SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction

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

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Science Fiction » alt.startrek » SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction

SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80435]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 03:46

John Shocked

"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

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80440 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 04:10

Mutts

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
>

You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
"Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
in the future or, no queers?
-Rich

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80441 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 04:48

John Shocked

"RichA" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message news:3uqgd1lprkqbh2o3evqg0abf2shknnumub [at] 4ax.com...
> 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
> You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
> squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
> once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
> "Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
> but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
> in the future or, no queers?
> -Rich

I did not see those pieces so I have no idea. When it comes to dealing with Hollywood
from 1992 on, you either play homosexuals as the rite of passage or you do not work.
How many jobs can you think of where you have to engage in Sodomy to obtain work ?
Sounds like sexual harassment to me in any other profession.

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80442 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 04:59

pbowles

>>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
>
>
>
>You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
>squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
>once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
>"Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
>but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
>in the future or, no queers?
>
>Ah yes, but you see, in the X-Men films he's always trying to foil Ian McKellan's schemes, so he must be anti-gay, right?

This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
"Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
best example) and references to discrimination against black people
that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.

The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80444 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 05:51

John Shocked

<pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121482787.590224.280430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>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
>>You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
>>squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
>>once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
>>"Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
>>but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
>>in the future or, no queers?
>>Ah yes, but you see, in the X-Men films he's always trying to foil
>> Ian McKellan's schemes, so he must be anti-gay, right?

> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the

This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or after
Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
this muck began to appear.

> best example) and references to discrimination against black people
> that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
> note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
> Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay

Is this a fact admitted by Roddenberry's son or another wild accusation.
Present a URL here from the web documenting his son's homosexuality.

> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been

Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality behavior
choices are comparable to being born with black skin. And black people have
reacted with anger toward this malicious association. As I have mentioned, black
and hispanics vote in higher proportions against the homosexual agenda than
white people when Homosexual issues are on ballot questions.
Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition comparable
to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexual's at all.

> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact

The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy in
their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular basis.
The Federal Communications Commission needs to ban this Sodomy content in
Science Fiction TV. When the FCC does that, let us see how many of the current
Science Fiction producers continue in that line of work and how many quit and
resume their habits at the local bathhouse.

> that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
> alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.

Rubbish. The symbiont trill was a man or Sisko would not be calling her "Old Man".

> The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
> always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
> bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
> towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
> and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
> about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
> homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.
> Philip Bowles

Again this is the con. Black people are comparable to people who choose to put
their male procreative organ in contact with another man's faeces excrement.
To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are "homophobes".
How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
These hypocritical claims are ridiculous.

================================================
Civil Rights are about being able to engage in society and society's
commerce regardless of what you looked like when you were born.
A black man or woman is not granted any additional rights to engage
in conduct that were not legal to white males in the first place
by Civil Rights.
It merely allows one to commit the same acts an average white male
was at birth able to commit.

Civil Liberties, which is a libertarian idea (extreme right wing -- get
the government out of my life) is what you are reaching for.
That is where right wing organizations like the ACLU have stood
side by side with homosexuals and Organized Crime to fight for
the legalization or at least the decriminalization of one vice after
another, which were illegal for an average white man to commit
at one time or another.

Society has never yielded the right to pass laws to regulate Behavior,
like Sodomy or Drug Use, or Gambling.
And with the sudden increase in Gambling (poker) on TV recently,
one has to assume that something under the table has changed in
the laws or FCC regulations which govern Gambling on TV, recently.
Of course Hollywood Homosexuals had already assaulted women with
the Organized Crime Prostitution content in the Julia Roberts movie
Pretty Woman (1990), which itself was a major turning point in the corruption of Hollywood.

Thus, every Organized Crime known product is being sold in Hollywood movies
right now. The corrupt US power nexus enabling this debasement of the country is:
1) US Supreme Court,
2) Hollywood Homosexual in the Media/Press,
3) ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and
4) Organized Crime.

This nexus represents the true greatest danger to the country at this time.

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80457 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 09:30

pbowles

<pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121482787.590224.280430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>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
>>You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
>>squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
>>once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
>>"Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
>>but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
>>in the future or, no queers?
>>Ah yes, but you see, in the X-Men films he's always trying to foil
>> Ian McKellan's schemes, so he must be anti-gay, right?
> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the

>This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or after
>Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
>this muck began to appear.

These particular episodes, but Roddenberry himself always intended to
write a morality play - he simply dressed it up as sci-fi to get it
aired by the networks. There's one story where one of the actors said
to him "I get it, you're writing a morality play, aren't you?" to which
Roddenberry's response was "ssh, don't tell anyone - they haven't
figured it out yet". What was that story with the white-and-black
people fighting the black-and-white people? A pretty blatant
anti-racism episode, playing off a social issue of the time.
Homosexuality wasn't in the public consciousness to any extent then,
but if there had been a vocal anti-gay movement there's little doubt
Roddenberry would endorse episodes promoting tolerance

>> best example) and references to discrimination against black people
>> that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
>> note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
>> Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
>
>
>Is this a fact admitted by Roddenberry's son or another wild accusation.
>Present a URL here from the web documenting his son's homosexuality.

Oops, my mistake, it was his grandson:

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/vvp/news2.html

By the way, if you can't demonstrate intelligence it would be
appreciated if you could at least demonstrate civility - assuming
dishonesty on the part of people you're talking to without checking the
facts for yourself would be insulting if it appeared you had any grip
on reality. It is not my place to prove my honesty; if you soubt or
want to dispute something I've said, look it up yourself before casting
aspersions.

>> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>
>
>Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality behavior
>choices are comparable to being born with black skin.

Read what I wrote - I wrote 'minority groups'. Black people, Arabs,
Chinese and homosexuals are all examples of minority groups, and all
save homosexuals have been portrayed by cast members in Star Trek.

> And black people have
>reacted with anger toward this malicious association. As I have mentioned, black
>and hispanics vote in higher proportions against the homosexual agenda than
>white people when Homosexual issues are on ballot questions.
>Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition comparable
>to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexual's at all.

Blatant misdirection - you certainly seem to be going out of your way
to prove yourself dishonest. There is no 'accusation' of any sort
involved; both are comparable to the extent that they are minority
groups often treated with hostility by the intolerant.

>> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>
>
>The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy in
>their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular basis.

You do realise what sodomy is, don't you? It isn't references to
possibly veiled transexuality and it isn't innuendo. It isn't even
same-sex kissing. It's a sexual act that has never been depicted on
Star Trek, Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica or any other sci-fi series that
I'm aware of, so you're simply talking rubbish.

>> that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
>> alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>
>
>Rubbish. The symbiont trill was a man or Sisko would not be calling her "Old Man".

Uh, have you actually paid attention to any of the stories or were you
just watching to find something to rave about? The 'Old Man' was Curzon
Dax, the symbiont's previous *host* who Sisko had known before Jadzia,
not the symbiont. The ratio of males to females among previous hosts
was roughly 50/50 as I remember.

>> The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
>> always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
>> bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
>> towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
>> and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
>> about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
>> homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.
>> Philip Bowles
>
>
>Again this is the con. Black people are comparable to people who choose to put
>their male procreative organ in contact with another man's faeces excrement.

Again this is deliberate misdirection. Homophobia is comparable to
racism, both entailing an irrational hatred of differences in others (a
hatred which, from your continual use of terms like 'deviant', it is
very clear you share) - it's a non sequitur to claim that that is
equivalent to saying black people are comparable to homosexuals.

>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are "homophobes".
>How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
>disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.

That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing
to notice, and your homophobic motives are abundantly clear from your
use of disparaging rhetoric and blatant stereotyping, not to mention
your loony idea that homosexuals are behind everything that's bad in
the world. Maybe next you'll try arguing that all the conspiracy nuts
who believe in a 'Zionist conspiracy' to control the planet aren't
really anti-Semitic.

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80458 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 10:18

John Shocked

<pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121499007.957063.146020 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1121482787.590224.280430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>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
>>>You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
>>>squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
>>>once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
>>>"Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
>>>but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
>>>in the future or, no queers?
>>>Ah yes, but you see, in the X-Men films he's always trying to foil
>>> Ian McKellan's schemes, so he must be anti-gay, right?
>> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
>> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
>> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
>> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
>>This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or after
>>Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
>>this muck began to appear.
> These particular episodes, but Roddenberry himself always intended to
> write a morality play - he simply dressed it up as sci-fi to get it
> aired by the networks. There's one story where one of the actors said
> to him "I get it, you're writing a morality play, aren't you?" to which
> Roddenberry's response was "ssh, don't tell anyone - they haven't
> figured it out yet". What was that story with the white-and-black
> people fighting the black-and-white people? A pretty blatant
> anti-racism episode, playing off a social issue of the time.

I do not remember that episode. But race is a settled issue. There was a war
fought over it and then crooked US Supreme Court Judges allowed segregation,
another civil rights battle ensued.
The country has never accepted that 'Sodomy's ok'.

> Homosexuality wasn't in the public consciousness to any extent then,
> but if there had been a vocal anti-gay movement there's little doubt
> Roddenberry would endorse episodes promoting tolerance

This is an absurd statement. Compared to today's 'science fiction' there
were huge amounts of science fiction in Roddenberry's work.
Taking on big issues in TV scripts is quite normal but the difference here is that
the US public and the population of most countries is overwhelmingly opposed to
the homosexual agenda. Thus, this content is more force feeding the public
positive advertisement of Sodomy rather than honest issue treatment.

>>> best example) and references to discrimination against black people
>>> that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
>>> note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
>>> Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
>>Is this a fact admitted by Roddenberry's son or another wild accusation.
>>Present a URL here from the web documenting his son's homosexuality.
> Oops, my mistake, it was his grandson:
> http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/vvp/news2.html
> By the way, if you can't demonstrate intelligence it would be
> appreciated if you could at least demonstrate civility - assuming
> dishonesty on the part of people you're talking to without checking the
> facts for yourself would be insulting if it appeared you had any grip
> on reality. It is not my place to prove my honesty; if you doubt or
> want to dispute something I've said, look it up yourself before casting
> aspersions.

In truth, that document says that this chump was the Step-Grandson of
Gene Roddenberry, which means they share no blood or DNA.
To allow yourself to be used against your own Step-Grandfather is pretty deviant
behavior, and thus this does not help the cause of the homosexual agenda.

It is common here and in other Sodomy promotion environments to make these
false accusations, often about people long Dead.
As a ground rule, if I were you in any discussion anywhere about the homosexual
agenda, I would document any accusation of homosexuality whenever such
accusation is made. Otherwise, most reasonable people are going to assume
this is yet another homosexual deviant statement.

>>> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>>Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality behavior
>>choices are comparable to being born with black skin.
> Read what I wrote - I wrote 'minority groups'. Black people, Arabs,
> Chinese and homosexuals are all examples of minority groups, and all
> save homosexuals have been portrayed by cast members in Star Trek.

You seem to have a reading comprehendsion issue here. There is No equivalence
of any kind between the color of one's skin when born and someone making
a choice to put their male procreative organ in content with the
male faeces excrement of another man.
Capice ?

>> And black people have reacted with anger toward this malicious association.
>> As I have mentioned, black and hispanics vote in higher proportions
>> against the homosexual agenda than white people
>>when Homosexual issues are on ballot questions.
>>Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition comparable
>>to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexuals at all.
> Blatant misdirection - you certainly seem to be going out of your way
> to prove yourself dishonest. There is no 'accusation' of any sort
> involved; both are comparable to the extent that they are minority
> groups often treated with hostility by the intolerant.

A minority group of people commit the behaviors of murder and child rape.
You want to align them with black people too ?

>>> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>>> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>>The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy in
>>their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular basis.
> You do realise what sodomy is, don't you? It isn't references to
> possibly veiled transexuality and it isn't innuendo. It isn't even
> same-sex kissing. It's a sexual act that has never been depicted on
> Star Trek, Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica or any other sci-fi series that
> I'm aware of, so you're simply talking rubbish.

As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
And the producers are just itching to parade the real thing in all its faecal
entirety before you and your kids as soon as they think they can survive the ratings hit.
When do you think you and your kids will be ready to accept the whoile Sodomy act
into your living room ? They want to know.

>>> that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
>>> alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>>Rubbish. The symbiont trill was a man or Sisko would not be calling her "Old Man".
> Uh, have you actually paid attention to any of the stories or were you
> just watching to find something to rave about? The 'Old Man' was Curzon
> Dax, the symbiont's previous *host* who Sisko had known before Jadzia,
> not the symbiont. The ratio of males to females among previous hosts
> was roughly 50/50 as I remember.

As i stated, this whole storyline was created in order to create gender ambivalence
in the Jadzia Dax character and thus bring Sodomy symbolism into your living room
for you and your kids.

>>> The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
>>> always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
>>> bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
>>> towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
>>> and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
>>> about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
>>> homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.
>>> Philip Bowles
>>Again this is the con. Black people are comparable to people who choose to put
>>their male procreative organ in contact with another man's faeces excrement.
> Again this is deliberate misdirection. Homophobia is comparable to
> racism, both entailing an irrational hatred of differences in others (a
> hatred which, from your continual use of terms like 'deviant', it is
> very clear you share) - it's a non sequitur to claim that that is
> equivalent to saying black people are comparable to homosexuals.

No, racism is based on hate of color of skin, not deeds.
Civil Rights has never caused black inappropriate behavior to be tolerated.

>>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are "homophobes".
>>How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
>>disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
> That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
> you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
> find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
> innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
> those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
> intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
> 'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
> because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing

Nothing I have stated here has been discredited, let alone proven wrong.

> to notice, and your homophobic motives are abundantly clear from your
> use of disparaging rhetoric and blatant stereotyping, not to mention
> your loony idea that homosexuals are behind everything that's bad in
> the world. Maybe next you'll try arguing that all the conspiracy nuts
> who believe in a 'Zionist conspiracy' to control the planet aren't
> really anti-Semitic.
> Philip Bowles

This pro-Israel crap is running thin. People have looked the other way while
Israel committed mass murder against their Arab/Moslem neighbors for a long time
hoping they would make peace with their neighbors, give back the land and
property they stole in 1948, pay reparations for the men, women and children
they massacred in Palestinian townships like Yassin, and end the conflict.

Instead, Israel has chosen to perpetuate the conflict because they receive
billions of US dollars each year in cash and the best weapons with which
to mass murder their other Arab neighbors in the region.
I think people are becoming real tired of being played for chumps with that
kind of rhetoric and Hollywood holocausts and anti-Arab/Moslem movies.

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80459 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 11:15

Diane L

John Shocked wrote:
> How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
> disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
> These hypocritical claims are ridiculous.

Which newsgroup?
The newsgroup I'm reading had never heard of you before you started
spamming us with your adverts for Battlestar Galactica.

Diane L.

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80464 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 12:53

Earl Grieda

"Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message
news:42d8d03f$0$21965$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
> > disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
> > These hypocritical claims are ridiculous.
>
> Which newsgroup?
> The newsgroup I'm reading had never heard of you before you started
> spamming us with your adverts for Battlestar Galactica.
>

He is spamming all news groups on this distribution. By doing so he is
violating his agreement with his ISB, Cox Communications.

Since he has been posting the exact same nonsense every day for months and
these posts are off-topic, hate filled, not true, and sometimes libelous,
please forward any John Shocked post to abuse [at] cox.net. Be sure to include
the post headers and a brief note why John Shocked has violated the Cox
Acceptable Use Policy.

The Acceptable Use Policy of Cox Communications regarding Usenet is:

"You may not attempt to "flood" or disrupt Usenet newsgroups. Disruption is
defined as posting a large number of messages to a newsgroup, which contain
no substantive content, to the extent that normal discussion in the group is
significantly hindered."
http://www.cox.com/policy/

He has certainly "significantly hindered" "normal discussion" in BSG, and
other SciFi groups by "posting a large number of messages to a newsgroup,
which contain no substantive content". Keep on forwarding his posts to
abuse [at] cox.net

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80465 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 13:18

John Shocked

If you support Sodomy on TV in Battlestar Galactica, then sign up with Grieda.
He has worked tirelessly for this cause and he will know how best to utilize your
services in supporting Sodomy on TV and silencing the dissent against this initiative
on this Newsgroup.

Politics

"Earl Grieda" <eXXXgriedaYYY [at] yaBADABADOOhoo.com> wrote in message news:vG5Ce.8696$8f7.7120 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:42d8d03f$0$21965$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>> > How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
>> > disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
>> > These hypocritical claims are ridiculous.
>> Which newsgroup?
>> The newsgroup I'm reading had never heard of you before you started
>> spamming us with your adverts for Battlestar Galactica.
> He is spamming all news groups on this distribution. By doing so he is
> violating his agreement with his ISB, Cox Communications.
> Since he has been posting the exact same nonsense every day for months and
> these posts are off-topic, hate filled, not true, and sometimes libelous,
> please forward any John Shocked post to abuse [at] cox.net. Be sure to include
> the post headers and a brief note why John Shocked has violated the Cox
> Acceptable Use Policy.
> The Acceptable Use Policy of Cox Communications regarding Usenet is:
> "You may not attempt to "flood" or disrupt Usenet newsgroups. Disruption is
> defined as posting a large number of messages to a newsgroup, which contain
> no substantive content, to the extent that normal discussion in the group is
> significantly hindered."
> http://www.cox.com/policy/
> He has certainly "significantly hindered" "normal discussion" in BSG, and
> other SciFi groups by "posting a large number of messages to a newsgroup,
> which contain no substantive content". Keep on forwarding his posts to
> abuse [at] cox.net

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80466 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 13:21

John Shocked

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80467 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 13:43

pbowles

<pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121499007.957063.146020 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1121482787.590224.280430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
>>> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
>>> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
>>> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
>>>This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or after
>>>Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
>>>this muck began to appear.
>> These particular episodes, but Roddenberry himself always intended to
>> write a morality play - he simply dressed it up as sci-fi to get it
>> aired by the networks. There's one story where one of the actors said
>> to him "I get it, you're writing a morality play, aren't you?" to which
>> Roddenberry's response was "ssh, don't tell anyone - they haven't
>> figured it out yet". What was that story with the white-and-black
>> people fighting the black-and-white people? A pretty blatant
>> anti-racism episode, playing off a social issue of the time.
>
>
>I do not remember that episode. But race is a settled issue. There was a war
>fought over it and then crooked US Supreme Court Judges allowed segregation,
>another civil rights battle ensued.

Which is the context in which the episode was produced, when it wasn't
a settled issue. Star Trek is famous for featuring the first black
character in a non-stereotyped role, even though from what I've heard
this isn't actually true.

>The country has never accepted that 'Sodomy's ok'.

Really? Where are the segregation laws covering homosexuals? Are there
even any states remaining in which sodomy is illegal? Certainly not
more than 25 of them. And don't try passing off the 'opposition to gay
marriage = opposition to homosexuality' line, because even a cursory
glance shows that doesn't follow.

>> Homosexuality wasn't in the public consciousness to any extent then,
>> but if there had been a vocal anti-gay movement there's little doubt
>> Roddenberry would endorse episodes promoting tolerance
>
>
>This is an absurd statement. Compared to today's 'science fiction' there
>were huge amounts of science fiction in Roddenberry's work.
>Taking on big issues in TV scripts is quite normal but the difference here is that
>the US public and the population of most countries is overwhelmingly opposed to
>the homosexual agenda.

The "homosexual agenda" lives wholly in your mind, and I know of no
evidence that the populations of most Western countries at any rate are
"overwhelmingly opposed" to homosexuals as a group or homosexuality as
a practice - indeed not only homosexuality but legal homosexual
marriage now exists in four countries and a number of US states, and is
being considered in the UK, a country where several recent media
investigations by openly gay journalists travelling through the
country's more conservative regions failed to provoke any hostility,
and in which one homophobic outburst from a hostel in Scotland was
loudly disowned by the rest of the tourism industry.

>>>> best example) and references to discrimination against black people
>>>> that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
>>>> note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
>>>> Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
>>>Is this a fact admitted by Roddenberry's son or another wild accusation.
>>>Present a URL here from the web documenting his son's homosexuality.
>> Oops, my mistake, it was his grandson:
>> http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/vvp/news2.html
>> By the way, if you can't demonstrate intelligence it would be
>> appreciated if you could at least demonstrate civility - assuming
>> dishonesty on the part of people you're talking to without checking the
>> facts for yourself would be insulting if it appeared you had any grip
>> on reality. It is not my place to prove my honesty; if you doubt or
>> want to dispute something I've said, look it up yourself before casting
>> aspersions.
>
>
>In truth, that document says that this chump was the Step-Grandson of
>Gene Roddenberry, which means they share no blood or DNA.
>To allow yourself to be used against your own Step-Grandfather is pretty deviant
>behavior, and thus this does not help the cause of the homosexual agenda.

Where on Earth are you getting the idea that Roddenberry was opposed to
homosexuality at all, let alone that agitating for its inclusion in
Star Trek qualifies as "acting against" him? Given his willingness to
espouse messages of tolerance in his series, it would frankly be
hypocritical of him to oppose a message of tolerance towards
homosexuals in Star Trek were he alive to comment on the issue.

>It is common here and in other Sodomy promotion environments to make these
>false accusations, often about people long Dead.

Is it indeed, or is this just an assertion of yours based on your
assumption that people have a habit of lying about others' sexuality?
It seems clear from your failure to follow up the earlier list of
historical homo- and bisexuals that you aren't in the habit of checking
for yourself, so how would you know whether the 'accusations' are true
or false? Fore example, it took me all of two minutes to come up with
the site referencing Alexander's mother's reaction to his relationship
with Hephaestion, the gossip of the time that Alexander had only ever
been conquered by Hephaestion's thighs and references from Xenephron
and Plutarch alluding to bisexuality as common practice in his time -
would it have killed you to do the same? If you accuse someone of
dishonesty the burden is on you to prove it, not on the other to defend
himself from the allegation. Little principle that goes by the
catchphrase "innocent until proven guilty" - you may have heard of it.

>As a ground rule, if I were you in any discussion anywhere about the homosexual
>agenda, I would document any accusation of homosexuality whenever such
>accusation is made. Otherwise, most reasonable people are going to assume
>this is yet another homosexual deviant statement.

Based on your performance here and in the sci-fi group, you'd be the
last person I'd ask for an insight into the assumptions made by
reasonable people. Oddly enough, most reasonable people aren't of the
conviction that the world is run by "homosexual deviants" or that
Usenet newsgroups are filled with them to the exclusion of anyone else.
Whether Alexander or Brooke were homosexual/bisexual is a matter of
historical record and doesn't need referencing any more than the
assertion "Alexander conquered a large portion of the then-known world"
or "Brooke established a private empire in Sarawak" - if you want more
details, read their biographies.

>>>> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>>>Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality behavior
>>>choices are comparable to being born with black skin.
>> Read what I wrote - I wrote 'minority groups'. Black people, Arabs,
>> Chinese and homosexuals are all examples of minority groups, and all
>> save homosexuals have been portrayed by cast members in Star Trek.
>
>
>You seem to have a reading comprehendsion issue here.

On the contrary, you're either failing to comprehend the point at issue
or simply refusing to answer it by parroting an earlier one of your own
which is of no relevance to the point at hand. This was to do with the
treatment of minority groups in Star Trek. It is a social reality that
homosexuals constitute a minority group, in which context they are no
different from ethnic minority groups. The issue of choice is an
irrelevance to this factual point.

> There is No equivalence
>of any kind between the color of one's skin when born and someone making
>a choice to put their male procreative organ in content with the
>male faeces excrement of another man.

Why the need for graphic imagery? You don't feel the need to describe
heterosexuality in terms of the insertion of the "male procreative
organ" into the female urinary tract, do you? In any case, your
attempting to throw up a smokescreen - it's clear from such past
comments of yours as "there is no such thing as innocent male to male
kissing" that your objection is not to the act of sodomy but to the
attraction homosexual men have for one another, which is not a matter
of choice.

>>> And black people have reacted with anger toward this malicious association.
>>> As I have mentioned, black and hispanics vote in higher proportions
>>> against the homosexual agenda than white people
>>>when Homosexual issues are on ballot questions.
>>>Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition comparable
>>>to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexuals at all.
>> Blatant misdirection - you certainly seem to be going out of your way
>> to prove yourself dishonest. There is no 'accusation' of any sort
>> involved; both are comparable to the extent that they are minority
>> groups often treated with hostility by the intolerant.
>
>
>A minority group of people commit the behaviors of murder and child rape.
>You want to align them with black people too ?

You criticise supposedly inappropriate analogies and then draw your own
wilder, yet wholly predictable ones? While the principle that people
should be judged on deeds rather than on who and what they are is
sound, you're distorting it beyond recognition with this hackneyed
line. Two simple points you've missed should be borne in mind:

1. Being homosexual is not simply the act of 'committing' sodomy (which
is usually described as 'practising homosexuality'). It implies merely
sexual attraction to other members of the same sex, and that is
something which is as inherent to homosexuals as dark skin colour is to
black people. It's not a matter of choice any more than attraction to
people of the opposite sex is a matter of choice for heterosexuals, and
it logically follows that satisfying that attraction through sexual
activity (which may or may not include sodomy), while a matter of
choice, is no different in principle from satisfying heterosexual
attraction.

2. On objective moral grounds murder, rape (of a child or otherwise) et
al. can be condemned on the basis that others are harmed by them. It's
very hard to see how any such case can be made for homosexuality in a
consensual relationship (if you're going to count sexually transmitted
diseases or the possibility of tissue damage during intercourse, these
are equally possible from heterosexual intercourse and few people would
regard that as immoral unless one party knowingly keeps his/her disease
etc. from the other) - and note the requirement for objectively
justifiable grounds. Personal disgust doesn't qualify and nor does an
appeal to arbitrary religious doctrines.

So, in summary, your hatred is directed against a group of people based
on an intrinsic feature of those individuals (and, it appears, not even
solely against those among them who practice sodomy but simply against
anyone expressing attraction to another member of the same sex) that
does nobody any harm - that sounds an awful lot like racism against
blacks, and nothing whatsoever like condemnation of murder or rape.

>>> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>>> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>>The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy in
>>their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular basis.
>> You do realise what sodomy is, don't you? It isn't references to
>> possibly veiled transexuality and it isn't innuendo. It isn't even
>> same-sex kissing. It's a sexual act that has never been depicted on
>> Star Trek, Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica or any other sci-fi series that
>> I'm aware of, so you're simply talking rubbish.
>
>
>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.

Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.

>And the producers are just itching to parade the real thing in all its faecal
>entirety before you and your kids as soon as they think they can survive the ratings hit.

Supposition based on what? Again you're just talking rubbish.

>>> that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
>>> alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>>>Rubbish. The symbiont trill was a man or Sisko would not be calling her "Old Man".
>> Uh, have you actually paid attention to any of the stories or were you
>> just watching to find something to rave about? The 'Old Man' was Curzon
>> Dax, the symbiont's previous *host* who Sisko had known before Jadzia,
>> not the symbiont. The ratio of males to females among previous hosts
>> was roughly 50/50 as I remember.
>
>
>As i stated, this whole storyline was created in order to create gender ambivalence
>in the Jadzia Dax character and thus bring Sodomy symbolism into your living room
>for you and your kids.

Where on Earth's the logic here? Even if it's conceded that Jadzia's
character may have had transsexual symbolism, which is tenuous at best,
how is it in any way "sodomy symbolism"? Transsexualism and
homosexuality aren't in any way connected, and the former carries no
implications of sodomy. What does "gender ambivalence" have to do with
homosexuality?

>>> The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
>>> always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
>>> bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
>>> towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
>>> and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
>>> about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
>>> homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.
>>> Philip Bowles
>>Again this is the con. Black people are comparable to people who choose to put
>>their male procreative organ in contact with another man's faeces excrement.
>> Again this is deliberate misdirection. Homophobia is comparable to
>> racism, both entailing an irrational hatred of differences in others (a
>> hatred which, from your continual use of terms like 'deviant', it is
>> very clear you share) - it's a non sequitur to claim that that is
>> equivalent to saying black people are comparable to homosexuals.
>
>
>No, racism is based on hate of color of skin, not deeds.

See above.

>>>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are "homophobes".
>>>How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
>>>disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
>> That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
>> you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
>> find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
>> innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
>> those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
>> intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
>> 'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
>> because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing
>
>
>Nothing I have stated here has been discredited, let alone proven wrong.

I did say you hadn't seemed to notice...

>> to notice, and your homophobic motives are abundantly clear from your
>> use of disparaging rhetoric and blatant stereotyping, not to mention
>> your loony idea that homosexuals are behind everything that's bad in
>> the world. Maybe next you'll try arguing that all the conspiracy nuts
>> who believe in a 'Zionist conspiracy' to control the planet aren't
>> really anti-Semitic.
>> Philip Bowles
>
>
>This pro-Israel crap is running thin.

Where did I mention Israel? Are you seriously suggesting it's
"pro-Israel" to dispute the loony idea that Jewish interests run the
world? Or for that matter that loonies who adhere to said view, which
closely parallels yours on "Hollywood Homosexuals", aren't
anti-Semitic?

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80469 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 14:21

SuperFaggot

Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when John Shocked wrote:
> <pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote...
>> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote...
>>>>>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
>>>>You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
>>>>squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
>>>>once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
>>>>"Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
>>>>but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
>>>>in the future or, no queers?
>>>>Ah yes, but you see, in the X-Men films he's always trying to foil
>>>> Ian McKellan's schemes, so he must be anti-gay, right?
>>> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
>>> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
>>> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
>>> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
>>>This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or
>>>after
>>>Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
>>>this muck began to appear.
>> These particular episodes, but Roddenberry himself always intended to
>> write a morality play - he simply dressed it up as sci-fi to get it
>> aired by the networks. There's one story where one of the actors said
>> to him "I get it, you're writing a morality play, aren't you?" to which
>> Roddenberry's response was "ssh, don't tell anyone - they haven't
>> figured it out yet". What was that story with the white-and-black
>> people fighting the black-and-white people? A pretty blatant
>> anti-racism episode, playing off a social issue of the time.
>
> I do not remember that episode. But race is a settled issue. There was a
> war fought over it and then crooked US Supreme Court Judges allowed
> segregation, another civil rights battle ensued.
> The country has never accepted that 'Sodomy's ok'.

