Tribal behavior within a nation. What can you expect from the reddest of red states. With no national leadership except one seeking to destroy the nation, this is what breaks out everywhere. Bullying local norms which assault freedoms of every stripe.

So if the South decides to go back to separate-but-equal (which has never been fully dissolved), will the nation let the states worry about it? Our Government is hardly even there.

what the hell does "open to a full quiver of children" mean?

Full quiver means the woman has as many children as God will give her. NO LIMITS.

Last September, we had a fun discussion at my blog regarding the ultimate in full quiver households, the Duggars. Linked (on my name) below.

I'm so glad we stopped at one.

What if I'm a guy but have no talent or interesting in building a home? Uh oh.... ;)

I have to add some relevant information: Kanab is near the border of Utah and Arizona: Polygamists central. Fundamentalist Mormons at their finest. Orthodoxy LDS at the root of every aspect of secular life in this part of Southern Utah. Little difference between State and Church. These people live as far from the legal arm in Salt Lake City or Phoenix as physically possible while attempting to let the world pass them by. The Attorney-G.s in both states have quietly ignored these people because they live in utter remote wilderness. The only harm they feel they do is that they may have the corner of the market on gingham at the local Yard Barn.

This “non-binding” resolution is a product from an ultra-conservative dunk-tank called the Sutherland Institute. Their agenda: Make life hell for all single people. Singlehood is evil. Relegate anyone not married to a second-class status because they’re not doing what the Bible says.

And just what is their meaning of 'natural'? I'm single and, yet, I feel natural. When I am with my family I feel natural. I came from the same womb as any other sibling. Doesn't that qualify me as natural as any other person?

Norm should have added the link to the Salt Lake Tribune’s report on Salt Lake Mayor Anderson’s State of the City speech when he mentioned gays/lesbians. I think I could visualize Paul Mero (of the Sutherland Institute) just shredding the paper with his teeth when he read that. Maybe he needs the fiber. Who knows? It might make Mr. Mero a little kinder and mellower to his fellow man.

So, this "Kanab" ... it is in Afghanistan, no?

Cheers, RB

Seriously, I didnt see Utah first, all I saw was Kanab & thought "hmmm interesting iraqi name, thats very fundy", then I saw Utah. So long as they dont intend to run Washington (ahhem), I think the world is a little safer.... Then again, they probably dont even have to personally....

Some "Mormonisms" for you:

The Second Coming is literal and a nuclear conflagration MUST! take place prior to this second coming - which is overdue now.

The USofA MUST! become a theocracy with the Prophet/President of the Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) becoming the head of government prior to the Second Coming.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH and all others are of Satan. Only members of the Church - Mormons - will enter into the highest level of Eternal Opportunity - highest heaven (something like the highest heaven in Islam (since that is where the "concept" originated - just don't tell the Christians).

You must go to the Temple and receive your endowments or you cannot enter the highest kingdom (and only after you have given at least 15% of your pretax earnings to the church regularly - at least one year).

Polygamy was never offically outlawed by the Church - only "set aside" because God's revelations are of a higher order than civil law. BUT while Utah is under the direction of the Federal Government in Washington - Mormons must obey the law of the land - which outlaws multiple wives.

The Polygamists of Southern Utah (and there are 1000's) follow the dictates of the Church prior to Deseret becoming the State of Utah and therefore do not feel they have to follow the Federal Law.

BTW, if you reveal your experience in the Temple, you agree to have your life taken either by the slitting of your throat or by being disembowelled. (For those recent converts who have been to the Temple - that bit (so I am told) has been taken out - even though it was initally established by revealation from God to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo in 1840.

The Church disallows any form of birth control except abstinence. And all unmarried men and women (boys and girls) are not allowed to have any form of sexual practice in any way. If you do, it is an excommunicatable offence. If you are professed or discovered to be gay, you are not only excommunicated; you are condemened to outer darkness with no possible relief. (That is like burning in Hell without even a water bottle).

Men can be excommunicated for masterbation also. If a woman is "deflowered" and is of age, she can be given a temple recommend and qualify for a mission. The guy who did it will be excommunicated and not allowed to return to the Church for at least three years.

However, women have no official status in the Mormon Church and must submit to their husbands and their fathers.

Until a convenient revelation (after discovering that over 90% of the Church leadership in Brazil was of Black Africian blood), blacks were not allowed to be members of the church. After the revelation (it is handy to have a living prophet), black men were only allowed to hold the lower priesthood - until enough pressure from "God" influenced the "prophet" to have another revelation that allowed black men to hold the higher priesthood.

Women still cannot hold the priesthood - except through her husband. No single woman can hold the priesthood - even symbolically.

Oh BTW, BYU has the highest incidence of unwed pregnancy of any University in the United States. Hmmmm... horny folks, eh.

Red neck doesn't even come close.

my 20 p

Far be it that I would defend the LDS Church but you have exaggerated a little bit, Yank-In-Oz.

First off, Tithing is only 10%. There was a time when members of the LDS Church had to pay their 10 percent as well as contribute to a missionary fund, a building fund and various other requests for charitable contributions. They have rescinded almost all the other requests since the Lord said all that he requires is 10 percent. If you can’t make due with garnishing 10 percent then there is something wrong with the management.

There is still something called a “Fast Offering” which is made once a month. It is money contributed to be spent for food for the needy. Members are asked to donate the money they would have spent for food for one day.

Personally, I think the concept of Fast Offering is a good one. Fasting for one day is not that hard. It probably helps the body, actually.

The monetary contribution is nothing compared to the time commitments members have. They regularly (religiously) donate with their labor and expertise on a weekly basis. Their welfare system is amazing. It’s not perfect but it’s amazing. Church is not just a Sunday event…it’s full-time. Cult-like, I would almost have to say.

Prophet Joseph Smith was a Mason. You might have to ask about their secret covenants in their temple ceremonies. It might similar.

The whole temple ceremony is documented on the web.

There is a whole lot of victorianish attitude about sex with the Mormons. It’s not so much about excommunication right off the bat. There is a process of disfellowshipment (?) first.

What I find interesting is there is a heavy dictum about appropriate dress and even what to wear while working in the yard. In a large degree it is managed by a system of peer-pressure. Truly interesting to some anthropologist to study, I would say. I took off my shirt one time in my yard and I witnessed seeing the lady next door scuttled her kids into her house. You don’t take off your shirt in public except for swimming! (Not to toot my own horn, but I’m not that disgusting looking. I’ve worked in the fields and done lots of manual labor and I’m vain enough to keep myself in shape with sports and exercising. Try 33W38L Wranglers on for size.)

Blacks were always allowed to be members. They were not allowed to participate nor do any ordinance work which required them to have been ordained in their Priesthood. That changed in 1977 but I still say it was NOT a revelation. It was a change in membership rules like with a country club. But racism is still an undercurrent in the Church. You’ll note all the new cutesy commercials from the Mormons have multi-ethnic actors. (Do we know the word: TOKEN and how it can be applied here?) It comes from having a PR department from New York to make these commercials. Clever.

I question your statistics about un-wed BYU coeds. Please supply me with your source.

I think there are far more MARRIED college-aged students at the “Y” than any other university. But… They ARE horny. Suppress all sexual activity and it has to boil over, or pop the safety valve somewhere.

My 2 cents. ;-)

Cowboy said: "Blacks were always allowed to be members. They were not allowed to participate nor do any ordinance work which required them to have been ordained in their Priesthood. That changed in 1977 but I still say it was NOT a revelation."

Cowboy, far be it from me to correct you, because I usually agree with what you write. I was raised a Mormon, although I elected to stop attending church when I was 13 years old. When I was about 20 years old, a couple of female Mormon missionaries came to my apartment to try to save my soul. (My sister or parents must have told them where I lived). I was not pleased with the visit, but decided to have some fun with it. I remember two things from that visit. One was that I asked them why blacks didn't used to be able to hold the priesthood, and why suddenly they are able to now. I had been taught when I was young that blacks had been punished with their dark skin because of the mark of Cain. It is right here Alma 3.6. One of the young ladies'response was that the president of the church and other elders had a revelation from God.

Here is a statement, "given by Bruce R. McConkie to Church seminary and institute teachers shortly after the 1978 revelation granting priesthood to all races"

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things… All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

The full article can be found here

Jo Ann,

Your points are well taken.

Let me clear up something first. Nothing…Nada…Zip…Zero No doctrine was ever canonized by the official pronouncements of the First Presidency of the Church about Blacks and the Priesthood prior to 1978.

