|
Post by Kacer on Jan 2, 2005 21:04:15 GMT -5
The problem is, no one, and I mean NO ONE, ever mentions what the Iraqis did to our prisoners during the first Gulf war. And other than a blurb or two, very little mention was made of what happened to that girl who got captured, then later rescued. Did you take the link and check out the entire article, Al? It basically says (and I buy it) that the str8 bigots use "homosexual" because that to them is the most "demeaning" thing they can think of, then WE get the label "torturers" because the str8 bigots used allegedly "gay" sex" to torture the prisoners... then... well you get the idea. It just sucks is all.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 21:23:19 GMT -5
Egyptians decry 'gay' U.S. abusers in IraqPatrick Letellier, PlanetOut Network published Saturday, January 1, 2005 Last week Egyptian demonstrators protesting the abuse of prisoners at an Iraqi prison, which has sparked international outrage in recent weeks, blamed the abuse on what they called "homosexual American executioners." The rally, held last Wednesday in Cairo, followed other protests throughout the Middle East over graphic photos depicting the abuse and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison at the hands of U.S. soldiers. Many of the abuses reported and depicted were sexual, including forcing nude male prisoners to pile on top of each other, and forcing them to simulate oral and anal sex with each other. Prisoners have also alleged being sodomized with broom handles and other objects. According to a report in the Kuwait Times, 300 Egyptian protestors rallied in front of a banner that read, "Bring to justice the homosexual American executioners, their agents the traitors, their followers the enemies." more: www.gay.com/news/article.html?2004/05/17/4
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 12, 2005 13:13:24 GMT -5
Seeing how much religion plays into the homophobic nature, it might not be a bad idea. Perhaps we might come up with a way to defeat the anti-gay bogie man, by finding the flaws in his/her logic. Well as an advertisement against religious dogma was being advertise in the block at the top when I looked at your reply, Al, I'll take that as a "sign" and figure out a good place to "stick" it
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 12, 2005 8:33:11 GMT -5
Wayne, From the VERY strict, VERY "fundamentalist" teachings that are present in MY church, ALL that is required is that one accept Jesus as their savior, and repent their sins. (IMO, pretty much the 10 commandments). Love people. That's pretty much how one can "quantify" Jesus' teachings. Love people, Love God. God made me this way. A 3 year old child IS INNOCENT, and at 3, I "knew"... I didn't REALIZE - but I "knew", God don't make junk. IMO, the stuff in Leviticus had MUCH more to do with "worship practices" of other sects than with "homosexuality". In fact, IMO, David was a big ol' queen!... And God WAY favored DAVID. Ruth and Naomi were two others... and Jesus, I think, cured the slave of a Roman soldier, and I THINK they (the slave and the Roman soldier) were "lovers", the way I read it, anyway... now that's certainly NOT "Ideal" but it was pretty clear that there was a great love there.... and caring. And it was back then when, IMO things were pretty weird anyhow.... Should we start a religion forum ?
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 4, 2005 20:36:21 GMT -5
Sorry, I should have just posted a link for you. I was rushing to go see my honey and I even forgot to shut off the computer! :/
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 3, 2005 20:50:48 GMT -5
What's the "Abe Topic, and which formum at ARFCOM is it in??? "Was Abe Lincoln Gay?" is the topic, it's in general, best, IMO to do a "search" on "Abe" as last time I checked 1.5 days) no comments. I seem to do that a LOT. ("get" the last word in" not so much when it's locked... I either make too GOOD of an argument, or tick enough folks off they just "go away"
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 3, 2005 19:37:27 GMT -5
Most str8 people I know who call denounce homosexuality just havent gotten past the "icky" part or are just totally insecure about their own sexuality. Fortunately I am with mine and most of the people I tend to associate with. Belfry, yeah, I think a certain Mac fits into the SECOND group, I said as much in the Abe topic on ARFCOM.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 2, 2005 19:36:40 GMT -5