Uh-huh. Check this out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll3.htm

Should gays be protected under hate-crimes legislation?

In a hate crime, the criminal is motivated by hatred of a group -- e.g.
extreme dislike of African-Americans, Jews, homosexuals... Quite often the
victim is a stranger. This is a type of terrorist act in which the
perpetrator does not just send a message to their victim. Their goal is to
terrorize persons of a particular race, faith group, sexual minority, etc.
Some legislators feel that hate crimes deserve an extra sentence to
reinforce society's repugnance of the act. So a convicted criminal would
get a regular sentence for the crime. Then they would get an additional
sentence because the assault was a hate crime. Conflicts exist at the
federal and state levels over which groups should be protected. For
example, as of 2001-JUL, the federal law does not include gender,
disability or sexual orientation as protected classes. Individual states
vary in their selection of protected groups.

The Gallup Organization asked the question: "If a hate law were enacted in
your state, which of the following groups do you think should be
covered?... Homosexuals" Results were:
Date Favor protection Oppose protection No opinion
1999-FEB 75 20 5

One interesting point with these data is that no hate crime legislation, in
place or suggested, has ever protected gays or lesbians. Some have
protected persons on the basis of their sexual orientation. But those laws
protect heterosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals equally.

Should homosexual behavior be criminalized or de-criminalized:

Barna Research of Ventura CA found on 2001-MAY that 48% feel that homosexual
activity between consenting adults should be legal; 42% said they should
not be legal; 10% had no opinion. There is a noticeable gap between "born
again" Christians and other Americans: Only 34% of born-again adults feel
that this behavior should be legal. 57% of non-born-again feel that way.

General poll on homosexuality:

Barna Research, an Evangelical Christian polling company, conducted a survey
of 1,003 American adults, asking their opinion about abortion and
homosexuality. Results, released in early 2001-AUG were remarkable:
bullet 45% agree that homosexuality is "an acceptable lifestyle." This, of
course, is an extremely biased question for the pollsters to ask. Many
people consider homosexuality to be a sexual orientation and not a
lifestyle. Thus, some persons polled would answer that it is not an
acceptable lifestyle because it is not a lifestyle.
bullet 46% say it is an unacceptable lifestyle.
bullet These results are a statistical dead-heat because the margin of error
is about 3%
bullet Among Born-again Christians:
bullet 27% say called gay lifestyles acceptable
bullet 66% said they were unacceptable.
bullet Among Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians:
bullet 95% say that homosexuality is unacceptable.
bullet 2% called it an acceptable lifestyle
bullet 3% were undecided.

Gee, d'you think maybe John Shocked could be a Xian Fundy? Naaaaaaaaahhh...

>> Homosexuality wasn't in the public consciousness to any extent then,
>> but if there had been a vocal anti-gay movement there's little doubt
>> Roddenberry would endorse episodes promoting tolerance
>
> This is an absurd statement. Compared to today's 'science fiction' there
> were huge amounts of science fiction in Roddenberry's work.
> Taking on big issues in TV scripts is quite normal but the difference here
> is that the US public and the population of most countries is
> overwhelmingly opposed to
> the homosexual agenda. Thus, this content is more force feeding the
> public positive advertisement of Sodomy rather than honest issue
> treatment.

No, I think it's now been proven pretty thoroughly that you're full of shit
where "Sodomy" is concerned.

>>>> best example) and references to discrimination against black people
>>>> that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
>>>> note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
>>>> Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
>>>Is this a fact admitted by Roddenberry's son or another wild accusation.
>>>Present a URL here from the web documenting his son's homosexuality.
>> Oops, my mistake, it was his grandson:
>> http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/vvp/news2.html
>> By the way, if you can't demonstrate intelligence it would be
>> appreciated if you could at least demonstrate civility - assuming
>> dishonesty on the part of people you're talking to without checking the
>> facts for yourself would be insulting if it appeared you had any grip
>> on reality. It is not my place to prove my honesty; if you doubt or
>> want to dispute something I've said, look it up yourself before casting
>> aspersions.
>
> In truth, that document says that this chump was the Step-Grandson of
> Gene Roddenberry, which means they share no blood or DNA.
> To allow yourself to be used against your own Step-Grandfather is pretty
> deviant behavior, and thus this does not help the cause of the homosexual
> agenda.

Grandson, step-grandson, makes no odds either way. If Gene loved his
grandson, as I'm sure he did, including the sexuality of that family member
in Star Trek in some fashion wouldn't be an issue for him. However, FOX, up
to that time, was another matter entirely.

> It is common here and in other Sodomy promotion environments to make these
> false accusations, often about people long Dead.
> As a ground rule, if I were you in any discussion anywhere about the
> homosexual agenda, I would document any accusation of homosexuality
> whenever such
> accusation is made. Otherwise, most reasonable people are going to assume
> this is yet another homosexual deviant statement.

No, reasonable people are not homophobic, and don't think homosexuals are
deviants. You, OTOH, are clearly a sick Xian fanatic.

>>>> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>>>Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality
>>>behavior choices are comparable to being born with black skin.
>> Read what I wrote - I wrote 'minority groups'. Black people, Arabs,
>> Chinese and homosexuals are all examples of minority groups, and all
>> save homosexuals have been portrayed by cast members in Star Trek.
>
> You seem to have a reading comprehendsion issue here. There is No
> equivalence
> of any kind between the color of one's skin when born and someone making
> a choice to put their male procreative organ in content with the
> male faeces excrement of another man.
> Capice ?

No, you're very obviously the person who doesn't know what words mean.
Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual, they're born that way, same as
straights, bisexuals, and whatever you are.

>>> And black people have reacted with anger toward this malicious
>>> association. As I have mentioned, black and hispanics vote in higher
>>> proportions against the homosexual agenda than white people
>>>when Homosexual issues are on ballot questions.
>>>Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition
>>>comparable to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexuals at
>>>all.
>> Blatant misdirection - you certainly seem to be going out of your way
>> to prove yourself dishonest. There is no 'accusation' of any sort
>> involved; both are comparable to the extent that they are minority
>> groups often treated with hostility by the intolerant.
>
> A minority group of people commit the behaviors of murder and child rape.
> You want to align them with black people too ?

Murder and child molestation are *crimes*. Homosexuality and (much as some
police officers may believe otherwise) being black are *not* crimes. Simple
enough, or does it need to be rendered into baby-talk?

>>>> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>>>> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>>>The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy
>>>in their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular
>>>basis.
>> You do realise what sodomy is, don't you? It isn't references to
>> possibly veiled transexuality and it isn't innuendo. It isn't even
>> same-sex kissing. It's a sexual act that has never been depicted on
>> Star Trek, Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica or any other sci-fi series that
>> I'm aware of, so you're simply talking rubbish.
>
> As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
> And the producers are just itching to parade the real thing in all its
> faecal entirety before you and your kids as soon as they think they can
> survive the ratings hit. When do you think you and your kids will be ready
> to accept the whoile Sodomy act into your living room? They want to know.

And symbolism, of any kind, is in the eye of the beholder. Don't imagine
that your psychological issues (and they are many, and deep) are anyone
else's.

>>>> that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
>>>> alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>>>Rubbish. The symbiont trill was a man or Sisko would not be calling her
>>>"Old Man".
>> Uh, have you actually paid attention to any of the stories or were you
>> just watching to find something to rave about? The 'Old Man' was Curzon
>> Dax, the symbiont's previous *host* who Sisko had known before Jadzia,
>> not the symbiont. The ratio of males to females among previous hosts
>> was roughly 50/50 as I remember.
>
> As i stated, this whole storyline was created in order to create gender
> ambivalence in the Jadzia Dax character and thus bring Sodomy symbolism
> into your living room for you and your kids.

OK, first, see above re: symbolism. Second, so what? It's an issue for you,
your fundy brethren, and a bunch of repressed tight-asses who are terrified
they might be gay, not most people.

>>>> The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
>>>> always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
>>>> bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
>>>> towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
>>>> and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
>>>> about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
>>>> homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.
>>>> Philip Bowles
>>>Again this is the con. Black people are comparable to people who choose
>>>to put their male procreative organ in contact with another man's faeces
>>>excrement.
>> Again this is deliberate misdirection. Homophobia is comparable to
>> racism, both entailing an irrational hatred of differences in others (a
>> hatred which, from your continual use of terms like 'deviant', it is
>> very clear you share) - it's a non sequitur to claim that that is
>> equivalent to saying black people are comparable to homosexuals.
>
> No, racism is based on hate of color of skin, not deeds.
> Civil Rights has never caused black inappropriate behavior to be
> tolerated.

Sexual behaviour between consenting adults is never "inappropriate", except
to fundies and the repressed.

>>>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are
>>>"homophobes". How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward
>>>those who disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
>> That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
>> you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
>> find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
>> innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
>> those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
>> intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
>> 'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
>> because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing
>
> Nothing I have stated here has failed to be discredited, let alone proven
> right.

OK, now that looks like an honest entence from you. Too bad you didn't
really say it, too bad, so sad.

>> to notice, and your homophobic motives are abundantly clear from your
>> use of disparaging rhetoric and blatant stereotyping, not to mention
>> your loony idea that homosexuals are behind everything that's bad in
>> the world. Maybe next you'll try arguing that all the conspiracy nuts
>> who believe in a 'Zionist conspiracy' to control the planet aren't
>> really anti-Semitic.
>> Philip Bowles
>
> This pro-Israel crap is running thin. People have looked the other way
> while Israel committed mass murder against their Arab/Moslem neighbors for
> a long time hoping they would make peace with their neighbors, give back
> the land and property they stole in 1948, pay reparations for the men,
> women and children they massacred in Palestinian townships like Yassin,
> and end the conflict.

Yeah, OK. Israel has behaved badly. So have the Saudis, Jordan, Egypt, and
the rest of the Arab/Moslem countries. Even the Pals have done rotten
things. It's a mess. Every faction has its hands dirty, and most of them
are out for some degree of conquest and absolute rule. Painting the
conspiracies of one as Bad and Evil and Wrong, while ignoring or supporting
the conspiracies of the others, however, is mendacious in the extreme.

> Instead, Israel has chosen to perpetuate the conflict because they receive
> billions of US dollars each year in cash and the best weapons with which
> to mass murder their other Arab neighbors in the region.

You do know, right, that Saudi Arabia is a US ally, to the point of having
multiple US military bases on its soil? The US is completely amoral on this
whole thing, and has been since the early Cold War years. Whatever serves
US interests has always been the #1 issue, and the ones setting the terms
for "US interests" have increasingly been composed of neo-cons (followers
of Leo Strauss and Michael Ledeen) and "Christian
Reconstructionists/Dominionists" (disciples of R.J. Rushdoony, Francis
Schaeffer, and Pat Robertson/Oral Roberts/Jerry Falwell/etc.), over the
past few decades, meaning what's good for Israel is good for them (up to a
point), and what's good for them is to have all the Jews in the world in
Israel, which they expect will then be destroyed, then it's time for the
Rapture, Tribulation, Armageddon, Apocalypse, blah blah blah.

Pro-Zionism, for non-Jewish Xian fundies especially, is equivalent to
anti-Semitism. And somehow, anti-Zionism also seems to equate to
anti-Semitism, very often...I think a declaration that Israel and the US
are just another couple of countries needs to be made. No more "greatest
country in the world" bullshit. It's gone too far, and so many Americans
are either arrogant nationalists who think their country ought to control
the world, or are simply fucking sick of all the crap and want to go back
to being just another country.

> I think people are becoming real tired of being played for chumps with
> that kind of rhetoric and Hollywood holocausts and anti-Arab/Moslem
> movies.

Now, this is where you go completely off your rails. I mean, the homophobia
is bad enough, but all by itself, it's pretty much just the same old, same
old. Making the Hollywood mainstream a part of the neo-con movement,
however, is going right over the edge into kook-out country.

--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80482 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 17:11

joey the lemur

In article <1121482787.590224.280430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
pbowles [at] aol.com says...
> >>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
> >
> >
> >
> >You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
> >squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
> >once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
> >"Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
> >but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
> >in the future or, no queers?
> >
> >Ah yes, but you see, in the X-Men films he's always trying to foil Ian McKellan's schemes, so he must be anti-gay, right?
>
> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
> best example) and references to discrimination against black people
> that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
> note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
> Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
> that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
> alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>
> The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
> always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
> bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
> towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
> and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
> about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
> homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
>
He (he gets sexual excitement if you use his name) misses no points; his
posts indicate that he has never allowed his opinions to be influenced
by facts. When the evidence does not support his positions, he reinvents
and rewords "his facts" to be more accomodating to his warped view of
the world.

For example, all of his contrived "statements of facts" involve phrases
like "...it seems that..", and "..there appears to be..". Facts are not,
and do not involve approximations or generalizations, a point which he
repeatedly fails to hide in his pedantic announcements".

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80487 ]

Sa, 16 Juli 2005 21:03

lraszewski

On 15 Jul 2005 19:59:47 -0700, pbowles [at] aol.com <pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote:
>Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
>character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
>alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>

I think the most overt incident did indeed involve Dax; there's an
episode where she meets a former (female) lover and is conflicted over
the posibility of restarting their romance (There is some girl-girl
saliva-swapping involved). This, it seems, breaks major cultural
taboos and would mark her an outcast from her native society (Not
because of the gender issue, ofc, this being The Future. Trill
aren't, it seems, supposed to take up with the same lovers in
different lives).

The most recent Big Gay Metaphor came up on Enterprise, when it was
decided that unprotected mind melding could lead to a degenerative
illness. Showing up ten years late to the party, there was a Big Gay
Analogy in that the Vulcans didn't have any interest in curing the
disease because it "only" affected mind-melders. With Trekkish
anvil-on-the-head subtlty, folks genetically predisposed to
mind-melding were considered perverts. And here's your gay agenda for
you: it was ultimately revealed that *almost all* Vulcans had some ability to
mind-meld, it just wasn't something that came naturally to most (Just
as most competant psychologists now believe that almost all humans
have the occasional homosexual impulse, it's just not something that's
prevalent enough for most of us to act on it).

Now, one point I will make on homosexuals in trek. What Star Trek has
never included is a gay *relationship*. It's very likely that
there's been *lots* of gay and bisexual *characters*. We see
relatively little of the sex lives of characters outside of the most
major ones (And even then, we're only seeing a snapshot. I could
easily believe that a number of the lead characters are bisexual).
One of the higher-ups, I think it was Berman, wisely pointed out, "How
would you know? Do you want us to put a big pink triangle on their uniforms?"

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80498 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 00:58

pbowles

>On 15 Jul 2005 19:59:47 -0700, pbow... [at] aol.
>
>
>com <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote
>
>
>>Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
>>character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>>represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>>done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>>that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
>>alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>
>
>I think the most overt incident did indeed involve Dax; there's an
>episode where she meets a former (female) lover and is conflicted over
>the posibility of restarting their romance (There is some girl-girl
>saliva-swapping involved).

This is true, although it came fairly late in the series and popular
wisdom has it that it was inspired by an openly lesbian kiss in an
episode of Babylon 5 (and even following that, the Star Trek episode
treated the whole thing as an allegory rather than having an
out-and-out gay relationship). It certainly wasn't a direction the
writers had in mind when the Dax character was created four years
earlier.

>The most recent Big Gay Metaphor came up on Enterprise, when it was
>decided that unprotected mind melding could lead to a degenerative
>illness.

Wasn't that episode symbolism for rape rather than homosexuality, as
T-Pol hadn't given permission for the meld (carried out by a male
Vulcan)? Or am I thinking of a different episode?

> Showing up ten years late to the party,

Well, in spite of the reputation the first series acquired, Star Trek's
morality plays can rarely be described as topical and the series is
usually very far from radical - it tends to address social issues only
after someone else has brought them up in the media first, like the
'lesbian' kiss in "Rejoined".

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80500 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 01:35

lraszewski

On 16 Jul 2005 15:58:43 -0700, pbowles [at] aol.com <pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote:
>
>Wasn't that episode symbolism for rape rather than homosexuality, as
>T-Pol hadn't given permission for the meld (carried out by a male
>Vulcan)? Or am I thinking of a different episode?
>

That was the set-up. The gay symbolism was the punch-line. T'Pol was
symbolically raped by a mind-melder, which is how she got the
disorder. When they try (half a season later) to find a treatment,
they get told "You only get it from mind-melds, and mind-melders are
perverts, so we're not looking for a cure," though a closeted and
not-infected mind-melder eventually helped them. The fact that her
meld was non-consentual was their (more than a little clumsy) way of
saying "You can get AIDS and not be gay."

>> Showing up ten years late to the party,
>
>Well, in spite of the reputation the first series acquired, Star Trek's
>morality plays can rarely be described as topical and the series is
>usually very far from radical - it tends to address social issues only
>after someone else has brought them up in the media first, like the
>'lesbian' kiss in "Rejoined".

Yes. But Enterprise in particular seemed to enjoy doing morality
plays that were *way* out of date (If you're feeling really generous,
you can suppose that having out-of-date morality plays was a symbolic
reference to the fact that this show was set a hundred years earlier
than the rest of the franchise). I think they covered women's
sufferage and slavery as well.

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80503 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 02:05

John Shocked

<pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121514199.228862.10760 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1121499007.957063.146020 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121482787.590224.280430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
>>>> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
>>>> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
>>>> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
>>>>This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or after
>>>>Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
>>>>this muck began to appear.
>>> These particular episodes, but Roddenberry himself always intended to
>>> write a morality play - he simply dressed it up as sci-fi to get it
>>> aired by the networks. There's one story where one of the actors said
>>> to him "I get it, you're writing a morality play, aren't you?" to which
>>> Roddenberry's response was "ssh, don't tell anyone - they haven't
>>> figured it out yet". What was that story with the white-and-black
>>> people fighting the black-and-white people? A pretty blatant
>>> anti-racism episode, playing off a social issue of the time.
>>I do not remember that episode. But race is a settled issue. There was a war
>>fought over it and then crooked US Supreme Court Judges allowed segregation,
>>another civil rights battle ensued.
> Which is the context in which the episode was produced, when it wasn't
> a settled issue. Star Trek is famous for featuring the first black
> character in a non-stereotyped role, even though from what I've heard
> this isn't actually true.

No it was a settled issue. The 14th Amendment existed and everyone in the country
has known that the Segregation and the KKK were illegal.
The crooks on the US Supreme Court and in the News media had simply looked
the other way for decades and allowed an illegal condition to exist in the country since
1896 Plessy v Ferguson US Supreme Court decision.
President Dwight Eisenhower, Herbert Brownell (his first 4 years term Attorney General)
and Earl Warren (Governor of California whom Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice
of the US Supreme Court in 1953) are the true heroes of Civil Rights during the
1953 to 1960 time period with Brown v Board of Education (1954) and 2 Civil Rights bills
which were opposed by the Democrats.
At this point, all Hollywood had to show for itself was Sidney Poitier and
a smattering of black house maids.

>>The country has never accepted that 'Sodomy's ok'.
> Really? Where are the segregation laws covering homosexuals? Are there
> even any states remaining in which sodomy is illegal? Certainly not
> more than 25 of them. And don't try passing off the 'opposition to gay
> marriage = opposition to homosexuality' line, because even a cursory
> glance shows that doesn't follow.

Those actions were not accomplished through democratic action in this country.
They were solely the result of corrupt US Supreme court decisions which were not
based on anything in the US Constitution.

>>> Homosexuality wasn't in the public consciousness to any extent then,
>>> but if there had been a vocal anti-gay movement there's little doubt
>>> Roddenberry would endorse episodes promoting tolerance
>>This is an absurd statement. Compared to today's 'science fiction' there
>>were huge amounts of science fiction in Roddenberry's work.
>>Taking on big issues in TV scripts is quite normal but the difference here is that
>>the US public and the population of most countries is overwhelmingly opposed to
>>the homosexual agenda.
> The "homosexual agenda" lives wholly in your mind, and I know of no
> evidence that the populations of most Western countries at any rate are
> "overwhelmingly opposed" to homosexuals as a group or homosexuality as
> a practice - indeed not only homosexuality but legal homosexual
> marriage now exists in four countries and a number of US states, and is
> being considered in the UK, a country where several recent media
> investigations by openly gay journalists travelling through the
> country's more conservative regions failed to provoke any hostility,
> and in which one homophobic outburst from a hostel in Scotland was
> loudly disowned by the rest of the tourism industry.

That is an example of Hollywood Homosexuals at work.
They are wealthy, own the media and have enough money left over to buy
enough politicians to support their agenda.
Can you name any countries in which a national Ballot Question or plebiscite
has voted to give rights to homosexuals ?

>>>>> best example) and references to discrimination against black people
>>>>> that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
>>>>> note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
>>>>> Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
>>>>Is this a fact admitted by Roddenberry's son or another wild accusation.
>>>>Present a URL here from the web documenting his son's homosexuality.
>>> Oops, my mistake, it was his grandson:
>>> http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/vvp/news2.html
>>> By the way, if you can't demonstrate intelligence it would be
>>> appreciated if you could at least demonstrate civility - assuming
>>> dishonesty on the part of people you're talking to without checking the
>>> facts for yourself would be insulting if it appeared you had any grip
>>> on reality. It is not my place to prove my honesty; if you doubt or
>>> want to dispute something I've said, look it up yourself before casting
>>> aspersions.
>>In truth, that document says that this chump was the Step-Grandson of
>>Gene Roddenberry, which means they share no blood or DNA.
>>To allow yourself to be used against your own Step-Grandfather is pretty deviant
>>behavior, and thus this does not help the cause of the homosexual agenda.
> Where on Earth are you getting the idea that Roddenberry was opposed to
> homosexuality at all, let alone that agitating for its inclusion in
> Star Trek qualifies as "acting against" him? Given his willingness to
> espouse messages of tolerance in his series, it would frankly be
> hypocritical of him to oppose a message of tolerance towards
> homosexuals in Star Trek were he alive to comment on the issue.

Again, tolerance of someone being born black or born a woman (Civil Rights),
has nothing to do with tolerance of behavior, such as drug use, prostitution,
Sodomy or murder (Civil Liberties).
Not only are they wholly different, but Civil Rights is on the Left of the political spectrum,
and Civil Liberties is on the extreme Right as a libertarian issue.

>>It is common here and in other Sodomy promotion environments to make these
>>false accusations, often about people long Dead.
> Is it indeed, or is this just an assertion of yours based on your
> assumption that people have a habit of lying about others' sexuality?
> It seems clear from your failure to follow up the earlier list of
> historical homo- and bisexuals that you aren't in the habit of checking
> for yourself, so how would you know whether the 'accusations' are true
> or false? For example, it took me all of two minutes to come up with
> the site referencing Alexander's mother's reaction to his relationship
> with Hephaestion, the gossip of the time that Alexander had only ever
> been conquered by Hephaestion's thighs and references from Xenephon
> and Plutarch alluding to bisexuality as common practice in his time -
> would it have killed you to do the same? If you accuse someone of
> dishonesty the burden is on you to prove it, not on the other to defend
> himself from the allegation. Little principle that goes by the
> catchphrase "innocent until proven guilty" - you may have heard of it.

Again, post the URLs of these wild allegations if you want to be believed.
The following is what Plutarch's Life Of Alexander actually says.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html

>>As a ground rule, if I were you in any discussion anywhere about the homosexual
>>agenda, I would document any accusation of homosexuality whenever such
>>accusation is made. Otherwise, most reasonable people are going to assume
>>this is yet another homosexual deviant statement.
> Based on your performance here and in the sci-fi group, you'd be the
> last person I'd ask for an insight into the assumptions made by
> reasonable people. Oddly enough, most reasonable people aren't of the
> conviction that the world is run by "homosexual deviants" or that

Here is another dishonest statement: where did I say the world was run
by "homosexual deviants" ?
Right here people can see, through your character, the dishonesty and
baseness of the whole Hollywood Homosexual con game.

> Usenet newsgroups are filled with them to the exclusion of anyone else.
> Whether Alexander or Brooke were homosexual/bisexual is a matter of
> historical record and doesn't need referencing any more than the
> assertion "Alexander conquered a large portion of the then-known world"
> or "Brooke established a private empire in Sarawak" - if you want more
> details, read their biographies.

Again, these are false claims of homosexuality without a shred of substantiation.

>>>>> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>>>>Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality behavior
>>>>choices are comparable to being born with black skin.
>>> Read what I wrote - I wrote 'minority groups'. Black people, Arabs,
>>> Chinese and homosexuals are all examples of minority groups, and all
>>> save homosexuals have been portrayed by cast members in Star Trek.
>>You seem to have a reading comprehendsion issue here.
> On the contrary, you're either failing to comprehend the point at issue
> or simply refusing to answer it by parroting an earlier one of your own
> which is of no relevance to the point at hand. This was to do with the
> treatment of minority groups in Star Trek. It is a social reality that
> homosexuals constitute a minority group, in which context they are no
> different from ethnic minority groups. The issue of choice is an
> irrelevance to this factual point.

This is nonsense. Black people do not agree with you and they are voting
overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda.
Are black people fools who cannot recognize another discrimination victim ?

>>There is No equivalenceof any kind between the color of one's skin
>>when born and someone making
>>a choice to put their male procreative organ in [contact] with the
>>male faeces excrement of another man.
> Why the need for graphic imagery? You don't feel the need to describe

The truth. What is wrong with the truth ?

> heterosexuality in terms of the insertion of the "male procreative
> organ" into the female urinary tract, do you? In any case, your
> attempting to throw up a smokescreen - it's clear from such past
> comments of yours as "there is no such thing as innocent male to male
> kissing" that your objection is not to the act of sodomy but to the
> attraction homosexual men have for one another, which is not a matter
> of choice.

Urinary tract ? If you have no experience with women, at least
take Biology 1. Kissing is normally the prelude to procreative sex.
Kissing and the scents pickjed up from it, conveys information about the
health of one's chosen procreative mate.

>>>> And black people have reacted with anger toward this malicious association.
>>>> As I have mentioned, black and hispanics vote in higher proportions
>>>> against the homosexual agenda than white people
>>>>when Homosexual issues are on ballot questions.
>>>>Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition comparable
>>>>to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexuals at all.
>>> Blatant misdirection - you certainly seem to be going out of your way
>>> to prove yourself dishonest. There is no 'accusation' of any sort
>>> involved; both are comparable to the extent that they are minority
>>> groups often treated with hostility by the intolerant.
>>A minority group of people commit the behaviors of murder and child rape.
>>You want to align them with black people too ?
> You criticise supposedly inappropriate analogies and then draw your own
> wilder, yet wholly predictable ones? While the principle that people
> should be judged on deeds rather than on who and what they are is
> sound, you're distorting it beyond recognition with this hackneyed
> line. Two simple points you've missed should be borne in mind:
> 1. Being homosexual is not simply the act of 'committing' sodomy (which
> is usually described as 'practising homosexuality'). It implies merely
> sexual attraction to other members of the same sex, and that is
> something which is as inherent to homosexuals as dark skin colour is to
> black people. It's not a matter of choice any more than attraction to
> people of the opposite sex is a matter of choice for heterosexuals, and
> it logically follows that satisfying that attraction through sexual
> activity (which may or may not include sodomy), while a matter of
> choice, is no different in principle from satisfying heterosexual

Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
develops early in life normally and is not genetic.
Most homosexuals just met the wrong person early in life, who may
have been a molestor just a distant father figure.

> 2. On objective moral grounds murder, rape (of a child or otherwise) et
> al. can be condemned on the basis that others are harmed by them. It's
> very hard to see how any such case can be made for homosexuality in a
> consensual relationship (if you're going to count sexually transmitted
> diseases or the possibility of tissue damage during intercourse, these
> are equally possible from heterosexual intercourse and few people would
> regard that as immoral unless one party knowingly keeps his/her disease
> etc. from the other) - and note the requirement for objectively
> justifiable grounds. Personal disgust doesn't qualify and nor does an
> appeal to arbitrary religious doctrines.

Homosexuality does harm to Life, in thatit prevents the person from creating
life and participating in the balance between life and death on which a
self-perpetuating civilization is based. Numerous European civilations are
dying out right now, since they are nowhere near the replacement rate
in births and fertility.
Thus homosexuality does have a harmful effect on society.

> So, in summary, your hatred is directed against a group of people based
> on an intrinsic feature of those individuals (and, it appears, not even
> solely against those among them who practice sodomy but simply against
> anyone expressing attraction to another member of the same sex) that
> does nobody any harm - that sounds an awful lot like racism against
> blacks, and nothing whatsoever like condemnation of murder or rape.

The only Hate involved in this issue is the Hate that Hollywood Homosexuals
Neo-Conservatives possess for Arabs/Moslems who they want to mass murder
worldwide, not just in Iraq and Palestine.

>>>> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>>>> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>>>The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy in
>>>their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular basis.
>>> You do realise what sodomy is, don't you? It isn't references to
>>> possibly veiled transexuality and it isn't innuendo. It isn't even
>>> same-sex kissing. It's a sexual act that has never been depicted on
>>> Star Trek, Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica or any other sci-fi series that
>>> I'm aware of, so you're simply talking rubbish.
>>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
> Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
> time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.

False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in Battlestar Galactica.
Your services here on this issue are needed desperately to aid the homosexual agenda
on this Newsgroup.

>>And the producers are just itching to parade the real thing in all its faecal
>>entirety before you and your kids as soon as they think they can survive the ratings hit.
> Supposition based on what? Again you're just talking rubbish.

Why do you think they are going to the trouble of providing symbolism of Sodomy
and not showing the complete thing ?