Bruce McConkie authored a book called Mormon Doctrine and some people used that as a reference for church doctrine. In spite of Mr. McConkie being a General Authority (high mucky-muck in the Mormon hierarchy) his pronouncements were never official or sanctioned Church doctrine.

You can just erase all what Bruce said about Blacks. (Which they conveniently did in his books after 1978).

The only doctrine canonized by the Office of the First Presidency is 1. The Bible (KJv). 2. The Book of Mormon (naturally). 3. The Pearl of Great Price. 4. Doctrine & Covenants. I believe a James E. Talmage’s book: Jesus the Christ is pretty much given full sanction by the Church authorities.

Other than these books…Nothing else is official.

There was no reason Blacks were not able to have the keys to the blessings and ordination of the Mormon Priesthood.

The line about precepts upon precepts and acknowledging continuing revelation is a convenient way to side-step the infallibility-of-the-Prophet issues.

When Mormons talk about revelation we have to make sure we are clear on what constitutes “revelation”. Is it an actual meeting face-to-face with God or a messenger from Him? Or is it a proclamation after a special meeting of the 12 Apostles and the First Presidency in the Salt Lake Temple. To some Mormons they cavalierly equate the two as “revelations”.

I don’t.

I equate the later type of revelation as merely like a meeting of the board of directors or a committee which has drawn up new ‘rules’. Much like an exclusive, elite Country Club who changed their membership regulations and let the Blacks join. The same for the Mormons and their “club”…secret handshakes and all.

Mormons have to accept the fact there are distinct differences between the Polygamy proclamation and the Blacks/Priesthood proclamation as being different kinds of revelations than the revelations written in their book of Doctrine & Covenants.

Talk to Mormons (who are not Nuevo LDS) and they can’t deny there is still some pervasive racial uneasiness within their ranks. If they deny it…they’re ignorant.

I have long not understood how a religion could ever say any children of God aren’t equal. God does not discriminate. Sooooo, if they tout the line they are the only “true Church” on this planet then they had better act like one.

Bruce McConkie taking the colored-skin explanation as a mark about there being a third of the host of heaven (or in pre-existence, or wherever) who followed Satan should have been challenged and debated by Church authorities/members long before 1977.

Mormons trusted Bruce too much.

Cowboy, you obviously know a lot more about the LDS thank I do. So tell me what you think about this.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978 To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

SPENCER W. KIMBALL N. ELDON TANNER MARION G. ROMNEY

The First Presidency

I found this at this website

Jo Ann, You’re so good to do that much researching. You obviously have an interest. I would love to sit across from you at a dinner table and continue a more thorough discussion. This discussion has been somewhat cathartic to me.

Two things from what you posted:

1. …this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple.

2.…this is turn has inspired us…

They called it a revelation but I still do not define it as such. If Spencer Kimball had an actual ‘revelation’ it would be stated who spoke to him in the revelation.

Inspiration is NOT revelation. This was a business decision. No different than a CEO would meditate in a quiet, peaceful room at the Phoenician Hotel in Scottsdale and came to the Board of Directors and say: “I had a revelation about some HR issue.”

I think I would be insulted to belong to a religious organization where grown men would not see the obvious and then when confronted say: “We have a clearer understanding….”

You will note, there has never been one word of apology to the Blacks from the Mormons. Not one official word of apology. Reason? They will say: Why should we apologize…we did nothing wrong.

Now…let me extrapolate a little here. If the LDS Church was wrong about the Blacks/Priesthood thing then would it not be feasible that the LDS Church is wrong about its position in regards to gays?

Do I care? No. Clearly, in my mind, this organization is not a church. It’s not worthy to make their own rules/regulations let alone having the influence with the laws and legislation in my beloved state of Utah. (sigh) And yet they do.

They’re as corrupt as corrupt politicians. Peas in a pod.

(Now I’m going to go skipping down the road and throw pedals of flowers…crazy as I am. Except I wear cowboy boots and I can’t skip worth a sh*t.)

Cowboy, I agree with everything that you said, and I now understand the point that you are making. I was under the impression that you were a Mormon or something for awhile, which really threw me for a loop.. I thought, "How could THAT be? Cowboy a Mormon? No way!"

Enjoy your stumbling through the petals. :)

Jo Ann, I grew up in a very close-knit Mormon community reared by loving parents one of whom was NOT Mormon. You might say I was sort of a bastardized child crippled with not having a Patriarchal Father which brings some interesting aspects with living in Utah. Culturally I’m Mormon but my parents gave me free rein to accept or not accept what side of the veil I would belong. My Mom thought it would be easier to assimilate into the culture and not rock the boat and live like a Mormon. Though I might not agree now, when I was young it was more important to blend in than stand out.

As I grew older I got wiser but theological questions took a back seat to other more paramount needs: college, a career and discovering who I am.

I’m still discovering.

petals...YES!... petals! Not pedals. (sheeesh!)

cowboy... not to be argumentative here - not my desire... How do I know what I know? Was baptised a mormon when I was 18. Studied over 2000 various documents and books prior to attenting BYU - was Hugh Nibley's tenent and had hours upon hours of discussions with him and W. Cleon Skousen - they liked having a Jew as a Mormon.

The 15% number includes tithes and offerings. Both of which are required. Teh Fast Offering is 1-5% of your household food budget or the cost of three meals - which is placed in the welfare fund and used to support the farms, warehouses, canning and manufacturing AND, yes some is given out to the local needy - but all monies offered has conditions: you must pay it back within a cetain time limit, you must be an active member of the church and you must work in the welfare system to pay for the money received.

Yes, Joseph Smith was a mason. That is why he was executed in Nauvoo. Hehad betrayed the Masonic Order by allowing women to view and participate in the temple proceedings. He also had betrayed the signs, tokens and symbols. His inspired temple ceremony was just an adulteration of the Masonic Rites (Scottish Order).

The Temple Ceremony that is on the web is the modified one that post-dates Hinkley's rise to the Presidency. How do I know? I was a temple worker for ten years. I have talked with current members and quoted various parts of the ceremony and have been told that it has been changed.

Yes, you can be disfellowshiped; however, if you have previously confessed your thoughts or transgressions to your bishop or Stake president, excommunication proceedings can immediately take place - most especially if you are a recommend holder.

How do I know about the deflowerment and mission event? My friend was the woman and the guy was my roommate while I was at BYU.

LDS Doctrine has a propensity for change - as society or law of the land or convienence dictates. Blacks were not only not allowed to be members but were discouraged from living in the same communities during the initial organization of the Church. They were considered the progeny of Cain and had the mark of Satan upon them. As I stated before, prior to the "revelation" - and it was considered a revelation by ALL members of the church at the time - no black was allowed to hold the priesthood. One of my best friends was a guy named Allan Cherry. Go research that one, mate.

My source of the unwed mother figures is from a private conversation that I had with Neal A. Maxwell in SLC at church headquarters in 1982. Right before I asked that my name be removed from the records of the church.

The Mormon Church is the wealthiest non-taxed organisation on the planet. It is richer than the catholic church. All building are completly paid for prior to dedication. There is no paid ministry - so all those volunteers do all of the work for free. The leaders of the church who are paid have all things in common so their salaries may be $1 a year (this is well publicised - so as to help people feel better about all of the money collected) but they receive anything and everything that will make their life work in perfect harmony with their callings. Are you aware of the inner circle?

I could go on and on - make no mistake, I have no bitterness or anger toward the organisation called the church of jesus christ of latter day saints. I just know more about them than most. And with that knowledge, I chose not to be a member any more.

What I learned in back rooms and in private discussions would make for a few good books - but I expect that their are others who will say it all.

As an example - for all you Mormons out there - the special sacred name that you received in the temple - which you are not to divulge to anyone - upon pain of the punishments declared in these proceedings this day - is the same as everyone else that day. Hmmmm... not to hard to figure out why they don't want you to divulge your name. It isn't so ispirational when you know the inner workings.

Why did I join - I felt I needed the feeling of family at the time. Why did I leave? I learned to ask questions and not settle for trite answers. I began to think for my self.

Now years later, I have also come to the conclusion that there is no basis for religion beyond the neediness that people have for someone somewhere to tell them that they are OK and loved.

I find that solice within - I don't need a fairy tale or blind faith or someone else's idea to tell me I am OK.

