In recent polls, a queatsion was asked me in an Email group I belong to, if I, as a woman ( assumign I am a woman, though I am not) woudl abort my unbirn child for 10 Million Dollars. The dismay struck me when I say, in befor emy very eyes, most woudl gladly accept. many sayign that money is primary as a goal in their lives.( I suspect many hold this as a true vlaue, btu it shocked and dismayed me to see it in print, especially in a gorup of the supposeldy enlightened.) Further, the argument was that they coudl do a lot fo good withthe ten Million dollars. Such outrage!

I protested that it was murder, and no amount of money woudl do, and they debated me further.

Then, I asked, woudl you kill your mother for 10 million, and they had the audacity to say the two things are not simil.ar, as one is a living adult woman, the other is an 8 cell blob.

I saw neither distinvtion nor ifference, and asked again, and htey called me narrow minded, which happens often, but still...

Sorry, this si a rant, but I needed to get this out. My appologies tot he board.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2003

Answers

Would I sell my soul for $10 million? Nope my soul is worth lots more.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), November 23, 2003.

Of course the answer would be exactly the same, even if the new person were still at the eight cell stage of his/her life. However, in point of fact, by the time a woman knows she is pregnant her baby's body is already made up of millions of highly differentiated cells doing a wide range of biological tasks, and his/her heart is already beating, pumping his/her blood (not his/her mother's blood) through his/her own circulatory system. FAR beyond the 8-cell stage!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 23, 2003.

My poitnw as the outrage. Both at the queatsion itsself, and the answerrs i was recieving.( Ut was a group mail afte rall.)

These peopel claim to be leading edge on thought, as its a science group.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2003.

Abortions popularity is definately distressing. What is equally troubling is the recent Mass. Supreme Court decision on gay marriages and the media's excitement over it. If Americans feel that gay people should be married because it is a right then polygamy and incestuous relationships will follow. Shouldnt a 45 year old gay man be able to "marry" his 16 year old male lover? Shouldnt a brother and sister be allowed to marry? I am not sure what arguements these stupid judges could use after giving the green light to abortion and now possibly gay marriage.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), November 23, 2003.

The Irony is that the same media promote peopel who support "Youth Liberation" ( which means adoign away wih the afe of concent) as forward thinkers and brilliant, but villify all of Christainity based on a hanfdfull of mentlly ill Preists.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2003.

Please. The Massechussets Supreme Court is allowing civil marriages for homosexuals. Religions can treat it any way they want. They don't have to recognize them if they don't want to, nobody's forcing them too. All this means is that gay couples can recieve all the legal benefits of marriage.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 23, 2003.

It also means, as a culture, we are acepting somethign that is mroa.lly wronmg as aceptable.It doesnt matter if its Civil or not, what matters is that it is wrong. Right and wrong are not wholey religious issues, but Universals.

-- ZAR (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2003.

Anti-Bush,

Should siblings also be able to have a civil marriage? Should a mother and son be able to have a civil marriage? Should a man be able to have a civil marriage to 50 women? If there is no Judeo-Christian foundation or reasoning to our laws (and there is) then the answer is sure why not.

Secular forces have told us contraception would be a boon to our freedom but its been a curse. They told us all children would be loved thanks to abortion and they lied. Now they want us to accept all variants of sexual relationships. We can pray and use our vote.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), November 23, 2003.

They also lied when they said rligion is a personal thing.There re aspects that are personal. Your personal rleationship with God. But the institution is hardly personal.

They lied when they said rleigion has no place in society. This seperation of rligiosu life form secular life has lead many to abandom the Church altogather. Many, maybe even ANti-Bush. may not see this as a Big deal. But it is. They no longer feel they must live their loves in accord to the twachings of the Church, which are, need I remidn you, the teachings of God himself.

Instead, they advocated first open rebellion agaisnt auhtority, and the current " Up yours" attitude that is eroding our homes even now, as families disentegrate.

Modern culture said rleigion shoudl stay in the Churches, and not bother withthe real wortld, effectiely making a prisoner of the faith, as we dare not speak its precepts in public, all th whole allowign freedom to any other faith.

What has it wroth? a better, more diverse, stronger culture? No. It has brought peopel who have less, not more, independance. it has broght peopel who have les mean of expression , not more, For we can only express outselves when everyhtign is clealry defined. We cannot find expression when no lines are drawn.

Do we see Happiness? How can we when suicide ratigns ar eup, the number of unwante dpregnancies is up, the sufferage is up, and not a kidn word, but a coarse humour, has decended upon all.

Homosexual couples shoudl not be the issue even on this thread, which is abotu attitudes of Abortion.

Yet here even it is defencded.,

Homosexuality is morally wrong and has been proven to destory society.

Thoug Modern culture wants us to be leive that morals of our past are suppressive and wrong, look at what they have done, and see the misury that griws liek a cancer in our lands, destorying all that would be consumed.

I saw the Cat int he Hat to-day, to review it for safety reasons ( Not allowugn children to see certain movies.)

The sort of coarse humour in that film alone shows that out cuklture is in dire straits. Unless, AntiBush, you agree with Myers and is band in thinkign Children need to be intoduced to smut at an early age.

No, I stand by mt morals and my lord, for otherwise, I can pnly fall into the Abyss of Hell.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@MJUNO.COM), November 23, 2003.

Zarove, I'm in complete agreement with you. When given the choice between greed and life, many women will choose greed. How many women have aborted their babies because they wanted to finish college, or because the baby would interfere with their careers? In many areas, the majority of pregnant women are not impoverished, nor are they teens. They're living comfortably and financially secure, and see a baby as an interruption. To think that one can "do lots of good" with blood money is just a self deception. Judas also thought he might do some good with those thirty silver pieces. He bought a plot of land and hung himself. His betrayal brought him to despair. Remember, he was upset when Magdelene poured perfume over Our Lord. "That money could have been used for the poor!" (Yet it was he who had been stealing from their treasury.) The greedy always make noises like they're going to do good, but good fruits do not come from bad trees. A woman who's willing to abort her child for money isn't going to save the world.

It would be interesting to offer the gestational ages and fetal development and see if the numbers of women would decline as the fetus develops...

Would you abort for 10 million dollars during the first ten weeks? (Give fetal development facts.)

Would you be willing to abort for $10 million during the second trimester? (Give fetal development statistics.)

Would you be willing to abort for $10 million during the third trimester of pregnancy? (Give fetal development facts.)

Would you be willing to abort for $10 million a full-term baby by partial birth abortion? (explain the procedure.)

Would you be willing to abort for $10 million if you had heard the baby's heartbeat on a fetal monitor? If you had seen the baby's image on ultrasound?

Would you be willing to withhold fluids and nourishment of your newborn for $10 million?

Just where will people draw the line?????????????????

Maybe you could start another thread on the coarse humor found in Cat in the Hat. My kids seem to be interested in seeing it...(I'd like to see Elf, hope that one is ok!)

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), November 24, 2003.

No need for a new thread. Just go to Yahoo movies and read the reveiws form Proffessionals. I agree wholley withthose.

But Ab

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 24, 2003.

I vaguely recall some story of a French minister who once asked a certain aristocratic woman if she would sleep with the King for 100,000 pounds. She responded with a long commentary on how much good she could do with all that money - and an affirmative. He then asked her if she'd sleep with him for 10 pounds. She indignantly asked if he thought her to be a prostitute. His reply was this: "Madam, we are agreed on what you are, now we are only working out the price."

Ideas - and words mean things... and are vastly more powerful than atomic bombs. Every belief, every ideology, every conviction in the human heart and mind has real-life repercussions.

Whereas a Christian world-view would hold that other human beings must loved unconditionally while their ideas should be judged according to whether or not they are true, false, good, bad, helpful or harmful....the secular world does the opposite: it proclaims (tactically) that all ideas and ideologies must be tolerated and then accepted unconditionally - but that people must somehow justify their existence!

Thus "tolerance" is proclaimed as a value when refering to ideas - accepted uncritically - especially when those ideas are non-Christian or anti-Christian...but this value somehow doesn't extend to the very life of the young, old, or inconvenient!

The larger issue is the loss of faith and intellectual belief in the core of western civilization: human beings are by nature incarnate souls - that is, both and simultaneously material and spiritual. Our bodies and spiritual souls are immediately and existentially bound together. Thus what affects our bodies immediately affects our souls and vice versa. You cannot sin with your body and not with your mind and will... whereas many people today (and since the French Revolution, and earlier in the Bogomil and Albigensian heresies) have believed in the dualist myth that body and soul are separate entities, and thus sex doesn't say anything about the soul.

These dualists believe that the body is a play thing of the soul - a toy, and thus physical actions that are pleasurable are innocent... nothing could be wrong since all is a sport or game.

How profoundly harmful this concept is! But also how inherently anti- rational, irrational it is! It provokes not a super- reasonable "enlightened" society but a society full of people with magical world-views... magical because they no longer believe in the mind's capacity to know absolute truths, in universally valid laws, in inevitable consequences for actions, thoughts or omissions...

Thus we have abortionists proclaiming that abortion has no lasting psychological effects....while simultaneously proclaiming that abstinence education is psychologically harmful to those who are already sexually active.

Or witness the logical disconnect of Hollywood moguls who pride themselves on writing cigarettes out of scripts or making other subtle anti-smoking gestures in film...because they believe this will influence children to not smoke.... but then simultaneously claim that their other influences of promiscuous heroes and quick use of guns to solve problems do in NO way influence childrens' actions or attitudes!

How is it possible for other-wise (self-proclaimed) intellectual elites to hold such contradictory views...unless their grounding belief is not one of an orderly universe created by a just and merciful God...but of a chaos of malevolent wills, both human and not?

Look at the Deist lie: they believe in a divine watch-maker who doesn't care or continue to be involved with his creation! Where does that leave mankind except in a universe where the only sentient and thus powerful being and ultimate source of justice is man himself?

And look at their other belief: that man is dual - a body machine controlled by an immanently risen intellectual mind... a mind unaffected by its body. A will that can use its body (or others' bodies) without somehow being affected or responsible...

You arrive at homosexuals who can't accept responsibility for their actions even when they lead to physical illnesses: in their magical world of no cause and effect, all illnesses (physical and emotional) are the result of societal "homophobia" rather than their own actions and choices! Rather than be responsible for words...they change them! Rather than accept reality, they claim the power to change it at whim... will it to be good for them even when it is objectively deadly.

So we come back to women willing to kill a completely innocent and harmless human being for $10 million... as though murder of the worst kind wouldn't mean anything both for who they are as people, or for the human race itself suddenly without a new son or daughter, brother or sister...

"it's my body - I can use it however I want".... not accepting that - in the case of abortion, the fetus is anything BUT their body, and that the "I" in question can not in fact even use her body "any way" she wants as though uses are morally neutral.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 24, 2003.

<>

Hi Anna,

Two great places to read Christian movie reviews are decentfilms.com and http://www.gospelcom.net/preview/index.html

Hope this helps. Patricia PS My husband and I walked out of "Love Actually" yesterday -- a filthy movie presented in theater previews as a fun, holiday romantic comedy. Hope everyone stays away from this trash.

-- Patricia (Mtherese2@aol.com), November 24, 2003.

"Just where will people draw the line????????????????? "

Good question thats what i want to know... Not more then a few days ago a women was on the news who had here baby on the jon, then left it there to die.. came back a few hours later it wasent dead yet so she tryed to drawn it in the sink... shes in jail now.. funny if they had shoved sicres in the back of the babys head half way down the birth canal its not murder to some people... The way some peoples minds work i will never know. But i guess all we can do is keep praying those rosarys to Our Lady, and Our Lord... God help this country if we dont turn around...

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 25, 2003.

You have no right to forbid homosexuals to get CIVILY married. No more then I would to forbid interracial couples from marrying. You can do whatever you want INSIDE YOUR OWN CHURCH, but the rest of us heathens will just have to manage to get through life without your guidance.

"This seperation of rligiosu life form secular life has lead many to abandom the Church altogather. Many, maybe even ANti-Bush. may not see this as a Big deal. But it is."

I'm flattered. I respect people who choose to live thier life totaly in accordance with their religious beliefs. It takes a lot of guts. More power to you. But don't jam your beleifs down other people's throats. Some homosexuals who don't even belong to your church want to get married out side of your church, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to tell them they can't?

"Instead, they advocated first open rebellion agaisnt auhtority, and the current " Up yours" attitude that is eroding our homes even now, as families disentegrate."

What authority? Many people of my generation don't rebel against all authority. Just misplaced authority. Just authority figures who misuse authority (for example, the entire U.S. government). Every generation rebels. I'm proud to call myself a long-haired hippie freak. Doesn't always disintigrate families. Just families that don't respect their kid's individuality and right to be himself. Open- minded families stay strong.

"Do we see Happiness? How can we when suicide ratigns ar eup"

Wait...so people commit suicide because there's not enough church influence in people's lives? I think that's a pretty far-fetched conclusion to draw. Most of the people that commit suicide are teenagers, because their yuppie parents dope them so full of ritalin and other drugs that they get so srcewed up it's a wonder more people don't off themselves.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.

Not that an appeal to reason will work, but anti-Bush, what about Atheists who oppsoe Homosexual Marriage? Oh wait, tnoen exist, only Christaisn oppose it rihtg?

Sorry, but as a social issue, it can be objected to without the Chruches teachings. Many nonchrisyains civilisations have outlawed it, and those who accept it often fall to ruin and decay., Yhis is the lesson that history teaches.

Lets look at your post.