>>>> that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
>>>> alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>>>>Rubbish. The symbiont trill was a man or Sisko would not be calling her "Old Man".
>>> Uh, have you actually paid attention to any of the stories or were you
>>> just watching to find something to rave about? The 'Old Man' was Curzon
>>> Dax, the symbiont's previous *host* who Sisko had known before Jadzia,
>>> not the symbiont. The ratio of males to females among previous hosts
>>> was roughly 50/50 as I remember.
>>As I stated, this whole storyline was created in order to create gender ambivalence
>>in the Jadzia Dax character and thus bring Sodomy symbolism into your living room
>>for you and your kids.
> Where on Earth's the logic here? Even if it's conceded that Jadzia's
> character may have had transsexual symbolism, which is tenuous at best,

Rubbish.

> how is it in any way "sodomy symbolism"? Transsexualism and
> homosexuality aren't in any way connected, and the former carries no
> implications of sodomy. What does "gender ambivalence" have to do with
> homosexuality?

Hollywood Homosexuals want extract sex from the real world of nature and make it
a separate abstract commodity, then allow themselves to choose whomever they want,
man, woman, boy, girl, dog, cow, etc as the 2 partners in the sex act. Gender ambivalence
is critical to this strategy. In BSG, the unisex toilets in which men and women are in
the toilet stalls shown sitting next to each other is a major part of this strategy.

>>>> The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
>>>> always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
>>>> bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
>>>> towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
>>>> and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
>>>> about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
>>>> homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.
>>>> Philip Bowles
>>>Again this is the con. Black people are comparable to people who choose to put
>>>their male procreative organ in contact with another man's faeces excrement.
>>> Again this is deliberate misdirection. Homophobia is comparable to
>>> racism, both entailing an irrational hatred of differences in others (a
>>> hatred which, from your continual use of terms like 'deviant', it is
>>> very clear you share) - it's a non sequitur to claim that that is
>>> equivalent to saying black people are comparable to homosexuals.
>>No, racism is based on hate of color of skin, not deeds.
> See above.

There is nothing of substance above.

>>>>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are "homophobes".
>>>>How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
>>>>disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
>>> That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
>>> you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
>>> find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
>>> innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
>>> those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
>>> intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
>>> 'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
>>> because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing
>>Nothing I have stated here has been discredited, let alone proven wrong.
> I did say you hadn't seemed to notice...

Prove a refutation.

>>> to notice, and your homophobic motives are abundantly clear from your
>>> use of disparaging rhetoric and blatant stereotyping, not to mention
>>> your loony idea that homosexuals are behind everything that's bad in
>>> the world. Maybe next you'll try arguing that all the conspiracy nuts
>>> who believe in a 'Zionist conspiracy' to control the planet aren't
>>> really anti-Semitic.
>>> Philip Bowles
>>This pro-Israel crap is running thin.
> Where did I mention Israel? Are you seriously suggesting it's
> "pro-Israel" to dispute the loony idea that Jewish interests run the
> world? Or for that matter that loonies who adhere to said view, which
> closely parallels yours on "Hollywood Homosexuals", aren't
> anti-Semitic?
> Philip Bowles

Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
only in their Love for Sodomy and their Hate for Arabs/Moslems and intent
to mass murder Arabs/Moslems worldwide.
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives Hate the component Left groups,
The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women as much as any regular Conservative.
Heck, they do not even film Battlestar Galactica in the US, in order to avoid
giving jobs to those Left groups.

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80507 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 03:23

John Shocked

"SuperFaggot" <tenhctiw [at] ykransepop.gro> wrote in message news:bZ6Ce.1964235$Xk.756145 [at] pd7tw3no...
> Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
> when John Shocked wrote:
>> <pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote...
>>> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote...
>>>>>>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
>>>>>You make a compelling case, but didn't Patrick Stewart play a
>>>>>squeeling homosexual on at least two "non-Star Trek" occassions,
>>>>>once as a friend of "Frasier" on the TV show and in the movie,
>>>>>"Jeffrey?" Doesn't show a dislike for taking on parts like this,
>>>>>but maybe he saw Star Trek as representing a better human condition
>>>>>in the future or, no queers?
>>>>>Ah yes, but you see, in the X-Men films he's always trying to foil
>>>>> Ian McKellan's schemes, so he must be anti-gay, right?
>>>> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
>>>> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
>>>> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
>>>> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
>>>>This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or
>>>>after
>>>>Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
>>>>this muck began to appear.
>>> These particular episodes, but Roddenberry himself always intended to
>>> write a morality play - he simply dressed it up as sci-fi to get it
>>> aired by the networks. There's one story where one of the actors said
>>> to him "I get it, you're writing a morality play, aren't you?" to which
>>> Roddenberry's response was "ssh, don't tell anyone - they haven't
>>> figured it out yet". What was that story with the white-and-black
>>> people fighting the black-and-white people? A pretty blatant
>>> anti-racism episode, playing off a social issue of the time.
>>
>> I do not remember that episode. But race is a settled issue. There was a
>> war fought over it and then crooked US Supreme Court Judges allowed
>> segregation, another civil rights battle ensued.
>> The country has never accepted that 'Sodomy's ok'.
> Uh-huh. Check this out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll3.htm
>
> Should gays be protected under hate-crimes legislation?

The issue here is Sodomy on TV in BSG or other science fiction TV shows.
Rest of paste moved to end of this post.

>>> Homosexuality wasn't in the public consciousness to any extent then,
>>> but if there had been a vocal anti-gay movement there's little doubt
>>> Roddenberry would endorse episodes promoting tolerance
>> This is an absurd statement. Compared to today's 'science fiction' there
>> were huge amounts of science fiction in Roddenberry's work.
>> Taking on big issues in TV scripts is quite normal but the difference here
>> is that the US public and the population of most countries is
>> overwhelmingly opposed to
>> the homosexual agenda. Thus, this content is more force feeding the
>> public positive advertisement of Sodomy rather than honest issue
>> treatment.
> No, I think it's now been proven pretty thoroughly that you're full of shit
> where "Sodomy" is concerned.

Male faeces definite does have a lot to do with Sodomy.
You are on the right track there.

>>>>> best example) and references to discrimination against black people
>>>>> that were more overt than any 'gay' references. It's also worthy of
>>>>> note that, in spite of many requests from gay fans (including
>>>>> Roddenberry's son) that it do so, Star Trek has never included a gay
>>>>Is this a fact admitted by Roddenberry's son or another wild accusation.
>>>>Present a URL here from the web documenting his son's homosexuality.
>>> Oops, my mistake, it was his grandson:
>>> http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/vvp/news2.html
>>> By the way, if you can't demonstrate intelligence it would be
>>> appreciated if you could at least demonstrate civility - assuming
>>> dishonesty on the part of people you're talking to without checking the
>>> facts for yourself would be insulting if it appeared you had any grip
>>> on reality. It is not my place to prove my honesty; if you doubt or
>>> want to dispute something I've said, look it up yourself before casting
>>> aspersions.
>> In truth, that document says that this chump was the Step-Grandson of
>> Gene Roddenberry, which means they share no blood or DNA.
>> To allow yourself to be used against your own Step-Grandfather is pretty
>> deviant behavior, and thus this does not help the cause of the homosexual
>> agenda.
> Grandson, step-grandson, makes no odds either way. If Gene loved his
> grandson, as I'm sure he did, including the sexuality of that family member
> in Star Trek in some fashion wouldn't be an issue for him. However, FOX, up
> to that time, was another matter entirely.

How do you know Roddenberry had ever even met this chump ?
(chump: defined as something who has been conned to speak for the interests of others,
in this case against his own Not blood, but still a relative).

>> It is common here and in other Sodomy promotion environments to make these
>> false accusations, often about people long Dead.
>> As a ground rule, if I were you in any discussion anywhere about the
>> homosexual agenda, I would document any accusation of homosexuality
>> whenever such
>> accusation is made. Otherwise, most reasonable people are going to assume
>> this is yet another homosexual deviant statement.
> No, reasonable people are not homophobic, and don't think homosexuals are
> deviants. You, OTOH, are clearly a sick Xian fanatic.

No idea what you are talking about.

>>>>> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>>>>Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality
>>>>behavior choices are comparable to being born with black skin.
>>> Read what I wrote - I wrote 'minority groups'. Black people, Arabs,
>>> Chinese and homosexuals are all examples of minority groups, and all
>>> save homosexuals have been portrayed by cast members in Star Trek.
>> You seem to have a reading comprehendsion issue here. There is No
>> equivalence
>> of any kind between the color of one's skin when born and someone making
>> a choice to put their male procreative organ in content with the
>> male faeces excrement of another man.
>> Capice ?
> No, you're very obviously the person who doesn't know what words mean.
> Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual, they're born that way, same as
> straights, bisexuals, and whatever you are.

Rubbish. Even the homosexuals in the psychological organizations admit that
homosexuality is decided early in life through exposure to the wrong people,
such as a molestor or an estranged relationship with a father figure.
There is no proven evidence it is genetic.

>>>> And black people have reacted with anger toward this malicious
>>>> association. As I have mentioned, black and hispanics vote in higher
>>>> proportions against the homosexual agenda than white people
>>>>when Homosexual issues are on ballot questions.
>>>>Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition
>>>>comparable to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexuals at
>>>>all.
>>> Blatant misdirection - you certainly seem to be going out of your way
>>> to prove yourself dishonest. There is no 'accusation' of any sort
>>> involved; both are comparable to the extent that they are minority
>>> groups often treated with hostility by the intolerant.
>> A minority group of people commit the behaviors of murder and child rape.
>> You want to align them with black people too ?
> Murder and child molestation are *crimes*. Homosexuality and (much as some
> police officers may believe otherwise) being black are *not* crimes. Simple
> enough, or does it need to be rendered into baby-talk?

Homosexuality for most of the time in society has been illegal.
Only corrupt bribed out US Supreme Court judges have changed that without any
basis in the US Constitution.

>>>>> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>>>>> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>>>>The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy
>>>>in their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular
>>>>basis.
>>> You do realise what sodomy is, don't you? It isn't references to
>>> possibly veiled transexuality and it isn't innuendo. It isn't even
>>> same-sex kissing. It's a sexual act that has never been depicted on
>>> Star Trek, Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica or any other sci-fi series that
>>> I'm aware of, so you're simply talking rubbish.
>> As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
>> And the producers are just itching to parade the real thing in all its
>> faecal entirety before you and your kids as soon as they think they can
>> survive the ratings hit. When do you think you and your kids will be ready
>> to accept the whoile Sodomy act into your living room? They want to know.
> And symbolism, of any kind, is in the eye of the beholder. Don't imagine
> that your psychological issues (and they are many, and deep) are anyone
> else's.

Saturday Night Live and TV Guide have seen the same Sodomy symbolism in BSG.
They all have the problems you describe ?

>>>>> that she was a young woman, and her symbiont was not 'a man' but an
>>>>> alien that as far as anyone knows was sexless.
>>>>Rubbish. The symbiont trill was a man or Sisko would not be calling her
>>>>"Old Man".
>>> Uh, have you actually paid attention to any of the stories or were you
>>> just watching to find something to rave about? The 'Old Man' was Curzon
>>> Dax, the symbiont's previous *host* who Sisko had known before Jadzia,
>>> not the symbiont. The ratio of males to females among previous hosts
>>> was roughly 50/50 as I remember.
>> As i stated, this whole storyline was created in order to create gender
>> ambivalence in the Jadzia Dax character and thus bring Sodomy symbolism
>> into your living room for you and your kids.
> OK, first, see above re: symbolism. Second, so what? It's an issue for you,
> your fundy brethren, and a bunch of repressed tight-asses who are terrified
> they might be gay, not most people.

There you go again, accusing people of being homosexual without proof.

>>>>> The point that Shocked is missing, of course, is that Star Trek is and
>>>>> always has been a morality play promoting tolerance and equality -
>>>>> bigotry towards homosexuals has no more place in it than bigotry
>>>>> towards blacks, and the stories reflect that by confronting prejudice
>>>>> and portraying it negatively. Homophobes are as welcome to complain
>>>>> about that as racists are, but there's no more an agenda to 'promote'
>>>>> homosexuality than an agenda to 'promote' being black.
>>>>> Philip Bowles
>>>>Again this is the con. Black people are comparable to people who choose
>>>>to put their male procreative organ in contact with another man's faeces
>>>>excrement.
>>> Again this is deliberate misdirection. Homophobia is comparable to
>>> racism, both entailing an irrational hatred of differences in others (a
>>> hatred which, from your continual use of terms like 'deviant', it is
>>> very clear you share) - it's a non sequitur to claim that that is
>>> equivalent to saying black people are comparable to homosexuals.
>> No, racism is based on hate of color of skin, not deeds.
>> Civil Rights has never caused black inappropriate behavior to be
>> tolerated.
> Sexual behaviour between consenting adults is never "inappropriate", except
> to fundies and the repressed.

You would be surprised how many people think that bringing the male procreative organ
in contact with the faeces excrement of another man is disgusting.

>>>>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are
>>>>"homophobes". How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward
>>>>those who disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
>>> That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
>>> you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
>>> find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
>>> innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
>>> those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
>>> intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
>>> 'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
>>> because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing
>> Nothing I have stated here has failed to be discredited, let alone proven
>> [right]. [I said "wrong" in my post but he changed my word to "right" -- JS]
> OK, now that looks like an honest entence from you. Too bad you didn't
> really say it, too bad, so sad.

This dishonesty about what people actually said is exactly what we are talking about here.
See the pattern ? And when you are dishonest like this and then choose a deviant
sexual behavior, what makes you think people are going to have a high opinion
about that deviant sexual behavior, either.

>>> to notice, and your homophobic motives are abundantly clear from your
>>> use of disparaging rhetoric and blatant stereotyping, not to mention
>>> your loony idea that homosexuals are behind everything that's bad in
>>> the world. Maybe next you'll try arguing that all the conspiracy nuts
>>> who believe in a 'Zionist conspiracy' to control the planet aren't
>>> really anti-Semitic.
>>> Philip Bowles
>> This pro-Israel crap is running thin. People have looked the other way
>> while Israel committed mass murder against their Arab/Moslem neighbors for
>> a long time hoping they would make peace with their neighbors, give back
>> the land and property they stole in 1948, pay reparations for the men,
>> women and children they massacred in Palestinian townships like Yassin,
>> and end the conflict.
> Yeah, OK. Israel has behaved badly. So have the Saudis, Jordan, Egypt, and
> the rest of the Arab/Moslem countries. Even the Pals have done rotten
> things. It's a mess. Every faction has its hands dirty, and most of them
> are out for some degree of conquest and absolute rule. Painting the
> conspiracies of one as Bad and Evil and Wrong, while ignoring or supporting
> the conspiracies of the others, however, is mendacious in the extreme.

Israel started the terrorism in the region after the 1947 UN Partition of Palestine,
who could have resulted in peace in the region. But crooks in Israel and
in the US and British governments wanted to support a campaign of terrorism
against the dark skinned peoples of that region. Along with David Ben-Gurion,
the terrorist first Prime Minister of Israel, US President Harry Truman must also
be tagged as a terrorist in starting this terrorist campaign against the
Arabs/Moslems of the Middle East.
I doubt this would have begun if President Dwight Eisenhower (elected 1952, began 1953)
had been President in 1947.

>> Instead, Israel has chosen to perpetuate the conflict because they receive
>> billions of US dollars each year in cash and the best weapons with which
>> to mass murder their other Arab neighbors in the region.
> You do know, right, that Saudi Arabia is a US ally, to the point of having
> multiple US military bases on its soil? The US is completely amoral on this
> whole thing, and has been since the early Cold War years. Whatever serves
> US interests has always been the #1 issue, and the ones setting the terms
> for "US interests" have increasingly been composed of neo-cons (followers
> of Leo Strauss and Michael Ledeen) and "Christian
> Reconstructionists/Dominionists" (disciples of R.J. Rushdoony, Francis
> Schaeffer, and Pat Robertson/Oral Roberts/Jerry Falwell/etc.), over the

Wrong, religious guys like Falwell and Robertson are on the outside of the Reagan and
Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations, which were dominated by Neo-Conservatives.
Clinton also was a Neo-Conservative, supporting the "Gays In The Military" policy.
However, the scum in Hollywood, on the radio music lyrics and TV deviance really
exploded from deregulations of the media and restrictions on the
Federal Communications Commission during Republican administrations, especially Reagan.
Reagan was the true criminal responsible for the debasement of the media and it actually
was guys on the Left, like Al Gore and his wife Tipper who battled against the
Neo-Conservatives on music lyrics to demand labeling.
Here is some truth on the relationship of
Republican administrations, Neo-Conservatives and the Religious 'Right':
Truly religious people in the US are being played for chumps and sold out by Falwell
and Roberton etc, who do not challenge the right of criminals in Hollywood to put on
TV, Radio and movies anything that they want without regulation.
Without challenging that, and proposing outright Bans of certain content in the media,
you cannot play up some mirage like Terri Schiavo life/death for the truly religious chumps
in the US and claim to be on the Religious Right.

============================================================ ====
============================================================ ====
Wrong. The Right has changed dramatically, to the point that there is a new political group
or cult called Neo-Conservatives, who love Sodomy, and they are in control of our Bush
government right now. They are essentially similar to regular Conservatives, except they have
no religious compunctions about Sodomy and they want to murder as many Arabs as US tax money
can buy.

Hollywood Homosexuals are a very similar group to the group well known as Neo- Conservatives
or Neo-Cons. They generally are Conservatives who believe vehemently in Sodomy, Israel and
Individual Rights for people to engage in any kind of behavior they want, with no moral
societal rules. Since most people do not know what a Neo- Conservative is and there still
exists some debate about their views, I use "Hollywood Homosexuals" instead, because it
directly addresses what I am concerned about and is easier to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_State s%29

http://www.hppub.com/dadtseq/gaycon.htm

Neo-Conservatives are the main propellants in this country of the extermination of Arabs in
the Middle East. They are the ones who contributed huge amounts of money to Bush and to the
Conservative Think Tanks to develop the anti-Iraq coalition and many people believe they have
hijacked US Foreign Policy. And Neo-Conservatives support Sodomy big time.

Read this:

http://www.fpif.org/papers/2004evangelical.html

=========================excerpt============================

Finally, the Christian right's access to power has been greatly aided by the ties it has
developed with neoconservatives influential within the present administration.
Neoconservative intellectuals, many of them Jewish, may seem unlikely allies for the
Christian right, but this partnership has developed across several issue areas. The most
important basis for this partnership is a common support for Israel or, to put it more
accurately, for the Likud Party's vision of Israel's interests. The Christian right's support
for Israel harks back to the movement's beginnings in the late 1970s, but it has risen to a
higher level in the last few years. The 2002 annual convention of the Christian Coalition
culminated in a rally for Israel, and Ralph Reed and Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein recently founded
a new group, Stand for Israel. Meanwhile, throughout Christian right media, criticism of the
Palestinians and support for hard-line Israeli policies has grown more intense.
====================end of excerpt=======================

Thus, BSG selling Sodomy to your Son has a lot of support within Washington, even though the
Bush administration claims to be super religious. Money Talks, and the Neo-Conservatives
haves tons and tons of money to buy politicians.

============================================================ ====
============================================================ ====

> past few decades, meaning what's good for Israel is good for them (up to a
> point), and what's good for them is to have all the Jews in the world in
> Israel, which they expect will then be destroyed, then it's time for the
> Rapture, Tribulation, Armageddon, Apocalypse, blah blah blah.
>
> Pro-Zionism, for non-Jewish Xian fundies especially, is equivalent to
> anti-Semitism. And somehow, anti-Zionism also seems to equate to
> anti-Semitism, very often...I think a declaration that Israel and the US

Wrong, it is not anti-semitism to oppose the mass murders of Arabs/Moslems
in which the Israelis and their Neo-Conservative supporters in the US
have committed.

> are just another couple of countries needs to be made. No more "greatest
> country in the world" bullshit. It's gone too far, and so many Americans
> are either arrogant nationalists who think their country ought to control
> the world, or are simply fucking sick of all the crap and want to go back
> to being just another country.

President Truman was a mass murdering criminal along with David Ben-Gurion,
the first Prime Minister of Israel who started the terrorism against the
Arabs/Moslems in the Middle East.

>> I think people are becoming real tired of being played for chumps with
>> that kind of rhetoric and Hollywood holocausts and anti-Arab/Moslem
>> movies.
> Now, this is where you go completely off your rails. I mean, the homophobia
> is bad enough, but all by itself, it's pretty much just the same old, same
> old. Making the Hollywood mainstream a part of the neo-con movement,
> however, is going right over the edge into kook-out country.

The Hollywood Homosexual attacks on Arabs/Moslems in the movies have been
documented. There are whole books documenting a list of 100's of movies with
this anti-Arab/Moslem content in them.
e.g. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People by Jack G. Shaheen 574 pages

Politics

============================================================ ====
============================================================ ====
>
> Uh-huh. Check this out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll3.htm
>
> Should gays be protected under hate-crimes legislation?
>
> In a hate crime, the criminal is motivated by hatred of a group -- e.g.
> extreme dislike of African-Americans, Jews, homosexuals... Quite often the
> victim is a stranger. This is a type of terrorist act in which the
> perpetrator does not just send a message to their victim. Their goal is to
> terrorize persons of a particular race, faith group, sexual minority, etc.
> Some legislators feel that hate crimes deserve an extra sentence to
> reinforce society's repugnance of the act. So a convicted criminal would
> get a regular sentence for the crime. Then they would get an additional
> sentence because the assault was a hate crime. Conflicts exist at the
> federal and state levels over which groups should be protected. For
> example, as of 2001-JUL, the federal law does not include gender,
> disability or sexual orientation as protected classes. Individual states
> vary in their selection of protected groups.
>
> The Gallup Organization asked the question: "If a hate law were enacted in
> your state, which of the following groups do you think should be
> covered?... Homosexuals" Results were:
> Date Favor protection Oppose protection No opinion
> 1999-FEB 75 20 5
>
> One interesting point with these data is that no hate crime legislation, in
> place or suggested, has ever protected gays or lesbians. Some have
> protected persons on the basis of their sexual orientation. But those laws
> protect heterosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals equally.
>
> Should homosexual behavior be criminalized or de-criminalized:
>
> Barna Research of Ventura CA found on 2001-MAY that 48% feel that homosexual
> activity between consenting adults should be legal; 42% said they should
> not be legal; 10% had no opinion. There is a noticeable gap between "born
> again" Christians and other Americans: Only 34% of born-again adults feel
> that this behavior should be legal. 57% of non-born-again feel that way.
>
> General poll on homosexuality:
>
> Barna Research, an Evangelical Christian polling company, conducted a survey
> of 1,003 American adults, asking their opinion about abortion and
> homosexuality. Results, released in early 2001-AUG were remarkable:
> bullet 45% agree that homosexuality is "an acceptable lifestyle." This, of
> course, is an extremely biased question for the pollsters to ask. Many
> people consider homosexuality to be a sexual orientation and not a
> lifestyle. Thus, some persons polled would answer that it is not an
> acceptable lifestyle because it is not a lifestyle.
> bullet 46% say it is an unacceptable lifestyle.
> bullet These results are a statistical dead-heat because the margin of error
> is about 3%
> bullet Among Born-again Christians:
> bullet 27% say called gay lifestyles acceptable
> bullet 66% said they were unacceptable.
> bullet Among Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians:
> bullet 95% say that homosexuality is unacceptable.
> bullet 2% called it an acceptable lifestyle
> bullet 3% were undecided.
>
> Gee, d'you think maybe John Shocked could be a Xian Fundy? Naaaaaaaaahhh...
>

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80510 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 03:45

pbowles

>On 16 Jul 2005 15:58:43 -
>
>
>
>0700, pbow... [at] aol.com <pbow... [at] aol
>.com> wrote:
>
>>Wasn't that episode symbolism for rape rather than homosexuality, as
>>T-Pol hadn't given permission for the meld (carried out by a male
>>Vulcan)? Or am I thinking of a different episode?
>
>
>
>That was the set-up. The gay symbolism was the punch-line. T'Pol was
>symbolically raped by a mind-melder, which is how she got the
>disorder. When they try (half a season later) to find a treatment,
>they get told "You only get it from mind-melds, and mind-melders are
>perverts, so we're not looking for a cure," though a closeted and
>not-infected mind-melder eventually helped them.

I have a vague feeling I might have missed the 'punch-line' episode -
it rings a tiny bell, but maybe only because I saw a plot synopsis.
There's as much or more Enterprise I haven't seen than Enterprise I
have, certainly in the last two seasons (season 4 hasn't even started
here in Australia yet and given that season 3 ended its run being shown
only at 1 am in the morning, I rather doubt it ever will be).

>> Showing up ten years late to the party,

>>Well, in spite of the reputation the first series acquired, Star Trek's
>>morality plays can rarely be described as topical and the series is
>>usually very far from radical - it tends to address social issues only
>>after someone else has brought them up in the media first, like the
>>'lesbian' kiss in "Rejoined".
>
>
>
>Yes. But Enterprise in particular seemed to enjoy doing morality
>plays that were *way* out of date (If you're feeling really generous,
>you can suppose that having out-of-date morality plays was a symbolic
>reference to the fact that this show was set a hundred years earlier
>than the rest of the franchise).

:-)

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80519 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 05:20

pbowles

><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121514199.228862.10760 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121499007.957063.146020 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1121482787.590224.280430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
>>>>> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
>>>>> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
>>>>> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
>>>>>This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or after
>>>>>Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
>>>>>this muck began to appear.
>>>> These particular episodes, but Roddenberry himself always intended to
>>>> write a morality play - he simply dressed it up as sci-fi to get it
>>>> aired by the networks. There's one story where one of the actors said
>>>> to him "I get it, you're writing a morality play, aren't you?" to which
>>>> Roddenberry's response was "ssh, don't tell anyone - they haven't
>>>> figured it out yet". What was that story with the white-and-black
>>>> people fighting the black-and-white people? A pretty blatant
>>>> anti-racism episode, playing off a social issue of the time.
>>>I do not remember that episode. But race is a settled issue. There was a war
>>>fought over it and then crooked US Supreme Court Judges allowed segregation,
>>>another civil rights battle ensued.
>> Which is the context in which the episode was produced, when it wasn't
>> a settled issue. Star Trek is famous for featuring the first black
>> character in a non-stereotyped role, even though from what I've heard
>> this isn't actually true.
>
>
>No it was a settled issue.

This would astonish Martin Luther King.

> The 14th Amendment existed and everyone in the country
>has known that the Segregation and the KKK were illegal.

So which is it? Is it the word of law that settles the issue (in which
case the same is true of homosexuality) or the social reality, since
you try to insist below that the laws on homosexuality are meaningless
because you believe they don't reflect the popular reality.

>>> Homosexuality wasn't in the public consciousness to any extent then,
>>> but if there had been a vocal anti-gay movement there's little doubt
>>> Roddenberry would endorse episodes promoting tolerance
>>>This is an absurd statement. Compared to today's 'science fiction' there
>>>were huge amounts of science fiction in Roddenberry's work.
>>>Taking on big issues in TV scripts is quite normal but the difference here is that
>>>the US public and the population of most countries is overwhelmingly opposed to
>>>the homosexual agenda.
>> The "homosexual agenda" lives wholly in your mind, and I know of no
>> evidence that the populations of most Western countries at any rate are
>> "overwhelmingly opposed" to homosexuals as a group or homosexuality as
>> a practice - indeed not only homosexuality but legal homosexual
>> marriage now exists in four countries and a number of US states, and is
>> being considered in the UK, a country where several recent media
>> investigations by openly gay journalists travelling through the
>> country's more conservative regions failed to provoke any hostility,
>> and in which one homophobic outburst from a hostel in Scotland was
>> loudly disowned by the rest of the tourism industry.
>
>
>That is an example of Hollywood Homosexuals at work.

In the UK?

>They are wealthy, own the media and have enough money left over to buy
>enough politicians to support their agenda.
>Can you name any countries in which a national Ballot Question or plebiscite
>has voted to give rights to homosexuals ?

I could ask the same about ethnic minorities or indeed women. The bills
legalising gay marriage in Spain and elsewhere were passed by the
democratic process of a ballot among elected members of the national
parliament - it's ludicrous to demand a higher standard of 'democracy'
for laws on homosexuality than for other laws purely because you
disagree with them.

>>>In truth, that document says that this chump was the Step-Grandson of
>>>Gene Roddenberry, which means they share no blood or DNA.
>>>To allow yourself to be used against your own Step-Grandfather is pretty deviant
>>>behavior, and thus this does not help the cause of the homosexual agenda.
>> Where on Earth are you getting the idea that Roddenberry was opposed to
>> homosexuality at all, let alone that agitating for its inclusion in
>> Star Trek qualifies as "acting against" him? Given his willingness to
>> espouse messages of tolerance in his series, it would frankly be
>> hypocritical of him to oppose a message of tolerance towards
>> homosexuals in Star Trek were he alive to comment on the issue.
>
>
>Again, tolerance of someone being born black or born a woman (Civil Rights),
>has nothing to do with tolerance of behavior, such as drug use, prostitution,
>Sodomy or murder (Civil Liberties).

You seem to be suffering from a logic problem here. "People are
accountable for their behaviour" does not entail "all behaviours are
equivalent". You may as well say that tolerance of heterosexual sex is
akin to tolerance of drug use, prostitution or murder.

>Not only are they wholly different, but Civil Rights is on the Left of the political spectrum,
>and Civil Liberties is on the extreme Right as a libertarian issue.

Civil rights are equally consistent with left and right - from the
left-wing perspective, society has a duty to provide these rights to
its citizens; from the right-wing perspective individuals have an
inherent entitlement to these rights, over which society should have no
jurisdiction. As far as your conception of civil liberties is
concerned, it's hardly a right-wing position - right-wing philosophies
emphasise individual responsibility, hence their traditional support
for harsh prison sentences, as much as or sometimes even more than
individual rights.