YankinOz, I could write a few other things too. I have other 'insider' information the Mormon public might not like but it's interesting. However, I'm afraid 1GM is not the forum.

I could curl your toes in your boots with telling some things I have witnessed and know about the LDS Church.

Should I start with the Osmonds?

"Nooooooooo!" ((I can hear you scream!))

"Gay-rights advocates and even some residents are scolding city leaders"

Whoah! Hey, there's room for concern - gay-'rights' advocates are upset! Time to stop everything and make 'em happy.

Marriage is not a 'gay right'. It is the right of a man and a woman, and if you want to change that ... you need to convince the people. But, of course, those who are for it don't care about government, law, social responsibility ... they just want what they want, when they want it.

And any 'discussion' of the matter is a complete sham. Take for example the ridiculous Larry King show where they 'discussed' the gay cowboy movie. The pro-gay-marriage people? Two cleaned-up, well-spoken, normal-looking guys. The people against it? A priest and a religious conservative talk-show host. Because everyone knows that you can't be against 'gay marriage' (whatever that is) unless you're a conservative and/or religious. And being against it is just wrong! You don't have the right to an opinion ... or, at least, the wrong opinion.

cowboy... one of the Osmond brothers was a roommate while I was at the "Y" - not sure if you could curl my toes but it might be fun to compare notes. :)

When I was in Italy one time - I had some interesting conversations with Marie - she was there playing on the Love Boat. We were in the same hotel and when I told her that her brother and I were roomies - it was like old home week.

Suffice it to say - I am sure you have the latest scoop. Would love to know more.

Cheers

Joe said: "Marriage is not a 'gay right'. It is the right of a man and a woman, and if you want to change that ... you need to convince the people.

Sounds a little like:
Slavery is not a 'blacks right'. It is the right of a man to have slaves, and if you want to change that ... you need to convince the people.

The gay guy should have the same civil rights as the next guy. There should be no difference in benefits what a gay couple should have than the married guy sitting in the next cubicle. They both have pictures of their significant other on their desks. There should not be any difference in how they are treated by their company, their family and their government. Hence: it's a civil right and it should not be left as a matter of someone's opinion.

I'll be happy when the enequity is fixed. Not because you feel "icky" about it.

"inequity" I meant. (too fast for my brain to catch what my fingers did on the keyboard.)

Yank-In-Downunder, Cheers! YES! Make mine a mormon mimosa! (Orange juice and Sprite)

I don’t drink…I haven’t graduated to adult drinks yet. It’s an acquired taste, right? It’s not that I haven’t had a swig of champagne at the stroke of midnight on certain nights. I’m able to drink a fair amount of the bubbly on some of my plane trips. I hesitate to admit I have been drunk a couple of times because one time I was innocently served a long-island tea at a restaurant in Atlanta (Cowtippers) and the other was on a dare while attending a rodeo in Las Vegas. (And that episode STAYS in Las Vegas.)

You might understand I still have a hard time with leaving some of the vestiges of Mormonism behind.

As for an Osmond story:

You know what a PSA is? Public Service Announcements. Do they have them in Oz ? Anyway, there was one on my local TV recently and it featured a portion of the Osmond clan. Two Osmonds were using the PSA to voice their angst about anti-marriage stuff…which is really an anti-civil-rights-for-gays message. Their PSA message hit me right in the gut. Really. There, on TV, was someone I knew… and they know me… and suddenly I was a threat to them (and their holy sealing.) What had I done? What changed between us?

I’m not sure I need friends like them anymore.

"Sounds a little like"

Yes, it also sounds like "child rape is not a human right".

See, the thing is that just because two statements sound similar, doesn't mean they are the same argument. Which is why debates are usually more complex than someone just saying "Oooh! Hitler said something like that ... thus you are Hitler! I win!"

When arguing a point, one has to examine the reasoning and rationale (or lack thereof) behind the position, not what the statements 'sound like'. The 'sounds like' argument is just juvenile bickering.

"The gay guy should have the same civil rights as the next guy."

Hardly. The gay guy is a deviant, engaging in a deviant sexual practice. The gay guy is attempting to change the meaning of marriage to force society to accept his deviant practice. Doing so is only harmful to society, not helpful.

Oh, and by the way - marriage is not a 'civil right' which anyone can claim. It is an institution for which you qualify by meeting certain rules and regulations, such as age and - shock! - gender.

And your heartwarming little story about the cubicle also applies to those who engage in polygamy, bestiality, and child molestation. The only difference is that you have been brainwashed by society into accepting the 'gay fad'.

"I'll be happy when the enequity is fixed."

There is no inequity, any more than it is inequitable that a woman can't play on a man's sports team, or vice versa. The rules are the rules. Just because someone is excluded by the rules does not make it unfair.

Comparing homosexuality to child molestation and bestiality demonstrates just how disingenous your comments are. What gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms causes no harm to society. Actually, the manner in which you respond to people is deviant. Your comments are always meant to provoke and are always sarcastic, never thoughtful. You said, "When arguing a point, one has to examine the reasoning and rationale (or lack thereof) behind the position,"... yes, perhaps you should apply this to yourself. The rationale for what you say appears to based on hate.. you come across as hating gays, hating liberals and hating women. You are not a rational thinker. Instead you are a flammer who enjoys provoking people. You have a knack for lowering the intellectual level of the conversation.

Jo Ann, I never realized it. But you're right. It's irrational hate. He sarcastically thinks my cubile comparison is heartwarming. It glaringly shows his disengenuity. Then, when he personalized it by castigating all gays as deviants it took me aback. If I might follow his logical conclusion he must think gays should live asexual, loveless lives. How could you hate some people that much to wish that on them?

I'm curious as to the cause of his hostility. My mind speculates but I won't venture any possibilities about Joe.

Maybe Joe is what you call a flammer. I'm beginning to understand what that means. I can deal with that. So, is his hatred genuine?

I cringe each time I hear my Senator (blessed Orrin) and men/women in powerful political/church/civic positions say: "We don't hate gays. We aren't discriminating." But, in fact, that's just exactly what they're doing. It's so blatant you don't have to wonder why gays are tired of this rhetoric. Gays are finding the nerve to fight back.

I just want to make it clear. I'm just as natural as the next guy. Being heterosexual and being married doesn't make you any better person/parent than me.

YankinOz, I just read your post in the other thread. Thanks. I needed to hear yours and Jo Ann's take on Joe.

Thanks so much.

"Comparing homosexuality to child molestation and bestiality demonstrates just how disingenous your comments are."

Actually, the comparison is quite on point: all of the mentioned subjects are examples of sexual deviance. There is a reason that homosexuality was considered a mental disease until 1973, at which point it was only dropped from the roster due to political pressure (certainly no scientific evidence or study proved it to be otherwise ... in fact, nobody even knows for sure what causes homosexuality).

And for you to call one type of comparison 'disingenuous', yet to allow someone furthering your own stance to compare disallowance of gay marriage to slavery or racism - that's just ridiculous. It is indicative of the level of emotion present in your idiotic position that you cannot see this yourself.

"you come across as hating gays, hating liberals and hating women"

Interesting that you at least qualified that with 'come across', because this is, indeed, a subjective evaluation. Not that I'm surprised - your type always attempt to dismiss any criticism as hate. It's just like the angle the Republicans take, where if you speak out against the administration you are 'providing aid and comfort to the enemy', or are 'un-patriotic'. It's blatant misrepresentation of what I am saying.

One does not need to hate gays to be against gay marriage, any more than one needs to hate men to be against their working at Hooters. There is a very basic principle here - the institution is defined and accepted, and someone wants to change it. The only reason you misrepresent the issue is because you know you cannot win the argument otherwise. So you paint anyone who disagrees with you as a 'homophobe', anyone who disagrees with the negative effects of feminism as 'misogynous', and anyone who points out the rampant idiocy in the liberal camp as a 'liberal hater'. It certainly can't be that anyone, regardless of their sex, sexual deviance, or political alliance, is just as capable as the next guy of just being plain wrong. Of course not. Anyone who agrees with you is right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and full of hate. How mature.

"I'm curious as to the cause of his hostility. My mind speculates"

Boy, speaking of juvenile. Thank you for covering the second tactic of your gay-loving position: if outright name-calling and pigeonholing doesn't work, insinuate winkingly that the person debating you is a closet homosexual. What else - do I have cooties, too?

"Being heterosexual and being married doesn't make you any better person/parent than me."

