response 63 of 404:

Oct 18 01:44 UTC 1998

geez. the godhatesfags site is truly scary.

response 65 of 404:

Oct 18 05:14 UTC 1998

brighn, about as many pro-lifers hate (in proportion) as do proportions of
other groups.  That shocks no one.  

response 67 of 404:

Oct 18 21:57 UTC 1998

Ah.  so, you're telling me, that all pro lifers are insensitive shortsighted
bastards who refuse to look at the other side of the coin?

Lovely :)

response 69 of 404:

Oct 18 23:42 UTC 1998

I see that the perpetrators are guilty without a trial, but I want more facts.
What was the intent of the perpetrators?  Did they actually intend to kill
their victim?  Were they inebriated (no excuse)?  How intense was the homo's
"pass"? Did he receive signs of rejection, which he did not heed?  What did the
Homo actually die from? Exposure? Beating? Combination?  The "killers may have
been as shocked as anyone else to discover that the homo died.

I had a guy make a pass at me and frankly it amused me.  I still chuckle about
that.  But the idea of "cornholing" a man (or a woman) is repulsive to me.  So
is picking your nose and eating it.

I am (I guess) a pro lifer.  I march for and support a group, who provide free
support to mother's to be, whether married or not.  I do what I do to preserve
human life.

But I hate neither the murderer of small unborn children nor homosexuals, nor
liars, nor thieves, nor corrupt politicians, nor fornicators, nor adulterers,
etc, etc.  They are all the same to me.

Homosexuality puzzles me.  I can see what a women sees in another woman. 
Shucks, I like women.  But guys and guys. Yuck.  Never the less, I have seen
many men who act feminine.  This seems to come natural to them.


In view of the apparent lack of acceptance of homosexual actions,  any homo
who randomly approaches anyone for a "date" is unwise.  They should  stick to
homo bars or watch for other signs from a prospective partner.

response 71 of 404:

Oct 19 00:14 UTC 1998

"The homo?"  Please...

I'm not sure where the making a pass at the perpetrators is really relevant,
unless you would also consider it accetable for them to kill somebody of the
opposite sex, who they weren't attracted to, for making a pass at them.  I'm
also not sure it's particularly relevant whether the direct cause of death
was the beating or the exposure.  When somebody is beaten so badly that they
can't move, and then tied to a fence outside and left there for several hours,
the people who beat him and tied him to a fence can hardly claim to be not
responsable, because it was the being outside that killed him.  That would
be like pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger, and then claiming
to not be responsable for the death because it was the bullet that did the
killing.

response 73 of 404:

Oct 19 04:41 UTC 1998

Kenton, I hate to say this, but you're not helping any. 

However, he does bring up a decent point, albeit badly.  Certain 
Christian denominations may denounce homosexuality as a sin, but they're 
usually the same ones who mention that all people sin.  And that sin, 
for all intents and purposes, is generally the same.  Christians who 
hate homosexuals simply because they are homosexuals are in fact 
breaking the second commandment, which is a bit more important than 
sexual orientation.  Thus, they're not really following their theologies 
very well.  However, these bigots are not a majority of the religious 
right.  And it annoys me when people generalize like that.  It's no 
different from saying "all blacks are dumb" or "all jews are greedy."  
However, it's socially acceptable among a decent part of the population.

I think there's very little question that the murder was intentional.  I 
haven't heard any compelling evidence yet, but it seems logical that it 
would be hate-motivated.  Few murders of that nature don't have that 
sort of motive.  It's a terrible crime.  And I wish some of the people 
whom I'm defending (obviously, there *are* some insensitive bigots) 
would quit drowning out the majority.

response 75 of 404:

Oct 19 06:31 UTC 1998

There is certainly some difference between religious or political affiliation,
which is a matter of choice, and racial affiliation, which is a matter of
biology.  Race is defined either by what somebody looks like or where their
ancestors were from, while religious and political affiliations are defined
by what a person belives.  Saying all people who believe X believe X would
be quite reasonable, if redundant, while saying all people with dark skin
believe X would be rediculous (for X being any highly controversial opinion).