>>>It is common here and in other Sodomy promotion environments to make these
>>>false accusations, often about people long Dead.
>> Is it indeed, or is this just an assertion of yours based on your
>> assumption that people have a habit of lying about others' sexuality?
>> It seems clear from your failure to follow up the earlier list of
>> historical homo- and bisexuals that you aren't in the habit of checking
>> for yourself, so how would you know whether the 'accusations' are true
>> or false? For example, it took me all of two minutes to come up with
>> the site referencing Alexander's mother's reaction to his relationship
>> with Hephaestion, the gossip of the time that Alexander had only ever
>> been conquered by Hephaestion's thighs and references from Xenephon
>> and Plutarch alluding to bisexuality as common practice in his time -
>> would it have killed you to do the same? If you accuse someone of
>> dishonesty the burden is on you to prove it, not on the other to defend
>> himself from the allegation. Little principle that goes by the
>> catchphrase "innocent until proven guilty" - you may have heard of it.
>
>
>Again, post the URLs of these wild allegations if you want to be believed.

You missed the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, didn't you?
Whether you believe it or not is frankly an irrelevance; it's wholly up
to you to verify it or not should you desire. As for Plutarch, I didn't
say he had specifically alluded to Alexander's sexuality, simply that
he had commented in one of his works (which may or may not have had
anything to do with Alexander) that bisexual relationships were
commonplace in Greek society at the time.

>>>As a ground rule, if I were you in any discussion anywhere about the homosexual
>>>agenda, I would document any accusation of homosexuality whenever such
>>>accusation is made. Otherwise, most reasonable people are going to assume
>>>this is yet another homosexual deviant statement.
>> Based on your performance here and in the sci-fi group, you'd be the
>> last person I'd ask for an insight into the assumptions made by
>> reasonable people. Oddly enough, most reasonable people aren't of the
>> conviction that the world is run by "homosexual deviants" or that
>
>
>Here is another dishonest statement: where did I say the world was run
>by "homosexual deviants" ?

If you want to dabble in semantic pedantry, where did I say you said
that? I said that most reasonable people aren't under that conviction.
You've already characterised homosexuals as 'deviants' and earlier in
this very thread you stated a conviction that they control the media
and bribe politicians to do their bidding, indeed even outside the US.
The inference from that is hardly an inductive leap. Substitute
'Hollywood Homosexual' for 'Zionists' or David Icke's lizard people and
your conspiracy theory is exactly the same.

>>>>> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>>>>Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality behavior
>>>>choices are comparable to being born with black skin.
>>> Read what I wrote - I wrote 'minority groups'. Black people, Arabs,
>>> Chinese and homosexuals are all examples of minority groups, and all
>>>> save homosexuals have been portrayed by cast members in Star Trek.
>>>You seem to have a reading comprehendsion issue here.
>> On the contrary, you're either failing to comprehend the point at issue
>> or simply refusing to answer it by parroting an earlier one of your own
>> which is of no relevance to the point at hand. This was to do with the
>> treatment of minority groups in Star Trek. It is a social reality that
>> homosexuals constitute a minority group, in which context they are no
>> different from ethnic minority groups. The issue of choice is an
>> irrelevance to this factual point.
>
>
>This is nonsense. Black people do not agree with you and they are voting
>overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda.
>Are black people fools who cannot recognize another discrimination victim ?

Again, either deliberately or through utter stupidity, you are
completely missing the point being made - this has nothing whatsoever
to do with black attitudes towards homosexuality. Blacks themselves
would still be a minority group (although strictly speaking they are
close to becoming the majority ethnic group in some Western nations)
even if members in some other minority group were racist towards them.

>>>There is No equivalenceof any kind between the color of one's skin
>>>when born and someone making
>>>a choice to put their male procreative organ in [contact] with the
>>>male faeces excrement of another man.
>> Why the need for graphic imagery? You don't feel the need to describe
>
>
>The truth. What is wrong with the truth ?

Calling it 'sodomy' or 'buggery' is equally true - the point is that
you're making a shallow attempt to appeal to (what you hope would be)
people's disgust when the act is described graphically, which only
serves to expose the low quality of your argumentation.

>>>>>Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition comparable
>>>>>to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexuals at all.
>>>> Blatant misdirection - you certainly seem to be going out of your way
>>>> to prove yourself dishonest. There is no 'accusation' of any sort
>>>> involved; both are comparable to the extent that they are minority
>>>> groups often treated with hostility by the intolerant.
>>>A minority group of people commit the behaviors of murder and child rape.
>>>You want to align them with black people too ?
>> You criticise supposedly inappropriate analogies and then draw your own
>> wilder, yet wholly predictable ones? While the principle that people
>> should be judged on deeds rather than on who and what they are is
>> sound, you're distorting it beyond recognition with this hackneyed
>> line. Two simple points you've missed should be borne in mind:
>> 1. Being homosexual is not simply the act of 'committing' sodomy (which
>> is usually described as 'practising homosexuality'). It implies merely
>> sexual attraction to other members of the same sex, and that is
>> something which is as inherent to homosexuals as dark skin colour is to
>> black people. It's not a matter of choice any more than attraction to
>> people of the opposite sex is a matter of choice for heterosexuals, and
>> it logically follows that satisfying that attraction through sexual
>> activity (which may or may not include sodomy), while a matter of
>> choice, is no different in principle from satisfying heterosexual
>
>
>Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
>develops early in life normally

Sexuality of all forms develops early in life - at a stage known as
puberty.

> and is not genetic.

Firstly, where is your evidence? Secondly, how many psychologists are
geneticists? Thirdly, you appear to fundamentally misunderstand basic
biological principles - something can be inherent without being genetic
(ecophenotypic characters and maternal effects, for instance), and few
characters are either wholly genetic or wholly a response to the
environment or conditioning. Homosexuality clearly is heritable to an
extent and maternal effects do appear to operate (second and subsequent
male children are more likely to be homosexual than first-born ones,
for instance), so there is undeniably a significant component that has
nothing to do with personal choice.

>Most homosexuals just met the wrong person early in life, who may
>have been a molestor just a distant father figure.

It's abundantly clear from this comment that you aren't a psychologist.
That sort of simplistic psychobabble and overgeneralisation has been
discredited since shortly after Freud.

>> 2. On objective moral grounds murder, rape (of a child or otherwise) et
>> al. can be condemned on the basis that others are harmed by them. It's
>> very hard to see how any such case can be made for homosexuality in a
>> consensual relationship (if you're going to count sexually transmitted
>> diseases or the possibility of tissue damage during intercourse, these
>> are equally possible from heterosexual intercourse and few people would
>> regard that as immoral unless one party knowingly keeps his/her disease
>> etc. from the other) - and note the requirement for objectively
>> justifiable grounds. Personal disgust doesn't qualify and nor does an
>> appeal to arbitrary religious doctrines.
>
>
>Homosexuality does harm to Life, in thatit prevents the person from creating
>life and participating in the balance between life and death on which a
>self-perpetuating civilization is based.

That is simultaneously among the most creative and the most brainless
attempts I've seen to try and explain how homosexuality causes harm. By
that logic any asexual, any heterosexual who chooses not to reproduce
or who uses contraception and indeed any heterosexual female who has
fewer than the maximum number of offspring she could have during a
lifetime "does harm to Life". All this notwithstanding the blatantly
obvious empirical fact that the human race is having no trouble
whatsoever reproducing itself, and indeed that the current exponential
population growth rate is unsustainable. In any case "Life" is not a
moral agent.

> Numerous European civilations are
>dying out right now, since they are nowhere near the replacement rate
>in births and fertility.

You honestly believe that this is due entirely to the fact that 10% of
the population is homosexual? As far as anyone can judge homosexuality
has always been constant at around 10%, and it has certainly always
been present, in societies with a high rate of population replacement
as much as in those in decline. Across the world the rate of
homosexuality is much the same between countries, while fertility and
birth rates differ wildly. It's pretty well-documented that the decline
in European birthrates is correlated with a generally ageing population
(which can therefore produce fewer offspring) and decisions among those
couples that have children to have fewer than their ancestors did.

>Thus homosexuality does have a harmful effect on society.

If this is really the best you can come up with for a harmful effect
from homosexuality, I rest my case.

>> So, in summary, your hatred is directed against a group of people based
>> on an intrinsic feature of those individuals (and, it appears, not even
>> solely against those among them who practice sodomy but simply against
>> anyone expressing attraction to another member of the same sex) that
>> does nobody any harm - that sounds an awful lot like racism against
>> blacks, and nothing whatsoever like condemnation of murder or rape.
>
>
>The only Hate involved in this issue is the Hate that Hollywood Homosexuals
>Neo-Conservatives possess for Arabs/Moslems who they want to mass murder
>worldwide, not just in Iraq and Palestine.

I'd say you've lost the plot at this point, but it's clear you were
never even reading the same book.

>>>>>> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>>>>>> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>>>>>The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy in
>>>>>their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular basis.
>>>>> You do realise what sodomy is, don't you? It isn't references to
>>>>> possibly veiled transexuality and it isn't innuendo. It isn't even
>>>>> same-sex kissing. It's a sexual act that has never been depicted on
>>>>> Star Trek, Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica or any other sci-fi series that
>>>>> I'm aware of, so you're simply talking rubbish.
>>>>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
>> Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
>> time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.
>
>
>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in Battlestar Galactica.

Very strange that I'm not the only one to see the reverse, isn't it?

>Your services here on this issue are needed desperately to aid the homosexual agenda
>on this Newsgroup.

I'm sure their evil schemes for world domination are floundering in the
face of your awesome idiocy.

>>>And the producers are just itching to parade the real thing in all its faecal
>>>entirety before you and your kids as soon as they think they can survive the ratings hit.
>> Supposition based on what? Again you're just talking rubbish.
>
>
>Why do you think they are going to the trouble of providing symbolism of Sodomy
>and not showing the complete thing ?

Huh? There's plenty of 'heterosexual symbolism' in these shows, but
when have they ever shown the actual acts involved in heterosexual sex?
Ignoring for now the fact that the "symbolism of Sodomy", certainly as
far as BSG is concerned, is wholly within your head.

>> how is it in any way "sodomy symbolism"? Transsexualism and
>> homosexuality aren't in any way connected, and the former carries no
>> implications of sodomy. What does "gender ambivalence" have to do with
>> homosexuality?
>
>
>Hollywood Homosexuals want extract sex from the real world of nature and make it
>a separate abstract commodity, then allow themselves to choose whomever they want,
>man, woman, boy, girl, dog, cow, etc as the 2 partners in the sex act. Gender ambivalence
>is critical to this strategy.

Here's news for you: homosexuals don't choose partners whose gender is
'ambivalent', they choose those of the same sex. So even if I were to
believe that rubbish it wouldn't do anything to promote homosexuality.

In BSG, the unisex toilets in which men and women are in
>the toilet stalls shown sitting next to each other is a major part of this strategy.

Oh, for goodness sake. You really *don't* pay any attention to the
actual stories, do you? Has it never occurred to you that maybe
something might actually be done because it's easier to work it into
the story that way? The unisex toilets were added because Baltar needed
to meet 'Gwendolyn' there to fulfil a story function and he couldn't
really have waltzed into a female bathroom - it's as innocuous as that.

>>>>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are "homophobes".
>>>>How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
>>>>disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
>>> That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
>>> you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
>>> find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
>>> innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
>>> those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
>>> intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
>>> 'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
>>> because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing
>>Nothing I have stated here has been discredited, let alone proven wrong.
>> I did say you hadn't seemed to notice...
>
>
>Prove a refutation.

One that springs to mind immediately from a past browse was your claim
that possible lesbianism on Boomer's part represented 'sodomy
symbolism', ably refuted by whoever pointed out that lesbianism doesn't
actually involve sodomy and hence no such symbolism is possible. This
is merely one example from one post I happened to notice; I don't feel
inclined to wade through your past drivel, but Google will no doubt
provide numerous other examples.

>Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives Hate the component Left groups,
>The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women as much as any regular Conservative.
>Heck, they do not even film Battlestar Galactica in the US, in order to avoid
>giving jobs to those Left groups.

It's just about possible that this might relate to the fact that
Battlestar Galactica's major source of funding is a British
broadcaster, wouldn't you say?

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80522 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 05:49

pbowles

>>>> Again this is deliberate misdirection. Homophobia is comparable to
>>>> racism, both entailing an irrational hatred of differences in others (a
>>>> hatred which, from your continual use of terms like 'deviant', it is
>>>> very clear you share) - it's a non sequitur to claim that that is
>>>> equivalent to saying black people are comparable to homosexuals.
>>> No, racism is based on hate of color of skin, not deeds.
>>> Civil Rights has never caused black inappropriate behavior to be
>>> tolerated.
>> Sexual behaviour between consenting adults is never "inappropriate", except
>> to fundies and the repressed.
>
>
>You would be surprised how many people think that bringing the male procreative organ
>in contact with the faeces excrement of another man is disgusting.

Still a language problem with you, I see. The term used was
"inappropriate", implying 'wrong' or 'misguided'. Not "disgusting",
which is not a synonym and which carries no moral connotations. Feel
free to be disgusted by it; I've said before that I don't find the idea
terribly pleasant either - but so what? That certainly doesn't make it
'inappropriate' or wrong for those who don't have any objection to
doing it - it is, after all, a consensual relationship. Bringing us
back to the point that "Sexual behaviour between consenting adults is
never 'inappropriate'".

>>>>>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are
>>>>>"homophobes". How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward
>>>>>those who disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
>>>> That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
>>>> you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
>>>> find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
>>>> innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
>>>> those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
>>>> intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
>>>> 'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
>>>> because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing
>>> Nothing I have stated here has failed to be discredited, let alone proven
>>> [right]. [I said "wrong" in my post but he changed my word to "right" -- JS]
>> OK, now that looks like an honest entence from you. Too bad you didn't
>> really say it, too bad, so sad.
>
>
>This dishonesty about what people actually said is exactly what we are talking about here.

You mean, the part where he says "Too bad you didn't really say it"?
It's only dishonest if the person altering the words expects them to be
taken as a true representation of what you said.

>See the pattern ? And when you are dishonest like this and then choose a deviant
>sexual behavior, what makes you think people are going to have a high opinion
>about that deviant sexual behavior, either.

You don't even have a nodding acquaintance with logic, do you?

>>>> to notice, and your homophobic motives are abundantly clear from your
>>>> use of disparaging rhetoric and blatant stereotyping, not to mention
>>>> your loony idea that homosexuals are behind everything that's bad in
>>>> the world. Maybe next you'll try arguing that all the conspiracy nuts
>>>> who believe in a 'Zionist conspiracy' to control the planet aren't
>>>> really anti-Semitic.
>>>> Philip Bowles
>>> This pro-Israel crap is running thin. People have looked the other way
>>> while Israel committed mass murder against their Arab/Moslem neighbors for
>>> a long time hoping they would make peace with their neighbors, give back
>>> the land and property they stole in 1948, pay reparations for the men,
>>> women and children they massacred in Palestinian townships like Yassin,
>>> and end the conflict.
>> Yeah, OK. Israel has behaved badly. So have the Saudis, Jordan, Egypt, and
>> the rest of the Arab/Moslem countries. Even the Pals have done rotten
>> things. It's a mess. Every faction has its hands dirty, and most of them
>> are out for some degree of conquest and absolute rule. Painting the
>> conspiracies of one as Bad and Evil and Wrong, while ignoring or supporting
>> the conspiracies of the others, however, is mendacious in the extreme.
>
>
>Israel started the terrorism in the region after the 1947 UN Partition of Palestine,

Guess what? After the age of 5 most people learn that whining "but he
started it!" is not an acceptable excuse for violent behaviour - the
responsibility for continuing terror attacks more than fifty years on
lies as much with the Palestinian terror groups as it does with the
Israelis.

But crooks in Israel and
>in the US and British governments wanted to support a campaign of terrorism
>against the dark skinned peoples of that region.

Uh, you do realise that Arabs are ethnically Semitic, just like the
Jews, and racially Caucasian, just like the European and Europeanised
cultures, don't you? It's true however that the early terrorism in
Palestine was carried out by Jewish extremist groups - against the
British, before the state of Israel was declared.

>Wrong, religious guys like Falwell and Robertson are on the outside of the Reagan and
>Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations, which were dominated by Neo-Conservatives.
>Clinton also was a Neo-Conservative, supporting the "Gays In The Military" policy.

Is English your first language? Conservative = in favour of the status
quo, against change, both semantically and in political terms. How does
this fit with then-radical policy changes like allowing homosexuals to
serve (openly) in the military?

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80524 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 05:57

The Secretary of HomI

Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when pbowles [at] aol.com wrote:
>John Shocked wrote...
> > The 14th Amendment existed and everyone in the country
> >has known that the Segregation and the KKK were illegal.
>
> So which is it? Is it the word of law that settles the issue (in which
> case the same is true of homosexuality) or the social reality, since
> you try to insist below that the laws on homosexuality are meaningless
> because you believe they don't reflect the popular reality.

It's whatever John Shocked says it is, silly -- you don't think Xian fundies
play *fair*, do you? Or have any honesty, considering he has yet to own up.

--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80527 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 06:32

lraszewski

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:35 -0700, John Shocked <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>Most homosexuals just met the wrong person early in life, who may
>have been a molestor just a distant father figure.
>

This is simply a flat-out lie. If you're going to manufacture
"evidence", there's no point debating you. You might as well say
"Homosexuality is wrong because the mole people told me in their
nightly radio broadcast to my brain."

>
>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in
>Battlestar Galactica.
>Your services here on this issue are needed desperately to aid the
>homosexual agenda
>on this Newsgroup.
>

Your claims of sodomy symbolism on BSG are insane. They make no
sense. We can no more refute them than we could refute you if you
started speaking in tongues. You're simply a madman. This argument
can't go anywhere because you lie, invent fictional evidence, and
imagine boogeymen.

It's a wonder you're so anti-sodomy, given how far your head is up
your own ass.

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80530 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 08:35

John Shocked

<pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121570451.574907.214160 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121514199.228862.10760 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1121499007.957063.146020 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1121482787.590224.280430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> This, after all, is about the extent to which logic applies to John
>>>>>> Shocked's points in general. It is also worth noting, of course, that
>>>>>> the same Star Trek series that had anti-homphobia shows ("Rejoined" and
>>>>>> "Chimera") also had anti-racism shows ("Far Beyond the Stars" being the
>>>>>>This crap appeared either while Gene Roddenberry was on his deathbed or after
>>>>>>Gene Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman was running the show when
>>>>>>this muck began to appear.
>>>>> These particular episodes, but Roddenberry himself always intended to
>>>>> write a morality play - he simply dressed it up as sci-fi to get it
>>>>> aired by the networks. There's one story where one of the actors said
>>>>> to him "I get it, you're writing a morality play, aren't you?" to which
>>>>> Roddenberry's response was "ssh, don't tell anyone - they haven't
>>>>> figured it out yet". What was that story with the white-and-black
>>>>> people fighting the black-and-white people? A pretty blatant
>>>>> anti-racism episode, playing off a social issue of the time.
>>>>I do not remember that episode. But race is a settled issue. There was a war
>>>>fought over it and then crooked US Supreme Court Judges allowed segregation,
>>>>another civil rights battle ensued.
>>> Which is the context in which the episode was produced, when it wasn't
>>> a settled issue. Star Trek is famous for featuring the first black
>>> character in a non-stereotyped role, even though from what I've heard
>>> this isn't actually true.
>>No it was a settled issue.
> This would astonish Martin Luther King.

Another dishonest name drop. I do not know of any time that Martin Luther King
spoke up for the homosexual agenda.

>> The 14th Amendment existed and everyone in the country
>>has known that the Segregation and the KKK were illegal.
> So which is it? Is it the word of law that settles the issue (in which
> case the same is true of homosexuality) or the social reality, since
> you try to insist below that the laws on homosexuality are meaningless
> because you believe they don't reflect the popular reality.

This statement makes no sense and/or is dishonest, or both.

>>>> Homosexuality wasn't in the public consciousness to any extent then,
>>>> but if there had been a vocal anti-gay movement there's little doubt
>>>> Roddenberry would endorse episodes promoting tolerance
>>>>This is an absurd statement. Compared to today's 'science fiction' there
>>>>were huge amounts of science fiction in Roddenberry's work.
>>>>Taking on big issues in TV scripts is quite normal but the difference here is that
>>>>the US public and the population of most countries is overwhelmingly opposed to
>>>>the homosexual agenda.
>>> The "homosexual agenda" lives wholly in your mind, and I know of no
>>> evidence that the populations of most Western countries at any rate are
>>> "overwhelmingly opposed" to homosexuals as a group or homosexuality as
>>> a practice - indeed not only homosexuality but legal homosexual
>>> marriage now exists in four countries and a number of US states, and is
>>> being considered in the UK, a country where several recent media
>>> investigations by openly gay journalists travelling through the
>>> country's more conservative regions failed to provoke any hostility,
>>> and in which one homophobic outburst from a hostel in Scotland was
>>> loudly disowned by the rest of the tourism industry.
>>That is an example of Hollywood Homosexuals at work.
> In the UK?

Jonathan King who went to prison for abusing young boys is in the UK.
So is Elton John, etc. Wealthy guys in the media selling Sodomy to you
and your kids.

>>They are wealthy, own the media and have enough money left over to buy
>>enough politicians to support their agenda.
>>Can you name any countries in which a national Ballot Question or plebiscite
>>has voted to give rights to homosexuals ?
> I could ask the same about ethnic minorities or indeed women. The bills
> legalising gay marriage in Spain and elsewhere were passed by the
> democratic process of a ballot among elected members of the national
> parliament - it's ludicrous to demand a higher standard of 'democracy'
> for laws on homosexuality than for other laws purely because you
> disagree with them.

Buying politicians is not the democratic process.
An issue of this type which involves the issues of wealthy people should be
put to the electorate in a plebiscital vote ballot question.

>>>>In truth, that document says that this chump was the Step-Grandson of
>>>>Gene Roddenberry, which means they share no blood or DNA.
>>>>To allow yourself to be used against your own Step-Grandfather is pretty deviant
>>>>behavior, and thus this does not help the cause of the homosexual agenda.
>>> Where on Earth are you getting the idea that Roddenberry was opposed to
>>> homosexuality at all, let alone that agitating for its inclusion in
>>> Star Trek qualifies as "acting against" him? Given his willingness to
>>> espouse messages of tolerance in his series, it would frankly be
>>> hypocritical of him to oppose a message of tolerance towards
>>> homosexuals in Star Trek were he alive to comment on the issue.
>>Again, tolerance of someone being born black or born a woman (Civil Rights),
>>has nothing to do with tolerance of behavior, such as drug use, prostitution,
>>Sodomy or murder (Civil Liberties).
> You seem to be suffering from a logic problem here. "People are
> accountable for their behaviour" does not entail "all behaviours are
> equivalent". You may as well say that tolerance of heterosexual sex is
> akin to tolerance of drug use, prostitution or murder.

This statement makes no sense.

>>Not only are they wholly different, but Civil Rights is on the Left of the political spectrum,
>>and Civil Liberties is on the extreme Right as a libertarian issue.
> Civil rights are equally consistent with left and right - from the
> left-wing perspective, society has a duty to provide these rights to
> its citizens; from the right-wing perspective individuals have an
> inherent entitlement to these rights, over which society should have no
> jurisdiction. As far as your conception of civil liberties is
> concerned, it's hardly a right-wing position - right-wing philosophies
> emphasise individual responsibility, hence their traditional support
> for harsh prison sentences, as much as or sometimes even more than
> individual rights.

Civil Rights is about people who already had rights but who had those rights denied
by a handful of criminals running a handful of State governments.

>>>>It is common here and in other Sodomy promotion environments to make these
>>>>false accusations, often about people long Dead.
>>> Is it indeed, or is this just an assertion of yours based on your
>>> assumption that people have a habit of lying about others' sexuality?
>>> It seems clear from your failure to follow up the earlier list of
>>> historical homo- and bisexuals that you aren't in the habit of checking
>>> for yourself, so how would you know whether the 'accusations' are true
>>> or false? For example, it took me all of two minutes to come up with
>>> the site referencing Alexander's mother's reaction to his relationship
>>> with Hephaestion, the gossip of the time that Alexander had only ever
>>> been conquered by Hephaestion's thighs and references from Xenephon
>>> and Plutarch alluding to bisexuality as common practice in his time -
>>> would it have killed you to do the same? If you accuse someone of
>>> dishonesty the burden is on you to prove it, not on the other to defend
>>> himself from the allegation. Little principle that goes by the
>>> catchphrase "innocent until proven guilty" - you may have heard of it.
>>Again, post the URLs of these wild allegations if you want to be believed.
> You missed the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, didn't you?
> Whether you believe it or not is frankly an irrelevance; it's wholly up
> to you to verify it or not should you desire. As for Plutarch, I didn't
> say he had specifically alluded to Alexander's sexuality, simply that
> he had commented in one of his works (which may or may not have had
> anything to do with Alexander) that bisexual relationships were
> commonplace in Greek society at the time.

Hollywood Homosexuals are dishonest people and thus these wild allegations about
J.Edgar Hoover, Alexander The Great and I believe they even made claims about
Abraham Lincoln who is perhaps the greatest hero this country ever had.
If Hollywood Homosexuals would make such false claims about such people without
uncontrovertable proof is an indication nothing they claim is to be believed.
I know of no other segment of society which engages in such wildly dishonest statements.
The only comparable dishonest statements are those Hollywood makes against those of
Arab/Moslem background, but these are the same Neo-Conservatives making those statements.

>>>>As a ground rule, if I were you in any discussion anywhere about the homosexual
>>>>agenda, I would document any accusation of homosexuality whenever such
>>>>accusation is made. Otherwise, most reasonable people are going to assume
>>>>this is yet another homosexual deviant statement.
>>> Based on your performance here and in the sci-fi group, you'd be the
>>> last person I'd ask for an insight into the assumptions made by
>>> reasonable people. Oddly enough, most reasonable people aren't of the
>>> conviction that the world is run by "homosexual deviants" or that
>>Here is another dishonest statement: where did I say the world was run
>>by "homosexual deviants" ?
> If you want to dabble in semantic pedantry, where did I say you said
> that? I said that most reasonable people aren't under that conviction.
> You've already characterised homosexuals as 'deviants' and earlier in
> this very thread you stated a conviction that they control the media
> and bribe politicians to do their bidding, indeed even outside the US.
> The inference from that is hardly an inductive leap. Substitute
> 'Hollywood Homosexual' for 'Zionists' or David Icke's lizard people and
> your conspiracy theory is exactly the same.

It is these easy substitutions which distinguish honest from dishonest people.
This reminds of a quote I think Spielberg made, when he said he picked the most dishonest
child to play the young girl in E.T. She was the best performer in the auditions.
Perhaps dishonesty is the true currency in Hollywood and is the root of all these
dishonest people congregating there.

>>>>>> character as a cast member while many other minority groups have been
>>>>>Here again is the con game being played on the public that homosexuality behavior
>>>>>choices are comparable to being born with black skin.
>>>> Read what I wrote - I wrote 'minority groups'. Black people, Arabs,
>>>> Chinese and homosexuals are all examples of minority groups, and all
>>>>> save homosexuals have been portrayed by cast members in Star Trek.
>>>>You seem to have a reading comprehendsion issue here.
>>> On the contrary, you're either failing to comprehend the point at issue
>>> or simply refusing to answer it by parroting an earlier one of your own
>>> which is of no relevance to the point at hand. This was to do with the
>>> treatment of minority groups in Star Trek. It is a social reality that
>>> homosexuals constitute a minority group, in which context they are no
>>> different from ethnic minority groups. The issue of choice is an
>>> irrelevance to this factual point.
>>This is nonsense. Black people do not agree with you and they are voting
>>overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda.
>>Are black people fools who cannot recognize another discrimination victim ?
> Again, either deliberately or through utter stupidity, you are
> completely missing the point being made - this has nothing whatsoever
> to do with black attitudes towards homosexuality. Blacks themselves
> would still be a minority group (although strictly speaking they are
> close to becoming the majority ethnic group in some Western nations)
> even if members in some other minority group were racist towards them.

That is not what I have heard. In the US, hispanics have overtaken blacks
as the largest minority group. The African continent is being killed by
the AIDS virus which was originally incubated and spread by the homosexual
community in San Francisco (California, USA).

>>>>There is No equivalenceof any kind between the color of one's skin
>>>>when born and someone making
>>>>a choice to put their male procreative organ in [contact] with the
>>>>male faeces excrement of another man.
>>> Why the need for graphic imagery? You don't feel the need to describe
>>The truth. What is wrong with the truth ?
> Calling it 'sodomy' or 'buggery' is equally true - the point is that
> you're making a shallow attempt to appeal to (what you hope would be)
> people's disgust when the act is described graphically, which only
> serves to expose the low quality of your argumentation.

No, it is the reality of the disgusting nature of that act which is at the root of the
problem presenting it on TV,in addition to many people who want to ban the act outright.

>>>>>>Accusing other people of being homosexual or having a condition comparable
>>>>>>to being homosexual is not helping the cause of homosexuals at all.
>>>>> Blatant misdirection - you certainly seem to be going out of your way
>>>>> to prove yourself dishonest. There is no 'accusation' of any sort
>>>>> involved; both are comparable to the extent that they are minority
>>>>> groups often treated with hostility by the intolerant.
>>>>A minority group of people commit the behaviors of murder and child rape.
>>>>You want to align them with black people too ?
>>> You criticise supposedly inappropriate analogies and then draw your own
>>> wilder, yet wholly predictable ones? While the principle that people
>>> should be judged on deeds rather than on who and what they are is
>>> sound, you're distorting it beyond recognition with this hackneyed
>>> line. Two simple points you've missed should be borne in mind:
>>> 1. Being homosexual is not simply the act of 'committing' sodomy (which
>>> is usually described as 'practising homosexuality'). It implies merely
>>> sexual attraction to other members of the same sex, and that is
>>> something which is as inherent to homosexuals as dark skin colour is to
>>> black people. It's not a matter of choice any more than attraction to
>>> people of the opposite sex is a matter of choice for heterosexuals, and
>>> it logically follows that satisfying that attraction through sexual
>>> activity (which may or may not include sodomy), while a matter of
>>> choice, is no different in principle from satisfying heterosexual
>>Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
>>develops early in life normally
> Sexuality of all forms develops early in life - at a stage known as puberty.

