|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #91339 ] |
Di, 26 Juli 2005 14:40 |
|
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when
pbow... [at] aol.com wrote:
> The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
>>pbow... [at] aol.com wrote:
>> Ah, a breath of fresh air after the putrid mire of John Shocked's posts
>> (no, that's not fair - I'm a wetland ecologist, I *like* putrid mires).
>> Of course in John Shockedese, this means I'm coming onto you.
>
>Sorry, you're on the wrong continent.
Oh, I'm easy where continents are concerned. I've been through a few in
my time.
> I also doubt that you're Asian...
Good point. I have to say that my preferences, such as they are, are
for more hair on top and less on the chin...
>>> "I'm not intellectually dishonest, I'm just drawn that
>>>way..."
>>
>> But is it genetic or learned?
>
>
>I think it's both.
Maybe we should try that on Shocked's homosexuality 'argument'. The
idea of multiple causes really would melt his brain.
>Yup, he went on to do Angel. Ok, he went on to *co-star* on Angel. Sheesh,
>getcher mind outta the gutter...
Hehe.
>> Mind you, I think someone should do something like the BuffyGuide for
>> Star Trek, just to keep track of all the continuity errors.
>
>Hmmm, think Steve Lyons might be up for it? ;-{)}
Don't think I know who he is.
>>>>>So he's like the gay John Shocked, then.
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit unfair. I doubt that would be fair of *anyone*. After all,
>>>> plenty of people can spout opinionated diatribes with more
>>>> effectiveness than John Shocked.
>>>
>>>True, I can be a bitch, at times.
>>
>> That settles it - whatever Shocked thinks your behaviour suggests, you
>> really *aren't* straight...
>
>Bi all the way, honey.;-{)}
Ooo, you are naughty!
>>>I think he should pay a visit to http://www.politicalcompass.org -- it'd
>>>be very, ah, educational for him.
>>
>> Hmm. Maybe we should be generous and pay his visit for him..:
>>
>> Seems I'm a left-wing libertarian, more so than when I last took the
>> test as I recall.
>>
>> Economic Left/Right: -2.13
>> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92
>
>I'm more extreme, apparently.
I tend to be less extreme than most people - I don't particularly want
to associate with a given political philosophy. I'd much rather be
right about things...
>> Mind you, the lack of a 'neutral' option, the prevalence of absurdly
>> extremist right-wing positions that few actual right-wingers would hold
>> without any equivalent extreme left-wing lunacy, and the false
>> dichotomies posed by both 'left' and 'right' (but mostly 'right')
>> leaning questions betray the test's lack of objectivity and question
>> its usefulness for more than light entertainment.
>
>Possibly -- but then again, considering the right-wing in the US continues
>to claim that the media have a "left-wing liberal bias", based on how often
>LGBTs, people of colour, non-Xians, and non-Americans are not savagely
>excoriated simply for existing (going by the RW standards of "bias", or
>lack thereof, displayed on FAUX News), I tend to be a trifle hesitant when
>it comes to pinpointing "centrist" views.;-{)}
Even so, is support for eugenics really characteristic of the average
US Republican? There should still have been a neutral option; on a good
many issues mentioned I don't care one way or the other.
>>>> Ah, but they are. He said so in his response to this. At this rate
>>>> he'll soon be arguing that everyone other than him is involved.
>>>
>>>Now, that's a large conspiracy. I'd have to see a lot of evidence before
>>>I'd be willing to consider that I might already be part of it.;-{)}
>>
>> You're criticising the mighty John Shocked. What more evidence could
>> you possibly need?
>
>Good point. Now, what I want to know is: WHY IN THUD HAVEN'T I BEEN GETTING
>ANY MEMOES??? I'm the Secretary of the dang International Homosexual
>Conspiracy,
Ah, so that's what it stands for. I imagined "HomIntern" must have some
connection to Bill Clinton that I'd missed...
>>> Nice twisting of your words, too.
>>
>> Surely "twisting" them implies some tenuous relationship with what I
>> actually said?
>
>Well, it was very tenuous, and possibly mostly my imagination...
Hmm, thinking back I think we both mentioned things vaguely related to
France...
>>>> Max, the founder, leader, and sole
>>>>member of the cult, keeps morphing into new personalities, which he
>>>>innocently plays as different people, and they have quite a history now.
>>>>Mocking him/them is a bit of a cottage industry on APH for various regs.
>>
>> I've been amazed dropping into that group that a good portion of the
>> trolls are even more stupid than John Shocked.
>
>Yes, he's actually been relatively refreshing, compared to them. Kind of.
>Next to Death and Taylor (wbt), anyway.
Does Death have a vocabulary that extends beyond "faggot", do you
suppose?
>>>For details on the KOTM and other awards, go here:
>>>
>>>http://www.lart.com/auk/aukfaq.html
>>
>> Hmm, I'm confused. On the one hand Shocked is an extreme kook of the
>> kookiest kind, but on the other he's also a boring troll so is
>> apparently disqualified.
>
>Damn. Oh, well, we still have F.U.C.K. and its adherent(s).
I don't think I want to know.
>> Archie Plutonium is a *moderate* kook? So apparently is Turcaud with
>> his belief in "True Geology" (an undefined 'theory' in which geology is
>> the key to all the secrets in the universe, among them gravitation, as
>> evidenced by a success rate for its predictions that falls considerably
>> below that expected by random chance alone and, indeed, not at all
>> above zero).
>
>Sounds like a k00k who's bedevilled some of my Yahoogroups -- a wackjob in
>his 70s who keeps going on about "Pete's Gravim", and misappropriating the
>work of Bucky Fuller...
If he's not a severely disturbed neo-Nazi with a rabid hatred of
everybody, I doubt it's the same.
Philip Bowles
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #91342 ] |
Di, 26 Juli 2005 15:52 |
|
><pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1122362790.880447.259150 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>- Show quoted text -
>"Jenn" <jenncondu... [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jennconducts-BA72C0.11403725072005 [at] newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <YiaFe.131682$Qo.63154 [at] fed1read01>,
>>> > But it's not only about sexual acts, of course; no more than
>>> > heterosexuality is only about sex acts.
>>> Homosexuality is about homosexual acts. If an individual does not gain sexual
>>> pleasure
>>> from homosexual acts, then that person is not a homosexual.
>>> And heterosexuality is about heterosexual acts. But is that all?
>>As I have already stated, heterosexuality is the normal condition.
>>Thus, a child who has yet to demonstrate a sexual choice is assumed to
>>be heterosexual, just like walking on two legs and seeing with 2 eyes etc.
>Does this mean that asexuality can't exist, because asexuals are just
>heterosexuals who aren't interested in having sex? And where do those
>asexuals who experience a non-sexual attraction to members of the same
>sex (myself among them) fit?
>Philip Bowles
Never thought about it. Someone engaging in Sodomy has made a definitive decision for
another man's faeces excrement and against the procreation and nurture of Life.
Asexuals like everyone else would be assumed heterosexual until behavior defines them in another way.
Politics
=================================================
In these 1994 Saturday Night Live skits, Patrick Stewart of Star Trek: The Next Generation,
to his credit, says: "say No to anal sex !".
As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night Live
scripts, clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at that time
when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals, after the Oct 24 1991
death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the Star Trek enterprise by Rick Berman.
Episodes like ST:TNG The Outcast in 1992 and the whole script of the new series
Star Trek Deep Space Nine (1993-1999) with the androgynous Jadzia Dax (Terry Farrell)
character were designed primarily to sell Sodomy to you and your kids in this new Berman era.
Politics
[Transcripts of 2 Saturday Night Live skits excerpted from the
February 5, 1994 Patrick Stewart appearance from closed captions]
===============================================
>>> Hi! Welcome to Sexy Cakes, the erotic bakery.
>> I've walked by this place. I never thought I'd go inside it.
>> Well, I think you'll find that it's a little more fun than an ordinary bakery.
>> Yeah, my friend's havin' a bachelor party, and I thought it might be kind of fun if I got him an erotic cake.
>> Well, you have come to the right place.
I have the perfect sexy cake for a bachelor party.
Oh, oh -- what about this one?
What do you think?
>> Looks like a woman goin' to the bathroom.
[ Light laughter ]
>> Yeah, it's very sexy.
[ Laughter ]
>> What else do you have?
>> Ooh, I understand. It's not, perhaps, your cup of tea.
Perhaps -- maybe this sexy cake might be more up your alley.
>> This is the exact same cake.
>> No, no, no. This is chocolate.
[ Laughter ]
>> Yeah, but it's still a woman goin' to the bathroom.
>> Exactly.
Oh, could you excuse me for a moment?
>>Hi.
Hi, we're here to pick up our cake.
>> Yes, the man-on-man lemon meringue.
[ Laughter ]
>> Right.
I took a little artistic license with this one, but, well,
I think you'll enjoy the results.
>> Hey, this is a woman going to the bathroom.
[ Laughter ]
>> Yeah, it's very exciting, isn't it?
That'll be $15.
>> We wanted a cake of two guys having sex.
>> Yeah, I know.
Well, I guess you can say I sexied it up for you. No extra charge.
>> Party's tonight. We'll take it.
>> Thank you.
Oh, you'll have to excuse me. It has been like this all day.
>> What other types of cakes do you have?
>> Well, why don't we take a look at our catalog?
Now, you see, this shows every sexy, titillating cake we offer.
Oh, now, here's a woman squatting behind some bushes.
[ Laughter ]
Look, the leaves are made of spun sugar.
And -- oh.
Here's a lady using a little marzipan port-a-potty.
>> So all your cakes are women going to the bathroom?
>> Yeah.
[ Laughter ]
What's your point?
>> Well, don't you have anything else?
>> Look, maybe you don't understand. This is an erotic bakery.
>> I'm sorry.
I just don't find this very erotic.
>> A woman going to the bathroom?
You don't find it erotic?
>> No, not really.
>> Well, then what, pray tell, would you suggest we do put on our erotic cakes?
[ Light laughter ]
>> I don't know --people having sex?
Female and male genitalia. You know, somethin' like that.
>> Well, if that's what you're after, I suggest you try Hostess or Sara Lee.
[ Laughter ]
>> Can't you just make a cake with a couple on it having sex?
>> All right, look, I'll tell you what I will do.
I will make a cake with a woman and a man going to the bathroom.
[ Light laughter ]
And then, that way, you'll be happy, and your friends will be happy.
>> I don't think my friends would like that, either.
>> Well, I would certainly like to meet these friends of yours sometime!
[ Light laughter ]
>> Look, could we just have a cake with just sex and no going to the bathroom?
>> May I remind you that you are going to have to eat this cake?
[ Light laughter ]
>> I'll tell you what --just give me a regular cake with nothing on it.
>> I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to ask you to leave.
>> Why?!
>> This is some kind of joke, isn't it? Who put you up to this, a fraternity?
You get out! Go on. Get out of here, young man!
>> Hi. It's my fiancé's birthday. Can I get a cake shaped like a woman going to the bathroom?
>> Absolutely.
