Homosexual Themes in BSG and Star Trek DS9 -- some of the proof

[John Shocked]

Here is part of the case that proves that .........

you're a loonie
Qa ' PLONK
Kweeg

Come on, make the truth at least part of your daily diet.
You know I am right.

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

Here is part of the case that proves that Sodomy is being
sold to you and your Son in the Battlestar Galactica series
by the wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexual
Neo-Conservatives in Hollywood who control the series.


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

I reprise some of the facts here:

1) This Battlestar Galactica series seems to have a continuing Homosexual
agenda and determination to sell Homosexuality to the masses, by hook or by
crook. Back In the 3rd episode (Bastille Day) the whole Zerak relationship
was the producers trying to put Apollo and Zerak in bed together.

The producers feinted with a heterosexual rape, then hit their true target
which was to show Apollo being dragged to the ground face down in an Oz-like
prison attack.
Bastille Day is known in Europe to be a major celebratory day for European
homosexuals.
Apparently, in the next episode, Zerak returns and you better believe that
the producers will be determined to reestablish and develop the possible
Homosexual relationship between Apollo and Zerak.

Why do you think that the statements "You Bet Your Arse" and "The Back Door
is Open" when such prominent parts of this weeks script (The Hand Of God),
both in reference to Apollo ?

So if you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this series or if you have
kids you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this series, watch out.


2) Again in the Colonial Day episode the Battlestar producers show us the
side
of Apollo they showed us in episode 3 Bastille Day:
Apollo being pulled down to the ground face down, sunny side up in an
Oz-like grappling with another man.
It should be clear now to everyone watching this series that there is a
pattern in showing these Oz-like scenes where it appears that Apollo is
about to be raped by another man.
The producers of this series are desperate to show at the very least the
symbolism of Sodomy in the series.
It is very important to them.


3) In the BSG last episode of the season, Kobol's Last Gleaming Part II,
the
Hollywood Homosexuals in control of BSG were able to crowbar yet another
Homosexual Rape symbolism scene into the show in the scene in which Boomer
is approached and surrounded by what appears to be around 5 semi-nude sister
Boomer-copies who appear to be just about to forcibly undress and rape her.

Her response is "oh no, this is not happening".
Many Homosexuals just love to be the first one to turn someone, maybe your
son, perhaps in that Catholic Church rectory, onto that special secret
intimacy they promote, for the first time. They are absolutely loving this
scene.
They respond to Boomer: "you're confused and scared... but it's ok", as
they forcibly take off her helmet and start caressing her without her
permission.
It appears that she is in the process of being homosexual gang raped.

You can just imagine this scene in some women's prison or even
some sororities on some campuses with a new inductee.
Anyone seen Reform School Girls with Wendy O. Williams " ?
USA Network used to show it regularly.

Boomer says: "I am not a Cylon".
Right there, the obvious implication was that she was about to say
"I am not a Homosexual".
She then says her parents are a man and a woman:
"My parents were Katherine and Abraham Valerii."

The Boomer-copies then feed her the normal Homosexual promotional crap that
we have heard here, over and over again, that deep inside, everyone is a
homosexual:
"You can't fight destiny, Sharon. It catches up with you...
no matter what you do. Don't worry about us.
We'll see you again. We love you, sharon.
And we always will."

If you listen to these Hollywood Homosexual fatcats behind BSG, everyone is
eventually going to engage in Homosexual Sex.
So Why fight the feeling. Do it now. Call of the wild, sort of thing.

As these lines were delivered over cable TV, you better believe that the
Hollywood Homosexual fatcats behind this series were jumping around slapping
high fives.
I can just imagine a new Saturday Night Live Gays In Space episode based on
this content, except what SNL is doing does not appear to have been approved
by the Hollywood Homosexuals fatcats so they are being a little careful
about how close they mirror the show.

One of the problems with Hollywood Homosexual scenes like this being
crowbar-ed into the script is: Should we the viewers draw assumptions from
this scene about the direction of the overall story, or take it for what it
is -- the writers' penance to their Hollywood Homosexual masters for putting
up the money for the production.
For example, some here have assumed that in this scene Boomer is programmed,
or re-programmed to aasassinate William Adama, by this contact with her
Boomer-copy sisters.
Some have even claimed that the taking off of the helmet was significant in
that it further exposed her brain to the telepathic communications
wavelengths being sent to her.

But how can we know for sure when this scene already serves a totally
ulterior motive of the writers and their Hollywood Homosexual fatcat
masters.
========================================

Politics






Politics

[John Shocked]

On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:14:09 -0700, "John Shocked"
<snip>
Hilarious!!! I loved it.
Wait... this was meant as satire, right?

Nah, I do not believe that the Hollywood Homosexuals
in control BSG meant this stuff as satire.
They are dead serious about selling Sodomy
to you and your Son.

Politics


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

Post by John Shocked
Here is part of the case that proves that Sodomy is
being sold to you and your Son in the Battlestar
Galactica series by the wealthy fatcat Hollywood
Homosexual Neo-Conservatives in Hollywood who control
the series.
=============================
1) This Battlestar Galactica series seems to have a
continuing Homosexual agenda and determination to sell
Homosexuality to the masses, by hook or by crook. Back
In the 3rd episode (Bastille Day) the whole Zerak
relationship was the producers trying to put Apollo and
Zerak in bed together.
The producers feinted with a heterosexual rape, then
hit their true target which was to show Apollo being
dragged to the ground face down in an Oz-like prison
attack. Bastille Day is known in Europe to be a major
celebratory day for European homosexuals. Apparently,
in the next episode, Zerak returns and you better
believe that the producers will be determined to
reestablish and develop the possible Homosexual
relationship between Apollo and Zerak.
Why do you think that the statements "You Bet Your
Arse" and "The Back Door is Open" when such prominent
parts of this weeks script (The Hand Of God), both in
reference to Apollo ?
So if you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this
series or if you have kids you do not want to be sold
Homosexuality by this series, watch out.
2) Again in the Colonial Day episode the Battlestar
producers show us the side of Apollo they showed us in
episode 3 Bastille Day: Apollo being pulled down to the
ground face down, sunny side up in an Oz-like grappling
with another man. It should be clear now to everyone
watching this series that there is a pattern in showing
these Oz-like scenes where it appears that Apollo is
about to be raped by another man. The producers of this
series are desperate to show at the very least the
symbolism of Sodomy in the series. It is very important
to them.
3) In the BSG last episode of the season, Kobol's Last
Gleaming Part II, the Hollywood Homosexuals in control
of BSG were able to crowbar yet another Homosexual Rape
symbolism scene into the show in the scene in which
Boomer is approached and surrounded by what appears to
be around 5 semi-nude sister Boomer-copies who appear
to be just about to forcibly undress and rape her.
Her response is "oh no, this is not happening". Many
Homosexuals just love to be the first one to turn
someone, maybe your son, perhaps in that Catholic
Church rectory, onto that special secret intimacy they
promote, for the first time. They are absolutely
loving this scene. They respond to Boomer: "you're
confused and scared... but it's ok", as they forcibly
take off her helmet and start caressing her without her
permission. It appears that she is in the process of
being homosexual gang raped.
You can just imagine this scene in some women's prison
or even some sororities on some campuses with a new
inductee. Anyone seen Reform School Girls with Wendy O.
Williams " ? USA Network used to show it regularly.
Boomer says: "I am not a Cylon". Right there, the
obvious implication was that she was about to say "I am
not a Homosexual". She then says her parents are a man
and a woman: "My parents were Katherine and Abraham
Valerii."
The Boomer-copies then feed her the normal Homosexual
promotional crap that we have heard here, over and over
again, that deep inside, everyone is a homosexual: "You
can't fight destiny, Sharon. It catches up with you...
no matter what you do. Don't worry about us. We'll see
you again. We love you, sharon. And we always will."
If you listen to these Hollywood Homosexual fatcats
behind BSG, everyone is eventually going to engage in
Homosexual Sex. So Why fight the feeling. Do it now.
Call of the wild, sort of thing.
As these lines were delivered over cable TV, you better
believe that the Hollywood Homosexual fatcats behind
this series were jumping around slapping high fives. I
can just imagine a new Saturday Night Live Gays In
Space episode based on this content, except what SNL is
doing does not appear to have been approved by the
Hollywood Homosexuals fatcats so they are being a
little careful about how close they mirror the show.
One of the problems with Hollywood Homosexual scenes
like this being crowbar-ed into the script is: Should
we the viewers draw assumptions from this scene about
the direction of the overall story, or take it for what
it is -- the writers' penance to their Hollywood
Homosexual masters for putting up the money for the
production. For example, some here have assumed that in
this scene Boomer is programmed, or re-programmed to
aasassinate William Adama, by this contact with her
Boomer-copy sisters. Some have even claimed that the
taking off of the helmet was significant in that it
further exposed her brain to the telepathic
communications wavelengths being sent to her.
But how can we know for sure when this scene already
serves a totally ulterior motive of the writers and
their Hollywood Homosexual fatcat masters.
========================================
Politics

[Jaxtraw]

Post by John Shocked

On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:14:09 -0700, "John Shocked"
<snip>
Hilarious!!! I loved it.
Wait... this was meant as satire, right?