Its called selective reading. Supposedly, Jesus and his life(the New Testament) was supposed to supercede the OT. Unfortunately, no one agrees with this when arguing homosexuality. The same religions do not banish their women during their menstral cycle but somewhere in there, it talks about that. And sacrificing animals....etc.... c):{ Oh, there is a WHOLE BUNCH of things in Leviticus that are "abomination" they fail to use rudimentary intelligence, however to discern WHY these activities/practices etc... were CONSIDERED an "abomination. See, pork was a "no no" because the Priests of Baal tended to sacrifice pigs TO Baal, and as sacrifices were not ALWAYS (or even frequently) completely "consumed" by the fire, they often found thmeselves at market, on sale. It was NOT Okay for a Jew to eat of a Baal sacrifice. Same, really w/ homosexuality. The pagan "temples" had temple prostitutes (both male AND female) so when Paul saw/heard what went on "in there" that's when he did the New testament stuff, and whomever wrote Leviticus - well same/similar deal. It was an "abomination" because it had to do w/ (AT THAT TIME) worshiping another "god". BIG no no. But try to explain this to a flamin' thumper and..... they just cannot grasp the concept. And REALLY, who can blame them? We (the GLBT Community) is one of the FEW groups that may still be used PRETTY easially as "scapegoats" they really CAN'T go after "the coloreds" anymore as that's not socially acceptable, it's still KINDA okay to pick on us though.... KINDA
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 21:26:00 GMT -5
Gay issue 'threatens to break us apart'Gay issue 'threatens to break us apart' January 1, 2005 VALLEY FORGE, Pa. -- The 25 regional executives of the 1.5 million-member American Baptist Churches in the USA jointly announced that the denomination's ongoing controversy over homosexuality "threatens to break us apart." A pastoral statement to "preserve unity," released this month after a meeting of denomination leaders, said they had personally agreed to "voluntarily refrain from" naming sexually active gays and lesbians to national and regional positions. The church leaders also said they would not participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies, but pledged to shun "homophobic behavior." Link: www.indystar.com/articles/0/206113-4570-047.html
|
|
|
SOTU
Feb 5, 2005 16:20:44 GMT -5
Post by Kacer on Feb 5, 2005 16:20:44 GMT -5
I didn't get to watch the SOTU last night [work] what is everyones take? I heard that the FMA came up again and while I'll take unions over nothing and I don't beleive a FMA is going anywhere at the Fed level. I'm not happy that my boy GWB is still pushing it. I'm a conservative as far as most things go [military, lower taxes etc.] but I don't belong to the LRC simply because I don't beleive in glueing myself to a party. Sorry, pal. I didn't watch the SOTU as I have an aversion to wasting time. I know YOU think GWB is mostly a "good guy" but hey, even a busted clock is right twice a day Rumsfeld is about THE ONLY thing he did REALLY right, IMO, and for the right "reasons" (mostly) but shoot, he's getting rid of HIM... so, IMO we're a BIT less SOOL than we WOULD have been if Skerry had gotten in, and a lot WORSE than if Badnarik had pulled a serious rabbit. (Although, IMO, he'd have really FU w/the Iraq thing... I THINK that's the only issue I didn't agree w/him on. And even there, I agree in PRINCIPAL, but in "practice"... I just don't see it. Anyway, he HAD to do that, IMO, if he hadn't hs approval rating wouldn't be a whopping 50%
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 23:20:32 GMT -5
Anyone ELSE think the "estimated 64,000 GLBT's in the Military" is a tad LOW? Tour of dutyAs an openly gay marine, Jeff Key fought in Iraq only to be kicked out due to his sexuality. He says coming out is the best decision he ever made By Paul Clinton Excerpted from The Advocate, January 17, 2005 The journal kept by openly gay lance corporal Jeff Key, a U.S. marine who served a tour of duty in Iraq in 2003, has become the basis for a powerful one-man show, The Eyes of Babylon. In the show—running at the Tamarind Theatre in Los Angeles—Key veers from humor to tears to outrage in the blink of an eye. At 6 foot 5, with his high and tight haircut and 220 muscular pounds, the 39-year-old is every inch a marine. His usual manhoodeyed grin betrays the fact that he’s being honorably discharged for coming out to his commanding officer. Key says he felt he had no choice. Two months into his Iraq tour he was injured lifting heavy equipment and was flown back to the United States. He became more and more angry at how the war was being mismanaged and how “don’t ask, don’t tell” was continuing to harm the estimated 64,000 gay men and lesbians currently serving in the U.S. armed forces. Some have even questioned Key about playing the “gay card” in order to get out of the military. He responds that he had crawled back into the closet after nearly 20 years of living openly only to find himself fighting a war he believes to be illegal. He says he decided to use the ban on gays in the military to avoid being asked to take innocent lives for corporate gain. “Banning gays in the military is archaic and stupid,” Key says. “Marines are designed to take orders. If they are ordered to keep their mouths shut and not harass the person who speaks truthfully about who they are, they will follow that order. That’s what marines do. If they are told to walk into a hail of gunfire, that’s what marines do, follow orders.” www.advocate.com/html/stories/930/930_marine.asp
