[DMCForum] Re: Why? (For Marc, Jack and now Flavia)

["cruznmd" <racuti1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Freeze right there:

You have just proven every single thing I've been saying Jack and 
you don't and won't ever realize it but I'll point it out for 
everyone else's benefit:

You just said "incest is wierd". 100 years ago, blacks marrying 
whites was "wierd" and "frowned upon" you dolt! Just for different 
reasons than incest. Go ahead, tell me how I'm twisting your words 
all around. You give me too much credit. "Incest will never be 
right, we can all agree wiht that one" Ha! People said the same 
thing about blacks and women being looked upon as equals. I'm so 
glad we can rely upon your powers of prognostication Jack! 

You just said "incest is still wrong". Wrong? Why? You just say the 
word "wrong" like a religious zealot would. "Wrong" without ANY 
explanation. You just drew an arbitrary line between "right" 
and "wrong" without any explanation just like a "right-wing nut job" 
you giant friggin' hypocrite! Incest is "wrong" but abortion, 
homosexuality, are ok. Why? Because someone before you, decided that 
it was ok and because you can't think for yourself, you follow along 
with it. I eliminated your "father is an authority figure" argument 
against incest by using the "brother/brother or brother/sister" 
example. When finally cornered, all you can offer me is that 
it's "WIERD" and "WRONG"????? Pitiful.

Look everyone! Jack's a conservative head-case! People like him are 
drawing lines between right and wrong! Tomorrow, no one will have 
any rights at all because of people like him! Incestous people 
aren't hurting anyone! What about their rights??

This is what I have been saying the entire time:

Society evolves, and what's "acceptable" changes over time. I have 
the moral courage to draw my line between "right and wrong" just a 
little earlier in the sand than you do my friend, and it's not for 
religious reasons.

At my job, I am -required- to keep a tv tuned to a news channel all 
day. The amount of liberal hand-wringing and crying on the news 
since the election is simply hilarious:

Let me sum up my beliefs up for you Marc, Jack and Flavia:

No one is going to take away your right to pray, or not pray to any 
religion. (You DO have to tolerate those who do pray just as they 
tolerate you for NOT praying) No one is going to take away your 
right to abort a fetus (and I don't think anyone should). Lastly, no 
one is going to take away your right to cry publicly about something 
that's never going to happen.

If you want to know who the hell is taking away freedom of speech in 
our proud nation, I suggest that you look in the mirror! If I 
disagree with homosexuality, or teachings of the Muslim religion but 
speak of it in public, I can be arrested and jailed for "hate 
speech" even if I'm NOT inciting violence against them! Who enacted 
that "politically correct" bull? Right wingers? I think not. Since 
when is speech regulated by the amount of hate you convey?

You can be gay all you want, or abort every time you get pregnant 
and you can belong or not belong to any religion you like, but if 
you think I will be silent when I disagree with it (unless I am 
inciting violence against the aforementioned) you'll be sadly 
disappointed.

"Liberal" is an oxymoron in this country. Mao Tse Tung refused to 
call himself emperor of China after his revolution because he knew 
the people would rebel against a tyrant. He insisted he be 
called "Chairman Mao" so that he sounded like a steward of the 
people. His motto to his subjects was "Be happy in your work". North 
Korea is known as "The Democratic Republic of North Korea" (DPRK). 
Have you heard of Kim Jong Il holding any elections lately? A turd 
by any other name, still smells like shit.

The word "Liberal" is fast becoming the sweet smelling euphemism for 
the word "Socialist". How's that Marc? Am I exercising my right to 
freedom of speech vigorously enough for you now? You had the 
audacity to lecture me for my lack of it earlier.