Nah, I do not believe that the Hollywood Homosexuals
in control BSG meant this stuff as satire.
They are dead serious about selling Sodomy
to you and your Son.

Are either your shift or caps lock key faulty, or is Random Capitalisation
an essential characteristic of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist? Or have
you capitalised "son" because you believe that David is God?

Please advise.

Ian

[John Shocked]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by John Shocked

On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:14:09 -0700, "John Shocked"
<snip>
Hilarious!!! I loved it.
Wait... this was meant as satire, right?

Nah, I do not believe that the Hollywood Homosexuals
in control BSG meant this stuff as satire.
They are dead serious about selling Sodomy
to you and your Son.

Are either your shift or caps lock key faulty, or is Random Capitalisation
an essential characteristic of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist? Or have
you capitalised "son" because you believe that David is God?
Please advise.
Ian

Since I have never read scripture, "Son" does not have any special
meaning to me other than an emphasis on one's own Child,
which one should seek to protect.
There is nothing random about my prose, other than the
occasional typo.

In the BSG Bastille Day episode, when they crowbar the term
"choosing sides" again and again in reference to Apollo,
again, this vergiage is there not to propel the science fiction
storyline but instead to conjure up notions of homosexual
ambivalence within Apollo (e.g. sunny side up).
After a while, the script simply becomes a putrid lump
of mincemeat for the Hollywood Homosexuals in control
to play in.

Politics

[Hecubus]

Post by John Shocked

On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:14:09 -0700, "John Shocked"
<snip>
Hilarious!!! I loved it.
Wait... this was meant as satire, right?

Nah, I do not believe that the Hollywood Homosexuals
in control BSG meant this stuff as satire.
They are dead serious about selling Sodomy
to you and your Son.

You sure do mention people's sons a lot. One could infer from your
seeing interest in young boys that you are a homosexual pedophile. At
least using your kind of logic.

[John Shocked]

Post by John Shocked
Here is part of the case that proves that Sodomy is being
sold to you and your Son in the Battlestar Galactica series
[...]

Strange that you seem to have such an intense interest in it.

I do take seriously any threat to the country and its children.
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?
Why allow the Hollywood Homosexuals in control of BSG
to sell Sodomy to you and your Son ?

Besides, the corruptions of the scripts of scifi tv for them to
achieve this end makes a mockery of screenplay after
screenplay. After a while, you are simply watching nonsense.

Politics

Post by John Shocked
Here is part of the case that proves that Sodomy is
being sold to you and your Son in the Battlestar
Galactica series by the wealthy fatcat Hollywood
Homosexual Neo-Conservatives in Hollywood who control
the series.
=============================
1) This Battlestar Galactica series seems to have a
continuing Homosexual agenda and determination to sell
Homosexuality to the masses, by hook or by crook. Back
In the 3rd episode (Bastille Day) the whole Zerak
relationship was the producers trying to put Apollo and
Zerak in bed together.
The producers feinted with a heterosexual rape, then
hit their true target which was to show Apollo being
dragged to the ground face down in an Oz-like prison
attack. Bastille Day is known in Europe to be a major
celebratory day for European homosexuals. Apparently,
in the next episode, Zerak returns and you better
believe that the producers will be determined to
reestablish and develop the possible Homosexual
relationship between Apollo and Zerak.
Why do you think that the statements "You Bet Your
Arse" and "The Back Door is Open" when such prominent
parts of this weeks script (The Hand Of God), both in
reference to Apollo ?
So if you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this
series or if you have kids you do not want to be sold
Homosexuality by this series, watch out.
2) Again in the Colonial Day episode the Battlestar
producers show us the side of Apollo they showed us in
episode 3 Bastille Day: Apollo being pulled down to the
ground face down, sunny side up in an Oz-like grappling
with another man. It should be clear now to everyone
watching this series that there is a pattern in showing
these Oz-like scenes where it appears that Apollo is
about to be raped by another man. The producers of this
series are desperate to show at the very least the
symbolism of Sodomy in the series. It is very important
to them.
3) In the BSG last episode of the season, Kobol's Last
Gleaming Part II, the Hollywood Homosexuals in control
of BSG were able to crowbar yet another Homosexual Rape
symbolism scene into the show in the scene in which
Boomer is approached and surrounded by what appears to
be around 5 semi-nude sister Boomer-copies who appear
to be just about to forcibly undress and rape her.
Her response is "oh no, this is not happening". Many
Homosexuals just love to be the first one to turn
someone, maybe your son, perhaps in that Catholic
Church rectory, onto that special secret intimacy they
promote, for the first time. They are absolutely
loving this scene. They respond to Boomer: "you're
confused and scared... but it's ok", as they forcibly
take off her helmet and start caressing her without her
permission. It appears that she is in the process of
being homosexual gang raped.
You can just imagine this scene in some women's prison
or even some sororities on some campuses with a new
inductee. Anyone seen Reform School Girls with Wendy O.
Williams " ? USA Network used to show it regularly.
Boomer says: "I am not a Cylon". Right there, the
obvious implication was that she was about to say "I am
not a Homosexual". She then says her parents are a man
and a woman: "My parents were Katherine and Abraham
Valerii."
The Boomer-copies then feed her the normal Homosexual
promotional crap that we have heard here, over and over
again, that deep inside, everyone is a homosexual: "You
can't fight destiny, Sharon. It catches up with you...
no matter what you do. Don't worry about us. We'll see
you again. We love you, sharon. And we always will."
If you listen to these Hollywood Homosexual fatcats
behind BSG, everyone is eventually going to engage in
Homosexual Sex. So Why fight the feeling. Do it now.
Call of the wild, sort of thing.
As these lines were delivered over cable TV, you better
believe that the Hollywood Homosexual fatcats behind
this series were jumping around slapping high fives. I
can just imagine a new Saturday Night Live Gays In
Space episode based on this content, except what SNL is
doing does not appear to have been approved by the
Hollywood Homosexuals fatcats so they are being a
little careful about how close they mirror the show.
One of the problems with Hollywood Homosexual scenes
like this being crowbar-ed into the script is: Should
we the viewers draw assumptions from this scene about
the direction of the overall story, or take it for what
it is -- the writers' penance to their Hollywood
Homosexual masters for putting up the money for the
production. For example, some here have assumed that in
this scene Boomer is programmed, or re-programmed to
aasassinate William Adama, by this contact with her
Boomer-copy sisters. Some have even claimed that the
taking off of the helmet was significant in that it
further exposed her brain to the telepathic
communications wavelengths being sent to her.
But how can we know for sure when this scene already
serves a totally ulterior motive of the writers and
their Hollywood Homosexual fatcat masters.
========================================
Politics

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by John Shocked
I do take seriously any threat to the country and its children.

So, picket the Catholic church, and Michael Jackson.

Post by John Shocked
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

Hey now, Gays ~can so~ raise a family. Open your mind and heart.

[John Shocked]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
I do take seriously any threat to the country and its children.

So, picket the Catholic church, and Michael Jackson.

The jury has not spoken on Jackson yet. Those are suspicious allegations.
However, the Catholic Church definitely has had many priests molest
children homosexually and be convicted of that crime.

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
Are you going to wait till your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

Hey now, Gays ~can so~ raise a family. Open your mind and heart.

The Texas legislature just banned the adoption of children by homosexuals
and this should be echoed across the country. Corrupt judges are
responsible for this because I have yet to find a state which passed
a law which sattes that homosexuals can adopt people's children.

