Conference back40::soapbox

	uh huh..... 

    
    
    
    Actually it doesn't say that at all.  Homosexuals can march in the
    parade as people who are paying tribute to St. Patrick.  They can not
    peddle their own agenda, however.  They have to use their own vehicle
    if that is what they wish to do.
    
    
    Mike

    -1 Mike, you pretty much summed up their motive. it isn't to
       celebrate St. Paddy's Day more than to stuff their agenda
       "in your face."
    
       Chip 

    This doesn't qualify for a Gay Issues adjunct?  Personally I agree with
    the legal decision in principal only but abhor the bigotry displayed by
    the fine folks of the Ancient Order of Hibernators et al.  
    
    Brian 

    
    
    RE:  .2
    
    Exactly!
    
    

>Ancient Order of Hibernators

Thought this topic was about Boston (Allied War Veterans) not
New York (Ancient Order of Hibernians).

    
      If there is to be "freedom of association", there has to be a
     freedom to exclude on the basis of ideas.  How else could any
     movement for anything limit itself to people who are for that thing ?
    
      The only remaining question is whether the parade is an expression
     of an opinion, or "an accomodation", like a motel or restaraunt.  If
     the parade is in favor of nothing, it is a public accomodation and
     you cannot limit access.  If it is in favor of, or against, anything,
     then the first amendment guarantees the organizers the right to limit
     access to those of the same mind.  Of course, opponents can mount a
     non-violent counter-demonstration of their own.  Surely the only way
     to determine if the parade represents an ideology, is to ask the
     organizers.  How else would you do it ?
    
      Given the wording, it always looked like a no-brainer to me.  If you
     let the KKK march, you have to let them pick who marches.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 465.3 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

| -1 Mike, you pretty much summed up their motive. it isn't to celebrate St. 
| Paddy's Day more than to stuff their agenda "in your face."

	Yeah.... those Irish are like that. I mean, all those banners with all
the different clans, different groups, bars, everything! I always wondered if
they even remebered who St. Patrick is???? 


Glen

    I don't really cotton to the use of Paddy's Day guys. St. Patricks
    please.
    

    
    That's immaterial to the thread we're discussing.
      

    
    re: .8
    
    Disgusting.... isn't it????
    

    St Patrick is Welsh, not Irish.

    > St Patrick is Welsh, not Irish.
                 ^^
    
    Wow, he must be really old by now ! ! !
    Think of how much he must have collected from Social Security !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    
    Not the point, Glen.  The point is the people running the parade should
    be able to state what their message should be.  A question I have is,
    why is it that the gays/lesbians are so determined to get into this
    parade?  Why don't they just have a parade of their own like they do in
    other areas?  
    
    Mike 

    
    Boy, I start a perfectly good pun string, and it gets ignored 8^p.

    We are just cut from a different cloth today Mz_Deb.....

    
    re: .15
    
    
    Pooooooor baby!!!!!!  :(
    

	Sorry Mz. Debra, I just don't have time to needle anyone...

    
    Sorry, Mz_Deb, but someone buttonholed me and pulled me away from 
    the terminal.
    

    Glen:
    
    As a spectator of a parade, I can honestly tell you I am not interested
    in the sexual predisposition of a marching group.  It adds absolutely
    no value to the parade.
    
    -Jack

re:.0 > "I'm waiting with bated breath"

Is that like, Norman Bates from the "Psycho" film series?

    
    Re: .14 Mike...
    
    > Why don't they just have a parade of their own like they do in
    > other areas?
    
    If memory serves me right, I believe they do sponsor a parade
    and it is a great success! 
    
    							Hank

>    As a spectator of a parade, I can honestly tell you I am not interested
>    in the sexual predisposition of a marching group.  It adds absolutely
>    no value to the parade.

What value is added to the parade by identifying any particular group, Jack?
If the parade is an Irish pride event, why not let everyone march sans ID
and just assume they're all Irish?