There is only one true sexuality. Everything else, including Sodomy and Bestiality,
is deviant.

>> and is not genetic.
> Firstly, where is your evidence? Secondly, how many psychologists are
> geneticists? Thirdly, you appear to fundamentally misunderstand basic
> biological principles - something can be inherent without being genetic
> (ecophenotypic characters and maternal effects, for instance), and few
> characters are either wholly genetic or wholly a response to the
> environment or conditioning. Homosexuality clearly is heritable to an
> extent and maternal effects do appear to operate (second and subsequent
> male children are more likely to be homosexual than first-born ones,
> for instance), so there is undeniably a significant component that has
> nothing to do with personal choice.

I have posted numerious quotes here in which it is clear to the experts that
Sodomy is an acquired trait.

>>Most homosexuals just met the wrong person early in life, who may
>>have been a molestor just a distant father figure.
> It's abundantly clear from this comment that you aren't a psychologist.
> That sort of simplistic psychobabble and overgeneralisation has been
> discredited since shortly after Freud.

Wrong. There is ample evidence this is true.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

>>> 2. On objective moral grounds murder, rape (of a child or otherwise) et
>>> al. can be condemned on the basis that others are harmed by them. It's
>>> very hard to see how any such case can be made for homosexuality in a
>>> consensual relationship (if you're going to count sexually transmitted
>>> diseases or the possibility of tissue damage during intercourse, these
>>> are equally possible from heterosexual intercourse and few people would
>>> regard that as immoral unless one party knowingly keeps his/her disease
>>> etc. from the other) - and note the requirement for objectively
>>> justifiable grounds. Personal disgust doesn't qualify and nor does an
>>> appeal to arbitrary religious doctrines.
>>Homosexuality does harm to Life, in that it prevents the person from creating
>>life and participating in the balance between life and death on which a
>>self-perpetuating civilization is based.
> That is simultaneously among the most creative and the most brainless
> attempts I've seen to try and explain how homosexuality causes harm. By
> that logic any asexual, any heterosexual who chooses not to reproduce
> or who uses contraception and indeed any heterosexual female who has
> fewer than the maximum number of offspring she could have during a
> lifetime "does harm to Life". All this notwithstanding the blatantly
> obvious empirical fact that the human race is having no trouble
> whatsoever reproducing itself, and indeed that the current exponential
> population growth rate is unsustainable. In any case "Life" is not a
> moral agent.

Only the non-Westernized portions of the world are free of the fertility problem.
Other countries have a high death rate.

>> Numerous European civilations are
>>dying out right now, since they are nowhere near the replacement rate
>>in births and fertility.
> You honestly believe that this is due entirely to the fact that 10% of
> the population is homosexual? As far as anyone can judge homosexuality
> has always been constant at around 10%, and it has certainly always
> been present, in societies with a high rate of population replacement
> as much as in those in decline. Across the world the rate of
> homosexuality is much the same between countries, while fertility and
> birth rates differ wildly. It's pretty well-documented that the decline
> in European birthrates is correlated with a generally ageing population
> (which can therefore produce fewer offspring) and decisions among those
> couples that have children to have fewer than their ancestors did.

Fertility rates are based on 1 woman for her whole life, whether she dies at 18
or lives to 80 years old. Thus your statement makes no sense.

>>Thus homosexuality does have a harmful effect on society.
> If this is really the best you can come up with for a harmful effect
> from homosexuality, I rest my case.

That is the prime problem many have with homosexuality, but you made the claim
it did no harm to society. This is false.

>>> So, in summary, your hatred is directed against a group of people based
>>> on an intrinsic feature of those individuals (and, it appears, not even
>>> solely against those among them who practice sodomy but simply against
>>> anyone expressing attraction to another member of the same sex) that
>>> does nobody any harm - that sounds an awful lot like racism against
>>> blacks, and nothing whatsoever like condemnation of murder or rape.
>>The only Hate involved in this issue is the Hate that Hollywood Homosexuals
>>Neo-Conservatives possess for Arabs/Moslems who they want to mass murder
>>worldwide, not just in Iraq and Palestine.
> I'd say you've lost the plot at this point, but it's clear you were
> never even reading the same book.

Rubbish.

>>>>>>> represented in the main casr. As for Dax, the whole 'Old Man' thing was
>>>>>>> done for the purposes of irony - it was a joke playing off the fact
>>>>>>The joke was on the viewer and their kids who were being force fed Sodomy in
>>>>>>their Science Fiction diet for the for the first time, on a regular basis.
>>>>>> You do realise what sodomy is, don't you? It isn't references to
>>>>>> possibly veiled transexuality and it isn't innuendo. It isn't even
>>>>>> same-sex kissing. It's a sexual act that has never been depicted on
>>>>>> Star Trek, Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica or any other sci-fi series that
>>>>>> I'm aware of, so you're simply talking rubbish.
>>>>>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
>>> Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
>>> time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.
>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in Battlestar Galactica.
> Very strange that I'm not the only one to see the reverse, isn't it?

Here on these Newsgroups ? Hollywood Homosexuals would claim to believe
anything if it was in their interests.

>>Your services here on this issue are needed desperately to aid the homosexual agenda
>>on this Newsgroup.
> I'm sure their evil schemes for world domination are floundering in the
> face of your awesome idiocy.

The truth. That is what seems to be the problem for them.

>>>>And the producers are just itching to parade the real thing in all its faecal
>>>>entirety before you and your kids as soon as they think they can survive the ratings hit.
>>> Supposition based on what? Again you're just talking rubbish.
>>Why do you think they are going to the trouble of providing symbolism of Sodomy
>>and not showing the complete thing ?
> Huh? There's plenty of 'heterosexual symbolism' in these shows, but
> when have they ever shown the actual acts involved in heterosexual sex?
> Ignoring for now the fact that the "symbolism of Sodomy", certainly as
> far as BSG is concerned, is wholly within your head.

They have shown a lot more of the heterosexual acts on the show, usually sex in closets,
sex that was illicit, sex with aliens and casual sex etc. Everything to devalue heterosexual sex.
Meanwhile they have portrayed Sodomy as the product of a respectful relationship
between Apollo and Tom Zerak. True Love.

>>> how is it in any way "sodomy symbolism"? Transsexualism and
>>> homosexuality aren't in any way connected, and the former carries no
>>> implications of sodomy. What does "gender ambivalence" have to do with
>>> homosexuality?
>>Hollywood Homosexuals want extract sex from the real world of nature and make it
>>a separate abstract commodity, then allow themselves to choose whomever they want,
>>man, woman, boy, girl, dog, cow, etc as the 2 partners in the sex act.
>>Gender ambivalence is critical to this strategy.
> Here's news for you: homosexuals don't choose partners whose gender is
> 'ambivalent', they choose those of the same sex. So even if I were to
> believe that rubbish it wouldn't do anything to promote homosexuality.

I have not referred to the partners homosexuals choose, just the strategy
Hollywood Homosexuals are using of homosexual gradualism in TV and movies.

>> In BSG, the unisex toilets in which men and women are in
>>the toilet stalls shown sitting next to each other is a major part of this strategy.
> Oh, for goodness sake. You really *don't* pay any attention to the
> actual stories, do you? Has it never occurred to you that maybe
> something might actually be done because it's easier to work it into
> the story that way? The unisex toilets were added because Baltar needed
> to meet 'Gwendolyn' there to fulfil a story function and he couldn't
> really have waltzed into a female bathroom - it's as innocuous as that.

Gwendolyn ? Are you talking about Shelley Godfrey ?
They could have met in milliuosn of other places on the ship.
What is absurd was that under such treason charges Baltar was allowed to be free
enough to meet anyone.

>>>>>To Hollywood Homosexuals, everyone who disagrees with them are "homophobes".
>>>>>How much tolerance do you think your crowd has shown toward those who
>>>>>disagree with you, like me, on this Newsgroup.
>>>> That probably depends which of the numerous newsgroups you're spamming
>>>> you're referring to. If it's this one, the Dr Who newsgroup, you'll
>>>> find a great deal of tolerance towards people validly objecting to
>>>> innuendos etc. on Dr. Who, and civil debates between most of them and
>>>> those who have no problem with it in the show - pretty much invariably
>>>> intolerance in these threads has been prompted by comments by the
>>>> 'anti' lobby. As for you, no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously
>>>> because it's been discredited numerous times without you even appearing
>>>Nothing I have stated here has been discredited, let alone proven wrong.
>>> I did say you hadn't seemed to notice...
>>Prove a refutation.
> One that springs to mind immediately from a past browse was your claim
> that possible lesbianism on Boomer's part represented 'sodomy
> symbolism', ably refuted by whoever pointed out that lesbianism doesn't
> actually involve sodomy and hence no such symbolism is possible. This
> is merely one example from one post I happened to notice; I don't feel
> inclined to wade through your past drivel, but Google will no doubt
> provide numerous other examples.

Google Groups, that is. (as good as "black gold").

>>Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives Hate the component Left groups,
>>The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women as much as any regular Conservative.
>>Heck, they do not even film Battlestar Galactica in the US, in order to avoid
>>giving jobs to those Left groups.
> It's just about possible that this might relate to the fact that
> Battlestar Galactica's major source of funding is a British
> broadcaster, wouldn't you say?
> Philip Bowles

As I understand it, it is co-funded by Scifi Channel in the US and SkyOne in the UK.

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80531 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 10:41

John Shocked

"L. Ross Raszewski" <lraszewski [at] loyola.edu> wrote in message news:8blCe.5837$ph1.4767 [at] trnddc06...
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:35 -0700, John Shocked <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Most homosexuals just met the wrong person early in life, who may
>>have been a molestor just a distant father figure.
> This is simply a flat-out lie. If you're going to manufacture
> "evidence", there's no point debating you. You might as well say
> "Homosexuality is wrong because the mole people told me in their
> nightly radio broadcast to my brain."

I have already proven this numerous times here.

>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in
>>Battlestar Galactica.
>>Your services here on this issue are needed desperately to aid the
>>homosexual agenda on this Newsgroup.
> Your claims of sodomy symbolism on BSG are insane. They make no
> sense. We can no more refute them than we could refute you if you
> started speaking in tongues. You're simply a madman. This argument
> can't go anywhere because you lie, invent fictional evidence, and
> imagine boogeymen.
> It's a wonder you're so anti-sodomy, given how far your head is up
> your own ass.

The following paste describes the issue and similar items have been written by
numerous other writers.

Politics

=======================================================

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

What Causes Homosexual Desire and Can It Be Changed? By Paul Cameron, Ph. D.
Dr.Cameron is Chairman of the Family Research Institute of
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA. Click here for more information about this
organization. You may contact him at: Family Research Institute, PO Box 62640,
Colorado Springs, CO 80962 USA. Phone number: (303) 681-3113. (No e-mail
address.)

Most of us fail to understand why anyone would want to engage in homosexual
activity. To the average person, the very idea is either puzzling or repugnant.
Indeed, a recent survey (1) indicated that only 14% of men and 10% of women
imagined that such behavior could hold any "possibility of enjoyment."

The peculiar nature of homosexual desire has led some people to conclude that this
urge must be innate: that a certain number of people are "born that way," that
sexual preferences cannot be changed or even ended. What does the best research
really indicate? Are homosexual proclivities natural or irresistible?

At least three answers seem possible. The first, the answer of tradition, is as
follows: homosexual behavior is a bad habit that people fall into because they are
sexually permissive and experimental. This view holds rat homosexuals choose their
lifestyle as the result of self- indulgence and an unwillingness to play by
society rules. The second position is held by a number of psychoanalysts (e.g.,
Bieber, Socarides). According to them, homosexual behavior is a mental illness,
symptomatic of arrested development. They believe that homosexuals have unnatural
or perverse desires as a consequence of poor familial relations in childhood or
some other trauma. The third view is "biological" and holds that such desires are
genetic or hormonal in origin, and that there is no choice involved and no
"childhood trauma" necessary.

Which of these views is most consistent with the facts? Which tells us the most
about homosexual behavior and its origins? The answer seems to be that homosexual
behavior is learned. The following seven lines of evidence support such a
conclusion.

1) No researcher has found provable biological or genetic differences between
heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior

Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that
homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been
discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a
single heredible genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals
and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable. (9, 12) While the absence of
such a discovery doesn't prove at inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it
suggests that none has been found because none exists.

2) People tend to believe that their sexual desires and behaviors are learned

Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their
desires and behaviors - how they "got that way." The first of these studies was
conducted by Kinsey in the 1940s and involved 1700 homosexuals. The second, in
1970, (4) involved 979 homosexuals. Both were conducted prior to the period when
the "gay rights" movement started to politicize the issue of homosexual origins.
Both reported essentially the same findings: Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed
their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
In a 1983 study conducted by the Family Research Institute (5) (FRI) involving a
random sample of 147 homosexuals, 35% said their sexual desires were hereditary.
Interestingly, almost 80% of the 3,400 heterosexuals in the same study said that
their preferences and behavior were learned (see Table 1 below). Table 1 Reasons
For Preferring: homosexuality (1940s and 1970) early homosexual experience(s) with
adults and/or peers - 22% homosexual friends/ around homosexuals a lot - 16% poor
relationship with mother - 15% unusual development (was a sissy, artistic,
couldn't get along with own sex, tom-boy, et cetera) - 15% poor relationship with
father - 14% heterosexual partners unavailable - 12% social ineptitude - 9% born
that way - 9% heterosexuality (1983) I was around heterosexuals a lot - 39%
society teaches heterosexuality and I responded - 34% born that way - 22% my
parents, marriage was so good I wanted to have what they had - 21% I tried it and
liked it - 12% childhood heterosexual experiences with peers it was the ''in
thing" in my crowd - 9% I was seduced by a heterosexual adult - 5% While these
results aren't conclusive, they tell something about the very recent tendency to
believe that homosexual behavior is inherited or biologic. From the 1930s (when
Kinsey started collecting data) to the early 1970s, before a "politically correct"
answer emerged, only about 10% of homosexuals claimed they were "born that way."
Heterosexuals apparently continue to believe that their behavior is primarily a
result of social conditioning.

3) Older homosexuals often approach the young

There is evidence that homosexuality, like drug use is "handed down" from older
individuals. The first homosexual encounter is usually initiated by an older
person. In separate studies 60%, (6) 64%, (3) and 61% (10) of the respondents
claimed that their first partner was someone older who initiated the sexual
experience. How this happens is suggested by a nationwide random study from
Britain: (17) 35% of boys and 9% of girl said they were approached for sex by
adult homosexuals. Whether for attention, curiosity, or by force, 2% of the boys
and 1% of the girls succumbed. In the US, (1) 37% of males and 9% of females
reported having been approached for homosexual sex (65% of those doing the
inviting were older). Likewise, a study of over 400 London teenagers reported that
"for the boys, their first homosexual experience was very likely with someone
older: half the boys' first partner were 20 or older; for girls it was 43
percent." (13) A quarter of homosexuals have admitted to sex with children and
underaged teens, (6,5,8) suggesting the homosexuality is introduced to youngsters
the same way other behaviors are learned - by experience.

4) Early homosexual experiences influence adult patterns of behavior

In the 1980s, scholars (12) examined the early Kinsey data to determine whether or
not childhood sexual experiences predicted adult behavior. The results were
significant: Homosexual experience in the early year, particularly if it was one's
first sexual experience - was a strong predictor of adult homosexual behavior,
both for males and females. A similar pattern appeared in the 1970 Kinsey
Institute (4) study: there was a strong relationship between those whose first
experience was homosexual and those who practiced homosexuality in later life. In
the FRI study (5) two-thirds of the boys whose first experience was homosexual
engaged in homosexual behavior as adults; 95% of those whose first experience was
heterosexual were likewise heterosexual in their adult behavior. A similarly
progressive pattern of sexual behavior was reported for females. It is remarkable
that the three largest empirical studies of the question showed essentially the
same pattern. A child's first sexual experiences were strongly associated with his
or her adult behavior.

5) Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - especially religious
convictions

Kinsey reported "less homosexual activity among devout groups whether they be
Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and more homosexual activity among religiously
less active groups." (2) The 1983 FRI study found those raised in irreligious
homes to be over 4 times more likely to become homosexual than those from devout
homes . These studies suggest that when people believe strongly that homosexual
behavior is immoral, they are significantly less apt to be involved in such
activity. Recently, because of the AIDS epidemic, it has been discovered that,
relative to white males, twice as many black males are homosexual (14) and 4 times
as many are bisexual. Perhaps it is related to the fact that 62% of black versus
17% of white children are being raised in fatherless homes. But even the worst
racist wouldn't suggest that it is due to genetic predisposition. Were homosexual
impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual
practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture.

6) Many change their sexual preferences

In a large random sample (5) 88% of women currently claiming lesbian attraction
and 73% of men claiming to currently enjoy homosexual sex, said that they had been
sexually aroused by the opposite sex, 85% of these "lesbians" and 54% of these
"homosexuals" reported sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex in
adulthood, 67% of lesbians and 54% of homosexuals reported current sexual
attraction to the opposite sex, and 82% of lesbians and 66% of homosexuals
reported having been in love with a member of the opposite sex. Homosexuals
experiment. They feel some normal impulses. Most have been sexually aroused by,
had sexual relations with, and even fallen in love with someone of the opposite
sex. Nationwide random samples (11) of 904 men were asked about their sex lives
since age 21, and more specifically, in the last year. As the figure reveals, 1.3%
reported sex with men in the past year and 5.2% at some time in adulthood. Less
than 1% of men had only had sex with men during their lives. And 6 of every 7 who
had had sex with men, also reported sex with women. It's a much different story
with inherited characteristics. Race and gender are not optional lifestyles. They
remain immutable. The switching and experimentation demonstrated in these two
studies identifies homosexuality as a preference, not an inevitability.

7) There are many ex-homosexuals

Many engage in one or two homosexual experiences and never do it again- a pattern
reported for a third of the males with homosexual experience in one study. (1) And
then there are ex- homosexuals - those who have continued in homosexual liaisons
for a number of years and then chose to change not only their habits, but also the
object of their desire. Sometimes this alteration occurs as the result of
psychotherapy; (10) in others it is prompted by a religious or spiritual
conversion. (18) Similar to the kinds of "cures" achieved by drug addicts and
alcoholics, these treatments do not always remove homosexual desire or temptation.
Whatever the mechanism, in a 1984 study (5) almost 2% of heterosexuals reported
that at one time they considered themselves to be homosexual. It is clear that a
substantial number of people are reconsidering their sexual preferences at any
given time.

What causes homosexual desire?

If homosexual impulses are not inherited, what kinds of influences do cause strong
homosexual desires? No one answer is acceptable to all researchers in the field.
Important factors, however, seem to fall into four categories. As with so many
other odd sexual proclivities, males appear especially susceptible: 1. Homosexual
experience:

any homosexual experience in childhood, especially if it is a first sexual
experience or with an adult any homosexual contact with an adult, particularly
with a relative or authority figure (in a random survey, 5% of adult homosexuals
vs 0.8% of heterosexuals reported childhood sexual involvements with elementary or
secondary school teachers (5). 2. Family abnormality, including the following:

a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother an absent, distant, or rejecting
father a parent with homosexual proclivities, particularly one who molests a child
of the same sex a sibling with homosexual tendencies, particularly one who molests
a brother or sister the lack of a religious home environment divorce, which often
leads to sexual problems for both the children and the adults parents who model
unconventional sex roles condoning homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle-
welcoming homosexuals (e.g., co- workers, friends) into the family circle 3.
Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood:

precocious or excessive masturbation exposure to pornography in childhood
depersonalized sex (e.g., group sex, sex with animals) or girls, sexual
interaction with adult males 4. Cultural influences: a visible and socially
approved homosexual sub-culture that invites curiosity and encourages exploration
pro-homosexual sex education openly homosexual authority figures, such as teachers
(4% of Kinsey's and 4% of FRI's gays reported that their first homosexual
experience was with a teacher) societal and legal toleration of homosexual acts
depictions of homosexuality as normal and/or desirable behavior

Can homosexuality be changed?

Certainly. As noted above, many people have turned away from homosexuality -
almost as many people call themselves "gay." Clearly the easier problem to
eliminate is homosexual behavior. Just as many heterosexuals control their desires
to engage in premarital or extramarital sex, so some with homosexual desires
discipline themselves to abstain from homosexual contact. One thing seems to stand
out: Associations are all- important. Anyone who wants to abstain from homosexual
behavior should avoid the company of practicing homosexuals. There are
organizations including "ex-gay ministries, " (18) designed to help those who wish
to reform their conduct. Psychotherapy claims about a 30% cure rate, and religious
commitment seems to be the most helpful factor in avoiding homosexual habits.
=========================================================

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80532 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 11:23

pbowles

>>> Which is the context in which the episode was produced, when it wasn't
>>> a settled issue. Star Trek is famous for featuring the first black
>>> character in a non-stereotyped role, even though from what I've heard
>>> this isn't actually true.
>>No it was a settled issue.
> This would astonish Martin Luther King.
>
>Another dishonest name drop. I do not know of any time that Martin Luther King
>spoke up for the homosexual agenda.

Were you even awake when you wrote that? To reprise:

JS: The race issue was settled until the civil rights battle following
segregation.
PB: This civil rights battle was the context in which Star Trek was
written
JS: But the race issue was settled.
PB: This would astonish Martin Luther King.

Where in any of that is any allusion to homosexuality?

>>> The 14th Amendment existed and everyone in the country
>>>has known that the Segregation and the KKK were illegal.
>> So which is it? Is it the word of law that settles the issue (in which
>> case the same is true of homosexuality) or the social reality, since
>> you try to insist below that the laws on homosexuality are meaningless
>> because you believe they don't reflect the popular reality.
>
>This statement makes no sense and/or is dishonest, or both.

To put it another way, you don't understand what was being said
(something no one else seems to have had trouble with) but assume it's
dishonest because you're sure you disagree with it and it highlights
your inconsistency.

To restate - you claim that the civil rights issue with race was
settled because laws were passed settling it, by banning first slavery
and then segregation and lynch mobs, in spite of the fact that public
resistance to those laws continued after their abolition. Yet you
simultaneously claim that homosexuality remains a political issue in
spite of the fact that laws have been passed allowing it and banning
discrimination, on the basis that the public doesn't support those laws
- you still don't see the inconsistency?

>>That is an example of Hollywood Homosexuals at work.
> In the UK?
>
>Jonathan King who went to prison for abusing young boys is in the UK.

Which shows how much influence he had, obviously.

>So is Elton John, etc.

Whose songs, it should be noted, very rarely contain any homosexual
message - he didn't sing "I Want To Kiss the Groom", remember.

Wealthy guys in the media selling Sodomy to you
>and your kids.

A music promoter and a musician who owns a football club? How on Earth
are they in any way connected with journalists' newspaper reports,
general public attitudes or government deliberations about legalising
gay marriage? Do you honestly believe that a general public which, as
you seem convinced, would be against homosexuality without these people
is going to be turned 'pro-gay' by a few verses of "Candle in the
Wind"?

>> I could ask the same about ethnic minorities or indeed women. The bills
>> legalising gay marriage in Spain and elsewhere were passed by the
>> democratic process of a ballot among elected members of the national
>> parliament - it's ludicrous to demand a higher standard of 'democracy'
>> for laws on homosexuality than for other laws purely because you
>> disagree with them.
>
>Buying politicians is not the democratic process.

You really are fond of throwing libellous, unsubstantiated allegations
around, aren't you? The vote didn't go the way you hoped it would, so
naturally the voting politicians are corrupt. Self-evident; no need for
anything as useless as *evidence* to back up such ideas...

>An issue of this type which involves the issues of wealthy people should be
>put to the electorate in a plebiscital vote ballot question.

So, only wealthy people are homosexual now?

>>Again, tolerance of someone being born black or born a woman (Civil Rights),
>>>has nothing to do with tolerance of behavior, such as drug use, prostitution,
>>>Sodomy or murder (Civil Liberties).
>> You seem to be suffering from a logic problem here. "People are
>> accountable for their behaviour" does not entail "all behaviours are
>> equivalent". You may as well say that tolerance of heterosexual sex is
>> akin to tolerance of drug use, prostitution or murder.
>
>This statement makes no sense.

That is exactly the point - it makes no sense to say "tolerance of
heterosexual sex is akin to tolerance of drug use, prostitution or
murder", yet substitute "heterosexual sex" for "sodomy" and it's
exactly the comment you made, which is equally senseless.

>> Civil rights are equally consistent with left and right - from the
>> left-wing perspective, society has a duty to provide these rights to
>> its citizens; from the right-wing perspective individuals have an
>> inherent entitlement to these rights, over which society should have no
>> jurisdiction. As far as your conception of civil liberties is
>> concerned, it's hardly a right-wing position - right-wing philosophies
>> emphasise individual responsibility, hence their traditional support
>> for harsh prison sentences, as much as or sometimes even more than
>> individual rights.
>
>Civil Rights is about people who already had rights but who had those rights denied

Like, oh to take a random example, the banning of sodomy (legal in
England until 1533, for instance)?

>> If you want to dabble in semantic pedantry, where did I say you said
>> that? I said that most reasonable people aren't under that conviction.
>> You've already characterised homosexuals as 'deviants' and earlier in
>> this very thread you stated a conviction that they control the media
>> and bribe politicians to do their bidding, indeed even outside the US.
>> The inference from that is hardly an inductive leap. Substitute
>> 'Hollywood Homosexual' for 'Zionists' or David Icke's lizard people and
>> your conspiracy theory is exactly the same.
>
>
>It is these easy substitutions which distinguish honest from dishonest people.

On the contrary, it's a method for exposing intellectually dishonest
arguments - as was pointed out by someone else using 'interracial
marriage' in place of 'sodomy' allows you to make exactly the same
points a racist would make about interracial marriage while trying for
a false veneer of respectability by protesting that you aren't as
bigoted as a racist.

>This reminds of a quote I think Spielberg made, when he said he picked the most dishonest
>child to play the young girl in E.T.

Then your mind clearly does struggle to make logical connections, as
this has no bearing at all on the issue of word substitution and how it
relates to honesty.

> Again, either deliberately or through utter stupidity, you are
> completely missing the point being made - this has nothing whatsoever
> to do with black attitudes towards homosexuality. Blacks themselves
> would still be a minority group (although strictly speaking they are
> close to becoming the majority ethnic group in some Western nations)
> even if members in some other minority group were racist towards them.
>
>
>That is not what I have heard. In the US, hispanics have overtaken blacks
>as the largest minority group.

I did say in some Western nations; I didn't specify the US, whose large
Hispanic population is unique outside the Spanish-speaking world due to
immigration from Mexico and the Carribean.

> The African continent is being killed by
>the AIDS virus which was originally incubated and spread by the homosexual
>community in San Francisco (California, USA).

You really don't bother to engage your brain before spouting libelous
garbage, do you? AIDS first emerged in African populations and has
since been traced to chimpanzees, from which it was likely transferred
from a bite or bushmeat. It's simple empirical fact that AIDS has
existed in human populations in Africa for a century or more, while it
only reached the West in the last three or four decades. Its spread
through Africa has been facilitated by refugees moving between African
nations, poor governance including official denials that a problem
exists followed by inaction (e.g. in South Africa and Zimbabwe, the
countries with the highest rate of AIDS) and, in areas like Nigeria,
Church doctrine that prohibited the use of contraception.

>> Calling it 'sodomy' or 'buggery' is equally true - the point is that
>> you're making a shallow attempt to appeal to (what you hope would be)
>> people's disgust when the act is described graphically, which only
>> serves to expose the low quality of your argumentation.
>
>No, it is the reality of the disgusting nature of that act which is at the root of the
>problem presenting it on TV

The 'disgusting nature' of the act hasn't been portrayed or alluded to
on TV, at least not in the programmes you've cited (even in your
nutcase interpretation of Apollo's behaviour everyone is
fully-dressed), and is therefore irrelevant.

>>>Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
>>>develops early in life normally
>> Sexuality of all forms develops early in life - at a stage known as puberty.
>
>
>There is only one true sexuality. Everything else, including Sodomy and Bestiality,
>is deviant.

That's simply a statement of opinion.

>I have posted numerious quotes here in which it is clear to the experts that
>Sodomy is an acquired trait.

Not in this thread or any other I've read on the Dr Who newsgroup you
haven't, and since you seem so eager to have people restate their own
points ad nauseam at you it seems only reasonable to demand you do the
same.

>>Most homosexuals just met the wrong person early in life, who may
>>have been a molestor just a distant father figure.
>> It's abundantly clear from this comment that you aren't a psychologist.
>> That sort of simplistic psychobabble and overgeneralisation has been
>> discredited since shortly after Freud.
>
>Wrong. There is ample evidence this is true.
>http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

Let's take his lines of argument one by one, shall we:

1. "No one has found a single heritable genetic, hormonal or physical
difference..." No one has found a single genetic difference between
whites and blacks either, because it doesn't exist - skin colour is the
product of more than one gene and is also influenced to a small extent
by the environment. This is akin to a creationist arguing that because
no one's found a single missing link with half-human, half-ape
characters humans can't have evolved from apes - if you demand a
specific, impossible piece of evidence you obviously won't find it, but
it doesn't follow from that that the theory is flawed.

2. Suggests nothing. All this is is a questionnaire about kids'
earliest sexual experiences - what heterosexual experiences had the
homosexual group had and vice versa? What was it that drew them towards
one rather than the other after having had experiences of both? No
one's denying that choosing who to have sex with is indeed a matter of
choice; this does not address the question *why* they choose to do so -
why were their early homosexual experiences with men rather than women,
for instance?