[ Cheers and applause ]
===========================================
[ Cheers and applause ]
[ Nickelodeon theme plays ]
You show me and I'll show you Dr. Elders will show us, too 'cause you're never
too young and you're never too small to know the difference between a penis and a ball
yay
>> Nickelodeon presents --
"show and tell," with Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn elders.
>> Good morning, boys and girls. And welcome to "Show and Tell."
You know, learning safe sex is as easy as a-b-C.
Did somebody say "a-b-c"?
"A" is for "abstinence."
Which -- I have to be honest with you -- is a Reagan-era fantasy.
[ Light laughter ]
Children are going to have sex. It's as easy as that.
Okay?
"B" is for "bastard."
That's a technical word for the product of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Now, do we have any bastards here today?
[ Laughter ]
Come on, Tony. You're a bastard. Raise your hand.
[ Laughter ]
There's no shame in that. Good, Tony.
You know, Jesse Jackson is a bastard. As are all of Goldie Hawn's children.
[ Laughter ]
Can you say "Jesse Jackson" and "Goldie Hawn"?
>> All: Jesse Jackson and Goldie Hawn.
>> Good!
Now, what we are tryin' to do is to make fewer bastards, which brings us to "C."
Now, what is "c" for, children?
>> All: "Condoms"!
>> That's right.
Very good.
We learn that every week.
Can't hit the condoms too hard.
Condom, condom, condom!
[ Laughter ]
Well, boys and girls, I think "a" through "c" is good for today.
Tomorrow, we'll study "d" through "G."
That's "dental dam" through "gonorrhea."
[ Bell rings ]
Oh, goody, goody, goody!
It's time for our special guest. And he's come all the way
from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta.
Boys and girls, let's give a warm "Show and Tell" welcome to Dr. Ian Menchenson.
[ Cheers and applause ]
Welcome, Dr. Menchenson.
>> Thank you, General Elders. It's a great pleasure to be here.
We, at the Center for Disease Control, agree that kids are
never too young to hear frank and open discussion of sexuality and health issues.
And that's why we are terribly excited about our new program,
which is called "Project Just Say No To Anal Intercourse."
[ Laughter ]
>> Now, what do you have to show the children?
>> Well -- this is what we at "Project Just Say No To Anal Intercourse" call the visible rectum.
[ Laughter ]
Now, this --this -- it's a learning tool.
And we have developed it especially for children aged 6 to 8.
>> Uh-huh, and how does it work?
>> How does it work?
Well, basically, we think it's absolutely vital for children to know that,
during anal intercourse, the tearing and ripping of the anal membrane can expose the
receptor's bloodstream to a large dose of HIV-laden ejaculate --
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
>> I'm sorry?
>> No, doctor.
I think you're frightenin' the children.
>> Good.
Good!
That's just what we're trying to do at "Project Just Say No to Anal Intercourse."
You see, we want to discourage anal intercourse among children, and by alerting them to the dangers --
>> No, no, no, doctor!
I think maybe the visible rectum is a bad idea.
>> Oh. I have drawings.
>> No, no, no.
I'm afraid that we've run out
of time.
Kids, let's thank Dr. Menchenson.
[ Applause ]
Well, that's all the time we have for today. But before we go, I should
announce that this was our last show for nickelodeon.
Evidently, we've been gettin' a lot of negative mail from some very narrow-minded people.
But that's okay.
We're movin' to PBS on weekdays, following "Daddy's Got A Boyfriend."
[ Laughter ]
And remember, boys and girls, if you're gonna have anal-oral
contact and you're not sure of your partner's history --
>> All: Use a dental dam.
>> Bye-bye, now.
Bye-bye.
[ Applause ]
==================================
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #91343 ] |
Di, 26 Juli 2005 17:39 |
|
In article <HLiFe.135534$Qo.101357 [at] fed1read01>,
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-09CE56.16101425072005 [at] newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <L0eFe.135153$Qo.22956 [at] fed1read01>,
> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jennconducts-06EA0F.14234225072005 [at] newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > In article <uKbFe.133301$Qo.8513 [at] fed1read01>,
> >> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:jennconducts-BA72C0.11403725072005 [at] newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com..
> >> >> .
> >> >> > In article <YiaFe.131682$Qo.63154 [at] fed1read01>,
> >> >> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:jennconducts-B8C3C1.08295525072005 [at] newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.co
> >> >> >> m..
> >> >> >> > In article <ax7Fe.128410$Qo.101941 [at] fed1read01>,
> >> >> >> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "maf 1029 (©2001-2007)"
> >> >> >> >> <saxophone [at] saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone>
> >> >> >> >> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:0mv4e19l0rtlfu8fl2o0712tdi98blnv4v [at] 4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >> > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:03:36 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >> >> >> >> > <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>Homosexuality is behavior
> >> >> >> >> > Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
> >> >> >> >> > Pronunciation: "hO-m&-"sek-sh&-'wa-l&-tE
> >> >> >> >> > Function: noun
> >> >> >> >> > : the quality or state of being homosexual
> >> >> >> >> > Hmm, how interesting. No mention of behavior there, in the
> >> >> >> >> > DEFINITION.
> >> >> >> >> > Perhaps you were referring to what you and yerantmom do in bed
> >> >> >> >> > every night and morning.
> >> >> >> >> Again, quoting a dictionary is not considered scholarship.
> >> >> >> >> Try quoting from something more specific to the subject matter
> >> >> >> >> discussed.
> >> >> >> >> Homosexuality is about homosexual acts like Sodomy.
> >> >> >> >> Politics
> >> >> >> > But it's not only about sexual acts, of course; no more than
> >> >> >> > heterosexuality is only about sex acts.
> >> >> >> Homosexuality is about homosexual acts. If an individual does not
> >> >> >> gain
> >> >> >> sexual pleasure from homosexual acts, then that person is not a
> >> >> >> homosexual.
> >> >> > And heterosexuality is about heterosexual acts. But is that all?
> >> >> As I have already stated, heterosexuality is the normal condition.
> >> >> Thus, a child who has yet to demonstrate a sexual choice is assumed to
> >> >> be heterosexual, just like walking on two legs and seeing with 2 eyes
> >> >> etc.
> >> > What does that have to do with my question? Can you understand that
> >> > homosexuality is not only about sex acts, in the same way that
> >> > heterosexuality is not only about sex acts?
> >> Again, if a child chose to wear an eye patch even though they had two
> >> working
> >> eyes or hopped around on one foot when they had two, that would be deviant
> >> behavior comparable to homosexuality,
> > A terrible analogy, but we continue for now...
>
> It is simple logic. Logic that it takes to prove arguments.
Except that it's not logical. You are operating from a false premise.
You are presuming that homosexuals have "two working eyes" and "two
feet". To gay people, being attracted to the opposite sex is as
incongruent as being attracted to the same sex is to heterosexual people.
>
> >> though of course nowhere near as disgusting or as harmful to society.
> >> Should we start calling everyone in the majority bipeds and binocular,
> >> because of the existence of these deviant fringe elements ?
> > Your reason for ducking my question is unclear. I'll try one more time
> > before I am forced to come to my own conclusion: Do you understand that
> > homosexuality is not only about sex acts, just as heterosexuality is not
> > only about sex acts? If you disagree with the premise of the question,
> > explain why.
>
> Homosexuality is all about the homosex acts.
> There is no other significant content in the relationship.
>
> Here is information about the instability of these homosexual relationships:
>
> ====================================================
> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071405.html
>
> Homosexual Unions Last Only 1.5 Years, Says New Study
> AMSTERDAM, July 14, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As Canada and several U.S.
> states move
> toward the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage," a new study has
> found that
> homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years.
>
> The study is based on the health records of young Dutch homosexuals by Dr.
> Maria Xiridou
> of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and published in the May issue of
> the journal AIDS.
> It also found that men in homosexual relationships have an average of eight
> partners a year
> outside their main partnership, adding more evidence to the "stereotype" that
> homosexuals
> tend to be promiscuous.
>
> The findings are "proof positive that these relationships ... will never be
> as stable as a normal
> heterosexual relationship regardless of what institutions or laws are
> changed," said Pete LaBarbara,
> senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family
> Institute, who
> predicts that homosexual promiscuity will remain "rampant."
> ====================================================
What is the the average length of partnerships of unmarried young men in
the Netherlands? Without this comparison, the above is meaningless.
I know a great many gay people; you probably don't. Virtually all of my
gay friends are in long-term relationships. I was in one for 20 years.
She passed away, and my new partner and I have been together for almost
9 years. This is in spite of the fact that we gain none of the benefits
of marriage that heterosexual people enjoy. Those benefits serve as a
motivation for long-term relationships. And yet, the average length of
relationships in my life is 29 1/2 years, and that number is raising
each day. In the circles in which I run, that figure is not uncommon.
The point remains: homosexual relationships are no more about sex alone
than are heterosexual relationships.
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #91345 ] |
Di, 26 Juli 2005 19:21 |
|
><pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1122356365.246727.93940 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Okay, let's make this quick. You are getting particularly boring and
>have long since ceased to say anything new, so I'll hurry this up and
>get on with something more interesting, like dissecting fish.
>John Shocked wrote:
>> ><pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1122192809.496225.127220 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1122078686.441569.118160 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:1121912695.386719.290100 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>and thus even a child defaults to heterosexual until behavior demonstrates otherwise.
>> >>>"...and thus" implies a logical connection that is completely missing
>> >>>here. There's a statistical likelihood that a child will be
>> >>>heterosexual rather than homosexual/bisexual/asexual/etc. but that
>> >>>doesn't invite the assumption that the child is heterosexual in the
>> >>>absence of heterosexual behaviour or attraction simply because they
>> >>>aren't engaging in what you describe as "deviant" sexual behaviour.
>> >>Homosexuality is learned behavior; children are not born homosexual.
>> >You keep simply assuming your conclusion - you have yet to produce
>> >credible evidence. At the same time you have failed to find any flaw in
>> >the studies I cited (which are more recent than any of your citations)
>> >that suggest otherwise.
>> To which studies do you refer.
>The ones linked to from New Scientist; the Italian one you commented on
>before and the sheep study you comment on in this post.
===================copy=====================
>>>> who have you read which has newer ideas on the causes of
>>>>homosexuality.
>>>Just from a quick browse:
>>>October 2004:
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18424690.800
"From issue 2469 of New Scientist magazine, 16 October 2004, page 5"
I cannot imagine that these researchers are trying to draw serious conclusions from a sample
of 198 people in Padua, Italy, especially when the samples described in the pice are inconsistent
with the 1.2 fertility rate of Italy.
With such a small sample, it is possible that a handful of women had 12 children and skewed
these statistics.
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519
This is ridiculous. Women have a gene that causes them to be more receptive to male advances ?
Every red blooded heterosexual man wants to know who these women are.
These researchers must be receiving calls from guys all over the world to identify who these
women are.
It is almost a year since this was published and no other team of researchers appears to have replicated these results.
>>>November 2002:
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
============================================
As I mentioned in another thread, it could be that ram sheep have atrophied or not developed
that hypothalamus part of the brain because they have been denied heterosexual sex by being
segregated from ewe female sheep.
Fledgling ewes are much more likely to be molested by other older ewes, so any
Hollywood Homosexual could train one ewe to engage in this behavior through criminal
animal abuse manipulation of pheromones, then create an epidemic of this behavior
by molesting the fledgling ewes.