"You have no right to forbid homosexuals to get CIVILY married. No more then I would to forbid interracial couples from marrying. You can do whatever you want INSIDE YOUR OWN CHURCH, but the rest of us heathens will just have to manage to get through life without your guidance. "

What about those hwo object not based soley, or even partially, on the teahcigns of any Christain Church?

Homosexuality is a violation of the general understanding of Marriage and natural commerce of the Human society, which defines marriage as oen man, and one woman. This is a dangeroys principle to tamper with, and itsself is only self serving is one does.

Not that you will accept any secular arguments agaisnt Homosexual marriage as secular, to you \its all about religion.

"This seperation of rligiosu life form secular life has lead many to abandom the Church altogather. Many, maybe even ANti-Bush. may not see this as a Big deal. But it is."

"I'm flattered. I respect people who choose to live thier life totaly in accordance with their religious beliefs. It takes a lot of guts. More power to you. But don't jam your beleifs down other people's throats. Some homosexuals who don't even belong to your church want to get married out side of your church, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to tell them they can't? "

Someone who cares both about their mental and physical well being, and the welfare of society. Who are you to force immorality and social chaos down my throat?

"Instead, they advocated first open rebellion agaisnt auhtority, and the current " Up yours" attitude that is eroding our homes even now, as families disentegrate."

"What authority? Many people of my generation don't rebel against all authority. Just misplaced authority. Just authority figures who misuse authority (for example, the entire U.S. government). Every generation rebels. I'm proud to call myself a long-haired hippie freak. Doesn't always disintigrate families. Just families that don't respect their kid's individuality and right to be himself. Open- minded families stay strong."

any authoriyu. There are ways to fight injustice that do nto use curse words and smear tactics. If you do not liek the current governemnt, then do somehtignto change it. I am. I am a writer, and I hate the modern govenrment. But I dotn use words like "Damn" and "Hell" too often. I use my yhree great weapons. My written word. My vote. My voice. I express my ideas and plea for change in a prodictive manner. All you do is decree how bad the govenrment is, but propose no change to preplace it othe than knockign down moral barriers that exist to preserve society as a whole.

"Do we see Happiness? How can we when suicide ratigns ar eup"

"Wait...so people commit suicide because there's not enough church influence in people's lives? I think that's a pretty far-fetched conclusion to draw. Most of the people that commit suicide are teenagers, because their yuppie parents dope them so full of ritalin and other drugs that they get so srcewed up it's a wonder more people don't off themselves. "

No, they commit suicide because they feel trapped by their urges and see life as useless. The CHurch is one mean to break the bond of suffering. Others are self relaisation is a good way, and not the liberal way. The liberal wat is to give into your lusts and desires to satisfy the emediate craving, no matter hwo deviant, ignorign the issues causing the urge.

A more profitablemean is to learn what causes the impylse and woring on the issye.

Suicide rates are up becayse depression rates are u, and steaduly increase the more liberal the world becomes. allowign Homosexual marriages will only amplify this, rather than decrease it.

Church influence is not nessisasily the only thing I am tlakign about, not that you will listen to the whoel of my thoughts, which i will present if you insist.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 25, 2003.

I don't normaly like to pick at spelling (I know how bad mine must be), because I like to think I have a valid argument and don't need to rely on cheap shots. But could you work on the spelling just a little? Some parts are hard to read. Thanks.

"Not that an appeal to reason will work, but anti-Bush, what about Atheists who oppsoe Homosexual Marriage? Oh wait, tnoen exist, only Christaisn oppose it rihtg?"

There are Atheists who oppose homosexuality. The main argument is that gays are genraly more promiscuous, and therefore have a higher risk of spreading venereal diseases. But then, wouldn't making marriage an option encourage monogamous relationships, therefore decreasing the spread of STD's?

"Many nonchrisyains civilisations have outlawed it, and those who accept it often fall to ruin and decay., "

Examples?

"Homosexuality is a violation of the general understanding of Marriage and natural commerce of the Human society, which defines marriage as oen man, and one woman."

That would be YOUR understanding. A great many people, in this country and around the world, have a different understanding. Remember, there was a time not too long ago when the "general understanding of marriage" did not include interracial marriages.

"Not that you will accept any secular arguments agaisnt Homosexual marriage as secular, to you \its all about religion."

I haven't been presented with any secular arguments.

"Someone who cares both about their mental and physical well being, and the welfare of society. Who are you to force immorality and social chaos down my throat?"

Who the hell are you to decide what's best for someone else's "mental and physical well-being". Get off your pedestal. Since when are you the go-to guy for the welfare of society? That's what democracy is for, buddy (too bad it doesn't exist in the U.S.). SOCIETY decides what is good for society.

"I am a writer, and I hate the modern govenrment. But I dotn use words like "Damn" and "Hell" too often. I use my yhree great weapons. My written word. My vote. My voice. I express my ideas and plea for change in a prodictive manner."

Glad to hear it. Why exactly do you hate the government (I hate it too, but we probably hate it for different reasons)? What kind of stuff do you write?

I wish I could vote, but I'm not 18 yet. God knows I'd vote Bush out of office in a heartbeat.

"Suicide rates are up becayse depression rates are u, and steaduly increase the more liberal the world becomes. allowign Homosexual marriages will only amplify this, rather than decrease it."

And you base than on____________________

"I saw the Cat int he Hat to-day, to review it for safety reasons ( Not allowugn children to see certain movies.)

The sort of coarse humour in that film alone shows that out cuklture is in dire straits. Unless, AntiBush, you agree with Myers and is band in thinkign Children need to be intoduced to smut at an early age."

DUDE. IT'S DOCTOR FREAKING SUES. CHILL OUT.

I saw Elf. Will Ferrel is hilarious. I highly recomend it.

Some friends of mine walked out of Love Actualy, but just because it was so bad! I swear, is High Grant incapable of appearing in anything but mediocre romantic comedies??

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 27, 2003.

I am Dyslexic, so spellign errors will incure.

Now, to your post.

I don't normaly like to pick at spelling (I know how bad mine must be), because I like to think I have a valid argument and don't need to rely on cheap shots. But could you work on the spelling just a little? Some parts are hard to read. Thanks.

{Answered above.} "Not that an appeal to reason will work, but anti-Bush, what about Atheists who oppsoe Homosexual Marriage? Oh wait, tnoen exist, only Christaisn oppose it rihtg?"

There are Atheists who oppose homosexuality. The main argument is that gays are genraly more promiscuous, and therefore have a higher risk of spreading venereal diseases. But then, wouldn't making marriage an option encourage monogamous relationships, therefore decreasing the spread of STD's?

{Actually, many Atheists also oppose it as it is associated with Neurosis. The APA Journal, 1998 I beleive, clealry links Homosexuality with Neurosis. ( This, contrary to their claims that sexual reintation is permenent, and immutable, and their leanigns toward it beign innate. They tend to, as most politicaly sponsored grous do, soeak from both sides of their mouth.)

Homosexuality also shortens life span, on average to between 10 and 40 years. The fact that Homosexual men have hte highest rate of disease infection due to tears in the rectum, as well as a higher risk rate of anal Cancer, is anothe rindecation of the behaviour beign unhealthy.

Stress levels are higher for Homosexuals. The uzual answer to this is that its Homophobia that causes the tsress. In nations where it is openly accepted, like Sweden, the stress level og Homosexual men remains the same, not because of Homophbia, as many here claim. The stress is due o the undelying problem that caUses Homosexuality, which is, as stated above, a Symptom of a larger neurosis.

Also, before you say " Uts not a mental illness", I have cited the APA journal. Please look into it. I will look for spacific references. However, it is well cdocumented that most Homosexuals who enter therapy for reasons not related to their sexuality, nonetheless abandon their same sex attraction when therapy is successful. Upward of 60% of homosexuals who enter therapy ( for reasosn other than beung homosexual, which they arent treated for) surrender their sexual identity that is claimed ot be immutable.

This also links to other research ahowingf Homosexuals are at a higher risk of alcaholism, drug use, sadomasicism and other sexual deviations, and are more prone to nervous attacks, suggests a malady. ( And ntis is not all caused by Homophobia mind you.Even in the most acceptign of scercumstances.)

Simpley pyr, Homosexuality is dangerous.This is why it is opposed.}

"Many nonchrisyains civilisations have outlawed it, and those who accept it often fall to ruin and decay., "

Examples?

{Anceint Greece. It fell o the Ro,ans as its lust for sexual pleasure, and Homosexuality, increased. IKt also practeced Paedophilia. Do you want that brought back as well?}

"Homosexuality is a violation of the general understanding of Marriage and natural commerce of the Human society, which defines marriage as oen man, and one woman."

That would be YOUR understanding. A great many people, in this country and around the world, have a different understanding. Remember, there was a time not too long ago when the "general understanding of marriage" did not include interracial marriages.

{Those peopel you speak of are beign conditioned to think that. However, it is also well known that society is shaped by political forces as well as by the media. The traditional understanding of Marriage is one man and one woman, this is how it is defined by Law, and not simpleuy MY understanding, but the general concensus of most.Indeed, why do you support Gay Marriage? You can say you are supportign it because it is tyhe right hting to do, but if you do, why cant I say I am opposed because it is the right hting to do? Your answer is simpley that this is MY morality. Well, why cant you see that your morality holds no more credence than mien in your philosophy, which itsself is limited to self servineg arguments.

Indeed, my arguments carry more weight as I have given actual thought to the implications of Gay marriage. ( You may think I only beleive the Bible and never thought baouthtis, but that woudl be an erronious thought on your end.) why shoudl you dictate to me what is and is not acceptable?

Why not just address the real issues of the dangers of the issues?}

"Not that you will accept any secular arguments agaisnt Homosexual marriage as secular, to you \its all about religion."

I haven't been presented with any secular arguments.

{The Dangers of Homosexuality have been presented. There is also an argument Bout social stability, as Homosexuality lends to confusion and a vlurign of needed lines.

At 17 or younger, you will not understand this, least of all in modern society, which tells you the oppposite, but society needs order.

In fact we cannot operate as a society without order.

We work better as a society with order.

This need not be dictatorial order, as you will doubtless assume, but we do need lines drawn somewhere. }

"Someone who cares both about their mental and physical well being, and the welfare of society. Who are you to force immorality and social chaos down my throat?"

Who the hell are you to decide what's best for someone else's "mental and physical well-being". Get off your pedestal. Since when are you the go-to guy for the welfare of society? That's what democracy is for, buddy (too bad it doesn't exist in the U.S.). SOCIETY decides what is good for society.

{I have studies Psycology, and have obseerved much. The queatsion " Who the Hell are you" is a rather hol,low one, showing you lack the basic understanding that perhaps my points are valid.You also lack the understanding that curse words do not make your qords stronger, or even appear stronger. Please refrain from curse words.

OK, who am I? I am a writer, who has studied Psycology. I know that certain behaviours and habbits can be destrictive tot he individual and cause unrest in a community. Homosexuality is such a thing.

As with any self destructuve behaviours, if it is encouraged, it will grow untl it finally does more harm that good.

Interestignly, you parroted back a moralising point that I hear often these days. " Society decided." yet, here I am, as part of society, and I am not allowed a voice. Basica.ly, you are tellign me, and others who agree with me, to shut up and let you do what you want. Rhat is the majority of societies members are opposed to Legilising Homosexual Marriage? If society is the bottom line of morality, then why cant you accept parts of society pleading their case as you plead yours?

Also interesting, can society be wrong? I suppose by yout line of reaosnign no, but in reality, yes it can. It was socially accpetable to kill Jews in WW2. This did not make it right. But society had spoken.

and now, I , as a member of socuety, am faced with a censure form you. You are tellign me to accpet Gay marriage, in fact, you are tellign me that I have no right to oppose it. In short, everyone who opposes it shoidl shut up and deal with it.That is the position of a dictator. You arent letting society decide, you are silencing the opposition so you can take full controle. This is democracy to you? Forcign your oponant to be silent and accept whatever you beleive in?}

"I am a writer, and I hate the modern govenrment. But I dotn use words like "Damn" and "Hell" too often. I use my yhree great weapons. My written word. My vote. My voice. I express my ideas and plea for change in a prodictive manner."

Glad to hear it. Why exactly do you hate the government (I hate it too, but we probably hate it for different reasons)? What kind of stuff do you write?

{Poetry and sci fi. I also write essays. My reasons are different. I actually give thoguth to mine rather than leap onthe Hate wagon.}

I wish I could vote, but I'm not 18 yet. God knows I'd vote Bush out of office in a heartbeat.

{This is the same God whose laws you oppose?}

"Suicide rates are up becayse depression rates are u, and steaduly increase the more liberal the world becomes. allowign Homosexual marriages will only amplify this, rather than decrease it."

And you base than on____________________

{APA journal, 2000, APA journal, 2003, National board of statistics. Untited States Health department report 2002. United States census poll.}

"I saw the Cat int he Hat to-day, to review it for safety reasons ( Not allowugn children to see certain movies.)

The sort of coarse humour in that film alone shows that out cuklture is in dire straits. Unless, AntiBush, you agree with Myers and is band in thinkign Children need to be intoduced to smut at an early age."

DUDE. IT'S DOCTOR FREAKING SUES. CHILL OUT.

I saw Elf. Will Ferrel is hilarious. I highly recomend it.

{Cat int he Hat the book os Seuss, Cat in the Hat the moie was a desecration of Seuss. Unles " Dirty Ho" was a line I missed in the book, and the whole world was threatened by a magical crate interdimensional transporter, and the narcaleptic Thie woman was riden like a surfboard on a water slide in Doctor Seuss. Sorry kido, this was not Doctor Seuss.}

Some friends of mine walked out of Love Actualy, but just because it was so bad! I swear, is High Grant incapable of appearing in anything but mediocre romantic comedies??