3 & 4. It's hard to see how this is relevant - why did those children
who weren't forced agree to homosexual sex when such a large proportion
of children didn't? Again this does nothing to answer the question.
Drawing a conclusion based on what 2% of boys reported is very bad
statistics; considering that fact that at least some of those
encounters would have been forced, all this shows is that the role of
suggestibility in 'priming' boys to become homosexual is very low
indeed. 4 merely indicates that in both homosexuals and heterosexuals
childhood behaviour generally predicts adult behaviour, and says
nothing about the causes of the childhood behaviour.

5. Again irrelevant and not in dispute - this does nothing to address
whether homosexual instincts are being suppressed by cultural norms
(and you can hardly deny that repression of homosexuality does occur)
or whether there is no instinct to begin with. As I pointed out before,
being homosexual and engaging in homosexual intercourse are not the
same thing - many people who don't engage in homosexual intercourse may
be homosexual, but you might well expect repression in an environment
hostile to homosexuals. So this study is consistent with either
possibility.

6. It's hard to see what he's trying to prove here - that a proportion
of homosexuals are more accurately described as bisexual? This is
hardly a newsflash, and yet again does nothing to explain why, when
they have experiences with both sexes, they typically prefer one over
the other. The comparisons with race and gender in this case are
spurious because what is being tested is a difference in preference
rather than a physical character, but that does not in itself preclude
a genetic predisposition.

7. Again, this inconclusive - if a third of the males chose not to
engage in homosexual sex later in life, why did the remaining two
thirds choose to continue? In fact this undermines the earlier point he
made about adult preferences being established by early experiences as
he concedes that for 33% of his sample this is actually untrue. It
suggests rather that instinctively heterosexual people remain
heterosexual in spite of homosexual experience. He also concedes that
attempts at conditioning (which are often brutal by many accounts)
often fail to suppress homosexual urges, yet unlike drug addiction or
alcoholism there is no chemical introduced from the environment that
would affect their brain chemistry in a way that would promote
'addiction'.

The rest is largely irrelevant since he's already reached a conclusion
based on evidence that is at best inconclusive and at worst a
distortion of the figures ("almost 2% of heterosexuals reported that at
one time they considered themselves to be homosexual. It is clear that
a substantial number of people are reconsidering their sexual
preferences at any given time" - however many people are involved,
"almost 2%" is not a significant sample even if the actual number of
people is substantial) However, it's worth noting that he provides no
references or evidence for his claims about "Family abnormality" (the
ones you cited), "Unusual sexual experience" or "Cultural influences".

And, if you didn't work it out from the text (which even goes so far as
to say "the easier problem to eliminate is homosexual behaviour") and
didn't already know, the Family Research Institute is not an impartial
scientific organisation but a Christian think-tank with an agenda to
promote traditional family values - so it's no great wonder their
papers fail to meet any objective scientific standard of proof for
their claims. If you look on their website you find similar propaganda
attempting to disguise itself in a scientific format, and even a
reference to a judicial decision in which it was ruled the FRI
misrepresented evidence (which naturally they attempt to discredit with
the devastating rebuttal of accusing the judge of lying).

>>>Homosexuality does harm to Life, in that it prevents the person from creating
>>>life and participating in the balance between life and death on which a
>>>self-perpetuating civilization is based.
>> That is simultaneously among the most creative and the most brainless
>> attempts I've seen to try and explain how homosexuality causes harm. By
>> that logic any asexual, any heterosexual who chooses not to reproduce
>> or who uses contraception and indeed any heterosexual female who has
>> fewer than the maximum number of offspring she could have during a
>> lifetime "does harm to Life". All this notwithstanding the blatantly
>> obvious empirical fact that the human race is having no trouble
>> whatsoever reproducing itself, and indeed that the current exponential
>> population growth rate is unsustainable. In any case "Life" is not a
>> moral agent.
>
>Only the non-Westernized portions of the world are free of the fertility problem.

Which tells you what? That there is a link between industrialised
socities and low fertility, which is widely acknowledged, as is the
fact that couples in the West are having fewer children. No one
credible has ever blamed this on homosexuality, which is no more
prevalent in the West than in other countries. Given a drop in the
birth rate and a choice between blaming it on smaller families or
homosexuality, which would you say is the more logical conclusion?

>> You honestly believe that this is due entirely to the fact that 10% of
>> the population is homosexual? As far as anyone can judge homosexuality
>> has always been constant at around 10%, and it has certainly always
>> been present, in societies with a high rate of population replacement
>> as much as in those in decline. Across the world the rate of
>> homosexuality is much the same between countries, while fertility and
>> birth rates differ wildly. It's pretty well-documented that the decline
>> in European birthrates is correlated with a generally ageing population
>> (which can therefore produce fewer offspring) and decisions among those
>> couples that have children to have fewer than their ancestors did.
>
>
>Fertility rates are based on 1 woman for her whole life, whether she dies at 18
>or lives to 80 years old. Thus your statement makes no sense.

Let me spell it out for you. Birth and death rates are calculated on an
annual basis. In any one year a society with an ageing population will
have more old people relative to young people, and hence is likely to
have both an increased death rate and a lower birth rate because the
old population isn't reproducing.

>>>Thus homosexuality does have a harmful effect on society.
>> If this is really the best you can come up with for a harmful effect
>> from homosexuality, I rest my case.
>
>
>That is the prime problem many have with homosexuality, but you made the claim
>it did no harm to society. This is false.

Based on what? You haven't shown any evidence to that effect, merely
pointed to a trend whose causes are well-documented and do not include
homosexuality. You have also failed to address the flaw in your
argument and its consequences - should heterosexuals reproduce at every
opportunity and is it wrong for them not to? If a bisexual is a parent
and has no intention of having any more children, does any homosexual
intercourse they engage in cease to be harmful? Are asexuality,
contraception and simply not wanting children wrong? By arguing that
not having heterosexual sex is harmful to society (which your case
boils down to) you're making it mandatory for people to engage in it at
every opportunity; you don't see any absurdity in that?

>>>>>>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
>>>> Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
>>>> time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.
>>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in Battlestar Galactica.
>> Very strange that I'm not the only one to see the reverse, isn't it?
>
>
>Here on these Newsgroups ? Hollywood Homosexuals would claim to believe
>anything if it was in their interests.

How convenient for them that they happen to be filling the group to the
exclusion of everyone else, then.

>>>Why do you think they are going to the trouble of providing symbolism of Sodomy
>>>and not showing the complete thing ?
>> Huh? There's plenty of 'heterosexual symbolism' in these shows, but
>> when have they ever shown the actual acts involved in heterosexual sex?
>> Ignoring for now the fact that the "symbolism of Sodomy", certainly as
>> far as BSG is concerned, is wholly within your head.
>
>
>They have shown a lot more of the heterosexual acts on the show, usually sex in closets,
>sex that was illicit, sex with aliens and casual sex etc. Everything to devalue heterosexual sex.
>Meanwhile they have portrayed Sodomy as the product of a respectful relationship
>between Apollo and Tom Zerak. True Love.

What 'respectful relationship'? I thought you'd seen Colonial Day?
Remember, where Apollo is (rightly) convinced that Zarek is behind the
terror attack and seeks to have him removed from the council? Indeed
Bastille Day, where any respect he may have had for someone whose book
he once read was lost as soon as Zarek started taking hostages, which
directly lead to his distrust of the character in Colonial Day?

>> In BSG, the unisex toilets in which men and women are in
>>the toilet stalls shown sitting next to each other is a major part of this strategy.
>> Oh, for goodness sake. You really *don't* pay any attention to the
>> actual stories, do you? Has it never occurred to you that maybe
>> something might actually be done because it's easier to work it into
>> the story that way? The unisex toilets were added because Baltar needed
>> to meet 'Gwendolyn' there to fulfil a story function and he couldn't
>> really have waltzed into a female bathroom - it's as innocuous as that.
>
>
>Gwendolyn ? Are you talking about Shelley Godfrey ?

Gwendolyn Post was the name I thought Number Six took when she appeared
on the ship, or am I confusing her with someone else? I also believe
that was the first time we saw the unisex toilets - but then, I wasn't
paying as much attention to the latter aspect as you clearly were.

>They could have met in milliuosn of other places on the ship.

It was explained by Baltar's actions in the episode - he wanted to be
unobserved but wanted the encounter to seem natural.

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80533 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 11:31

pbowles

>>"L. Ross Raszewski" <lraszew... [at] loyola.edu> wrote in message news:8blCe.5837$ph1.4767 [at] trnddc06...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:35 -0700, John Shocked <jshoc... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Homosexuality is wrong because the mole people told me in their
>> nightly radio broadcast to my brain."
>
>
>I have already proven this numerous times here.

It's almost too good to be true that he really said this... Though it
might not have been exactly what he meant to imply.

>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in
>>Battlestar Galactica.
>>Your services here on this issue are needed desperately to aid the
>>homosexual agenda on this Newsgroup.
>> Your claims of sodomy symbolism on BSG are insane. They make no
>> sense. We can no more refute them than we could refute you if you
>> started speaking in tongues. You're simply a madman. This argument
>> can't go anywhere because you lie, invent fictional evidence, and
>> imagine boogeymen.
>> It's a wonder you're so anti-sodomy, given how far your head is up
>> your own ass.
>
>
>The following paste describes the issue and similar items have been written by
>numerous other writers.

Incidentally, it was Cameron himself who was found to have misled the
Court in that case I mentioned - which hardly does wonders for his
credibility; nor does the fact that he consistently writes
anti-homosexual propaganda which has repeatedly been debunked (for
instance
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/medical.consequ ences.rebuttal.txt,
whose author claims to have found that Cameron misquoted his sources
among other things).

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80536 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 15:44

doctor

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.

| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:

| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:

| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='

| Thank you, | ( (_) )

| Management | /`-vvv-'\

+-------------------+ / \

| | [at] [at] [at] / /|,,,,,|\ \

| | [at] [at] [at] /_// /^\ \\_\

[at] x [at] [at] x [at] | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW

\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__

\||/ | | | (______Y______)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\

============================================================ ======

--
Member - Liberal International
This is doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Better to serve in Heaven that to Rule in Hell.

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80537 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 15:45

doctor

\|||/

(o o)

,----ooO--(_)-------.

| Please |

| don't feed the |

| TROLL's ! |

'--------------Ooo--'

|__|__|

|| ||

ooO Ooo

--
Member - Liberal International
This is doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Better to serve in Heaven that to Rule in Hell.

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80539 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 15:48

doctor

In article <__mCe.40733$Qo.35243 [at] fed1read01>,
John Shocked <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

/| /| | |

||__|| | Please don't |

/ O O\__ feed |

/ \ the trolls |

/ \ \ |

/ _ \ \ ----------------------

/ |\____\ \ ||

/ | | | |\____/ ||

/ \|_|_|/ | __||

/ / \ |____| ||

/ | | /| | --|

| | |// |____ --|

* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/

*-- _--\ _ \ // |

/ _ \\ _ // | /

* / \_ /- | - | |

* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

--
Member - Liberal International
This is doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Better to serve in Heaven that to Rule in Hell.

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80542 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 17:03

John Shocked

<pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121592183.130578.215180 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Which is the context in which the episode was produced, when it wasn't
>>>> a settled issue. Star Trek is famous for featuring the first black
>>>> character in a non-stereotyped role, even though from what I've heard
>>>> this isn't actually true.
>>>No it was a settled issue.
>> This would astonish Martin Luther King.
>>Another dishonest name drop. I do not know of any time that Martin Luther King
>>spoke up for the homosexual agenda.
> Were you even awake when you wrote that? To reprise:
> JS: The race issue was settled until the civil rights battle following
> segregation.
> PB: This civil rights battle was the context in which Star Trek was
> written
> JS: But the race issue was settled.
> PB: This would astonish Martin Luther King.
> Where in any of that is any allusion to homosexuality?

It is obvious. Now if you mentioned one of the more recent black
civil rights leaqders like Al Sharpton, this would hav been more
appropriate, since guys like him are receiving serious bribes from Hollywood Homosexuals
to put their agenda ahead of the black agenda, and essentially have black civil rights
commit political suicide.

>>>> The 14th Amendment existed and everyone in the country
>>>>has known that the Segregation and the KKK were illegal.
>>> So which is it? Is it the word of law that settles the issue (in which
>>> case the same is true of homosexuality) or the social reality, since
>>> you try to insist below that the laws on homosexuality are meaningless
>>> because you believe they don't reflect the popular reality.
>>This statement makes no sense and/or is dishonest, or both.
> To put it another way, you don't understand what was being said
> (something no one else seems to have had trouble with) but assume it's
> dishonest because you're sure you disagree with it and it highlights
> your inconsistency.
> To restate - you claim that the civil rights issue with race was
> settled because laws were passed settling it, by banning first slavery
> and then segregation and lynch mobs, in spite of the fact that public
> resistance to those laws continued after their abolition. Yet you
> simultaneously claim that homosexuality remains a political issue in
> spite of the fact that laws have been passed allowing it and banning
> discrimination, on the basis that the public doesn't support those laws
> - you still don't see the inconsistency?

As I have mentioned, one of the big problems in this country which we have yet
to deal with appropriately and head on is corrupt judges. Thus, when laws or even
US Constitutional Amendments are passed protecting certain rights does not necessarily
mean that judges will make decision which carry out those laws.

>>>That is an example of Hollywood Homosexuals at work.
>> In the UK?
>>Jonathan King who went to prison for abusing young boys is in the UK.
> Which shows how much influence he had, obviously.

Just shows he was caught and accusations were brought against him which were
salacious enough to break through the normal protection a Hollywood Homosexual
like this would have.
I have not been following UK events too closely but it appeared that the laws
on the Sodomy Age of Consent over there were changed to legalize more predation
on younger boys after Jonathan King's case came to light.

>>So is Elton John, etc.
> Whose songs, it should be noted, very rarely contain any homosexual
> message - he didn't sing "I Want To Kiss the Groom", remember.

I never heard of that song, so you will have to explain that comment.
On his other song, he does not write his own lyrics, Bernie Taupin does.
And he is not homosexual, last I heard.
That probably explains my their one tour together was called the Two Rooms tour.

>> Wealthy guys in the media selling Sodomy to you and your kids.
> A music promoter and a musician who owns a football club? How on Earth
> are they in any way connected with journalists' newspaper reports,
> general public attitudes or government deliberations about legalising
> gay marriage? Do you honestly believe that a general public which, as
> you seem convinced, would be against homosexuality without these people
> is going to be turned 'pro-gay' by a few verses of "Candle in the Wind"?

The music business in the UK seems to be run by homosexuals.
Several comments by Pete Townshend of The Who indicate this and
Roger Daltrey of The Who was in a movie Like It Is about 5 years ago
which portrayed Sodomy as the rite of passage in the music business over there.
The original manager of The Beatles was a homosexual.

>>> I could ask the same about ethnic minorities or indeed women. The bills
>>> legalising gay marriage in Spain and elsewhere were passed by the
>>> democratic process of a ballot among elected members of the national
>>> parliament - it's ludicrous to demand a higher standard of 'democracy'
>>> for laws on homosexuality than for other laws purely because you
>>> disagree with them.
>>Buying politicians is not the democratic process.
> You really are fond of throwing libellous, unsubstantiated allegations
> around, aren't you? The vote didn't go the way you hoped it would, so
> naturally the voting politicians are corrupt. Self-evident; no need for
> anything as useless as *evidence* to back up such ideas...

When politicians or judges vote against the will of the people they represent,
financial corruption is the most common reason for that.

>>An issue of this type which involves the issues of wealthy people should be
>>put to the electorate in a plebiscital vote ballot question.
> So, only wealthy people are homosexual now?

A disproportionate number of homosexuals are wealthy.

>>>Again, tolerance of someone being born black or born a woman (Civil Rights),
>>>>has nothing to do with tolerance of behavior, such as drug use, prostitution,
>>>>Sodomy or murder (Civil Liberties).
>>> You seem to be suffering from a logic problem here. "People are
>>> accountable for their behaviour" does not entail "all behaviours are
>>> equivalent". You may as well say that tolerance of heterosexual sex is
>>> akin to tolerance of drug use, prostitution or murder.
>>This statement makes no sense.
> That is exactly the point - it makes no sense to say "tolerance of
> heterosexual sex is akin to tolerance of drug use, prostitution or
> murder", yet substitute "heterosexual sex" for "sodomy" and it's
> exactly the comment you made, which is equally senseless.

I forgot to mention Gambling, which is the other Organized Crime/ACLU
issue which "Civil Liberties" represents.

>>> Civil rights are equally consistent with left and right - from the
>>> left-wing perspective, society has a duty to provide these rights to
>>> its citizens; from the right-wing perspective individuals have an
>>> inherent entitlement to these rights, over which society should have no
>>> jurisdiction. As far as your conception of civil liberties is
>>> concerned, it's hardly a right-wing position - right-wing philosophies
>>> emphasise individual responsibility, hence their traditional support
>>> for harsh prison sentences, as much as or sometimes even more than
>>> individual rights.
>>Civil Rights is about people who already had rights but who had those rights denied
> Like, oh to take a random example, the banning of sodomy (legal in
> England until 1533, for instance)?

Legal, meaning there was no law which addressed Sodomy ?
Democracy in the UK was a gradual development which did not completely
gel until the late 1600's. But my guess is Parliament was responsible for that law.

>>> If you want to dabble in semantic pedantry, where did I say you said
>>> that? I said that most reasonable people aren't under that conviction.
>>> You've already characterised homosexuals as 'deviants' and earlier in
>>> this very thread you stated a conviction that they control the media
>>> and bribe politicians to do their bidding, indeed even outside the US.
>>> The inference from that is hardly an inductive leap. Substitute
>>> 'Hollywood Homosexual' for 'Zionists' or David Icke's lizard people and
>>> your conspiracy theory is exactly the same.
>>It is these easy substitutions which distinguish honest from dishonest people.
> On the contrary, it's a method for exposing intellectually dishonest
> arguments - as was pointed out by someone else using 'interracial
> marriage' in place of 'sodomy' allows you to make exactly the same
> points a racist would make about interracial marriage while trying for
> a false veneer of respectability by protesting that you aren't as
> bigoted as a racist.

I remember something like that about 6 weeks ago being blown out of the water.
Interracial marriage bans represents a ban on something that a white man was able to do
which was barred by State Law to a black man. US Constitution 14th Amendment
says such a State Law is unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court should have
struck down such State laws in 1865, as soon as the 14th Amendment passed.
That is a simple issue.

>>This reminds of a quote I think Spielberg made, when he said he picked the most dishonest
>>child to play the young girl in E.T.
> Then your mind clearly does struggle to make logical connections, as
> this has no bearing at all on the issue of word substitution and how it
> relates to honesty.

[>> Again, either deliberately or through utter stupidity, you are
>> completely missing the point being made - this has nothing whatsoever
>> to do with black attitudes towards homosexuality. Blacks themselves
>> would still be a minority group (although strictly speaking they are
>> close to becoming the majority ethnic group in some Western nations)
>> even if members in some other minority group were racist towards them.]

More dishonesty. I did not make the above statement.

>>That is not what I have heard. In the US, hispanics have overtaken blacks
>>as the largest minority group.
> I did say in some Western nations; I didn't specify the US, whose large
> Hispanic population is unique outside the Spanish-speaking world due to
> immigration from Mexico and the Carribean.

>> The African continent is being killed by
>> the AIDS virus which was originally incubated and spread by the homosexual
>> community in San Francisco (California, USA).
> You really don't bother to engage your brain before spouting libelous
> garbage, do you? AIDS first emerged in African populations and has
> since been traced to chimpanzees, from which it was likely transferred

Rubbish. If that disease was in existence in Africa before, it would have showed
up long before, since African communities have undergone the least change of most
communities in the world over the past 30 years.
The disease was likely created in Defense Biological Warfare laboratory and
then spread from a Western country to Africa by Hollywood Homosexuals.

> from a bite or bushmeat. It's simple empirical fact that AIDS has
> existed in human populations in Africa for a century or more, while it
> only reached the West in the last three or four decades. Its spread
> through Africa has been facilitated by refugees moving between African
> nations, poor governance including official denials that a problem
> exists followed by inaction (e.g. in South Africa and Zimbabwe, the
> countries with the highest rate of AIDS) and, in areas like Nigeria,
> Church doctrine that prohibited the use of contraception.

This is another of those clear differences between the black community and
the homosexual community. No one in the black community believes that
AIDS was created in Africa. It is a ridiculous claim and since AIDS in
obviously a new disease. No one is ever cured of AIDS and habits in
Africa have not changed that much.
To hear someone who is a homosexual sympathizer accusing falsely the
black population in Africa of bringing AIDS to the world is one of those clear beacons
of what the fraud is we are talking about here, that homosexuals and blacks are in a common struggle.

>>> Calling it 'sodomy' or 'buggery' is equally true - the point is that
>>> you're making a shallow attempt to appeal to (what you hope would be)
>>> people's disgust when the act is described graphically, which only
>>> serves to expose the low quality of your argumentation.
>>No, it is the reality of the disgusting nature of that act which is at the root of the
>>problem presenting it on TV
> The 'disgusting nature' of the act hasn't been portrayed or alluded to
> on TV, at least not in the programmes you've cited (even in your
> nutcase interpretation of Apollo's behaviour everyone is
> fully-dressed), and is therefore irrelevant.

The Sodomy symbolism brought Sodomy home to all the viewers of BSG.

>>>>Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
>>>>develops early in life normally
>>> Sexuality of all forms develops early in life - at a stage known as puberty.
>>There is only one true sexuality. Everything else, including Sodomy and Bestiality,
>>is deviant.
> That's simply a statement of opinion.

Most people overwhelmingly believe this. And that is democracy.

>>I have posted numerous quotes here in which it is clear to the experts that
>>Sodomy is an acquired trait.
> Not in this thread or any other I've read on the Dr Who newsgroup you
> haven't, and since you seem so eager to have people restate their own
> points ad nauseam at you it seems only reasonable to demand you do the
> same.

I posted the Cameron piece. Satinover has stated similar information.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

>>>Most homosexuals just met the wrong person early in life, who may
>>>have been a molestor just a distant father figure.
>>> It's abundantly clear from this comment that you aren't a psychologist.
>>> That sort of simplistic psychobabble and overgeneralisation has been
>>> discredited since shortly after Freud.
>>Wrong. There is ample evidence this is true.
>>http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html
> Let's take his lines of argument one by one, shall we:
> 1. "No one has found a single heritable genetic, hormonal or physical
> difference..." No one has found a single genetic difference between
> whites and blacks either, because it doesn't exist - skin colour is the
> product of more than one gene and is also influenced to a small extent
> by the environment. This is akin to a creationist arguing that because
> no one's found a single missing link with half-human, half-ape
> characters humans can't have evolved from apes - if you demand a
> specific, impossible piece of evidence you obviously won't find it, but
> it doesn't follow from that that the theory is flawed.

This is nonsense. There is no question that skin color is genetic and is very predictable
given the skin colors of the parents. Eye color might not be as predictable.

> 2. Suggests nothing. All this is is a questionnaire about kids'
> earliest sexual experiences - what heterosexual experiences had the
> homosexual group had and vice versa? What was it that drew them towards
> one rather than the other after having had experiences of both? No
> one's denying that choosing who to have sex with is indeed a matter of
> choice; this does not address the question *why* they choose to do so -
> why were their early homosexual experiences with men rather than women,
> for instance?

The document clearly does address the sources of homosexual desire.
And generally it is the child's senses being tricked by a molester to
accept homosexuality instead of heterosexuality
and poor relations with a father figure.

> 3 & 4. It's hard to see how this is relevant - why did those children
> who weren't forced agree to homosexual sex when such a large proportion
> of children didn't? Again this does nothing to answer the question.
> Drawing a conclusion based on what 2% of boys reported is very bad
> statistics; considering that fact that at least some of those
> encounters would have been forced, all this shows is that the role of
> suggestibility in 'priming' boys to become homosexual is very low
> indeed. 4 merely indicates that in both homosexuals and heterosexuals
> childhood behaviour generally predicts adult behaviour, and says
> nothing about the causes of the childhood behaviour.

Some people gain sexual climax from fetishes like stamping on insects like cockroaches.
Do you think that is genetic too ?
Some have sex with dogs. Genetic ?
With a vibrator. Genetic ?

> 5. Again irrelevant and not in dispute - this does nothing to address
> whether homosexual instincts are being suppressed by cultural norms
> (and you can hardly deny that repression of homosexuality does occur)
> or whether there is no instinct to begin with. As I pointed out before,
> being homosexual and engaging in homosexual intercourse are not the
> same thing - many people who don't engage in homosexual intercourse may
> be homosexual, but you might well expect repression in an environment
> hostile to homosexuals. So this study is consistent with either
> possibility.
>
> 6. It's hard to see what he's trying to prove here - that a proportion
> of homosexuals are more accurately described as bisexual? This is
> hardly a newsflash, and yet again does nothing to explain why, when
> they have experiences with both sexes, they typically prefer one over
> the other. The comparisons with race and gender in this case are
> spurious because what is being tested is a difference in preference
> rather than a physical character, but that does not in itself preclude
> a genetic predisposition.

This seems to indicate that Sodomy is not a commitment but simply an availability
to put the male procreative organ, somewhere.
By all reports, these sorts of couplings at the local YMCA, Bathhouse or disco or
in the bushes off the highway are easy to come by, take very little emotional sharing,
and it's cheaper than paying a woman prostitute for the same sensation.

> 7. Again, this inconclusive - if a third of the males chose not to
> engage in homosexual sex later in life, why did the remaining two
> thirds choose to continue? In fact this undermines the earlier point he
> made about adult preferences being established by early experiences as
> he concedes that for 33% of his sample this is actually untrue. It
> suggests rather that instinctively heterosexual people remain
> heterosexual in spite of homosexual experience. He also concedes that
> attempts at conditioning (which are often brutal by many accounts)
> often fail to suppress homosexual urges, yet unlike drug addiction or
> alcoholism there is no chemical introduced from the environment that
> would affect their brain chemistry in a way that would promote
> 'addiction'.
>
> The rest is largely irrelevant since he's already reached a conclusion
> based on evidence that is at best inconclusive and at worst a
> distortion of the figures ("almost 2% of heterosexuals reported that at
> one time they considered themselves to be homosexual. It is clear that
> a substantial number of people are reconsidering their sexual
> preferences at any given time" - however many people are involved,
> "almost 2%" is not a significant sample even if the actual number of
> people is substantial) However, it's worth noting that he provides no
> references or evidence for his claims about "Family abnormality" (the
> ones you cited), "Unusual sexual experience" or "Cultural influences".
>
> And, if you didn't work it out from the text (which even goes so far as
> to say "the easier problem to eliminate is homosexual behaviour") and
> didn't already know, the Family Research Institute is not an impartial
> scientific organisation but a Christian think-tank with an agenda to
> promote traditional family values - so it's no great wonder their
> papers fail to meet any objective scientific standard of proof for
> their claims. If you look on their website you find similar propaganda
> attempting to disguise itself in a scientific format, and even a
> reference to a judicial decision in which it was ruled the FRI
> misrepresented evidence (which naturally they attempt to discredit with
> the devastating rebuttal of accusing the judge of lying).

There are two main camps spening money to put out information in this arena.
Homosexuals and Churches. I do not have the impression that Cameron
is overwhelmingly devout; he seems to have just hooked up with the people
who pay for unflattering homosexual information.

>>>>Homosexuality does harm to Life, in that it prevents the person from creating
>>>>life and participating in the balance between life and death on which a
>>>>self-perpetuating civilization is based.
>>> That is simultaneously among the most creative and the most brainless
>>> attempts I've seen to try and explain how homosexuality causes harm. By
>>> that logic any asexual, any heterosexual who chooses not to reproduce
>>> or who uses contraception and indeed any heterosexual female who has
>>> fewer than the maximum number of offspring she could have during a
>>> lifetime "does harm to Life". All this notwithstanding the blatantly
>>> obvious empirical fact that the human race is having no trouble
>>> whatsoever reproducing itself, and indeed that the current exponential
>>> population growth rate is unsustainable. In any case "Life" is not a
>>> moral agent.
>>Only the non-Westernized portions of the world are free of the fertility problem.
> Which tells you what? That there is a link between industrialised
> societies and low fertility, which is widely acknowledged, as is the
> fact that couples in the West are having fewer children. No one
> credible has ever blamed this on homosexuality, which is no more
> prevalent in the West than in other countries. Given a drop in the
> birth rate and a choice between blaming it on smaller families or
> homosexuality, which would you say is the more logical conclusion?

>>> You honestly believe that this is due entirely to the fact that 10% of
>>> the population is homosexual? As far as anyone can judge homosexuality
>>> has always been constant at around 10%, and it has certainly always
>>> been present, in societies with a high rate of population replacement
>>> as much as in those in decline. Across the world the rate of
>>> homosexuality is much the same between countries, while fertility and
>>> birth rates differ wildly. It's pretty well-documented that the decline
>>> in European birthrates is correlated with a generally ageing population
>>> (which can therefore produce fewer offspring) and decisions among those
>>> couples that have children to have fewer than their ancestors did.
>>Fertility rates are based on 1 woman for her whole life, whether she dies at 18
>>or lives to 80 years old. Thus your statement makes no sense.
> Let me spell it out for you. Birth and death rates are calculated on an
> annual basis. In any one year a society with an ageing population will
> have more old people relative to young people, and hence is likely to
> have both an increased death rate and a lower birth rate because the
> old population isn't reproducing.

===================================================
http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1504.htm

n the early 1950s, the planet-wide "total fertility rate"-the average number of children per
woman per lifetime-is thought to have stood at about five. For the year 2001, the global
TFR will likely be below 2.8. That dramatic reduction in four decades has already curbed
the relative and absolute pace of world population growth, in spite of increasing
life expectancy. Even more dramatic changes-changes never contemplated by Malthusians-lie ahead.