I tend to agree that their sexual orientation is largely immaterial relative
to the event, but I think that many of the "groupings" are just as immaterial,
yet those seem to be of some import. Why is that?

    Jack, what's the point in taking your children to the circus...or to a
    baseball game when your team is last in the league?  It is to glean
    some sort of fun and entertainment from the event.  If I go to a Paddys
    day parade and see a marching band with bagpipes...or four leaf clovers
    painted on them, or a green car with Irish clowns in it dressed in
    green, then that is great.  It's entertaining and good for the
    children.
    
    When a gay organization insists on marching in the parade, where their
    heritage came from is irrelevent.  What is wanted here is to send a
    message that they are gay....and I....Don't...Care....and I am not
    interested in subjecting children or anybody else to this.  Which is
    why I wouldn't attend a parade that sanctioned a group like this...or
    the gay games....or anything else.
    
    -Jack

You didn't answer the question, Jack.

Gays have always been allowed to march in the parade as non-descript
participants. It's only the "Carrying of a banner announcing that they're
The Gay Irish", or whatever, that's been opposed. Yet other groups
(Kelly's Bar, Vietnam Vets, Teachers, who the hell knows what else)
get to march with the ID of their organization.

You want to see the parade with the shamrocks and all, or the circus
with the clowns and all, and take your kids, and not be affected by
a particular group identifying themselves. Fine. My question was,
why does any particular group have to identify themselves within the
parade? What value does it add, since your contention is that the
gays identifying themselves adds nothing?

As the Supremes pointed out, it's a simple issue.  Wacko and his friends have
the right to determine who can march in their parade just as much as the
Salute to Israel Parade can tell Hamas they can't have a float glorifying
Jihad, and the West Indian Day Parade can ban hooded Klansmen.  The
organizers of the parade think that GLIB is inimical to their beliefs and
interests, so they don't have to invite them to their party.

| <<< Note 465.11 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>


| Disgusting.... isn't it????

	It sure is Andy. I wonder what kind of agenda they're pushing.....

    Easy.  Let's use the four examples you brought up.
    
    Kelly's Bar - Honorable.  It is a good place to frequent, you can find
    friends there, it creates jobs and brings revenue to the city.
    
    Vietnam Vets. - Made themselves vulnerable to paying the great price,
    fought for American interests, acted honorably to the call of duty.
    
    Teachers - Invest in the future of the country.  Puts up with the
    strong arm labor unions, pays a high price in dealing with the deviants
    and dysfunctional families.  More or less has a ministry because they 
    believe in the importance of what they are doing.
    
    Gay Irish Individuals - Nice people who are attracted to the same
    members of their own gender.  We all have our quirks Jack but you don't
    see a group of men with a banner that says, "Men who are only attracted
    to oriental women...or blond women...or big breasted women.  No Jack,
    it isn't appropriate for family outings.  The people who run the parade
    recognized this and the Supreme Court recognized their right to feel
    this way.  I feel the same way and so do alot of people...including gay
    people.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 465.14 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>



| Not the point, Glen. The point is the people running the parade should
| be able to state what their message should be.  

	And those striking union gas workers that marched a couple of years ago
really helped set a common theme. 

| why is it that the gays/lesbians are so determined to get into this parade?  

	If it were gays and lesbians that were so determined to get into this
parade, then I would have to agree with you Mike, they should not be there. But
it is IRISH gays and lesbians who want to march. That is the key point. If one
must be Irish to march in the parade, these people are just that, Irish. If
groups can hold banners saying what clan, bar, group they belong to, so
shouldn't gays. It's really simple.

| Why don't they just have a parade of their own like they do in other areas?

	This parade is about being Irish. You have many groups coming in for
this. The Irish gays are just another group.

	As an aside, my friend Tim, who marched ONLY in the 1st parade, gets a
kick out of it when they keep showing the same footage from that 1st year, with
him being at the front of the line. I saw him on the national evening news. If
his parents didn't know he was gay before..... they certainly do now. :-)


Glen
| Mike

| <<< Note 465.15 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Passhion" >>>


| Boy, I start a perfectly good pun string, and it gets ignored 8^p.