Politics

[manitou]

Post by John Shocked
I do take seriously any threat to the country and its children.
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

I didn't realize Anita Bryant had been lurking at usenet for so many years.













C.

[John Shocked]

Post by manitou

Post by John Shocked
I do take seriously any threat to the country and its children.
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

I didn't realize Anita Bryant had been lurking at usenet for so many years.
C.

Again, if you claim not to be homosexual, why would you invest your
time and energy in defending the right of Hollywood Homosexuals
to sell Sodomy to your Son; unless they were paying you to do this ?

Politics

[Richard L Hamer]

Post by John Shocked
Again, if you claim not to be homosexual, why would you invest your
time and energy in defending the right of Hollywood Homosexuals
to sell Sodomy to your Son; unless they were paying you to do this ?
Politics

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.

Some people think the constitution is important and worth protecting
even if they don't agree with what a person is saying.

[John Shocked]

Post by Richard L Hamer

Post by John Shocked
Again, if you claim not to be homosexual, why would you invest your
time and energy in defending the right of Hollywood Homosexuals
to sell Sodomy to your Son; unless they were paying you to do this ?
Politics

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Some people think the constitution is important and worth protecting
even if they don't agree with what a person is saying.

That still does not explain why you would be supporting what they are
doing in attempting to pervert you and your Son to their
own ends.
Obviously, people can state what they want in the privacy of their own
lives, even in various print media, but the Broadcast Media are scarce
and must be regulated. And the First Amendment does not apply in
the same way to the broadcast or cable media.

Politics

[Richard L Hamer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Richard L Hamer
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Some people think the constitution is important and worth protecting
even if they don't agree with what a person is saying.

That still does not explain why you would be supporting what they are
doing in attempting to pervert you and your Son to their
own ends.
Obviously, people can state what they want in the privacy of their own
lives, even in various print media, but the Broadcast Media are scarce
and must be regulated. And the First Amendment does not apply in
the same way to the broadcast or cable media.
Politics

The courts and the general public disagree with the idea the the
First Amendment does not apply to broadcast media. The First
Amendment was put in the constitution to protect all PUBLIC speech
not just which you agree with. Anyone is free to use any method of
speech they can afford to publish and broadcast their propaganda.
Just as you are right now broadcasting your propaganda, the public
then can decide if they agree or disagree with said propaganda.
Intelligent people know and understand this you now know it too I
doubt you are capable of understanding it but at least you can't say
you haven't been told the truth.

[John Shocked]

Post by Richard L Hamer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Richard L Hamer
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Some people think the constitution is important and worth protecting
even if they don't agree with what a person is saying.

That still does not explain why you would be supporting what they are
doing in attempting to pervert you and your Son to their
own ends.
Obviously, people can state what they want in the privacy of their own
lives, even in various print media, but the Broadcast Media are scarce
and must be regulated. And the First Amendment does not apply in
the same way to the broadcast or cable media.
Politics

The courts and the general public disagree with the idea the the

The Courts work for the public, carrying out our laws.
They have no aristocratic role to rule this country above the laws
we the public write.

Post by Richard L Hamer
First Amendment does not apply to broadcast media. The First

You agree with me on this. You progress.

Post by Richard L Hamer
Amendment was put in the constitution to protect all PUBLIC speech
not just which you agree with. Anyone is free to use any method of
speech they can afford to publish and broadcast their propaganda.
Just as you are right now broadcasting your propaganda, the public

I never use propaganda. That is for people who are working for
aliving with their speech. The Hollywood Homosexual public
relations hacks who work on Newsgroups like this one.

Post by Richard L Hamer
then can decide if they agree or disagree with said propaganda.
Intelligent people know and understand this you now know it too I
doubt you are capable of understanding it but at least you can't say
you haven't been told the truth.

I am one of the few people on this Newsgroup who is free to express
the truth in thread after thread. And I am the only one who regularly
quotes the script of the BSG series in what I say.
Most people who work PR on forums like this do not even watch
the show. They are too busy working PR on a variety of different
series' Newsgroups to watch every series they are assigned.

Politics

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by John Shocked
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

BTW, my HETEROSEXUAL son informed me that he and his longtime girlfriend
WHOM HE ADORES ~do~ intend to marry, but that _they NEVER WANT
CHILDREN~. What do you recommend that I, as a mother, say to _them_?
~DO TELL~.

Should they not marry? :)

Do Tell!

:)

Laura

[Jaxtraw]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

BTW, my HETEROSEXUAL son informed me that he and his longtime girlfriend
WHOM HE ADORES ~do~ intend to marry, but that _they NEVER WANT
CHILDREN~. What do you recommend that I, as a mother, say to _them_?
~DO TELL~.
Should they not marry? :)
Do Tell!

I think the correct response is to lock them in a room with just a bible for
company, until your daughter in law is in the family way. Or something. :)

Ian

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by ToolPackinMama
BTW, my HETEROSEXUAL son informed me that he and his longtime girlfriend
WHOM HE ADORES ~do~ intend to marry, but that _they NEVER WANT
CHILDREN~. What do you recommend that I, as a mother, say to _them_?
~DO TELL~.
Should they not marry? :)
Do Tell!

I think the correct response is to lock them in a room with just a bible for
company, until your daughter in law is in the family way. Or something. :)

Fortunately for them, I'm not inclined that way. ;)

[John Shocked]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

BTW, my HETEROSEXUAL son informed me that he and his longtime girlfriend
WHOM HE ADORES ~do~ intend to marry, but that _they NEVER WANT
CHILDREN~. What do you recommend that I, as a mother, say to _them_?
~DO TELL~.
Should they not marry? :)
Do Tell!

I think the correct response is to lock them in a room with just a bible for
company, until your daughter in law is in the family way. Or something. :)
Ian

What is the point of them becoming marriede when they have no intent
to raise a family ? If all they want to do is have sex with each other,
they should continue dating.

Politics

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of them becoming marriede when they have no intent
to raise a family ? If all they want to do is have sex with each other,
they should continue dating.

You advocate unmarried sex?

[Bryan]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of them becoming marriede when they have no intent
to raise a family ? If all they want to do is have sex with each other,
they should continue dating.

You advocate unmarried sex?

of coarse he does, he's not a Christian he's a paranoid schizophrenic

[John Shocked]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of them becoming marriede when they have no intent
to raise a family ? If all they want to do is have sex with each other,
they should continue dating.

You advocate unmarried sex?

I do not advocate anything.
Those who engage in deviant behavior should keep it
to themselves and not attempt to force that deviant
behavior down the throats of you and your Son.

Politics

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of them becoming marriede when they have no intent
to raise a family ? If all they want to do is have sex with each other,
they should continue dating.

The point is that this a FREE country, and it's up to the *individuals*
to decide how they want to celebrate their love & "pursue happiness".

NOT you.

This is America, the land of liberty... not China, the land of slavery.
People have a right to decide *for themselves* what they want to do &
how they want to live their lives (single, unmarried but paired, or
married).

So butt out.
You're not the master.
You have NO say.



troy

[John Shocked]

Post by h***@yahoo.com

What is the point of them becoming married when they have no
intent to raise a family ? If all they want to do is have sex with each
other, they should continue dating.

The point is that this a FREE country, and it's up to the *individuals*
to decide how they want to celebrate their love & "pursue happiness".
NOT you.
This is America, the land of liberty... not China, the land of slavery.
People have a right to decide *for themselves* what they want to do &
how they want to live their lives (single, unmarried but paired, or
married).
So butt out.
You're not the master.
You have NO say.
troy

What two Hollywood Homosexuals do in the privacy of their
own plush $10 Million mansion is up to them.
It is when they try to enforce Homosexual scripts on BSG
viewers which include you and your Son that they cross the line.

You want these Hollywood Homosexual billionaires to have
control over your household ? You think they are going to stop
off on their private jet, chauffeur to your home and shake your
hand for defending their right to spit in the face of you and
your Son ?

Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

BTW, my HETEROSEXUAL son informed me that he and his longtime girlfriend
WHOM HE ADORES ~do~ intend to marry, but that _they NEVER WANT
CHILDREN~. What do you recommend that I, as a mother, say to _them_?
~DO TELL~.
Should they not marry? :)
Do Tell!
:)
Laura

What is the point of marriage without at least the intent to have children.
Marriage is not a contract between 2 people to have sex. It involves
family and child bearing and rearing.
If they just want to have sex, they ought to just keep dating.