Most OECD members are in Western Europe, which had a collective TFR of 1.4 in 1998.
Overall fertility levels appear to be even lower in Eastern Europe-by Census Bureau
reckoning, about 1.3. Bulgaria, in fact, has the lowest fertility level ever witnessed in a
modern nation not at war, with women averaging only 1.14 births in a lifetime.
Were that pattern maintained indefinitely, each new generation would be half the size of
the one before. In all of Europe, only remote Albania and the tiny outposts of Gibraltar
and the Faeroe Islands are thought to be above- replacement enclaves-and in those cases,
only barely so.
===================================================

>>>>Thus homosexuality does have a harmful effect on society.
>>> If this is really the best you can come up with for a harmful effect
>>> from homosexuality, I rest my case.
>>That is [not necessarily] the prime problem many have with homosexuality, but you
>>made the claim it did no harm to society. This is false.
> Based on what? You haven't shown any evidence to that effect, merely
> pointed to a trend whose causes are well-documented and do not include
> homosexuality. You have also failed to address the flaw in your
> argument and its consequences - should heterosexuals reproduce at every
> opportunity and is it wrong for them not to? If a bisexual is a parent
> and has no intention of having any more children, does any homosexual
> intercourse they engage in cease to be harmful? Are asexuality,
> contraception and simply not wanting children wrong? By arguing that
> not having heterosexual sex is harmful to society (which your case
> boils down to) you're making it mandatory for people to engage in it at
> every opportunity; you don't see any absurdity in that?

Having homosexual sex is harmful to society. This is not the most important issue
to me but it does put homosexuality in the same category with other behaviors
which are harmful to society such as drugs, gambling, prostitution, none of which
would have the result of exstinction of the human race if everyone engaged in
these other behaviors.

>>>>>>>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
>>>>> Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
>>>>> time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.
>>>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in Battlestar Galactica.
>>> Very strange that I'm not the only one to see the reverse, isn't it?
>>Here on these Newsgroups ? Hollywood Homosexuals would claim to believe
>>anything if it was in their interests.
> How convenient for them that they happen to be filling the group to the
> exclusion of everyone else, then.

The US public voted overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda in 11 out of 11 States
just 7 months ago. You see any of those people here ?

>>>>Why do you think they are going to the trouble of providing symbolism of Sodomy
>>>>and not showing the complete thing ?
>>> Huh? There's plenty of 'heterosexual symbolism' in these shows, but
>>> when have they ever shown the actual acts involved in heterosexual sex?
>>> Ignoring for now the fact that the "symbolism of Sodomy", certainly as
>>> far as BSG is concerned, is wholly within your head.
>>They have shown a lot more of the heterosexual acts on the show, usually sex in closets,
>>sex that was illicit, sex with aliens and casual sex etc. Everything to devalue heterosexual sex.
>>Meanwhile they have portrayed Sodomy as the product of a respectful relationship
>>between Apollo and Tom Zerak. True Love.
> What 'respectful relationship'? I thought you'd seen Colonial Day?
> Remember, where Apollo is (rightly) convinced that Zarek is behind the
> terror attack and seeks to have him removed from the council? Indeed
> Bastille Day, where any respect he may have had for someone whose book
> he once read was lost as soon as Zarek started taking hostages, which
> directly lead to his distrust of the character in Colonial Day?

The BSG writers are just demonstrating that Apollo is obsessed with Tom Zerak.
He wants to be close to Zerak because he wishes to continue to pursue a
homosexual relationship with him. They used another guy to have Apollo roll around with
on the floor of the bar. I hear that that scene is called "hide the bacon"
in homosexual circles. Of course, the other guy has Apollo on the ground,
face down sunny side up and is about to commit a homosexual act when the
script continues with the play fight instead.

>>> In BSG, the unisex toilets in which men and women are in
>>>the toilet stalls shown sitting next to each other is a major part of this strategy.
>>> Oh, for goodness sake. You really *don't* pay any attention to the
>>> actual stories, do you? Has it never occurred to you that maybe
>>> something might actually be done because it's easier to work it into
>>> the story that way? The unisex toilets were added because Baltar needed
>>> to meet 'Gwendolyn' there to fulfil a story function and he couldn't
>>> really have waltzed into a female bathroom - it's as innocuous as that.
>>Gwendolyn ? Are you talking about Shelley Godfrey ?
> Gwendolyn Post was the name I thought Number Six took when she appeared
> on the ship, or am I confusing her with someone else? I also believe
> that was the first time we saw the unisex toilets - but then, I wasn't
> paying as much attention to the latter aspect as you clearly were.

Maybe this is a difference between the UK and US version.
Google seems to indicate that is a Buffy the Vampire Slayer character.
A series which sells Sodomy and Drugs (Dracula vampire myth is about
Drugs in your Jugular vein opium injection).
I have not watched thatseries but heard that lesbians are in the show.
In addition, Wiccan/Pagan religions are pushed on Buffy, and that is the
only religion I know of that accepts and promotes Sodomy.

Also, what was that with Adama and Tigh being in adjacent bed quarters.
Were they in the brig (military prison) together ?
This again seems to indicate they are attempting to tag more characters in the
series with homosexuality.

>>They could have met in milliions of other places on the ship.
> It was explained by Baltar's actions in the episode - he wanted to be
> unobserved but wanted the encounter to seem natural.
> Philip Bowles

The question is what is the writer who is paid by Hollywood Homosexuals doing
by portraying this unisex public bathroom and having Baltar meet Godfrey there.
Promoting gender ambivalence and Sodomy, obviously.

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80543 ]

So, 17 Juli 2005 17:11

John Shocked

<pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121592710.718184.295930 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>"L. Ross Raszewski" <lraszew... [at] loyola.edu> wrote in message news:8blCe.5837$ph1.4767 [at] trnddc06...
>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:35 -0700, John Shocked <jshoc... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Homosexuality is wrong because the mole people told me in their
>>> nightly radio broadcast to my brain."
>>I have already proven this numerous times here.
> It's almost too good to be true that he really said this... Though it
> might not have been exactly what he meant to imply.

More dishonest misquotes.

>>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in
>>>Battlestar Galactica.
>>>Your services here on this issue are needed desperately to aid the
>>>homosexual agenda on this Newsgroup.
>>> Your claims of sodomy symbolism on BSG are insane. They make no
>>> sense. We can no more refute them than we could refute you if you
>>> started speaking in tongues. You're simply a madman. This argument
>>> can't go anywhere because you lie, invent fictional evidence, and
>>> imagine boogeymen.
>>> It's a wonder you're so anti-sodomy, given how far your head is up
>>> your own ass.
>>The following paste describes the issue and similar items have been written by
>>numerous other writers.
> Incidentally, it was Cameron himself who was found to have misled the
> Court in that case I mentioned - which hardly does wonders for his
> credibility; nor does the fact that he consistently writes
> anti-homosexual propaganda which has repeatedly been debunked (for
> instance
> http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/medical.consequ ences.rebuttal.txt,
> whose author claims to have found that Cameron misquoted his sources
> among other things).
> Philip Bowles

Cameron has come under attack from the very nexus I have talked about.
Crooked judges and Hollywood Homosexuals.
The APA (American Psychological Association) freely admitted that they took action against Cameron because of his anti-homosexual
views.
That disqualifies APA from serious consideration.

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80557 ]

Mo, 18 Juli 2005 00:20

The Secretary of HomI

It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when
pbowles [at] aol.com wrote:
<snip Philip's well-written rebuttal of the easily shocked one's tissue-thin
claims>
>>> In BSG, the unisex toilets in which men and women are in
>>>the toilet stalls shown sitting next to each other is a major part of
>>>this strategy.
>>> Oh, for goodness sake. You really *don't* pay any attention to the
>>> actual stories, do you? Has it never occurred to you that maybe
>>> something might actually be done because it's easier to work it into
>>> the story that way? The unisex toilets were added because Baltar needed
>>> to meet 'Gwendolyn' there to fulfil a story function and he couldn't
>>> really have waltzed into a female bathroom - it's as innocuous as that.
>>
>>Gwendolyn ? Are you talking about Shelley Godfrey ?
>
> Gwendolyn Post was the name I thought Number Six took when she appeared
> on the ship, or am I confusing her with someone else? I also believe
> that was the first time we saw the unisex toilets - but then, I wasn't
> paying as much attention to the latter aspect as you clearly were.

Gwen Post was the name of Faith's Watcher in the episode,
"Revelations".;-{)}

--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80560 ]

Mo, 18 Juli 2005 08:12

pbowles

<pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121592183.130578.215180 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> The 14th Amendment existed and everyone in the country
>>>>>has known that the Segregation and the KKK were illegal.
>>>> So which is it? Is it the word of law that settles the issue (in which
>>>> case the same is true of homosexuality) or the social reality, since
>>>> you try to insist below that the laws on homosexuality are meaningless
>>>> because you believe they don't reflect the popular reality.
>>>This statement makes no sense and/or is dishonest, or both.
>> To put it another way, you don't understand what was being said
>> (something no one else seems to have had trouble with) but assume it's
>> dishonest because you're sure you disagree with it and it highlights
>> your inconsistency.
>> To restate - you claim that the civil rights issue with race was
>> settled because laws were passed settling it, by banning first slavery
>> and then segregation and lynch mobs, in spite of the fact that public
>> resistance to those laws continued after their abolition. Yet you
>> simultaneously claim that homosexuality remains a political issue in
>> spite of the fact that laws have been passed allowing it and banning
>> discrimination, on the basis that the public doesn't support those laws
>> - you still don't see the inconsistency?
>
>As I have mentioned, one of the big problems in this country which we have=
yet
>to deal with appropriately and head on is corrupt judges.

You may have mentioned it, but you haven't supported it and your
reasoning is circular - the judges are corrupt because I don't like
their decision, and they'd only make decisions I don't like if they
were corrupt.

>>>So is Elton John, etc.
>> Whose songs, it should be noted, very rarely contain any homosexual
>> message - he didn't sing "I Want To Kiss the Groom", remember.
>
>
>I never heard of that song, so you will have to explain that comment.

It's fairly self-evident - the song is actually called "I Want To Kiss
the Bride". I suppose it could have been called "I Want to Kiss the
Horse", but the former is the obvious interpretation even if you don't
know the song.

>On his other song, he does not write his own lyrics, Bernie Taupin does.

True, but Taupin writes them for him and has included some with
homosexual themes in recent years ("Made in England" and "Freaks in
Love" - the latter never released as a single, the former not one of
Elton's major hits), but overwhelmingly Elton sings and has sung love
songs about heterosexual or ambiguous relationships.

>>>> I could ask the same about ethnic minorities or indeed women. The bills
>>>> legalising gay marriage in Spain and elsewhere were passed by the
>>>> democratic process of a ballot among elected members of the national
>>>> parliament - it's ludicrous to demand a higher standard of 'democracy'
>>>> for laws on homosexuality than for other laws purely because you
>>>> disagree with them.
>>>Buying politicians is not the democratic process.
>> You really are fond of throwing libellous, unsubstantiated allegations
>> around, aren't you? The vote didn't go the way you hoped it would, so
>> naturally the voting politicians are corrupt. Self-evident; no need for
>> anything as useless as *evidence* to back up such ideas...
>
>
>When politicians or judges vote against the will of the people they repres=
ent,
>financial corruption is the most common reason for that.

Another unsubstantiated comment - the UK government supported the EU
constitution while a likely majority of the British public didn't. This
isn't because the government is corrupt, it's because the people had
elected it to make decisions on their behalf for the next four years.
In any case, was the Spanish vote against the will of the people? I
believe it was part of the new government's manifesto when it was
elected, in which case the government is entitled to claim public
backing for the measure.

>>>An issue of this type which involves the issues of wealthy people should=
be
>>>put to the electorate in a plebiscital vote ballot question.
>> So, only wealthy people are homosexual now?
>
>
>A disproportionate number of homosexuals are wealthy.

Where are the statistics to support that? Many of the best-known
homosexuals are wealthy, but that's equally true of the best-known
heterosexuals - they're well-known because they're wealthy, usually
celebrities.

>>>Civil Rights is about people who already had rights but who had those ri=
ghts denied
>> Like, oh to take a random example, the banning of sodomy (legal in
>> England until 1533, for instance)?
>
>
>Legal, meaning there was no law which addressed Sodomy ?
>Democracy in the UK was a gradual development which did not completely
>gel until the late 1600's. But my guess is Parliament was responsible for=
that law.

You'd guess wrong - it was put in place by Henry VIII, who didn't have
much time for Parliament in his decision-making. Parliament didn't gain
the ability to pass laws at all until after the Civil War.

>> completely missing the point being made - this has nothing whatsoever
>> to do with black attitudes towards homosexuality. Blacks themselves
>> would still be a minority group (although strictly speaking they are
>> close to becoming the majority ethnic group in some Western nations)
>> even if members in some other minority group were racist towards them.]
>
>
>More dishonesty. I did not make the above statement.

Nor did I say you did, again it was analogy - a(nother) concept you
appear unable to grasp. You made the absurd case that homosexuals can't
be a minority group because some members of another minority group
don't like them, which I was pointing out is, indeed, absurd.

>Rubbish. If that disease was in existence in Africa before, it would have=
showed
>up long before, since African communities have undergone the least change =
of most
>communities in the world over the past 30 years.
>The disease was likely created in Defense Biological Warfare laboratory and
>then spread from a Western country to Africa by Hollywood Homosexuals.

Is there any loony conspiracy theory you won't latch onto, however
poorly-researched?

>This is another of those clear differences between the black community and
>the homosexual community. No one in the black community believes that
>AIDS was created in Africa. It is a ridiculous claim and since AIDS in
>obviously a new disease. No one is ever cured of AIDS and habits in
>Africa have not changed that much.
>To hear someone who is a homosexual sympathizer accusing falsely the
>black population in Africa of bringing AIDS to the world is one of those c=
lear beacons
>of what the fraud is we are talking about here, that homosexuals and black=
s are in a common struggle.

You're really hung up on race, aren't you? It's irrelevant what colour
the first person to be infected was - HIV doesn't discriminate. The
first human victim happened to be black merely because this particular
disease happens to have emerged in Africa, whose native population is
predominantly black, just like Ebola.

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm

Note: this is a report of a scientific finding. Not a Hollywood
Homosexual lobby group, not an unsubstantiated opinion by an internet
bigot. It produces verifiable evidence, and reports empirical facts
about the history of the disease. In fact it cites the first known case
of AIDS - in 1959 (okay, I was out in saying a century, but the point
remains that this was before the disease was ever known in the West),
in the Congo (where the chimps live, curiously enough). It didn't reach
the West until the 1970s at the earliest and only became a public
health concern in the '80s.

>>>>Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
>>>>>develops early in life normally
>>>> Sexuality of all forms develops early in life - at a stage known as pu=
berty.
>>>There is only one true sexuality. Everything else, including Sodomy and=
Bestiality,
>>>is deviant.
>> That's simply a statement of opinion.
>
>
>Most people overwhelmingly believe this.

Something for which you still have only your own claim and
interpretation of votes cast on completely different matters to go by.

> And that is democracy.

Reality isn't a matter of democracy - however many people hold it an
opinion remains an opinion, not a fact.

>>I have posted numerous quotes here in which it is clear to the experts th=
at
>>>Sodomy is an acquired trait.
>> Not in this thread or any other I've read on the Dr Who newsgroup you
>> haven't, and since you seem so eager to have people restate their own
>> points ad nauseam at you it seems only reasonable to demand you do the
>> same.
>
>
>I posted the Cameron piece.

A post from someone with a clear agenda, whose work has never been
peer-reviewed, whose argumentation is poor, his misuse of statistics
bordering on the fraudulent, who has reportedly been barred from the
American Psychological Association for misusing his sources and has
been the subject of a Court ruling that he has misrepresented evidence.
He certainly does not qualify as an expert.

>Satinover has stated similar information.
>http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

And guess what? He's another member of the FRI, which is by no stretch
of the imagination an impartial research body and which is very clear
in its agenda.

>> 1. "No one has found a single heritable genetic, hormonal or physical
>> difference..." No one has found a single genetic difference between
>> whites and blacks either, because it doesn't exist - skin colour is the
>> product of more than one gene and is also influenced to a small extent
>> by the environment. This is akin to a creationist arguing that because
>> no one's found a single missing link with half-human, half-ape
>> characters humans can't have evolved from apes - if you demand a
>> specific, impossible piece of evidence you obviously won't find it, but
>> it doesn't follow from that that the theory is flawed.
>
>
>This is nonsense. There is no question that skin color is genetic

No there isn't, but that's not what I said. Cameron demands a single
gene for homosexuality - why should there be one? There's no single
gene for skin colour, it's a product of epistasis - multiple genes
influencing one another's expression. In fact there are something like
200 genes affecting the precise colour of someone's skin. Like skin
colour, sexuality appears to fall along a spectrum, from those who are
completely uninterested in the same sex to those who are completely
uninterested in the opposite sex and those who have no sexual interest
in either, with a range of preferences inbetween. It seems wholly
plausible that this is the product of a complex of multiple genes, and
wholly implausible that a single gene will be responsible.

and is very predictable
>given the skin colors of the parents.

Usually, but it's certainly not unknown for black parents to have a
child with fairer skin than either, even when both are the genetic
parents. And of course there is a degree of environmental influence -
hence the tanning of Caucasians in sunnier areas than those to which
they are acclimatised.

>The document clearly does address the sources of homosexual desire.
>And generally it is the child's senses being tricked by a molester to
>accept homosexuality instead of heterosexuality
>and poor relations with a father figure.

The document says no such thing - it is a poll of what people
identified in hindsight as the (usually sexual) experience that 'got
them into' homosexuality (which incidentally doesn't mention
molestation let alone being 'tricked'), which does nothing to explain
where that desire came from. All this assumes, of course, that Cameron
wasn't misquoting his source this time, which I can't be bothered to
check.

Incidentally, have you heard of a fellow called Freud? Came up with
lots of ideas about psychology, his 'experiments' to prove those ideas
consisted wholly of asking people about their past experiences, and
guess what? His conclusions - pretty much all complete crap, to the
extent that many are regarded as jokes to this day. Modern
psychologists recognise the poor quality of anecdotal evidence and few
would cite any study from as long ago as the 1940s, before ealy modern
psychologists like Carl Jung came on the scene.

>> 3 & 4. It's hard to see how this is relevant - why did those children
>> who weren't forced agree to homosexual sex when such a large proportion
>> of children didn't? Again this does nothing to answer the question.
>> Drawing a conclusion based on what 2% of boys reported is very bad
>> statistics; considering that fact that at least some of those
>> encounters would have been forced, all this shows is that the role of
>> suggestibility in 'priming' boys to become homosexual is very low
>> indeed. 4 merely indicates that in both homosexuals and heterosexuals
>> childhood behaviour generally predicts adult behaviour, and says
>> nothing about the causes of the childhood behaviour.
>
>
>Some people gain sexual climax from fetishes like stamping on insects like=
cockroaches.
>Do you think that is genetic too ?
>Some have sex with dogs. Genetic ?

Do you have any particular reason to believe it might not be? Not being
familiar with research in thsee areas I'm not in a position to assert
either way, but it's a sign of narrow-mindedness to assume one way or
the other without investigation. Not that you've been shy to exhibit
signs of narrow-mindedness. After all, heterosexuality almost certainly
has a genetic basis; unless there's a good reason to believe that other
forms of sexual behaviour have a fundamentally different underlying
mechanism the most plausible explanation is that they also have a
genetic basis. And looking at the statistics Cameron provides, fewer
than 2% of boys exposed to homosexual experiences choose to practice
homosexuality in later life - which suggests that experience is not a
significant factor in determining sexuality.

>With a vibrator. Genetic ?

Nonsensical analogy - the whole point of a vibrator is to simulate the
sexual experience; obviously it's intended to produce the
genetically-primed response.

>> 6. It's hard to see what he's trying to prove here - that a proportion
>> of homosexuals are more accurately described as bisexual? This is
>> hardly a newsflash, and yet again does nothing to explain why, when
>> they have experiences with both sexes, they typically prefer one over
>> the other. The comparisons with race and gender in this case are
>> spurious because what is being tested is a difference in preference
>> rather than a physical character, but that does not in itself preclude
>> a genetic predisposition.
>
>This seems to indicate that Sodomy is not a commitment but simply an avail=
ability
>to put the male procreative organ, somewhere.

I'm guessing that's the conclusion he's hoping people will draw -
however, since only two thirds of his respondents 'engaged in
homosexual activity' had had opposite-sex encounters, this completely
fails to convince, and even in the remaining cases the conclusion
doesn't follow from the premise. Some people have a genetic
predisposition to like sweet or spicy food, but the exact food they
choose to eat isn't genetically determined - the idea that the ability
to express a preference one way or another is in any way an argument
against a genetic basis is nonsense that implies a complete
misunderstanding of genetics.

>By all reports, these sorts of couplings at the local YMCA, Bathhouse or d=
isco or
>in the bushes off the highway are easy to come by, take very little emotio=
nal sharing,
>and it's cheaper than paying a woman prostitute for the same sensation.

By whose (objective) reports? The blatantly false assumption that
homosexuals are invariably unable to have relationships by choice is
noted, and wholly inconsistent with the increasingly loud voices
favouring homosexual marriage.

>There are two main camps spening money to put out information in this aren=
a=2E
>Homosexuals and Churches. I do not have the impression that Cameron
>is overwhelmingly devout; he seems to have just hooked up with the people
>who pay for unflattering homosexual information.

It's true that he's hooked up with people who pay for his propaganda -
the article I cited pointed out that he appears unable to publish
anything in peer-reviewed journals, only in ones that take any
submissions they're paid to. Devout or not his clear homophobic bias
and chairmanship of the FRI represents a conflict of interest when he
claims to make objective assertions about homosexuality.

> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
>http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1504.htm

<snip>

Nothing here has anything to do with homosexuality, nor does it relate
to the point I made about the ageing population which was based on
comparative birth/death rates rather than overall fecundity, as I
clarified in my last post.

>>>That is [not necessarily] the prime problem many have with homosexuality=
, but you
>>>made the claim it did no harm to society. This is false.
>> Based on what? You haven't shown any evidence to that effect, merely
>> pointed to a trend whose causes are well-documented and do not include
>> homosexuality. You have also failed to address the flaw in your
>> argument and its consequences - should heterosexuals reproduce at every
>> opportunity and is it wrong for them not to? If a bisexual is a parent
>> and has no intention of having any more children, does any homosexual
>> intercourse they engage in cease to be harmful? Are asexuality,
>> contraception and simply not wanting children wrong? By arguing that
>> not having heterosexual sex is harmful to society (which your case
>> boils down to) you're making it mandatory for people to engage in it at
>> every opportunity; you don't see any absurdity in that?
>
>
>Having homosexual sex is harmful to society.

Repeating it ad nauseam without support doesn't make it true.

> This is not the most important issue
>to me

Then what is? If your objection isn't even a spurious 'moral' one, what
possible complaint do you have about it?

>but it does put homosexuality in the same category with other behaviors
>which are harmful to society such as drugs, gambling, prostitution,

Right, this is more than tiresome. Drugs are harmful to individuals -
family members and friends of abusers who suffer distress, people in
the supply train who are subject to extortion, blackmail and other
criminal acts by the drug cartels, people living under the regimes
funded by the drugs industry, people affected by smuggling operations
such as arms smuggling funded by said industry (not to mention the
animal populations at risk from the trade in endangered wildlife, which
is closely linked to the drugs trade), individuals attacked, brutalised
or killed by the cartels propped up by the profits from drug use and so
on and so forth. Prostitution and gambling (and indeed drug use as
well) are social welfare issues due to the harm caused to people who
find themselves forced into those situations. There is nothing in
homosexuality which is even remotely equivalent to any of these.

Hint: for something to be wrong, it must harm *someone*, an individual,
not some half-baked distortion of discredited utilitarian ideas like
some aggregate "Life".

none of which
would have the result of exstinction of the human race if everyone
engaged in
these other behaviors.

>>>>>>>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactic=
a=2E
>>>>> Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
>>>>> time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.
>>>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in Ba=
ttlestar Galactica.
>>> Very strange that I'm not the only one to see the reverse, isn't it?
>>Here on these Newsgroups ? Hollywood Homosexuals would claim to believe
>>anything if it was in their interests.
>> How convenient for them that they happen to be filling the group to the
>> exclusion of everyone else, then.
>
>
>The US public voted overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda in 11 out=
of 11 States
>just 7 months ago. You see any of those people here ?

It's hard to make any comment when you trot out meaningless soundbites
- what precisely did they vote against? I find it very hard to believe
the ballot paper asked them whether or not they supported the
'homosexual agenda'. What is that agenda? And what leads you to believe
that that was a deciding issue in the US election any case? I was under
the impression the vote was to determine who would run the country, not
a poll on their views about the candidates' attitudes towards
homosexuality. As for whether or not there are people here who voted
against Kerry, how should I know? I imagine there are at least some.

>The BSG writers are just demonstrating that Apollo is obsessed with Tom Ze=
rak.
>He wants to be close to Zerak because he wishes to continue to pursue a
>homosexual relationship with him. They used another guy to have Apollo ro=
ll around with
>on the floor of the bar. I hear that that scene is called "hide the bacon"
>in homosexual circles. Of course, the other guy has Apollo on the ground,
>face down sunny side up and is about to commit a homosexual act when the
>script continues with the play fight instead.

How about this - they were actually having a fight, as indeed was
indicated by the script, symbolising, well, a fight? As others have
alluded to on one of these threads, plenty of characters in plenty of
series have been shown fighting other men and even grappling with them
on the ground.

>>>> In BSG, the unisex toilets in which men and women are in
>>>>the toilet stalls shown sitting next to each other is a major part of t=
his strategy.
>>>> Oh, for goodness sake. You really *don't* pay any attention to the
>>>> actual stories, do you? Has it never occurred to you that maybe
>>>> something might actually be done because it's easier to work it into
>>>> the story that way? The unisex toilets were added because Baltar needed
>>>> to meet 'Gwendolyn' there to fulfil a story function and he couldn't
>>>> really have waltzed into a female bathroom - it's as innocuous as that.
>>>Gwendolyn ? Are you talking about Shelley Godfrey ?
>> Gwendolyn Post was the name I thought Number Six took when she appeared
>> on the ship, or am I confusing her with someone else? I also believe
>> that was the first time we saw the unisex toilets - but then, I wasn't
>> paying as much attention to the latter aspect as you clearly were.
>
>
>Maybe this is a difference between the UK and US version.
>Google seems to indicate that is a Buffy the Vampire Slayer character.

Oops, you're right - well, there's a first time for everything.

>A series which sells Sodomy

The only gay character in the series is a girl... No sodomy involved.

and Drugs (Dracula vampire myth is about
> Drugs in your Jugular vein opium injection).

Vampire myths predate injected drugs by a long way - Bram Stoker just
cobbled together a story from existing European folklore.
=20
Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #80561 ]

Mo, 18 Juli 2005 08:19

pbowles

><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121592710.718184.295930 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>"L. Ross Raszewski" <lraszew... [at] loyola.edu> wrote in message news:8blCe.5837$ph1.4767 [at] trnddc06...
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:35 -0700, John Shocked <jshoc... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Homosexuality is wrong because the mole people told me in their
>>>> nightly radio broadcast to my brain."
>>>I have already proven this numerous times here.
>> It's almost too good to be true that he really said this... Though it
>> might not have been exactly what he meant to imply.
>
>
>More dishonest misquotes.

The quote is exact; it is precisely what you said and precisely what
you said it in response to. What I imagine you *meant* was to respond
to the sentence preceding it, but I did make that point.

>> Incidentally, it was Cameron himself who was found to have misled the
>> Court in that case I mentioned - which hardly does wonders for his
>> credibility; nor does the fact that he consistently writes
>> anti-homosexual propaganda which has repeatedly been debunked (for
>> instance
>> http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/medical.consequ ences.reb...,
>> whose author claims to have found that Cameron misquoted his sources
>> among other things).
>> Philip Bowles
>
>
>Cameron has come under attack from the very nexus I have talked about.
>Crooked judges and Hollywood Homosexuals.
>The APA (American Psychological Association) freely admitted that they took action against Cameron because of his anti->homosexual
>views.

Fancy that, a scientific body admitting to taking action against
someone for misusing his sources to serve a political agenda. So,
anyone who doesn't support an 'anti-homosexual' agenda is automatically
corrupt and in league with your "Hollywood Homosexuals"? Science is
impartial; Cameron's consistent attempts to twist the science to fit
his politics is unacceptable behaviour in a scientist, and it is right
that he be disbarred for doing so.

Philip Bowles

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #83159 ]

Mo, 18 Juli 2005 13:15

The Secretary of HomI

It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when
pbowles [at] aol.com wrote:
> <pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote...
<big snip>
>>>>>>>>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar
>>>>>>>>Galactica.
>>>>>> Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
>>>>>> time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.
>>>>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in
>>>>>Battlestar Galactica.
>>>> Very strange that I'm not the only one to see the reverse, isn't it?
>>>Here on these Newsgroups ? Hollywood Homosexuals would claim to believe
>>>anything if it was in their interests.
>>> How convenient for them that they happen to be filling the group to the
>>> exclusion of everyone else, then.
>>
>>The US public voted overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda in 11 out
>>of 11 States
>>just 7 months ago. You see any of those people here ?
>
> It's hard to make any comment when you trot out meaningless soundbites
> - what precisely did they vote against? I find it very hard to believe
> the ballot paper asked them whether or not they supported the
> 'homosexual agenda'. What is that agenda?
<snip>

I know that many of you have heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others
speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has ever seen a copy of it.
Well, I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual. It
follows below:

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments
as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and
Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated
imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby
factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic
gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive
use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from
stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"

[I hope this clears up any further confusion. -- Snarky, Sec'y, HomIntern]

<snip>
>>A series which sells Sodomy
>
> The only gay character in the series is a girl... No sodomy involved.
<snip>

Well, the only gay regular, anyway, aside from her girlfriends, of course.
Naturally, there was still the bestiality issue, with her boyfriend Oz the
werewolf (seasons 2-4).

