strictly according to their nature. They penetrate the nucleus of whatever body cell (somatic cell) they might encounter. This fusing, however, does not result in fertilization, the first stage in the life of a new human being, but, as scientists have shown, can and does result in the development of cancerous malignancies. In an article entitled, "Sexual Behavior and Increased Anal Cancer," published in Immunology and Cell Biology, authors Richard J. Ablin and Rachel Stein-Werblowsky, report that "anal intercourse is one of the primary factors in the development of cancer." According to the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, "Our study lends strong support to the hypothesis that homosexual behaviour in men increases the risk of anal cancer." In addition, the International Journal of Cancer finds that, "Being single and having practised anal intercourse appears to be associated with anal cancer and case reports have suggested a recent increase in the number of cases of anal cancer." The medical references are legion.
Also, we may ask: what happens when the male immunosuppressant is deposited in the rectal area? Scientists tell us that when this occurs, an "immunopermissive environment" is created.
This environment, in which the immune system is not working as it should, is favourable for the perpetration of spermatozoa-induced tumors and other pathologies. It is as if, in this instance, the immune system becomes confused and welcomes its enemies. C. Rabkin et al., in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found a decreasing immunocompetence in a substantial proportion of HIV-positive homosexual men, particularly those with a history of intraepithelial abnormalities.
Depositing sperm in the "wrong place" (like pouring motor oil into the gas line), by nature's standards, is courting disaster. Nature, we might add, demands respect. It does not make accommodations to politically based ideologies or individual preferences. From nature's standpoint, there is no equality between heterosexual and male homosexual intercourse.
Furthermore, the vagina is totally impermeable to viruses. By contrast, the rectum is designed to absorb up to the last possible useful nutrient that we have eaten. There is an enormous lymphatic network (involving blood vessels) in the lining or mucosa of the rectum. Therefore, the rectal area is designed to absorb, and will absorb, the ingredients of male semen if they are in the vicinity.
The same-sex issue is hotly contested. This is par for the course when it comes to moral issues.
All too often, as it is commonly said, there is far more heat than light. In order to bring some measure of objectivity to the discussion, a close observation of nature, such as science can provide, is extremely helpful. Science, like nature, is immune to political or fashionable trends. But in looking closely and carefully at what the science of immunology can tell us, we have even more reason for upholding and honouring the wisdom of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. And what is more, we have added reason to feel awe when we re-read the first chapter of Genesis, which refers to marriage as a union of "two in one flesh."
Dr. DeMarco is a professor of philosophy at St. Jeromeââ¬â¢s College in Waterloo, Ontario. He is the author of The Many Faces of Virtue and The Heart of Virtue.
This article originally appeared in The Interim and is reprinted here with permission of The Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
2004-05-23 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Man, the stuff those guys do to their keesters. Whoa.
Walter[/QUOTE]I once heard a story about firemen coming to the aid of a man who was stuck on a doorknob. :frown: When I first heard that story, I didn't know whether to shake my head in disgust or laugh. Is this all gays ever think about?