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 17, 2005 7:38:12 GMT -5
The last time I was at the University of Oregon, having a "fun feast" thing (I still have no idea what it was) and sitting around drinking our coffees the subject of what is the future of us. Of course the major that was voted down (gay marriage) was brought up but then gun control was made a subject. 99% of the folks in the room wanted gun control to gun bans and I was the only one to bring up that we can be secure and not be bashed but I was voted down and out of the forum. I am still trying to understand why they reacted that way. Wayne, IMO, the reason they"reacted that way" is that if confronted with the TRUTH, the majority of people begin to THINK....once they begin to THINK, they become less plyable, this is "bad" for the gay leadership. They'd MUCH prefer, IMO (most of them, anyway) to have sheep they can lead, because most could NOT handle a "herd" of sheepdogs. Also w/sheepdogs, they'd be less apt to have a good martyr every 2-5 years they can "hold up" and say, "See what is done TO US" .... ;quote] I tried to start up a local PP chapter, all I had that were interested were straights. I don't know if they wanted to be involved because they had a guilt thing going or really cared, but no GLBT wanted to join. Okay, I'm just going on and on here, no need for that. Just wonder what I need to do besides slap the folks upside the head and get some sense in them! Wayne[/quote] And, IMO, you are less likely to be successful in the "University" crowd.... I gotta agree w/Stoner on that one. And at the first planning meetings it WAS me (lesbian) and 5 or sometimes 6 straight guys. This was April, May and June. 2003. In July we had over 20 people show, only 5 were straight. The straight folk helped pass out flyers and generally get us going. They were friends, or at least developed INTO friends. If I'm drowning, I don't care WHOSE hand reaches out to pull me up, I just take it. IMO, forming a chapter is the first step, this then garners publicity, which reaches other like-minded queers which grows the membership. The COPP group is a full 1/3 straight. Some are Jewish, others have friends or family who are gay, one guy just likes teaching individuals to shoot - ANY individual. In his mind (rightly, IMO) the more PEOPLE who are armed, the safer society as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 12, 2005 8:18:59 GMT -5
Because Wayne......we can hide, thats what we have all learned from the first day we knew we were different than the str8s. Hiding is our first line of defense, its what keeps us from [in our minds] losing jobs, family, friends etc. The other groups [women, blacks etc] can't hide themselves so they have had to fight. And how many have heard other LGBT run down those who refuse to hide.....TG's,Drag queens,leather folk that stand out from the rest of us. Might have something there, Stoner. `Course I've refused to hide, I rarely "get in one's face" either, I'm me, it eventually becomes apparent who I am, if an employer doesn't want me, it's their loss, not mine (Yes, I'm that good Never been fired yet (except the one time where I "orchestrated it" (long story ) but NOT because I was gay Also never had a problem defending myself including once when I was "jumped" outside of a gay bar, and another time when I was harassed outside of a gay-friendly bar (the jerk was drunk - otherwise I MIGHT have had some trouble w/him ) And I REFUSE to "run down" any group besides bigots and occasionally zealots
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 16, 2005 19:49:45 GMT -5
The military does some wierd stuff Boss, I wouldn't be surprised. The Russians and us played around with a "LSD" type gas for awhile. I would have loved to see the after action report on the battle after they used it ;D "In the middle of the big battle today....a Greatfull Dead concert broke out"!!!!!! Yeah, I even saw it on one of the newschannels today (CNN, MSNBC or FOX) I tend to switch between the 3 whenever a commercial comes on one, I switch
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 14, 2005 12:53:09 GMT -5
I "hope" this is bullsh*t..... Pentagon Sought 'Gay' Bomb by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief Posted: January 14, 2005 11:02 a.m. ET (Washington) The Pentagon tried to develop a bomb that would turn an opposing army "gay" according to newly declassified documents. The papers, obtained by the New Scientist and the Sunshine Project - an organization that exposes research into chemical and biological weapons - show that during the Clinton presidency the military attempted to create a series of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops. One weapon that the Pentagon worked on is described as an "aphrodisiac" that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. more: 365 Gay.com
|
|