|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions
| Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #139150] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 09:52 |
|
In these 1994 Saturday Night Live skits, Patrick Stewart of Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), to his credit,
says: "say No to anal sex !". As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night
Live scripts, clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at that time when it was
taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals, after the 1991 death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the Star Trek
enterprise by Rick Berman.
Episodes like ST:TNG The Outcast in 1992 and the whole script of the new series Star Trek Deep: Space Nine
(1993-1999) with the androgynous (male and female in the same body) Jadzia Dax (Terry Farrell) character were
designed primarily to sell Sodomy to you and your kids in this new Rick Berman era.
Politics
==========================================================
[Transcripts of 2 Saturday Night Live skits excerpted from the February 5, 1994 Patrick Stewart appearance from closed captions]
===============================================
>>> Hi! Welcome to sexy cakes, the erotic bakery.
>> I've walked by this place. I never thought I'd go inside it.
>> Well, I think you'll find that it's a little more fun than an ordinary bakery.
>> Yeah, my friend's havin' a bachelor party, and I thought it might be kind of fun if I got him an erotic cake.
>> Well, you have come to the right place. I have the perfect sexy cake for a bachelor party.
Oh, oh -- what about this one? What do you think?
>> Looks like a woman goin' to the bathroom.
[ Light laughter ]
>> Yeah, it's very sexy.
[ Laughter ]
>> What else do you have?
>> Ooh, I understand. It's not, perhaps, your cup of tea.
Perhaps -- maybe this sexy cake might be more up your alley.
>> This is the exact same cake.
>> No, no, no. This is chocolate.
[ Laughter ]
>> Yeah, but it's still a woman goin' to the bathroom.
>> Exactly.
Oh, could you excuse me for a moment?
>>Hi.
Hi, we're here to pick up our cake.
>> Yes, the man-on-man lemon meringue.
[ Laughter ]
>> Right.
I took a little artistic license with this one, but, well, I think you'll enjoy the results.
>> Hey, this is a woman going to the bathroom.
[ Laughter ]
>> Yeah, it's very exciting, isn't it?
That'll be $15.
>> We wanted a cake of two guys having sex.
>> Yeah, I know.
Well, I guess you can say I sexied it up for you. No extra charge.
>> Party's tonight. We'll take it.
>> Thank you.
Oh, you'll have to excuse me. It has been like this all day.
>> What other types of cakes do you have?
>> Well, why don 't we take a look at our catalog?
Now, you see, this shows every sexy, titillating cake we offer. Oh, now, here's a woman squatting behind some bushes.
[ Laughter ]
Look, the leaves are made of spun sugar. [this is a great SNL parody line]
And -- oh.
Here's a lady using a little marzipan port-a-potty.
>> So all your cakes are women going to the bathroom?
>> Yeah.
[ Laughter ]
What's your point?
>> Well, don't you have anything else?
>> Look, maybe you don't understand. This is an erotic bakery.
>> I'm sorry.
I just don't find this very erotic.
>> A woman going to the bathroom? You don't find it erotic?
>> No, not really.
>> Well, then what, pray tell, would you suggest we do put on our erotic cakes?
[ Light laughter ]
>> I don't know --people having sex? Female and male genitalia. You know, somethin' like that.
>> Well, if that's what you're after, I suggest you try Hostess or Sara Lee.
[ Laughter ]
>> Can't you just make a cake with a couple on it having sex?
>> All right, look, I'll tell you what I will do.
I will make a cake with a woman and a man going to the bathroom.
[ Light laughter ]
And then, that way, you'll be happy, and your friends will be happy.
>> I don't think my friends would like that, either.
>> Well, I would certainly like to meet these friends of yours sometime!
[ Light laughter ]
>> Look, could we just have a cake with just sex and no going to the bathroom?
>> May I remind you that you are going to have to eat this cake?
[ Light laughter ]
>> I'll tell you what --just give me a regular cake with nothing on it.
>> I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to ask you to leave.
>> Why?!
>> This is some kind of joke, isn't it? Who put you up to this, a fraternity?
You get out! Go on. Get out of here, young man!
>> Hi. It's my fiancé's birthday. Can I get a cake shaped like a woman going to the bathroom?
>> Absolutely.
[ Cheers and applause ]
===========================================
[ Cheers and applause ]
[ Nickelodeon theme plays ]
You show me and I'll show you dr. Elders will show us, too 'cause you're
never too young and you're never too small to know the difference between a penis and a ball
yay
>> Nickelodeon presents --
"Show and Tell," with Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders.
>> Good morning, boys and girls. And welcome to "Show and Tell."
You know, learning safe sex is as easy as A-B-C.
Did somebody say "A-B-C"?
"A" is for "abstinence."
Which -- I have to be honest with you -- is a Reagan-era fantasy.
[ Light laughter ]
Children are going to have sex. It's as easy as that.
Okay?
"B" is for "bastard."
That's a technical word for the product of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Now, do we have any bastards here today?
[ Laughter ]
Come on, Tony. You're a bastard. Raise your hand.
[ Laughter ]
There's no shame in that. Good, Tony.
You know, Jesse Jackson is a bastard.
As are all of Goldie Hawn's children.
[ Laughter ]
Can you say "Jesse Jackson" and "Goldie Hawn"?
>> All: Jesse Jackson and Goldie Hawn.
>> Good!
Now, what we are tryin' to do is to make fewer bastards, which brings us to
"C."
Now, what is "C" for, children?
>> All: "Condoms"!
>> That's right.
Very good.
We learn that every week.
Can't hit the condoms too hard.
Condom, condom, condom!
[ Laughter ]
Well, boys and girls, I think "A" through "C" is good for today.
Tomorrow, we'll study "D" through "G."
That's "dental dam" through "gonorrhea."
[ Bell rings ]
Oh, goody, goody, goody!
It's time for our special guest. And he's come all the way
from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta.
Boys and girls, let's give a warm "Show and Tell" welcome to Dr. Ian Menchenson.
[ Cheers and applause ]
Welcome, Dr. Menchenson.
>> Thank you, General Elders. It's a great pleasure to be here.
We, at the Center for Disease Control, agree that kids are never too young to hear frank and open discussion of sexuality
and health issues.
And that's why we are terribly excited about our new program, which is called "project just say no to anal intercourse."
[ Laughter ]
>> Now, what do you have to show the children?
>> Well -- this is what we at "Project Just Say No To Anal Intercourse" call the visible rectum.
[ Laughter ]
Now, this --this -- it's a learning tool.
And we have developed it especially for children aged 6 to 8.
>> Uh-huh, and how does it work?
>> How does it work?
Well, basically, we think it's absolutely vital for children to know that, during anal intercourse, the tearing and ripping of the
anal membrane can expose the receptor's bloodstream to a large dose of HIV-laden ejaculate --
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
>> I'm sorry?
>> No, doctor.
I think you're frightenin' the children.
>> Good.
Good!
That's just what we're trying to do at "Project Just Say No To Anal Intercourse."
You see, we want to discourage anal intercourse among children, and by alerting them to the dangers --
>> No, no, no, doctor!
I think maybe the visible rectum is a bad idea.
>> Oh. I have drawings.
>> No, no, no.
I'm afraid that we've run out of time.
Kids, let's thank Dr. Menchenson.
[ Applause ]
Well, that's all the time we have for today. But before we go, I should announce that this was our last show for nickelodeon.
Evidently, we've been gettin' a lot of negative mail from some very narrow-minded people.
But that's okay. We're movin' to PBS on weekdays, following "Daddy's Got a Boyfriend."
[ Laughter ]
And remember, boys and girls, if you're gonna have anal-oral contact and you're not sure of your partner's history --
>> All: Use a dental dam.
>> Bye-bye, now.
Bye-bye.
[ Applause ]
==================================
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141305 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 16:17 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> In these 1994 Saturday Night Live skits, Patrick Stewart of Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), to his credit,
> says: "say No to anal sex !". As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night
> Live scripts, clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at that time when it was
> taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals, after the 1991 death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the Star Trek
> enterprise by Rick Berman.
I hate to burst your bubble (because I believe Hollywood does have a gay
agenda), but Stewart is an actor. He acts out parts that are written
for him. In fact, I think I remember him being in a movie where he
played a homosexual.
The reality here is that SNL targets everyone for satire. They do not
discriminate when it comes to that and Jocelyn Elders was a prime
candidate as were Janet Reno and Bill Clinton. Other programs like this
target primarily conservatives. This balance is why I think SNL has
lasted so long: they have humor for everyone. I'm a big fan of The
Daily Show. I've been watching it since it was hosted by Craig Kilborn.
They also were indiscriminant until the last couple of years, now I
don't find it nearly as funny because sometimes it feels like it is a
sounding board for every complaint the left has with Bush.
Also in that episode, they parodied TNG by making it a remake of The
Love Boat. Do you think that by participating in that skit, Patrick
Stewart showed his true feelings about Trek? No, again, he was an actor
doing his job.
--
Gerald
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141314 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 22:25 |
|
Gerald Meazell <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> writes:
> John Shocked wrote:
> > In these 1994 Saturday Night Live skits, Patrick Stewart of Star
> > Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), to his credit,
> > says: "say No to anal sex !". As such, Stewart, who I am sure
> > contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night Live scripts,
> > clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise
> > took at that time when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals,
> > after the 1991 death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the
> > Star Trek enterprise by Rick Berman.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble (because I believe Hollywood does have a
> gay agenda), but Stewart is an actor. He acts out parts that are
> written for him. In fact, I think I remember him being in a movie
> where he played a homosexual.
Shocked is either a very persistent troll or he's quite mentally
disturbed, or both.
That said, Patrick Stewart has no problem playing gay characters,
nor, apparently, with homosexuality.
He played a gay character in a guest spot on Frasier and did a
very fine job of it, I thought.
> Also in that episode, they parodied TNG by making it a remake of The
> Love Boat. Do you think that by participating in that skit, Patrick
> Stewart showed his true feelings about Trek? No, again, he was an
> actor doing his job.
No, no no. He was showing his true feelings about the Love Boat
and Gavin McLeod!
[crossposts trimmed somewaht]
Oh, and by the way, Shocked - you're a fucking imbicile and bigot.
And just in case you missed it the last few times I explained it to
you: Men fighting with each other is NOT men having sex with each
other. Fighting != sex. Remember this. It's Very Important (see
my random caps!). If you ever have any hope of getting laid, it's
very important that you learn what is and isn't sex. Dipshit.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141316 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 01:39 |
|
<BreadWithSpam [at] fractious.net> wrote in message news:yobwtkyi9q6.fsf [at] panix3.panix.com...
> Gerald Meazell <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> writes:
>> John Shocked wrote:
>> > In these 1994 Saturday Night Live skits, Patrick Stewart of Star
>> > Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), to his credit,
>> > says: "say No to anal sex !". As such, Stewart, who I am sure
>> > contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night Live scripts,
>> > clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise
>> > took at that time when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals,
>> > after the 1991 death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the
>> > Star Trek enterprise by Rick Berman.
>> I hate to burst your bubble (because I believe Hollywood does have a
>> gay agenda), but Stewart is an actor. He acts out parts that are
>> written for him. In fact, I think I remember him being in a movie
>> where he played a homosexual.
> Shocked is either a very persistent troll or he's quite mentally
> disturbed, or both.
> That said, Patrick Stewart has no problem playing gay characters,
> nor, apparently, with homosexuality.
> He played a gay character in a guest spot on Frasier and did a
> very fine job of it, I thought.
=======================================================
Again, this is post-1994, when Hollywood was enforcing rules that you could not work
unless you played a homosexual. I have already referred to this in the Topic called
something The Hollywood Homosexual Sodomy Rite Of Passage.
Do not worry, I will repost it.
Just imagine a highly qualified actor like Stewart having to make a play.
Stewart was right to speak up against the Sodomy content.of movies that were being
offered to him at the time.
Sounds like the association of Homosexuality with AIDS is what he was going for
with this project. That is consistent with the Saturday Night Live skits I posted.
Doing this role probably extended Stewart's career 15 years.
It is the Sodomy Rite Of Passage in Hollywood. Especially if you are not from the US.
Congratulations to Stewart for protesting openly the Sodomy muck which was being
forced upon him by the Hollywood Homosexuals Sodomy Rite Of Passage.
Congratulations to Stewart for protesting openly the Sodomy muck which was being
forced upon him by the Hollywood Homosexuals Sodomy Rite Of Passage.
>> Also in that episode, they parodied TNG by making it a remake of The
>> Love Boat. Do you think that by participating in that skit, Patrick
>> Stewart showed his true feelings about Trek? No, again, he was an
>> actor doing his job.
> No, no no. He was showing his true feelings about the Love Boat
> and Gavin McLeod!
> [crossposts trimmed somewaht]
> Oh, and by the way, Shocked - you're a fucking imbicile and bigot.
> And just in case you missed it the last few times I explained it to
> you: Men fighting with each other is NOT men having sex with each
> other. Fighting != sex. Remember this. It's Very Important (see
> my random caps!). If you ever have any hope of getting laid, it's
> very important that you learn what is and isn't sex. Dipshit.
Again, this is post-1994, when Hollywood was enforcing rules that you could not work
unless you played a homosexual. I have already referred to this in the Topic called
something The Hollywood Homosexual Sodomy Rite Of Passage.
Do not worry, I will repost it.
Just imagine a highly qualified actor like Stewart having to make a play.
Stewart was right to speak up against the Sodomy content.of movies that were being
offered to him at the time.
Sounds like the association of Homosexuality with AIDS is what he was going for
with this project. That is consistent with the Saturday Night Live skits I posted.
Doing this role probably extended Stewart's career 15 years.
It is the Sodomy Rite Of Passage in Hollywood. Especially if you are not from the US.
Congratulations to Stewart for protesting openly the Sodomy muck which was being
forced upon him by the Hollywood Homosexuals Sodomy Rite Of Passage.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141317 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 01:51 |
|
"Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message news:INb%e.7888$6e1.4534 [at] newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> In these 1994 Saturday Night Live skits, Patrick Stewart of Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), to his credit,
>> says: "say No to anal sex !". As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night
>> Live scripts, clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at that time when it was
>> taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals, after the 1991 death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the Star Trek
>> enterprise by Rick Berman.
> I hate to burst your bubble (because I believe Hollywood does have a gay agenda), but Stewart is an actor. He acts out parts that
> are written for him. In fact, I think I remember him being in a movie where he played a homosexual.
I am well aware of the roles Stewart has played since the 1992-1994 time period when
Hollywood Homosexuals took over the movie business.
> The reality here is that SNL targets everyone for satire. They do not discriminate when it comes to that and Joycelyn Elders was
> a prime candidate as were Janet Reno and Bill Clinton. Other programs like this target primarily conservatives. This balance is
> why I think SNL has lasted so long: they have humor for everyone. I'm a big fan of The Daily Show. I've been watching it since
> it was hosted by Craig Kilborn. They also were indiscriminant until the last couple of years, now I don't find it nearly as funny
> because sometimes it feels like it is a sounding board for every complaint the left has with Bush.
> Also in that episode, they parodied TNG by making it a remake of The Love Boat. Do you think that by participating in that skit,
> Patrick Stewart showed his true feelings about Trek? No, again, he was an actor doing his job.
> Gerald
=======================================================
Again, this is post-1994, when Hollywood was enforcing rules that you could not work
unless you played a homosexual. I have already referred to this in the Topic called
something The Hollywood Homosexual Sodomy Rite Of Passage.
Do not worry, I will repost it.
Just imagine a highly qualified actor like Stewart having to make a play.
Stewart was right to speak up against the Sodomy content.of movies that were being
offered to him at the time.
Sounds like the association of Homosexuality with AIDS is what he was going for
with this project. That is consistent with the Saturday Night Live skits I posted.
Doing this role probably extended Stewart's career 15 years.
It is the Sodomy Rite Of Passage in Hollywood. Especially if you are not from the US.
Congratulations to Stewart for protesting openly the Sodomy muck which was being
forced upon him by the Hollywood Homosexuals Sodomy Rite Of Passage.
Congratulations to Stewart for protesting openly the Sodomy muck which was being
forced upon him by the Hollywood Homosexuals Sodomy Rite Of Passage.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141326 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 06:36 |
|
"Zeligg" <zeligg [at] nospeedspamfactoryatall.net> wrote in message news:8u5rj1lppf8hmef9ca2gbl5nj9cifi3633 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:40:16 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In these 1994 Saturday Night Live skits, Patrick Stewart of Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), to his credit,
>>says: "say No to anal sex !". As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night
>>Live scripts, clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at that time when it was
>>taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals, after the 1991 death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the Star Trek
>>enterprise by Rick Berman.
>>
>>Episodes like ST:TNG The Outcast in 1992 and the whole script of the new series Star Trek Deep: Space Nine
>>(1993-1999) with the androgynous (male and female in the same body) Jadzia Dax (Terry Farrell) character were
>>designed primarily to sell Sodomy to you and your kids in this new Rick Berman era.
> I realize this guy's a troll, but seriously, he posts some of the best
> bigotry against gays I have ever seen. To equate BSG or star trek as
> promoting sodomy. That's just brilliant! John, I really, really enjoy your work-- keep it up, man.
> Zeligg
More personal attacks. Why not tell us about what is so good about Sodomy and why Hollywood Homosexuals
for whom you work are so determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids ? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Win this thing. Defeat my views.
You cannot win this debate by simple personal attacks. The general public may not be generally that smart,
but they are smarter than that.
How can simple truths about deviant disgusting and harmful behavior be bigotry ?
Behavior like Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution have nothing to do with Civil Rights, which is based
on discrimination against people based on their appearance at birth, black or woman.
Sodomy, like Drugs, Gambling and Prostitution, is a right wing libertarian Civil Liberties issue.
To weak minds, civil rights and civil liberties sound similar. How they are at completely opposite
ends of the political spectrum.
For example, blacks and hispanics vote in much higher proportions against homosexual marriage
than the rest of the population. There is no connection between these two issues.
=======================================================
http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22), defining marriage as the union of a
man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61%
to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than whites.
========================================================
=====================================================
1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with the faeces excrement of another man,
which is disgusting and does not belong on TV,
2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is
inserted into that orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm ejaculate,
3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which rejects life, and the role of
child procreation and child nurturing, which is essential to the continuation of any civilization.