Of course it does. Objectively so. Children need male and female role models to correctly mature. A set of gay parents cannot possibly provide that, plus they expose the children to a deviant lifestyle which will possibly warp the child. Ignoring this is the same PC crap that got us pretending that single mothers can raise a child with no repercussions, and the current epidemic of fatherless children who are unable to find their own way in the world.

Joe, that was not one of the speculations I had in mind. It has to be something else. YOU came up with that pigeonholing.

And I say: bunk about children needing only heterosexual role models to be good parents. And exposing children to gay lifestyle is not going to rub off on the kid and make him/her gay. I have numerous gay couples who make excellent family units and produce wonderful, mature-thinking children.

What kind of friends to you associate with? Are any gay? If so, if they knew what you feel (as you have typed here) I'm not so sure they would stay your friend.

"Joe, that was not one of the speculations I had in mind."

Tactic number 3, right on cue: when caught, coyly pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about. I could write both sides of this conversation.

"And I say: bunk about children needing only heterosexual role models to be good parents. And exposing children to gay lifestyle is not going to rub off on the kid and make him/her gay."

You say bunk, so that makes it okay? There is absolutely no scientific data to back up your position whatsoever; however there is significant scientific data to back up mine - in particular the fact that children that grow up in fatherless/motherless homes are significantly more likely to have problematic childhoods and difficulty in their adult lives. This is completely ignoring the problems raised by exposing children to deviant sexual practices, and just looking at the same-sex problem by itself.

"I have numerous gay couples who make excellent family units and produce wonderful, mature-thinking children."

Personal experience is a horrible basis for drawing a conclusion. And, in any case, a subjective opinion rarely reflects the truth. There are documented cases of alcoholic parents raising well-adjusted children; victims of child abuse who do not become child abusers. Should we do away with all laws that protect children from such parents because somebody somewhere knows a family where it all worked out - as best as they can tell? There is a saying that applies here: the exception proves the rule.

"What kind of friends to you associate with? Are any gay? If so, if they knew what you feel (as you have typed here) I'm not so sure they would stay your friend."

You are engaging in stereotyping. I've had friends and co-workers who are gay, and many straight friends who don't see gay marriage as an issue - some refuse to discuss it, some disagree politely. But that isn't the point. I'm not debating the right to be gay (nothing I can do about that), or anything of the type. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how deviant the practice may be, they are right in that the practice itself involves two consenting adults. So the behavior in which they engage in their own private lives isn't an issue.

But trying to change social practices to shoehorn their lifestyle in as some valid, acceptable, and most of all sustainable practice is just asinine. I don't expect that most gay people would see it that way, although some gay people have said that they don't think 'gay marriage' is a necessity. In fact many people who argue for gay marriage really want increased rights for 'partners', such as hospital visitation - which are completely separate issues from marriage as an institution. But people who want something are usually incapable of being objective about it.

The fact of the matter is that there are serious concerns about 'gay marriage', and gay couples raising children. We just refuse to look at these issues out of fear of being non-PC, of possibly offending someone by - horror! - passing judgment on the way they conduct their lives.

People always try to dismiss this whole concept with a statement like 'what they do behind closed doors is none of your business.' But that's just the point: this isn't behind closed doors any more than the debauchery called a 'gay pride parade' is. This is entirely about the gay community putting the matter front and center, and trying to change social practice.

Now, it may well be that the majority of the people will decide that they want this level of acceptance of homosexuality, and if that happens then democracy has spoken and nothing can be done. But until that day I will continue to resist this change because I am against it, and as a member of a free society I have just as much rights as you do to have an opinion.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the facts point to some serious concerns. And that people would ignore those concerns to feel good about themselves for being 'open-minded' and 'accepting' ... that's insane.

Joe, you said: I "coyly pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about".

Honestly, I never considered you could even remotely be a closet gay. I was thinking more in the lines of you had a bad experience with someone gay or you had a Rev. Phelps-like Father. I was truly curious.

I shouldn't have posed the question. I should have considered it would not be fair for you to give me an unbias psychoanalysis of yourself. Sorry.

You said: "So the behavior in which they engage in their own private lives isn't an issue."

Are you okay with two men living together? You made it clear that it should be No kids allowed but you're okay with two men living as a family unit?

And I don't think gay pride parades are all, completely, totally about political activism. It's a big part maybe but somehow a parade is necessary in some cultures. It's like the St. Patricks parade...they're showing a little pride they are Irish. The Mormons have their Pioneer Day parade but in reality it is a show of all their accomplishments (pride).

Personally, I just don't understand the whole concept of parades anyway.

I still, humbly, insist a homosexual is just as good as his heterosexual counterpart.

Lets see Joe, in the list of problems in the world (global warming, pollution, wars & rape used in war as a tactic...) you siad 'NO! the most important thing to get agitated about is a belief that 2 same-sex people having sex is 'deviancy"

Thank you for showing me the results of your self-inquiry. You've thought long & hard about this, with your conclusion being the end point of a massive dissertation, to which you wish to enlighten the world about! Wow!

I mean, this stuff matters!!!!! Thank you Joe, oh thank you, everything is in perspective now.

But you will be glad to know that my not-giving-a-stuff about gay parades, and loving the colour & unrepressed sexuality that flourishes out, gets people like you really really angry. Crikey! What a wonderful thing to stew on & flame about. Such inspiration! Memo to self: take a leaf out of Joes book - flame away endlessly as a agitational tactic to change the world. Yes.

You will be thrilled to know Joe, that I do art work which I take ridiculous statements like "Marriage is not a 'gay right'. It is the right of a man and a woman" (shivers up my spine, I am profoundly changed by this single line!) and who can go past the stagnatory-angst ridden statement such as "Children need male and female role models to correctly mature. A set of gay parents cannot possibly provide that".. and I put it up against another picture to make blatent statements like these (that are covers for something else you are not talking about...) to show themselves for what they are.

Joe, these innately superior statements are YOURS for as long as you see them as important in your life.

Yes, its time to own them Joe!

But alas, you may decide one day that these statements are as unimaginate, condemnatory against people you dont know personally, uninspired and unoriginal as anything a militia could claim (I doubt you can claim copyright on your lines, but try, I've never seen them before).. then chuck them away and come up with something of your own.

Good luck on coming to terms with acceptance of others. Coz thats what really going on between your lines. Just dont tell me who taught you all you know about gays.

Checkmate. Oh yeah, good luck in convincing others that this isnt the case.

What is deviant is that which is defined by the society. So by that defintion, Homosexuals are deviant. Should the majority decide to accept homosexuals, then they would not be defined as deviant. Child molestors are deviants, but criminal deviants. Homosexuals are not criminals and do not harm others, so comparing them to child molestors is a clear indication of the disingenous spirit of what you say. This type of comparison is meant to provoke, not to further the dialogue. The comparison with slaves is reasonable, because blacks were discriminated against because of the nature of who they are, just as homosexuals are discriminated against because of who they are. When cowboy used the comparison to slaves, it is because he can relate to being discriminated against, and did not choose the comparison in order to shock. Your comparison was inflammatory. You accuse Cowboy of being coy. "Tactic number 3, right on cue: when caught, coyly pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about. I could write both sides of this conversation." This is precisely what you are doing; you know full well that your comparison was inflammatory and now you are acting coy.

You said, "It is indicative of the level of emotion present in your idiotic position that you cannot see this yourself." (Here, your use of the word "idiotic" displays that it is you who is the one being emotional.. that's called projection"

Then you said, "Anyone who agrees with you is right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and full of hate. How mature."

Can you see the hypocrisy of these two comments? Because I don't agree with you, your refer to "my type" and my position as being idiotic. How mature.

You also said, "if outright name-calling and pigeonholing doesn't work.."

Then you go on to use words/phrases such as your idiotic position Not that I'm surprised - your type always... Boy, speaking of juvenile. What else - do I have cooties, too?

The hypocrisy, and as Yank said, pot and kettle aspect of your irrational thought process is all too obvious.

There is little to backup your myriad unsubstantiated claims. In fact there is abundant evidence to the contrary. I would ask what your sources are for this information, but when people ask you this question you always tell them to look it up themselves. And when others present evidence to the contrary, you do not respond.

"Are you okay with two men living together?"

Not only is this not the issue, it is entirely irrelevant. The whole point is that two men living together is none of my concern. It's the decision of those two men, or women, or what have you.