Rich



--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Parrot Head Radio 
<jackstiefel@xxxx> wrote:
> If that were the only argument then yes, it would be acceptable. 
> However incest is so far out there in the realm of weirdness 
society
> frowns on it.  A child is your own flesh and blood, half of you.  
Sure
> you can screw with a kids mind and tell them it is ok and even 
good to
> have sex with you, but in the end it is still wrong.  gay people
> aren't messing wiht people telling them it is right and come join 
me. 
> they are drawn to each other and fall in love.  It is the same 
thing
> (in my book) as if I told you it was wrong for you to marry a 
Blonde
> because you were also Blonde.  There are cousins all over West
> Virginia who would argue it is totally acceptable to marry and even
> have kids.  Just like in the 50's it was wrong for a Black man to
> drink from a White waterfountain.  Was that wrong?  Was it right? 
> Society had to deal with that issue, and luckily for us, right 
won. 
> Incest will never be right, we can all agree wiht that one.  As for
> Gays well, if you are very religious or homofobic you will never 
look
> at it as ok.  If you know a lot of Gay people, live near, or work
> with, you get a different view on the lifestyle.
> 
> Jack
> 
> 
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:18:24 -0000, cruznmd <racuti1@xxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Ok Jack,
> > 
> > I totally disagree. Looking up to your father is irrelevant. The 
> > primary arguement of people for homosexual lifestyles is that 
they 
> > aren't hurting anyone. If the child were to be raised to believe 
that 
> > sex with parents is acceptable and it's all kept in the home, 
then 
> > supposedly society isn't hurt by their actions. Genetic defects 
from 
> > incest can be avoided through birthcontrol.
> > 
> > But hey, let's set that aside and I'll refine it for you further:
> > 
> > Let's take brother/sister or sister/sister or brother/brother or 
hey 
> > why not 1st cousins of any gender. There is NO matter of control 
> > there. They are total equals. They are "in love", not hurting 
anyone. 
> > 
> > Is it right?
> > 
> > Rich
> > 
> > --- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Parrot Head Radio 
<jackstiefel@xxxx> 
> > wrote:
> > > I will tackle this one if no one minds... lol
> > > 
> > > The act of making Love is not necessarily for the purpose of
> > > perpetuating the species.  If that were true then married 
couples
> > > would only have sex that one time a month when the women can 
get
> > > pregnant.  Lovemaking is a way to consumate a relationship and 
show
> > > Love.
> > > 
> > > Now in the case of a Father/Daughter...  Well besides the 
conflict 
> > of
> > > interest between the Daughter looking up to her Father and 
there 
> > being
> > > an inherent wanting to please, there is the problem with 
incestual
> > > children being deformed and such.  Your question could have 
even put
> > > it to children like that teacher who wants or has married her 
> > student
> > > she is in jail for for having a sexual relationship.  They 
swear up
> > > and down they are in Love, but the teacher has a inherent 
control 
> > and
> > > the studens tend to look up and want to please their teacher.  
Plus 
> > it
> > > is generally accepted that it is a wrong thing to do.
> > > 
> > > The same question could be asked to Gun supporters... Hey if 
it is 
> > ok
> > > to go out and hunt and shoot animals, why not humans (don't 
say for
> > > food, many hunters don't do it for that reason)? We all want a 
nice
> > > male head on our wall right?  The same goes with having sex 
with
> > > animals.  Animals can't really consent, only rely on animal 
> > instincts.
> > >  If a female dog is in heat, almost anything can be waved in 
front 
> > of
> > > her and she will take it, same with the male dogs.
> > > 
> > > So 2 women over the age of 18 fall in Love.  Be it because 
they were
> > > abused by men at an early age, had a bad boyfriend, had a 
terrible
> > > first sexual experience, they were born that way, or for 
whatever
> > > reason causes them to be attracted to the same sex.  They have 
the
> > > right to make love to each other, plain and simple.  It is not 
> > harming
> > > society, if anything it is population control at it's 
minimum.  They
> > > are not having sex in public places, involving minors, 
throwing it 
> > in
> > > your face... Nothing.
> > > 
> > > Now some would next argue well what about drugs?  If I do 
drugs in 
> > my
> > > own home why should I be bothered.  Well drugs can and do lead 
to
> > > criminal acts and harm to the innocent.  They lead people down 
a 
> > path
> > > of hurting others as well as themselves.  I would say the same 
thing
> > > about Alcohol, but it is more trivial the damage that we have 
> > allowed
> > > it to continue.  I suppose the line must be drawn 
somewhere...  
> > Wow!!!
> > > I got it!!!  The line between pro-homo and anti-homo must be 
the 
> > same
> > > line as pro-pot and anti-pot....  We all agree beastiality is 
wrong,
> > > and Crack is wrong, but pot and alcohol are ok...  So no we 
are at 
> > the
> > > line of sexuality...
> > > 
> > > Man I am rambling, sorry.  FTR I am not in support of 
beastiality,
> > > incest, or hunting for anything except food.  Teachers should 
remain
> > > teachers and Gays are ok in my book as long as a guy doesn't 
hit on 
> > me
> > > lol.
> > > 
> > > Jack -- legal handgun carrying, non drinker/smoker who has 
lines in 
> > the sand :) 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:23:08 -0000, cruznmd <racuti1@xxxx> 
wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Marc said:
> > > > 
> > > > I want all you liberals to answer a question for me, that I 
> > honestly 
> > > > can't seem to resolve:
> > > > 
> > > > If two men or women, love each other, and engage in sexual 
acts 
> > which 
> > > > are unnatural (meaning for pleasure and not for the purpose 
of 
> > > > perpetuating the species) and they aren't hurting anyone, 
why is 
> > it 
> > > > not acceptable for a man to teach his daughter that it is 
ok, or 
> > > > perhaps even a privilage for her to love him and pleasure 
him if 
> > she 
> > > > agrees and isn't forced and isn't injured? Why is it not 
> > acceptable 
> > > > for a man to engage in acts with an animal if the animal 
isn't 
> > forced?
> > > > 
> > > > Is all of that acceptable simply because "it's in their 
bedroom 
> > and 
> > > > they aren't hurting anyone"? Where do we draw the line as a 
> > society 
> > > > and WHY?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > 
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
> >   
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >   
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jack Stiefel - Tampa, Fl   DMC Vin 03461
> 
> Parrot Head Radio http://www.fmtimemachine.com
> 
> "I reject your reality and substitute my own" -- Adam Savage

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.