>> >>Any who were had no children and washed out of the genetic pool millenia ago.
>> >This has already been explained to you, and the Italian study suggests
>> >that the possession of genes related to homosexuality increases
>> >fertility in heterosexuals carrying them, which will promote their
>> >survival and produce occasional combinations that lead to
>> >homosexuality.
>> This is ridiculous. Quote the statements which support this.
>You commented on that study yourself, the one which found that people
>sharing genes in common with homosexuals had an average of 2.7 children
>while those that didn't had an average of 2.3.
Again, the study is flawed in that it does not represent the true Italian fertility numbers and
only 198 people and their 4000-odd direct relatives are involved.
>> It does mention the Bantu man.
>> ==================================================
>> http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2005/0903.html
>>
>> The 1959 specimen was obtained from a Bantu man living in Kinshasa, the Congo. His name and health status were not recorded.
>> Details
>> of the history and testing of this specimen (later heralded as the "world's oldest HIV-positive blood sample") are recorded in
>> The
>> River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS , by journalist Edward Hooper who theorizes that HIV was introduced into
>> Africans via the polio vaccine programs in the late 1950s. Hooper claims the polio vaccine was prepared using chimp kidney cells
>> contaminated with the ancestor virus of HIV.
>>
>> When tested for HIV in the mid-1980s, the 1959 blood sample was the only specimen out of 700 stored frozen Congo bloods that
>> tested
>> positive for HIV. Originally collected by Arno Motulsky on a Rockefeller grant, the African sample was one of many sent to the
>> University of Washington in Seattle and used for genetic testing and included in report, "Population Genetic Studies," published
>> in
>> 1966.
>>
>> Around 1970, the remaining 672 frozen bloods were flown to Emory University in Atlanta for further genetic tests. In 1985 the
>> specimens again changed hands, this time for HIV testing by Andre Nahmias, a virologist and animal researcher associated with the
>> Yerkes Primate Center at Emory. The Congo specimens were tested along with 500 other blood specimens taken from blacks living in
>> sub-Saharan Africa between the years 1959 and 1982. Initially over 90% of specimens taken in 1959 tested positive for HIV by the
>> ELISA test. However, these HIV-positive tests were later determined to be false-positive. After the examinations at Emory, the
>> specimens were shipped to Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for HIV testing in Max Essex' lab.
>> ==================================================
>Interesting. Odd that you didn't cite this actually relevant section in
>your last post. Since the 'definitive' study appears to have been
>conducted in 2004 that would explain why it wasn't known to the BBC
>science journalist, although the article points out that explanations
>for this later result have been offered.
>This begs one question, however. HIV was clearly known by 1966, when
>tests to determine whether it was present were used in that study, so
>where *did* it come from? Where did the samples the researchers used to
>develop that test come from? No one in the West had tested HIV positive
>by that stage. Bearing in mind that this is only 12 years after DNA was
>determined to be the genetic material and long before the development
>of genetic engineering (which according to Answers.com only became
>technically possible in 1973) it can't have been artificial.
The article says that the HIV specific tests were begun in 1985 once HIV exploded in the US and a test was developed, performed at
Yerkes Primate Center at Emory (Hospital and Medical School in Atlanta, Georgia, USA). Numerous Congo samples (supposedly of ill
people in Congo with undiagnosable symptoms), including the 672 from the original 1959 samplings and 500 more collected between 1959
and 1982, were tested and all came up false except the one 1959 Bantu (unidentified man whose history thus cannot be confirmed with
his family).
===================
>> http://www.aidsorigins.com/glossary.shtml
>>
>> GENOME Total genetic material of a cell or virus.
>> PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) Process involving isolation and amplification of a
>> specific DNA sequence which can then be studied.
>> VIRION Single, complete virus particle, consisting of a core of nucleic acid, within a protein envelope.
>> VIRUS Minute infectious agent, only able to multiply inside a living host cell.
>> ========================================================
>Thank you, but I am a biologist. I'm fully aware of this terminology.
So how come you have not heard about all this information. Could this information be under
some kind of suppression from the Hollywood Homosexuals who have a stranglehold on the News media ?
In fact, it was only my perception at reading between the lines of that BBC reporter's story that
my further investigation of this information occurred and led to this further discussion.
It is clear that that BBC reporter was in a battle with his editor to obtain the right to disseminate
what information he had.
Hollywood Homosexuals are the elite. They decide what you need to know. "A little information
can be a dangerous thing", as the elite says. And you and the rest of the public are nothing but
a piece of trash to be used, abused and/or run over by them.
>> >>"As soon as homosexuals signed up as guinea pigs for government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine
>> >>experiments, they began to die with a strange virus of unknown origin."
>> >This is a claim. Evidence would involve identifying whether any
>> >particular homosexuals given the vaccine died from the "strange virus"
>> >afterwards, and any evidence that that virus was in fact AIDS. This
>> >claim could simply mean that after one or two homosexuals in Manhattan
>> >volunteered for the vaccine a few on the other side of the island died,
>> >in which case there would be no connection at all. If Cantwell had any
>> >evidence of specific cases he would have presented it here.
>> The fact that they began to die immediately, indicates that these homosexuals may already
>> have contracted the AIDS virus and had reduced immune systems or had their immune systems
>> depleted by drugs as Cantwell described.
>No it doesn't, unless you assume from the start that the virus must
>have been man-made. Objectively, based on the available evidence
>regarding how the virus is transmitted and its incubation period, the
>presumption must be that there is no connection between a virus tested
>only a year earlier and the AIDS outbreak. No evidence to the contrary
>has yet been presented.
I cannot believe these homosexual showed up for blood tests unless they were already sick with something.
Unfortunately, dead men tell no tales, but investigation of who these homosexuals were and
what their behavior was immediately before these tests would be useful information.
>> [>Cantwell seems to be describing disposal of the primates that he learnt from documentation
>> > and it seems there was not a standing policy to destroy any primate after 'inoculation' testing,
>> >which might even be illegal.] -- JS wrote this.
>> I am tiring of your posting text you wrote as mine with indenting indicating I wrote it
>> and vice versa.
>Believe me, anyone reading this thread would realise that the coherent
>comments couldn't possibly have been written by you. It's an artefact
>of Google, which no longer allows you to quote text unless you sign on
>anew every time you reply to a message (as I'm doing now as I'm not
>using my own computer).
Then I would suggest you use a Text editor to manually indent your included replied-to text.
For most text editors, you simply have to turn on the Regular Expression capability, then
use ^ as the find field and > as the replace field.
That is, copying all the included text into the text editor, perform the operation then copying
the result back into the Send window.
I find it hard to imagine that Google really has such a problem; I would suggest reading the
manual thoroughly, first.
>> I have seen nothing posted that any 'homosexual frog' phenomenon has been
>> proven or tested to determine whether manipulation of pheromones by animal abusing
>> Hollywood Homosexuals caused it.
>If Hollywood Homosexuals are so good at manipulating pheromones and
>their master plan is to turn the entire human race into homosexuals,
>why aren't they already manipulating human pheromones to achieve that
>goal? Also, descriptions of animal homosexuality (in butterflies, for
>instance) date back at least as far as Victorian times, when
>researchers lacked the ability to even detect these chemicals.
I have not seen these reports on butterflies.
However, as I have mentioned, one defective butterfly could molest fledgling butterflies or ewes
and cause a spread of this behavior, just as it happens in the human population.
>> Seems to be a lot of people studying different data and coming to the same conclusion.
>Uh, this is exactly the same article. So the exact same person has come
>to the same conclusion...
No idea what you are referring to.
>> =======================================================
>> http://www.geocities.com/home60515/3.html
>>
>> Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?
>> It is a well-documented fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young.
>> (This paper will conclude with a list of some books which support that statement.)
>> The following books, with page numbers, refer to the fact that many many
>> homosexuals were sexually abused when young:
>I note you failed to respond to the point I made on this before. This
>is not the same as supporting a claim that homosexuals "were born
>heterosexual but were disoriented by sexual abuse", it is simply a list
>of therapists' descriptions of homosexuals who were abused. Someone
>could come up with an equally long or longer bibliography 'referring to
>the fact that many many heterosexuals were sexually abused when young'
>- that would not do anything to imply that heterosexuality is caused by
>sexual abuse.
These are lists of books in which the writers recognized a pattern between homosexual
child molestation and homosexuality. In addition, the writer indicates that evidence exists
that well known and trustworthy psychiatrists have succeeded in reverting practising homosexuals
back to the heterosexuality with which they were born.
>> In other words, there is an abundance of evidence that many many homosexuals were born
>> heterosexual but were disoriented by sexual abuse.
>As also explained, this is simply a false statement. There is no
>connection between 'many homosexuals were sexually abused when young'
>and 'homosexuality is the result of sexual abuse when young'.
Statistical connections like this are at the heart of research, including the claimed 'research'
about a Y chromosome gene for homosexuality from just 198 homosexuals and hetersexuals in Italy
which you claimed to be persuasive.
>> ===============================================
>> http://www.geocities.com/home60515/3.html
>>
>> Skilled psychologists and psychiatrists like Masters and Johnson, Charles Socarides,
>> Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, Elizabeth Moberly, Jeffrey Satinover, and
>> Gerard van den Aardweg, have had much success changing homosexuals into heterosexuals.
>> (They have been successful because most if not all homosexuals were probably born heterosexual.)
>> ===============================================
>This is an unsupported assertion - yes, brutal methods of 'conversion'
>have been tried that have eventually succeeded in suppressing
>homosexual behaviour, although not homosexual feelings by any account
>I've ever seen. This again does not imply that "most if not all
>homosexuals were probably born heterosexual", which is a simple
>opinion. There is also a significant suicide rate among such
>'converts', suggesting that they are far from accepting of their
>'conversion'.
There is a higher rate of suicide amongst homosexuals, in general.
>> >>It does, because the will of practically all people, especially after a certain age is the
>> >>continuation of the species, thus they would be hurt if this eventuality does not or
>> >>appears not to be about to occur.
>> >If it's the will of those people to continue the species (in which case
>> >most are unlikely to be homosexual) they're perfectly free to do so, in
>> >which case the situation wouldn't arise in any case. If you're
>> >postulating a future in which most of the population is homosexual,
>> >there's a good chance that most people in that society won't have any
>> >desire to continue the species. In any case, how are people hurt if it
>> >"appears not to be about to occur"?
>> People have a general interest in continuation of the whole species,
>In a real-world society, yes. In a real-world society homosexuality,
>which is confined to a small proportion of the population (be it 2%, 4%
>or 10%) does not represent any threat to that interest, since most of
>the population is not homosexual. In your hypothetical situation in
>which most of them are, bearing in mind that the majority of
>homosexuals probably have little or no desire for children, it would
>follow that people would not have much interest in continuing the
>species.
The death of a man and wife's own DNA with their homosexual son is a major
extinction of one's own presence on the Earth.
Obviously, homosexuals often do want children in that they try to foster and/or adopt.
This indicates that they simply are so determined to engage in the homosex act of Sodomy
that they are willing to give up on the option of having their own biological children to obtain
that prurient interest.