What they call it isn't important to me either. But unfortunately what we're debating is not what they call it. The issue is, now, asking society to recognize their union as a valid couple - to equate a gay couple with a married, heterosexual couple. Further, it is asking us to pretend that this couple is 'just as good' as a hetero couple for raising children. I think - and as I said, there is a lot of valid data to support this - that this is a mistake.

I think it's important not to get lost in the side issues. There are many of them, such as a member of a gay relationship not being able to visit their 'partner' in the hospital, property rights, etc ... but it's also important to note that these same problems face unmarried hetero couples and really aren't relevant to the issue.

"And I don't think gay pride parades are all, completely, totally about political activism."

The reason I brought up the 'gay pride parade' issue is because it is an example of what happens when you make being gay the issue.

As I said before, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that you have the right to behave as you want behind closed doors. Originally this was the goal, wasn't it? Tolerance. But even when we got that far, it wasn't good enough for very long. Now we want everyone to not only be tolerant, we want to force complete acceptance of people who identify themselves primarily by their deviance as equals with everyone else. Even when we know there are very real concerns with such acceptance.

When you set yourself at odds with the norms of society you cannot logically expect society to bend over backwards to accomodate you.

"I still, humbly, insist a homosexual is just as good as his heterosexual counterpart."

I don't think a value judgment of that type is even necessary. It's not about how you choose to live; it's about what you expect and demand to accomodate that lifestyle. Two guys living together may be quite happy. That's their business. But do you really think that it makes sense to throw it in everyone's face and insist that people call them 'married'? Or to put a child into that scenario?

The argument for gay marriage is simply nonsensical. The rules don't allow it! Getting mad about it and crying 'discrimination' is like a Jew getting mad that he can't be a Christian without changing his beliefs. The club has rules. Don't like the club? Make one of your own.

"What is deviant is that which is defined by the society."

What is funny is that you don't realize that this, in fact, undermines your position.

If society tomorrow said that child rape was okay, and not deviant, would you be willing to accept that decision? Guess what - there are societies in the modern world that do say this is okay. In this country we consider it deviant and abhorrent. I don't hear anybody complaining or whining that we need to 'accept' these people for their differences.

The same applies to countless other examples of deviance, be it polygamy, bestiality, or what have you. Your argument is circular and nonsensical: you think social acceptance validates a concept. But it doesn't. It just makes it accepted.

"The comparison with slaves is reasonable, because blacks were discriminated against because of the nature of who they are"

Hardly. If you fail to see why, let me spell it out for you: cows are discriminated against because of the nature of 'who they are'. They're animals. So we enslave and eat them.

Just because you can apply a blanket argument to the situation you are arguing does not mean that the argument is reasonable or valid. There is a difference between race and sexual preference - a difference that makes the two non-analogous. Your type only use the analogy to lend emotional weight to your position. Because, again, you lose the argument on fact and it is your only recourse (that and calling everyone a 'homophobe').

"There is little to backup your myriad unsubstantiated claims."

Really? You should do more research. Among thousands of other studies, there is currently a special running on PBS called 'Raising Cain' which is a documentary about boys being raised in a fatherless society. It examines the damage that is done to adolescent boys when they have no male role model (and, interestingly, the damage that an over-feminized society has on young boys ... but that's just my woman-hating side talking, right?)

Similar studies have been done regarding the lack of a female role model. It is accepted among child psychologists that the best environment for a developing child is a stable family (a family in the traditional sense - a father and a mother).

For years we have had PC people screaming and yelling that the facts are sexist; that it is sexist to claim that a single mother cannot adequately provide for her child's developmental needs; that a gay couple cannot raise a child correctly; etc. But these are emotional arguments which completely ignore all of the facts on record.

"In fact there is abundant evidence to the contrary."

Really? You claim that I provide no sources; the opposite is plainly the case (I always cite at least one source when discussing facts). You, however, simply assert that there is 'abundant evidence to the contrary' - which is ridiculous, since it hasn't even been long enough that gay couples have been allowed to adopt children - and you then provide no evidence whatsoever. Why? Because all you have is an emotional argument, an "I'm okay, you're okay" sing-song dialect of unconditional acceptance and permisiveness.

Your attitude is the destructive one, not mine. You are so anxious to be admired for your 'tolerance' that you don't care about the real effect of the causes you cheerlead. Other, of course, than making you look like a darn nice person.

With all nastiness aside, joe, your argument against gay marriage comes down to idealism. It seems you think that marriage is an ideal when, in truth, it is a practical solution for two people that more often than not, dissolves in a modern context. And very seldom to we chance upon the perfect marriage or a perfect fit...kind of feels subjective to me. But you want your kids to have the perfect upbringing?! Give them to god, joe. Us humans just got out of the jungles. What right do we have to state perfect ideals?

Take for instance, having a full quiver of kids in the big city. I don't think you would like that kind of big city. Having a full quiver of kids on a farm might work better...or in sparse Utah. But we don't have a world of all farms or all cities. The ideal varies upon the location and intent of a couple--not on joeblow's subjective ideal for society or it's family unit.

It's all very fine for you to say that a male and female role model is ideal and therefore society shall only make allowances for marriage between a man and woman. But then it follows that we need to allow only rich man and woman the right of marriage as they can ideally provide the best environment for raising children.

It's better to think of marriage as a union of two people destined for many reconciliations rather than an adherence to subjective notion of just what may lead to the PERFECT union. Get married in a church if you believe in god. It gets really silly to put down all the arguments on what constitutes societal ideals. It's almost as ridicules to get a bunch of folks together to say what constitutes a perfect relationship with a christian god. A divergent god will rear it's ugly head. No, Society compromises.

Marriage is probably many reconciliation based on compromise and fucking hardwork--and not ideal to every heterorsexual or homosexual or as you say, what have you.

I think you are talking about deviance from the ideal. And the truth is that many other needs outweigh the need of male and female role models. In fact, I suspect that two gay men raising an adopted baby girl will develop/display motherly instincts. It's likely that there will be a delineation of father and mother rolemodels depending on who provides and who attends. And to say that the baby girl will not find herself in the Sisters and cousins and Aunts is bald-faced denial or human capacity to understand. You might dismiss this as personal experience or conjecture, but the logic is there. It's in the adaptation of what works best for all involved--not a narrow perspective.

I think maybe you were raised in a rural area and cheerlead from the old boys bleachers. Afterall, Gays thrive in cities and populated areas. I think you will find that the majority of gays do not want to get involved in the child raising business. And so I think you might be splitting hairs on the ideal. Think about it, who wants to go through the process of adoption and all the other torturous processes of having kids without sex--use your head, man. Anyone able to make a family through adoption is ideally qualified--look into the process, big guy! And finally, there is more than one way to procreate; it's okay for you to have an opinion. And I decided to take you seriously on the basis of well expressed thoughts. But I sense a misconception in you clubhouse.

"It's all very fine for you to say that a male and female role model is ideal and therefore society shall only make allowances for marriage between a man and woman. But then it follows that we need to allow only rich man and woman the right of marriage as they can ideally provide the best environment for raising children."

This is simply false. It has never been shown that rich families provide a better environment for their children - in fact, it has frequently been illustrated that children who grow up in poorer countries with stronger family bonds are more well-adjusted than children who grow up with the proverbial silver spoon.

Obviously one can take the concept of an ideal too far - we could require mental exams before allowing parenthood, limit the number of children a person could have, etc. But there are also reasonable expectations. And I don't think it unreasonable to expect that marriage stay defined as it is, and that children be placed in a reasonably supportive and nurturing developmental environment.

"It's in the adaptation of what works best for all involved--not a narrow perspective."

But that's not the case; the concern among the 'gay marriage' camp is not 'what works best for all involved'. It's what works best for them. If it can be scientifically proven that a child will be better-adjusted by having a mother and a father (and it has), then allowing gay couples to adopt children obviously isn't best for 'all involved'. Even gay marriage itself isn't a concern for the greater good. It's the desire of a certain, vocal special interest group entirely for their own benefit.

I will agree that we are talking about a staggering number of issues under the heading of 'gay marriage', not the least of which is the fact that we have tons of children in the system with no parents to take care of them. When presented with that scenario, one might think it better that gay couples be allowed to give a home to some of these children, rather than have them raised by the state. However I suggest that the facts as we understand them suggest that this 'solution' is itself a problematic one. And we are forbidden to look at the problems that arise by PC notions and the constant haranguing of the pro-gay 'rights' lobby.