Politics

[e]

Post by John Shocked

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

BTW, my HETEROSEXUAL son informed me that he and his longtime girlfriend
WHOM HE ADORES ~do~ intend to marry, but that _they NEVER WANT
CHILDREN~. What do you recommend that I, as a mother, say to _them_?
~DO TELL~.
Should they not marry? :)
Do Tell!
:)
Laura

What is the point of marriage without at least the intent to have children.
Marriage is not a contract between 2 people to have sex. It involves
family and child bearing and rearing.
If they just want to have sex, they ought to just keep dating.
Politics

hahahaha! you are such a maroon.

[John Shocked]

Post by e

Post by John Shocked

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
Are you going to wait to your Son comes to you with his
boyfriend and tells you they are to be married and that he
will never raise a family ?

BTW, my HETEROSEXUAL son informed me that he and his longtime girlfriend
WHOM HE ADORES ~do~ intend to marry, but that _they NEVER WANT
CHILDREN~. What do you recommend that I, as a mother, say to _them_?
~DO TELL~.
Should they not marry? :)
Do Tell!
:)
Laura

What is the point of marriage without at least the intent to have children.
Marriage is not a contract between 2 people to have sex. It involves
family and child bearing and rearing.
If they just want to have sex, they ought to just keep dating.
Politics

hahahaha! you are such a maroon.

Wih what here do you disagree ?

Politics

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of marriage without at least the intent to have children.

Surely you jest.

[Jaxtraw]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of marriage without at least the intent to have children.

Surely you jest.

Bear in mind that John has never had a relationship with a woman, so really
doesn't understand the whole lurve thang.

Ian

[John Shocked]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of marriage without at least the intent to have children.

Surely you jest.

Not at all. The whole point of marriage is to raise a family.
It is society's self-preservation and self-perpetuation mechanism.
If society's encouraged homosexuality instead of heterosexuality
in its institutional encouragement of permanent sexual relationships,
it would have died out a long time ago.

Politics

[Richard L Hamer]

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of marriage without at least the intent to have children.
Marriage is not a contract between 2 people to have sex. It involves
family and child bearing and rearing.
If they just want to have sex, they ought to just keep dating.
Politics

In history it was to ensure political position and power. It was a
joining of two commercial families to increase the power they had
over the economy.

[John Shocked]

Post by Richard L Hamer

Post by John Shocked
What is the point of marriage without at least the intent to have children.
Marriage is not a contract between 2 people to have sex. It involves
family and child bearing and rearing.
If they just want to have sex, they ought to just keep dating.
Politics

In history it was to ensure political position and power. It was a
joining of two commercial families to increase the power they had
over the economy.

You are talking about royalty. As such, it was the joining of two
nations together in peace (which saves lives from war) by a bond
of racial joining in the children who are the fruits of such a marriage.

Politics

[Richard L Hamer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Richard L Hamer
In history it was to ensure political position and power. It was a
joining of two commercial families to increase the power they had
over the economy.

You are talking about royalty. As such, it was the joining of two
nations together in peace (which saves lives from war) by a bond
of racial joining in the children who are the fruits of such a marriage.
Politics

Nope dope I'm talking about normal every day people marriage was a
arrangement, a business deal, at all levels of society. From the
smallest farmer with 5 acres of land to the ruling class marriage
was not about rising a family it was about economics. You got as
much as possible while giving as little as you could. It still is
around the majority of the planet. Children were just a fringe
benefit, cheap labor nothing more. I'd suggest studing some history
by facing reality is clearly a serious problem for you.

[John Shocked]

Here is part of the case that proves that .........

you're a loonie

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!
C.

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. He certainly was not attempting to sell Sodomy to
you and your Son.
What two adults might do in the privacy of their own home
is less important than when they decide to flaunt and
advertise their sexual deviance in the face of you and your Son.

Politics


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

Do you really think The Adventures of Cueball" is the "Holy Grail"
against which all subsequent scifi shows are measured, Shocko? A scary
thought. You didn't like Deep Throat 9? [[DS9]] speaking of Cueball,
d'you remember that ep when Riker is hitting up that...girl[?] from that
supposedly androgynous race? Wasn't that just a shameful apologist forum

First off, define: Cueball. Sounds like a character in the series

Sliders.

Second, I faintly remember Riker being involved in something
repulsive like that. You would have to post which episode name
and year it was for me to look it up and comment upon it.
If it was The Outcast, the records show that that episode
first aired 03/16/1992, which was right in the middle
of the Clinton campaign for President which I have
previously discussed as the real turning point when
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives took control
in Hollywood and in the country.
And it works right into the timeline of being 5 months
after the Death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover
of the Star Trek franchise by Rick Berman.
Suddenly, the Star Trek TNG actors were being asked to
read scripts which expanded on the idea of Sodomy being
'just another life choice' and Stewart it seems, to his credit,
reacted against this.
Politics
=========================================
"say No to anal sex !".
As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both
of these 1994 Saturday Night Live scripts clearly wanted
to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at
that time when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals.
Of course, Star Trek: The Next Generation was the
Gold Standard against which all the other subsequent
science fiction shows are measured.
In 1994, this was Star Trek TNG's last year (1987-1994) and
Star Trek Deep Space Nine was the new series (1993-1999)
taking over. Gene Roddenberry died in Oct 1991, Rick
Berman took over control of the Star Trek franchise.
One clear difference between the two series was Sodomy.
ST DS9 has deep Sodomy symbolisms written directly into
the storyline
Terry Farrell (a woman) had a symbiont/symbiant inside her
which was a man. And in fact, she was referred to by Sisko
as "Old Man" on a regular basis.
In addition, this ridiculous script item allowed the Rick Berman
Hollywood Homosexuals to write into the script scenarios where
Terry Farrell (a woman; note how even the actress's name is
sexually ambiguous) has affairs physically with other women,
such as with Susanna Thompson in the episode Rejoined.
Clearly, this homosexuality which had taken over the
Star Trek franchise, was killing it, since I am sure I am
not the only guy who stopped watching Star Trek product
aroundthis period.
Patrick Stewart as the elder stateman of the franchise
at this point clearly was intent, in the writing of these
Saturday Night Live scripts, on denouncing the
Rick Berman Hollywood Homosexuals who took over
the Star Trek franchise in 1991 and who still have control
of Star Trek content.
Here is Rick Berman encouraging homosexuals to pose him
questions about introducing Sodomy into the Star Trek
scripts by interviewing with an obscure homosexual
publication in order to generate fake support for Sodomy
on the series.
I doubt Roddenberry would even have talked to this rag.
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/braga2003.html
Politics

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by John Shocked
Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?

Does Rock Hudson have anything to do with Star Trek? Why no, he doesn't.

[John Shocked]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?

Does Rock Hudson have anything to do with Star Trek? Why no, he doesn't.

If Hudson did a Star Trek episode or any science fiction movies or shows
it would be right on topic.
However, even without that, a homosexual in Hollywood is right on topic
for a discussion about Sodomy scripts in Hollywood.

Politics

[Jaxtraw]

Post by John Shocked

Here is part of the case that proves that .........

you're a loonie

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!
C.

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. He certainly was not attempting to sell Sodomy to
you and your Son.
What two adults might do in the privacy of their own home
is less important than when they decide to flaunt and
advertise their sexual deviance in the face of you and your Son.

John, do you by any chance have a son who is homosexual?

Just asking.

Ian

[John Shocked]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by John Shocked

Here is part of the case that proves that .........

you're a loonie

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!
C.

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. He certainly was not attempting to sell Sodomy to
you and your Son.
What two adults might do in the privacy of their own home
is less important than when they decide to flaunt and
advertise their sexual deviance in the face of you and your Son.

John, do you by any chance have a son who is homosexual?
Just asking.
Ian

I do not answer personal questions on these Newsgroups.
However, such a factor would not affect my point of view on
this issue either way.

Politics

[manitou]

Post by Jaxtraw
John, do you by any chance have a son who is homosexual?
Just asking.

Sounds to me more like J is an extreme closet case. He seems to be very
knowledgable about homoerotic subtexts!












C.