For these reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned by all societies and
is universally considered to be immoral.
Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV to you and your kids are
selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
======================================================
People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have bought control of
the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids
and preaching Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
1) The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) needs to step in on deviant
Hollywood Homosexual TV series like BSG and ban the deviant content outright.
2) Congress needs to pass a law restricting the US Supreme Court from making any further
corrupt decisions claiming to interpret the First Amendment which in any way interfere with
the actions of the US Congress and the FCC in this area.
Then if those same wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexuals still want to continue creating the series,
that would be up to them. I really doubt they would, without being allowed to peddle their
deviant habits to you and your kids on national TV.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141387 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 17:06 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> Again, this is post-1994, when Hollywood was enforcing rules that you could not work
> unless you played a homosexual.
Can you cite any references to these rules? I'd like to read them from
the horse's mouth.
--
Gerald
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141394 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 18:25 |
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
[snipped...]
>=======================================================
>http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
>
>In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22), defining marriage as the union of a
>man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61%
>to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than whites.
>========================================================
Which was completely unconstitutional. Here's why.
Marriage is, in fact, one of two things in the eyes of the law.
It's either a de facto contract between two persons of legal age who
have agreed to share expenses, risks, profits, and domicile, and to
assume responsibility for the other's welfare - in which case it falls
under contract law and cannot be restricted based on the sex of one of
the contract participants.
Or...
Marriage is a religious practice, which givres it the explicit
protections of the Bill of Rights.
>=====================================================
>1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with the faeces excrement of another man,
>which is disgusting and does not belong on TV,
>2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is
>inserted into that orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm ejaculate,
>3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which rejects life, and the role of
>child procreation and child nurturing, which is essential to the continuation of any civilization.
>
>For these reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned by all societies and
>is universally considered to be immoral.
Except not so much. Not a big fan of history, are you? In a
nutshell, through most of history and in most societies, Homosexuality
was not considered an issue at all. MOST societies simply don't care
one way or the other.
>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV to you and your kids are
>selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So
who's worse?
>======================================================
>
>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have bought control of
>the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids
>and preaching Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
Trasnslated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the
channel! Protect me from myself!
[snipped again]
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141399 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 20:09 |
|
"Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message news:XHS%e.4359$oO2.1659 [at] newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> Again, this is post-1994, when Hollywood was enforcing rules that you could not work
>> unless you played a homosexual.
> Can you cite any references to these rules? I'd like to read them from the horse's mouth.
> Gerald
Written down ? You think these wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexuals with their armies
of attorneys are going to join the Stupid Criminals club ?
Here is the truth which is known:
============================================================ ==========
As I have mentioned, Hollywood Homosexuals took control of Hollywood somewhere around 1992.
Let us look at the biggest male Hollywood stars who have arisen since that takeover. (the
list of major Hollywood female stars who had been in homosexual scenes on screen during
this period is simply too long to list here).
Six Degrees of Separation is the name of a Battlestar Galactica episode but it was also the
name of a movie in which Will Smith plays a homosexual hustler. This was the movie that
Will Smith had to do for the Hollywood Homosexuals who control Hollywood before they would
then allow him to obtain the big roles which followed. After this homosexual movie Six
Degrees of Separation (1993), Smith's next Hollywood movies were the following (f. IMDB):
Enemy of the State (1998) .... Robert Clayton Dean
Men in Black (1997) .... James Edwards/Agent J (Jay)
.... aka MIB (USA: promotional abbreviation)
Independence Day (1996) .... Captain Steven 'Steve' Hiller
.... aka ID4 (USA: promotional abbreviation)
Bad Boys (1995) .... Det. Mike Lowrey
Huge money straight movies. In fact, the reports from the set of Six Degrees of Separation
are the Will Smith refused to do a scene in which he was to kiss another man and the scene
was faked. That indicates Smith was not committed to the Sodomy subject matter of this
movie and was coerced into doing the movie. Leonard DiCaprio did the homosexual movie Total
Eclipse (1995), in which there were explicit naked bed scenes. (One of the last things I
saw on homosexual dominated HBO, around 2000-2001 before canceling the service).
The following are the acting jobs he received next:
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) .... King Louis XIV/Philippe
Titanic (1997) .... Jack Dawson
Marvin's Room (1996) .... Hank
Romeo + Juliet (1996) .... Romeo
At the time of the 1992 takeover of Hollywood by Hollywood Homosexuals, Tom Hanks was an
actor with mediocre success who made his name playing a transvestite in the Bosom Buddies
TV series (1980-1982). Obviously, for the Hollywood Homosexuals this guy was way, way, way
ahead of his time and he had to be made a star. This is what happened to his career once
Hollywood Homosexuals took control:
Apollo 13 (1995) .... Jim Lovell
.... aka Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience (USA: IMAX version)
Forrest Gump (1994) .... Forrest Gump
Vault of Horror I (1994) (TV)
Philadelphia (1993) .... Andrew Beckett
Sleepless in Seattle (1993) .... Sam Baldwin
A League of Their Own (1992) .... Jimmy Dugan
Russell Crowe was an Australian regional actor (born in New Zealand) making Australian
movies until he made the 1994 Australian movie The Sum Of Us, in which he portrayed a
homosexual. It was then that he received the call from Hollywood to appear in his first
Hollywood movie with Sharon Stone "The Quick and the Dead" Here is Crowe's Sodomy rise
to stardom:
Gladiator (2000) .... Maximus
The Insider (1999) .... Dr. Jeffrey Wigand
Mystery, Alaska (1999) .... Sheriff John Biebe
Breaking Up (1997) .... Steve
Heaven's Burning (1997) .... Colin
L.A. Confidential (1997) .... Officer Wendell 'Bud' White
Rough Magic (1995) .... Alex Ross
.... aka Miss Shumway jette un sort (France)
Virtuosity (1995) .... SID 6.7
No Way Back (1995) .... FBI Agent Zack Grant
The Quick and the Dead (1995) .... Cort
The Sum of Us (1994) .... Jeff Mitchell
Ashton Kutcher is rumored to be a homosexual although his public relations people link him
to 'an older woman'. (Special thank you to Ashton Kutcher for appearing in the Gays In
Space II episode on Saturday Night Live 03/19/2005)
Keanu Reeve has long been rumored to be a homosexual. His name Neo in the huge money movie
series Matrix was "Neo", an abbreviation for Neo-Conservative, the group of people we have
talked about who Love Sodomy, and Hate Arabs/Moslems but otherwise despise the Left groups
of The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women, just like any other regular (paleo-) Conservative.
Mostly huge money movies. Again, the homosexual background was his Rite Of Passage.
This follows the pattern of Jonathan King and other music managers who had their Sodomy rite of
passage for young boys who wanted to become music stars. This Sodomy Rite Of Passage was
portrayed in the Roger Daltrey (of The Who rock and roll music band) movie Like It Is (1998)
and it has also been talked about by Pete Townshend of The Who in interviews.
Fortunately, Jonathan King went to prison for buggering young boys. When are some of these
Hollywood Homosexuals going to be caught and go to prison themselves ? No wonder so many
entertainers support Sodomy, when in many cases they were forced to taste some of it before
they were allowed their big break.
There has to be some element of criminal rape, extortion and racketeering associated with
this Sodomy promotion activity going on in Hollywood.
============================================================ ============
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141401 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 21:49 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UnV%e.322200$E95.253651 [at] fed1read01...
> "Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:XHS%e.4359$oO2.1659 [at] newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
You are quite obviously gay, but in denial yourself, you prove this more and
more with evey post to anyone who knows anything at all about human nature,
you have my pity
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141406 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 04:19 |
|
"Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:wRW%e.5307$U51.1701 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:UnV%e.322200$E95.253651 [at] fed1read01...
>> "Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message news:XHS%e.4359$oO2.1659 [at] newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> You are quite obviously gay, but in denial yourself, you prove this more and more with evey post to anyone who knows anything at
> all about human nature, you have my pity
> fozzi
Claiming falsely immoral behavior of the Dead is a trademark of Hollywood Homosexual community.
Since I am alive, this seems to be a step up from the normal gutter of these statements.
============================================================ ===========
============================================================ ===========
There is no question Sodomy symbolism is pervasive in BSG. But they want it subtle, just like
this guy Gerrold was trying to sneak into the Star Trek script. Gene Roddenberry caught the
Sodomy reference at the last minute and fired him.
Here is an account of how one homosexual activist scriptwriter working in Hollywood fought
to pressure Gene Roddenberry into putting Sodomy into Star Trek.
Mostly in his own words, so much of it may not be true.
============================================================ =========
http://www.omnivore.org/jon/orwell/2001/Gay%20Trek/Gay%20Tre k.htm
A few months later, in late 1986, Gerrold began work on "Blood and Fire," his first -- and, as things turned
out, only -- "Next Generation" script. In the story, Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his Enterprise D answer a call
from a distressed medical research vessel. When the mission team beams over, it finds that the ship's crew is
infected with "Regulan blood worms," an apparently incurable pathogen so deadly that Starfleet Command has
ordered its officers to destroy any ship they contaminate.
Aside from its obvious reference to AIDS, the script also contained a casual nod to homosexuality. "How long
have you been together?" Commander Will Riker asks a pair of male officers who accompany him to the
blood-worm-stricken ship.
"Since the academy," one replies.
"This was during one of the worst parts of the AIDS crisis," Gerrold says. "Before protease inhibitors, before
AZT. AIDS was not a treatable condition; it was a fatal disease. And the fear of it was widespread, so much so
that blood donorship had reached critically low levels.
"On a more personal note, Michael Minor [art director for 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'] and Merritt Butrick
[who played Kirk's son in the 'Star Trek' movies] were also infected."
In Gerrold's script, curing the disease required a complete blood transfusion. To treat the infected, the
worried Enterprise D crew was asked to donate blood. "I felt this plot point would raise the consciousness of 20
million 'Star Trek' fans overnight," says Gerrold. "In fact, I was hoping that we could put a card at the end of
the episode encouraging people to donate blood."
Gerrold never got a chance to lobby for that card. After a series of arguments with Roddenberry's underlings,
Gerrold quit the show, and the episode was permanently shelved. Gerrold says, half-joking, that the script got
caught up in "orifice politics."
The breakup was bitter. Roddenberry, who had sent Gerrold a telegram congratulating him on "Blood and Fire"
("Everybody loves your script"), now began badmouthing his work at "Star Trek" conventions.
"A large part of the problem was that Gene's health was failing," Gerrold says. "He didn't have the physical
strength he needed -- and he was experiencing mental lapses as well."
============================================================ ===========
Note how this last statement this homosexual activist scriptwriter makes about Gene Roddenberry after his death falls
into the category of "speaking ill of the dead" and is considered immoral. However, this is a clear cut calling card
of those supporting the homosexual agenda. I know of no other group of people which engages in that
commonly agreed upon to be immoral behavior anywhere near as often as Hollywood Homosexuals.
============================================================ ============
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skitsfrom closed captions [message #141407 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 04:46 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> There is no question Sodomy symbolism is pervasive in BSG. =20
There is absoultely no sodomy symbolism in BSG.
ROBOT TEXT SNIPPED
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141409 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 05:14 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:pm10k1dvomnqtd1ahio2g0luj68h9nq613 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snipped...]
>>=======================================================
>>http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
>>
>>In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22), defining marriage as the union of a
>>man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61%
>>to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than whites.
>>========================================================
> Which was completely unconstitutional. Here's why. Marriage is, in fact, one of two things in the eyes of the law.
> It's either a de facto contract between two persons of legal age who have agreed to share expenses, risks, profits,
> and domicile, and to assume responsibility for the other's welfare - in which case it falls under contract law
> and cannot be restricted based on the sex of one of the contract participants.
Rubbish. In the eyes of society and the State, these contractual initiatives are secondary to the prime goal
of marriage, which is child procreation and child nurturing.
Why else would the society be interested in a man and a woman bonding together in perpetuity ?
You think the society/State fancies itself to be a procurer of concubines or a pimp ?
> Or...
> Marriage is a religious practice, which gives it the explicit protections of the Bill of Rights.
Marriage is a moral institution, based in nature, predating all religions, consecrating the union pair of parents of
the opposite gender to procreate and nurture the child(ren).
>>=====================================================
>>1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with the faeces excrement of another man,
>>which is disgusting and does not belong on TV,
>>2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is
>>inserted into that orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm ejaculate,
>>3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which rejects life, and the role of
>>child procreation and child nurturing, which is essential to the continuation of any civilization.
>>For these reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned by all societies and
>>is universally considered to be immoral.
> Except not so much. Not a big fan of history, are you? In a nutshell, through most of history and in most societies,
> Homosexuality was not considered an issue at all. MOST societies simply don't care one way or the other.
Name these societies do not or did not care about the immorality of homosexuality.
>>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
> I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
> asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
How could these other behaviors be considered immoral and repulsive enough to be banned from TV ?
With the multiplicity of religions which are represented on Sunday mornings, this hardly could run afoul
of the First Amendment.
>>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV to you and your kids are
>>selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
> And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
> Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So who's worse?
There is no Hate in anything I have said. I just do not want to see representations of Sodomy on TV,
with good reason. Those reasons may be sound unpleasant to the people who engage in this behavior,
but tolerance of society for your behavior does not extend beyond the privacy of your own home.
>>======================================================
>>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have bought control of
>>the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids
>>and preaching Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
> Translated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the channel! Protect me from myself!
> [snipped again]
What would be your reaction if you switched on BSG next week and saw a human, let us say Apollo,
having bestial sex with a dog ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141413 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 05:50 |
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:14:01 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:pm10k1dvomnqtd1ahio2g0luj68h9nq613 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0700, "John Shocked"
>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [snipped...]
>>>=======================================================
>>>http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
>>>
>>>In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22), defining marriage as the union of a
>>>man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61%
>>>to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than whites.
>>>========================================================
>> Which was completely unconstitutional. Here's why. Marriage is, in fact, one of two things in the eyes of the law.
>> It's either a de facto contract between two persons of legal age who have agreed to share expenses, risks, profits,
>> and domicile, and to assume responsibility for the other's welfare - in which case it falls under contract law
>> and cannot be restricted based on the sex of one of the contract participants.
>
>Rubbish. In the eyes of society and the State, these contractual initiatives are secondary to the prime goal
>of marriage, which is child procreation and child nurturing.
So by your logic, were I to have married a woman incapable of having
childern, the marrige would be invalid? What if we had decided to not
have children, and I had elected to have a vasectomy?
>Why else would the society be interested in a man and a woman bonding together in perpetuity ?
>You think the society/State fancies itself to be a procurer of concubines or a pimp ?
I think the state needs to stay the hell out of people's bedrooms.
Period. Who are YOU, or THE STATE, to tell me what is and is not okay
between two or more consenting adults?
>
>> Or...
>> Marriage is a religious practice, which gives it the explicit protections of the Bill of Rights.
>
>Marriage is a moral institution, based in nature, predating all religions, consecrating the union pair of parents of
>the opposite gender to procreate and nurture the child(ren).
Wow. You mean that a 'marriage' can be recognizeed without clergy or
benefit of a ruling body? Than how can a ruling body make conditions
upon it?
The problem is, in this country, in addition to requiring a 'license',
issued by a governing body, marraige can be performed by a judge or
.... and this is the important part ... ordained minister. The second
you add a minister into to equation you make it a religious practice,
which is protected IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS by the Constitution.
>>>=====================================================
>>>1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with the faeces excrement of another man,
>>>which is disgusting and does not belong on TV,
>>>2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is
>>>inserted into that orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm ejaculate,
>>>3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which rejects life, and the role of
>>>child procreation and child nurturing, which is essential to the continuation of any civilization.
>>>For these reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned by all societies and
>>>is universally considered to be immoral.
>> Except not so much. Not a big fan of history, are you? In a nutshell, through most of history and in most societies,
>> Homosexuality was not considered an issue at all. MOST societies simply don't care one way or the other.
>
>Name these societies do not or did not care about the immorality of homosexuality.
Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Most of Europe, The argument is
not morality v immorality. When polled, most people would tell you
that littering is an immoral behavior. Then they would toss their gum
wrapper on the sidewalk as they walked away from the pollster.
The issue is whether or not it was an issue. It wasn't. Laws against
homosexuality in most societies are the result of religious law - all
of which can be traced directly to rules and taboos established to
ensure the survival of a small tribal unit, or extended family.
>
>>>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
>> I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
>> asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
>How could these other behaviors be considered immoral and repulsive enough to be banned from TV ?
"God loves you. Send me a hundred bucks to prove that you love Him."
That's not immoral?
I believe that prayer is a personal act of contrition, and needs to be
done in privacy to bear any weight at all. Thus, prayer, or the
solicitation for prayer, on television is offensive in the most basic
terms to my beliefs.
>With the multiplicity of religions which are represented on Sunday mornings, this hardly could run afoul
>of the First Amendment.
Who said it did? I said that I could make the same argument that
you're making, which is that the behavior is reprehensible.
>
>>>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV to you and your kids are
>>>selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>> And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
>> Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So who's worse?
>
>There is no Hate in anything I have said. I just do not want to see representations of Sodomy on TV,
>with good reason. Those reasons may be sound unpleasant to the people who engage in this behavior,
>but tolerance of society for your behavior does not extend beyond the privacy of your own home.
YOU don't want to see this or that. I again remind you that YOU are
free to turn the thing on and off. Instead you cast blame and shame
on some nebulous group that's not only running things, they are out to
quash your right to free expression. You. Personally.
The very context in which you use the words homosexual, deviant, and
others is hatefull. Couch it in nice language if you want, but the
context is the proof in the pudding.
>>>======================================================
>>>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have bought control of
>>>the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids
>>>and preaching Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>>Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
>> Translated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the channel! Protect me from myself!
>> [snipped again]
>
>What would be your reaction if you switched on BSG next week and saw a human, let us say Apollo,
>having bestial sex with a dog ?
"Ewww!! That's Gross." Followed by the cliick of the off switch.
>Politics
>
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141422 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 10:56 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:s391k19b0a4g3d16ftnrn8ubv9q63gsgbt [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:14:01 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:pm10k1dvomnqtd1ahio2g0luj68h9nq613 [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> [snipped...]
>>>>=======================================================
>>>>http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
>>>>
>>>>In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22), defining marriage as the union of a
>>>>man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61%
>>>>to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than whites.