"I think maybe you were raised in a rural area"

I don't understand why it is necessary for people to speculate as to my upbringing, political alignment, possible religion, etc, in order to have a conversation. Where I was raised is not the issue; what is the issue is that we know that children raised by both a mother and a father in a stable family have the greatest chance of maturing as well-adjusted citizens. If I came from a single-parent home, an abusive home, an orphanage ... all of that would be subjective and meaningless. The facts are the facts.

"But I sense a misconception in you clubhouse."

Well through the course of the discussion a lot of things got lumped together. The thread that ties it all together, for me, is the old adage of "give an inch and they'll take a yard".

It may well be the case that the majority of gay couples don't care about raising a family; but gay activists do care about this issue. It may be the case that most gay people don't care about 'gay marriage' (as is evidenced by the complete lack of a 'rush to the altar'); but gay activists do care about this issue.

The problem with activism is that it quickly becomes an entity of its own, concerned with its own ends and ideals. And it takes constant vigilance against these lobbies and special interest groups, because if you don't watch out they're going to trash everything to get their over-politicized, extremist way.

So, Joe, all personal grievances aside - I know how much you respect everyone's position her at 1GM and most especially mine but when someone calls you a "cock$ucker" is that because they think you are gay or is it because you are just an a$$hole?

You sure have a lot of energy on homosexuality. Is this from a religious upbringing or some personal bad experience or is it that you just love to bash everyone and that unless someone acquiesces completely to your personal agenda then you need to denigrate and castigate everything they say. Most especially by quoting their responses to you (as if no one could read the previous post - it's like Dubya teachin' everyone about "diplomacy" - ya know) and then siteing your own brand of information - rarely, if ever backed up by facts - because when you do - they are almost immediately proven to be outdated or misquoted or just plan O'Reilleyed (you know 60% - or more - "just plain crap").

Now, don't go off on a tizzy and start whimpering and stamping your little feet. You have denigrated everyone you can in these threads and your true colours are coming out (doh)... You really don't care to have discussions - what you prefer to do is find someone to really rip and find the most minute of errors (like - "American's") to begin your attack. What was it that your Jesus Christ said? Something about, "And in those days you will know those who oppose me for they are offended at a word" - Hmmm - pots and kettles, mate.

You so vociferously complain about homosexuals and how they live and if they have children and the bad influence that same sex realtionships have on children can you explain to me why there is so much dysfunction in American heterosexual families if all that makes a good home is a "mom and a dad"? Oh, and by the way, can you support it with third party unbiased non-agenda based facts? I mean real ones - not some of your Pat Robertson "God will punish you for that - that is why you have pimples because God is pissed" kind of facts.

You are right about one thing though - your statement about give an inch and they will take a yard - the neocons that were given the presidency by corruption of the tenets of the constitution were given an inch and they not only took a yard - they have taken every mile they can and for the most part - they are determined to destroy any all freedoms that the Bill Of Rights provides for Americnas.

And before you know it, Joe, they will know all of your Google's - those gay p0rn ones, too.

Oh, yeah, and just because someone doesn't buy into your rhetoric and conservative clap trap talk doen't mean that they are a liberal - it may mean that they are just plain clear thinking and can make choices without a specific political or religious agenda.

What is activism to you? Any opinion that does not support your agenda? The actual definition is: "the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change." No where in that simple definition it mention that it about people not supporting "Joe's" agenda.

If I were active in my views about the decimation of infants and children in prostituted and ignored countries (which you may so easily call Third World countries because it displaces them from your conscious to have them on some other world) and I demanded that we stop spending Billions upon Billions of dollars on kiling people and insisted that the money of the warmongers be spent less on profiteering and more on aiding starving and dying men, women and children all over the world would my activism be construed to possibly create a climate wherein I might "trash everything to get my over-politicized way?"

BTW, actually gay activism is fairly peace based - as opposed to gay bashing which is fairly violence based - even in the rheoteric. Nes pas?

Deary me Mr Joe What a piddle puddle you have dug yourself into Which is a beautiful thing Coz you can own it all

Now Mr J, you have been checkmated, and still you are carrying on the game...I mean, rivetting intellectual discussion. I mean, really, that was the end of it, but you continued

Now, lets just say hypothetically that YOU ARE a flamer. Given that most flamers rely on expected reaction - like say, horror at a comment they see as repugnant - and screech & go nuts - thus giving the flamer a good bellylaugh & a point at the 'numbskull' activist who is too emotional & reactionary ... doesnt seem to work on this site.

Sure, people will debate you, but personally, your comments like "But do you really think that it makes sense to throw it in everyone's face and insist that people call them 'married'? Or to put a child into that scenario?" are silly, and being the artist I am, I see it as a resource. So I dont really react, but chuckle & shake my head. Not really the perfect result flamers want as I dont take you seriously.

So, the more you make comments as above, the more I will be right behind you, using the weapon flamers have no defense to...

WIT!

British Comedy style

Because, you have the comments you made all to yourself. They are yours. You can do whatever you want with them. Yours to keep forever.

You can even have your attitude & views up to the time you get shunted into a nursing home by your hetero/bi/homosexual family members. 24/7 you can passionately put to all the other powerful members of the nursing home, your eloquent views. Boy, will you be a magnet for deep discussion about life.

Remember, your dedication to the anti-gay marriage cause must not be diluted in the face of less concerning issues such as Global Warming ("we're all farked") to Deforestation to Homelessness to halting Nuclear War.

Remember, I'll only comment on you when I see a statement such as these made: "Marriage is not a 'gay right'. It is the right of a man and a woman, and if you want to change that ... you need to convince the people" (gold!) "The gay guy is a deviant, engaging in a deviant sexual practice. The gay guy is attempting to change the meaning of marriage to force society to accept his deviant practice. Doing so is only harmful to society, not helpful." (champaigne comedy!) "But until that day I will continue to resist this change because I am against it" (go joe! go yayyyyyyy)

Keep them coming! Eric

"You sure have a lot of energy on homosexuality"

Well, for this particular comment page, it is the topic.

"why there is so much dysfunction in American heterosexual families if all that makes a good home is a 'mom and a dad'?"

For your edification, this type of statement is called 'reductio ad absurdum'. It is a tautology, arrived at by taking a principle which one cannot disprove and reducing it to an absurd basis. An example: "You say 'freedom' is the basis of democracy? What about those who choose to be free from democracy?? CHECKMATE!"

Obviously your statement is ridiculous. Would you assert that just because brakes sometimes fail, no cars should be equipped with brakes? The point is not that a mother/father union always works; the point is that it is the best of the available solutions; that the basis is sound.

This is yet another in your long list of juvenile tactics. You really are quite a fun individual.

"The neocons that were given the presidency by corruption of the tenets of the constitution "

Really? Now here I was thinking that they just won an election. Really, you have to decide which far-fetched left-wing exremist vitriol you're going to shout from the rooftops: did the Republicans win by election (backing your common claim that all Americans - except you and those who think like you - are stupid), or did they steal their power (backing your paranoid delusions of secret conspiracies and backroom deals)?

"Oh, yeah, and just because someone doesn't buy into your rhetoric and conservative clap trap talk doen't mean that they are a liberal"

On the other hand, does it not follow that just because someone disagrees with a party-line conclusion of the 'liberal' camp, that they are not necessarily 'conservative', and that they don't necessarily have a 'religious agenda'? To quote the Simpsons, the ironing is delicious.

"If I were [blah blah blah bullshit bullshit etc]"

I really have to ask - is it comforting to you to make these grandiose statements? To equate your inaction to some slow development of a grassroots campaign to somehow change the entire world by doing nothing and constantly bitching? I honestly don't understand people like you; you identify yourself by your desire to change the world entirely, yet lack the conviction or clarity of purpose to define the terms necessary for even the first step to do so. You become so lost in the desire to be a world changer that you forget about actually changing the world. It's really quite puzzling. But I digress.

"BTW, actually gay activism is fairly peace based - as opposed to gay bashing which is fairly violence based - even in the rheoteric. Nes pas?"

I'm sure you meant "n'est-ce pas?" (perhaps you should enroll in one of those 'bilingual Canadian schools' you trumpet). But in any case, the opposite of 'gay activism' is not 'gay bashing'. This is a dishonest tactic that your type frequently use - labeling anyone who is against the gay party line as a 'homophobe', a 'gay hater', a 'gay basher'. It's a dismissal strategy, similar to that used by the current administration ('If you criticize us, you hate America!'). If you can't beat them, defame them.