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 28, 2003.

Sorry about the spelling comment. Didn't know you were dyslexic. I won't bother you about that anymore.

"Anceint Greece. It fell o the Ro,ans as its lust for sexual pleasure, and Homosexuality, increased. IKt also practeced Paedophilia. Do you want that brought back as well?"

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Ancient Greece fell to Philip of Macedon and the Macedonians. The reason for this was because Greece was not unified and had been weakened by independent city-states fighting each other. The Greeks simply couldn't unite against a common enemy. Philip was a brilliant military tactician who defeated the Greeks quite easily. His son Alexander the Great inherited his empire and conquered everything between the Balkans and Western India. His empire was stretched too thin, though and fell apart soon after his death. A few hundred years later, the Romans conquered Greece, but by then the ancient Greek civilization had long since been destroyed. As for your comment on pedophilia, it was not a common practice and was not accepted. By the way, have you ever heard of the Roman Emperor Caligula? He practiced just about every sexual taboo in the book--homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, ect.

"The traditional understanding of Marriage is one man and one woman, this is how it is defined by Law,"

But now, Massetchussets LAW is saying that homosexuals CAN get married. The traditional understanding of citizenship used to be that it could only be held by white males. But that to changed, didn;t it?

"You can say you are supportign it because it is tyhe right hting to do, but if you do, why cant I say I am opposed because it is the right hting to do? Your answer is simpley that this is MY morality. Well, why cant you see that your morality holds no more credence than mien in your philosophy, which itsself is limited to self servineg arguments."

Everybody is entitled to their beleifs. But your freedom extends only as far as someone else's. Are gays infringing on YOUR freedom? No, so why must you infringe on theirs?

"We work better as a society with order"

Order does not mean dictating how other people can live thier lives (when the choices they make won't even affect you) based on what was socialy acceptable 2,000 years ago. The beleifs of the people who wrote the Bible influenced it. God didn;t have to say that homosexuality was evil, people already beleived it. Primitive people beleived everything different was evil. That's human nature. We hate and fear what we do not understand.

"here I am, as part of society, and I am not allowed a voice. Basica.ly, you are tellign me, and others who agree with me, to shut up and let you do what you want. Rhat is the majority of societies members are opposed to Legilising Homosexual Marriage? If society is the bottom line of morality, then why cant you accept parts of society pleading their case as you plead yours?"

Of course you are allowed a voice. How am I going to stop you? You have an opinion, and you are entitled to it, however ignorant and bigotted it may be. I'm simply arguing with you. Not infringing on your freedom, as you would do to homosexuals. I'm only dissagreeing with your right to force your views on other's lives. I think it's wrong to do that. If there were a vote, I would vote for gay marriage. If the majority of society voted against it, then the majority rules. Gay marriage is prohibited. Doesn't mean it would be right, but it would be the will of the people, and it would be better to listen to them in the long run. If someone dictated what was right and what was wrong, it would only come out bad. Right and wrong are objective terms. Different people have very different ideas of what is right. Each beleives the other is wrong. One man can't make the choices for an entire society. Plus, it would set a dongerous precedent. Dictators would then be given free reign and would almost certainly abuse it.

"My reasons are different. I actually give thoguth to mine rather than leap onthe Hate wagon.}"

I hate the government because it is full of corruption, our president was not elected (what happened in 2000 was more of a coup than an election), our military polices the world and does more harm then help. We have overthrown more democracies than dicatorships. We have killed more civilians than terrorists. We have bombed more hospitals than weapons plants. Big corporations own our government and turn the common worker into a slave. Our leaders play both sides in our wars (Bush and Cheney run America, yet they used to be wuite cozy with Saddam...). Our foreign policy is not dictated by compassion or mercy, or love of democracy, it is dictated by monetary interests; by the interests of the wealthy elite that run America. We are not a democracy, but a Plutocracy. Everyone in the high levels of our government is in the top 1% of incomes. They represent the wealthy.

Sorry for the political rant. Read more rants at the Anarchy 2 forum. Anyway, what are your reasons for hating the government?

"{APA journal, 2000, APA journal, 2003, National board of statistics. Untited States Health department report 2002. United States census poll.}"

I'm not talking about the suicide rates or depression rates. I'm asking how you connect it with the rise of liberalism?

"{Cat int he Hat the book os Seuss, Cat in the Hat the moie was a desecration of Seuss. Unles " Dirty Ho" was a line I missed in the book, and the whole world was threatened by a magical crate interdimensional transporter, and the narcaleptic Thie woman was riden like a surfboard on a water slide in Doctor Seuss. Sorry kido, this was not Doctor Seuss.}"

I saw the movie today and thought it was quite funny. Took my little brother; he loved it. "Dirty ho" was the only bad thing I could find in there, and big deal. Like kids don't hear that anyway. It's not like we're handing them a George Carlin CD and saying "Here, listen to this shit!" The interdimensional crate thingamobob didn't hirt anybody, it wan't innapropriate. And you have to admit, the scene where the Things rode the Thai woman down the stairs was hilarious! You seem like a real uptight guy. Tell me, what movies do you find funny?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

I personally believe AIDS began when the governmental laws (which were in conformity with divine laws) were perverted to allow/accommodate unnatural sexual behaviors. This was one way "God who so loves the world" tried to dissuade the sons of men from committing such seriously perverted deeds (amidst governmental approval) that would lead to spiritual and eternal death.

What is good is known by its fruits.

A holy heterosexual and monogamous marriage that is blessed by God would lead to love, life, and abundance of joy and happiness even amidst hard trials, and from the family, the love and life flows everywhere.

A homosexual person is fraught with all sort fears, guilt, hatred, bondage to intense perverted animal pleasure, other bondages like masochism/sadism, and restlessness leading more perversions. The end is spiritual death, emotional fragmentation, serious physical illnesses like AIDS, rectal cancers, and all the host of sicknesses leading to both physical and spiritual death and decay, and spreading out to the world like a scourging plague. No greater accursed situation exists in the world than this.

According to church, this is one of the three sins that cry out to God for vengeance.

In chapter 7 of the Book of Revelations we see "seven bowls of the wrath of God" and subsequent stubborn and hateful response of men, "….they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues, and did not repent and give him glory……men gnawed their tongues in anguish and the cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores, and did not repent of their deeds." (Rev.16:9b, 10b-11).

The solution is very easy, just come back to God and love his laws that is meant to safeguard our life, and not to rob off our happiness as the devil always puts it in men's mind.

Can man fight with God and win? No in submission to God is your life going to be full happiness and joy. Bowing to God is not your dishonor, but your honor. It howing to sin is that dishonor, shame, slavery, and subsequent death. God hates homosexual acts, but loves homosexuals a special way.

God Bless You!!!

-- leslie john (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), November 28, 2003.

zarove, anti-bush,

i would love to spend all day picking through your posts and discovering who said what, but i lack the time.

in the future, please use HTML tags to offset quotes which arent yours.

in case you dont know any tags, just put this < i > without the spaces between in front of the words which arent yours, and this < / i > after wards...

the effect will look like this, that way we can tell what you are quoting from somebody else

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 29, 2003.

oh, one last note...

while it doesnt matter if you screw up the opening tags, if you screw up the tag at the end, the rest of the page will end up as italics, so make sure you get the < / i > part right...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 29, 2003.

Thanks for the tip Paul.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Weeee, I learned a new trick!

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

"I personally believe AIDS began when the governmental laws (which were in conformity with divine laws) were perverted to allow/accommodate unnatural sexual behaviors."

Then you're an idiot. AIDS (HIV) was a monkey virus (called SIV) that made the jump from simians to humans around 1930. The first documented AIDS death occured in 1959 in the Congo. Stop being ignorant. Get out of the freaking dark ages. Read a book, you loser. It's one thing to say that you beleive homosexuality helped spread AIDS (there is some merit to that, since gays do tend to be more promiscuous), but to say that it was directly caused by the governments failure to--to do what? execute homosexuals? Lobotomize them to remove the "disease"?--deal with gays is just stupid and ignorant. What is even sadder is the fact that in today's world, where information is more readily available than ever before, you would express beleifs based on blatant ignorance of the facts when they are right at your fingertips. You disgust me.

"A homosexual person is fraught with all sort fears, guilt, hatred, bondage to intense perverted animal pleasure, other bondages like masochism/sadism, and restlessness leading more perversions. The end is spiritual death, emotional fragmentation, serious physical illnesses like AIDS, rectal cancers, and all the host of sicknesses leading to both physical and spiritual death and decay, and spreading out to the world like a scourging plague. No greater accursed situation exists in the world than this."

And you base that on absolutely nothing. But this is what the Church told you, so it must be true. Have you ever talked to a homosexual? Probably not. Just as you know jack about AIDS, you know jack about homosexuality. I have a cousin who's gay, and he exhibits none of the symptoms mentioned above. He is a very happy person. He doesn't have any venereal diseases or cancers. He isn't promiscuous; he and his partner have been in a monogamous relationship as long as my parents have (some 20 years, I beleive). He has no "perversions". He and his partner have a little house in Seatle. They are both quite content. How about you give me some examples from your argument?

"According to church, this is one of the three sins that cry out to God for vengeance."

Well there we have it! It must be true! Sorry for wasting your time.

"In chapter 7 of the Book of Revelations we see "seven bowls of the wrath of God" and subsequent stubborn and hateful response of men, "….they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues, and did not repent and give him glory……men gnawed their tongues in anguish and the cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores, and did not repent of their deeds." (Rev.16:9b, 10b-11)."

And that proves...

"The solution is very easy, just come back to God and love his laws that is meant to safeguard our life, and not to rob off our happiness as the devil always puts it in men's mind.

Can man fight with God and win? No in submission to God is your life going to be full happiness and joy. Bowing to God is not your dishonor, but your honor. It howing to sin is that dishonor, shame, slavery, and subsequent death. God hates homosexual acts, but loves homosexuals a special way."

The God you talk about here is not the Christian God. The Christian God is bigger than that. He accepts people for who they are. Your god is cold and cruel and mean.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Sorry about the spelling comment. Didn't know you were dyslexic. I won't bother you about that anymore.

Very good.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Ancient Greece fell to Philip of Macedon and the Macedonians. The reason for this was because Greece was not unified and had been weakened by independent city-states fighting each other. The Greeks simply couldn't unite against a common enemy. Philip was a brilliant military tactician who defeated the Greeks quite easily. His son Alexander the Great inherited his empire and conquered everything between the Balkans and Western India. His empire was stretched too thin, though and fell apart soon after his death. A few hundred years later, the Romans conquered Greece, but by then the ancient Greek civilization had long since been destroyed

Basically everything you said aids rather than hinders my case. The Greeks, like our current western society, was fragmented and as a result weakened.

As for your comment on pedophilia, it was not a common practice and was not accepted. By the way, have you ever heard of the Roman Emperor Caligula? He practiced just about every sexual taboo in the book--homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, ect.

Caligula also was assassinated only a few years after assuming the Emporium of Rome, and this means…what exactly? Incidental to this, homosexuality and Paedophilia where botb very common and accepted in ancient Greece.

But now, Massetchussets LAW is saying that homosexuals CAN get married. The traditional understanding of citizenship used to be that it could only be held by white males. But that to changed, didn;t it?

Which still doesn’t make it right. Ypou see, Homosexuality has dire consequences boht on those hwopractice it and on society at large. It confuses the line distinction between family definiiton, which alone is sacred. It also makes everyone vulnerable to feelings of sexual tension, real or imagines, in any situation. Whereas a group pf men could live together in a Dormatory or Military instillation, ect, without shame or fear, now they may feel sexually attractive to a gay member, or a perceived Gay member, which would raise many of the same issues as it does for women who feel this way. The same is said of the uncomfortable feeling on unreturned sexual interest between two women. Na uninterested straight woman may be pressured by the lesbian. Before you say this doesn’t happen, I have personally seen it happen. Many times.

Again, an Immoral law is not a good law. Studies in Homosexuality have indicated mental and Physical stresses which, simply put, are not with advocating, and their detrimental effect on families and communities is a well documented fact.

Everybody is entitled to their beleifs. But your freedom extends only as far as someone else's. Are gays infringing on YOUR freedom? No, so why must you infringe on theirs? "We work better as a society with order"

Yes. They are.They are infringing on my ability to speak freely that it is Immoral. You yourself infringe on this ight by saying I sdont have the ight to sppeak against it. You say “Leave it in the Churches”, but here you are telling me not to address it here, which is a Church oriented message vboard. Thus I cant use the Internet to confere my beliefs. Soon I wouldn’t be able to stress the morality in th Church itself without it making the church look bad. Limited free speech is an infirngement on my freedom.

Forced acceptance is an infringement on my right to say no, and my right to free agency. You agaisn witsh to basically force me to accept something.

How about freedom of religion extending to my ability to tell others that they are wrong based on the Bible? Nope, don’t have that either, not in your worldvriew.

How about freedom from sin and strife and confusion? Sorry, they take that away as well.

My freedom, health, and happiness are at risk, and so is theirs. Homosexuals have been clinically studied and have a markedly HIGHER rate of depression, which is coupled with a higher rate of Promiscuity.Butg more on that later.

Order does not mean dictating how other people can live thier lives (when the choices they make won't even affect you) based on what was socialy acceptable 2,000 years ago. The beleifs of the people who wrote the Bible influenced it. God didn;t have to say that homosexuality was evil, people already beleived it.

Actually, this is a Lie.2000 years ago Homosexuality was not seen as Evil. You asusme that Human nature thinks all things that are diferent are evil, Homosexuals where seen as different and evil, and now we ar beginning to see them for what they are, in a Modern revelation of enlightenment, which is unlike any other culture in the world.