>> as evidenced by monies spent on others issues like national defense, but also
>> continuation of their own sub-species, specifically the married couple's own DNA.
>Families are not actually classified as subspecies...
Very sub, species.
>> [>>1. A person can personally disapprove of homosexuality on the basis
>> >>that they regard it as unpleasant/disgusting or whatever. This is not
>> >>homophobic. If that person attempts to criticise homosexuality in
>> >>others based on that personal dislike, or attempts to claim that it is
>> >>wrong, that is homophobic. You have done both; Cameron has done the
>> >>former in the paper I read.
>> >>These statements are false.
>> >This is a lie. Reread your commentary on the murder/sodomy comparison
>> >and your increasingly desperate attempt to pretend homosexuality causes
>> >harm to society, and on how people should invariably want all their
>> >children to have children and that this provides a reason for them to
>> >have those children.
>> Quote what you believe I stated to be untrue.
>In response to my point 1, "These statements are false" is untrue for
>the reasons I gave.
Again, this is a false statement.
>> >>>4. Conflating homosexual behaviour with drug abuse, rape and murder,
>> >>>all of which cause harm to other individuals that homosexuality
>> >>>doesn't, is homophobic.
>> >> I have stated that Sodomy is disgusting and should
>> >>not be shown on TV. What I have stated is that Sodomy is behavior, not birth,
>> >>and thus is in the same category with all libertarian right wing conservative issues
>> >>supported by ACLU/Organized Crime like Drugs, Prostitution and Gambling and
>> >>thus the public has a right to make laws to control or ban it.
>> >Shaving is a behaviour. Free speech is a behaviour. Does the public
>> >have a right to ban those? There isn't even anything in the US
>> >Constitution that a ban on shaving would violate. You can make your
>> >feeble efforts at arguing semantics if you like, but the fact is that
>> >you took a particular behaviour and placed it in the same category as
>> >drug use (and in other posts, rape and murder) rather than with, say,
>> >heterosexual sex, going to the bathroom, shaving or reading a book.
>> >That is an expression of prejudice against homosexuality whether you're
>> >honest enough to admit it or not.
>> Free speech is protected by the First Amendment. Shaving is not.
>So homosexuality is comparable to shaving? Then why compare it instead
>to drug use, rape and murder? Therein lies the prejudice.
Shaving is not conssidered harmful to society by a significant block of the public.
Homosexuality is.
>> No prejudice here at all.
>Another example of your homophobia I was forced to snip due to space
>constraints was your continuing description of homosexuality as
>"deviant", as opposed to simply different, a term clearly intended to
>be derogatory.
Right, deviant is a pejorative term. Another man's faeces excrement.
Would you touch it if someone put some on the table in front of you ?
Another man's blood, coming from cuts in the anal tract mixing with your own,
resulting from unnatural acts occurring in the anal tract.
Would you inject another man's blood into your body ?
>> >"The following books, with page numbers, refer to the fact that many
>> >many homosexuals were sexually abused when young:"
>> >Note this - the fact that many homosexuals were sexual abused when
>> >young. They don't refer to the author's claim that sexual abuse is
>> >linked to homosexuality.
><snip>
Homosexual abuse when young related statistically to development of homosexuality in the youth.
That is standard research science.
>> This is a pretty large bibliography, a big target. Disproving this requires spending a
>> few hours in a large library.
>What bit of this isn't getting into your concrete-thick head? There is
>nothing to disprove because the bibliography itself doesn't claim to
>offer support for the idea that homosexuality is a result of sexual
>abuse.
Yes it does. That is what the statistics indicate. Just like your Italia study, which, since it
involves so few people and has yet to be repeated, is suspect.There is no credible evidence of genetic connection.
There is overwhelming evidence of a connection with homosexual abuse when young.
>> >>Which sheep study ? If you genuinely want something read, include the link,
>> >>every time you ask for it to be read.
>> >I posted three links - two to the Italian study, one to a study on
>> >sheep revealing a genetic basis for homosexuality.
>> >http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
>> Again, these claims of sheep homosexuality have yet to be replicated by anyone else.
>> It should also be recognized that sheep have been genetically manipulated heavily
>> for centuries. In many cases, these animals are impregnated with artificial insemination
>> injection by the sperm of a chosen ram (presumably the largest with the healthiest meat)
>> by the farmer, so what happens with sheep should not be considered Nature.
>Nature or otherwise, it can be considered genetic.
Not at all.
>> Most likely, male rams and female sheep are segregated from one another making
>> it impossible for the a sheep to be heterosexual.
>So a sheep can't be heterosexual unless engaged in heterosexual
>activity? Is this is an admission that heterosexuality is a learned
>behaviour?
Nonsense. The ewe has a will to express its innate heterosexuality and is prevented from doing so.
This may effect some damage to the brain of the ewe.
> Thus, what these researchers claimed
>> to have observed, such as brain differentiation may be an effect of denial of heterosexual
>> activity,
>The rams were offered a choice between male and female partners; there
>was no denial involved.
>> >No. One. Else. Knows. Anything. About. "Oz prison symbolism". No one
>> >else appears to have seen the series. All that's clear to us is that
>> >there is no obvious homosexual symbolism in Battlestar Galactica - no
>> >one else can draw comparisons with Oz because no one else has seen it
>> >and no one else has any idea what symbolism you're referring to.
>> Saturday Night Live has parodied the Sodomy in BSG
>With sketches that by your own admission bear no actual relation to any
>BSG episodes or characters?
When was that ever aqdmitted. Another false statement.
There is no question that there are numerous clear references to Battlestar Galactica
in the Saturday Night Live skits.
>>and TV Guide made reference to Apollo's homosexual ambiguity.
>Already covered by others - they asked the actor a question about it,
>presumably because he is the only major cast member whose relationship
>history hasn't been referred to in the show.
Obviously TV Guide has seen the same thing that I, SNL and many others saw.
>> >>Right here, you have made the case that the elites should rule, not the people.
>> >You really are struggling with your reading comprehension, aren't you?
>> >The point I made had nothing to do with who rules whom, save to the
>> >extent of pointing out that no one (elite or otherwise) should impose
>> >their desires upon those who do not share them. What you appear to want
>> >is mob rule, which is no more desirable than any other form of
>> >dictatorship.
>> How can a nation make laws if one tiny minority or another can veto them ?
>Who said anything about vetoes?
You are attacking "mob rule" which is a derogatory term for "democracy".
There is always going to be a small minority, or sometimes a large minority
which disagree with a law. Many laws pass 51-49 in the US Senate.
That is democracy.
>> Laws are generally not made against behaviors that are not harmful to people.
>Tell that to all the Afghans who lived under the Taliban. I didn't
>bring up the idea of a ban on shaving out of the blue. Also bear in
>mind that such things as women having voting rights and interracial
>marriage were once illegal; whatever constitutional law they may
>violate, they were laws that were passed by the governments of the
>time.
State governments only. The US federal government never passed those laws.
>> >>>Probably the majority of asexuals and most homosexuals don't want
>> >>>children, and many heterosexuals don't either.
>> >>What you describe is not real.
>> Again, you have truncated the point I made you are claiming to attempt to refute.
>> This is dishonest behavior.
>No, I am responding to the claim you made, which is that a desire not
>to have children is "not real". Point out how the context would be any
>different had I included the rest of this line.
Have no idea. The information in question is deleted.
>> Reasonable people are not going to believe anything you have to say when you truncate
>> my points before attacking them.
>> Do you think people are fools ?
>It's abundantly clear that you are.
Another personal attack.
>> >You don't see an inconsistency in this claim and the point you raise
>> >about falling fertility rates? Whatever your personal experiences, the
>> >fact is that fewer people are having children and those that do are
>> >having fewer of them. Plenty of people clearly do not place a
>> >particularly high value on having children.
>> Which claim ?
>The claim that "What you describe is not real". Is this short-term
>memory loss a medical problem or a consequence of cannabis or ecstasy
>abuse?
No idea to what you refer.
>> Homosexuality harms the continuation of the species which is an interest of practically
>> everyone on the planet. The dying out of a species or race is a significant fear of the
>> people in those groups. Perhaps a smaller fear than that of their own immediate murder,
>> but a fear nonetheless.
>> Thus, it cannot be claimed that homosexuality does not harm the interests of
>> the public at large.
>Explain how, in the real world where people have these 'fears' and
>homosexuality is found in only a small portion of the population,
>homosexuality will result in the species dying out. Not in a fantasy
>world where everyone of one or both sexes is homosexual.
Why should everyone else do the hard work of raising children while homosexuals
live it up without engaging in the work of civilization.
The presence of homosexuals in society no doubt depresses the fertility rate
of the heterosexuals around them.
>> >>I never stated that homosexuals did not have an attraction to each other.
>> >You stated that only the act of homosexual intercourse qualified one as
>> >homosexual; if they aren't engaged in that, however much they express
>> >attraction to one another, they can't be homosexual by your twisted
>> >logic.
>> What I have said is that there is no True Love between homosexuals.
>> That is the ludicrous part of the Apollo-Zerak conversation in Bastille Day,
>> right after Apollo had been symbolically Sodomized.
>> That involves respect of each other and the willingness to start a family.
>> Homosexuality is 99% about the homosex act.
>Only 99%, eh? That's 1% less than it was before by your definition.
>What supports your claim that homosexual relationships involve no
>mutual respect or "True Love"? If you like, I can point you at
>Xenephon or your beloved Plutarch when they mention that love between
>men is the purest form of love.
Where do they say this ?
At least you are not referring to Alexander, in this statement.
>> >>I think I have said that there is no "love" between these people.
>> >In that case you'd be wrong, but that's an irrelevant point.
>> It is important if you want to claim equivalence between Sodomy and heterosexual sex.
>Love has nothing to do with sex, so why would it be relevant?
Who says love has nothing to do with sex ?
That is what was ludicrous about the Bastille Day episode post-Sodomy conversation
between Apollo and Zerak.
>> >>Lip kissing is sexual activity and involves the sharing of bodily fluids.
>> >You really do insist on making yourself look stupid, don't you? Sexual
>> >activity involves the genitalia of one of both parties, it does not
>> >include kissing. Besides which your explicit case was that only
>> >'sodomy' qualifies as homosexual behaviour among men. In any case as I
>> >understand it in this episode (which I haven't yet seen) the Doctor
>> >doesn't kiss back, so there is no "sharing of bodily fluids". Hence the
>> >character can't be bisexual, right?
>> Kiss back ? You mean he does not open his mouth ?
>No, he doesn't. What else would I mean? It's the difference between
>kissing someone and two people kissing each other.
It is still disgusting and should be banned in the US.
>> >> http://www.infohub.com/Destinations/Europe-&-Russia/Fran ce/Paris/1078...
>> >Ah, here we go:
>> >"The Bastille Day Ball (July 13, 10pm-dawn), a wild open-air dance on
>> >the quai de la Tournelle, 5e (Mº Pont Marie), is free for all to join in."
>> >I see. So a celebration that everyone is invited to is especially
>> >important to homosexuals because it is mentioned in a guide for
>> >homosexuals? You don't suppose it's mentioned in guides for
>> >heterosexuals too?