>>>>========================================================
>>> Which was completely unconstitutional. Here's why. Marriage is, in fact, one of two things in the eyes of the law.
>>> It's either a de facto contract between two persons of legal age who have agreed to share expenses, risks, profits,
>>> and domicile, and to assume responsibility for the other's welfare - in which case it falls under contract law
>>> and cannot be restricted based on the sex of one of the contract participants.
>>Rubbish. In the eyes of society and the State, these contractual initiatives are secondary to the prime goal
>>of marriage, which is child procreation and child nurturing.
> So by your logic, were I to have married a woman incapable of having children, the marriage would be invalid?
> What if we had decided to not have children, and I had elected to have a vasectomy?
There is always the possibility that a man and a woman could come together and produce a child.
>>Why else would the society be interested in a man and a woman bonding together in perpetuity ?
>>You think the society/State fancies itself to be a procurer of concubines or a pimp ?
> I think the state needs to stay the hell out of people's bedrooms.
> Period. Who are YOU, or THE STATE, to tell me what is and is not okay
> between two or more consenting adults?
The State does not have a specific interest in the bedroom. The State's interest is in the cradle;
that is what represents the perpetuation of the State and the society it represents.
When you become an elderly person is those golden years, you will hope that the new generation of your State
is capable of defending that land you live on from foreign invasion and able to maintain the finances of the
country with their work product, and your grandchildren and great grandchildren will be relying on that
new generation for protection.
My interest here is that you stop forcing that Sodomy muck onto the TV when people are
trying to watch a Science Fiction TV series.
>>> Or...
>>> Marriage is a religious practice, which gives it the explicit protections of the Bill of Rights.
>>Marriage is a moral institution, based in nature, predating all religions, consecrating the union pair of
>>parents of the opposite gender to procreate and nurture the child(ren).
> Wow. You mean that a 'marriage' can be recognizeed without clergy or
> benefit of a ruling body? Then how can a ruling body make conditions upon it?
Actually, yes, clergy is not required.
Here is how one US state, California, which voted down Homosexual Marriage in a ballot question in 2000,
defines its marriage requirements. Much of the requirements involve Consummation of the marriage which leads
to child procreation and preventions of child birth defects, by prohibiting relatives from marrying each other.
Apart from the child procreation, the State has practically zero interest in the sex life of the marrying couple..
============================================================ =======
http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/ca/law/c17.html
Marriage in California
In order to be entitled to spousal rights and to be bound by spousal obligations in California, people must be legally married.
Common law marriage is not legal in California; however, California does recognize common law marriages that are
valid in other states. In fact, California is obligated by the Constitution of the United States to give full faith and credit to
any
marriage recognized by any other state. Legal marriage in California requires obtaining a marriage license and
exchanging vows before an official authorized to formalize the vows. Officials authorized to conduct weddings
include judges, magistrates, and licensed religious officials. The exchange of vows must be witnessed.
Who May Marry
An unmarried man and an unmarried woman, both capable of consent and both at least 18 years old, may marry without
the permission of others. The parties who are marrying may not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time they
exchange vows. Young men and women under the age of 18 years may marry if they are capable of consent, have the
consent of both parents or guardians, are capable of consummating the marriage, and obtain a court order granting permission.
If they are underage, the parties must have premarital counseling. California law prohibits marriages between people
who are already married, as well as marriages between an ancestor and descendant, brother and sister
(even if half-brother or half-sister), aunt and nephew, or uncle and niece.
============================================================ =======
> The problem is, in this country, in addition to requiring a 'license', issued by a governing body, marriage can
> be performed by a judge or ... and this is the important part ... ordained minister. The second you add a minister
> into to equation you make it a religious practice, which is protected IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS by the Constitution.
Nonsense. That is the choice of the marrying couple to use a judge, magistrate or clergy.
>>>>=====================================================
>>>>1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with the faeces excrement of another man,
>>>>which is disgusting and does not belong on TV,
>>>>2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is
>>>>inserted into that orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm ejaculate,
>>>>3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which rejects life, and the role of
>>>>child procreation and child nurturing, which is essential to the continuation of any civilization.
>>>>For these reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned by all societies and
>>>>is universally considered to be immoral.
>>> Except not so much. Not a big fan of history, are you? In a nutshell, through most of history and in most societies,
>>> Homosexuality was not considered an issue at all. MOST societies simply don't care one way or the other.
>>Name these societies do not or did not care about the immorality of homosexuality.
> Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Most of Europe, The argument is not morality v immorality.
The evidence here is unconvincing. It is known that in Ancient Greece that in many of the city states that homosexuality
was illegal. And most of the evidence that Ancient Greeks engaged in this behavior originated from Roman sponsored
writers who had already conquered and enslaved the Ancient Greeks, like Plutarch, who wrote somewhere around 100 A.D.
> When polled, most people would tell you that littering is an immoral behavior. Then they would toss their gum
> wrapper on the sidewalk as they walked away from the pollster. The issue is whether or not it was an issue.
Nonsense. No one tosses around allegations of immorality on violations of petty town ordinances.
Immorality usually involves some sort of affront to Nature.
> It wasn't. Laws against homosexuality in most societies are the result of religious law - all of which can be traced
> directly to rules and taboos established to ensure the survival of a small tribal unit, or extended family.
Were laws against Sodomy in the US the result of religious law ? Or Britain, when Sodomite World War II
Enigma data decryption heroes like Alan Turing were arrested on British streets for the act ?
>>>>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
>>> I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
>>> asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
>>How could these other behaviors be considered immoral and repulsive enough to be banned from TV ?
> "God loves you. Send me a hundred bucks to prove that you love Him."
> That's not immoral?
> I believe that prayer is a personal act of contrition, and needs to be
> done in privacy to bear any weight at all. Thus, prayer, or the
> solicitation for prayer, on television is offensive in the most basic terms to my beliefs.
I am not a fan of such programming myself, but there is nothing immoral about it.
I mean, is such programming encouraging you or your kid to bring your procreative organs into contact
with the faeces excrement of another man ?
>>With the multiplicity of religions which are represented on Sunday mornings, this hardly could run afoul
>>of the First Amendment.
> Who said it did? I said that I could make the same argument that
> you're making, which is that the behavior is reprehensible.
Everyone on TV is asking for your money, in one way or another. Including BSG.
If you watch, and watch their advertisements, including the advertisements for
cigarettes, drugs, gambling and prostitution which are hidden in the BSG script, you give them your money.
>>>>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV to you and your kids are
>>>>selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>> And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
>>> Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So who's worse?
>>There is no Hate in anything I have said. I just do not want to see representations of Sodomy on TV,
>>with good reason. Those reasons may sound unpleasant to the people who engage in this behavior,
>>but tolerance of society for your behavior does not extend beyond the privacy of your own home.
> YOU don't want to see this or that. I again remind you that YOU are
> free to turn the thing on and off. Instead you cast blame and shame
> on some nebulous group that's not only running things, they are out to
> quash your right to free expression. You. Personally.
> The very context in which you use the words homosexual, deviant, and
> others is hateful. Couch it in nice language if you want, but the context is the proof in the pudding.
I want to watch Science Fiction TV. If Hollywood Homosexuals continue to attempt to sell Sodomy in
the context of fake science fiction TV, they are going to experience increased opposition to their goals from
people like me. And they will also receive opposition from people like mewhen they claim falsely that their
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservative agenda of Sodomy and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
is on the Left. That is a fraud and reasonable people are beginning to recognize this fraud.
They are right wing, libertarians and should not besmirch the Left by buying Left representatives and
couching their muck as Left issues.
>>>>======================================================
>>>>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have bought control of
>>>>the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids
>>>>and preaching Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>>>Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
>>> Translated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the channel! Protect me from myself!
>>> [snipped again]
>>What would be your reaction if you switched on BSG next week and saw a human, let us say Apollo,
>>having bestial sex with a dog ?
>>Politics
> "Ewww!! That's Gross." Followed by the click of the off switch.
That would be a reasonable response. But what if BSG was up to that point your favorite show and
the only major science fiction series on TV ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141423 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 11:14 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:7Y00f.98139$387.83865 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>> There is no question Sodomy symbolism is pervasive in BSG.
>There is absoultely no sodomy symbolism in BSG.
>ROBOT TEXT SNIPPED
There is no question that there is widespread Sodomy symbolism in BSG.
=========================================================
=========================================================
>>Again, that seems arguable either way: Just as it was politically convenient _then_ for Iran to be the Monster,
>> so it was politically convenient more recently for Iraq to take the role.
> Given that this report was written _then_, and also given that Saddam's use of chemical weaponry was
> considerably greater than Iran's and that there are numerous other examples of Saddam using chemical
> weapons quite aside from those above (another report I found cited 49 instances up to 1984 - though
> this included attacks against Iranian as well as Iraqi targets), it seems a valid point that the
> report John mentioned can't be treated as authoritative. It isn't inconceivable that the woman
> talking about Halabja as an eyewitness could have had peshmerga sympathies that would lead her to
> implicate the Iraqis, which is probably why the CIA withholds judgment either way, but without
> evidence that claim isn't compelling. So, we're left with the possibility that either side could have
> done it, but with Iraq the more likely candidate given its record (strange, isn't it, that accidental
> chemical 'crossfire' seems to have been confined to areas held by people Saddam was oppressing?) From
> the report, the planes that dropped the weapons appeared to be deliberately circling over the village
> and launching a sustained chemical attack rather than joining the ongoing battle outside the
> village's borders - it would be rather strange for the Iranian air force to launch a chemical
> incursion into a civilian area behind the battle line rather than supporting the troops engaged in
> combat. It seems rather more plausible that the village was a target of opportunity by forces flying
> to join the battle from within Iraq - not least because, given that there was a battle, the source of
> the attack could conveniently be explained as either Iranian forces or accident (though the latter of
> course brings up the callous disregard of employing chemical weapons near a civilian area,
> notwithstanding that the Iraqis began the chemical attacks in the Iran/Iraq war in defiance of their
> international treaty obligations).
The US government, represented by President Reagan (1981-1989) and his band of Neo-Conservatives
supported all that Iraq did with chemical weapons and provided those weapons and opposed sanctions
against Iraq at the UN. Saddam Hussein was working in concert with the US in the usage of these
chemical weapons.
When the Iran-Contra Scandal broke, in which it became clear that the US was also arming Iran, it
became clear that the US Neo-Conservative policy on the Middle East was
Anti-Arab/Moslem genocide and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
============================================================ ======
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
On July 12, 1982, the Security Council met on the issue of the war for the first time since 1980 and called for a withdrawal to the
pre-war boundaries. Iran considered this further proof of the bias of the United Nations, since the call for withdrawal came at the
first moment in the war when Iranian forces held any Iraqi territory.<141>
Iraq responded to Iranian victories on the ground by making use of its advantage in technology: it escalated the tanker war,
employed chemical weapons, and launched attacks on civilian targets. Iran retaliated by striking Gulf shipping starting in 1984 and
launching its own attacks on civilians, though on a lesser scale than Iraq. Iran charged that the Security Council's handling of
each of these issues reflected animus against Iran.
In 1984 the Security Council passed a resolution on the tanker war that was directed primarily against Iran's actions and made no
reference to Iraqi conduct except to call for all states to respect the right of free navigation.<142>
On chemical weapons, the Security Council passed no resolution. The United States condemned the use of chemical weapons, but
declined to support any Council action against Iraq.<143> The Council did issue a much less significant "statement" in 1985
condemning the use of chemical weapons, but without mentioning Iraq by name; then, in March 1986, for the first time a Council
statement explicitly denounced Iraq. This, however, was two years after Iraq's use of chemical warfare had been confirmed by a UN
team.<144>
==========================================================
The main tool by which U.S. policy makers sought to secure their position in Iran in 1985 and 1986 was secretly providing arms and
intelligence information. As a proclaimed neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States was not supposed to supply weapons to
either side. Nevertheless, U.S. allies kept the combatants well-stocked.<74> Israel transferred vast quantities of U.S.-origin
weapons to Iran;<75> to what extent U.S. permission for these shipments was obtained (as required by U.S. law) is not known, but
surely the U.S. had enough leverage to prevent the transfers if it had wanted to.
============================================================ =======
Note how again, this Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) jeopardized access to the Middle East Oil that some
falsely claim dominates US policy in the Middle East.
============================================================ ======
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_War#The_Tanker_War_and_U .S._entanglement
The Tanker War and U.S. entanglement
The United States had been wary of the Tehran regime since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the detention of its Tehran
embassy staff in the 1979-81 Iran hostage crisis. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its
backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken
during the 1967 Six-Day War), and allegedly also supplying weapons [1].
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
Starting in 1981, both Iran and Iraq attacked oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to
deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a
Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16. Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations
in the Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War."
Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430
civilian mariners.
The largest number of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned
foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered
to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987 (Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance). Under
international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily.
This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.
============================================================ =======
Following is just another intersection of the Truth with the Neo-Conservative Anti-Arabs/Moslem Hate
propaganda disseminated by the crooks in the Press.
Here is some truth about the Kurd gassing incident alleged to have been committed by Saddam Hussein:
============================================================ ==========
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1148.htm
A War Crime Or An Act of War?
Who really gassed the Kurds?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State
of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous
weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence
most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year
Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple
Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any
certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war,
and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through
Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war
against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians.
Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian
border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a
classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was
Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. ....................
------------------------------------------------
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
============================================================ ==========
Again, I do not believe these Middle East wars are about Oil.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12256
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1550
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141426 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 12:28 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> "Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:14:01 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>> [snipped...]
>>>>>=======================================================
>>>>>http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22),
>>>>>defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In liberal,
>>>>>laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional
>>>>>marriage was 61% to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by
>>>>>higher percentages than whites.
>>>>>========================================================
>>>> Which was completely unconstitutional. Here's why. Marriage is, in
>>>> fact, one of two things in the eyes of the law. It's either a de facto
>>>> contract between two persons of legal age who have agreed to share
>>>> expenses, risks, profits, and domicile, and to assume responsibility
>>>> for the other's welfare - in which case it falls under contract law and
>>>> cannot be restricted based on the sex of one of the contract
>>>> participants.
>>>Rubbish. In the eyes of society and the State, these contractual
>>>initiatives are secondary to the prime goal of marriage, which is child
>>>procreation and child nurturing.
>> So by your logic, were I to have married a woman incapable of having
>> children, the marriage would be invalid? What if we had decided to not
>> have children, and I had elected to have a vasectomy?
>
> There is always the possibility that a man and a woman could come together
> and produce a child.
Not always. Some women can't carry to term, some men just don't have the
sperm.
>>>Why else would the society be interested in a man and a woman bonding
>>>together in perpetuity ? You think the society/State fancies itself to be
>>>a procurer of concubines or a pimp ?
>> I think the state needs to stay the hell out of people's bedrooms.
>> Period. Who are YOU, or THE STATE, to tell me what is and is not okay
>> between two or more consenting adults?
>
> The State does not have a specific interest in the bedroom. The State's
> interest is in the cradle; that is what represents the perpetuation of the
> State and the society it represents.
But the State doesn't care if the legal parents are same-sex or not, unless
the State's officials are homophobic.
> When you become an elderly person is
> those golden years, you will hope that the new generation of your State is
> capable of defending that land you live on from foreign invasion and able
> to maintain the finances of the country with their work product, and your
> grandchildren and great grandchildren will be relying on that new
> generation for protection. My interest here is that you stop forcing that
> Sodomy muck onto the TV when people are trying to watch a Science Fiction
> TV series.
And you claim that your interest isn't religious. Fraud!
>>>> Or...
>>>> Marriage is a religious practice, which gives it the explicit
>>>> protections of the Bill of Rights.
>>>Marriage is a moral institution, based in nature, predating all
>>>religions, consecrating the union pair of parents of the opposite gender
>>>to procreate and nurture the child(ren).
>> Wow. You mean that a 'marriage' can be recognizeed without clergy or
>> benefit of a ruling body? Then how can a ruling body make conditions
>> upon it?
>
> Actually, yes, clergy is not required.
> Here is how one US state, California, which voted down Homosexual Marriage
> in a ballot question in 2000, defines its marriage requirements.
That wasn't constitutional, and therefore was INVALID.
> Much of
> the requirements involve Consummation of the marriage which leads to child
> procreation and preventions of child birth defects, by prohibiting
> relatives from marrying each other. Apart from the child procreation, the
> State has practically zero interest in the sex life of the marrying
> couple..
"Child procreation" is not always an option. I know a lady in New Orleans
who cannot safely do so.
>> The problem is, in this country, in addition to requiring a 'license',
>> issued by a governing body, marriage can
>> be performed by a judge or ... and this is the important part ...
>> ordained minister. The second you add a minister into to equation you
>> make it a religious practice, which is protected IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS by
>> the Constitution.
>
> Nonsense. That is the choice of the marrying couple to use a judge,
> magistrate or clergy.
But a religious marriage is not valid *without the civil aspect*. Therefore,
"civil marriages" are the only legal kind.
>>>>>=====================================================
>>>>>1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with
>>>>>the faeces excrement of another man, which is disgusting and does not
>>>>>belong on TV, 2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the
>>>>>anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is inserted into that
>>>>>orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm
>>>>>ejaculate, 3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which
>>>>>rejects life, and the role of child procreation and child nurturing,
>>>>>which is essential to the continuation of any civilization. For these
>>>>>reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned
>>>>>by all societies and is universally considered to be immoral.
>>>> Except not so much. Not a big fan of history, are you? In a nutshell,
>>>> through most of history and in most societies,
>>>> Homosexuality was not considered an issue at all. MOST societies
>>>> simply don't care one way or the other.
>>>Name these societies do not or did not care about the immorality of
>>>homosexuality.
>> Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Most of Europe, The argument is not
>> morality v immorality.
>
> The evidence here is unconvincing. It is known that in Ancient Greece
> that in many of the city states that homosexuality
> was illegal. And most of the evidence that Ancient Greeks engaged in
> this behavior originated from Roman sponsored writers who had already
> conquered and enslaved the Ancient Greeks, like Plutarch, who wrote
> somewhere around 100 A.D.
In some places, religious wackjobs were in control; in others, they weren't.
Where they weren't in charge, the homophobes had a harder time getting
their own way.