Such shows the extent of your studies.

In the Greek world Homosexual love was accepted. In Greek Mythology, there are stories of the gods having homosexual lovers. Notably Zeus and Apollo both took male lovers. ( thought where not themselves lovers.)

The Greeks had a vast Homosexual Upper Class that was well respected.

Claiming that people thought that Homosexuality was evil 2000 years ago because they didn’t understand it, and saying now we do, is a base ignorance conclusion, and not acceptable in the realm of discussion of the currant issue.

Further, you are dictating my life by saying I cannot tell people Homosexuality is morally wrong, and dictating ,y life by saying I should keep my religious beliefs in the church an d live essentially a sectarian life out of the church. You are basically forcing me to seal away my life in the church building, or else live as you dictate, rather you admit it or now.

Primitive people beleived everything different was evil. That's human nature. We hate and fear what we do not understand.

So basically, 2000 years ago they didn’t understand Homosexuality. Now that we do, we can, for the first time in Human history, accept it. Again, Homosexuality was understood, and accepted, 2000 years ago.

So was Prostitution.

So was paedophilia.

All where acceptable acts.

Greece had a large Homosexual upper class, claiming they didn’t understand it and thought it was evil is laughably ignorant.

Of course you are allowed a voice. How am I going to stop you? You have an opinion, and you are entitled to it, however ignorant and bigotted it may be.

Claimign I am ignorant and Bigoted is not proper form. Especially since I have demonstrated some working knowledge of the debate. In fact, I would hazard that I have spent more time in serious studiy of the subject matter than you havbe. Indeed, you have propabely only latched on to the Gay advocacy side, and read their materials and not bothered to read the other side. Let alone the actual research which you seem completely ignorant of yourself.

Your own claism cry ignorance when you take a compelxe issue such as this and assume that everyone who disagrees with you is automatically Bigoted and ignorant. In fact, that makes you a Bigot and a Hypoctire. You ar bigoted against my morals and beliefs, which you don’t understand.

I'm simply arguing with you. Not infringing on your freedom, as you would do to homosexuals.

Yes you are thee freedom fighter, and I am the tyrant, on top pf being a Bigot. Villifyign the Opnant is not proper form, unless you show how I am oppressign them , as opposed to opposing an immoral aspect, then claims ablut how I oppress them are moot and ridiculous. Its an Ad Homonim, where you attack me, personally, on a false prescept, that of me oppressign people. This makes you look better by default, as you are proverbially riding the white horse tryig to liberate people. Such arrogance shows you arent intereste din any form f freedom and would make a tyrant yourself, for if you took over, you would vilify he Chruch, and then enforce your own morality while bemoaning others who did the same.

I'm only dissagreeing with your right to force your views on other's lives.

Actually you are ignoring why we on this board oppose Homosexuality, and ignoring any case made agsisnt it that would; show that it is better to leav eit illegal. Smoking is also illegal in some countries now. Does that mean tht those natiosn are oppressin ghte rights of Smokers? People who oppose Homosexual marriage arent doing it to force their views on others, but rathe rto preserve society and peopels lives. Muhc like oeipe; who force their views on cigarettes.

If there were a vote, I would vote for gay marriage. If the majority of society voted against it, then the majority rules.

At the same time, you would try to silence me and make the oposition look bad by claiming them as harmful bigots and ignorant. Which is what you did here. You called me a Bigot and ignorant because I fifnt acept Homosexuality. Which means either you accept Homosexuality, or your are a Bigot and ignorant. That sort of Loaded implication is building a false pretence. The statement assumes that all who oppose Homosexuality are automatically Bigoted and Ignorant, and precludes the idea that people can be opposed to it on rational and educated grounds, which automatically makes your side look like the ones who are intelligent, which is simpley flase. Indeed, the use of such a meathod itself is dishonest. Gay marriage is prohibited. Doesn't mean it would be right, but it would be the will of the people, and it would be better to listen to them in the long run.

I doubt you would, you would rail against society and claim theyw here all wrong and corrupt because they didn’t listen to you. You also assume that Homosexuality is OK and it would be right for them to marry, and wrong to rpevent it even if the Majority decided agisnt it. Yet f the Majority decided on favour, that would mean that you would use the Argument of popularity. A could of quic tings, you are right that Popular consensus is not always right, but to dte you have not addressed any legitimate concerns on Homosexuality. Indeed, you simpley dismiss those opposed as Bigots and ignorant.

Do you at leats think you could be wrong? Do youi at leats thingk that maybe some people are opposed to Homosexual marriage based on logical, moral grounds and are well educated and not ignorant? Is that even possible in your worldveiw? If not you are a Bigot as much as you claim me to be.

If someone dictated what was right and what was wrong, it would only come out bad.

Depends on who it is.Dictatorships are usually bad, but a few have been good.

Further, since this is a Christain board, what about God’s ideas? Should they be seen as only Equel to mans, and capable of beign overridden by Popular vote?

" Right and wrong are objective terms.

Correct, though I really don’t think you meant to say this. I think you meant subjective. Objective would support my argument that Homosexuality is wrong based on an exterior morality rather than an interpretive morality.

Different people have very different ideas of what is right.

That would make it subjective, not Objective. Objecticve Morality is when Morals are absolute and independent of peoples opinions.

Incedentally, again, why do you discount God?

Each beleives the other is wrong.

This I why I turn to God, who is always right.

One man can't make the choices for an entire society.

Actually, yes they can, and often do.

Plus, it would set a dongerous precedent.

No, it wouldn’t, it happens all the time.

Dictators would then be given free reign and would almost certainly abuse it.

But most dictators are Liberal.Not coservative. Stalin was liberal. Hitler, though called conservative now, was Liberal in fact. Conservative ideals tend toward community good, liberal ideals tend toward self realisation regardless fo social ramifications.

This is why Christ our Lord extols us to serve one another, which doesn’t always mean tolerate any lifestyle, but rather to love them by wanting the best for them. On Homosexuality, what is best is not to practice or condone a behaviour that will estroy them. Its like allowing a friend to become a Junky and celebrating that fact. Its ridiculous.

I hate the government because it is full of corruption, our president was not elected (what happened in 2000 was more of a coup than an election), our military polices the world and does more harm then help. We have overthrown more democracies than dicatorships. We have killed more civilians than terrorists.

Blanket accusations with no support do not a case make.

We have bombed more hospitals than weapons plants.

I would really love to see the information on this. I really would.

Big corporations own our government and turn the common worker into a slave.

So liberation or the Proliterate? Coupled with the above arguments you sould a lot like a Bolshevik.

Our leaders play both sides in our wars (Bush and Cheney run America, yet they used to be wuite cozy with Saddam...).

Do you even check the information before posting it? Bush and Cheny wherent in power when Saddam took over, he was implanted under a different presedent. Guess which one.

Also, Iraq was a Moderate secular state, not a religious one.

Our foreign policy is not dictated by compassion or mercy, or love of democracy, it is dictated by monetary interests; by the interests of the wealthy elite that run America.

Actualy many forigne policies put a financial drain on America. I am not for the current system but I am not going to make uneducated claims agisnt it, leas tof all tat sound errily like Communist lines of thought.

We are not a democracy, but a Plutocracy.

Stop trying to impress people with large worlds and vilifying your enemy. America is a Federalist republic, not a Plutocracy.It m,ay not be fully good, but I wsill tell it like it is. And its nto as bad as you claim

Everyone in the high levels of our government is in the top 1% of incomes. They represent the wealthy.

One statement does not lead to another. This is a slippery Slope fallacy. You state “ All of the highest government officials are right, therefore they represent the wealthy” without ]giving any indication of HOW this is true. Coincidental corrolation si also possible.

Sorry for the political rant. Read more rants at the Anarchy 2 forum. Anyway, what are your reasons for hating the government?

Why, it was an uninformed Rant. And an insulting one.

"{APA journal, 2000, APA journal, 2003, National board of statistics. Untited States Health department report 2002. United States census poll.}" I'm not talking about the suicide rates or depression rates. I'm asking how you connect it with the rise of liberalism?

Actually the corrolery Data does indicate justt hat. The rise in Liberal lifestyle, like premarital sex with multiple partners, Homoseuxal conduct, and other such lifestyles, lead to a temporary pleasure which leads to depression afterwards.The sex life isn’t as rewarding. Studies also show that marriages arent as happy if you have had a lot of partners before. Simpley put, the lifestyle destroys the people.

I wasn’t just citing the suicide rates, and all Phsycologests will agree that there is a specified norm in which pepel should lve. This doents mean that peipel should be exactly the same, but there is a certain lifestyle which is conducive, and another rhtat is destructive. And by crtain, singular, I mean it. You would be amazed at how little different the varient lifestyles ar ea their causesd.

"{Cat int he Hat the book os Seuss, Cat in the Hat the moie was a desecration of Seuss. Unles " Dirty Ho" was a line I missed in the book, and the whole world was threatened by a magical crate interdimensional transporter, and the narcaleptic Thie woman was riden like a surfboard on a water slide in Doctor Seuss. Sorry kido, this was not Doctor Seuss.}" I saw the movie today and thought it was quite funny. Took my little brother; he loved it. "Dirty ho" was the only bad thing I could find in there, and big deal. Like kids don't hear that anyway. It's not like we're handing them a George Carlin CD and saying "Here, listen to this shit!" The interdimensional crate thingamobob didn't hirt anybody, it wan't innapropriate. And you have to admit, the scene where the Things rode the Thai woman down the stairs was hilarious! You seem like a real uptight guy. Tell me, what movies do you find funny?

So the Cat beign hit in the crtch was OK for little Children? Sorry, that’s not acceptable. The Thai woman beign ridden was not funny, and the racist stereotypes where themselves offensive.. Also, saying “ Well they will hear it anyway“ is not acceptable. We should try to reduce the amount of smut our children are exposed to, not grant it free right. Just because they do hear it at school doesn’t mean that they should hear it in a movei. In fact, the fac that they di hear it only shows a larger problem, which would be agrevated by this

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 29, 2003.

"The Greeks, like our current western society, was fragmented and as a result weakened."

Your lack of knowledge of ancient history is astounding. The Greeks has been divided into many seperate city-states for a thousand years. They never saw themselves as Greeks, but rather Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians, ect. The only unifying factor was a common language and religion, although even these varied from city-state to city-state. The reason for the fragmentation was the terrain of Greece. Greece is mountainous, with small valleys. The Greeks city-states each grew up in one little valley or plain, but they were all seperated by mountains. Because of invasion, high walls were built around each city, isolating them even more. Thus, each city-state grew independently. They cooperated a little bit during the Persian Wars, but then went back to killing each other again. Their fragmentation had nothing to do with their acceptance of homosexuality. That's just stupid, and to put forth a rediculous claim like that without anything to back it up is even stupider.

"Studies in Homosexuality have indicated mental and Physical stresses which, simply put, are not with advocating, and their detrimental effect on families and communities is a well documented fact."

The "detremental effect" does not occur until intolerant homophobes like you come into play, screaming for the homosexuals' head on a stick.

"They are infringing on my ability to speak freely that it is Immoral. You yourself infringe on this ight by saying I sdont have the ight to sppeak against it. You say “Leave it in the Churches”, but here you are telling me not to address it here, which is a Church oriented message vboard."

Oh boo hoo. Pass me the tissue. Some homos in Massetchussents are infringing on your rights? What a crock. No one is saying you can't "speak out against what is immoral". I'm dissagreeing with you on the issue. I'm saying gays should be allowed to get married, you're saying they shouldn't. You can scream about your idea of morality until you're blue in the face; that's your right as an American (cherish it--if Bush and Aashcroft have their way, freedom of speech may be a thing of the past). I never said you shouldn't say what you think--what fun is a debate when everyone agrees with you? I'm dissagreeing with your views, not your right to exoress them.

"How about freedom of religion extending to my ability to tell others that they are wrong based on the Bible? Nope, don’t have that either, not in your worldvriew."

You can tell them whatever you want. You just can't FORCE them to not marry. Going back to my origional point, what right does the Church have to try to stop homosexuals from marrying, when the people they are trying to stop don't even belong to their Church?

"Homosexuals have been clinically studied and have a markedly HIGHER rate of depression, which is coupled with a higher rate of Promiscuity.Butg more on that later."

Perhaps if we allowed them to get married, it would encourage monogamous relationships between homosexuals, thus making them less promiscuous.

"Actually, this is a Lie.2000 years ago Homosexuality was not seen as Evil....In the Greek world Homosexual love was accepted. In Greek Mythology, there are stories of the gods having homosexual lovers. Notably Zeus and Apollo both took male lovers. ( thought where not themselves lovers.)"

That was ONE culture. The Romans executed anyone suspected of having homosexual tendencies. The Egyptians did too. So did countless other ancient cultures. The Greeks were unique in that they were the only ancient civilization that was tolerant of homosexuality.

"Dictatorships are usually bad, but a few have been good."

Let's have a few examples of a "good" dictatorship.

"Further, since this is a Christain board, what about God’s ideas? Should they be seen as only Equel to mans, and capable of beign overridden by Popular vote? "

No man knows God's ideas. We know a few of his ideas from the Bible, but very little of it can be applied to the world today.

"This I why I turn to God, who is always right."

Good for you, but do you know God's position on all of our modern political issues? Of course not.

"But most dictators are Liberal.Not coservative. Stalin was liberal. Hitler, though called conservative now, was Liberal in fact. Conservative ideals tend toward community good, liberal ideals tend toward self realisation regardless fo social ramifications."