>> They are describing Bastille Day as special for homosexuals.
>No, it's a guide for homosexuals that points out to them that
>Bastille Day is a special day of celebration in France. A guide for the
>general (largely non-homosexual) public would say the same. If a guide
>written specifically for homosexual tourists mentioned that the Eiffel
>Tower is a tourist attraction that's "for everyone", would that
>make the Eiffel Tower a monument with special homosexual significance?
That guide was mentioning the special inside dirt for the small minority of
homosexuals out there who want to meet up and hook up.
They are saying that Paris is the place and Bastille Day is the day to fly, drive,
bus, train, walk in to that great disco in the Paris sky, dance around on the dance floor
for a few minutes, ask each other "who's your daddy", like Zerak asked Apollo,
then head of to the men's room together to copulate quickly and
go back to the dance floor to find another partner.
>> >I mean, if you saw another man's faeces excrement on the table, would
>> >you even be inclined to put your hand in it ?
>> >Why always "faeces excrement", not one or the other? They mean exactly
>> >the same thing. In any case, while I'm no expert I was under the
>> >impression that what you insist on calling sodomy involved intercourse
>> >using the anal passage, not piles of faeces.
>> If you find the idea of touching another man's faeces excrement unpleasant,
>> how can you support the Hollywood Homosexuals determination to foist this behavior
>> in the face of the Science Fiction viewers who are just seeking to watch science fiction TV ?
>Firstly, there is no such "determination" to support. Secondly, as
>I mentioned homosexuality and coprophilia are not the same thing.
>Thirdly, even if there was and it was I'm not narrow-minded enough to
>equate personal disgust with a moral or legal issue. I can dislike
>something and still support others' right to engage in it. I dislike
>your bigotry, but I wouldn't say that you should be banned from
>spouting it, even in a public forum where people are just seeking to
>discuss science fiction TV.
bigotry = disagreement with your behavior which you foist on the general public
without their permission.
>> >>Why should parent or their kids be required to watch something like that in Sodomy TV
>> >>masquerading as Science Fiction TV ?
>> >Name a science fiction show that actually contains sodomy. Not
>> >symbolism that only you can see. Not imagery that might look
>> >superficially similar to anyone keeping a close eye out for it. The
>> >actual act.
>> As I have described in other threads like
>> "Hollywood Homosexuals sell Cigarettes to your kids; why not Sodomy ?",
>> the symbolism is more powerful than the act itself, since in many
>> minds of less perceptive people, this content has a powerful subliminal effect on people
>> and especially children's subconscious.
>Even if there were any such symbolism, which is clearly not the case,
>no one who didn't know what the act involved would understand it
>anyway, and if the idea's so disgusting, why would showing Apollo and
>Zarek fighting on the ground together suddenly make them think "hey,
>this sodomy thing's really great after all!"?
>Philip Bowles
Anyone who had seen Oz prison series on HBO (homosexual dominated US premium channel)
or by now, various other HBO series, would recognize the Sodomy symbolism.
Actually it is an associate of Zarek who physically engages in the Sodomy symbolisms
in Bastille Day and Colonial Day episodes.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9Sodomy direction [message #91348 ] |
Di, 26 Juli 2005 20:37 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:2uiFe.640880$3V6.500250 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
>
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CVeFe.634693$3V6.157782 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ZsaFe.569385$ub.269088 [at] fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-00C3A9.10123725072005 [at] newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <209Fe.130163$Qo.82813 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-4B757F.08100122072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <Q57Ee.89903$Qo.50591 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-436D0C.23301321072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <1HZDe.78477$Qo.14972 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it does. Civil Rights is not about legalizing behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Is heterosexuality only "behavior" to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Heterosexuality is normality. Even a child is assumed heterosexual until
>>>>>>>>>>>behavior proves otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You didn't address the question. Is YOUR sexual orientation only a
>>>>>>>>>>matter of behavior to you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That sounds like a personal question and I do not answer personal questions
>>>>>>>>>on the Usenet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And yet you feel comfortable with saying that the sexual orientation of
>>>>>>>>millions of people [is] about "behavior".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned
>>>>>>>to these very same homosex acts to which you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004.
>>>>>>>Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?
>>>>>
>>>>>You cannot legislate love, and people have to find love before they can
>>>>>form a family and start raising kids.
>>>>>People meander toward that naturally, on their own.
>>>>>Politics
>>>>
>>>>Just bs on your part. Nice dodge. There are plenty of couples too old to produce children and plenty of sterile ones.
>>>>Why are they allowed to get married if marriage is all about procreation?
>>>
>>>Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
>>>Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
>>>Politics
>>
>>You are still avoiding the question. It is obvious that you have no legitimate answer.
>
>
> I have dodged nothing.
> Sounds like you have a weak point and possess limited skills in the english language to make the point.
>
You have dodged the question completely, and none of the snipped crap
you posted came anywhere near the question.
Let's recap.
You stated:
"Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage"
to be assigned to these very same homosex acts to which you refer, 11
States out of 11, November 2004. Marriage is about children procreation
and nurturing. "
You were asked:
"Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or
nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?"
You have not answered, just danced around with more drivel.
Here is the question again.
If marriage is about children procreation and nuturing, why is it that
no state requires procreation as a condition of marriage?
Why should sterile couples or couples to old to bear children be allowed
to marry?
Let's see you next dance/dodge. You have no answer or you would provide it.
--
"What is true of every member of the society, individually,
is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the
whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the
individuals." --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #91352 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 05:44 |
|
>Does this mean that asexuality can't exist, because asexuals are just
>heterosexuals who aren't interested in having sex? And where do those
>asexuals who experience a non-sexual attraction to members of the same
>sex (myself among them) fit?
>Philip Bowles
"Never thought about it."
You? Didn't think? Astonishing.
"Someone engaging in Sodomy has made a definitive decision for
another man's faeces excrement"
As Secretary asked, why continue with this childish redundancy?
"and against the procreation and nurture of Life."
Even if it were possible to decide "against the procreation and nurture
of Life", it doesn't follow at all that homosexuals have decided
thusly.
"Asexuals like everyone else would be assumed heterosexual until
behavior defines them in another way."
Interesting. How exactly would an asexual behave in an asexual way
save, say, by not having sex with anyone?
Let's review where we've got to in the John Shocked definition of
heterosexuality, shall we? I'll remind you before we start of the
semantic meaning of the term "heterosexual", which is of course
"other-sex attraction" (well, technically just "other-sex" but it's
used to describe a form of attraction).
1. A person who is attracted to and chooses to have sex with a member
of the opposite sex exclusively is heterosexual. Agreed.
2. A person who is attracted to and chooses to have sex with a member
of the opposite sex exclusively, but who also experiences same-sex
attraction, is heterosexual rather than bisexual.
3. A person who is exclusively attracted to but chooses not to have sex
with a member of the opposite sex is heterosexual. Makes sense by and
large, but what if that attraction is not sexual (i.e. they're
asexual)?
4. A person who is attracted to both sexes but chooses not to have sex
with either is heterosexual. So bisexuals and many asexuals are
actually heterosexual.
5. A person who experiences no attraction, sexual or otherwise, to any
member of either sex and does not engage in sexual activity is
heterosexual. Now this is pushing it, given the complete absence of the
"other sex" criterion.
6. A person who experiences non-sexual attraction preferentially or
exclusively to a member of their own sex but who does not engage in
sexual activity is heterosexual. Now you've really stretched the term
beyond breaking point. Yours is the only definition of
"heterosexuality" I've ever heard that would qualify me as
heterosexual...
Philip Bowles
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #91355 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 09:27 |
|
"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:HpvFe.588937$pI6.538706 [at] fe06.news.easynews.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:2uiFe.640880$3V6.500250 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CVeFe.634693$3V6.157782 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ZsaFe.569385$ub.269088 [at] fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-00C3A9.10123725072005 [at] newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>In article <209Fe.130163$Qo.82813 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-4B757F.08100122072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <Q57Ee.89903$Qo.50591 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-436D0C.23301321072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <1HZDe.78477$Qo.14972 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it does. Civil Rights is not about legalizing behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is heterosexuality only "behavior" to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>Heterosexuality is normality. Even a child is assumed heterosexual until
>>>>>>>>>>>>behavior proves otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>You didn't address the question. Is YOUR sexual orientation only a
>>>>>>>>>>>matter of behavior to you?
>>>>>>>>>>That sounds like a personal question and I do not answer personal questions
>>>>>>>>>>on the Usenet.
>>>>>>>>>And yet you feel comfortable with saying that the sexual orientation of
>>>>>>>>>millions of people [is] about "behavior".
>>>>>>>>Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned
>>>>>>>>to these very same homosex acts to which you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004.
>>>>>>>>Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing.
>>>>>>>Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?
>>>>>>You cannot legislate love, and people have to find love before they can
>>>>>>form a family and start raising kids.
>>>>>>People meander toward that naturally, on their own.
>>>>>>Politics
>>>>>Just bs on your part. Nice dodge. There are plenty of couples too old to produce children and plenty of sterile ones.
>>>>>Why are they allowed to get married if marriage is all about procreation?
>>>>Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
>>>>Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
>>>>Politics
>>>You are still avoiding the question. It is obvious that you have no legitimate answer.
>> I have dodged nothing.
>> Sounds like you have a weak point and possess limited skills in the english language to make the point.
> You have dodged the question completely, and none of the snipped crap you posted came anywhere near the question.
> Let's recap.
> You stated:
> "Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned to these very same homosex acts to which
> you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004. Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing. "
> You were asked:
> "Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?"
> You have not answered, just danced around with more drivel.
> Here is the question again.
> If marriage is about children procreation and nurturing, why is it that no state requires procreation as a condition of marriage?
> Why should sterile couples or couples too old to bear children be allowed to marry?
> Let's see you next dance/dodge. You have no answer or you would provide it.
You never know whether a couple will be sterile.
There is no need to require procreation after marriage. That is natural.
However, surprisingly, Battlestar Galactica has shown circumstances where making babies
might become required by law, after a nuclear war.
Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #91356 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 11:03 |
|
"Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message news:42e6366f$0$24463$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> pbowles [at] aol.com wrote:
>>The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
>>> Hey, y'know, when you x-post to five different newsgroups, four of
>>> them focused on either a specific SF series or on SF in general, you
>>> automatically put yourself in the position of not being able to
>>> refer to "this" newsgroup in any meaningful way.
>> That's easy. Everyone on Usenet is in league with Hollywood
>> Homosexuals, so it's true of whichever newsgroup he happens to be in.
> You know, when my superiors at the International Homosexual
> Conspiracy Corporation(TM) (motto: "We can bugger you wholesale")
> told me to hang around posting in rec.arts.drwho for months on
> the off chance that John Shocked would start spamming the group,
> I thought they were crazy. But they were right! It's lucky that
> everyone in the group is in league with the IHCC (TM), or we
> might be in danger of our evil plot to Sell Sodomy to You and
> your Kids being exposed.
> Diane L.