	I thought you were just trying to needle us Deb...

| <<< Note 465.20 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| As a spectator of a parade, I can honestly tell you I am not interested in the
| sexual predisposition of a marching group. It adds absolutely no value to the 
| parade.

	you forgot to add in.... imnsho :-)

   ZZZ      you forgot to add in.... imnsho ... :-)
    
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...thud....
    thud.....thud...........

| <<< Note 465.24 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| When a gay organization insists on marching in the parade, where their 
| heritage came from is irrelevent.  

	No jack, that is not true. These are Irish glb's ONLY. They were the
ones who decided they wanted to march in the parade. 

| What is wanted here is to send a message that they are gay....

	Jack O'Leary's bar will have a banner stating just that. Why is it ok
for that to show? 

| and I....Don't...Care....

	Then shut up already!!! :-)  (sorry, couldn't resist)

| and I am not interested in subjecting children or anybody else to this.  

	That's ok for you to do for your own kids. You can hardly speak for
everyone though.


Glen

So, you can walk away saying to your kids "How about those guys from Kelly's
Bar! And, how about those Nam Vets! And, how about those Teachers, eh?" But
you'd like not to have to say, "How about those Gay's!". Cool.

Now, I go to the same parade and I'd prefer not to know that those folks
were from Kelly's Bar because a guy that got drunk there mowed down one
of my kids. And I'd prefer not to know about the teachers because I've
got a hair across my butt over the schools in Southie.

So what was the value added for me? If "just because some people will be
offended" is a good enough reason to keep the gays from carrying a banner,
then why isn't it sufficient to keep anyone else from doing likewise?

| <<< Note 465.28 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Gay Irish Individuals - Nice people who are attracted to the same members of 
| their own gender. We all have our quirks Jack but you don't see a group of men
| with a banner that says, "Men who are only attracted to oriental women...or 
| blond women...or big breasted women.  

	Wow Jack.... I don't know if this is a wind-up, or something you really
believe. I think you need to look at what being a homosexual is Jack. If you
only equate being heterosexual to being attracted to one of the oppisite
gender, and nothing else, then I could see why you said the above. If not, I
don't see your point here. Being a homosexual is EXACTLY like being
heterosexual, with one exception. The gender of your mate. 

| No Jack, it isn't appropriate for family outings.  

	Then ban those damn heterosexuals! Lets be consistant! Jack.... please
clear this up, but by what you wrote above, I was left with the impression that
gays don't belong at any type of family outing. Is this something you believe
to be true?



Glen

| <<< Note 465.34 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>



	Jack, you are a man of great wisdom...... AND LUCK TOO! Great note!


Glen

    
    
    RE: .29  I can see your point, Glen.
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    I wonder what the hypocrisy index would be if, say, a group calling
    itself...  "Celibate Gay Christians" wanted to and asked to be in a Gay
    Pride parade...
    

    	The parade is not being organized to appeal to any particuilar
    	"Jack" here.  You two seem to want to see different things in
    	the parade.  Well, it is being organized BY a particular group,
    	and they should be allowed to display whatever character THEY
    	want.  Don't like it?  Don't march in or attend the parade.
    	This parade is to reflect those aspects of Irish heritage here
    	that THEY wish to celebrate.
    
    	Someone suggested that they should get the heterosexuals out 
    	too.  I wasn't aware that there was a group marching under a
    	heterosexual banner.  It is my understanding that Irish gays
    	can march AS IRISHMEN, but are asked not to display a gay
    	banner.  Not having a heterosexual banner seems like a pretty
    	evenhanded application.  I'd bet that they wouldn't want a
    	group marching under an Irish Masturbators banner, or an
    	Irish Wife Swappers banner either.  Nor would they look kindly 
    	on O'Leary Nude Bar having a banner.  (Maybe that should be 
    	O'Leery's...)
    