I will once again note that there is not a single statement in your lunatic diatribe which in any way contradicts or even challenges a single fact I have mentioned in this discussion; just more of your ad hominem attacks and other absurdities.

It has been said that you do not truly know what you believe until you have been challenged in that belief. It is no wonder that you seek shelter amongst like-minded people. Look how you have crumbled at the slightest challenge. You have so rapidly descended into a maelstrom of insanity, paranoia, and delusion ... you don't even have the clarity of purpose to make a declarative statement (other than attempting to insult me) or to argue any issue on facts. Really I feel sad for you. It must be depressing to be so firmly convinced of things you cannot possibly defend, even to yourself. I only hope that you, somehow, find the inner strength to question yourself. For that is the only way that you will find truth.

Youve done it again

Naughty Mr Joe

"not that a mother/father union always works; the point is that it is the best of the available solutions; that the basis is sound" DONT LET GO OF THIS ONE THIS IS GOLD JOE GOLD! Take it to your grave

You keep insisting on saying things like this! Youre incredible dude!

Hey, if I write a book & includes all of these past & present statements, attribute it to you, and include all FUTURE statements that you will write in responses to others. I am thinking of other images that will sit next to them

Let you know Joe about it, I mean, you are the inspiration for weird collage political installation art. I cant NOT tell you.

But thank you Joe, if you wish to keep using unoriginal statements, do it for me. I'm an artist. I NEED material like yours, I cant really do them as well as you. I can try, but its not genuine.

Yours are genuine. Youve thought about this for a long time. I really respect that. Youre really anti-gay marraige, no phoney, this is your ... THING mannnn/dude.

And it means a lot to you. More than global warming!

I know, I empathise. I once got really mad that different looking people walked together in couples. I mean, it used to ruin my day.

I dont want your day ruined, but if it is, write more of these & as an artist, I will poke fun at them using satire, wit & humour.

So pleeeeeeeaaaassseee Joe, keep them coming Looking forward to your next reply Thank you... Eric Sydney

Joe, Joe, Joe... thank you for that heartfelt experssion of personal concern for my mental and emotional state. I feel deeply touched. Wait - wait - I need to wipe a tear. I am feeling so depressed. Just overwrought. Not sure I can cope.

Hold on... this is just too much.

Are you saying that you are truely willing to actually communicate and discuss issues without lashing out at me or Jo Ann or cowboy or eric or anyone else?

Such compassion. Wow! And I thought you were just a piece of merde'. You surprise me. I am so completely underwhelmed.

Wait - wait - let me regain my composure.

Whew! Ok... I am alright. Thank (fill in the blank) I did not have to go to a Canadian health care facility to over come all of this emotion. I would be waiting for weeks on end.

So, now that we can have a serious discussion without attacks, Joe - let's talk about changing the world... OK?

All other topics off the table - since you mentioned that is my hypothetical purpose with no basis...

(Oh by the way - I never said that I studied French in school. (I knew you would find a way to correct me) - but I do speak Russian, German, a little French, studied Latin and Spanish in school - have learned enough Japanese, Chinese and Korean to get my butt kicked in three languages and I have been taught some Apache by the great grandson of Geronimo) but I never said I was a fluent French speaker. And yes, you are right - there is a difference between being required to be bi-lingual and being required to study it in school. You are so so right. You have such a need to be so so right. Doncha, little fella.

I notice you failed to clarify just how much more active politically 'Mericans are than Canadians and Australians - who by the way are REQUIRED to vote in all Federal elections or they are fined, so they have a pretty big voter turn out - (but I am sure you knew that - it just slipped your mind)...

So - on to changing the world - since 1976, I have contributed a sizeable portion of my personal income and my companies' net income (that's after tax dollars - just so you know) (I own the company, you see) to various projects around the world - devoid of political, religious or personal economic gain agendas. We have made these contributions quietly, without fanfare and with no hidden agenda for any return. We have asked that those who benefit from the programme turn around and help others accomplish their ambitions.

Of late, we have established additional programmes in various countries that will allow young people to develop their ideas, help them patent these ideas and through people we know in varioius industries, get their project to the market. With no co-ownership of the patents, proportion of the royalty streams and no paybacks - just pay it forward. So, what have you done to change your world?

Yes, this "little man" has done more than you can even comprehend in regards to making a few changes.

Since we are on such friendly terms now, a couple other thoughts:

Based upon your response - needing to beg in Mexico for food because no one would exchange your Canadian money - have you considered the possiblity that it may have not been your money they didn't like? Just a friendly thought. And yes, I have been to Mexico, Honduras, Belize and El Salvador with - shock of shocks - no US dollars - with only Canadian money and had absolutely no problems exchanging it. EVER.

Now to be fair - once in Honolulu (which, in case you weren't sure, is partially part of the US - the locals feel their monarchy was overthrown by a bunch of sugar cane and pineapple farmers - but I regress) upon return from Khavarosk in eastern Russia, I did have trouble exchanging Russian Rubles but never Canadian money. After going to the main branch of The Bank of Honolulu, the rubles were exchanged. It did take a week but I did have other money with me, so I only had to beg for parking money.

Now let's address some of the things you have said - actually the thread is about what a room full of people have tried to push on a state full of of people who all do not agree - in this case that the "natural family" is a man and woman - who provide the best basis for the rearing of children - since it is the "natural" way. It is not about homosexuality and your homophobic feelings. No matter how much you need to make it about yourself. It is not all "IMEMEI" now, little fella.

Hmmm... well, yes, it is natural to have a man and a woman involved in producing a child but that doesn't make them parents - qualified to raise a child. It makes them able to produce a child.

To refresh your memory: One is the sperm doner - the man - and one supplies the egg and the growth medium - the womb - the woman. It is a good way to do it. BUT how about people who are sterile? No kiddos for them. We could just make sure that only men and women who have previously had children are allowed to adopt. That would solve qualifications and being fit to raise a child. Don't you agree? In fact, a law could be passed that only man and woman who have previously had children should be able to have children. That would solve all sorts of problems.

What does it take to be a parent? Not fully sure. I have seen some good ones and some terrible ones - right there in good ole Utah. I have seen "loving parents of the male and female gender - one each" - smack their child so hard in a grocer in Provo that the child was knocked unconscious. Boy, if that isn't a loving example of how to parent nothing is.

I have friends who are not married who have children - male and female, I have friends who are single parents, I have friends who are gay parents because they realized that the man/woman thing wasn't working and there were children and their former spouse left the child with them. All of these people are kind, caring and responsible parents. Naturally.

I also notice that you like to define terms but rarely answer questions that are presented to you. You would rather just stir the pot.

What is the opposite of gay activism? And how do you define your particular brand of prejudice?

"I have crumbled" - you have no idea to who you are talking.

What I still find interesting is that if you are so opposed to this website, why are you constantly trolling it to find your next basis to create an argument? And how can you change sides so easily - I refer to your accusations of liberalism and yet you address the need to support Hillary Clinton for Pres and that the Republicans need to be kicked out of the White House.

Strange. Oh, and all I am doing in that last comment is repeating what you said - not exactly - but close enough for you and others to know that you are a real piece of work. You know, your hero Dubya used that phrase during a public speech about a world leader...

How can I address the facts of your litany when they are your own. How am I to disagree with "your" facts.

You know, Joe. I concede. You are right. You win. Pin the medal on your chest. You are the victor. You are the big guy. You have the bigger brain. You must have an enormous IQ and EQ and EGO.

There IS an unseen whispy heavily bearded guy somewhere far far away who is personally interested in how I live and he is so upset that I have not joined one of over 13,000 various religions and sects and cults - and that I have not joined all of them - that he is really pissed and he sent you to me to be my hell on earth.

You are so so right. Because, IMOH,the most important thing in your life is that two women or men not raise a child. By your own statements, you feel that this is the most important issue on the planet. I mean it doesn't matter that there are millions of people dying all over the world from starvation and that one half of what has been spent SO FAR on the trumpted up Iraqi war (yes, that is my personal opinion) could actually bring all - read that bit again - ALL destitute, disadvantaged and prostituted countries out of poverty and into a life that allows these people to live lives of dignity and honour.

You mentioned begging for food in Mexico - how much weight did you loose. How long did you have malnutrition dirrhea? Did you have marasmus? Did your vision and hearing suffer from you long time without food? How many garbage cans did you search for breakfast, lunch and dinner? Did you find the food that dogs were eating and beat them for it so you could go on living just one more day?