Fortunately the Sodomy on TV in Dr. Who is not yet airing in the US, so I am
just responding to reports of this activity being forced on the Science Fiction viewers
in the UK. Knowing the US cable channel Scifi Channel, that might be just the
content they are looking for. I would not be surprised if Scifi Channel is drawing
up the papers. Although US commercial stations have an aversion to allowing
anything from the BBC into the US.
Sounds like you believe that if such a conspiracy existed in Sodomy Shows
masquerading as Science Fiction TV, selling Sodomy to you and your kids,
you would consider it "evil". Interesting.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #91358 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 11:03 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:42e6366f$0$24463$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>> You know, when my superiors at the International Homosexual
>> Conspiracy Corporation(TM) (motto: "We can bugger you wholesale")
>> told me to hang around posting in rec.arts.drwho for months on
>> the off chance that John Shocked would start spamming the group,
>> I thought they were crazy. But they were right! It's lucky that
>> everyone in the group is in league with the IHCC (TM), or we
>> might be in danger of our evil plot to Sell Sodomy to You and
>> your Kids being exposed.
>> Diane L.
>
> Fortunately the Sodomy on TV in Dr. Who is not yet airing in the US,
> so I am just responding to reports of this activity being forced on the
> Science Fiction viewers in the UK.
Actually, here in the UK we have this nifty new invention called an
"off switch". It means that if a TV channel is trying to force us to
watch something we don't like, we can turn it off. It even works
from the remote! Since on average about 8 million people didn't
use their off switch for Dr Who (or the even more advanced option
of "changing channels"), I don't see how you can support your
assertion that it was being forced on the viewers. I'm also not
clear on what "activity" you're refering to.
> Knowing the US cable channel Scifi Channel, that might be just the content
> they are looking for. I would not be surprised if Scifi Channel is
> drawing up the papers. Although US commercial stations have an aversion
> to allowing anything from the BBC into the US.
>
> Sounds like you believe that if such a conspiracy existed in Sodomy
> Shows masquerading as Science Fiction TV, selling Sodomy to you and your
> kids, you would consider it "evil". Interesting.
Well of course it would be evil. Advertising isn't allowed on the BBC.
Adverts for Sodomy should be where they belong, on ITV during
commercial breaks.
Diane L.
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #93269 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 12:02 |
|
<pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1122435895.749962.264410 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Does this mean that asexuality can't exist, because asexuals are just
>>heterosexuals who aren't interested in having sex? And where do those
>>asexuals who experience a non-sexual attraction to members of the same
>>sex (myself among them) fit?
>>Philip Bowles
> "Never thought about it."
> You? Didn't think? Astonishing.
> "Someone engaging in Sodomy has made a definitive decision for
> another man's faeces excrement"
> As Secretary asked, why continue with this childish redundancy?
> "and against the procreation and nurture of Life."
> Even if it were possible to decide "against the procreation and nurture
> of Life", it doesn't follow at all that homosexuals have decided
> thusly.
> "Asexuals like everyone else would be assumed heterosexual until
> behavior defines them in another way."
> Interesting. How exactly would an asexual behave in an asexual way
> save, say, by not having sex with anyone?
> Let's review where we've got to in the John Shocked definition of
> heterosexuality, shall we? I'll remind you before we start of the
> semantic meaning of the term "heterosexual", which is of course
> "other-sex attraction" (well, technically just "other-sex" but it's
> used to describe a form of attraction).
Again, there are only 2 states of sexualtiy. Heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Heterosexuality simply involves the absence of performance of homosexual homosex acts.
Politics
=================================================
> 1. A person who is attracted to and chooses to have sex with a member
> of the opposite sex exclusively is heterosexual. Agreed.
>
> 2. A person who is attracted to and chooses to have sex with a member
> of the opposite sex exclusively, but who also experiences same-sex
> attraction, is heterosexual rather than bisexual.
>
> 3. A person who is exclusively attracted to but chooses not to have sex
> with a member of the opposite sex is heterosexual. Makes sense by and
> large, but what if that attraction is not sexual (i.e. they're
> asexual)?
>
> 4. A person who is attracted to both sexes but chooses not to have sex
> with either is heterosexual. So bisexuals and many asexuals are
> actually heterosexual.
>
> 5. A person who experiences no attraction, sexual or otherwise, to any
> member of either sex and does not engage in sexual activity is
> heterosexual. Now this is pushing it, given the complete absence of the
> "other sex" criterion.
>
> 6. A person who experiences non-sexual attraction preferentially or
> exclusively to a member of their own sex but who does not engage in
> sexual activity is heterosexual. Now you've really stretched the term
> beyond breaking point. Yours is the only definition of
> "heterosexuality" I've ever heard that would qualify me as
> heterosexual...
>
> Philip Bowles
>
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #93270 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 12:36 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> Again, there are only 2 states of sexualtiy. Heterosexuality and
> homosexuality. Heterosexuality simply involves the absence of
> performance of homosexual homosex acts.
As opposed to heterosexual homosex acts?
Diane L.
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #93271 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 12:45 |
|
"Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message news:42e75759$0$89023$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message
>> news:42e6366f$0$24463$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>>> You know, when my superiors at the International Homosexual
>>> Conspiracy Corporation(TM) (motto: "We can bugger you wholesale")
>>> told me to hang around posting in rec.arts.drwho for months on
>>> the off chance that John Shocked would start spamming the group,
>>> I thought they were crazy. But they were right! It's lucky that
>>> everyone in the group is in league with the IHCC (TM), or we
>>> might be in danger of our evil plot to Sell Sodomy to You and
>>> your Kids being exposed.
>>> Diane L.
>> Fortunately the Sodomy on TV in Dr. Who is not yet airing in the US,
>> so I am just responding to reports of this activity being forced on the
>> Science Fiction viewers in the UK.
> Actually, here in the UK we have this nifty new invention called an
> "off switch". It means that if a TV channel is trying to force us to
> watch something we don't like, we can turn it off. It even works
> from the remote! Since on average about 8 million people didn't
> use their off switch for Dr Who (or the even more advanced option
> of "changing channels"), I don't see how you can support your
> assertion that it was being forced on the viewers. I'm also not
> clear on what "activity" you're refering to.
Certainly, a lot of people are switching channels on this new corrupt brand of Science Fiction.
In the US, shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation were pulling a 13 ratings and was the
3rd rated show in the US in the late 80's.
Now, the muck passing for science fiction today is exhilarated when they pull a 2 rating.
But why should viewers be chased away from their TVs. The objectionable content
should be government banned and then we can allow Hollywood to go back to being itself.
In advance of this, the US Congress must pass a law restricting the crooks on the US Supreme Court
from making any more corrupt First Amendment decisions for their
Hollywood Homosexual/ACLU/Organized Crime friends.
Then, US Congress needs to turnits attention to the media which is out of control.
>> Knowing the US cable channel Scifi Channel, that might be just the content they are looking for. I would not be surprised if
>> Scifi Channel is drawing up the papers. Although US commercial stations have an aversion to allowing anything from the BBC into
>> the US.
>> Sounds like you believe that if such a conspiracy existed in Sodomy
>> Shows masquerading as Science Fiction TV, selling Sodomy to you and your kids, you would consider it "evil". Interesting.
> Well of course it would be evil. Advertising isn't allowed on the BBC.
> Adverts for Sodomy should be where they belong, on ITV during
> commercial breaks.
> Diane L.
Advertisements for Sodomy should be banned completely.
By the way, can you describe the current status of Gambling on UK TV.
Changes in US law and regulations pushed over the past couple of years by the crooks on the
US Supreme Court have resulted in a sudden enormous amount of Poker gambling shows on TV and
even a TV series glamorizing Poker. (i.e. an explosion of boring TV shows portraying gamblers
sitting around a table in a casino wearing sunglasses; shows which work to advertise Gambling,
an Organized Crime product, rather than being good TV).
Anything like that going on, on TV in the UK ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #93272 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 12:58 |
|
"Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message
news:42e76399$0$88993$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> Again, there are only 2 states of sexualtiy. Heterosexuality and
>> homosexuality. Heterosexuality simply involves the absence of
>> performance of homosexual homosex acts.
>
> As opposed to heterosexual homosex acts?
>
> Diane L.
>
Shocked is one confused individual. I'm not a psychiatrist, but the term
"Paranoid Schizophrenia" comes to mind.
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #93276 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 14:33 |
|
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:HpvFe.588937$pI6.538706 [at] fe06.news.easynews.com...
> > John Shocked wrote:
> >> "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:2uiFe.640880$3V6.500250 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
> >>>John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CVeFe.634693$3V6.157782 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
> >>>>>John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ZsaFe.569385$ub.269088 [at] fe07.news.easynews.com...
> >>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-00C3A9.10123725072005 [at] newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>>>>>>>In article <209Fe.130163$Qo.82813 [at] fed1read01>,
> >>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-4B757F.08100122072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <Q57Ee.89903$Qo.50591 [at] fed1read01>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-436D0C.23301321072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <1HZDe.78477$Qo.14972 [at] fed1read01>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it does. Civil Rights is not about legalizing behavior.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is heterosexuality only "behavior" to you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Heterosexuality is normality. Even a child is assumed heterosexual until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>behavior proves otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>You didn't address the question. Is YOUR sexual orientation only a
> >>>>>>>>>>>matter of behavior to you?
> >>>>>>>>>>That sounds like a personal question and I do not answer personal questions
> >>>>>>>>>>on the Usenet.
> >>>>>>>>>And yet you feel comfortable with saying that the sexual orientation of
> >>>>>>>>>millions of people [is] about "behavior".
> >>>>>>>>Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned
> >>>>>>>>to these very same homosex acts to which you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004.
> >>>>>>>>Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing.
> >>>>>>>Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?
> >>>>>>You cannot legislate love, and people have to find love before they can
> >>>>>>form a family and start raising kids.
> >>>>>>People meander toward that naturally, on their own.
> >>>>>>Politics
> >>>>>Just bs on your part. Nice dodge. There are plenty of couples too old to produce children and plenty of sterile ones.
> >>>>>Why are they allowed to get married if marriage is all about procreation?
> >>>>Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
> >>>>Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
> >>>>Politics
> >>>You are still avoiding the question. It is obvious that you have no legitimate answer.
> >> I have dodged nothing.
> >> Sounds like you have a weak point and possess limited skills in the english language to make the point.
> > You have dodged the question completely, and none of the snipped crap you posted came anywhere near the question.
> > Let's recap.
> > You stated:
> > "Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned to these very same homosex acts to which
> > you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004. Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing. "
> > You were asked:
> > "Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?"
> > You have not answered, just danced around with more drivel.
> > Here is the question again.
> > If marriage is about children procreation and nurturing, why is it that no state requires procreation as a condition of marriage?
> > Why should sterile couples or couples too old to bear children be allowed to marry?
> > Let's see you next dance/dodge. You have no answer or you would provide it.
>
> You never know whether a couple will be sterile.
In some cases you do. By your reasoning my mother cannot remarry
because she's past the age of childbearing, nor can any woman who has ever
had a hysterectomy.
> There is no need to require procreation after marriage. That is natural.
And yet your definition of marriage does require it. Why is that
so?
> However, surprisingly, Battlestar Galactica has shown circumstances where making babies
> might become required by law, after a nuclear war.