    	Some things are simply not appropriate for a parade, and it
    	looks like the organizers want to steer away from sexual
    	issues.  What's the problem with that?

    .9 so?

    Re: .38
    
    >a group calling itself...  "Celibate Gay Christians" wanted to and 
    >asked to be in a Gay Pride parade...
    
    In all likelihood, the organizers would be delighted.

 ZZ   Jack, you are a man of great wisdom...... AND LUCK TOO! Great
 ZZ   note!
    
    Glen, thank you very much!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    re: .41
    
    >In all likelihood, the organizers would be delighted.
    
    Thank you for your opinion...
    

Would the organizers of the Gay Pride Parade let an organization that claims
to "convert" homosexuals to heterosexuality march?

    
    They didn't let NAMBLA march in the last one, if I recall correctly.
    
    I believe the also excluded `Dykes On Bikes'.
    

    
    
    The reasons being...??
    

    
    .46:
    
    If I recall, `Dykes On Bikes' were excluded due to their insistence
    on riding topless.  I'm not sure whether that was a morality-type
    decision or a liability-type decision.
    
    I think you can imagine why NAMBLA was excluded.
    

Liability issue?  Like a heterosexual male viewer would trip over his tongue?

| <<< Note 465.37 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>



| RE: .29  I can see your point, Glen.


	Oh.... you mean you saw my friend Tim too???? I didn't even know you
knew him. heh heh......

| <<< Note 465.38 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>



| I wonder what the hypocrisy index would be if, say, a group calling itself... 
| "Celibate Gay Christians" wanted to and asked to be in a Gay Pride parade...

	They can march Andy. People don't have to have sex to be gay. Hey...I
guess technically they already do march..... they call themselves priests.... 

| <<< Note 465.39 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| Someone suggested that they should get the heterosexuals out too. I wasn't 
| aware that there was a group marching under a heterosexual banner.  

	GLIB should be able to march under their group banner, just like any
clan could.

| <<< Note 465.42 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ   Jack, you are a man of great wisdom...... AND LUCK TOO! Great
| ZZ   note!

| Glen, thank you very much!!!!!

	If I had used the word Jackel, then it would have been about you.

| <<< Note 465.45 by TROOA::COLLINS "The Seal Of Disapproval" >>>


| They didn't let NAMBLA march in the last one, if I recall correctly.
| I believe the also excluded `Dykes On Bikes'.

	Dykes on Bikes were at the last one. Both were excluded from the March
on Washington though. Some NAMBLA guy was handing out pamphlets wearing nothing 
more than a g-string. YUK! No one arrested him though.

Most of the pamphlets I've seen have been totally naked.

    
    
    Cheap shot at the Priests, Glen.  Didn't think you were a cheap shot
    artist.
    
    Your point comment went over my head.......  

	Errrr.... Mike, it really wasn't a cheap shot. Most of the priests I
have known are gay. And they are celibate. Well.... most of them are.

    
    
    Most of the Priests I know aren't gay.  

re .56, .57:

Why am I not surprised?

    Let me say that I hold a priest who is gay in high honor for making the
    ultimate sacrifice.  Sacrificing physical tenderness and passion with a
    member of his own sex.  The priest offered himself to God in order to
    maintain holiness and stand by his convictions.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 465.57 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>

| Most of the Priests I know aren't gay.

	That you know of anyway. Most of the priests that I know who are gay,
don't have parrishes who think they are anything but heterosexual.

| <<< Note 465.59 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Let me say that I hold a priest who is gay in high honor for making the
| ultimate sacrifice.  Sacrificing physical tenderness and passion with a
| member of his own sex.  The priest offered himself to God in order to
| maintain holiness and stand by his convictions.

	Errrr Jack, do you hold a heterosexual priest at the same level for the
same reason? (except for oppisite gender)

    On a completely side issue:

    > | Most of the Priests I know aren't gay.
    > 
    > That you know of anyway. Most of the priests that I know who are gay,
    > don't have parrishes who think they are anything but heterosexual.