>> When polled, most people would tell you that littering is an immoral
>> behavior. Then they would toss their gum wrapper on the sidewalk as they
>> walked away from the pollster. The issue is whether or not it was an
>> issue.
>
> Nonsense. No one tosses around allegations of immorality on violations of
> petty town ordinances. Immorality usually involves some sort of affront to
> Nature.
And Bruce Bagemihl thoroughly discredited the "nature" argument five years
ago. Sorry, you lose.
>> It wasn't. Laws against homosexuality in most societies are the result
>> of religious law - all of which can be traced directly to rules and
>> taboos established to ensure the survival of a small tribal unit, or
>> extended family.
>
> Were laws against Sodomy in the US the result of religious law ? Or
> Britain, when Sodomite World War II Enigma data decryption heroes like
> Alan Turing were arrested on British streets for the act ?
Yes, actually -- religious wackjobs were always behind "anti-sodomy" laws,
where homophobes were not.
>>>>>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
>>>> I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
>>>> asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
>>>How could these other behaviors be considered immoral and repulsive
>>>enough to be banned from TV ?
>> "God loves you. Send me a hundred bucks to prove that you love Him."
>> That's not immoral?
>> I believe that prayer is a personal act of contrition, and needs to be
>> done in privacy to bear any weight at all. Thus, prayer, or the
>> solicitation for prayer, on television is offensive in the most basic
>> terms to my beliefs.
>
> I am not a fan of such programming myself, but there is nothing immoral
> about it. I mean, is such programming encouraging you or your kid to bring
> your procreative organs into contact with the faeces excrement of another
> man ?
You are truly *obsessed* with anal sex, ain'tcha?
>>>With the multiplicity of religions which are represented on Sunday
>>>mornings, this hardly could run afoul of the First Amendment.
>> Who said it did? I said that I could make the same argument that
>> you're making, which is that the behavior is reprehensible.
>
> Everyone on TV is asking for your money, in one way or another. Including
> BSG. If you watch, and watch their advertisements, including the
> advertisements for cigarettes, drugs, gambling and prostitution which are
> hidden in the BSG script, you give them your money.
The cigarettes are a real danger, because they kill. Gambling isn't far
behind, because it can utterly destroy lives. As far as drugs and
prostitution go, they're no big, with exceptions, but those exceptions only
need regulation.
>>>>>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV
>>>>>to you and your kids are selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>>> And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
>>>> Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So who's
>>>> worse?
>>>There is no Hate in anything I have said. I just do not want to see
>>>representations of Sodomy on TV,
>>>with good reason. Those reasons may sound unpleasant to the people who
>>>engage in this behavior, but tolerance of society for your behavior does
>>>not extend beyond the privacy of your own home.
>> YOU don't want to see this or that. I again remind you that YOU are
>> free to turn the thing on and off. Instead you cast blame and shame
>> on some nebulous group that's not only running things, they are out to
>> quash your right to free expression. You. Personally.
>> The very context in which you use the words homosexual, deviant, and
>> others is hateful. Couch it in nice language if you want, but the
>> context is the proof in the pudding.
>
> I want to watch Science Fiction TV.
Fine. Watch it.
> If Hollywood Homosexuals continue to attempt to sell Sodomy in the context
> of fake science fiction TV, they are going to experience increased
> opposition to their goals from people like me.
And people like me are going to oppose people like you in ever-greater
numbers.
> And they will also receive opposition from people like
> mewhen they claim falsely that their Hollywood Homosexuals
> Neo-Conservative agenda of Sodomy and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
> is on the Left. That is a fraud and reasonable people are beginning to
> recognize this fraud. They are right wing, libertarians and should not
> besmirch the Left by buying Left representatives and couching their muck
> as Left issues.
I am not in any way, shape, or form a neo-con. I have been staunchly leftist
for twenty years, and I am bisexual. So you can just go fuck yourself all
over again.
>>>>>======================================================
>>>>>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have
>>>>>bought control of the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the
>>>>>purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids and preaching Mass
>>>>>Murder of Arabs/Moslems. Society should respond by banning the deviant
>>>>>content.
>>>> Translated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the
>>>> channel! Protect me from myself!
>>>> [snipped again]
>>>What would be your reaction if you switched on BSG next week and saw a
>>>human, let us say Apollo, having bestial sex with a dog ?
>>>Politics
>> "Ewww!! That's Gross." Followed by the click of the off switch.
>
> That would be a reasonable response. But what if BSG was up to that point
> your favorite show and the only major science fiction series on TV ?
Straw man. BSG is NOT the only SF series on TV, and is far from being
"major". No series on the Sci-Fi Channel in the US, or on Space in Canada,
is "major", because those channels aren't "major". *Network* *television*
remains the only "major" medium for SF on TV, and that situation is likely
to continue for years to come.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141437 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 17:53 |
|
Fozzi wrote:
> You are quite obviously gay, but in denial yourself, you prove this more and
> more with evey post to anyone who knows anything at all about human nature,
> you have my pity
God, I'm tired of that old saw. By that logic, the majority of people
on Usenet are secretly right-wing Republicans who adore George Bush,
support the war in Iraq, and hope the Patriot Act extends to their own
bedrooms.
John may be crazy, but he's no queer.
--
Gerald
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141438 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 18:03 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> Written down ? You think these wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexuals with their armies
> of attorneys are going to join the Stupid Criminals club ?
Then all you have is a series of coincidences and your own conjecture.
Sorry, John, this is like all those people who put together assorted
facts to prove George Bush went to war in Iraq for (take your pick) oil,
Halliburton, or a personal vendetta.
--
Gerald
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141444 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 19:05 |
|
"Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message
news:8uc0f.197$ht7.66 [at] newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Fozzi wrote:
>> You are quite obviously gay, but in denial yourself, you prove this more
>> and more with evey post to anyone who knows anything at all about human
>> nature, you have my pity
>
> God, I'm tired of that old saw. By that logic, the majority of people on
> Usenet are secretly right-wing Republicans who adore George Bush, support
> the war in Iraq, and hope the Patriot Act extends to their own bedrooms.
>
> John may be crazy, but he's no queer.
>
> --
> Gerald
Sorry but i disagree, john is crazy, and he definately is a queer
by the way your comparison is complete nonsence.
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141448 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 19:52 |
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:28:39 GMT, The Secretary of HomIntern
<ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote:
[snipped]
Ditto. (Yeah yeah yeah...I know how that's bad netiquitte.)
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141455 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 20:35 |
|
-+On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 01:56:17 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> So by your logic, were I to have married a woman incapable of having children, the marriage would be invalid?
>> What if we had decided to not have children, and I had elected to have a vasectomy?
>
>There is always the possibility that a man and a woman could come together and produce a child.
That is false on so many levels. Pick up any biology textbook, or ask
any reasonable physician and he will tell you that there is a certain
percentage of people who simply cannot have children.
>>>Why else would the society be interested in a man and a woman bonding together in perpetuity ?
>>>You think the society/State fancies itself to be a procurer of concubines or a pimp ?
>> I think the state needs to stay the hell out of people's bedrooms.
>> Period. Who are YOU, or THE STATE, to tell me what is and is not okay
>> between two or more consenting adults?
>
>My interest here is that you stop forcing that Sodomy muck onto the TV when people are
>trying to watch a Science Fiction TV series.
Clearly you're not getting the point...if you don't like it, turn it
off. You have already deemed that the show isn't really science
fiction as you see it - which is as valid as any other opinion. But
there isn't anyone holding a gun to your head.
Change the channel. Period.
>>>> Or...
>>>> Marriage is a religious practice, which gives it the explicit protections of the Bill of Rights.
>>>Marriage is a moral institution, based in nature, predating all religions, consecrating the union pair of
>>>parents of the opposite gender to procreate and nurture the child(ren).
>> Wow. You mean that a 'marriage' can be recognizeed without clergy or
>> benefit of a ruling body? Then how can a ruling body make conditions upon it?
>
>Actually, yes, clergy is not required.
Is it a 'moral institution' or a controlling instrument of the state?
You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
If it's a moral instution - then it's a de facto religious practice.
Period.
If it's a controliling instrument of the state; the point of which is
procreation and propogation of the species, then any marrigae which
does not produce children is invalid.
>Here is how one US state, California, which voted down Homosexual Marriage in a ballot question in 2000,
>defines its marriage requirements. Much of the requirements involve Consummation of the marriage which leads
>to child procreation and preventions of child birth defects, by prohibiting relatives from marrying each other.
>Apart from the child procreation, the State has practically zero interest in the sex life of the marrying couple..
>
> ============================================================ =======
>http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/ca/law/c17.html
>
>Marriage in California
>In order to be entitled to spousal rights and to be bound by spousal obligations in California, people must be legally married.
>Common law marriage is not legal in California; however, California does recognize common law marriages that are
>valid in other states. In fact, California is obligated by the Constitution of the United States to give full faith and credit to
>any
>marriage recognized by any other state. Legal marriage in California requires obtaining a marriage license and
>exchanging vows before an official authorized to formalize the vows. Officials authorized to conduct weddings
>include judges, magistrates, and licensed religious officials. The exchange of vows must be witnessed.
>Who May Marry
>An unmarried man and an unmarried woman, both capable of consent and both at least 18 years old, may marry without
>the permission of others. The parties who are marrying may not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time they
>exchange vows. Young men and women under the age of 18 years may marry if they are capable of consent, have the
>consent of both parents or guardians, are capable of consummating the marriage, and obtain a court order granting permission.
>If they are underage, the parties must have premarital counseling. California law prohibits marriages between people
>who are already married, as well as marriages between an ancestor and descendant, brother and sister
>(even if half-brother or half-sister), aunt and nephew, or uncle and niece.
> ============================================================ =======
Still Unconstitutional. The hurdle is quickly turning in to State's
rights v. Federal Rights. Which is a sticky question. It's going to
take years to hash out.
>
>> The problem is, in this country, in addition to requiring a 'license', issued by a governing body, marriage can
>> be performed by a judge or ... and this is the important part ... ordained minister. The second you add a minister
>> into to equation you make it a religious practice, which is protected IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS by the Constitution.
>
>Nonsense. That is the choice of the marrying couple to use a judge, magistrate or clergy.
That's correct. But allowing ministers to perform the ceremony makes
it a religious practice.
And the refusal of a governing body to issue a license based on the
sex, and nothing else, or one of the participants is a discriminatory
practice.
>> When polled, most people would tell you that littering is an immoral behavior. Then they would toss their gum
>> wrapper on the sidewalk as they walked away from the pollster. The issue is whether or not it was an issue.
>
>Nonsense. No one tosses around allegations of immorality on violations of petty town ordinances.
>Immorality usually involves some sort of affront to Nature.
Nope. Immorality is a thing defined by an individual. I think it's
immoral to cut into the line at the theater, or to not treat others
with at least a little courtesy and respect. I think it's immoral to
lie in most cases, except when telling the truth would hurt someone
and serves no other purpose. I think burning the US Flag is immoral
(But I support your right to do it - just don't ask me to be anything
but offended and pissed off by it) None of these is an affront to
nature.
It's basic sociology. There are more studies on the 'do as I say not
as I do' mechanism in social structuers than can be counted. The
point is that people don't care about things that don't directly
impact their lives until someone brings them up - or they have a
particular axe to grind.
>> It wasn't. Laws against homosexuality in most societies are the result of religious law - all of which can be traced
>> directly to rules and taboos established to ensure the survival of a small tribal unit, or extended family.
>
>Were laws against Sodomy in the US the result of religious law ? Or Britain, when Sodomite World War II
>Enigma data decryption heroes like Alan Turing were arrested on British streets for the act ?
Yes. Such laws stem from religious laws, which stem from the need to
serve a small extended family or tribe.
Example - the dietary prohibition against pork - until about 150 years
ago, you couldn't reliably cook pork and be sure of killing the
parasites that live in it. So, once someone figured out eating pork
could kill you, a religious law evolved against it - because in a
tribal society, religious laws carry more weight than tribal laws -
it's easier to keep things from happing if God says they're bad.
Homosexuality represents both a depletion of a small gene pool, and a
behavior which makes many people uncomfortable. So it made sense to
prohibit it in tribal groups.
>
>>>>>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
>>>> I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
>>>> asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
>>>How could these other behaviors be considered immoral and repulsive enough to be banned from TV ?
>> "God loves you. Send me a hundred bucks to prove that you love Him."
>> That's not immoral?
>> I believe that prayer is a personal act of contrition, and needs to be
>> done in privacy to bear any weight at all. Thus, prayer, or the
>> solicitation for prayer, on television is offensive in the most basic terms to my beliefs.
>
>I am not a fan of such programming myself, but there is nothing immoral about it.
>I mean, is such programming encouraging you or your kid to bring your procreative organs into contact
>with the faeces excrement of another man ?
No, but it is encouraging people to engage in practices which I find
immoral or contrary to my belief system. There is no difference in
the abstract.
>>>With the multiplicity of religions which are represented on Sunday mornings, this hardly could run afoul
>>>of the First Amendment.
>> Who said it did? I said that I could make the same argument that
>> you're making, which is that the behavior is reprehensible.
>
>Everyone on TV is asking for your money, in one way or another. Including BSG.
>If you watch, and watch their advertisements, including the advertisements for
>cigarettes, drugs, gambling and prostitution which are hidden in the BSG script, you give them your money.
Most of whom are not couching it as something I need to do to 'Prove
my Faith.'
>>>>>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV to you and your kids are
>>>>>selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>>> And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
>>>> Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So who's worse?
>>>There is no Hate in anything I have said. I just do not want to see representations of Sodomy on TV,
>>>with good reason. Those reasons may sound unpleasant to the people who engage in this behavior,
>>>but tolerance of society for your behavior does not extend beyond the privacy of your own home.
>> YOU don't want to see this or that. I again remind you that YOU are
>> free to turn the thing on and off. Instead you cast blame and shame
>> on some nebulous group that's not only running things, they are out to
>> quash your right to free expression. You. Personally.
>> The very context in which you use the words homosexual, deviant, and
>> others is hateful. Couch it in nice language if you want, but the context is the proof in the pudding.
>I want to watch Science Fiction TV. If Hollywood Homosexuals continue to attempt to sell Sodomy in
>the context of fake science fiction TV, they are going to experience increased opposition to their goals from
>people like me. And they will also receive opposition from people like mewhen they claim falsely that their
>Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservative agenda of Sodomy and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
>is on the Left. That is a fraud and reasonable people are beginning to recognize this fraud.
>They are right wing, libertarians and should not besmirch the Left by buying Left representatives and
>couching their muck as Left issues.
I want to sit on my arse and collect a decent paycheck for reading
sci-fi novels. We simply don't get all the things we want. Nor
should we. Life is simply not fair.
But you have to deal with it.
Rail all you want against the 'Hollywood Homosexuals' - it's your
right to do so - and I'll be the first person to stand up and tell
anyone else that. I don't agree, and think your premise is at best
flawed. And you can preach all the hate you want - so long as it's
limited to talk and not action. Again, you have that right.
But other people have rights too. And that includes the right to
think you're a little (or alot) off in your opinions and staements.
>>>>======================================================
>>>>>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have bought control of
>>>>>the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids
>>>>>and preaching Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>>>>Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
>>>> Translated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the channel! Protect me from myself!
>>>> [snipped again]
>>>What would be your reaction if you switched on BSG next week and saw a human, let us say Apollo,
>>>having bestial sex with a dog ?
>>>Politics
>> "Ewww!! That's Gross." Followed by the click of the off switch.
>
>That would be a reasonable response. But what if BSG was up to that point your favorite show and
>the only major science fiction series on TV ?
It doesn't change the inital response. I might post an article about
why it was a gross thing to do, and I might even send the producers a
nasty note thanking them for wrecking my show. But I would still make
a full throated argument that it's within their rights to do so.
>
>Politics
>
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141461 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 01:29 |
|
"Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:txd0f.6198$U51.1588 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message news:8uc0f.197$ht7.66 [at] newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> Fozzi wrote:
>>> You are quite obviously gay, but in denial yourself, you prove this more and more with evey post to anyone who knows anything at
>>> all about human nature, you have my pity
>> God, I'm tired of that old saw. By that logic, the majority of people on Usenet are secretly right-wing Republicans who adore
>> George Bush, support the war in Iraq, and hope the Patriot Act extends to their own bedrooms.
>> John may be crazy, but he's no queer.
>> Gerald
> Sorry but i disagree, john is crazy, and he definately is a queer
> by the way your comparison is complete nonsence.
> fozzi
Listening to Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks, what we learn is that everyone who
disagrees with Hollywood Homosexuals public relations hacks is themselves a homosexual.
Thus eventually everyone is going to commit homosexual sex.
Call of the wild sort of thing.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141465 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 02:05 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w9j0f.2582$lq6.1771 [at] fed1read01...
> "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:txd0f.6198$U51.1588 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:8uc0f.197$ht7.66 [at] newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Fozzi wrote:
>
> Listening to Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks, what we learn is
> that everyone who
> disagrees with Hollywood Homosexuals public relations hacks is themselves
> a homosexual.
> Thus eventually everyone is going to commit homosexual sex.
> Call of the wild sort of thing.
>
> Politics
>
You have my extreme sympathy for your inability to come to terms with your
own homosexualty, denial can be a bitch
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141467 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 02:17 |
|
"The Secretary of HomIntern" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:rJ70f.55710$oW2.13145 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> "Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:14:01 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>> [snipped...]
>>>>>>=======================================================
>>>>>>http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22),
>>>>>>defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In liberal,
>>>>>>laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional
>>>>>>marriage was 61% to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by
>>>>>>higher percentages than whites.
>>>>>>========================================================
>>>>> Which was completely unconstitutional. Here's why. Marriage is, in
>>>>> fact, one of two things in the eyes of the law. It's either a de facto
>>>>> contract between two persons of legal age who have agreed to share
>>>>> expenses, risks, profits, and domicile, and to assume responsibility
>>>>> for the other's welfare - in which case it falls under contract law and
>>>>> cannot be restricted based on the sex of one of the contract
>>>>> participants.
>>>>Rubbish. In the eyes of society and the State, these contractual
>>>>initiatives are secondary to the prime goal of marriage, which is child
>>>>procreation and child nurturing.
>>> So by your logic, were I to have married a woman incapable of having
>>> children, the marriage would be invalid? What if we had decided to not
>>> have children, and I had elected to have a vasectomy?