And when you got back home to Canada - (since all you had was Canadian money, I figure you must be Canadian because why would you only have Canadian money if you are a proud 'Merican?) - did you make an all out effort to help people in your community to not have to go through what you experienced? Did you even go work on a food drive for a local Salvation Army or other charitable organisation? Did you make arrangements for a public service announcement warning others of the danger of travelling to Mexico with only Canadain currency in their pocket?

Health problems in Canada - you know, when I lived in Vancouver BC - just two years ago (that is part of Canada, the last I heard) - I never had a problem seeing a physician - EVER. And emergency services were readily available - 24/7. Period. But as you siad that is only a personal experience. Not a actual factual quote from the Toronto Sun. So, it doesn't count.

And since you speak French: Vous êtes un homme/garçon très peu sûrs qui ne sait pas de ce qu'il parle. Vous pouvez vouloir prendre des leçons de personnalité de sorte que vous ne soyez pas comparé à la merde toute l'heure.

You know, Joe, you are a bit of an entertainment phenomenon here on 1gm. I know I can speak for many of the poeple here that the site just wouldn't be the same without your brand of personal diplomacy - "you know where people sit down and actually talk to each other and work thangs out." Just quoting your hero again.

You know.

BTW: Avez-vous jamais considéré que comme actions riantes, amour juste de personnes poussant vos boutons ? Et ce sarcasme semble vous pousser vraiment au-dessus du bord ?

Oh one more thing: f2 - f4

Caio.

Hey YIO

Great post you wrote.

The thing I find fascinating about the meme the Joe™'s of the world work on is found clearly in his/her post construction: • accuse with putdowns straight away • appear that the others dont have it together, and deliberately work to undermine the Joe™'s • state a Pat-Robertson-style belief more obvious in its demanding, definative and forceful nature (""not that a mother/father union always works; the point is that it is the best of the available solutions; that the basis is sound") where it provides no place for discussion; pure directive - usually violent in nature. Sits well with pa/ma-triachial authority thinking, rather than circle consensial thinking • use a very left-of-field analogy to back up • sign off with a put-down that just calls to be responded to hence a very successful flame

However, it RELIES on certain emotions to stir in the responder From ANGER ("how dare this Joe™ make a statement like that") to ANXIETY ("quick quick I've got to respond!") to SADNESS ("what a sad indictment on the human race")

Most do follow this. But a few dont.

For Joe™ also relies on a counter-meme that does NOT include the following: • humour • an ability to see bulldust when it appears • an ability to laugh at what is actually powerless people • better things to do

Why did I respond to Joe™? Well, I see plenty of these guys. Always in to spoil a party or to pick on someone - no evolution from the schoolplayground.

Its as if the level of intellegent conversation & listening is too good for them. Like Nelson Mandela said about fear of rising to the light, easier to bring everyone down to your shadow. Thus, Joe™ did this.

Because it takes nothing to be a troll. Just say an extreme opposite to what people are talking about. No need for a Certificate IV from technical college to work in this area!

Which is why I said "you can take this to your grave, Joe™", coz thats what he has.

The troll usually has no intention of changing its mind. Thats not the point. Most will not take him seriously, so fighting the Joe™ is useless. So engaging on a smart level with the Joe™, no matter how eloquent Joe™ is, is pretty useless. Coz Joe™ is ultimately a scam. Joe™ moves onto the next victims.

That is why I ONLY use humour as its the most effective way of dealing with statements that we have seen all too well.

But Joe™ is successful, just as the person who shouts in the corner of a party will get someones attention. They didnt do it using their intellegence, they did it using something else. Sure, people look at them, but then there ends up being no discussion.

An energy to deal with on this planet. Eric

Thanks, Eric Such saliant advice - we definately need to do a few beers together - stop by and I'll put some prawns (we don't have shrimp in Australia - too small) on the barbie (not of Ken and Barbie fame) and we can contemplate why Orion is upside down here. :)

You know I just feel deep in my heart that we may have turned a corner with Joe™ or joe™ - not sure - (but it is a rare rare name). Even a play doll named after it, showing strength and valour and no balls. Hmmm - bad bad Mattele.

His deep concern over the actual personal state of affairs of people here - whom he has never met - well, it just brings a tear to my eye. I really do think we misjudged him. Doncha think.

And a desire to show us by personal example of what a troll is and how they operate - right here on 1gm - is such a... (well, dare I say it?) blessings. Oh, glory me!

OK - now just so Joe™ knows, I want all the people who support other people having chillen whether they fit Joe's™ homophobic vision of parenting or not - please raise your hand.

Eric, you count and I will publish the list. And soon everyone will know. Most especially Troll Joe™.

An aside: Eh, Canada! Martin is a "L" on the forehead kind of guy! (sorry wrong thread - but just had to say it)! Aye!

YIO, consider that list D-O-N-E!

And YIO, I think our avatar Joe® (I think the ™application fell through due to the generic nature of his personality) has felt he has said everything he needs to say about gay marriage, and has gone somewhere else, or has bowed his head & has gone into no-mind or superconscious silence. Either way, we may have had a hand in his 'dissapearance'!

Why, I believe that Joe® may have been hitting a crescendo of consiousness-streaming, and our interruption stopped the flow. You know when you are about to hit samsara with the light & big castle on the hill with Atlantis and all that, and a mozzie comes in & ruins the show? I think this is similar.

If we have really long arms, the meshing of beers from Shitney to Brisniland may be possible. And altho the prawn idea is a grand idea, you may have upset my faux-vegan sensibilities, and thus ruined the whole idea of a BBQ completely! Altho if you substitute the prawns with crappo cheapo prawn crackers or NotDogs, then I may reconsider!

But its amazing, Joe® really really does care for people he has never met, particularily about their sexuality. I imagine that there is a school out there for people like Joe®. Homophobia102 and Projection309 (a 3rd year subject brought forward due to popularity) are just SOME of the subjects you can immerse yourself in. Bliss!

But its not all beers & skittles for the Joe®'s of this world. Its not just textbook-boffin drudgery. Youve got to physicalise your theory. By hoping in a car & shouting "oi, you mate, youre a pooooofffta" to people standing outside a pub or nightclub, which always hits its mark. As it sounds like "..........................hdfhsjhifdjhjHIUDHFAIBFDYUBASJNnfjdnsfskdnfks..........." to the passerby, as the car speeds away, this does bring a tear to my eye.

The lecturer has a joyful look on hir (his/her) face as Joe® talks of the success of convincing passersby that he not only cares about their sexuality, but is psychic! By looking, he sees who you go to bed with! Amazing.

Coz a 3 year old cares so much if its parents are same or different sex. Its Wiggles & Postmoderism for that kid!

So graduate Joe® I salute you. And I salute you too YIO. Salutes all around really.

PS YIO, do you think Joe has a sense of humour? No, he cant get one from ebay. Thats not even funny. Sigh....

Kanab 2007. The Natural Family and the Sam Brownback connection.

In January of 2006 the city council of Kanab, Utah, sparked a wildfire of controversy by voting into law a “Natural Family” resolution replete with puzzling references to a “quiver” full of children.

Ironically, however, neither the Natural Family concept nor the “Quiverfull” movement are products of Kanab or Utah or even Mormonism in general.

The Natural Family manifesto originated with Dr. Allan C. Carlson, head of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in Rockford, Illinois. Dr. Carlson is also a high-profile advisor to prominent conservative legislators such as Kansas Senator and current Presidential candidate, Sam Brownback.

The Quiverfull movement amounts to a few thousand married couples in the Midwestern states who believe America is being swallowed up by immigrants because our tolerance of homosexuality and abortion is enabling the race of “true Americans” to wither away and die. Hence Quiverfull families try to have as many children as possible in order to keep our country as Christian-full and God-loving as it was meant to be.

Both the Natural Family fiasco and the goofy Quiverfull movement have left hick Mormon dupes like Mayor Kim T. Lawson and his Kanab city council dangling in the wind. Sure, they were imbeciles to stake their reputations on the Carlson-Mero Natural Family manifesto. But at the height of the controversy, you certainly didn’t see anyone like Allan C. Carlson or Paul T. Mero or the Honorable Sam Brownback leaping to their defense and claiming any portion of the responsibility.

So, moral of the story? When the shit hits the fan, you’re out there all alone, cowboy.

I want to know what happen to Brian Peterson and I am Rose Latva his girlfriend of his. I want to know if Brian Peterson medical bills is paid of not and would you let me now.