    Keeping this in mind, what in the H*!! are priests doing counseling
    married couples, (or couple considering marriage), on married life!

    :-|
    Dan

    Yes Glen...you might call it Priestly Affirmative Action.  I put gay
    and hetero priests on a level playing field! :-)

>    Keeping this in mind, what in the H*!! are priests doing counseling
>    married couples, (or couple considering marriage), on married life!

Um, what difference does their sexual preference make in this?  They're
supposed to be celibate anyway.

    Right!  And by the way...
    
    
    
    You implied the h e with double hockey sticks word! :-0

    
      Nope - not recognizable by les Bonapartistes.  bb
    

    re: .64
> > Keeping this in mind, what in the H*!! are priests doing counseling
> > married couples, (or couple considering marriage), on married life!
> 
> Um, what difference does their sexual preference make in this?  They're
> supposed to be celibate anyway.

    If they are gay, straight, celibate, nymphomaniac, that are they doing
    counseling (to be) married couples.....
    
    re: .66
    
    Don't worry, if I mess up, Mark will yell at me .....
    :-)
    
    :-)
    Dan

| <<< Note 465.62 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "M1A - The choice of champions !" >>>



| Keeping this in mind, what in the H*!! are priests doing counseling
| married couples, (or couple considering marriage), on married life!

	Cuz they know what the word committment means? 

| <<< Note 465.63 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Yes Glen...you might call it Priestly Affirmative Action.  I put gay
| and hetero priests on a level playing field! :-)


	Thanks. I was wondering cuz you only called on one version....

I also fail to understand how their sexual orientation has any effect
on their ability to counsel. I further fail to understand why saying
that some/many are gay could be construed as a cheap shot. Isn't the
sexual orientation of a priest or a nun or a friar or anyone else
that's celibate by profession totally immaterial? Are they somehow
deserving of more "points" because they could be straight? What
difference could it possibly make unless one feels that "accusing"
someone of being gay is some sort of insult?

    	re .51
    
    	I didn't know GLIB was a clan.
    
    	Bottom line is that the organizers get to decide what they want
    	to celebrate, and sexual issues seem like great ones to avoid
    	given the nature of the parade.
    
    	Feel free to sponsor your own parade if you don't like this
    	one.

    	re why do priests counsel marriages:
    
    	Priests know better than most others the teachings and the
    	theology behind those teachings of the Church.  From that
    	perspective they are excellent resources for understanding
    	that the Church calls us to do in given situations.  They
    	also make good third-party mediators for marital spats.
    	Or course they are also there to be Confessors, and in
    	that role of confidentiality, they may be able to work
    	through things with the couple or the individual spouses
    	that may never have come to light in an atmosphere lacking
    	that confidentiality.
    
    	As for matters specific to marriage itself outside of the
    	Sacramentality of the union, married couples make better
    	counselors.  The Church recognizes this, and for as long as
    	I have been married (15 years) we have always had available
    	to us mentor couples through our parish.  Now we are beginning 
    	to get requests from our pastor for supplying such mentoring.
    
    	In cases of deep trouble in the marriage, professional
    	counseling is recommended.

                   <<< Note 465.68 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

| <<< Note 465.62 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "M1A - The choice of champions !" >>>



>>>>>	Cuz they know what the word committment means? 
    
    Right... case in point... when a priest was informed that my younger
    brother (he "conseled"(sp?) before and had them head other engagement 
    classes) was divorcing in less than a year of marriage. The "priestly" 
    comment as --- "I knew it wouldn't work"....
    
    They need real life training... 
    

    In a former church we attended they had a group called Tentmakers.  It
    was from the ages of 19 - 30 or so.  The idea was that Paul the Apostle
    was in fact a tentmaker and took that up after his conversion...and as
    I understand it did it for quite a while before really going all out in
    the ministry.
    