>> There is always the possibility that a man and a woman could come together and produce a child.
> Not always. Some women can't carry to term, some men just don't have the sperm.
The condition of the husband and/or wife could improve during the maqrriage to have the child,
utilizing medicine or just time, which is a better healer than medicine.
Some women do not become pregnant for years of trying and then itg just happens.
>>>>Why else would the society be interested in a man and a woman bonding
>>>>together in perpetuity ? You think the society/State fancies itself to be
>>>>a procurer of concubines or a pimp ?
>>> I think the state needs to stay the hell out of people's bedrooms.
>>> Period. Who are YOU, or THE STATE, to tell me what is and is not okay
>>> between two or more consenting adults?
>> The State does not have a specific interest in the bedroom. The State's
>> interest is in the cradle; that is what represents the perpetuation of the
>> State and the society it represents.
> But the State doesn't care if the legal parents are same-sex or not, unless
> the State's officials are homophobic.
The State does care about the gender of the parties, because California people voted overwhelmingly not
to allow homosexual marriage.
>> When you become an elderly person is
>> those golden years, you will hope that the new generation of your State is
>> capable of defending that land you live on from foreign invasion and able
>> to maintain the finances of the country with their work product, and your
>> grandchildren and great grandchildren will be relying on that new
>> generation for protection. My interest here is that you stop forcing that
>> Sodomy muck onto the TV when people are trying to watch a Science Fiction
>> TV series.
> And you claim that your interest isn't religious. Fraud!
I have no interest in religion.
>>>>> Or...
>>>>> Marriage is a religious practice, which gives it the explicit
>>>>> protections of the Bill of Rights.
>>>>Marriage is a moral institution, based in nature, predating all
>>>>religions, consecrating the union pair of parents of the opposite gender
>>>>to procreate and nurture the child(ren).
>>> Wow. You mean that a 'marriage' can be recognizeed without clergy or
>>> benefit of a ruling body? Then how can a ruling body make conditions upon it?
>> Actually, yes, clergy is not required.
>> Here is how one US state, California, which voted down Homosexual Marriage
>> in a ballot question in 2000, defines its marriage requirements.
> That wasn't constitutional, and therefore was INVALID.
What was unconstitutional about it ?
>> Much of the requirements involve Consummation of the marriage which leads to child
>> procreation and preventions of child birth defects, by prohibiting
>> relatives from marrying each other. Apart from the child procreation, the
>> State has practically zero interest in the sex life of the marrying couple.
> "Child procreation" is not always an option. I know a lady in New Orleans who cannot safely do so.
There is still medicine to assist people in conception and sometimes they have another woman carry the child.
>>> The problem is, in this country, in addition to requiring a 'license',
>>> issued by a governing body, marriage can
>>> be performed by a judge or ... and this is the important part ...
>>> ordained minister. The second you add a minister into to equation you
>>> make it a religious practice, which is protected IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS by
>>> the Constitution.
>> Nonsense. That is the choice of the marrying couple to use a judge, magistrate or clergy.
> But a religious marriage is not valid *without the civil aspect*. Therefore, "civil marriages" are the only legal kind.
Right, civil marriage. Not religious.
>>>>>>=====================================================
>>>>>>1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with
>>>>>>the faeces excrement of another man, which is disgusting and does not
>>>>>>belong on TV, 2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the
>>>>>>anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is inserted into that
>>>>>>orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm
>>>>>>ejaculate, 3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which
>>>>>>rejects life, and the role of child procreation and child nurturing,
>>>>>>which is essential to the continuation of any civilization. For these
>>>>>>reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned
>>>>>>by all societies and is universally considered to be immoral.
>>>>> Except not so much. Not a big fan of history, are you? In a nutshell,
>>>>> through most of history and in most societies,
>>>>> Homosexuality was not considered an issue at all. MOST societies
>>>>> simply don't care one way or the other.
>>>>Name these societies do not or did not care about the immorality of
>>>>homosexuality.
>>> Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Most of Europe, The argument is not
>>> morality v immorality.
>> The evidence here is unconvincing. It is known that in Ancient Greece
>> that in many of the city states that homosexuality
>> was illegal. And most of the evidence that Ancient Greeks engaged in
>> this behavior originated from Roman sponsored writers who had already
>> conquered and enslaved the Ancient Greeks, like Plutarch, who wrote
>> somewhere around 100 A.D.
> In some places, religious wackjobs were in control; in others, they weren't.
> Where they weren't in charge, the homophobes had a harder time getting
> their own way.
The Christian Holy Roman Empire did not materialize till somewhere around 300 A.D.
>>> When polled, most people would tell you that littering is an immoral
>>> behavior. Then they would toss their gum wrapper on the sidewalk as they
>>> walked away from the pollster. The issue is whether or not it was an issue.
>> Nonsense. No one tosses around allegations of immorality on violations of
>> petty town ordinances. Immorality usually involves some sort of affront to Nature.
> And Bruce Bagemihl thoroughly discredited the "nature" argument five years ago. Sorry, you lose.
Never heard of him. Nature cannot be discredited.
>>> It wasn't. Laws against homosexuality in most societies are the result
>>> of religious law - all of which can be traced directly to rules and
>>> taboos established to ensure the survival of a small tribal unit, or
>>> extended family.
>> Were laws against Sodomy in the US the result of religious law ? Or
>> Britain, when Sodomite World War II Enigma data decryption heroes like
>> Alan Turing were arrested on British streets for the act ?
> Yes, actually -- religious wackjobs were always behind "anti-sodomy" laws,
> where homophobes were not.
No law becomes law in the UK without passage of the law in Parliament,
which is representative government of all the people of the UK.
>>>>>>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
>>>>> I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
>>>>> asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
>>>>How could these other behaviors be considered immoral and repulsive
>>>>enough to be banned from TV ?
>>> "God loves you. Send me a hundred bucks to prove that you love Him."
>>> That's not immoral?
>>> I believe that prayer is a personal act of contrition, and needs to be
>>> done in privacy to bear any weight at all. Thus, prayer, or the
>>> solicitation for prayer, on television is offensive in the most basic
>>> terms to my beliefs.
>> I am not a fan of such programming myself, but there is nothing immoral
>> about it. I mean, is such programming encouraging you or your kid to bring
>> your procreative organs into contact with the faeces excrement of another man ?
> You are truly *obsessed* with anal sex, ain'tcha?
BSG is obsessed with Sodomy. That is the reality of it.
>>>>With the multiplicity of religions which are represented on Sunday
>>>>mornings, this hardly could run afoul of the First Amendment.
>>> Who said it did? I said that I could make the same argument that
>>> you're making, which is that the behavior is reprehensible.
>> Everyone on TV is asking for your money, in one way or another. Including
>> BSG. If you watch, and watch their advertisements, including the
>> advertisements for cigarettes, drugs, gambling and prostitution which are
>> hidden in the BSG script, you give them your money.
> The cigarettes are a real danger, because they kill. Gambling isn't far
> behind, because it can utterly destroy lives. As far as drugs and
> prostitution go, they're no big, with exceptions, but those exceptions only
> need regulation.
There is no question that the content of BSG is dominated by right wing libertarian issues
like Sodomy, Drugs (including cigarettes), Gambling, Prostitution.
>>>>>>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV
>>>>>>to you and your kids are selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>>>> And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
>>>>> Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So who's worse?
>>>>There is no Hate in anything I have said. I just do not want to see
>>>>representations of Sodomy on TV,
>>>>with good reason. Those reasons may sound unpleasant to the people who
>>>>engage in this behavior, but tolerance of society for your behavior does
>>>>not extend beyond the privacy of your own home.
>>> YOU don't want to see this or that. I again remind you that YOU are
>>> free to turn the thing on and off. Instead you cast blame and shame
>>> on some nebulous group that's not only running things, they are out to
>>> quash your right to free expression. You. Personally.
>>> The very context in which you use the words homosexual, deviant, and
>>> others is hateful. Couch it in nice language if you want, but the
>>> context is the proof in the pudding.
>> I want to watch Science Fiction TV.
> Fine. Watch it.
Those people who want to watch Science Fiction and not the fake sc ience fiction Sodomy and
Organized Crime series that are replacing it need to make their concerns known.
>> If Hollywood Homosexuals continue to attempt to sell Sodomy in the context
>> of fake science fiction TV, they are going to experience increased
>> opposition to their goals from people like me.
> And people like me are going to oppose people like you in ever-greater numbers.
That will just lead to a backlash and more laws against Sodomy and Homosexuality.
>> And they will also receive opposition from people like
>> mewhen they claim falsely that their Hollywood Homosexuals
>> Neo-Conservative agenda of Sodomy and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
>> is on the Left. That is a fraud and reasonable people are beginning to
>> recognize this fraud. They are right wing, libertarians and should not
>> besmirch the Left by buying Left representatives and couching their muck
>> as Left issues.
> I am not in any way, shape, or form a neo-con. I have been staunchly leftist
> for twenty years, and I am bisexual. So you can just go fuck yourself all over again.
This is a total fraud. You call Sodomy left, when it is as right wing libertarian an issue
as they come.
>>>>>>======================================================
>>>>>>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have
>>>>>>bought control of the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the
>>>>>>purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids and preaching Mass
>>>>>>Murder of Arabs/Moslems. Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
>>>>> Translated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the
>>>>> channel! Protect me from myself!
>>>>> [snipped again]
>>>>What would be your reaction if you switched on BSG next week and saw a
>>>>human, let us say Apollo, having bestial sex with a dog ?
>>>>Politics
>>> "Ewww!! That's Gross." Followed by the click of the off switch.
>> That would be a reasonable response. But what if BSG was up to that point
>> your favorite show and the only major science fiction series on TV ?
> Straw man. BSG is NOT the only SF series on TV, and is far from being
> "major". No series on the Sci-Fi Channel in the US, or on Space in Canada,
> is "major", because those channels aren't "major". *Network* *television*
> remains the only "major" medium for SF on TV, and that situation is likely
> to continue for years to come.
Sodomy and Organized Crime content should be banned from science fiction TV (and any other broadcast TV).
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits fromclosed captions [message #141471 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 04:17 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:7Y00f.98139$3=
87.83865 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>There is no question Sodomy symbolism is pervasive in BSG.
>>
>>There is absoultely no sodomy symbolism in BSG.
>>ROBOT TEXT SNIPPED
>=20
>=20
> There is no question that there is widespread Sodomy symbolism in BSG.
There is absolutely no question, there is no Sodomy symbolism in BSG.
PARANOID BULLSHIT SNIPPED
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141480 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 07:19 |
|
"Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message news:FDc0f.202$ht7.56 [at] newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> Written down ? You think these wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexuals with their armies
>> of attorneys are going to join the Stupid Criminals club ?
> Then all you have is a series of coincidences and your own conjecture. Sorry, John, this is like all those people who put together
> assorted facts to prove George Bush went to war in Iraq for (take your pick) oil, Halliburton, or a personal vendetta.
> Gerald
2 of the 3 (Halliburton and personal vendetta) items you mention may have had parts in the decision, but the main reason and
driving force and money behind the decision to Mass Murder Iraqis was the Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative
determination to spread Hate for and Mass Murder Arabs/Moslems worldwide.
Access has declines sharply every time the US sponsors or carries out war against Arabs/Moslems in the Middle East,
and it is clear that in the current cycle of mass murder against Arabs/Moslems, oil barrel prices have again skyrocketed,
resulting in high prices for gas for cars, homes and aircraft.
============================================================ =
Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives are a major force in the US, but are a tiny minority
of the population.
============================================================ =========
"The Secretary of HomIntern" <ýk®åñsëpôp [at] wòém.g®ó> wrote in message news:2VdPe.306487$s54.108601 [at] pd7tw2no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
> <paranoid, homophobic garbage snipped>
> For starters, here's their homebase:
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
> And here's an opposing view:
> http://www.pnac.info/
> Which has an article by John Tierney (!) that is rather negative about Iraq.
> http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000079.html#000079
> An article from the CS Monitor is linked here, detailing all the various
> neo-cons in the US government in the past five years. If Mary Baker Eddy is
> rolling in her grave, I can only relish the thought...
> Incidentally, I have a copy of the .pdf "Rebuilding America's Defences"
> socked away somewhere, if anyone is interested. Just follow the
> instructions in the Reply-to line, and replace the special characters with
> regular ones. I'll locate it as soon as I can.
After looking at the memberships of these Neo-Conservative organizations, it is clear that they are
dominated by US and Israeli jews, and that there are no Arabs/Moslems involved in these
organizations whatsoever. A disgrace.
These organizations have been controlling the policy direction of the US government for the past 25 years,
since President Ronald Reagan took office (1981-1989) especially on foreign policy, and very especially
on Mass Murders of Arabs/Moslems in Iraq, Palestine and several other Arab/Moslem nations in the
Middle East in the near future.
Jews clearly possess a deadly bias against Arabs/Moslems and definitely should not be directing
US foreign policy, turning the US into a anti-Arab/Moslem Mass Murder crime organization hit man.
These people are responsible for sending your kids to fight in various anti-Arab/Moslem Massacres
which are against the general US interests, while the kids of these Neo-Conservatives go to Ivy League
school and stay out of danger. It is amazing they have had so much success conning the US public.
As already mentioned here, Neo-Conservatives operate in concert with the Hollywood Homosexuals,
who in addition to selling Sodomy to you and your kids in Science Fiction TV so-called, they are
presenting consistently symbolisms of Arabs and Moslems which are extremely negative in their
movies and TV shows, as documented in numerous books:
e.g. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People by Jack G. Shaheen 574 pages
These movies, like Indiana Jones blurring the difference between Nazis and Arabs/Moslems,
desensitize the US population to the idea of committing Mass Murder against Arabs/Moslems.
As such, Hollywood Homosexual Steven Spielberg, who directs and produces such Hate filled movies
is just as important a Neo-Conservative as anyone on the following lists.
================Neo-Conservative Organizations=============================
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.ht ml
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Established in 1997 by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC's goal is "to promote American global leadership." Creating a
blueprint for the US' current role in the world, PNAC's original Statement of Principles called for the US to return to a "Reaganite
foreign policy of military strength and moral clarity."
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Founded in 1943, this influential Washington think tank is known as the headquarters of neoconservative thought. In a crucial speech
in the leadup to the war in Iraq, US President George W. Bush said this to an audience at AEI: "You do such good work that my
administration has borrowed 20 such minds."
Jewish Intitute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
Based in Washington, JINSA "communicates with the national security establishment and the general public to explain the role Israel
can and does play in bolstering American interests, as well as the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel."
Some of the strongest supporters of Israel's right-wing Likud Party in the already pro-Israel neoconservative circles are on JINSA's
board of advisers.
Center for Security Policy (CSP)
CSP's 2001 annual report boasts of its influence saying it "isn't just a 'think tank' - it's an agile, durable, and highly effective
'main battle tank' in the war of ideas on national security." Securing neoconservatives' influence at the nexus of military
policymakers and weapons manufacturers, CSP's mission is "to promote world peace through American strength."
============================================================ ========
============================================================ ========
http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all/scholar_byname.asp
Scholars & Fellows
Click on a scholar's name below for a photo, contact information, professional and educational history, and publications and events.
You may also select scholars by research area.