Again, you show your complete lack of knowledge of the political spectrum. Stalin was not a true communist. His ideology leaned closer to Fascism (a far-right ideal--CONSERVATIVE). Real Communism calls for the means of production (farms, factories, ect.) to be run collectively by the proletariat without any government interference (true communism is basicaly anarchy). It also calls for leaders to be ELECTED. Stalin's Russia was the complete opposite. All means of production were in the hands of a select few (Fascism, extreme capitalism). Leaders were unelected. Undying loyalty to the state was called for (a far-right ideal).

Your bit about conservative ideals being for the good of the community is stupid. Since when is it good for a community to deregulate big buisiness and alow big corporations to destroy the local economy?

"So liberation or the Proliterate? Coupled with the above arguments you sould a lot like a Bolshevik."

I prefer the term Democratic Socialist. I don't think the fundamental theory of communism works, but it does contain a lot of good ideas.

"Do you even check the information before posting it? Bush and Cheny wherent in power when Saddam took over, he was implanted under a different presedent. Guess which one."

Do you ever check yours? Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Bush Sr. He met with Saddam many times, back when he was still a "good guy". Dubya also met Saddam during that time. As Director of the CIA and as President, Bush Sr. gave Saddam billions of dollars worth of chem,ical and biological weapons, with the green light to use them not only on civilians in Iran, but also on civilians in Iraq (like the Kurds). Bush gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, thinking it wouldn't be highly publicized in the U.S. Only when he realized he had screwed up big time did Saddam become a "bad guy". Even after Desert Storm, Bush promised the Iraqi Kurds that if they rebellled, U.S. forces would assist them. Thinking they had a golden opportunity, the Kurds took up arms against their oppressors--but the U.S. never showed up. The Kurds were easily overcome by Saddam's troops and he gassed a few hundred thousand.

"Actualy many forigne policies put a financial drain on America. I am not for the current system but I am not going to make uneducated claims agisnt it, leas tof all tat sound errily like Communist lines of thought."

If by America, you mean the common taxpayer, then yes. If by America, you mean the wealthy, then no.

"So the Cat beign hit in the crtch was OK for little Children? Sorry, that’s not acceptable. The Thai woman beign ridden was not funny, and the racist stereotypes where themselves offensive."

Jeez, lighten up, buddy. You want racist stereotypes? Watch the old Loony Tunes episodes from the 40's. My favorite is the one where Bugs Bunny is aiding the war effort by lobbing grenades at Japanese people (portrayed with gigantic buck teeth, of course) and yelling "Here you go, slant-eyes! And here's one for you, money face!"

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

glad you guys got the knack of it...

now, heres what happens if you mess up your closing html tag, so you have to be precise on the < / i > part or everything goes to italics...

that should fix it right up...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 30, 2003.

Anti-Bush,

Wise brother, I searched for the origins of AIDS in the net. It is just speculation, theories, and unproved hypotheses. Stories such as a laboratory creation by the US govt. to terminate all homosexuals, drug addicts, and HIVs; to theories of chimpanzee, and polio vaccines, etc. None conclusive or proved.

I have quoted a few paragraphs from well known scientists and conference material that sought dispel myths of such outdated theories

I have even given links lest you suppose I have taken things out of context.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.3d50#anchor16
Even after a decade and a half of research, HIV is still relatively mysterious, especially to society at large. AIDS seemed to appear out of nowhere and rapidly became a world-wide pandemic. Legends and rumors about the disease provide some outlet for the anxiety people have about the disease. The fact that AIDS disproportionately affects certain groups of people, groups that are often considered "undesirable" by mainstream society, must also make conspiracy theories seem more plausible.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/rs/m ediareports.html
"Mr Hooper made significant mistakes in reporting where vaccination was done, and in general, the epidemiology of AIDS is consistent with sexual transmission but does not agree with the polio hypothesis," he told a news conference.

Tests Fail to Support Theory on AIDS and Role of Chimpanzees and Vaccine

http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/manmade.htm
The theory of the African origin of AIDS, that it developed in African monkeys and was transferred to man, has been abandoned by most researchers. All of the known varieties of SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) are structurally so dissimilar to HIV (much less similar than HIV and Visna) that a common origin is out of the question. Furthermore, even if such a development by natural mutation were possible, it would not explain the sudden outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s, since monkeys and men have been living together in Africa since the beginning of human history.

I do not deny there are others that who hold a different view, but none are conclusive. It is plain by their sentences such as "believed, can, could, likely, etc." These are very deceptive words unless carefully examined looks like they are conclusive or proved, especially for those who are itching for such a evidence to support their disordered lifestyle.

About the diseases and mental problems, I quoted those who have AIDS are prone, is not from the church, but from medical statistics that reveal homosexuals are #1 in risk for AIDS infection much more than others, not just because they are promiscous, but because of a such a lifestyle. They seem to be becoming a bit less, only because of the fear of the plague, less promiscuity, and condoms. Otherwise, they are #1 risk for AIDS.

http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/texts/guide/hmg19_0005.html
HOMOSEXUAL AND BISEXUAL MEN During the early stages of the AIDS epidemic in the United States, the groups at greatest risk of contracting HIV were homosexual and bisexual men. According to the CDC, of the estimated 1 to 1.5 million people infected with the AIDS virus, about half are homosexual or bisexual men.

Because of efforts by the homosexual community to promote safer sexual practices—education stressing the importance of using condoms and limiting the number of sexual partners—the rates of HIV infection among homosexual men have recently begun to fall.

http://www.rense.com/health3/lowrisk.htm
More than 10,000 new HIV infections continue to be recorded among US gay and bisexual men every year. Previous studies have identified unprotected receptive anal intercourse as posing the highest risk for HIV transmission among gay and bisexual men. Other practices, such as protected receptive anal sex and unprotected receptive oral sex, are assumed to be of lower " but not zero " risk.

Unprotected receptive anal sex remained the riskiest of sexual contacts among homosexual men, with a per-contact risk for HIV infection of 0.82% when performed with partners infected with HIV

Your cousin may not have full blown AIDS, so nothing to be happy about. Even Anton La Vey (the black Pope) of the satanist church is absolutely healthy. Such externally healthy volunteers are quite necessary to win others to join their fold. Otherwise who will join them? It not just a matter of physical illness alone, but the concern of eternal damnation. Spiritually speaking, AIDS patient may be more blessed as he has some time to reflect upon his life style and turn back to God, while health to a sexually immoral is like a curse. Most satanists are healthy and robust, but that does not make their actions it okay. It is only a matter of time...why wait and test God's patience "who wants all men to be saved."

You said The God you talk about here is not the Christian God. The Christian God is bigger than that. He accepts people for who they are. Your god is cold and cruel and mean.

The only god I figure who rejoices in homosexual practicesis the devil (he is a god to everyone who wants encouragement in this area. He accepts every kind of nonsense under the sun. Sounds kinda bigger...yeah? But at what price? The true God, as I said before, loves the homosexual, but hates homosexual practices. Loves the sinner, but hates sin. Either you hate sin and be with God or you hate God and with the sin, and receive "the wages of sin."

A small child moved toward something bright and fascinating. His father said "Don't son, you will get hurt. The son did not listen, but continued towards that bright and fascinating thing and wouldn't be deprived by the joy-killing father. The son touched it, and sudden withdrew in great pain. His hands were burn't. He cried out in anger and hatred toward the father "How cold and cruel and mean?" With love

-- leslie john (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

"The Greeks, like our current western society, was fragmented and as a result weakened." Your lack of knowledge of ancient history is astounding. The Greeks has been divided into many seperate city-states for a thousand years. They never saw themselves as Greeks, but rather Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians, ect. The only unifying factor was a common language and religion, although even these varied from city-state to city-state. The reason for the fragmentation was the terrain of Greece. Greece is mountainous, with small valleys. The Greeks city-states each grew up in one little valley or plain, but they were all seperated by mountains. Because of invasion, high walls were built around each city, isolating them even more. Thus, each city-state grew independently. They cooperated a little bit during the Persian Wars, but then went back to killing each other again. Their fragmentation had nothing to do with their acceptance of homosexuality. That's just stupid, and to put forth a rediculous claim like that without anything to back it up is even stupider.

So you resort to the Straw Man argument. I claimed theirfragmented society allowed for their fegeat, I did not put fourth the Udea that their fragmented society gave rise to their aceptance of Homosexuality.

Rather, I said theu overdiversified and could not gind common grounds to unite under. But then, facts are irrelevant to you, as you can Berate me for my lack of knowledge and make me appear less authoritative than yourself. This is dishonest policy, and is only Employed by the desepperate who have more voice than fact as a platform.

"Studies in Homosexuality have indicated mental and Physical stresses which, simply put, are not with advocating, and their detrimental effect on families and communities is a well documented fact."

The "detremental effect" does not occur until intolerant homophobes like you come into play, screaming for the homosexuals' head on a stick.

Villifying me will not automatically make your point strionger. I never called for Homosexuals heads on sticks. Incedentally, you are also wrong, Homosexual mental and Pgysical stress is not caused by, as you put it, Homopobic Bigotsa like me. Rather, tus causes inate,ly by the practice.

You see, int he places where its the most accepted, Like San Fransisco, you have Higher, not loewerr, cases of Homosexuals with mental breakdowns.The same Applies to such nations as Norway and Sweden which openly accepts them and in which few Bigots like me can speak.

Rather than lay the blame on me, and claim my motives are simpley Bigotry and dismiss them out of Hand, why dont you tell me why the more Homosexuality is accepted, the more damage occures tot he lives of those who practice it?

"They are infringing on my ability to speak freely that it is Immoral. You yourself infringe on this ight by saying I sdont have the ight to sppeak against it. You say “Leave it in the Churches”, but here you are telling me not to address it here, which is a Church oriented message vboard."

Oh boo hoo. Pass me the tissue. Some homos in Massetchussents are infringing on your rights? What a crock.

You do realise that the term "Homo" is derogitory, right? Incedntal to tyhat fact, I never saidthat Homosexuals in Massitutsists where, I said you where by claimign a censure. You have no power to impose this censure, but you try to intimidate me into compliance, which itsself is morally wrong.

Again, I blamed you and your worldveiw, shoudl it be implemented, on silencing me. A Hypothetical extension of your approach, which assumes you to be in charge. I have no doubt you woudl silence youroposition. This is yet another false representation of your oponnant, which is bad form.

No one is saying you can't "speak out against what is immoral". I'm dissagreeing with you on the issue. I'm saying gays should be allowed to get married, you're saying they shouldn't.

Need I remind you, you have tried to coerce my cooperation form the beginning of your ejaculation onto this thread.

Sch language as " Who the Hel are you to say this" and villification by claimign me a Boigot, uninformed, and narrow minded, all speak ill of your claims to innocence. The only thing you have going for you on this end is that you hve no power here. And a need for an oponant to appear stronger than. Not that you have any real strength. You dismiss everyhtign I say as Bigotry, as though everyone who disagrees with you on Homosexual marriages is Bigoted. This causes a polirisation based on a false premise. Its too extreme. Its a fallacy of Logic to assume that you are either a Bigot, or in Favour of Homosexual Marriages.

Indeed, peopel can be oposed based on beign well informed, just as peopel can be or it because they are told to.

Your own arguments suggest you to be a Bigot, as you villify people who are opposed to you rather than try for Honest exchange.

You can scream about your idea of morality until you're blue in the face; that's your right as an American (cherish it--if Bush and Aashcroft have their way, freedom of speech may be a thing of the past). I never said you shouldn't say what you think--what fun is a debate when everyone agrees with you? I'm dissagreeing with your views, not your right to exoress them.

And these issues are all fun and games to you. You selecte a poliktically Hot iszsue, such as Gay marriage, and hujack a thread inorder to preach about it and appear strong by mockugn others.

You know hwats funny, those most in favour of Gay Rights wont associate on normal temrs with gay poeple, most Liberals refuse their company. Most conservatives on the other hand, are by far more friendly toward them. This is a fact I learne dint he Political pool when I worked as a reporter.

"How about freedom of religion extending to my ability to tell others that they are wrong based on the Bible? Nope, don’t have that either, not in your worldvriew."

You can tell them whatever you want. You just can't FORCE them to not marry. Going back to my origional point, what right does the Church have to try to stop homosexuals from marrying, when the people they are trying to stop don't even belong to their Church?

Yiu use the negative on me. However, you are beign far more forceful than I. All I wish is to preserve a line that shoudl nto be crossed. I am nto forcing them not to marry. ( Never midn that you cant force someone not to do something.) I am, however, advocating trasditional family values as a mean of supporting society and the individual, Homosexuality, like ciggattette smooke, is dangerous. This you seem nto to realise, instead, you dismiss all points I make withougt regard as mindless Bigtry and declare how wonderful you are for beign so open minded.

Try beign open minded and listen to an opposign veiw. Peoiople can be opposed to things without beign Bigots. You are opposed to a lot, and yet you seem to say I cant be based on rational motives?Is that an admission by you that your antiGovenrment stand is Bigotry?

"Homosexuals have been clinically studied and have a markedly HIGHER rate of depression, which is coupled with a higher rate of Promiscuity.Butg more on that later."

Perhaps if we allowed them to get married, it would encourage monogamous relationships between homosexuals, thus making them less promiscuous.

Interestignly, you forgot the depression aspect, whihc doesnt change either way. rather they are married or not, they will be depressed. Depression is linked strongly to Homosexuality.( I know, I know, its because of Bogots liek me, right?)

Homosexual marriage wont reduc promiscuity. If they where goin to remain faithful, they woudl without marriage. Since they do not syyau faithful without marriage, who do you think all of the sudden they will with marriage?