I don't recall "required by law" in any episodes--you do have a
quote, right?
Why did you earlier say that NBC was trying to be subtle about their
support of Battlestar Galactica (since there was only a single possible
reference to BSG in one of the SNL scripts) when NBC has broadcast several
BSG episodes? Don't you see the contradiction?
> Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
> Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
Sure they can--all they need is either a sperm donor or a surrogate
mother. Heterosexual couples do the same thing when they want a child, so
why is it not okay for homosexual couples?
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"Geez, if you're going to get *this* upset whenever I do something stupid,
then I guess I'll just have to stop doing stupid things!"
-- Homer Simpson
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #93278 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 17:38 |
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2 [at] THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message news:kNJFe.5601$6f.4605 [at] newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message news:42e76399$0$88993$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> Again, there are only 2 states of sexualtiy. Heterosexuality and
>>> homosexuality. Heterosexuality simply involves the absence of
>>> performance of homosexual homosex acts.
>> As opposed to heterosexual homosex acts?
>> Diane L.
> Shocked is one confused individual. I'm not a psychiatrist, but the term "Paranoid Schizophrenia" comes to mind.
==============================================
<WGRG3 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message news:29054-42D1DC6E-624 [at] storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net...
> OK, I watched the three episodes on NBC, and I am afraid I am pretty
> lost story wise, on BSG. Why does everyone keep Hallucinating on the
> show? And just who is the Blonde girl who is in the Docs dreams, or
> Hallucinations? And did I see what I thought I saw at the end of the
> third episode, is he "really dead", or was that just another
> Hallucination? Thanks!
Hallucinations in a TV series often are a subtle advertisement for Drugs, legal or otherwise.
The reference to the BSG invented drug Chamalla in this series indicate that the
Hollywood Homosexuals behind this script want the viewers to think about inducing
such hallucinations through drug use.
The ACLU libertarian right wingers are just as determined to legalize drug use as to
legalize the homosexual agenda.
There is no question that Hollywood Homosexual public relation workers are
determined to sell Drugs/Pharmaceuticals to the US through Movies and TV.
"Michael Grosberg" <preacher_mg [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1121207012.849565.180390 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> He needs to do a lot of things, the only problem is, he is crazy. as
> in, having-a-mental-disorder, schizophrenic, crazy. "Hollywood is
> Bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:41:51 -0500, Richard L Hamer
>> <rlhamer [at] raytheon.com> wrote:
Every time I see these weird allegations of psychiatric problems here an alarm bell
has gone off with me. That is, there is more to this than meets the eye.
Then, when the whole Tom Cruise Brooke Shields issue came to light it clicked.
Public relations firms are selling pharmaceuticals now in a variety of overt ways and
one of those ways is in Hollywood movies and through Hollywood celebrities.
And of course, through there public relations hacks who work here on the Usenet Newsgroups.
Usually these personal attacks are accompanied with the allegation that the
target should "take his meds", which this hack appeared to forget this time out..
Dangerous pharmaceuticals like Paxil, which Brooke Shields was trying to sell
to the public, claiming wild claims about post-partum depression
(which somehow her baby survived).
Federal prosecutors, the Federal Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission
need to investigate whether there is any connection between crooked pharmaceutical
companies like GlaxoSmithKline and public relations firms and whether any
of them lead to Hollywood.
We already know that the reference to drugs in the movie A Beautiful Mind was fraudulent.
The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with the help of
pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #93318 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 04:44 |
|
There's a famous joke about a man who goes to see a psychiatrist. The
pychiatrist gives the man an ink-blot test. When the psychiatrist shows
him the first ink blot, the man says, "That's a man and a woman having
sex!" When the psychiatrist shows him the second ink blot, the man
says, "That's two dogs having sex!" When the psychiatrist shows him the
third ink blot, the man says, "That's two people having sex again, but
from a different angle!"
The psychiatrist says to the man, "You seem to think about sex a lot."
The man answers, "Me?!? Hey, you're the one who's showing me all those
dirty pictures!"
That's John Shocked. Or possibly, "the character known as John
Shocked," because I'm not convinced his posts don't represent one big,
extended hoax. But maybe I underestimate the ability of people to stick
to their delusions.
John Shocked simply cannot stop thinking about gay sex. If a character
in a TV show sas, "That's my father!", John Shocked remembers an
outdated theory that a bad relationship between a father and a son
causes homosexuality, and he thinks the show must be talking about
gays. When he sees a character thrown in the brig for some infraction,
he remembers that the prison show Oz (which, clearly, had a VERY strong
effect on him) had a lot of male-on-male rape in it, so the scene in
the brig is really about sodomy. When a character says "I am not a
Cylon!", John Shocked thinks that sounds a lot like saying "I am not a
homosexual!", so the show must be promoting homosexuality. (That last
one is my favorite.)
And so on and so on and so on. I feel sure that if John Shocked saw
Oscar the Grouch on Sesame Street, he would insist that the character
and the show were actually pushing sodomy, because Oscar Wilde was a
sodomite. (This is even before we get to Bert and Ernie.)
The images that appear on the TV shows are actually just ink blots to
him, on which he projects whatever he happens to have in his mind. And
what John Shocked has in his mind is a great whole lot of gay sex!
I wouldn't want to speculate why, at least not without more
information. It could be, of course, that he's repressing very strong
gay feelings, and this is the way they come out (if you'll excuse the
expression). But that's not the only possibility. It could be a phobia
about gay sex - people spend a lot of time thinking about things
they're scared of, without necessarily desiring those things,
consciously or unconsciously. There are other explanations as well.
But the one thing we can be sure of is that it has nothing to do with
BattleStar Galactica, which to date has absolutely no gay content at
all.
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9Sodomy direction [message #93326 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 05:55 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:HpvFe.588937$pI6.538706 [at] fe06.news.easynews.com...
>
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:2uiFe.640880$3V6.500250 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CVeFe.634693$3V6.157782 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ZsaFe.569385$ub.269088 [at] fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-00C3A9.10123725072005 [at] newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <209Fe.130163$Qo.82813 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-4B757F.08100122072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <Q57Ee.89903$Qo.50591 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-436D0C.23301321072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <1HZDe.78477$Qo.14972 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it does. Civil Rights is not about legalizing behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is heterosexuality only "behavior" to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heterosexuality is normality. Even a child is assumed heterosexual until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>behavior proves otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You didn't address the question. Is YOUR sexual orientation only a
>>>>>>>>>>>>matter of behavior to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That sounds like a personal question and I do not answer personal questions
>>>>>>>>>>>on the Usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And yet you feel comfortable with saying that the sexual orientation of
>>>>>>>>>>millions of people [is] about "behavior".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned
>>>>>>>>>to these very same homosex acts to which you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004.
>>>>>>>>>Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You cannot legislate love, and people have to find love before they can
>>>>>>>form a family and start raising kids.
>>>>>>>People meander toward that naturally, on their own.
>>>>>>>Politics
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just bs on your part. Nice dodge. There are plenty of couples too old to produce children and plenty of sterile ones.
>>>>>>Why are they allowed to get married if marriage is all about procreation?
>>>>>
>>>>>Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
>>>>>Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
>>>>>Politics
>>>>
>>>>You are still avoiding the question. It is obvious that you have no legitimate answer.
>>>
>>>I have dodged nothing.
>>>Sounds like you have a weak point and possess limited skills in the english language to make the point.
>>
>>You have dodged the question completely, and none of the snipped crap you posted came anywhere near the question.
>>Let's recap.
>>You stated:
>>"Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned to these very same homosex acts to which
>>you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004. Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing. "
>>You were asked:
>>"Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?"
>>You have not answered, just danced around with more drivel.
>>Here is the question again.
>>If marriage is about children procreation and nurturing, why is it that no state requires procreation as a condition of marriage?
>>Why should sterile couples or couples too old to bear children be allowed to marry?
>>Let's see you next dance/dodge. You have no answer or you would provide it.
>
>
> You never know whether a couple will be sterile.
> There is no need to require procreation after marriage. That is natural.
> However, surprisingly, Battlestar Galactica has shown circumstances where making babies
> might become required by law, after a nuclear war.
> Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
> Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
>
> Politics
>
>
You are still dancing around and around. You clearly have no answer to
the question. The question is still why does no state require
procreation as a condition of marriage?
You stated that marriage was all about procreation and nuturing. You
are now backpeddling at 90 miles an hour. If that is what marriage is,
why is there no state that requires it?
You have no defensible postion it would appear, so you just keep on
singing and dancing.
--
"What is true of every member of the society, individually,
is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the
whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the
individuals." --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #95650 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:31 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050727082241.7362D-100000 [at] mail...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:HpvFe.588937$pI6.538706 [at] fe06.news.easynews.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:2uiFe.640880$3V6.500250 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> >>>John Shocked wrote:
>> >>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CVeFe.634693$3V6.157782 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> >>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>> >>>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ZsaFe.569385$ub.269088 [at] fe07.news.easynews.com...
>> >>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-00C3A9.10123725072005 [at] newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>>>>>>>>In article <209Fe.130163$Qo.82813 [at] fed1read01>,
>> >>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-4B757F.08100122072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <Q57Ee.89903$Qo.50591 [at] fed1read01>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-436D0C.23301321072005 [at] newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <1HZDe.78477$Qo.14972 [at] fed1read01>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it does. Civil Rights is not about legalizing behavior.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is heterosexuality only "behavior" to you?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Heterosexuality is normality. Even a child is assumed heterosexual until
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>behavior proves otherwise.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>You didn't address the question. Is YOUR sexual orientation only a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>matter of behavior to you?
>> >>>>>>>>>>That sounds like a personal question and I do not answer personal questions
>> >>>>>>>>>>on the Usenet.
>> >>>>>>>>>And yet you feel comfortable with saying that the sexual orientation of
>> >>>>>>>>>millions of people [is] about "behavior".
>> >>>>>>>>Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned
>> >>>>>>>>to these very same homosex acts to which you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004.
>> >>>>>>>>Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing.
>> >>>>>>>Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?
>> >>>>>>You cannot legislate love, and people have to find love before they can
>> >>>>>>form a family and start raising kids.
>> >>>>>>People meander toward that naturally, on their own.
>> >>>>>>Politics
>> >>>>>Just bs on your part. Nice dodge. There are plenty of couples too old to produce children and plenty of sterile ones.
>> >>>>>Why are they allowed to get married if marriage is all about procreation?
>> >>>>Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
>> >>>>Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
>> >>>>Politics
>> >>>You are still avoiding the question. It is obvious that you have no legitimate answer.
>> >> I have dodged nothing.
>> >> Sounds like you have a weak point and possess limited skills in the english language to make the point.
>> > You have dodged the question completely, and none of the snipped crap you posted came anywhere near the question.
>> > Let's recap.
>> > You stated:
>> > "Absolutely. Millions of people voted not to allow the term "marriage" to be assigned to these very same homosex acts to which
>> > you refer, 11 States out of 11, November 2004. Marriage is about children procreation and nurturing. "
>> > You were asked:
>> > "Yet there is absolute no requirement by any state to procreate or nuture children. If that is what it is about, why?"