Joseph Antos Medicare; Health care policy; Private health insurance
Leon Aron Russian domestic politics and foreign policy; Russia-U.S. relations
Claude Barfield Economics; International trade policy; Science policy; Technology policy; The functioning of the
GATT/WTO system
Roger Bate Performance & effectiveness of USAID, World Bank, Millennium Challenge Corporation, and NGOs in
Africa and the developing world; Health policy and endemic diseases in developing countries (AIDS and malaria); International
environmental and health agreements (industrial chemicals, climate change, and water); Water policy in developing countries;
Genetically modified organisms and pesticide policy
Walter Berns Political philosophy; Constitutional law; Legal issues
Douglas J. Besharov Education (vocational, high-school counseling, Affirmative Action, and student aid); Poverty (trends,
causes, and remedies); Welfare reform (job training and program evaluation); Families (marriage, divorce, same-sex marriage, and
nonmarital births); Child abuse/child welfare (foster care and delinquency); Preschool and child care (Head Start); Race and
ethnicity (Affirmative Action and black middle class)
Dan Blumenthal China; Taiwan; East Asia; U.S.-China relations
Karlyn H. Bowman Public opinion/polls; U.S. politics; Media
John E. Calfee Advertising; Food and Drug Administration policies; Health care policy; Pharmaceuticals; Tobacco;
Tort liability system
Charles W. Calomiris Financial markets; International trade and finance; Monetary policy; Banking regulation; Corporate finance
Lynne V. Cheney Culture; Education
Steven J. Davis Impact of taxes on work and leisure time; Labor market issues; Job creation, employment and
unemployment
Veronique de Rugy Financial privacy; Tax and budget policy
Christopher DeMuth Government regulation; Law and economics; Environmental policy; Liability reform
Thomas Donnelly Defense; National security
Nicholas Eberstadt Infant mortality and health disparites in the United States; Economics; Economic development policy;
Foreign and Defense; Poverty; Foreign aid; Korea; East Asia; Russia and other former Soviet republics; Social and Political;
Demographics; Health and mortality in foreign locales (including HIV/AIDS)
Mark Falcoff Latin America
John C. Fortier Elections; Congress; Continuity of government; Election reform, presidential succession, and
disability; The Electoral College; The presidency
Ted Frank Liability reform; Law and economics; Constitutional law; Medical malpractice; Antitrust policy;
Regulation through litigation; Intellectual property
David Frum Canadian politics; U.S. politics; Bush administration
Ted Gayer Environmental policy; Health, safety, and environmental regulation; Cost-benefit analysis and risk
assesment
Reuel Marc Gerecht Afghanistan; Iran; Intelligence; Middle East; Terrorism; Central Asia/former Soviet Union
Newt Gingrich Health care policy; Information technology; Military; U.S. politics
James K. Glassman Social Security; Economics; Technology and politics; Federal budget; Interest rates; Stock market; Taxes;
Education
Jack Landman Goldsmith International law (treaties and war powers); Sovereignty; Intelligence reform
Robert A. Goldwin Constitutional studies; Education; Human rights and democracy
Michael S. Greve Environmental policy; Internet regulation; Constitutional law; Federalism
Robert W. Hahn Energy; Environment; Regulation
Kevin A. Hassett Investments; Stock market; Tax policy; U.S. economy
Steven F. Hayward Environment; Law; The presidency; Political economy
Robert B. Helms Health care policy; Medicaid; Medicare; Economics of the pharmaceutical industry; Private health insurance
Frederick M. Hess Education
R. Glenn Hubbard Tax and budget issues; Tax policy; Health care policy; International finance; Monetary policy; Regulation
Frederick W. Kagan Defense issues; Defense transformation; Defense budget; Defense strategy and warfare; American military;
Russian and European military history
Leon R. Kass, M.D. Bioethics; Ethics; Philosophy; Marriage, family, and social mores
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Defense; Latin America; Europe; United Nations; Middle East; National security; Russian region
Herbert G. Klein U.S. media and political issues; Presidential communications
Marvin H. Kosters Income inequality; Labor issues
Irving Kristol Culture; Ethics; Religion; Politics
Desmond Lachman Role of multilateral lending institutions; Major emerging market economies
Michael A. Ledeen Italy; Africa (Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe); Europe; Intelligence; Middle East; U.S. foreign
policy; Iran; Leadership and the use of power; Terrorism; U.S.-China relations
Adam Lerrick International capital markets; Role of hedge funds; International financial crises and sovereign debt restructuring;
Economic development including the impact of aid and the role of multilateral institutions; World Bank and IMF reform
James R. Lilley Korea; China; Taiwan
Lawrence B. Lindsey Tax policy; Fiscal policy; International economic development; Monetary policy
John R. Lott Jr. Antitrust policy; Education; Gun control; Campaign finance; Voting and legislative behavior; Crime
John H. Makin U.S. economy (monetary policy, taxes, and budget issues); Financial markets (stocks, bonds, and currencies
of major industrial countries); Japanese economy; European economies
Allan H. Meltzer Financial services; International finance; Monetary policy and history; Tax and budget issues
Joshua Muravchik United Nations; Neoconservatism; History of socialism and communism; Arab-Israeli conflict; Global democracy,
terrorism, and the Bush Doctrine
Charles Murray Culture; Human intelligence and social structure; Marriage, family, and social mores; Family; Crime;
Libertarianism
Michael Novak U.S. politics; Ethnicity; Sports; Religion; Culture
Norman J. Ornstein U.S. politics; Congress; Elections
Richard Perle Defense; Europe; Intelligence; Middle East; National security; Russian region
Danielle Pletka Middle East; Terrorism; South Asia (India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan); Weapons proliferation
Alex J. Pollock Accounting standards (FASB); Banking structure; Financial system; Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs),
including Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Banks; Social Security
Sarath Rajapatirana Economic policy reforms in Latin America; Macroeconomic policies of developing countries; Multilateral
trade negotiations; Trade policies of developing countries
Michael Rubin Arab democracy; Domestic politics in Iran and Iraq; Kurdish society
Sally Satel, M.D. Domestic drug policy; Mental health policy; Political trends in medicine
Joel Schwartz Environment (air pollution, vehicle emissions, and chemical risks)
Vance Serchuk International organizations (UN and World Bank); Overlap between strategic studies and economic development policy;
Afghanistan and Iraq reconstruction; U.S. defense policy; American military; The global war on terror
Daniel Shaviro Social Security; Medicare; Tax and budget policy
J. Gregory Sidak Antitrust policy; Electric power; Intellectual property; Electronic commerce; Internet; Postal service
industry; Regulation and competition of network industries (telecom, utilities, and Internet) in the United States and developing
countries; Telecommunications; Constitutional law
Radek Sikorski NATO; Eastern Europe; Alliance politics; Missile defense; Afghanistan; Angola
Christina Hoff Sommers American adolescents; Feminism and American culture; Morality in American society
Phillip L. Swagel International trade policy; International finance (including current accounts, exchange rates, and emerging
markets); U.S. economy (fiscal and monetary policy, entitlement reform, and budget issues)
Samuel Thernstrom Environment; American political culture
Fred Thompson National security and intelligence (China, North Korea, and Russia)
Peter J. Wallison Banking and financial services; Financial markets; GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)
Scott Wallsten Regulation and competition of network industries (telecom, utilities, and Internet) in the United States and
developing countries; Science and technology policy (public-private partnerships)
Ben J. Wattenberg Culture; Demographics; Public opinion/polls
John Yoo Constitutional law; International law
Karl Zinsmeister The Iraq war; Current affairs; Cultural issues; Social and economic trends
============================================================ ===================
The following political contributions either buys the votes of these politicians or buys
their silence so that they do not speak up as vociferously as they should against the
danger to the US posed by Neo-Conservatives.
=========================================
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html
2004 Top Ten Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds
Compiled by Hugh Galford
House: Current Cycle
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) $37,500
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) 36,000
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 35,100
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 31,600
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 31,300
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) 23,750
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) 23,000
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 23,000
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 20,650
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) 20,650
House: Career
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $201,455
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 165,414
Engel, Eliot (D-NY) 137,918
Levin, Sander (D-MI) 113,727
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 109,738
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 107,250
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 92,275
Evans, Lane (D-IL) 87,379
Harman, Jane (D-CA) 86,271
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 81,050
Senate: Current Cycle
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) $80,350
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 73,000
Murray, Patty (D-WA) 72,495
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) 70,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 64,999
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) 56,500
Bennett, Robert (R-UT) 55,750
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 55,000
Brownback, Samuel (R-KS) 50,850
Shelby, Richard (R-AL) 38,500
Senate: Career
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $533,635
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) 461,973
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) 433,806
Durbin, Richard (D-IL) 326,671
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 318,801
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 255,562
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT) 227,758
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 223,794
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) 221,178
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) 201,939
=================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #141491 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 12:01 |
|
"The Secretary of HomIntern" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:rJ70f.55710$oW2.13145 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> "Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:14:01 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>> [snipped...]
>>>>>>=======================================================
>>>>>>http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22),
>>>>>>defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In liberal,
>>>>>>laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional
>>>>>>marriage was 61% to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by
>>>>>>higher percentages than whites.
>>>>>>========================================================
>>>>> Which was completely unconstitutional. Here's why. Marriage is, in
>>>>> fact, one of two things in the eyes of the law. It's either a de facto
>>>>> contract between two persons of legal age who have agreed to share
>>>>> expenses, risks, profits, and domicile, and to assume responsibility
>>>>> for the other's welfare - in which case it falls under contract law and
>>>>> cannot be restricted based on the sex of one of the contract
>>>>> participants.
>>>>Rubbish. In the eyes of society and the State, these contractual
>>>>initiatives are secondary to the prime goal of marriage, which is child
>>>>procreation and child nurturing.
>>> So by your logic, were I to have married a woman incapable of having
>>> children, the marriage would be invalid? What if we had decided to not
>>> have children, and I had elected to have a vasectomy?
>> There is always the possibility that a man and a woman could come together and produce a child.
> Not always. Some women can't carry to term, some men just don't have the sperm.
The condition of the husband and/or wife could improve during the maqrriage to have the child,
utilizing medicine or just time, which is a better healer than medicine.
Some women do not become pregnant for years of trying and then itg just happens.
>>>>Why else would the society be interested in a man and a woman bonding
>>>>together in perpetuity ? You think the society/State fancies itself to be
>>>>a procurer of concubines or a pimp ?
>>> I think the state needs to stay the hell out of people's bedrooms.
>>> Period. Who are YOU, or THE STATE, to tell me what is and is not okay
>>> between two or more consenting adults?
>> The State does not have a specific interest in the bedroom. The State's
>> interest is in the cradle; that is what represents the perpetuation of the
>> State and the society it represents.
> But the State doesn't care if the legal parents are same-sex or not, unless
> the State's officials are homophobic.
The State does care about the gender of the parties, because California people voted overwhelmingly not
to allow homosexual marriage.
>> When you become an elderly person is
>> those golden years, you will hope that the new generation of your State is
>> capable of defending that land you live on from foreign invasion and able
>> to maintain the finances of the country with their work product, and your
>> grandchildren and great grandchildren will be relying on that new
>> generation for protection. My interest here is that you stop forcing that
>> Sodomy muck onto the TV when people are trying to watch a Science Fiction
>> TV series.
> And you claim that your interest isn't religious. Fraud!
I have no interest in religion.
>>>>> Or...
>>>>> Marriage is a religious practice, which gives it the explicit
>>>>> protections of the Bill of Rights.
>>>>Marriage is a moral institution, based in nature, predating all
>>>>religions, consecrating the union pair of parents of the opposite gender
>>>>to procreate and nurture the child(ren).
>>> Wow. You mean that a 'marriage' can be recognizeed without clergy or
>>> benefit of a ruling body? Then how can a ruling body make conditions upon it?
>> Actually, yes, clergy is not required.
>> Here is how one US state, California, which voted down Homosexual Marriage
>> in a ballot question in 2000, defines its marriage requirements.
> That wasn't constitutional, and therefore was INVALID.
What was unconstitutional about it ?
>> Much of the requirements involve Consummation of the marriage which leads to child
>> procreation and preventions of child birth defects, by prohibiting
>> relatives from marrying each other. Apart from the child procreation, the
>> State has practically zero interest in the sex life of the marrying couple.
> "Child procreation" is not always an option. I know a lady in New Orleans who cannot safely do so.
There is still medicine to assist people in conception and sometimes they have another woman carry the child.
>>> The problem is, in this country, in addition to requiring a 'license',
>>> issued by a governing body, marriage can
>>> be performed by a judge or ... and this is the important part ...
>>> ordained minister. The second you add a minister into to equation you
>>> make it a religious practice, which is protected IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS by
>>> the Constitution.
>> Nonsense. That is the choice of the marrying couple to use a judge, magistrate or clergy.
> But a religious marriage is not valid *without the civil aspect*. Therefore, "civil marriages" are the only legal kind.
Right, civil marriage. Not religious.
>>>>>>=====================================================
>>>>>>1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with
>>>>>>the faeces excrement of another man, which is disgusting and does not
>>>>>>belong on TV, 2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the
>>>>>>anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is inserted into that
>>>>>>orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm
>>>>>>ejaculate, 3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which
>>>>>>rejects life, and the role of child procreation and child nurturing,
>>>>>>which is essential to the continuation of any civilization. For these
>>>>>>reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned
>>>>>>by all societies and is universally considered to be immoral.
>>>>> Except not so much. Not a big fan of history, are you? In a nutshell,
>>>>> through most of history and in most societies,
>>>>> Homosexuality was not considered an issue at all. MOST societies
>>>>> simply don't care one way or the other.
>>>>Name these societies do not or did not care about the immorality of
>>>>homosexuality.
>>> Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Most of Europe, The argument is not
>>> morality v immorality.
>> The evidence here is unconvincing. It is known that in Ancient Greece
>> that in many of the city states that homosexuality
>> was illegal. And most of the evidence that Ancient Greeks engaged in
>> this behavior originated from Roman sponsored writers who had already
>> conquered and enslaved the Ancient Greeks, like Plutarch, who wrote
>> somewhere around 100 A.D.
> In some places, religious wackjobs were in control; in others, they weren't.
> Where they weren't in charge, the homophobes had a harder time getting
> their own way.
The Christian Holy Roman Empire did not materialize till somewhere around 300 A.D.
>>> When polled, most people would tell you that littering is an immoral
>>> behavior. Then they would toss their gum wrapper on the sidewalk as they
>>> walked away from the pollster. The issue is whether or not it was an issue.
>> Nonsense. No one tosses around allegations of immorality on violations of
>> petty town ordinances. Immorality usually involves some sort of affront to Nature.
> And Bruce Bagemihl thoroughly discredited the "nature" argument five years ago. Sorry, you lose.
Never heard of him. Nature cannot be discredited.
>>> It wasn't. Laws against homosexuality in most societies are the result
>>> of religious law - all of which can be traced directly to rules and
>>> taboos established to ensure the survival of a small tribal unit, or
>>> extended family.
>> Were laws against Sodomy in the US the result of religious law ? Or
>> Britain, when Sodomite World War II Enigma data decryption heroes like
>> Alan Turing were arrested on British streets for the act ?
> Yes, actually -- religious wackjobs were always behind "anti-sodomy" laws,
> where homophobes were not.
No law becomes law in the UK without passage of the law in Parliament,
which is representative government of all the people of the UK.
>>>>>>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
>>>>> I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
>>>>> asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
>>>>How could these other behaviors be considered immoral and repulsive
>>>>enough to be banned from TV ?
>>> "God loves you. Send me a hundred bucks to prove that you love Him."
>>> That's not immoral?
>>> I believe that prayer is a personal act of contrition, and needs to be
>>> done in privacy to bear any weight at all. Thus, prayer, or the
>>> solicitation for prayer, on television is offensive in the most basic
>>> terms to my beliefs.
>> I am not a fan of such programming myself, but there is nothing immoral
>> about it. I mean, is such programming encouraging you or your kid to bring
>> your procreative organs into contact with the faeces excrement of another man ?
> You are truly *obsessed* with anal sex, ain'tcha?
BSG is obsessed with Sodomy. That is the reality of it.
>>>>With the multiplicity of religions which are represented on Sunday
>>>>mornings, this hardly could run afoul of the First Amendment.
>>> Who said it did? I said that I could make the same argument that
>>> you're making, which is that the behavior is reprehensible.
>> Everyone on TV is asking for your money, in one way or another. Including
>> BSG. If you watch, and watch their advertisements, including the
>> advertisements for cigarettes, drugs, gambling and prostitution which are
>> hidden in the BSG script, you give them your money.
> The cigarettes are a real danger, because they kill. Gambling isn't far
> behind, because it can utterly destroy lives. As far as drugs and
> prostitution go, they're no big, with exceptions, but those exceptions only
> need regulation.
There is no question that the content of BSG is dominated by right wing libertarian issues
like Sodomy, Drugs (including cigarettes), Gambling, Prostitution.
>>>>>>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV
>>>>>>to you and your kids are selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
>>>>> And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
>>>>> Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So who's worse?
>>>>There is no Hate in anything I have said. I just do not want to see
>>>>representations of Sodomy on TV,
>>>>with good reason. Those reasons may sound unpleasant to the people who
>>>>engage in this behavior, but tolerance of society for your behavior does
>>>>not extend beyond the privacy of your own home.
>>> YOU don't want to see this or that. I again remind you that YOU are
>>> free to turn the thing on and off. Instead you cast blame and shame
>>> on some nebulous group that's not only running things, they are out to
>>> quash your right to free expression. You. Personally.
>>> The very context in which you use the words homosexual, deviant, and
>>> others is hateful. Couch it in nice language if you want, but the
>>> context is the proof in the pudding.
>> I want to watch Science Fiction TV.
> Fine. Watch it.
Those people who want to watch Science Fiction and not the fake sc ience fiction Sodomy and
Organized Crime series that are replacing it need to make their concerns known.
>> If Hollywood Homosexuals continue to attempt to sell Sodomy in the context
>> of fake science fiction TV, they are going to experience increased
>> opposition to their goals from people like me.
> And people like me are going to oppose people like you in ever-greater numbers.
That will just lead to a backlash and more laws against Sodomy and Homosexuality.
>> And they will also receive opposition from people like
>> mewhen they claim falsely that their Hollywood Homosexuals
>> Neo-Conservative agenda of Sodomy and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
>> is on the Left. That is a fraud and reasonable people are beginning to
>> recognize this fraud. They are right wing, libertarians and should not
>> besmirch the Left by buying Left representatives and couching their muck
>> as Left issues.
> I am not in any way, shape, or form a neo-con. I have been staunchly leftist
> for twenty years, and I am bisexual. So you can just go fuck yourself all over again.
This is a total fraud. You call Sodomy left, when it is as right wing libertarian an issue
as they come.
>>>>>>======================================================
>>>>>>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have
>>>>>>bought control of the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the
>>>>>>purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids and preaching Mass
>>>>>>Murder of Arabs/Moslems. Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
>>>>> Translated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the
>>>>> channel! Protect me from myself!
>>>>> [snipped again]
>>>>What would be your reaction if you switched on BSG next week and saw a
>>>>human, let us say Apollo, having bestial sex with a dog ?
>>>>Politics
>>> "Ewww!! That's Gross." Followed by the click of the off switch.
>> That would be a reasonable response. But what if BSG was up to that point
>> your favorite show and the only major science fiction series on TV ?
> Straw man. BSG is NOT the only SF series on TV, and is far from being
> "major". No series on the Sci-Fi Channel in the US, or on Space in Canada,
> is "major", because those channels aren't "major". *Network* *television*
> remains the only "major" medium for SF on TV, and that situation is likely
> to continue for years to come.
Sodomy and Organized Crime content should be banned from science fiction TV (and any other broadcast TV).
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143393 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 14:15 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
> "The Secretary of HomIntern" wrote...
>>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>>> "Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:14:01 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>>> [snipped...]
>>>>>>>=======================================================
>>>>>>>http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition
>>>>>>>22), defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In liberal,
>>>>>>>laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional
>>>>>>>marriage was 61% to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by
>>>>>>>higher percentages than whites.
>>>>>>>========================================================
>>>>>> Which was completely unconstitutional. Here's why. Marriage is, in
>>>>>> fact, one of two things in the eyes of the law. It's either a de
>>>>>> facto contract between two persons of legal age who have agreed to
>>>>>> share expenses, risks, profits, and domicile, and to assume
>>>>>> responsibility for the other's welfare - in which case it falls under
>>>>>> contract law and cannot be restricted based on the sex of one of the
>>>>>> contract participants.
>>>>>Rubbish. In the eyes of society and the State, these contractual
>>>>>initiatives are secondary to the prime goal of marriage, which is child
>>>>>procreation and child nurturing.
>>>> So by your logic, were I to have married a woman incapable of having
>>>> children, the marriage would be invalid? What if we had decided to not
>>>> have children, and I had elected to have a vasectomy?
>>> There is always the possibility that a man and a woman could come
>>> together and produce a child.
>> Not always. Some women can't carry to term, some men just don't have the
>> sperm.
>
> The condition of the husband and/or wife could improve during the
> maqrriage to have the child, utilizing medicine or just time, which is a
> better healer than medicine. Some women do not become pregnant for years
> of trying and then itg just happens.