[John Shocked]

Post by manitou

Post by Jaxtraw
John, do you by any chance have a son who is homosexual?
Just asking.

Sounds to me more like J is an extreme closet case. He seems to be very
knowledgeable about homoerotic subtexts!
C.

Sounds like this guy agrees with my interpretation of the Hollywood
Homosexual subliminal homosexual content in the science fiction series
post-Roddenberry.

Politics

[ToolPackinMama]

http://www.spamusement.com/view.php?id=139

[John Shocked]

Post by ToolPackinMama
http://www.spamusement.com/view.php?id=139

===============================================
One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind Battlestar Galactica are
pushing Sodomy symbolisms in BSG is because they would desperately like to
reverse some of the following results which they encountered in all 11
states in the US on November 3 2004 (US election day) which had Ballot
Questions (plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling their own
state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage agenda.
So if you are watching your favorite science fiction show and then you
notice something in the script which does not make sense, it may be that it
was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the Hollywood Homosexuals who are
using the script as their advertisement vehicle.

Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since around 1992, when Clinton
(and Jerry Brown) ran for President the first time.
Even though they have been pushing their agenda hard for all these years,
they are yet to win a single statewide vote.
Clinton took homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was inaugurated
started to implement policies that he was bought and paid to implement --
Gays In The Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular policy
initiative, shocked the public, and resulted in the Democrats losing both
Houses of Congress in 1994, and started a series of investigations into
Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his Impeachment in 1998.
John Kerry (Democrat 2004 Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual
money in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have many sources of
money, representing the poorer segments of society. Since Kerry was from
the state of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004 legalized
Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt bribed out Judges judicial decision
(not a vote by its legislature) the onus was on John Kerry to separate
himself from this suicidal issue in a very very public manner.

However, because Kerry took Hollywood Homosexual money in the 2004 year and
before, he simply was not able to do that.
Thus in a year when Kerry was running for President against George W. Bush,
who had a terrible record, who had had the Economy collapse early in his
first year (2001) and it stayed that way till mid 2004, who also failed to
prevent the 9-11 Attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, who lied to drag
the US into a war against Iraq, when his allegations that Iraq had Weapons
Of Mass Destruction were false and various other failures, Kerry still could
not win because of the Homosexual agenda balla and chain around his neck.
Kerry should have won this race 55%-45% if he was not carrying this
Homosexual agenda ball and chain.
And the following votes are an in indication of how strongly people felt
against this homosexual agenda Kerry was pushing.

Several of these 11 states were Swing States -- they were close in the
previous election and would decide the election in 2004.
Many people went to vote against the Homosexual Agenda, and voted against
Kerry as an afterthought.

Now Hollywood Homosexuals are wealthy fatcats and, despite popular
misconceptions, are overwhelming Republican.
They do not want Democrats like John Kerry to win and then raise their
taxes.
Thus, there may well be a scam going on here, to buy the Democrat candidate
each year and ask him to support something the US public despises -- this
time it was Homosexual Marriage.
If this buying every 4 years of the Democrat candidate by Hollywood
Homosexual fatcats continues, it could be an extremely long time before the
Democrats ever come close to taking back any of the branches of government
again.

Here are the results from the 11 States who had the Homosexual agenda on a
ballot question 5 months ago:



----------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas
Ballot wording: Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one
woman. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or
substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in
Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage
from another state between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power
to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment,
and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of
marriage.Result: Passed 75% to 25%

Georgia
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following
statement: (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man
and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this
state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by
this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not
give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other
state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same
sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or
jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a
divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or
otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights
arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.Result:
Passed 77% to 23%.

Kentucky
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized
as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar
to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or
recognized.Result: Passed: 75% to 25%.

Michigan
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following
statement: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society
and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman
in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar
union for any purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.

Mississippi
The measure amends the state constitution to read: Marriage may take place
and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a
woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons
of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be
recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of
this state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.

Montana
The measure amends the state constitution to read: Only a marriage between
one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this
state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.

North Dakota
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following
statement: Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a
woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a
marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect.Result: Passed
73% to 24%.

Ohio
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following
statement: Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage
valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This
state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal
status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to
approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of
marriage.Result: Passed 62% to 38%.

Oklahoma
The measure amends the state constitution to read: A Marriage in this state
shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this
Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require
that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon
unmarried couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of the same
gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and
binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. C. Any person
knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.Result: Passed 76% to 24%.

Oregon
The measure would amend the state constitution to read: It is the policy of
Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man
and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.Result:
Passed 57% to 43%.

Utah
The measure amends the state constitution to read, 1. Marriage consists only
of the legal union between a man and a woman. 2. No other domestic status or
union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may be
authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal
effect as a marriage. Results: Passed 66% to 34%.
---------------------------------------------------------

Politics

[William December Starr]

Post by manitou
Sounds to me more like J is an extreme closet case. He
seems to be very knowledgable about homoerotic subtexts!

s/closet/nut/

[John Shocked]

Post by William December Starr

Post by manitou
Sounds to me more like J is an extreme closet case. He
seems to be very knowledgable about homoerotic subtexts!

s/closet/nut/

Sounds like these guys agree there is a problem with
Hollywood Homosexuals selling Sodomy in science fiction
TV scripts.

Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by manitou

Post by Jaxtraw
John, do you by any chance have a son who is homosexual?
Just asking.

Sounds to me more like J is an extreme closet case. He seems to be very
knowledgable about homoerotic subtexts!
C.

Sounds like you recognize there is a problem with Hollywood
Homosexuals selling Sodomy in their science fiction scripts.

Politics

[manitou]

Post by John Shocked

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. He certainly was not attempting to sell Sodomy to
you and your Son.
What two adults might do in the privacy of their own home
is less important than when they decide to flaunt and
advertise their sexual deviance in the face of you and your Son.

Um..., for the record I do not have a son or a daughter.

However, my parents (each the product of post-Victorian British
families) never felt they had to protect me from gay subtexts (or
anything else) in movies. They were smart enough to realize kids don't
take long to find out what goes on in the world and cannot be
'protected' from such information.

In fact my father took me (at my request) to "The Servant" for my 18th
birthday. He was more (though only slightly) distressed when he took
me, as a pre-teen, to "Baby Face Nelson" starring Mickey Rooney. He'd
forgotten BFN was a brutal gangster, and the movie's explicit violence
was a precursor to "Bonnie and Clyde" and "The Sopranos". I wanted to
see it because MR once had a TV show I liked.

I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).








C.

[Jaxtraw]

<snip John Shocked's anti-homsexual ravings, and part of Manitou's reply>
I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).

JAAMOI, since I haven't seen it, how explicit were they about it? Did it
also include the bit where Lot offers his daughters to the mob for their
sexual use? I bet they didn't tell the story as it is in the Bible, for fear
of offending christians :)

Ian

[manitou]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by manitou
I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).

JAAMOI, since I haven't seen it, how explicit were they about it? Did it
also include the bit where Lot offers his daughters to the mob for their
sexual use? I bet they didn't tell the story as it is in the Bible, for fear
of offending christians :)

I haven't seen it since, but IIRC the movie white-washed the gay aspect.
My major recollection is the wife turning into a pillar of salt.

FWIW, the movie was produced by the same company which also was backing
Visconti's "The Leopard", and the company went bankrupt a year later.










C.

[John Shocked]

Post by manitou

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by manitou
I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).

JAAMOI, since I haven't seen it, how explicit were they about it? Did it
also include the bit where Lot offers his daughters to the mob for their
sexual use? I bet they didn't tell the story as it is in the Bible, for fear
of offending christians :)

I haven't seen it since, but IIRC the movie white-washed the gay aspect.

What the heck does IIRC stand for ?

Post by manitou
My major recollection is the wife turning into a pillar of salt.
FWIW, the movie was produced by the same company which also was backing
Visconti's "The Leopard", and the company went bankrupt a year later.
C.

I do not recall a movie called The Leopard, so this may again be a
US-UK thing.

Politics

[manitou]

JAAMOI...

What does 'JAAMOI' stand for?













C.

[Jaxtraw]

Post by manitou

JAAMOI...

What does 'JAAMOI' stand for?
C.

Just as a matter of interest :)

Ian

[manitou]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by manitou

JAAMOI...

What does 'JAAMOI' stand for?

Just as a matter of interest :)

Interesting.