>> > You have not answered, just danced around with more drivel.
>> > Here is the question again.
>> > If marriage is about children procreation and nurturing, why is it that no state requires procreation as a condition of
>> > marriage?
>> > Why should sterile couples or couples too old to bear children be allowed to marry?
>> > Let's see you next dance/dodge. You have no answer or you would provide it.
>> You never know whether a couple will be sterile.
> In some cases you do. By your reasoning my mother cannot remarry because she's
> past the age of childbearing, nor can any woman who has ever had a hysterectomy.
There is always the possibility for them to have a child. They have a right to give it a try
along with advances in medicine, their child bearing capability could be activated.
>> There is no need to require procreation after marriage. That is natural.
> And yet your definition of marriage does require it. Why is that so?
I never required it. I do require the intent to have the biologiucal children of the 2 parties to the marriage.
>> However, surprisingly, Battlestar Galactica has shown circumstances where making babies
>> might become required by law, after a nuclear war.
> I don't recall "required by law" in any episodes--you do have a quote, right?
> Why did you earlier say that NBC was trying to be subtle about their
> support of Battlestar Galactica (since there was only a single possible
> reference to BSG in one of the SNL scripts) when NBC has broadcast several
> BSG episodes? Don't you see the contradiction?
===========================================================
>Absolutely *no* reference to Battlestar Galactica, these sketches
>clearly refer to the anal probes that some people claim that UFOs performed
>on them. So as we can see, John is once again lying when he says these SNL
>sketches refer to BSG. *Why* do you keep lying about Battlestar Galactica,
>John? Is it that you can't help it?
The reference to the "Galacticon" in the first in this series of 3 Gays In Space skits,
which is the name of a Battlestar Galactica fan convention, is obvious.
That first one aired on February 12 2005, just 3 weeks after the Jan 21 2005
airing of the Bastille Day episode which made clear that homosexual content
wasw being pushed subtlely and subliminally in the BSG series.
That first one also made references to the need to "have babies" which is almost
an exact quote of the BSG President [Roslin] who wished to expand the population
after most of the BSG colonies population was wiped out by Cylon attack.
This skillful SNL writing parodied the BSG homosexuality more acutely, because
of course selling Sodomy in the BSG storyline and then claiming they need to have
children creates an obvious dilemma. of logistics.
All three of the SNL skits were excellent works by their writers.
BSG Miniseries: "The human race is about to be wiped out. We have 50,000 people left,
and that's it. Now, if we are even going to survive as a species, then we need
to get the hell out of here and we need to start having babies. "
SNL Parody 1: "The only way our people can survive is by joining together to procreate."
It is obvious.
============================================================
>> Married couples are always amazing people having children at more and more advanced ages.
>> Homosexual marriage can never generate biological children, no matter what the ages.
> Sure they can--all they need is either a sperm donor or a surrogate
> mother. Heterosexual couples do the same thing when they want a child, so
> why is it not okay for homosexual couples?
Sperm donor = non-biological.
A child should be the biological genetic descendant of both parents.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #95651 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:37 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> Homosexuality is deviant behavior. Like using Drugs. Or Gambling away one's paycheck.
> Or engaging in Prostitution. It is up to Congress and State governments to decide how much
> tolerance of these behaviors society should have.
How do you know this, are you a homosexual?
-- Fritz ...
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #95652 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:37 |
|
"Nick" <nicholascooper88 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42e36915.152953 [at] news.freeuk.net...
> this is a doctor who board. no one here cares you screwball.
There is homosexuality in the new Doctor Who series and thus it should be banned from
US TV until that homosexuality is removed from the series.
Politics
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:46:28 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Wally Waltripp aka Talladega Rastus" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
>>news:307-42759E07-85 [at] storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
>>> Do you really think The Adventures of Cueball" is the "Holy Grail"
>>> against which all subsequent scifi shows are measured, Shocko? A scary
>>> thought. You didn't like Deep Throat 9? [[DS9]] speaking of Cueball,
>>> d'you remember that ep when Riker is hitting up that...girl[?] from that
>>> supposedly androgynous race? Wasn't that just a shameful apologist forum
>>
>>First off, define: Cueball. Sounds like a character in the series Sliders.
>>Second, I faintly remember Riker being involved in something repulsive like that.
>>You would have to post which episode name and year it was for me to look it
>>up and comment upon it.
>>
>>If it was The Outcast, the records show that that episode first aired 03/16/1992, which
>>was right in the middle of the Clinton campaign for President which I have discussed
>>previously as the real turning point when Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives
>>took control in Hollywood and in the country.
>>
>>And it works right into the timeline of being 5 months after the 10/24/1991
>>Death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the Star Trek franchise by Rick Berman.
>>Suddenly, the Star Trek:The Next Generation (TNG) actors were being asked
>>to read scripts which expanded on the idea of Sodomy being 'just another life choice'
>>and Stewart it seems, to his credit, reacted against this.
>>
>>Politics
>>
>>
>>===================================================
>>In these 1994 SNL skits, Patrick Stewart says: "say No to anal sex !". As such,
>>Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night Live
>>scripts clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took
>>at that time when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals.
>>
>>Of course, Star Trek: The Next Generation was the Gold Standard against which
>>all the other subsequent science fiction shows are measured.
>>
>>In 1994, this was Star Trek:TNG's last year (1987-1994) and Star Trek:Deep
>>Space Nine was the new series (1993-1999) taking over. Gene Roddenberry died
>>on Oct 24 1991 and Rick Berman took over control of the Star Trek franchise.
>>One clear difference between the two series was Sodomy. ST DS9 has deep
>>Sodomy symbolisms written directly into the storyline
>>
>>Terry Farrell (a woman) had a symbiont/symbiant inside her which was a man.
>>And in fact, she was referred to by Sisko as "Old Man" on a regular basis. In
>>addition, this ridiculous script item allowed the Rick Berman Hollywood
>>Homosexuals to write into the script scenarios where Terry Farrell (a woman;
>>note how even the actress's name is sexually ambiguous) has affairs physically
>>with other women, such as with Susanna Thompson in the episode Rejoined.
>>
>>Clearly, this homosexuality which had taken over the Star Trek franchise, was
>>killing it, since I am sure I am not the only guy who stopped watching Star
>>Trek product around this period.
>>
>>Patrick Stewart as the elder statesman of the franchise at this point clearly
>>was intent, in the writing of these Saturday Night Live scripts, on denouncing
>>the Rick Berman Hollywood Homosexuals who took over the Star Trek franchise
>>in 1991 and who still have control of Star Trek content.
>>
>>Here is Rick Berman encouraging homosexuals to pose him questions about
>>introducing Sodomy into the Star Trek scripts by interviewing with an obscure
>>homosexual publication in order to generate fake support for Sodomy on the
>>series. I doubt Roddenberry would even have talked to this rag.
>>
>>http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/braga2003.html
>>
>>Politics
>>
>>
>
>
>
> http://www.geocities.com/hazelldean2000/
>
> Winner of the RADW award for the person you would most like to meet over a cold beer.
>
> Hazell Dean - Hi-NRG disco diva. Worship at her altar.
>
>
> ·.·´¨ ¨)) -:¦:-
> ¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
> HDF
> ((¸¸.·´ ..·´
> -:¦:- ((¸¸
> ·.·
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #95653 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:44 |
|
In article <lZrGe.188970$Qo.136419 [at] fed1read01>,
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> I never required it. I do require the intent to have the biologiucal
> children of the 2 parties to the marriage.
REALLY? Those who don't intend to have children should be banned from
marriage?? Wow, talk about your thought police!
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #95660 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 01:53 |
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-43F7F8.08451029072005 [at] newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <lZrGe.188970$Qo.136419 [at] fed1read01>,
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I never required it. I do require the intent to have the biological
>> children of the 2 parties to the marriage.
> REALLY? Those who don't intend to have children should be banned from
> marriage?? Wow, talk about your thought police!
That is the purpose of marriage. Child procreation and nurturing.
Those not interested in that should stay away from the idea of marriage.
The biological DNA children of both parents or stay away.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #95662 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 02:19 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> Homosexuality is deviant behavior. Like using Drugs. Or Gambling away one's paycheck.
> Or engaging in Prostitution. It is up to Congress and State governments to decide how much
> tolerance of these behaviors society should have.
I know it's rude to stare at the afflicted. On the other hand, let's
stare and stare and stare!
This guy is a half-wit, a puddle, an embarrassment to the species.
Just for the hell of it:
Waffling like a nob on the Internet is deviant behaviour.
Bad punctuation and fragmentary grammar is deviant behaviour.
American spelling of 'behaviour' as "behavior" is deviant behaviour.
Wearing contact lenses is deviant behaviour.
All creativity is deviant behaviour. All symbolism, all irony, all
metaphor, all intelligence.....
We deviate, that's the Human Race! I don't suppose Darwin figures in
your viewpoint, Mr Whatever-Your-Real-Name-Is, or else you would know
that deviancy is Nature's Creativity. Without deviation there is no
progression beyond the logic already imposed in the first statement or
coding. By your reckoning, we should all still be protoplasm. Come to
think of it, you are at least arguing for something personal...
I'd love, one day, to see the Definition of Normality, the one that
doesn't need deviancy against which to define itself. It's a Treasure
so Rare, this Definition of Normality: held deep within the Inner
Sanctum of the High Office of The Normal, it's rarely allowed out of
its Vault in case it comes into contact with Reality, in which case it
would dissolve into dust, and the High Priests of Normality would have
to climb off their illusory high horses and get on with the rest of us
deviants.
The Bronze
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9Sodomy direction [message #95665 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 03:51 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-43F7F8.08451029072005 [at] newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>In article <lZrGe.188970$Qo.136419 [at] fed1read01>,
>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I never required it. I do require the intent to have the biological
>>>children of the 2 parties to the marriage.
>>
>>REALLY? Those who don't intend to have children should be banned from
>>marriage?? Wow, talk about your thought police!
>
>
> That is the purpose of marriage. Child procreation and nurturing.
> Those not interested in that should stay away from the idea of marriage.
> The biological DNA children of both parents or stay away.
>
> Politics
>
>
>
Then why is it that you are unable to answer the simple question: Why
does no state require procreation as a condition of marriage?
--
"What is true of every member of the society, individually,
is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the
whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the
individuals." --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
| Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #95667 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 06:24 |
|
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:51:45 GMT, "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com>
wrote:
>John Shocked wrote:
>> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-43F7F8.08451029072005 [at] newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>In article <lZrGe.188970$Qo.136419 [at] fed1read01>,
>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I never required it. I do require the intent to have the biological
>>>>children of the 2 parties to the marriage.
>>>
>>>REALLY? Those who don't intend to have children should be banned from
>>>marriage?? Wow, talk about your thought police!
>>
>>
>> That is the purpose of marriage. Child procreation and nurturing.
>> Those not interested in that should stay away from the idea of marriage.
>> The biological DNA children of both parents or stay away.
>>
>> Politics
>>
>>
>>
>
>Then why is it that you are unable to answer the simple question: Why
>does no state require procreation as a condition of marriage?
They did it simply and solely to piss off John Shocked.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 17:15:04 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09061 Sekunden |