Sometimes. And sometimes, it just never happens. Other times, a straight
couple will marry when the wife is *post-menopausal*. I take it you think
that should be illegal, too?
>>>>>Why else would the society be interested in a man and a woman bonding
>>>>>together in perpetuity ? You think the society/State fancies itself to
>>>>>be a procurer of concubines or a pimp ?
>>>> I think the state needs to stay the hell out of people's bedrooms.
>>>> Period. Who are YOU, or THE STATE, to tell me what is and is not okay
>>>> between two or more consenting adults?
>>> The State does not have a specific interest in the bedroom. The State's
>>> interest is in the cradle; that is what represents the perpetuation of
>>> the State and the society it represents.
>> But the State doesn't care if the legal parents are same-sex or not,
>> unless the State's officials are homophobic.
>
> The State does care about the gender of the parties, because California
> people voted overwhelmingly not to allow homosexual marriage.
No, that was unconstitutional, and thus cannot hope to stand up to a serious
court challenge. People may not legally vote to institute discrimination.
Not ever. Schwarzenegger was kissing frothing-at-the-mouth, wild-eyed,
right-wing religious nutcase arse by vetoing the SSM bill.
>>> When you become an elderly person is
>>> those golden years, you will hope that the new generation of your State
>>> is capable of defending that land you live on from foreign invasion and
>>> able to maintain the finances of the country with their work product,
>>> and your grandchildren and great grandchildren will be relying on that
>>> new generation for protection. My interest here is that you stop forcing
>>> that Sodomy muck onto the TV when people are trying to watch a Science
>>> Fiction TV series.
>> And you claim that your interest isn't religious. Fraud!
>
> I have no interest in religion.
Sez you. You're a Scientologist, I can tell.
>>>>>> Or...
>>>>>> Marriage is a religious practice, which gives it the explicit
>>>>>> protections of the Bill of Rights.
>>>>>Marriage is a moral institution, based in nature, predating all
>>>>>religions, consecrating the union pair of parents of the opposite
>>>>>gender to procreate and nurture the child(ren).
>>>> Wow. You mean that a 'marriage' can be recognizeed without clergy or
>>>> benefit of a ruling body? Then how can a ruling body make conditions
>>>> upon it?
>>> Actually, yes, clergy is not required.
>>> Here is how one US state, California, which voted down Homosexual
>>> Marriage in a ballot question in 2000, defines its marriage
>>> requirements.
>> That wasn't constitutional, and therefore was INVALID.
>
> What was unconstitutional about it ?
It was a referendum on making discrimination legal, which is itself illegal.
>>> Much of the requirements involve Consummation of the marriage which
>>> leads to child procreation and preventions of child birth defects, by
>>> prohibiting relatives from marrying each other. Apart from the child
>>> procreation, the State has practically zero interest in the sex life of
>>> the marrying couple.
>> "Child procreation" is not always an option. I know a lady in New Orleans
>> who cannot safely do so.
>
> There is still medicine to assist people in conception and sometimes they
> have another woman carry the child.
Yeah, male same-sex couples do that a lot, too. Gee, I think that might just
be yet another nail in the coffin of your argument...
>>>> The problem is, in this country, in addition to requiring a 'license',
>>>> issued by a governing body, marriage can
>>>> be performed by a judge or ... and this is the important part ...
>>>> ordained minister. The second you add a minister into to equation you
>>>> make it a religious practice, which is protected IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS
>>>> by the Constitution.
>>> Nonsense. That is the choice of the marrying couple to use a judge,
>>> magistrate or clergy.
>> But a religious marriage is not valid *without the civil aspect*.
>> Therefore, "civil marriages" are the only legal kind.
>
> Right, civil marriage. Not religious.
Meaning, the State may not legally discriminate against a couple merely
because they are both men, or both women. Not *legally*. Governments have
been known to break their own laws.
>>>>>>>=====================================================
>>>>>>>1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact
>>>>>>>with the faeces excrement of another man, which is disgusting and
>>>>>>>does not belong on TV, 2) it is a major source of disease since cuts
>>>>>>>within the anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is inserted
>>>>>>>into that orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying
>>>>>>>sperm ejaculate, 3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of
>>>>>>>homosexuality, which rejects life, and the role of child procreation
>>>>>>>and child nurturing, which is essential to the continuation of any
>>>>>>>civilization. For these reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has
>>>>>>>been universally condemned by all societies and is universally
>>>>>>>considered to be immoral.
>>>>>> Except not so much. Not a big fan of history, are you? In a
>>>>>> nutshell, through most of history and in most societies,
>>>>>> Homosexuality was not considered an issue at all. MOST societies
>>>>>> simply don't care one way or the other.
>>>>>Name these societies do not or did not care about the immorality of
>>>>>homosexuality.
>>>> Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Most of Europe, The argument is
>>>> not morality v immorality.
>>> The evidence here is unconvincing. It is known that in Ancient Greece
>>> that in many of the city states that homosexuality
>>> was illegal. And most of the evidence that Ancient Greeks engaged in
>>> this behavior originated from Roman sponsored writers who had already
>>> conquered and enslaved the Ancient Greeks, like Plutarch, who wrote
>>> somewhere around 100 A.D.
>> In some places, religious wackjobs were in control; in others, they
>> weren't. Where they weren't in charge, the homophobes had a harder time
>> getting their own way.
>
> The Christian Holy Roman Empire did not materialize till somewhere around
> 300 A.D.
Not all religious wackjob homophobes, historically speaking, have been
Xians. Some have been Muslims, others Jewish, still others Greek.
>>>> When polled, most people would tell you that littering is an immoral
>>>> behavior. Then they would toss their gum wrapper on the sidewalk as
>>>> they walked away from the pollster. The issue is whether or not it was
>>>> an issue.
>>> Nonsense. No one tosses around allegations of immorality on violations
>>> of petty town ordinances. Immorality usually involves some sort of
>>> affront to Nature.
>> And Bruce Bagemihl thoroughly discredited the "nature" argument five
>> years ago. Sorry, you lose.
>
> Never heard of him. Nature cannot be discredited.
He and his book have already been cited -- *however*, I'll do it again, just
because.
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
by Bruce Bagemihl - Social Science - 2000 - 768 pages
http://tinyurl.com/bg289 -- a Google search on his name.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof62.htm -- Book review.
<excerpt>
Bagemihl defends homosexuality as a natural behaviour by documenting it
extensively in mammals and birds. He successfully refuted claims that
homosexuality is unnatural ('unnatural' defined as 'not occurring in
nature'). However, he does more than that. Unexpectedly, he attacks the
importance of heterosexuality. He starts by pointing out that in nearly
every population there is a group of nonbreeders. I agree. For example in
species with a harem, one male has access to the females in the harem to
the exclusion of all other males. In other species, often only the
highest-ranking male mates with females. But even in a heterosexual species
without harem, males and females do not mate all the time. For a great
number of species mating has never been observed despite hundreds or
thousands of hours of observation. Often males and females live in separate
groups. Young animals up to 3 - 5 years do not breed. Male baboons have
been observed copulating a pregnant or lactating female, a non-reproductive
behaviour. Reading the book, I started to realise that the group of
non-reproducers is larger than the group of homosexuals. It is the unusual
perspective on evolution that makes this book interesting. I could add to
Bagemihl's list that in the human species, females are sexual receptive
only 1-3 days a month (< 10% of the time) and > 90% of copulations are in
fact non-reproductive.
</excerpt>
http://tinyurl.com/a9ksb -- Chapter excerpt.
>>>> It wasn't. Laws against homosexuality in most societies are the result
>>>> of religious law - all of which can be traced directly to rules and
>>>> taboos established to ensure the survival of a small tribal unit, or
>>>> extended family.
>>> Were laws against Sodomy in the US the result of religious law ? Or
>>> Britain, when Sodomite World War II Enigma data decryption heroes like
>>> Alan Turing were arrested on British streets for the act ?
>> Yes, actually -- religious wackjobs were always behind "anti-sodomy"
>> laws, where homophobes were not.
>
> No law becomes law in the UK without passage of the law in Parliament,
> which is representative government of all the people of the UK.
This has not always been the case, and in the early days of Parliament
(before the Enlightenment), religious demagogues often got their way by
sheer force of lungs.
>>>>>>>Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
>>>>>> I can make the same argument for behaviors such as excessive prayer,
>>>>>> asking people for money, and, well, anything else.
>>>>>How could these other behaviors be considered immoral and repulsive
>>>>>enough to be banned from TV ?
>>>> "God loves you. Send me a hundred bucks to prove that you love Him."
>>>> That's not immoral?
>>>> I believe that prayer is a personal act of contrition, and needs to be
>>>> done in privacy to bear any weight at all. Thus, prayer, or the
>>>> solicitation for prayer, on television is offensive in the most basic
>>>> terms to my beliefs.
>>> I am not a fan of such programming myself, but there is nothing immoral
>>> about it. I mean, is such programming encouraging you or your kid to
>>> bring your procreative organs into contact with the faeces excrement of
>>> another man ?
>> You are truly *obsessed* with anal sex, ain'tcha?
>
> BSG is obsessed with Sodomy. That is the reality of it.
You have yet to prove this assertion with a single unequivocal example of
onscreen anal or oral sex, never mind *gay* oral or anal sex. That's using
the erroneous sexual definition, BTW. The real definition of "sodomy"
includes extreme inhospitality to strangers (to the point of raping them
and turning them out of town without food, water, or clothing), lack of
caring for orphans, the elderly, the poor, the dispossessed, and other
unfortunates (to the point of making caring for them a crime punishable by
becoming one of them, if one was "lucky", or by slow death, if not so
"lucky"), and generally just being a selfish, arrogant, greedy bastard.
Now, to be sure, some gays are like that (my landlord among them), but not
all, and the SAGBs who are gay don't necessarily have anything to do with
Hollywood (my landlord doesn't, f'rinstance). I don't, as it happens,
recall seeing very many SAGBs on BSG, with the possible exception of Tom
Zarek, and I haven't seen one single unequivocal act of gay sex performed
by him -- ever.
>>>>>With the multiplicity of religions which are represented on Sunday
>>>>>mornings, this hardly could run afoul of the First Amendment.
>>>> Who said it did? I said that I could make the same argument that
>>>> you're making, which is that the behavior is reprehensible.
>>> Everyone on TV is asking for your money, in one way or another.
>>> Including BSG. If you watch, and watch their advertisements, including
>>> the advertisements for cigarettes, drugs, gambling and prostitution
>>> which are hidden in the BSG script, you give them your money.
>> The cigarettes are a real danger, because they kill. Gambling isn't far
>> behind, because it can utterly destroy lives. As far as drugs and
>> prostitution go, they're no big, with exceptions, but those exceptions
>> only need regulation.
>
> There is no question that the content of BSG is dominated by right wing
> libertarian issues like Sodomy, Drugs (including cigarettes), Gambling,
> Prostitution.
Be advised that not all right-wingers are libertarians, any more than all
libertarians are right-wingers. I, frex, am essentially libertarian, but
firmly left-wing (been both of these since the '80s). Also, you may not
have noticed, but Starbuck, in the original series, gambled and smoked
cigars -- big, smelly ones, too -- and Cassiopeia was a "Socialator", aka
*prostitute*, in our rather provincial terms (I believe "Companion" would
be more descriptive, a la Heinlein/Spider Robinson/Joss Whedon). Gay
issues, however, were nowhere to be found in the late '70s version, as they
remain in the 21st Century, sadly. It'd be more realistic to have a minor
character or three be queer, I think, if not a major one, but outside of
your fevered imagination, they simply aren't there.
>>>>>>>The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV
>>>>>>>to you and your kids are selling Hate and Mass Murder of
>>>>>>>Arabs/Moslems.
>>>>>> And you're selling hate of persons of all Races, Creeds, and colors.
>>>>>> Simply because you find their sexual orientation threatening. So
>>>>>> who's worse?
>>>>>There is no Hate in anything I have said. I just do not want to see
>>>>>representations of Sodomy on TV,
>>>>>with good reason. Those reasons may sound unpleasant to the people who
>>>>>engage in this behavior, but tolerance of society for your behavior
>>>>>does not extend beyond the privacy of your own home.
>>>> YOU don't want to see this or that. I again remind you that YOU are
>>>> free to turn the thing on and off. Instead you cast blame and shame
>>>> on some nebulous group that's not only running things, they are out to
>>>> quash your right to free expression. You. Personally.
>>>> The very context in which you use the words homosexual, deviant, and
>>>> others is hateful. Couch it in nice language if you want, but the
>>>> context is the proof in the pudding.
>>> I want to watch Science Fiction TV.
>> Fine. Watch it.
>
> Those people who want to watch Science Fiction and not the fake sc ience
> fiction Sodomy and Organized Crime series that are replacing it need to
> make their concerns known.
Yeah, yeah, the screaming and whining and wailing and teeth-gnashing and
doomsaying from the heterosexual/homophobic special interest groups never
stops. Somehow, they all think that gays will somehow stop existing, in the
future, or that they won't exist in alien cultures, or simply that children
ought not to be exposed to gay issues -- that parents are the only suitable
people to address such matters with kids (as though parents are always
knowledgeable and well-educated on these things). Feh. I have no time or
tolerance for such "thinking".
>>> If Hollywood Homosexuals continue to attempt to sell Sodomy in the
>>> context of fake science fiction TV, they are going to experience
>>> increased opposition to their goals from people like me.
>> And people like me are going to oppose people like you in ever-greater
>> numbers.
>
> That will just lead to a backlash and more laws against Sodomy and
> Homosexuality.
"Backlash"??? ROTFLMAOUIPMPAD!!!!! You _seriously_ think for one second that
we're at all concerned that we're going to be socially ostracised or
legally punished for our sexuality?! BTDT. I *fart* in your general
direction, Monsieur Shocked! Or, IOW, baaaaaaaa-ring it!!! We are quite
prepared to fight all over again for all the rights we've won in the past
four decades, on every single field of battle as before, if losers like you
get your way. We know now that we /can/ fight, and WIN! Furthermore, we
know that losing won't destroy us, that we can marshal our forces to try
again and again, because more of us are always being born, and some
countries are likely to just keep on having the same friendly and accepting
attitudes towards us as ever, so we needn't look too hard for refuge, at
need, and therefore we'll always keep the history of the fight for our
rights alive.
>>> And they will also receive opposition from people like
>>> mewhen they claim falsely that their Hollywood Homosexuals
>>> Neo-Conservative agenda of Sodomy and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
>>> is on the Left. That is a fraud and reasonable people are beginning to
>>> recognize this fraud. They are right wing, libertarians and should not
>>> besmirch the Left by buying Left representatives and couching their muck
>>> as Left issues.
>> I am not in any way, shape, or form a neo-con. I have been staunchly
>> leftist for twenty years, and I am bisexual. So you can just go fuck
>> yourself all over again.
>
> This is a total fraud. You call Sodomy left, when it is as right wing
> libertarian an issue as they come.
FOAD. I am no fucking brain-dead right-winger.
>>>>>>>======================================================
>>>>>>>People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have
>>>>>>>bought control of the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the
>>>>>>>purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids and preaching Mass
>>>>>>>Murder of Arabs/Moslems. Society should respond by banning the
>>>>>>>deviant content.
>>>>>> Translated: Help me, Big Brother! I don't know how to change the
>>>>>> channel! Protect me from myself!
>>>>>> [snipped again]
>>>>>What would be your reaction if you switched on BSG next week and saw a
>>>>>human, let us say Apollo, having bestial sex with a dog ?
>>>>>Politics
>>>> "Ewww!! That's Gross." Followed by the click of the off switch.
>>> That would be a reasonable response. But what if BSG was up to that
>>> point your favorite show and the only major science fiction series on TV
>>> ?
>> Straw man. BSG is NOT the only SF series on TV, and is far from being
>> "major". No series on the Sci-Fi Channel in the US, or on Space in
>> Canada, is "major", because those channels aren't "major". *Network*
>> *television* remains the only "major" medium for SF on TV, and that
>> situation is likely to continue for years to come.
>
> Sodomy and Organized Crime content should be banned from science fiction
> TV (and any other broadcast TV).
Oh, "Organised Crime"? Like *Las Vegas*, you mean? I caught a bit of that
last night, while I was making sure that Surface and Prison Break weren't
on the same Canadian station (which they aren't). As for "Sodomy", you have
yet to see it on BSG, except in a subtext visible to you and you alone.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143394 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 14:20 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:OCl0f.90727$s83.80708 [at] fe08.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:7Y00f.98139$387.83865 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>There is no question Sodomy symbolism is pervasive in BSG.
>>>There is absoultely no sodomy symbolism in BSG.
>>>ROBOT TEXT SNIPPED
>> There is no question that there is widespread Sodomy symbolism in BSG.
>There is absolutely no question, there is no Sodomy symbolism in BSG.
>PARANOID BULLSHIT SNIPPED
============================================================ ==============
The big picture truths that you deserve to understand:
===========================================================
One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms in BSG
is because they would desperately like to reverse some of the following results which they encountered in all
11 states in the US on November 3 2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions (plebiscital votes by
voters in a state controlling their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage agenda. So if you are
watching your favorite science fiction show and then you notice something in the script which does not make
sense, it may be that it was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the
script as their advertisement vehicle.
Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for President
the first time. Even though they have been pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they are yet to win
a single statewide vote. Clinton took homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was inaugurated started to
implement policies that he was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The Military, in 1993. This was an
intense unpopular policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted in the Democrats losing both Houses of
Congress in 1994, and started a series of investigations into Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in
his Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004 Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money in the
2004 election year. Democrats do not have many sources of money, representing the poorer segments of society.
Since Kerry was from the state of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004 legalized Homosexual Marriage
through a corrupt bribed out Judges judicial decision (not a vote by its legislature) the onus was on John
Kerry to separate himself from this suicidal issue in a very public manner.
However, because Kerry took Hollywood Homosexual money in the 2004 year and before, he simply was not able to
do that. Thus in a year when Kerry was running for President against George W. Bush, who had a terrible
record, who had had the Economy collapse early in his first year (2001) and it stayed that way till mid 2004,
who also failed to prevent the 9-11 Attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, who lied to drag the US into a
war against Iraq, when his allegations that Iraq had Weapons Of Mass Destruction were false and various other
failures, Kerry still could not win because of the Homosexual agenda ball and chain around his neck. Kerry
should have won this race 55%-45% if he was not carrying this Homosexual agenda ball and chain. And the
following votes are an in indication of how strongly people felt against this homosexual agenda Kerry was
pushing.