"Actually, this is a Lie.2000 years ago Homosexuality was not seen as Evil....In the Greek world Homosexual love was accepted. In Greek Mythology, there are stories of the gods having homosexual lovers. Notably Zeus and Apollo both took male lovers. ( thought where not themselves lovers.)"

That was ONE culture. The Romans executed anyone suspected of having homosexual tendencies. The Egyptians did too. So did countless other ancient cultures. The Greeks were unique in that they were the only ancient civilization that was tolerant of homosexuality.

And you berateme for lack of Knowledge? Mmny ancietn cultures practiced Homosexuality, not just the greeks. For instance, the Caananites.

Rome in its loing hisotry fluctuated between approval and disdain.

Many ofthe frak tribes practiced it openly.

Celtic nations held it as a common practice.( Along with headhunting.)

The list goes on.

Greece was not unique in its aceptance.

"Dictatorships are usually bad, but a few have been good."

Let's have a few examples of a "good" dictatorship.

Franco.

"Further, since this is a Christain board, what about God’s ideas? Should they be seen as only Equel to mans, and capable of beign overridden by Popular vote? "

No man knows God's ideas. We know a few of his ideas from the Bible, but very little of it can be applied to the world today.

Only a fool owul say this. Actually, all fo the Bibnle has practical applicatiosn today. Sayign that because it is old it is outdated is a common, but errent, argument, as all of the same human problems that existed then still plauge us.

I have found on num erous occassions biblical corrospondance not only for my own life, but general world events. Most of the Bible doesnt apply to the world today simpley because you dongt want to acknowledge it as an authoraty when it contradicts you.

CFurther, I have more than juts the Bible, I also have a workign relationship with God. Do you?

"This I why I turn to God, who is always right."

Good for you, but do you know God's position on all of our modern political issues? Of course not.

Actually, I do. Its the same as it always was, as the world really hav=snt changed as much as peoel think. That Bible which you say cant speak to todays world does.

"But most dictators are Liberal.Not coservative. Stalin was liberal. Hitler, though called conservative now, was Liberal in fact. Conservative ideals tend toward community good, liberal ideals tend toward self realisation regardless fo social ramifications."

Again, you show your complete lack of knowledge of the political spectrum. Stalin was not a true communist. His ideology leaned closer to Fascism (a far-right ideal--CONSERVATIVE).

Another accusation to make me look less intellegent than you, that doesnt hold water when inspected.

Sorry, I didnt say Stalin was a true communist, I said he was a Dictator. This much is true.

Further, Facism is not Ultra Conservative, just because peolel like the term "Right Wing Naxi's" doesnt make it a factual Statement. The Ideals of the National Socialist Party, and all Facist states, is left wing, not right wing.

Real Communism calls for the means of production (farms, factories, ect.) to be run collectively by the proletariat without any government interference (true communism is basicaly anarchy).

Poitn being?We did not enter a discussion on Communism.

It also calls for leaders to be ELECTED. Stalin's Russia was the complete opposite. All means of production were in the hands of a select few (Fascism, extreme capitalism). Leaders were unelected. Undying loyalty to the state was called for (a far-right ideal).

The idal fo the far right is not total obedience to the state, and withthat you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of right wing politics, or Facism. Facism grew from Liberal ideologies, and called for a rejection of religion and traditional families. This is hardly a right wing ideal.

Your bit about conservative ideals being for the good of the community is stupid. Since when is it good for a community to deregulate big buisiness and alow big corporations to destroy the local economy?

Watch out for that slippert Slope.

You have not shown any daa ro support your claims. You claim that Facism is a far right extreme, and yet this claim is not validated in any way, its just an asusmed pointof fact.

Then you claim that All OCnservatives are for the deregulation of Big Buisness. You link the two how? If I ask you will use current examples, but what I want from you is to know how conservative values leads automatically to this, not current events.

"So liberation or the Proliterate? Coupled with the above arguments you sould a lot like a Bolshevik."

I prefer the term Democratic Socialist. I don't think the fundamental theory of communism works, but it does contain a lot of good ideas.

I prefer Bolshavik, its more direct.

"Do you even check the information before posting it? Bush and Cheny wherent in power when Saddam took over, he was implanted under a different presedent. Guess which one."

Do you ever check yours? Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Bush Sr.

Yes, after Saddam had been placed in Power.

He met with Saddam many times, back when he was still a "good guy". Dubya also met Saddam during that time.

Which gves culpability to Cheiny directly How?

As Director of the CIA and as President, Bush Sr. gave Saddam billions of dollars worth of chem,ical and biological weapons, with the green light to use them not only on civilians in Iran, but also on civilians in Iraq (like the Kurds).

Only as CIA director, as Presedent he had problems with Saddam.

Bush gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, thinking it wouldn't be highly publicized in the U.S. Only when he realized he had screwed up big time did Saddam become a "bad guy".

Please post actual evidence for this.Otherwise I will treat it as most consoiracy theories. Why must you tote speculation as fact?

Even after Desert Storm, Bush promised the Iraqi Kurds that if they rebellled, U.S. forces would assist them. Thinking they had a golden opportunity, the Kurds took up arms against their oppressors--but the U.S. never showed up. The Kurds were easily overcome by Saddam's troops and he gassed a few hundred thousand.

Source?

"Actualy many forigne policies put a financial drain on America. I am not for the current system but I am not going to make uneducated claims agisnt it, leas tof all tat sound errily like Communist lines of thought."

If by America, you mean the common taxpayer, then yes. If by America, you mean the wealthy, then no.

Without reliing n your usual cheap shot insults, can you document any of this?

"So the Cat beign hit in the crtch was OK for little Children? Sorry, that’s not acceptable. The Thai woman beign ridden was not funny, and the racist stereotypes where themselves offensive."

Jeez, lighten up, buddy. You want racist stereotypes? Watch the old Loony Tunes episodes from the 40's.

So you are sayign that because peopel didnt know any better then, that its OK now?

My favorite is the one where Bugs Bunny is aiding the war effort by lobbing grenades at Japanese people (portrayed with gigantic buck teeth, of course) and yelling "Here you go, slant-eyes! And here's one for you, money face!"

So basically, you dotn care about other people, all you care about is forcign peoel to accept whatever psoition or issue you have as a pet, and declaring victory. You are petty.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 30, 2003.

The God you talk about here is not the Christian God. The Christian God is bigger than that. He accepts people for who they are. Your god is cold and cruel and mean.

Incedentally, thr Christain god is one of love, this is why he opposes Homosexuality. You asusme that God works withon the confinmes of tolerence in the modern ideology. He doesnt, God advoicates his own laws, not the laws of men, and doesnt want you to be who you are, but rather wants you to be who you can be, as perfect and sinless as possible. Love is not always defined as Mushy sentementality.Indeed, soemtimes real love demands intolerence.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 01, 2003.

Leslie,

All you have proven is that scientists are not 100% sure that AIDS crossed over to humans from chimpanzees. However, based on all the available evidence, that is the theory that holds the most water (at least right now).

Your theory that AIDS was caused when society started accepting homosxuality has no merit to it (the first documented case occured in the 50's!) and you have offered NOTHING to support it.

Zarove,

"So you resort to the Straw Man argument. I claimed theirfragmented society allowed for their fegeat, I did not put fourth the Udea that their fragmented society gave rise to their aceptance of Homosexuality"

Will you stop beating around the bush? First, you said that societies that accepted homosexuality fell into ruin. You gave ancient Greece being conquered by the Romans as an example. Then, when I pointed out that you were totaly wrong (ancient Greece was conquered by the Macedonians because they were weakened after city-states fighting each other in the Peloponessian Wars) you said that I had aided your case becuase the Greeks were fragmented like our modern society. Now, if you didn't mean that last bit to pertain to homosexuality, WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP? All you are doing is trying to run around in circles to avoid a serious discussion.

"You see, int he places where its the most accepted, Like San Fransisco, you have Higher, not loewerr, cases of Homosexuals with mental breakdowns."

I would really like to see the statistics you based this on. Even if you have actual statistics, and you are telling me that more gays have mental breakdowns in San Francisco, here is something to consider--San Francisco has more gays than most other places, So naturlay they will have more homosexuals going crazy if there are more to begin with!

"You do realise that the term "Homo" is derogitory, right?"

Are you toaly incapable of recognizing sarcasm?

"I said you where by claimign a censure. You have no power to impose this censure, but you try to intimidate me into compliance, which itsself is morally wrong."

Will you stop whining about that already? This is another diversionary tactic. We are discussing the issues here, not your need to assert your own self-importance.

"Need I remind you, you have tried to coerce my cooperation form the beginning of your ejaculation onto this thread"

Hehe. He said "ejaculation".

Trying to coerce you into WHAT? Get off this paranoid crap, buddy, we're all sick and tiured of hearing it. Say something origional for once.

"And these issues are all fun and games to you. You selecte a poliktically Hot iszsue, such as Gay marriage, and hujack a thread inorder to preach about it and appear strong by mockugn others."

Actualy, I wasn't the one who brought it up in the first place. It was someone named David F. Check for yourself.

And you still haven't answered my basic question: What right does the Church have to try to stop gay from being civily married, when they don't even belong to the Church?

"You know hwats funny, those most in favour of Gay Rights wont associate on normal temrs with gay poeple, most Liberals refuse their company. Most conservatives on the other hand, are by far more friendly toward them. This is a fact I learne dint he Political pool when I worked as a reporter."

Regardless of whether or not that's true, I am not one of those Liberals. There is no one who I will refure to associate myslef with before I have met them. Tell me, when is the last tiem you have talked to a homosexual?

"Yiu use the negative on me. However, you are beign far more forceful than I. All I wish is to preserve a line that shoudl nto be crossed. I am nto forcing them not to marry. ( Never midn that you cant force someone not to do something.) I am, however, advocating trasditional family values as a mean of supporting society and the individual, Homosexuality, like ciggattette smooke, is dangerous. This you seem nto to realise, instead, you dismiss all points I make withougt regard as mindless Bigtry and declare how wonderful you are for beign so open minded."

So how about a compromise? Let the homosexuals in Massetchusets get married (do you even live in or near Massetchussetts? probably not), and you can teach your kids all the family values you want. I am not understanding how YOU are threatened by gay marriage.

"Try beign open minded and listen to an opposign veiw. Peoiople can be opposed to things without beign Bigots. You are opposed to a lot, and yet you seem to say I cant be based on rational motives?Is that an admission by you that your antiGovenrment stand is Bigotry?"

You are the who wants gays to not be allowed to marry because it is inconsistent with YOU view of family values. You don't like it--you don't have to marry a gay person. How's that sound?

"Interestignly, you forgot the depression aspect, whihc doesnt change either way. rather they are married or not, they will be depressed. Depression is linked strongly to Homosexuality.( I know, I know, its because of Bogots liek me, right?)"

It said coupled with a higher rate of promiscuity , leading the reader to beleive that the two are somehow correlated (a rediculous claim for which I've seen NOTHING to support it). If they are correlated, perhaps changing one will change the other (duh!).

"Homosexual marriage wont reduc promiscuity. If they where goin to remain faithful, they woudl without marriage. Since they do not syyau faithful without marriage, who do you think all of the sudden they will with marriage?"

It's the psychological satisfaction of knowing that marriage is a possibility. If marriage is an option, it will encourage monogamous realationships. By the way, many homosexual couples are monogamous and live together. Many hold wedding ceremonies and remain abstinent until they consider themselves married. All they need now is for the state to recognize those marriages.

"And you berateme for lack of Knowledge? Mmny ancietn cultures practiced Homosexuality, not just the greeks. For instance, the Caananites.

Rome in its loing hisotry fluctuated between approval and disdain.

Many ofthe frak tribes practiced it openly."

Really? The Caananites? I didn't know that. Huh.

The claim about the Romans, though, is just plain bull. In fact, from the earliest begginings of the Republic, there were written laws condemming those suspecte of homosexual acts to death.

What exactly is a "frak tribe"?

"Celtic nations held it as a common practice.( Along with headhunting.)"

You're arguing Cletic history with an Irishman. Pick your battles, buddy. Headhunting was a common practice, but not homosexuality, as far as I know. I'd like to see some sources.

"Franco."

Please tell me your kidding. Franco? What are you smoking, buddy? Franco took power in a bloody civil war, cancelled all elections, burned millions of books, and had political dissidents jailed, tortured, or killed. My friend's father grew up in Spain in the 40's and 50's. He spent years in jail. His crime--speaking out peacefully against Franco. He's told me about friends of his who didn't make it out of Franco's prisons. Franco was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini. His economic policies returned Spain practicaly to feudalism in the gap they created between the rich and the poor. Does a good dictator reign for 40 years without even holding an election? If he was so good, wouldn't he have been a shoo-in? That brings us back to the question: why didn't he? Maybe he wasn't so good after all. Here is your homework: read a book. Anyone who would label Franco a "good dictator" is ignorant beyond all words.

"CFurther, I have more than juts the Bible, I also have a workign relationship with God. Do you?"

I'd like to think I do. I just don't think organized religion is the way to go about it.

"Sorry, I didnt say Stalin was a true communist, I said he was a Dictator. This much is true."

No one is debating that, you idiot!

"Further, Facism is not Ultra Conservative, just because peolel like the term "Right Wing Naxi's" doesnt make it a factual Statement. The Ideals of the National Socialist Party, and all Facist states, is left wing, not right wing."