    I believe to counsel on things as marriage requires maturity and yes
    practical experience is very much a help.  In any event my personal
    feeling is that nobody should be allowed to lead a flock (Pastor a
    church) before turning the age of thirty.  Just my opinion.
    
    -Jack

>    	Or course they are also there to be Confessors, and in
>    	that role of confidentiality, they may be able to work
>    	through things with the couple or the individual spouses
>    	that may never have come to light in an atmosphere lacking
>    	that confidentiality.

Er, counselling sessions, while confidential, are not covered by the same 
level of confidentiality as the seal of the confessional.  Under both canon
and civil (where applicable) law, the seal of the confessional only applies
to confessions made in the formal context of the rite of reconciliation.

And don't you ever forget this.

/john

    Ban asault parades.

    
    
    Because, Jack, it is something that was just thrown out there without
    anything to back it up.  Many people will equate the statement "most
    Priests I know are gay" with, "Most Priests are gay" which leads to
    other assumptions (pedophilia, etc).  Some may think this is a stetch,
    but I don't think it is.  I think Glen will vouch for some of the
    stereotypes that I have mentioned because he may have been a victim of
    some of these stereotypes.  To set the record straight, I don't make
    these assumptions but I know that a lot of society does (I hate to have
    to say it, but I do because of the insinuation).  From conversing with
    Glen (and other gays), I know many of them to be fine, upstanding
    people with high moral standards.  I also know there are the slimebags,
    like the guy who used to call me on the phone when I was in Junior High
    School and tell me he wanted to perform oral sex on me and other
    various and sundry acts.  There have been other such incidents.  I'm
    not going to paint everyone with the same broad brush just because of a
    few idjits.  
    
    Glen, the priests that I'm referring to are friends, and the
    relationship is more than that of the Church.  
    
    Mike

    On the question of priests counseling (to be) married couples, you all
    have good points, but it still strikes me that you're talking to the
    wrong person.  It's kinda like getting advice on buying a Chevy from a
    Ford dealer, he may know what he's talking about, but he doesn't have a
    track record.....hhhhmmmmmm
    
    Oh well,.....
    
    :-)
    Dan

    -1 ya, but could a clinical therapist properly counsel a couple
       from a religious/soulfull fulfillment perspective?
    
       personally, i wouldn't go to a priest for too much anyway.

    re: .23 by delflosso
    
    > and just assume they're all Irish.
    
    Nevermind Irish, we can assume they're all drunk.

>                                         The idea was that Paul the Apostle
>    was in fact a tentmaker 

So was Omar Khayyam's pop.

| <<< Note 465.71 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| Bottom line is that the organizers get to decide what they want to celebrate, 
| and sexual issues seem like great ones to avoid given the nature of the parade

	I think this is the crux of the problem here. It is not GLIB who has
made this into sexual issues. It is the organizers. Being gay or straight is
not about sexual issues. 


Glen

| <<< Note 465.77 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>



	Mike, great note. Thanks for posting it.

| Glen, the priests that I'm referring to are friends, and the relationship is 
| more than that of the Church.

	That's cool Mike. I always like it when the relationship is MORE than
just the church. I think it helps immensly for others to see a priest in their
garb, preaching, etc while in church, but that he does have another side to him
as well. I think that helps people see that he is more like Jesus. imnsho


Glen

    	re .82
    
    	SEXual orientation *IS* a sexual issue.  Did you notice that
    	the phrase "SEXual orientation" has the word SEX in it?
    	Try looking up the words gay, lesbian, bisexual, homosexual,
    	etc., and see if the word SEX is absent in all of them (any
    	of them for that matter.)

| <<< Note 465.84 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| SEXual orientation *IS* a sexual issue.  

	Who one is attracted to is not a sexual issue. I don't walk down the
hall and see some heteroSEXual woman and think, "That woman must get laid a
lot. That must be all she is good for." That would be stupidity, and it is what
many people do towards gays. It is people who make it a SEX issue.



Glen

    Where will they try to cause trouble next ?
    