Clearly, not all people who believe abortion is wrong believe it is their
place to try to talk strangers out of having abortions, and not everybody who
tries to talk strangers out of abortions also believes that they would be
justified in blowing up abortion clinics.  Likewise, I'm sure many people who
think homosexuality is wrong still don't support discrimination, and even many
of those who wouldn't want to associate with a gay person wouldn't go out and
kill gay people.  Does that mean that it would be impossible to say, "all
people in group Y want to kill gay people," or "all people in group Y want
to blow up abortion clinics?"  Of course not.  It's all a matter of how we
define group Y.  If Group Y is the Association for the Blowing up of Abortion
Clinics and Murder of Gay People, then we can very well assume that its
members are probably violent people

Senna is seeing people here criticize the Religious Right for views he doesn't
hold and actions he hasn't participated in.  He is then grouping himself into
the Religious Right, and becoming offended.  However, I think the terms
Religious Right and Religious Wackos, and whatever other equivillent terms
are going around, actually dn't generally apply to people like senna, who is
way too open minded to be grouped in there.  Again, the accuracy or inaccuracy
of the blanket statements depends on how we determine who is in that group.

response 77 of 404:

Oct 19 15:53 UTC 1998

        <chuckle>

        Ah, GREX ...

response 79 of 404:

Oct 19 16:25 UTC 1998

ain't it fun, John? =}
;}

response 81 of 404:

Oct 19 19:19 UTC 1998

After I calmed down from my hissy fit =} I realized one of the problems with
the way that the abortion issue has turned out in this country: too many
people are living in a black-and-white world. When saying what I said about
Jiffer not being a "pro-lifer," I could hear the criticism, "So, what, does
that make her a pro-choicer?"

IT's become too much of an us-and-them issue, in an us-and-them culture.
"You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem." Durham. Frankly,
I think most people are in the gray middle somewhere on most issues, including
abortion and gay rights.

response 83 of 404:

Oct 20 02:35 UTC 1998

the fundamental problem in the abortion issue is that participants in both
sides refuse to accept that the other side has a logical and well thought out
viewpoint.  They think they're repressive pigs on one side and holocaustal
murderers on the other.  Which is why I have never and will never declare my
standpoint on the issue.  It's disgusting.

response 85 of 404:

Oct 20 03:32 UTC 1998

I'm a fairly ardent pro-choicer. I think that the pro-life stance has some
reasonable, well-thought-out arguments. I don't even disagree with all of
them. Nobody I know thinks abortion is a wonderful thing.

The point is, when two opposing groups have reasonable and well-thought-out
viewpoints, we must rely on the courts to decide which route to take. The
courts decided which route, in Roe v Wade. 

I have made and continue to make a distinction between people who oppose
abortion and "pro-lifers." The pro-lifers are the ones using coersion, force,
and extortion to block people from going into clinics, etc. *They* are
repressive pigs. 

People who oppose abortion? Well, that depends on how strongly one takes the
word "oppose." Nearly everyone I know, and has ever met, agrees that abortion
is a tragedy. I certainly do. 

But mature individuals don't turn to guerilla tactics when the reasonable
opinion of the courts don't go their way. They try to change the opinion of
the courts, which is what the reasonable people who oppose abortion as a
viable choice for anyone do.

response 87 of 404:

Oct 20 05:10 UTC 1998

Um, maybe the ACLU's agenda has to do with civil liberties?

Un-identifiable bodies are found pretty often.   If by some mischance
you or a family member died under such circumstances, would it please
you to know that the government would hand the unknown body over for a
nice Hindu burial?  The normal procedure is a nice respectful
non-sectarian burial (with the option of a religious reburial if your
family ever finds you).

I would consider it very improper for any governmental authority to be
handing unidentified bodies over to some religious group for sectarian
burial, and I would consider doing so a violation of church and state
seperation.  A very appropriate case for the ACLU.

Of course, there are some who would argue that these particular bodies
are not bodies at all, but medical waste, which is a whole other can of
worms.

I also tend to wonder about the motives of this church.  I've never
before heard of any Christian church stepping forward to offer to give
unidentified bodies a "Christian burial".  Most christian churches are
reluctant to give religous burials to people whose religion is unknown. 
Could it be that some religious group was trying to make a media event
out of burying the poor aborted fetuses?