You seem to insist on showing your complete lack of unerstanding of the political spectrum. Let me explain it for you. Each wing (right, left) has two branches: the libertarian branch and the authoritarian branch. On the libertarian branch of the left wing, you have libertarian socialism, a system where the federal government has very little power and laws and expanded social welfare programs are carried out by small communities (popularized by the modern Anarchist movement). On the authoritarian branch, you have totalitarian Communism ('nuff said). On the libertarian branch of the right wing, you have the self-sufficient, limited government ideals that were popular with Eisenhower Republicans. On the authoritarian branch, you have fascism, which is most definitely far-right.

Fascism is a reacionary movement that began in the 20's and 30's with Mussolini and your good pal Franco. Fascism focuses on several major points:

--Nationalism; loyalty to the state. That is a conservative value.

--Religious conservativism (no sure that's a word...but you understand what I'm saying). Also a conservative value.

--Lifestyle revolves around the military. All men are usualy required to perform some kind of military service. Soldiers patrol the streets, military force is shown all the time in parades, you get the picture. Certain aspects of this are drawn from the far right, but mostly it's just a characteristic of authorotarianism.

--One leader has absolute power (or at least extreme power). Any democratic bodies that once existed are usualy dissolved. This is just a characteristic of dictatorships everywhere.

"Poitn being?We did not enter a discussion on Communism"

My point was that Stalin can't really be called a liberal.

"Facism grew from Liberal ideologies, and called for a rejection of religion and traditional families."

What??? The Catholic Church supported Mussolini and Franco. Mussolini was the first modrn Italian ruler to recognize the Vatican as it's own state. Where is your brain???

"Then you claim that All OCnservatives are for the deregulation of Big Buisness. You link the two how? If I ask you will use current examples, but what I want from you is to know how conservative values leads automatically to this, not current events"

Republicans are for the deregulation of big buisiness. It was also Republicans who voted to allow the U.S. government to do buisiness with companies who moved overseas decades ago to avoid U.S. taxes and labor laws. It had been U.S. policy not to trade with these companies for a long time. But why shouldn't we trade with the good old folks who moved overseas so that they could work 8 year olds in a factory for 11 cents an hour 18 hours a day. They make sneakers with little lights in the heels! I think that more than makes up for everything.

"I prefer Bolshavik, its more direct"

What are you, Joe McCarthy now? Go ahead, name some names. You think you can intimidate me with outdated buzz words like "Bolshievik" (not "bolshavik")? I've met people like you before. You try to harrass your opponents into submission by labeling them "communists" (or, if we insist on using terminology from the 1920's, "Bolshieviks") or anti-american. I don't agree with Communism. I think that private ownership is one of the basic principals of freedom. Socialism combines the best points of communism and capitalism. For more on that, email me and I'll be happy to explain it to you.

"Yes, after Saddam had been placed in Power."

What's your point? The fact is, the U.S. supported him for 15 years. some 50,000 people died from the chemical and biological weapons THE U.S. GAVE HIM.

"Which gves culpability to Cheiny directly How?"

Do I have to connect all the dots for you? You truly are a simple- minded creature. Look, I'm going to spell it out for you: Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein were freinds back in the 80's. It's not a secret. For someone to deny that is complete ignorance of FACTS.

"Only as CIA director, as Presedent he had problems with Saddam."

Because he stopped playing our game. He was supposed to be our monkey, but when he stopped doing our tricks, it was time to take him out.

"Only as CIA director, as Presedent he had problems with Saddam."

The U.S. didn't expressly give Saddam the green light, we just said we wouldn't do anything if he did. Since we were already supplying Iraq with weapons, it was essentialy a green light. Saddam had the weapons and he knew that the only nation who could stop him--the U.S., had vowed to stay out of the conflict. Here is a link to an article in Foreign Policy Magazine (a respected publication; not in the habit of publishing "conspiracy theories"): www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html

What I said: "Even after Desert Storm, Bush promised the Iraqi Kurds that if they rebellled, U.S. forces would assist them. Thinking they had a golden opportunity, the Kurds took up arms against their oppressors--but the U.S. never showed up. The Kurds were easily overcome by Saddam's troops and he gassed a few hundred thousand."

What you said: "Source?"

Here it is, cut and pasted from cbsnews.com

The last time the Shiites tried to make Saddam pay ended in betrayal and disaster. It was February 1991, the Gulf War was winding down and the first President Bush had an important message for the people of Iraq: "There's another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside."

Bush's message was heard, and the Iraqis rose up against Saddam. Their rallying cry: Ayatollah al-Hakim. It was a classic popular uprising and it was succeeding. The rebels took over 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces, and they killed scores of Saddam's Ba'ath party officials.

But when they turned to Washington for help, Bush turned them down.

The Americans gave Saddam the green light to use helicopter gunships to crush the rebellion. Saddam leveled the Shiite's holiest cities and shrines and summary executions became the order of the day.

The Shiites had expected nothing less from Saddam, but they'd expected much more from the Americans. "There is a deep-rooted mistrust of the United States of America by the Iraqi people," says Al-Rubaie. "The United States committed a major mistake. Iraqi people paid with their blood."

"So you are sayign that because peopel didnt know any better then, that its OK now?"

No, I'm saying that if you look hard enough, everything has some hint of racism in it. You just have to lighten up. If you get picky and start banning everything with even a hint of innapropriateness, your kids will be watching Thomas the Tank Engine untill they're 18. What movies do you find acceptable?

"So basically, you dotn care about other people, all you care about is forcign peoel to accept whatever psoition or issue you have as a pet, and declaring victory. You are petty."

And basiclay you are an idiot who is completely incapable of detecting sarcasm when it's right in front of his face.

Don't call me pretty. People might think you're gay.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.

Dear Moderator:
What has this self-absorbed troll got to do in this Catholic forum? As you can see, he/she is creating a wasteland all over our threads, and never has stated anything remotely worth reading. Do us all a favor and ban this bonehead once and for all???

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.

Leslie, All you have proven is that scientists are not 100% sure that AIDS crossed over to humans from chimpanzees. However, based on all the available evidence, that is the theory that holds the most water (at least right now).

Your theory that AIDS was caused when society started accepting homosxuality has no merit to it (the first documented case occured in the 50's!) and you have offered NOTHING to support it.

Actually the Homosexual movement began as early as the 40's, and then there is the famous Kensly findings. However, Leslies point about AIDS orifin is more useful than yours, as you make broad sweepoing theroes that amount to nothing.

Zarove,

"So you resort to the Straw Man argument. I claimed theirfragmented society allowed for their fegeat, I did not put fourth the Udea that their fragmented society gave rise to their aceptance of Homosexuality"

Will you stop beating around the bush? First, you said that societies that accepted homosexuality fell into ruin. You gave ancient Greece being conquered by the Romans as an example. Then, when I pointed out that you were totaly wrong (ancient Greece was conquered by the Macedonians because they were weakened after city-states fighting each other in the Peloponessian Wars) you said that I had aided your case becuase the Greeks were fragmented like our modern society. Now, if you didn't mean that last bit to pertain to homosexuality, WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP? All you are doing is trying to run around in circles to avoid a serious discussion.

I am trying to do soemthign that you do not understand. I am tryign to show the complexity of something. Homosexuality in and of itsself didnt cause the fall of Greece, rather the reason that they accepted Homosexuality is the reason they fell.

You see, when they became fragmented and hedonistic, they allowed Homosexuality, along with Paedophilia, and almost any other pleasure sin can undure, which in the end weakened their society to the point where it was easy to conquer.

The hedonism and apathy that lead to the Greeks defeat also lead to their accptance of Homosexuality.

"You see, int he places where its the most accepted, Like San Fransisco, you have Higher, not loewerr, cases of Homosexuals with mental breakdowns."

I would really like to see the statistics you based this on. Even if you have actual statistics, and you are telling me that more gays have mental breakdowns in San Francisco, here is something to consider--San Francisco has more gays than most other places, So naturlay they will have more homosexuals going crazy if there are more to begin with!

The Stats are freely avaolable at your public Library, just read the US reports on mental health.

As to you " So what, there are mnore gays there thus there are more breakdowns " Argument, that is not a credible stand, as the number of Homosexuals in San Fransisco is roughtly equel to that in New Uprk, and percentagewise they still have more breakdowns in a more liberated environment where fewer rules are imposed.

"You do realise that the term "Homo" is derogitory, right?"

Are you toaly incapable of recognizing sarcasm?

Are you incapable of being respectful?

"I said you where by claimign a censure. You have no power to impose this censure, but you try to intimidate me into compliance, which itsself is morally wrong."

Will you stop whining about that already? This is another diversionary tactic. We are discussing the issues here, not your need to assert your own self-importance.

You use mroe diversionary tactics than the Harlem Globtrotters use trick shots, and youaccuse me?

I am nto whinign about anything, nor employing diversionary tactics, I am stating a fact, you use cheap insults to silence an oponant, this is what you and peopel liek you do. You villify peopel like me, use intemidation to quiet us, and try to use emotionalism and passion to srir support while blaming peopel like me on all the worlds woes. Thnenm you take over and bully us some more. Basically Hitler did the same thing. So did Stalin.Now you.

"Need I remind you, you have tried to coerce my cooperation form the beginning of your ejaculation onto this thread"

Hehe. He said "ejaculation".

Hehe, he acts pedantic by lauhging at a word that has a double meaning.

Trying to coerce you into WHAT? Get off this paranoid crap, buddy, we're all sick and tiured of hearing it. Say something origional for once.

Whose "We"? If you are tired of hearing it, that stop issuing the same rhetorical nonsence you always do.

By the way, I cant say anyhtign origional, as I am refuting your case, rather than advocatign one of my own.

"And these issues are all fun and games to you. You selecte a poliktically Hot iszsue, such as Gay marriage, and hujack a thread inorder to preach about it and appear strong by mockugn others."

Actualy, I wasn't the one who brought it up in the first place. It was someone named David F. Check for yourself.

You used Soemone elses Side note to hijack this thread. His comment wa asin passing, and you targeted it for use as a personal launhcign poitn into the Gay Debate.

And you still haven't answered my basic question: What right does the Church have to try to stop gay from being civily married, when they don't even belong to the Church?

Do you even know what the whole jhob of the Church is?

"You know hwats funny, those most in favour of Gay Rights wont associate on normal temrs with gay poeple, most Liberals refuse their company. Most conservatives on the other hand, are by far more friendly toward them. This is a fact I learne dint he Political pool when I worked as a reporter."

Regardless of whether or not that's true, I am not one of those Liberals. There is no one who I will refure to associate myslef with before I have met them. Tell me, when is the last tiem you have talked to a homosexual?

Last week.Yiou see, even though I am a Bigot who is intolerent and who bases all my opinions on ignorance, I have many Gay Friends. I do work int he media after all.

"Yiu use the negative on me. However, you are beign far more forceful than I. All I wish is to preserve a line that shoudl nto be crossed. I am nto forcing them not to marry. ( Never midn that you cant force someone not to do something.) I am, however, advocating trasditional family values as a mean of supporting society and the individual, Homosexuality, like ciggattette smooke, is dangerous. This you seem nto to realise, instead, you dismiss all points I make withougt regard as mindless Bigtry and declare how wonderful you are for beign so open minded."

So how about a compromise? Let the homosexuals in Massetchusets get married (do you even live in or near Massetchussetts? probably not), and you can teach your kids all the family values you want. I am not understanding how YOU are threatened by gay marriage.

I am not prepaired to compromise morals and peoples lives and eternal safety, or even their temporal happiness, so liberals can do a vlittle happy dance.

"Try beign open minded and listen to an opposign veiw. Peoiople can be opposed to things without beign Bigots. You are opposed to a lot, and yet you seem to say I cant be based on rational motives?Is that an admission by you that your antiGovenrment stand is Bigotry?"

You are the who wants gays to not be allowed to marry because it is inconsistent with YOU view of family values. You don't like it--you don't have to marry a gay person. How's that sound?

It sounds liek another Straw Man. I want to prevnt Gay Marriage to preserve society and to preserve the lives fo the very people who are Homosexual. You want to allow it to show how Hip you are and will ignore anll the evidnce of how unhealthy, both mentally and physically, this practice is.

You know somethign else I oppose?Smoking, for basically the same reaosns, barrign the mental ones.

"Interestignly, you forgot the depression aspect, whihc doesnt change either way. rather they are married or not, they will be depressed. Depression is linked strongly to Homosexuality.( I know, I know, its because of Bogots liek me, right?)"

It said coupled with a higher rate of promiscuity , leading the reader to beleive that the two are somehow correlated (a rediculous claim for which I've seen NOTHING to support it). If they are correlated, perhaps changing one will change the other (duh!).

Had it ever occured to you that there exists a link between Promiscuity and depression? Had it also occured to you that the two COMBINED where the root of several problems as well? Can you even think Independantly?

"Homosexual marriage wont reduc promiscuity. If they where goin to remain faithful, they woudl without marriage. Since they do not syyau faithful without marriage, who do you think all of the sudden they will with marriage?"

It's the psychological satisfaction of knowing that marriage is a possibility. If marriage is an option, it will encourage monogamous realationships.

Except in Sweden, where it is lefgal and where few if any Homoseuals marry.

By the way, many homosexual couples are monogamous and live together. Many hold wedding ceremonies and remain abstinent until they consider themselves married. All they need now is for the state to recognize those marriages.

On that you just made my poitn for me. They dont need state recognition. If they where goign to be faithful they would. A few that remain faithful is proof that they can without state recognition. Why is it then that most dont? Let me guess, its all the states fault?

"And you berateme for lack of Knowledge? Mmny ancietn cultures practiced Homosexuality, not just the greeks. For instance, the Caananites.

Rome in its loing hisotry fluctuated between approval and disdain.

Many ofthe frak tribes practiced it openly."

Really? The Caananites? I didn't know that. Huh.