No doubt Mr. JS thinks it means "jerk away at moi" and was coined by a
fatcat Hollywood homosexual.












C.

[John Shocked]

Post by Jaxtraw

<snip John Shocked's anti-homsexual ravings, and part of Manitou's reply>
I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).

JAAMOI, since I haven't seen it, how explicit were they about it? Did it
also include the bit where Lot offers his daughters to the mob for their
sexual use? I bet they didn't tell the story as it is in the Bible, for fear
of offending christians :)
Ian

I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists, and it seems to me to be a literary device
to demonstrate clearly that God was going to kill these people because
of homosexuality, not just lascivious sex.

Politics

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by John Shocked
I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists

So, I don't get it: why offer a female victim if the rapists are Gay?
Were they lesbians?

[manitou]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists

So, I don't get it: why offer a female victim if the rapists are Gay?
Were they lesbians?

gasp.........

I'm shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!











C.

[John Shocked]

Post by manitou

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists

So, I don't get it: why offer a female victim if the rapists are Gay?
Were they lesbians?

gasp.........
I'm shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
C.

As I mentioned, it was a literary device to make a clear distinction
that God was about to kill all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah
because of Sodomy, not lascivious sex.

Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists

So, I don't get it: why offer a female victim if the rapists are Gay?
Were they lesbians?

No they were men who wanted homosexual rape with the 2 Angels.
The writer simply uses this offer of the daughters as literary device
to demonstrate that Sodomy was the crime.
Ultimately, everyone in the area in killed by God except Lot's family
and Lot repopulates the community with his daughters.
One would have to imagine that Incest in such a circumstance
would be called for.

Politics

[Richard L Hamer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists

So, I don't get it: why offer a female victim if the rapists are Gay?
Were they lesbians?

No they were men who wanted homosexual rape with the 2 Angels.
The writer simply uses this offer of the daughters as literary device
to demonstrate that Sodomy was the crime.
Ultimately, everyone in the area in killed by God except Lot's family
and Lot repopulates the community with his daughters.
One would have to imagine that Incest in such a circumstance
would be called for.
Politics

Its nice that you know so much of Gods internal thinking.

I'm sure the Goddess with forgive you since she is very forgiving of
fools and others like you without completed mental processes.

[John Shocked]

Post by Richard L Hamer

Post by John Shocked

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists

So, I don't get it: why offer a female victim if the rapists are Gay?
Were they lesbians?

No they were men who wanted homosexual rape with the 2 Angels.
The writer simply uses this offer of the daughters as literary device
to demonstrate that Sodomy was the crime.
Ultimately, everyone in the area in killed by God except Lot's family
and Lot repopulates the community with his daughters.
One would have to imagine that Incest in such a circumstance
would be called for.
Politics

Its nice that you know so much of Gods internal thinking.
I'm sure the Goddess with forgive you since she is very forgiving of
fools and others like you without completed mental processes.

The Bible is a script like any other. Whoever wrote its parts uses
the same literary devices as any other writer.

Politics

[Jaxtraw]

Post by Jaxtraw

<snip John Shocked's anti-homsexual ravings, and part of Manitou's

reply>

Post by Jaxtraw

I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).

JAAMOI, since I haven't seen it, how explicit were they about it? Did it
also include the bit where Lot offers his daughters to the mob for their
sexual use? I bet they didn't tell the story as it is in the Bible, for

fear

Post by Jaxtraw
of offending christians :)
Ian

I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists, and it seems to me to be a literary device
to demonstrate clearly that God was going to kill these people because
of homosexuality, not just lascivious sex.

Well, that's an interesting interpretation, but it isn't actually in keeping
with the story. I have read it. Firstly, nowhere does the bible say that the
people of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals. It describes them as being
sinful and ignoring God. Nowhere does it say, or imply, that their generic
sin was homosexuality.

Secondly, it quite clearly states, incontrovertibly, that, when confronted
with the mob, Lot offers them his daughters in return for the safety of his
guests. His guests "the angels" then tell Lot not to bother, since they can
protect him and his family anyway. But. This good man, this only good man in
the area, supposedly, quite clearly offers his daughters to a baying mob.
It's not a literary device, it's a story of what this man (supposedly) did.

Then, with his wife safely out of the way, he takes his daughters into the
hills and fucks them until they are both pregnant.

Which is rather less moral, IMHO, than anal sex between consenting adults.

It is not made clear in the story what the mob intended to do with or to the
guests btw. Rape is one possibility, that is all. If you read the bible
though, you'll soon see that God destroys the cities for general sinfulness-
not for any specific sin, including homosexuality. One may additionally ask
why Lot, a very rich man (he and Abram separate because their flocks are so
huge that the herdsmen are fighting each other for grazing rights), chooses
to live in this city of sin. He could live anywhere he liked.

Anyway, the bible is available from all major booksellers, and is also
online in several places. Take a look before pontificating about what you
think it says.

Ian

[John Shocked]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by John Shocked

Post by Jaxtraw

<snip John Shocked's anti-homsexual ravings,
and part of Manitou's reply>
I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies)
took me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she
was wondering how explicit the movie would be regarding the
homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).

JAAMOI, since I haven't seen it, how explicit were they about it? Did it
also include the bit where Lot offers his daughters to the mob for their
sexual use? I bet they didn't tell the story as it is in the Bible, for
fear of offending christians :)
Ian

I cannot say I have actually read this story word for word in the Bible
but I have read about Lot offering his daughter to the amassed gang
of homosexual rapists, and it seems to me to be a literary device
to demonstrate clearly that God was going to kill these people because
of homosexuality, not just lascivious sex.

Well, that's an interesting interpretation, but it isn't actually in keeping
with the story. I have read it. Firstly, nowhere does the bible say that the
people of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals. It describes them as being
sinful and ignoring God. Nowhere does it say, or imply, that their generic
sin was homosexuality.

Wrong. It uses the biblical term "to know" as a pseudonym for "sex"
The writer uses this term both in the demand of the homosexual rape
gang's demand "to know" the two Angel visitors and when the writer
has Lot offer his daughters to the gang.
I assume this is where the joke term "to know someone biblically"
originates.

Post by Jaxtraw
Secondly, it quite clearly states, incontrovertibly, that, when confronted
with the mob, Lot offers them his daughters in return for the safety of his
guests. His guests "the angels" then tell Lot not to bother, since they can
protect him and his family anyway. But. This good man, this only good man in
the area, supposedly, quite clearly offers his daughters to a baying mob.
It's not a literary device, it's a story of what this man (supposedly) did.
Then, with his wife safely out of the way, he takes his daughters into the
hills and fucks them until they are both pregnant.

Again, you are falling into the trap the writer has set. The writer is
stating
that even such subsequent behavior (I will take your word for it)
does not warrant death by God.
What is more, everyone else in sight was dead. God had killed everyone
except Lot and it was up to Lot and his daughters to repopulate the
community anew.
As Battlestar Galactica's President Roslin says to Adama in the miniseries:
"we have to start having babies".

Post by Jaxtraw
Which is rather less moral, IMHO, than anal sex between consenting adults.
It is not made clear in the story what the mob intended to do with or to the
guests btw. Rape is one possibility, that is all. If you read the bible
though, you'll soon see that God destroys the cities for general sinfulness-
not for any specific sin, including homosexuality. One may additionally ask
why Lot, a very rich man (he and Abram separate because their flocks are so
huge that the herdsmen are fighting each other for grazing rights), chooses
to live in this city of sin. He could live anywhere he liked.
Anyway, the bible is available from all major booksellers, and is also
online in several places. Take a look before pontificating about what you
think it says.
Ian

I read several respectable sources on the matter, which were correct.
I have now looked it up in my electronic version and pasted the passage
here for documentation.