--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #83173 ]

Di, 19 Juli 2005 13:16

John Shocked

><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1121592183.130578.215180 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> The 14th Amendment existed and everyone in the country
>>>>>>has known that the Segregation and the KKK were illegal.
>>>>> So which is it? Is it the word of law that settles the issue (in which
>>>>> case the same is true of homosexuality) or the social reality, since
>>>>> you try to insist below that the laws on homosexuality are meaningless
>>>>> because you believe they don't reflect the popular reality.
>>>>This statement makes no sense and/or is dishonest, or both.
>>> To put it another way, you don't understand what was being said
>>> (something no one else seems to have had trouble with) but assume it's
>>> dishonest because you're sure you disagree with it and it highlights
>>> your inconsistency.
>>> To restate - you claim that the civil rights issue with race was
>>> settled because laws were passed settling it, by banning first slavery
>>> and then segregation and lynch mobs, in spite of the fact that public
>>> resistance to those laws continued after their abolition. Yet you
>>> simultaneously claim that homosexuality remains a political issue in
>>> spite of the fact that laws have been passed allowing it and banning
>>> discrimination, on the basis that the public doesn't support those laws
>>> - you still don't see the inconsistency?
>>As I have mentioned, one of the big problems in this country which we have yet
>>to deal with appropriately and head on is corrupt judges.
>You may have mentioned it, but you haven't supported it and your
>reasoning is circular - the judges are corrupt because I don't like
>their decision, and they'd only make decisions I don't like if they
>were corrupt.

No, judges are corrupt when it is clear that their decision deviate from
written Statutes and the US Constitution and/or the Facts of the case.
Most obvious was US Supreme Court Plessy v Ferguson (1896) legalizing
racial segregation, which violated clearly the 14th Amendment.
However there is easily as much corruption in simple civil cases and even
small claims in State and Federal District and Superior Courts as there is on the
US Supreme Court. The whole Court system is receiving zero scrutiny from the
Hollywood Homosexual controlled Press and in return the crooks in the Press
receive favorable decisions from the Courts which expand illegally the Press's
First Amendment rights.

>>>>So is Elton John, etc.
>>> Whose songs, it should be noted, very rarely contain any homosexual
>>> message - he didn't sing "I Want To Kiss the Groom", remember.
>>I never heard of that song, so you will have to explain that comment.
>It's fairly self-evident - the song is actually called "I Want To Kiss
>the Bride". I suppose it could have been called "I Want to Kiss the
>Horse", but the former is the obvious interpretation even if you don't
>know the song.

There is a running commercial in the US over the past few months in which
Elton John does kiss a Dog on the mouth. I forget what the product is, probably
because I usually choose that moment to switch channels and see what else is on.
Channels which carry offensive commercials like that one should be aware of what
this could do to their viewership.
Hollywood Homosexuals' strategy is that once they make the viewers accustomed
to mouth kissing animals, vomiting in the face of the viewer, dogs urinating on people
and showing people going to the bathroom, once people are accustomed to
these sorts of revolting behaviors,
then what could possibly be wrong with Sodomy ?

>>On his other song, he does not write his own lyrics, Bernie Taupin does.
>True, but Taupin writes them for him and has included some with
>homosexual themes in recent years ("Made in England" and "Freaks in
>Love" - the latter never released as a single, the former not one of
>Elton's major hits), but overwhelmingly Elton sings and has sung love
>songs about heterosexual or ambiguous relationships.

Obviously, Elton John has always known that if he force fed his customers
Sodomy, they would run for the hills in drives and his career would be over.

>>>>> I could ask the same about ethnic minorities or indeed women. The bills
>>>>> legalising gay marriage in Spain and elsewhere were passed by the
>>>>> democratic process of a ballot among elected members of the national
>>>>> parliament - it's ludicrous to demand a higher standard of 'democracy'
>>>>> for laws on homosexuality than for other laws purely because you
>>>>> disagree with them.
>>>>Buying politicians is not the democratic process.
>>> You really are fond of throwing libellous, unsubstantiated allegations
>>> around, aren't you? The vote didn't go the way you hoped it would, so
>>> naturally the voting politicians are corrupt. Self-evident; no need for
>>> anything as useless as *evidence* to back up such ideas...
>>When politicians or judges vote against the will of the people they represent,
>>financial corruption is the most common reason for that.
>Another unsubstantiated comment - the UK government supported the EU
>constitution while a likely majority of the British public didn't. This
>isn't because the government is corrupt, it's because the people had
>elected it to make decisions on their behalf for the next four years.
>In any case, was the Spanish vote against the will of the people?
>I believe it was part of the new government's manifesto when it was
>elected, in which case the government is entitled to claim public
>backing for the measure.

Most people believe that it was the coincidence of the Spain having troops in the
US Iraq Massacre and the bombing of Spain by freedom fighters opposed to
the the Iraq Massacre just days before the elections why that Socialist government
took power in Spain.
It had nothing to do with popular support for Sodomy in Spain.
Spain simply voted for 'the other Party'.

>>>>An issue of this type which involves the issues of wealthy people should be
>>>>put to the electorate in a plebiscital vote ballot question.
>>> So, only wealthy people are homosexual now?
>>A disproportionate number of homosexuals are wealthy.
>Where are the statistics to support that? Many of the best-known
>homosexuals are wealthy, but that's equally true of the best-known
>heterosexuals - they're well-known because they're wealthy, usually
>celebrities.

======================================================
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=article&am p;articleid=CA511781&display=Special%20Report

Spending Muscle
Gays and lesbians had a half trillion dollars in disposable income in 2004
Group Population (million) Buying Power (billion)
Entire U.S. 292 $8,600
Whites 217 $7,000
Blacks 37 $723
Hispanics 41 $686
GLBT* 15 $585
Asians 12 $363
*GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) reflects the 6%-7% of Americans
age 18+ who identify themselves as GLBT, according to the
Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combos.
SOURCES: Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combos,
Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia.
=======================================================

I do not believe there are 15 million homosexuals in the US. Maybe 6 or 7.

>>>>Civil Rights is about people who already had rights but who had those rights denied
>>> Like, oh to take a random example, the banning of sodomy (legal in
>>> England until 1533, for instance)?
>>Legal, meaning there was no law which addressed Sodomy ?
>>Democracy in the UK was a gradual development which did not completely
>>gel until the late 1600's. But my guess is Parliament was responsible for that law.
>You'd guess wrong - it was put in place by Henry VIII, who didn't have
>much time for Parliament in his decision-making. Parliament didn't gain
>the ability to pass laws at all until after the Civil War.

Parliament passed laws to levy taxes before the English Civil War.

>>> completely missing the point being made - this has nothing whatsoever
>>> to do with black attitudes towards homosexuality. Blacks themselves
>>> would still be a minority group (although strictly speaking they are
>>> close to becoming the majority ethnic group in some Western nations)
>>> even if members in some other minority group were racist towards them.]
>>More dishonesty. I did not make the above statement.
>Nor did I say you did, again it was analogy - a(nother) concept you
>appear unable to grasp. You made the absurd case that homosexuals can't
>be a minority group because some members of another minority group
>don't like them, which I was pointing out is, indeed, absurd.

Rubbish. If you base minority groups on behavior, there are a million behaviors,
including murder, drug use/sales, gambling etc which could constitute "minorities".

>>Rubbish. If that disease was in existence in Africa before, it would have showed
>>up long before, since African communities have undergone the least change of most
>>communities in the world over the past 30 years.
>>The disease was likely created in Defense Biological Warfare laboratory and
>>then spread from a Western country to Africa by Hollywood Homosexuals.
>Is there any loony conspiracy theory you won't latch onto, however
>poorly-researched?

If this disease has been around for decades before the early 1980's, how do you
explain that it was not a problem and did not spread widely in Africa before now ?

>>This is another of those clear differences between the black community and
>>the homosexual community. No one in the black community believes that
>>AIDS was created in Africa. It is a ridiculous claim and since AIDS in
>>obviously a new disease. No one is ever cured of AIDS and habits in
>>Africa have not changed that much.
>>To hear someone who is a homosexual sympathizer accusing falsely the
>>black population in Africa of bringing AIDS to the world is one of those clear beacons
>>of what the fraud is we are talking about here, that homosexuals and blacks are in a common struggle.
>You're really hung up on race, aren't you? It's irrelevant what colour
>the first person to be infected was - HIV doesn't discriminate. The
>first human victim happened to be black merely because this particular
>disease happens to have emerged in Africa, whose native population is
>predominantly black, just like Ebola.

I heard the first human victim was a white homosexual. In fact, I think even
Hollywood Homosexuals made a movie about that.

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm
>Note: this is a report of a scientific finding. Not a Hollywood
>Homosexual lobby group, not an unsubstantiated opinion by an internet
>bigot. It produces verifiable evidence, and reports empirical facts
>about the history of the disease. In fact it cites the first known case
>of AIDS - in 1959 (okay, I was out in saying a century, but the point
>remains that this was before the disease was ever known in the West),
>in the Congo (where the chimps live, curiously enough). It didn't reach
>the West until the 1970s at the earliest and only became a public
>health concern in the '80s.

How do you know this scientist does not receive funding from the Defense Dept.
and has an incentive to cover this up ? Do you notice how the BBC reports what
they are told by these scientists but then presents a volley of information that
contradicts the veracity of the claims.

================================================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm

In the early days of Aids research, dozens of chimps were deliberately infected
with the HIV virus to see if they developed the disease. To the surprise of scientists,
they did not, despite sharing 98% of their genetic material with humans.
================================================

Now, let us say the truth is that these biological warfare engineers infected
some test chimps from Africa with their cocktail of the day, and no disease
developed. They assumed that the chimps were disease free and returned
them to Africa.
Let us say a bestialist was involved in this testing and when he felt lonely
one night he thought one of these chimps looked fine.
Bestialitst then meets homosexual, they hook up. Then homosexual goes
to the bathhouse and engages with 5 partners that night.
Once this disease reaches a homosexual, it explodes.
That is one of the likely ways this thing spread.

What do you think would happen to Federal funding for Biological Research if it
became known that AIDS originated in one of those labs ?

>>>>>Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
>>>>>>develops early in life normally
>>>>> Sexuality of all forms develops early in life - at a stage known as puberty.
>>>>There is only one true sexuality. Everything else, including Sodomy and Bestiality,
>>>>is deviant.
>>> That's simply a statement of opinion.
>>Most people overwhelmingly believe this.
>Something for which you still have only your own claim and
>interpretation of votes cast on completely different matters to go by.

Who are you going to believe. Hollywood Homosexuals in the Press who
claim they represent the public, or actual popular Votes ?

>> And that is democracy.
>Reality isn't a matter of democracy - however many people hold it an
>opinion remains an opinion, not a fact.

The people choose. That is democracy. 11 states out of 11.
People determine what they want to tolerate in society.

>>>I have posted numerous quotes here in which it is clear to the experts that
>>>>Sodomy is an acquired trait.
>>> Not in this thread or any other I've read on the Dr Who newsgroup you
>>> haven't, and since you seem so eager to have people restate their own
>>> points ad nauseam at you it seems only reasonable to demand you do the
>>> same.
>>I posted the Cameron piece.
>A post from someone with a clear agenda, whose work has never been
>peer-reviewed, whose argumentation is poor, his misuse of statistics
>bordering on the fraudulent, who has reportedly been barred from the
>American Psychological Association for misusing his sources and has
>been the subject of a Court ruling that he has misrepresented evidence.
>He certainly does not qualify as an expert.

APA (American Psychological Association) acted against Cameron because
he advocated against Sodomy and that organization is dominated by
university types who love Sodomy.

>>Satinover has stated similar information.
>>http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html
>And guess what? He's another member of the FRI, which is by no stretch
>of the imagination an impartial research body and which is very clear
>in its agenda.

Satinover is board certified and testified before the Massachusetts Senate
a couple of years ago. I doubt they would entertain a quack down there as an expert.

>>> 1. "No one has found a single heritable genetic, hormonal or physical
>>> difference..." No one has found a single genetic difference between
>>> whites and blacks either, because it doesn't exist - skin colour is the
>>> product of more than one gene and is also influenced to a small extent
>>> by the environment. This is akin to a creationist arguing that because
>>> no one's found a single missing link with half-human, half-ape
>>> characters humans can't have evolved from apes - if you demand a
>>> specific, impossible piece of evidence you obviously won't find it, but
>>> it doesn't follow from that that the theory is flawed.
>>This is nonsense. There is no question that skin color is genetic
>No there isn't, but that's not what I said. Cameron demands a single
>gene for homosexuality - why should there be one? There's no single
>gene for skin colour, it's a product of epistasis - multiple genes
>influencing one another's expression. In fact there are something like
>200 genes affecting the precise colour of someone's skin. Like skin
>colour, sexuality appears to fall along a spectrum, from those who are
>completely uninterested in the same sex to those who are completely
>uninterested in the opposite sex and those who have no sexual interest
>in either, with a range of preferences in between. It seems wholly
>plausible that this is the product of a complex of multiple genes, and
>wholly implausible that a single gene will be responsible.
>and is very predictable

There is no compelling evidence that homosexuality is genetic. And obviously,
if homosexuality was genetic, evolution would have caqused it to die out,
since those who engage in it are unlikely to have kids.

>>given the skin colors of the parents.
>Usually, but it's certainly not unknown for black parents to have a
>child with fairer skin than either, even when both are the genetic
>parents. And of course there is a degree of environmental influence -
>hence the tanning of Caucasians in sunnier areas than those to which
>they are acclimatised.

Not without the husband demanding to know who the his wife cheated onhis with.

>>The document clearly does address the sources of homosexual desire.
>>And generally it is the child's senses being tricked by a molester to
>>accept homosexuality instead of heterosexuality
>>and poor relations with a father figure.
>The document says no such thing - it is a poll of what people
>identified in hindsight as the (usually sexual) experience that 'got
>them into' homosexuality (which incidentally doesn't mention
>molestation let alone being 'tricked'), which does nothing to explain
>where that desire came from. All this assumes, of course, that Cameron
>wasn't misquoting his source this time, which I can't be bothered to
>check.

It does say that. It says that these kids likely would not have assumed
a life of Sodomy if they had not met the wrong molester early in life and/or
had better relations with their parents.

>Incidentally, have you heard of a fellow called Freud? Came up with
>lots of ideas about psychology, his 'experiments' to prove those ideas
>consisted wholly of asking people about their past experiences, and
>guess what? His conclusions - pretty much all complete crap, to the
>extent that many are regarded as jokes to this day. Modern
>psychologists recognise the poor quality of anecdotal evidence and few
>would cite any study from as long ago as the 1940s, before ealy modern
>psychologists like Carl Jung came on the scene.

>>> 3 & 4. It's hard to see how this is relevant - why did those children
>>> who weren't forced agree to homosexual sex when such a large proportion
>>> of children didn't? Again this does nothing to answer the question.
>>> Drawing a conclusion based on what 2% of boys reported is very bad
>>> statistics; considering that fact that at least some of those
>>> encounters would have been forced, all this shows is that the role of
>>> suggestibility in 'priming' boys to become homosexual is very low
>>> indeed. 4 merely indicates that in both homosexuals and heterosexuals
>>> childhood behaviour generally predicts adult behaviour, and says
>>> nothing about the causes of the childhood behaviour.
>>Some people gain sexual climax from fetishes like stamping on insects like cockroaches.
>>Do you think that is genetic too ?
>>Some have sex with dogs. Genetic ?
>Do you have any particular reason to believe it might not be? Not being
>familiar with research in thsee areas I'm not in a position to assert
>either way, but it's a sign of narrow-mindedness to assume one way or
>the other without investigation. Not that you've been shy to exhibit
>signs of narrow-mindedness. After all, heterosexuality almost certainly
>has a genetic basis; unless there's a good reason to believe that other
>forms of sexual behaviour have a fundamentally different underlying
>mechanism the most plausible explanation is that they also have a
>genetic basis. And looking at the statistics Cameron provides, fewer
>than 2% of boys exposed to homosexual experiences choose to practice
>homosexuality in later life - which suggests that experience is not a
>significant factor in determining sexuality.

It says 2% of the boys succumbed to the homosexual advances they received.
And 2% of all heterosexuals claim they were homosexual at one time.

>>With a vibrator. Genetic ?
>Nonsensical analogy - the whole point of a vibrator is to simulate the
>sexual experience; obviously it's intended to produce the
>genetically-primed response.

That is the point. All these deviant behaviors simulate male-female sex.

>>> 6. It's hard to see what he's trying to prove here - that a proportion
>>> of homosexuals are more accurately described as bisexual? This is
>>> hardly a newsflash, and yet again does nothing to explain why, when
>>> they have experiences with both sexes, they typically prefer one over
>>> the other. The comparisons with race and gender in this case are
>>> spurious because what is being tested is a difference in preference
>>> rather than a physical character, but that does not in itself preclude
>>> a genetic predisposition.
>>This seems to indicate that Sodomy is not a commitment but simply an availability
>>to put the male procreative organ, somewhere.
>I'm guessing that's the conclusion he's hoping people will draw -
>however, since only two thirds of his respondents 'engaged in
>homosexual activity' had had opposite-sex encounters, this completely
>fails to convince, and even in the remaining cases the conclusion
>doesn't follow from the premise. Some people have a genetic
>predisposition to like sweet or spicy food, but the exact food they
>choose to eat isn't genetically determined - the idea that the ability
>to express a preference one way or another is in any way an argument
>against a genetic basis is nonsense that implies a complete
>misunderstanding of genetics.

>>By all reports, these sorts of couplings at the local YMCA, Bathhouse or disco or
>>in the bushes off the highway are easy to come by, take very little emotional sharing,
>>and it's cheaper than paying a woman prostitute for the same sensation.
>By whose (objective) reports? The blatantly false assumption that
>homosexuals are invariably unable to have relationships by choice is
>noted, and wholly inconsistent with the increasingly loud voices
>favouring homosexual marriage.

>>There are two main camps spending money to put out information in this arena.
>>[Hollywood] Homosexuals and Churches. I do not have the impression that Cameron
>>is overwhelmingly devout; he seems to have just hooked up with the people
>>who pay for unflattering homosexual information.
>It's true that he's hooked up with people who pay for his propaganda -
>the article I cited pointed out that he appears unable to publish
>anything in peer-reviewed journals, only in ones that take any
>submissions they're paid to. Devout or not his clear homophobic bias
>and chairmanship of the FRI represents a conflict of interest when he
>claims to make objective assertions about homosexuality.

He obviously has studied homsoexual behavior, encountered numerous people
coming into his office asking him "what is wrong with me, doc ?"

>>===================================================
>>http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1504.htm
><snip>
>Nothing here has anything to do with homosexuality, nor does it relate
>to the point I made about the ageing population which was based on
>comparative birth/death rates rather than overall fecundity, as I
>clarified in my last post.

>>>>That is [not necessarily] the prime problem many have with homosexuality, but you
>>>>made the claim it did no harm to society. This is false.
>>> Based on what? You haven't shown any evidence to that effect, merely
>>> pointed to a trend whose causes are well-documented and do not include
>>> homosexuality. You have also failed to address the flaw in your
>>> argument and its consequences - should heterosexuals reproduce at every
>>> opportunity and is it wrong for them not to? If a bisexual is a parent
>>> and has no intention of having any more children, does any homosexual
>>> intercourse they engage in cease to be harmful? Are asexuality,
>>> contraception and simply not wanting children wrong? By arguing that
>>> not having heterosexual sex is harmful to society (which your case
>>> boils down to) you're making it mandatory for people to engage in it at
>>> every opportunity; you don't see any absurdity in that?
>>Having homosexual sex is harmful to society.
>Repeating it ad nauseam without support doesn't make it true.

I do not recall repeating it.

>> This is not the most important issue to me
>Then what is? If your objection isn't even a spurious 'moral' one, what
>possible complaint do you have about it?

I alreeady stated my objections to it being on TV in BSG.

>>but it does put homosexuality in the same category with other behaviors
>>which are harmful to society such as drugs, gambling, prostitution,
>Right, this is more than tiresome. Drugs are harmful to individuals -
>family members and friends of abusers who suffer distress, people in
>the supply train who are subject to extortion, blackmail and other
>criminal acts by the drug cartels, people living under the regimes
>funded by the drugs industry, people affected by smuggling operations
>such as arms smuggling funded by said industry (not to mention the
>animal populations at risk from the trade in endangered wildlife, which
>is closely linked to the drugs trade), individuals attacked, brutalised
>or killed by the cartels propped up by the profits from drug use and so
>on and so forth. Prostitution and gambling (and indeed drug use as
>well) are social welfare issues due to the harm caused to people who
>find themselves forced into those situations. There is nothing in
>homosexuality which is even remotely equivalent to any of these.
>Hint: for something to be wrong, it must harm *someone*, an individual,
>not some half-baked distortion of discredited utilitarian ideas like
>some aggregate "Life".

When your civilization becomes extinct, I would consider that serious harm
to the community.

>> none of which would have the result of extinction of the human race
>> if everyone engaged in these other behaviors.

Nice tactic here of posing a argument just before its refutation.

>>>>>>>>As I have stated, Sodomy symbolism is rampant in Battlestar Galactica.
>>>>>> Others have refuted every such statement without my needing to waste
>>>>>> time going over it again if you're too blinkered to see that.
>>>>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in Battlestar Galactica.
>>>> Very strange that I'm not the only one to see the reverse, isn't it?
>>>Here on these Newsgroups ? Hollywood Homosexuals would claim to believe
>>>anything if it was in their interests.
>>> How convenient for them that they happen to be filling the group to the
>>> exclusion of everyone else, then.
>>The US public voted overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda in 11 out of 11 States
>>just 7 months ago. You see any of those people here ?
>It's hard to make any comment when you trot out meaningless soundbites
>- what precisely did they vote against? I find it very hard to believe
>the ballot paper asked them whether or not they supported the
>'homosexual agenda'. What is that agenda? And what leads you to believe
>that that was a deciding issue in the US election any case? I was under
>the impression the vote was to determine who would run the country, not
>a poll on their views about the candidates' attitudes towards
>homosexuality. As for whether or not there are people here who voted
>against Kerry, how should I know? I imagine there are at least some.

This newsgrouyp does not represent the public at large.
Somehow Hollywood Homosexuals have been able to put over this scam
on the Usenet through using public relations hacks to insult, threaten, intimidate people
out of coming here with my opinion and if that does not work making
false complaints to tyheir ISP.

>>The BSG writers are just demonstrating that Apollo is obsessed with Tom Zerak.
>>He wants to be close to Zerak because he wishes to continue to pursue a
>>homosexual relationship with him. They used another guy to have Apollo roll around with
>>on the floor of the bar. I hear that that scene is called "hide the bacon"
>>in homosexual circles. Of course, the other guy has Apollo on the ground,
>>face down sunny side up and is about to commit a homosexual act when the
>>script continues with the play fight instead.
>How about this - they were actually having a fight, as indeed was
>indicated by the script, symbolising, well, a fight? As others have
>alluded to on one of these threads, plenty of characters in plenty of
>series have been shown fighting other men and even grappling with them
>on the ground.

Not with that exact symbolism.
And I recognized this first time out in Bastille Day. I had no idea at the time
that they had used the identical imagery in Colonial Day, which aired about 6 weeks later.

>>>>> In BSG, the unisex toilets in which men and women are in
>>>>>the toilet stalls shown sitting next to each other is a major part of this strategy.
>>>>> Oh, for goodness sake. You really *don't* pay any attention to the
>>>>> actual stories, do you? Has it never occurred to you that maybe
>>>>> something might actually be done because it's easier to work it into
>>>>> the story that way? The unisex toilets were added because Baltar needed
>>>>> to meet 'Gwendolyn' there to fulfil a story function and he couldn't
>>>>> really have waltzed into a female bathroom - it's as innocuous as that.
>>>>Gwendolyn ? Are you talking about Shelley Godfrey ?
>>> Gwendolyn Post was the name I thought Number Six took when she appeared
>>> on the ship, or am I confusing her with someone else? I also believe
>>> that was the first time we saw the unisex toilets - but then, I wasn't
>>> paying as much attention to the latter aspect as you clearly were.
>>Maybe this is a difference between the UK and US version.
>>Google seems to indicate that is a Buffy the Vampire Slayer character.
>Oops, you're right - well, there's a first time for everything.

There are serious problems with Buffy The Vampire Slayer too, but I do not
watch that show, so I have not talked much about it.

>>A series which sells Sodomy
>The only gay character in the series is a girl... No sodomy involved.
>and Drugs (Dracula vampire myth is about

Woman-woman homosexuality is used by Hollywood Homosexuals as a metaphor for Sodomy.

>> Drugs in your Jugular vein opium injection).
>Vampire myths predate injected drugs by a long way - Bram Stoker just
>cobbled together a story from existing European folklore.
>Philip Bowles

When is the earliest vampire bite on the jugular myth that you know of ?

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #83174 ]

Di, 19 Juli 2005 13:33

John Shocked

"The Secretary of HomIntern" <tenhctiw [at] ykransepop.gro> wrote in message news:dXuCe.1973401$6l.489398 [at] pd7tw2no...
> Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
> when John Shocked wrote:
>> <pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote...
>>>>>"L. Ross Raszewski" wrote...
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:35 -0700, John Shocked
>>>>> wrote: "Homosexuality is wrong because the mole people told me in their
>>>>> nightly radio broadcast to my brain."
>>>>I have already proven this numerous times here.
>>> It's almost too good to be true that he really said this... Though it
>>> might not have been exactly what he meant to imply.
>> More dishonest misquotes.
> Hey, you were paraphrased. Then you said, "I have already proven this
> numerous times here." Therefore, you implicitly approved the paraphrase in
> that comment. Now, go seek help to learn to stop listening to streange
> voices in your head.

Sounds like an advertisement for psychotropic drugs, now.

>>>>>False, no one has refuted any of the evidence of Sodomy symbolism in
>>>>>Battlestar Galactica.
>>>>>Your services here on this issue are needed desperately to aid the
>>>>>homosexual agenda on this Newsgroup.
>>>>> Your claims of sodomy symbolism on BSG are insane. They make no
>>>>> sense. We can no more refute them than we could refute you if you
>>>>> started speaking in tongues. You're simply a madman. This argument
>>>>> can't go anywhere because you lie, invent fictional evidence, and
>>>>> imagine boogeymen.
>>>>> It's a wonder you're so anti-sodomy, given how far your head is up
>>>>> your own ass.
>>>>The following paste describes the issue and similar items have been
>>>>written by numerous other writers.
>>> Incidentally, it was Cameron himself who was found to have misled the
>>> Court in that case I mentioned - which hardly does wonders for his
>>> credibility; nor does the fact that he consistently writes
>>> anti-homosexual propaganda which has repeatedly been debunked (for
>>> instance
> http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/medical.consequ ences.rebuttal.txt,
>>> whose author claims to have found that Cameron misquoted his sources
>>> among other things).
>>> Philip Bowles
>> Cameron has come under attack from the very nexus I have talked about.
>> Crooked judges and Hollywood Homosexuals.
>> The APA (American Psychological Association) freely admitted that they
>> took action against Cameron because of his anti-homosexual views.
>> That disqualifies APA from serious consideration.
> Cameron has come under attack for spouting homophobic bullshit, and nothing
> more. Just like you. There are no mole people, so stop listening to them.

Everyone who disagrees with Hollywood Homosexuals is a homophobe, apparently.

Politics

Re: SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction [message #83175 ]

Di, 19 Juli 2005 13:45

John Shocked

<pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121667563.703875.170120 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> ><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121592710.718184.295930 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>"L. Ross Raszewski" <lraszew... [at] loyola.edu> wrote in message news:8blCe.5837$ph1.4767 [at] trnddc06...
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:35 -0700, John Shocked <jshoc... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Homosexuality is wrong because the mole people told me in their
>>>>> nightly radio broadcast to my brain."
>>>>I have already proven this numerous times here.
>>> It's almost too good to be true that he really said this... Though it
>>> might not have been exactly what he meant to imply.
>>More dishonest misquotes.
> The quote is exact; it is precisely what you said and precisely what
> you said it in response to. What I imagine you *meant* was to respond
> to the sentence preceding it, but I did make that point.

False.

>>> Incidentally, it was Cameron himself who was found to have misled the
>>> Court in that case I mentioned - which hardly does wonders for his
>>> credibility; nor does the fact that he consistently writes
>>> anti-homosexual propaganda which has repeatedly been debunked (for
>>> instance
>>> http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/medical.consequ ences.reb...,
>>> whose author claims to have found that Cameron misquoted his sources
>>> among other things).
>>> Philip Bowles
>>Cameron has come under attack from the very nexus I have talked about.
>>Crooked judges and Hollywood Homosexuals.
>>The APA (American Psychological Association) freely admitted that they took action
>>against Cameron because of his anti->homosexual views.
> Fancy that, a scientific body admitting to taking action against
> someone for misusing his sources to serve a political agenda. So,
> anyone who doesn't support an 'anti-homosexual' agenda is automatically
> corrupt and in league with your "Hollywood Homosexuals"? Science is
> impartial; Cameron's consistent attempts to twist the science to fit
> his politics is unacceptable behaviour in a scientist, and it is right
> that he be disbarred for doing so.
> Philip Bowles

Their arguments against him seemed to be nitpicking on a quick look.
They mainly opposed his opinion about Sodomy.

Politics

Seiten (4): [1 2 3 4 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	"33" BSG Ep -- Did Baltar murder 1300 people ?
Nächstes Thema:	KIF Status Report

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 16:04:23 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,18293 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.