The claim about the Romans, though, is just plain bull. In fact, from the earliest begginings of the Republic, there were written laws condemming those suspecte of homosexual acts to death.

Rome Lasted How long Laddie? I said in its long histroy their was fluctuation. All you need do is make a comprehensive search through variosu histories and you will ginf times where attitudes where mroe lax toward Homosexual unions.

What exactly is a "frak tribe"?

Frank.

"Celtic nations held it as a common practice.( Along with headhunting.)"

You're arguing Cletic history with an Irishman. Pick your battles, buddy. Headhunting was a common practice, but not homosexuality, as far as I know. I'd like to see some sources.

I am also Celtic. I decended form the British Line and am English by Birth.

Incedentally, the sources are the current archeological finds in Scotland and Ireland. You can find them by using a search engine.

"Franco."

Please tell me your kidding. Franco? What are you smoking, buddy? Franco took power in a bloody civil war, cancelled all elections, burned millions of books, and had political dissidents jailed, tortured, or killed.

Correct, but you forget the context. Spain wa son the verge of Civil war, this harsh action was needed at the time.

My friend's father grew up in Spain in the 40's and 50's. He spent years in jail. His crime--speaking out peacefully against Franco.

No one said Franco was perfect, btu Franco also had to preserve the state which was fallign apart.

He's told me about friends of his who didn't make it out of Franco's prisons.

Again, the hisotry here is far more complexe. Granco didnt just take over in a bloody civil war, he saw the nation fallign apart, ready to disolve into bloody chaos and anarchy and assumed absolute power in order to preserve PSain.

Franco was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini.

No, he wasnt. Spain remained Neutral in WW2, it did nto side with Hitler and the Axis powers. Neither did Hitler particularly like Cranco, indeed, he said he woudl rather have 2 hours in a dentist chair than 5 minuets with Franco, who refused to aid Nazi Germany.

His economic policies returned Spain practicaly to feudalism in the gap they created between the rich and the poor.

It also prevented a NAzi take over of PSain.Which was its point.

Does a good dictator reign for 40 years without even holding an election?

Not everyone beleives in election .

If he was so good, wouldn't he have been a shoo-in?

Comparing spain in that period with modern attitudes and cenrcumstance ignores the politicosocial ramifications of such an act.

That brings us back to the question: why didn't he? Maybe he wasn't so good after all. Here is your homework: read a book. Anyone who would label Franco a "good dictator" is ignorant beyond all words.

So in other words, gnore history, and just pretend things are as black and white in favour of your vewi as possible.Any Hisotry book that disagrees with you is ignorant beyong imagination.

"CFurther, I have more than juts the Bible, I also have a workign relationship with God. Do you?"

I'd like to think I do. I just don't think organized religion is the way to go about it.

Your realtionhsip with God is one in which you shout and demand and talk and never let him hav a word edgewise.

Incedentally, other dictators that are rpaised where.

Richard the Lionheart.

Charlemainge

King Alfred.

Need I list more good kings?

"Sorry, I didnt say Stalin was a true communist, I said he was a Dictator. This much is true."

No one is debating that, you idiot!

I said Stalin was a dictator and liberal. You said he wasnt a true communist. I answered that that was not the point. This makes me an Idiot how?Please refrain form personal attacks.

"Further, Facism is not Ultra Conservative, just because peolel like the term "Right Wing Naxi's" doesnt make it a factual Statement. The Ideals of the National Socialist Party, and all Facist states, is left wing, not right wing."

You seem to insist on showing your complete lack of unerstanding of the political spectrum. Let me explain it for you. Each wing (right, left) has two branches: the libertarian branch and the authoritarian branch. On the libertarian branch of the left wing, you have libertarian socialism, a system where the federal government has very little power and laws and expanded social welfare programs are carried out by small communities (popularized by the modern Anarchist movement). On the authoritarian branch, you have totalitarian Communism ('nuff said). On the libertarian branch of the right wing, you have the self-sufficient, limited government ideals that were popular with Eisenhower Republicans. On the authoritarian branch, you have fascism, which is most definitely far-right.

Let me explain a conundrum for you. Facism is conservative. Conservatives beelive in deregulating Big Buisness which is evil. Fsacism regulated Bug Buisness and created a state run Monopoly. That is a contradiction in your own thoughts.

Dasism began as a form of, and is, a branch of socialism. Howign prime loyalty to the state is NOT a conservative idea, its a Liberal one which can be echoed int he Global Village mentality of the conservatives.

Conservitives do NOT beleive that the cheif loyalty of each person shoudl be to the state, and never have. Thats why they are called Ocnservative, because they beleive in MODERATE govenrmental controle, and the extreme of Conservitism lead to a large, bloated beurocracy, not a facist state.

Fasicm insisted on de-institutionalising religion. De-centralisign families. Removing the moral barriers between the sexes. (Hitler rewarded wo,en who gave birth to illegitimate babies, this is conservative?)

Dacism beleived in propeganda, much like modern Liberals and their insistance on no cn esorship unless its a "Hate speach" programe that tells conservative values.

Facism wants to regulate all buisnesses, coprorations, and peopels lives.

Fasism wants to own every ounce of land and forc ethe workers to unite under the scheme of the greater will of th peopel represented byt he state.

No, my friend, Fasicm is left wing, nto right, and always was.

Fascism is a reacionary movement that began in the 20's and 30's with Mussolini and your good pal Franco. Fascism focuses on several major points:

--Nationalism; loyalty to the state. That is a conservative value.

Saying that its a conservative value fdeont make it so. I know of no conservatives that emphasis loyalty to the state. othe thtan Hitler, and Musalini, and they wher eliberal.

Sorrty, Conservatism beleives in moderate governmental controle, not abiding loyalrty to the state.

--Religious conservativism (no sure that's a word...but you understand what I'm saying). Also a conservative value.

Is this why the untraconservative Mousolini burned all the Bibles? Followed By Hitler doing the same?

s this why Hitler said Chrisyainity and facism where incompatable?

Is this why Hitler said that Orginised religion woudl fall under the Third Riech?

--Lifestyle revolves around the military. All men are usualy required to perform some kind of military service. Soldiers patrol the streets, military force is shown all the time in parades, you get the picture. Certain aspects of this are drawn from the far right, but mostly it's just a characteristic of authorotarianism.

Had to throw in a "Far right" comment, didnt you. No part of this is shown to be part of either the far right or far left.

--One leader has absolute power (or at least extreme power). Any democratic bodies that once existed are usualy dissolved. This is just a characteristic of dictatorships everywhere.

Dictatorships usually origionate with liberal vlaues.

"Poitn being?We did not enter a discussion on Communism"

My point was that Stalin can't really be called a liberal.

Yes he can. He fit that description a whole lot better than conservative.

"Facism grew from Liberal ideologies, and called for a rejection of religion and traditional families."

What??? The Catholic Church supported Mussolini and Franco. Mussolini was the first modrn Italian ruler to recognize the Vatican as it's own state. Where is your brain???

Franco suported Catholisism to help rebuild the ravaged and chaotic Spain.

Mousolini tried to take over the vaticvan and use the Catholic Church as an arm to suppression, he did not beleive in open, free religious values, neother did he espouse Catholisisms teachings. Rather, he took advantage fo the fact that the vast majority of Iralians where Catholis, and decided to use tht as a means of controle. Its called manipulation.

"Then you claim that All OCnservatives are for the deregulation of Big Buisness. You link the two how? If I ask you will use current examples, but what I want from you is to know how conservative values leads automatically to this, not current events"

Republicans are for the deregulation of big buisiness. It was also Republicans who voted to allow the U.S. government to do buisiness with companies who moved overseas decades ago to avoid U.S. taxes and labor laws.

Like I said, a current example spouted as proof of a universal fact.

The fact that the republicans are conservative and that they are for deregulation doe not mean that deregulation is automatic in any conservative party's agenda.

It had been U.S. policy not to trade with these companies for a long time. But why shouldn't we trade with the good old folks who moved overseas so that they could work 8 year olds in a factory for 11 cents an hour 18 hours a day. They make sneakers with little lights in the heels! I think that more than makes up for everything.

Those overseas nations they work in are Communist. And guess what, they are run by rabbid Liberals. And we dotn trade withthem, that shoudl tell you soemthing.We also dont have jurisdiction to stop them.

"I prefer Bolshavik, its more direct"

What are you, Joe McCarthy now? Go ahead, name some names. You think you can intimidate me with outdated buzz words like "Bolshievik" (not "bolshavik")?

Again I am dyslexic.

Now, intimidate? You are tryign yoyur hardest to intimidate me by usign insults and bu tryign to polirise the debate.Incedentally, the treason I called you a Bolshevik was because that is how you are acting.

I've met people like you before. You try to harrass your opponents into submission by labeling them "communists" (or, if we insist on using terminology from the 1920's, "Bolshieviks") or anti-american.

That's nice, considering I m a Hard Core Brit, why woudl I care if they are antiamerican or not? Incedentally, I didnt harrass you, you are the one using insults and cheap jeers to win points. All I am doing is defendign my position. If I where harrassing you, I woudl be on your board forcign my bewis on you. As it is now, you are on a cahtolic board foign your veiws. Then you have the audacity to tell us to leave it in the churches. Well guess what, this is a church, a virtual one, but a church nonetheless.

I don't agree with Communism. I think that private ownership is one of the basic principals of freedom.

You also beleive in hypocracy, as you are harrasisng me and tryign to elevate yourself on my ashes.

Socialism combines the best points of communism and capitalism. For more on that, email me and I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Socialism leads to secularism, hedonism, ans social ruin. For more on that, email me.

"Yes, after Saddam had been placed in Power."

What's your point? The fact is, the U.S. supported him for 15 years. some 50,000 people died from the chemical and biological weapons THE U.S. GAVE HIM.

My only point was that you are garbling hisotry.

"Which gves culpability to Cheiny directly How?"

Do I have to connect all the dots for you? You truly are a simple- minded creature.

Lookie, another cheap shot!@!! whohooo!@!!!!!!!!

Look, I'm going to spell it out for you: Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein were freinds back in the 80's. It's not a secret. For someone to deny that is complete ignorance of FACTS.

"Only as CIA director, as Presedent he had problems with Saddam."

Because he stopped playing our game. He was supposed to be our monkey, but when he stopped doing our tricks, it was time to take him out.

For soemoen who called m simple minded, you have a weak graso of the details.

"Only as CIA director, as Presedent he had problems with Saddam."

The U.S. didn't expressly give Saddam the green light, we just said we wouldn't do anything if he did. Since we were already supplying Iraq with weapons, it was essentialy a green light. Saddam had the weapons and he knew that the only nation who could stop him--the U.S., had vowed to stay out of the conflict. Here is a link to an article in Foreign Policy Magazine (a respected publication; not in the habit of publishing "conspiracy theories"): www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html

So you lied throug exageration? Very nice to asdmit it, even if in a round about way.

What I said: "Even after Desert Storm, Bush promised the Iraqi Kurds that if they rebellled, U.S. forces would assist them. Thinking they had a golden opportunity, the Kurds took up arms against their oppressors--but the U.S. never showed up. The Kurds were easily overcome by Saddam's troops and he gassed a few hundred thousand."

What you said: "Source?"

Here it is, cut and pasted from cbsnews.com

The last time the Shiites tried to make Saddam pay ended in betrayal and disaster. It was February 1991, the Gulf War was winding down and the first President Bush had an important message for the people of Iraq: "There's another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside."

Bush's message was heard, and the Iraqis rose up against Saddam. Their rallying cry: Ayatollah al-Hakim. It was a classic popular uprising and it was succeeding. The rebels took over 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces, and they killed scores of Saddam's Ba'ath party officials.

But when they turned to Washington for help, Bush turned them down.

Where in the article does it say Bush said he woudl hep them?

The Americans gave Saddam the green light to use helicopter gunships to crush the rebellion. Saddam leveled the Shiite's holiest cities and shrines and summary executions became the order of the day.

The Shiites had expected nothing less from Saddam, but they'd expected much more from the Americans. "There is a deep-rooted mistrust of the United States of America by the Iraqi people," says Al-Rubaie. "The United States committed a major mistake. Iraqi people paid with their blood."

I tend to agree, but I do not see where Bush said " Yes we will hellp you" then turned them down.

"So you are sayign that because peopel didnt know any better then, that its OK now?"

No, I'm saying that if you look hard enough, everything has some hint of racism in it. You just have to lighten up. If you get picky and start banning everything with even a hint of innapropriateness, your kids will be watching Thomas the Tank Engine untill they're 18. What movies do you find acceptable?

Actually most shows do NOT have " A Hint of Racism" in them. Dispite attacks, Star Wars didnt really.Neither does Star Trek. Giess what else lacks racism? Shakespere.

Plenty of things dont hae racism, my poitn was that this was a blatant, and innapropriate, joke to incert in a movie. Further, the whole movie desecrated the vision held by Doctor Seuss hiomself, and for that reason alone its not worth the moeny.

"So basically, you dotn care about other people, all you care about is forcign peoel to accept whatever psoition or issue you have as a pet, and declaring victory. You are petty."

And basiclay you are an idiot who is completely incapable of detecting sarcasm when it's right in front of his face.

Once again you call me an idiot, because I poitn to how crude your arguments are. AgaiN I will ask, wil yuo stop makign cheap personal attacks? The only person that they make look bad is you.

Don't call me pretty. People might think you're gay.

Yiu are petty, and I dont think anyone will think I am gay.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 02, 2003.

here we go again...

k, if you see a thread that italics all the way through, even the persons name, put a few of the end italics tags in the beginning of your next message to fix it

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 02, 2003.