Politics

===============================================
GENESIS
19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the
gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed
himself with his face toward the ground; 19:2 And he said, Behold now,
my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry
all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on
your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all
night.
19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him,
and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake
unleavened bread, and they did eat.
19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of
Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people
from every quarter: 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him,
Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out
unto us, that we may know them.
19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after
him, 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let
me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good
in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they
under the shadow of my roof.
19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow
came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal
worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man,
even Lot, and came near to break the door.
19:10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house
to them, and shut to the door.
19:11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with
blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to
find the door.
19:12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in
law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the
city, bring them out of this place: 19:13 For we will destroy this
place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the
LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married
his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD
will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons
in law.
19:15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot,
saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here;
lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
19:16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon
the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD
being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him
without the city.
19:17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad,
that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay
thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

19:18 And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my LORD: 19:19 Behold now,
thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy
mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot
escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: 19:20
Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one:
Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall
live.
19:21 And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this
thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou
hast spoken.
19:22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou
be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
19:23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.
19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and
fire from the LORD out of heaven; 19:25 And he overthrew those cities,
and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that
which grew upon the ground.
19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a
pillar of salt.
19:27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he
stood before the LORD: 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah,
and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke
of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain,
that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the
overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.
19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his
two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt
in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and
there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of
all the earth: 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we
will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the
firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when
she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto
the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him
drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we
may preserve seed of our father.
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the
younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay
down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the
same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name
Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this
day.
=============================================

[George Peatty]

Post by Jaxtraw
Well, that's an interesting interpretation, but it isn't actually in keeping
with the story. I have read it. Firstly, nowhere does the bible say that the
people of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals. It describes them as being
sinful and ignoring God. Nowhere does it say, or imply, that their generic
sin was homosexuality.

You're reading a different Bible than I am:

5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring
them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House) 1984.

[George Peatty]

Post by Jaxtraw
Anyway, the bible is available from all major booksellers, and is also
online in several places. Take a look before pontificating about what you
think it says.

You would be well-served to heed your own advice. It is incredible to me
how people can read the Bible, and lose all sense of the meaning of words.
You impose your own views on an account whose meaning couldn't be plainer,
and in the end, you behave as Mrs. Goodwin does in another context,
defending the untenable to maintain an idiosyncratic point of view.

[John Shocked]

Post by manitou

Post by John Shocked

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. He certainly was not attempting to sell Sodomy to
you and your Son.
What two adults might do in the privacy of their own home
is less important than when they decide to flaunt and
advertise their sexual deviance in the face of you and your Son.

Um..., for the record I do not have a son or a daughter.
However, my parents (each the product of post-Victorian British
families) never felt they had to protect me from gay subtexts (or
anything else) in movies. They were smart enough to realize kids don't
take long to find out what goes on in the world and cannot be
'protected' from such information.

The statistics indicate that a youngster's first sexual encounter,
heterosexual or homosexual, is determinative in his permanent future
life choice for sexual relations.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

Post by manitou
In fact my father took me (at my request) to "The Servant" for my 18th

Never heard of it. Could be one of those US-UK things.

Post by manitou
birthday. He was more (though only slightly) distressed when he took
me, as a pre-teen, to "Baby Face Nelson" starring Mickey Rooney. He'd
forgotten BFN was a brutal gangster, and the movie's explicit violence
was a precursor to "Bonnie and Clyde" and "The Sopranos". I wanted to
see it because MR once had a TV show I liked.

Both murder and homosexuality have negative effects on Human Life.
Murderers destroy human life and homosexuals are choosing not to
create and nurture human life.

Post by manitou
I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).
C.

The Sodom and Gomorrah story in the first book Genesis of the Bible
makes clear along with other mentions in Leviticus etc that Sodomy is
an abomination and is one of the few instances where the God in the bible
actually killed people. Not Satan, but God himself.
I went back and read accounts of this story when I kept hearing about
homosexuals who demanded inclusion in various christian church
organizations. How could anyone possibly claim this when they are
committing regularly acts which the Bible says warrant death ?

Politics

[Jaxtraw]

Post by John Shocked

Post by manitou

Post by John Shocked

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. He certainly was not attempting to sell Sodomy to
you and your Son.
What two adults might do in the privacy of their own home
is less important than when they decide to flaunt and
advertise their sexual deviance in the face of you and your Son.

Um..., for the record I do not have a son or a daughter.
However, my parents (each the product of post-Victorian British
families) never felt they had to protect me from gay subtexts (or
anything else) in movies. They were smart enough to realize kids don't
take long to find out what goes on in the world and cannot be
'protected' from such information.

The statistics indicate that a youngster's first sexual encounter,
heterosexual or homosexual, is determinative in his permanent future
life choice for sexual relations.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

Post by manitou
In fact my father took me (at my request) to "The Servant" for my 18th

Never heard of it. Could be one of those US-UK things.

Post by manitou
birthday. He was more (though only slightly) distressed when he took
me, as a pre-teen, to "Baby Face Nelson" starring Mickey Rooney. He'd
forgotten BFN was a brutal gangster, and the movie's explicit violence
was a precursor to "Bonnie and Clyde" and "The Sopranos". I wanted to
see it because MR once had a TV show I liked.

Both murder and homosexuality have negative effects on Human Life.
Murderers destroy human life and homosexuals are choosing not to
create and nurture human life.

Post by manitou
I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).
C.

The Sodom and Gomorrah story in the first book Genesis of the Bible
makes clear along with other mentions in Leviticus etc that Sodomy is
an abomination and is one of the few instances where the God in the bible
actually killed people.

ROTLMAO! You have *read* the old testament haven't you? God can't stop
smiting long enough to wipe his ass. Smite, smite, smite, morning noon and
smite. Ever read what happened to Jericho after that charming story about
the walls falling? That's right- God's orders, kill all the men, women,
children and livestock. That happens to all the cities God "takes".
Sometimes he lets Moses' marauding army keep the virgin females to be raped
later. You do know why the Hebrews were forced to stay 40 years in the
wilderness I hope- it was because they were scared of going to war on God's
behalf. You haven't read it all, have you?

Post by John Shocked
Not Satan, but God himself.
I went back and read accounts of this story when I kept hearing about
homosexuals who demanded inclusion in various christian church
organizations. How could anyone possibly claim this when they are
committing regularly acts which the Bible says warrant death ?

The bible also tells you not to eat pork and shellfish, to shun menstruating
women, and to mutilate your Son's penis. God specifically saves a man who
gets his daughters pregnant. It's hardly a fount of commonsense now, is it?

The fact is, the pentateuch is chock full of laws, most of which are
ridiculous (read it, the first 10 commandments Moses gets aren't the famous
ones, they're a hotchpotch including the glorious "Thou shalt not seethe a
kid in its mother's milk"). They're just the local laws of a bunch of bronze
age bedouin. Are you *really* suggesting that they should all be followed?
You want to stone people to death for working on the Sabbath? Take female
captives as slaves? Kill people for making steak in cheese sauce?

Grow up.

Ian

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Jaxtraw
The bible also tells you not to eat pork and shellfish, to shun menstruating
women, and to mutilate your Son's penis. God specifically saves a man who
gets his daughters pregnant. It's hardly a fount of commonsense now, is it?
The fact is, the pentateuch is chock full of laws, most of which are
ridiculous (read it, the first 10 commandments Moses gets aren't the famous
ones, they're a hotchpotch including the glorious "Thou shalt not seethe a
kid in its mother's milk"). They're just the local laws of a bunch of bronze
age bedouin. Are you *really* suggesting that they should all be followed?

Yeah, and what about the sermon on the mount? How does that fit in?

I think it's great sci-fi fans are finally showing some interest in the
Bible. Now, if only we'd take the Bible debate to the appropriate
newsgroups, everything would be perfect.

[John Shocked]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by John Shocked

Post by manitou

Post by John Shocked

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. He certainly was not attempting to sell Sodomy to
you and your Son.
What two adults might do in the privacy of their own home
is less important than when they decide to flaunt and
advertise their sexual deviance in the face of you and your Son.

Um..., for the record I do not have a son or a daughter.
However, my parents (each the product of post-Victorian British
families) never felt they had to protect me from gay subtexts (or
anything else) in movies. They were smart enough to realize kids don't
take long to find out what goes on in the world and cannot be
'protected' from such information.

The statistics indicate that a youngster's first sexual encounter,
heterosexual or homosexual, is determinative in his permanent future
life choice for sexual relations.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

Post by manitou
In fact my father took me (at my request) to "The Servant" for my 18th

Never heard of it. Could be one of those US-UK things.

Post by manitou
birthday. He was more (though only slightly) distressed when he took
me, as a pre-teen, to "Baby Face Nelson" starring Mickey Rooney. He'd
forgotten BFN was a brutal gangster, and the movie's explicit violence
was a precursor to "Bonnie and Clyde" and "The Sopranos". I wanted to
see it because MR once had a TV show I liked.