Several of these 11 states were Swing States -- they were close in the previous election and would decide the
election in 2004. Many people went to vote against the Homosexual Agenda, and voted against Kerry as an
afterthought.
Now, Hollywood Homosexuals are wealthy fatcats and, despite popular misconceptions, are overwhelming
Republican. They do not want Democrats like John Kerry to win and then raise their taxes. Thus, there may well
be a scam going on here, to buy the Democrat candidate each year and ask him to support something the US
public despises -- this time it was Homosexual Marriage. If this buying every 4 years of the Democrat
candidate by Hollywood Homosexual fatcats continues, it could be an extremely long time before the Democrats
ever come close to taking back any of the branches of government again.
==================================================
No, Hollywood Homosexuals are Republicans and should be Republicans. The Sodomy issue, along with similar ACLU
issues like the Legalization of Drugs, is one of those selfish issues that generally come under the title
"civil liberties". These are 'leave me alone', 'let me do what I want to do', "do not raise my taxes", "keep
the government out of my life"; selfish issues that are not just conservative, but libertarian in nature. .
Heck, if not for the federal government, Unions would not exist. If not for the federal government, Blacks
and Women would not have Civil Rights. If not for the federal government, there would be no 60's Great
Society programs for The Poor, or what is left of those programs since Clinton (a big homosexual rights Gays
In The Military supporter) rolled them back. The federal government passed the Defense Of Marriage Act which
was anti-homosexual marriage rights.
The response of Hollywood Homosexuals ? Try to negate the federal government laws in the Courts by playing up
this crap that the Federal Courts can negate the laws created by the will of the people (Judicial Review, they
call it). The same US Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896 in the "Separate But Equal"
decision that Blacks were second class citizens and that segregation was ok. It was only in the 1950's, when
the US Supreme Court was dominated by non-Judges (only one of the 9 judges then had a judicial background --
the Chief Justice was Governor of California immediately before joining the US Supreme Court in 1953), that
Brown vs Board of Education (1954) reversed the corrupt Plessy decision. And I should mention that the 14th
Amendment passed right after the US Civil War which ended Slavery, banned any kind of racial segregation State
Laws, so the 1896 decision was unconstitutional, on its face.
=================================================
Some examples of Unconstitutional decisions by the US Supreme Court which hurt the little guy:
1) The Poor (1930's President Franklin D. Roosevelt impasse of legislation to help Unions and The Poor being blocked by the US
Supreme Court broken in 1937 when President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court),
2) Blacks (1896 Plessy vs Ferguson, legalizing racial segregation southern State laws, an incredible
decision, totally repudiating the 14th Amendment),
3) Unions (1930's President Franklin D. Roosevelt impasse of legislation to help Unions and The Poor being blocked by the US
Supreme Court broken in 1937 when President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court),
4) Women denied the right to vote under 14th Amendment in Minor vs Happersett (1874)
5) The "Corporation" created out of thin air by the US Supreme Court from the 14th Amendment: Robber Barons at the turn of the
century
(ca 1900) and today's Enron alike, loved this decision. This was a US Supreme Court decision which abused
the 14th Amendment, which they refused to use to protect the intended black men and black women, and instead
used to protect predatory wealthy fatcats. In incredible series of decisions.
=================================================
The truth is that Homosexuals have nothing in common with the Left, which comprises The Poor, Blacks, Unions
and Women). They should and do want opposite solutions in government policy.
The greatest danger to this country today is that from the right wing libertarian nexus between:
US Supreme Court, Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives,
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), Organized Crime.
Organized Crime are the ultimate libertarians, even more right wing libertarian than homosexuals.
=======================================================
=======================================================
http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22), defining marriage as the union of a
man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61%
to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than whites.
========================================================
========================================================
Here are the results from the 11 States in November 2004 who had the Homosexual agenda on a ballot question 5
months ago:
========================================================
Arkansas Ballot wording: Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status for
unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or
recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state
between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry,
subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage.Result:
Passed 75% to 25%
Georgia The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: (a) This state shall
recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are
prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as
entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall
have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or
otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection
with such relationship.Result: Passed 77% to 23%.
Kentucky Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.
A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be
valid or recognized.Result: Passed: 75% to 25%.
Michigan The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: To secure and preserve
the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one
woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any
purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.
Mississippi The measure amends the state constitution to read: Marriage may take place and may be valid under
the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction
between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this
state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.
Montana The measure amends the state constitution to read: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall
be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.
North Dakota The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: Marriage consists
only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.
Ohio The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: Only a union between one
man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This
state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of
unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of
marriage.Result: Passed 62% to 38%.
Oklahoma The measure amends the state constitution to read: A Marriage in this state shall consist only of the
union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to
require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. B. A
marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and
binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in
violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result: Passed 76% to 24%.
Oregon The measure would amend the state constitution to read: It is the policy of Oregon, and its political
subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a
marriage.Result: Passed 57% to 43%.
Utah The measure amends the state constitution to read, 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
man and a woman. 2. No other domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or
recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a
marriage. Results: Passed 66% to 34%.
==================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143411 ] |
Di, 04 Oktober 2005 18:14 |
|
Fozzi wrote:
> Sorry but i disagree, john is crazy, and he definately is a queer
> by the way your comparison is complete nonsence.
Nonsense? If you argue that people who are against something are really
trying to hide their true selves, then it makes perfect sense. You are
definitely quoting old psychobabble on the subject.
--
Gerald
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143430 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 01:24 |
|
"Gerald Meazell" <gmeazell [at] swbell.net> wrote in message
news:fTx0f.1460$xD7.1099 [at] newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Fozzi wrote:
>
>> Sorry but i disagree, john is crazy, and he definately is a queer
>> by the way your comparison is complete nonsence.
>
> Nonsense? If you argue that people who are against something are really
> trying to hide their true selves, then it makes perfect sense. You are
> definitely quoting old psychobabble on the subject.
>
> --
> Gerald
thats your opinion, mine differs
cheers
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits fromclosed captions [message #143439 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 04:03 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:OCl0f.90727$s=
83.80708 [at] fe08.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:7Y00f.98139=
$387.83865 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There is no question Sodomy symbolism is pervasive in BSG.
>>>>
>>>>There is absoultely no sodomy symbolism in BSG.
>>>>ROBOT TEXT SNIPPED
>>>
>>>There is no question that there is widespread Sodomy symbolism in BSG.=
>>
>>There is absolutely no question, there is no Sodomy symbolism in BSG.
>>PARANOID BULLSHIT SNIPPED
>=20
>=20
> =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=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> The big picture truths that you deserve to understand:
REPETITIOUS BULLSHIT PARANOID LIES SNIPPED
The big picture is that there is still no sodomy or sodomy symbolism in=20
BSG. It only exists in your imagination.
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skitsfrom closed captions [message #143440 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 04:05 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives are a major force in the US, bu=
t are a tiny minority
> of the population.
>=20
PARANOID REPETITIOUS BULLSHIT SNIPPED
There is no such thing as a Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative. They =
only exist in your imagination.
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skitsfrom closed captions [message #143449 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 04:15 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
>=20
> The condition of the husband and/or wife could improve during the maqrr=
iage to have the child,
> utilizing medicine or just time, which is a better healer than medicine=
=2E
> Some women do not become pregnant for years of trying and then itg just=
happens.
>=20
This just more copout on your part to try and defend your undefensible=20
position. Either the ability to have children is a requirement for=20
marriage or it is not. You can not have it both ways.
>=20
> The State does care about the gender of the parties, because California=
people voted overwhelmingly not
> to allow homosexual marriage.
The state does not care, only fundies and paranoid bigots such as=20
yourself care. It is frankly none of your business. Only your own=20
marital state is your business.
> I have no interest in religion.
>=20
Apparently not so true.
>>"Child procreation" is not always an option. I know a lady in New Orlea=
ns who cannot safely do so.
>=20
>=20
> There is still medicine to assist people in conception and sometimes th=
ey have another woman carry the child.
>=20
Very rich from someone who is anti drug and claims the drug companies=20
are in on a conspiracy with hollywood. You simply have no ethics at all =
do you?
>=20
> BSG is obsessed with Sodomy. That is the reality of it.
>=20
>=20
Another lie, there is no sodomy in BSG. John Shocked? Cherry? whoever=20
you are is the only one obsessed with sodomy. Why is that?
> There is no question that the content of BSG is dominated by right wing=
libertarian issues
> like Sodomy, Drugs (including cigarettes), Gambling, Prostitution.
None of these things are portrayed as part of the show. Why do you=20
insist on seeing things that do not exist?
> Those people who want to watch Science Fiction and not the fake sc ienc=
e fiction Sodomy and
> Organized Crime series that are replacing it need to make their concern=
s known.
>
There is absolutely no way that hollywood will ever see your ramblings=20
on usenet. If you want to say something to them, write them. They can=20
always use a good laugh. If you don't like the program, stop watching=20
it. No need for you to watch it, imagine sodomy scenes and jerk off.
>=20
>=20
> Sodomy and Organized Crime content should be banned from science fictio=
n TV (and any other broadcast TV).
>=20
Censorship is bad period. If you don't like what you see turn off the=20
tv, get up off your ass and go outside.
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143463 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 09:49 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:PGG0f.103591$s83.31055 [at] fe08.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>> The condition of the husband and/or wife could improve during the maqrriage to have the child,
>> utilizing medicine or just time, which is a better healer than medicine.
>> Some women do not become pregnant for years of trying and then it just happens.
>This just more copout on your part to try and defend your undefensible position. Either the ability to have children is a
>requirement for marriage or it is not. You can not have it both ways.
There is always a chance when a man and a women come together.
That is simply the reality.
>> The State does care about the gender of the parties, because California people voted overwhelmingly not
>> to allow homosexual marriage.
>The state does not care, only fundies and paranoid bigots such as yourself care. It is frankly none of your business. Only your
>own marital state is your business.
This is a ridiculous statement. Are all those people who voted against the homosexual agenda
extremists, or do you represent the extremists ?
>> I have no interest in religion.
>Apparently not so true.
How so ?
>>>"Child procreation" is not always an option. I know a lady in New Orleans who cannot safely do so.
>> There is still medicine to assist people in conception and sometimes they have another woman carry the child.
>Very rich from someone who is anti drug and claims the drug companies are in on a conspiracy with hollywood. You simply have no
>ethics at all do you?
It is not the best solution, but creating life is an important factor in society.
>> BSG is obsessed with Sodomy. That is the reality of it.
>Another lie, there is no sodomy in BSG. John Shocked? Cherry? whoever you are is the only one obsessed with sodomy. Why is that?
BSG Hollywood Homosexuals are determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids through BSG.
>> There is no question that the content of BSG is dominated by right wing libertarian issues
>> like Sodomy, Drugs (including cigarettes), Gambling, Prostitution.
>None of these things are portrayed as part of the show. Why do you insist on seeing things that do not exist?
They definitely are portrayed in the BSG series.
Just one episode featured them all: I will post the information at the end here.
>> Those people who want to watch Science Fiction and not the fake science fiction Sodomy and
>> Organized Crime series that are replacing it need to make their concerns known.
>There is absolutely no way that hollywood will ever see your ramblings on usenet. If you want to say something to them, write
>them. They can always use a good laugh. If you don't like the program, stop watching it. No need for you to watch it, imagine
>sodomy scenes and jerk off.
>> Sodomy and Organized Crime content should be banned from science fiction TV (and any other broadcast TV).
>Censorship is bad period. If you don't like what you see turn off the tv, get up off your ass and go outside.
I do not want to do that. I want to watch some Science Fiction TV. I am not going anywhere.
============================================================ ===============
Every time I watch BSG I see reflections of that Hollywood Homosexual and Organized Crime alliance
immortalized in that Horse's Head scene in the movie The Godfather. That is the scene in which the
Hollywood Homosexual movie producer is intimidated into starring the Tony Bennett character in
his upcoming movie by the sight of the severed and bloody head of his favorite race horse lying in the bed with him.
As Marlon Brando's Don Corleone Godfather said, he "made him an offer he couldn't refuse".
Here is some of the BSG Organized Crime case:
"Earl Grieda" <eASQWERTgrieda [at] VADFWEFyahoo.comical> wrote in message news:KF9Xe.11484$4P5.5288 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> These are a few points I haven't seen mentioned.
> During the poker game when the other player was quitting and saying what's
> the point, Starbuck defended the party line: "Don't give up. We'll find
> earth." I liked this because Starbuck is portrayed as the rebel. Yet here
> she is being the good officer. Also, she is defending Helo, and by
> extension Sharon, when she slams the pilot head first into the table.
In this scene the pilots are portrayed playing cards for money, yet again in this BSG series.
Gambling is a product of right wing, libertarian ACLU supported Organized Crime.
In that same scene, the pejorative reference to prostitution by Racetrack is condemned by the BSG writers
and the Hollywood Homosexuals who maintain a stranglehold on the script and direction of the BSG series.
"(Racetrack) Good idea. Maybe that Cylon whore taught him a few tricks."
Prostitution is a product of right wing, libertarian ACLU supported Organized Crime.
The greatest danger to this country today is that from the right wing libertarian nexus between:
US Supreme Court, Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives,
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), Organized Crime.
Organized Crime are the ultimate libertarians, even more right wing libertarian than homosexuals.
> Later the Chief becomes violent over Sharon. Two scenes together
> (Starbuck/Chief) are showing the negative effect that Sharon is having on
> the crew. Helo managed to keep his cool while the Chief loses it.
"(Chief) I should probably be grateful to you. Probably be grateful. You know why?
Because that freak in her belly could have been mine."
Clearly these two guys know that they are fighting over something that is non-human, thus Bestiality.
The clear message is, if these two guys can pervert heterosexual sex to Bestiality in this way,
what could possibly be so wrong with 2 men, like Apollo and Zerak, or Zerak and Meier, and Sodomy ?
Heck, at least they are both human.
After all, to BSG Hollywood Homosexuals libertarians, morality has to be relative.
> Apollo says to the Chief that nobody is expecting any miracles, and the
> Chief says that's the problem. I seem to remember another scene in an
> earlier episode of Apollo's easy going style in a pilots meeting when he
> said something similar. Not the best leadership style to inspire confidence.
> There was an older guy in the maintenance crew. That was nice. Not
> everyone is in their 20s-30s. He was also the first to offer to give the
> Chief a hand in making his plane.
> Lack of oxygen brings out honesty: Starbuck, while suffering lack of
> oxygen, says she will fly the plane. Lee says why, and Starbuck says that
> while everyone else is whining the Chief is trying to do something positive.
The giggling fit of Starbuck in this scene conjured up the effects of drugs, even laughing gas.
Drugs are a product of right wing, libertarian ACLU supported Organized Crime.
> Baltar is still slimy: I liked the subtle back-handed way that Baltar laid
> the blame of the computer virus on Tigh when he tells Adama that the virus
> is the result of the network that Tigh had setup after Adama was shot. Why
> is he back-stabbing Tigh. and helping Gaeta?
>
> At first I thought that Sharon was getting "programmed" when she read the
> printout that Helo had. However, now I think that at that point she
> realized that the Cylons were going to kill her along with everyone else.
> That makes the "common ground" theme realistic.
>
> Why is anyone concerned if the space plane has a skin? It flies in space.
> It doesn't need a skin.
>
> Tigh takes a jar of moonshine after he provides the engines. The Chief said
> that he was making it to trade for engine parts. I like the overall theme
> of acceptance of alcohol use in the show. As shown during the christening
> of the plane when the Chief takes the first swig.
Organized Crime in the US became established in the 1920's during prohibition,
when alcohol was briefly banned in the US.by the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1919, which was later
repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Organized Crimes guys from that time were so proud of making
money defying the alcohol prohibition, doing exactly what the Chief is doing in the scene in this BSG episode:
manufacturing and selling "moonshine" from "stills".
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
The BSG writers present this right wing libertarian criminal behavior as having a altruistic and beneficial goal--
the development of the Stealth Fighter space vehicle, which we will surely see is critical to the defense
against the Cylons.
You see, BSG Hollywood Homosexuals are telling us, selling illegal drugs has a good side...
Alcohol was a product of right wing, libertarian ACLU supported Organized Crime, until alcohol was
re-legalized in 1933, and some Organized Crime bosses went legit, selling this product.
============================================================ ============
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143465 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 11:06 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>>> The State does care about the gender of the parties, because California
>>> people voted overwhelmingly not to allow homosexual marriage.
>>The state does not care, only fundies and paranoid bigots such as yourself
>>care. It is frankly none of your business. Only your own marital state is
>>your business.
>
> This is a ridiculous statement. Are all those people who voted against
> the homosexual agenda extremists, or do you represent the extremists ?
The ones who "voted" against SSM are the extremist wackos, absolutely.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143466 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 11:08 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>>> I have no interest in religion.
>>Apparently not so true.
>
> How so ?
Your incessant maundering about morality was our first clue...Atheists,
agnostics, and Pagans are usually more concerned with *ethics*, and
gay/lesbian sex is far from unethical.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143475 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 14:09 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:7IM0f.88524$oW2.71594 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>>>> The State does care about the gender of the parties, because California
>>>> people voted overwhelmingly not to allow homosexual marriage.
>>>The state does not care, only fundies and paranoid bigots such as yourself
>>>care. It is frankly none of your business. Only your own marital state is
>>>your business.
>> This is a ridiculous statement. Are all those people who voted against
>> the homosexual agenda extremists, or do you represent the extremists ?
> The ones who "voted" against SSM are the extremist wackos, absolutely.
Anyone who voted against Homosexual Marriage is an extremist according to you ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #7 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #143476 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 14:11 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:1KM0f.88531$oW2.56334 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>>>> I have no interest in religion.
>>>Apparently not so true.
>> How so ?
> Your incessant maundering about morality was our first clue...Atheists,
> agnostics, and Pagans are usually more concerned with *ethics*, and
> gay/lesbian sex is far from unethical.
Pagan/Wiccans are a fraud front for Hollywood Homosexuals who bankroll them.
They claim to be interested in Nature, but then support Sodomy.
That simply is not credible.
Politics
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 01:21:54 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,13607 Sekunden |