Both murder and homosexuality have negative effects on Human Life.
Murderers destroy human life and homosexuals are choosing not to
create and nurture human life.

Post by manitou
I was 15 when my mother (who liked historical and biblical movies) took
me to "Sodom and Gomorrah". She told me afterward she was wondering how
explicit the movie would be regarding the homosexual part of the story
(not to mention the [albeit hetero] incest...).
C.

The Sodom and Gomorrah story in the first book Genesis of the Bible
makes clear along with other mentions in Leviticus etc that Sodomy is
an abomination and is one of the few instances where the God in the bible
actually killed people.

ROTLMAO! You have *read* the old testament haven't you? God can't stop

No I have not, so I do not debate it. I merely mention it because
one constantly hears homosexual groups talking about how this or that
religious organization or church will not accept them when if any priest,
pope or whatever church leader were to accept homosexuals, it would be
clearly against the intent of the Bible.

Post by Jaxtraw
smiting long enough to wipe his ass. Smite, smite, smite, morning noon and
smite. Ever read what happened to Jericho after that charming story about
the walls falling? That's right- God's orders, kill all the men, women,
children and livestock. That happens to all the cities God "takes".
Sometimes he lets Moses' marauding army keep the virgin females to be raped
later. You do know why the Hebrews were forced to stay 40 years in the
wilderness I hope- it was because they were scared of going to war on God's
behalf. You haven't read it all, have you?

As I have stated, I have not read the Bible. Just accounts of what is in it
and I have sometimes, since I now have an electronic version of various
bibles of various religions, looked up certained words or phrases in it.

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by John Shocked
Not Satan, but God himself.
I went back and read accounts of this story when I kept hearing about
homosexuals who demanded inclusion in various christian church
organizations. How could anyone possibly claim this when they are
committing regularly acts which the Bible says warrant death ?

The bible also tells you not to eat pork and shellfish, to shun menstruating
women, and to mutilate your Son's penis. God specifically saves a man who
gets his daughters pregnant. It's hardly a fount of commonsense now, is it?
The fact is, the pentateuch is chock full of laws, most of which are

If you want to quote where the Bible states these things I will look them
up,
since I recently downloaded a copy of the Bible. However, my views
are not based on the Bible, since I have never read it.
However, I consider the Bible, Koran and various other such Books
together to be expressions of basic morality which was accepted by
the great majority of mankind.
However, back then there are many things I am sure which were put into the
Bible because people ate pork and died and then the eating of pork
was condemned. As we know now, pork is one of the most dangerous
meats to eat but modern processes make it more safe to eat.
Death often was interpreted as a message from God.

Post by Jaxtraw
ridiculous (read it, the first 10 commandments Moses gets aren't the famous
ones, they're a hotchpotch including the glorious "Thou shalt not seethe a
kid in its mother's milk"). They're just the local laws of a bunch of bronze

Seethe a kid ? Boil a kid in milk ? What are you talking about ?

Post by Jaxtraw
age bedouin. Are you *really* suggesting that they should all be followed?
You want to stone people to death for working on the Sabbath? Take female
captives as slaves? Kill people for making steak in cheese sauce?
Grow up.
Ian

Again, you would have to quote these items. However, most of what you are
describing are fringe issues which people back then thought would protect
lives.
Ultimately, the point here is that if homosexuals would claim a right to be
in the churches of religions whose bibles condemn Sodomy, they will claim
anything, including the right in Battlestar Galactica to sell Sodomy
to you and your Son.

Politics

[Jaxtraw]

"John Shocked" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hQzee.6247$***@fed1read01...
<snip>
Politics
John, I won't be engaging in any further debate with you as it's clear that
you have a very unique worldview and there is no way that you will be
dissuaded. I hope that one day you'll again be able to enjoy harmless
science fiction TV shows as the rest of us in these newsgroups do, without
being haunted by phantoms that don't exist. Please try to understand that
your postings to these newsgroups are just seen as annoying and irrational
to those of us who just come here for a light chat about something we enjoy,
and that none of us are agents of the studios. I know that you won't believe
this; but I say it nonetheless.

Regards,

Ian

[John Shocked]

Post by Jaxtraw

<snip>
Politics

John, I won't be engaging in any further debate with you as it's clear that
you have a very unique worldview and there is no way that you will be
dissuaded. I hope that one day you'll again be able to enjoy harmless
science fiction TV shows as the rest of us in these newsgroups do, without
being haunted by phantoms that don't exist. Please try to understand that
your postings to these newsgroups are just seen as annoying and irrational
to those of us who just come here for a light chat about something we enjoy,
and that none of us are agents of the studios. I know that you won't believe
this; but I say it nonetheless.
Regards,
Ian

Again, as I have stated before, if you want to just get together with some
friends and chat about the weather, find a chat room on AOL where this
could be done.
Public forums or Newsgroups on the Usenet are here for people
who have something to say about the issue in the Newsgroup title.
If you do not like that, then find some other place to go chat with people.
This stupid idea that people who come to forums like this about
important issues are "trolls" or are somehow
abusing the process is simply a scam perpetrated by
Hollywood Homosexuals who own all of the rest of the media.
They are desperate to mute speech on the Usenet, because they
cannot buy it and control it.
If your Hollywood Homosexual friends could put their stranglehold
over the Usenet, the first thing they would do is Ban me and
Delete all of my messages.
They already have done that on the Scifi Channel web site.
Why do you think they buy up the media stations and newspapers ?
They want control of minds like yours, since they consider you to
be just another piece of trash to be manipulated by their
propagandists in the media.
Everything about this statement of yours to which I respond is exactly
what Hollywood Homosexuals want:
widespread chumps/stooges in the public who would sit there and
support their complete control over the media to sell Neo-Conservative
Sodomy and Anti-Arab Hate.

Politics

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by John Shocked
The Sodom and Gomorrah story in the first book Genesis of the Bible
makes clear along with other mentions in Leviticus etc that Sodomy is
an abomination and is one of the few instances where the God in the bible
actually killed people. Not Satan, but God himself.
I went back and read accounts of this story when I kept hearing about
homosexuals who demanded inclusion in various christian church
organizations. How could anyone possibly claim this when they are
committing regularly acts which the Bible says warrant death ?

So, you think we should bring back stoning adulterers?

[John Shocked]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by John Shocked
The Sodom and Gomorrah story in the first book Genesis of the Bible
makes clear along with other mentions in Leviticus etc that Sodomy is
an abomination and is one of the few instances where the God in the bible
actually killed people. Not Satan, but God himself.
I went back and read accounts of this story when I kept hearing about
homosexuals who demanded inclusion in various christian church
organizations. How could anyone possibly claim this when they are
committing regularly acts which the Bible says warrant death ?

So, you think we should bring back stoning adulterers?

The issue is whether such people should be allowed to pray in
a church and be members of that church's flock.
If Priests follow the Bible, they should not.

Politics

[FranticInFresno]

Post by John Shocked

Here is part of the case that proves that .........

you're a loonie

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!
C.

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. <SNIP>

I seem to recall Rock playing Col John Wilder in "The Martian Chronicles"
sometime back in the 1980s. Story by Ray Bradbury. And IF I HAD found
anything objectionable about the story content, I would have changed the
channel. Nice feature on television sets.

If you don't want to support the "gay agenda", stop yer complaining and
switch to another station.

[John Shocked]

Post by FranticInFresno

Post by John Shocked

Here is part of the case that proves that .........

you're a loonie

Anyone got a cyber-ouija board?
I'd sure love to hear what Rock Hudson thinks about this!!!!!
C.

Did Rock Hudson do any science fiction ?
At least he was in the closet about his personal homosexual
issues. <SNIP>

I seem to recall Rock playing Col John Wilder in "The Martian Chronicles"
sometime back in the 1980s. Story by Ray Bradbury. And IF I HAD found
anything objectionable about the story content, I would have changed the
channel. Nice feature on television sets.
If you don't want to support the "gay agenda", stop yer complaining and
switch to another station.

Sounds like you admit that the Hollywood Homosexuals in control
of the science fiction TV series like Battlestar Galactica do indeed
have a "homosexual agenda" and that viewers can either accept this
content being foisted upon them or switch the channel. Right ?

Politics