    

                   <<< Note 465.85 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

    	To you it may not be a sexual issue.  To most of society it
    	is.  When the rest of society starts thinking like you do,
    	come back and argue your point again.

| <<< Note 465.87 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| To you it may not be a sexual issue. To most of society it is.  

	To most of society they once thought shock therapy was the cure.
Hmmm.... seems to me that society has been wrong before. Take my dad for
instance. Whenever he would hear the word gay, he would walk out of the room.
He too took it as being a sex issue only. He doesn't anymore. Why? Because he
took the time to find out the facts. 

| When the rest of society starts thinking like you do, come back and argue your
| point again.

	Wow.... pure stupidity.... if we all lived by your thinking, there
would still be slavery, the inquisitions would be happening still, etc. Joe,
you really should put more thought into your replies. 


Glen

    >To you it may not be a sexual issue. To most of society it is.
    
    And we all know what a dirty thing sex is don't we?  :-)
    
    ...Tom

    .88
    
    I've now heard about the slaves and the inquisition so many times from
    you Glen that I could just about write your ronses. :-) :-)
    
    

Sex ain't dirty.  Homosexual sex, however, may be forbidden.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that society has the right to regulate
sexual behaviour.

And that's why homosexual sex and certain other acts which people have
chosen to regulate are illegal in many places, including the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.

/john

    >The U.S. Supreme Court has said that society has the right to regulate
    >sexual behaviour.
    
    IMO the regulation of sex, especially between two consenting adults is
    an act of immorality. Christians think sex outside of marriage is
    immoral. But taking away the rights of human beings is immoral to the
    max.
    
    ...Tom

    .92
    
    If sexuality were meant to be what society today practices, then why
    would nature be fighting against it?
    

| <<< Note 465.90 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I've now heard about the slaves and the inquisition so many times from
| you Glen that I could just about write your ronses. :-) :-)

	It doesn't change the facts Nancy, regardless of how many times you
hear it. I mean, how many more times does anyone have to hear from you the
Bible is the inerrant Word of God?


Glen

| <<< Note 465.93 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| If sexuality were meant to be what society today practices, then why
| would nature be fighting against it?

	Yeah, those AIDS babies were oh so bad right from the beginning. Get
with it Nancy.

    
>    If sexuality were meant to be what society today practices, then why
>    would nature be fighting against it?
 


   Stick around about 10,000,000 years..evolution will take care of it.




 Jim   

    Glen,
    
    

    > And that's why homosexual sex and certain other acts which people have
    > chosen to regulate are illegal in many places, including the Commonwealth
    > of Massachusetts.

    Yeah, but John everything in the People's Republic of Massachusetts is
    either illegal, or mandatory

    :-)
    Dan

                   <<< Note 465.88 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	To most of society they once thought shock therapy was the cure.
    
    	No they didn't.  I'll bet that most of society didn't even know
    	about shock therapy for gays.  
    
>Take my dad for
>instance. Whenever he would hear the word gay, he would walk out of the room.
>He too took it as being a sex issue only. He doesn't anymore. Why? Because he
>took the time to find out the facts. 
    
    	Great.  You converted one (if you are right about what he thinks.)
    	Now there are a quarter of a billion more in this country who
    	need to be likewise converted.  Get to work.

>	Wow.... pure stupidity.... if we all lived by your thinking, there
>would still be slavery, the inquisitions would be happening still, etc. Joe,
>you really should put more thought into your replies. 
    
    	That you have to attribute these things to me shows how desperate
    	you are in your need to attack me.  It is quite telling and sad.

>    	Now there are a quarter of a billion more in this country who
>    	need to be likewise converted.  Get to work.

A rather vast exaggeration, Joe, no?

| <<< Note 465.99 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| >Take my dad for
| >instance. Whenever he would hear the word gay, he would walk out of the room.
| >He too took it as being a sex issue only. He doesn't anymore. Why? Because he
| >took the time to find out the facts.

| Great. You converted one (if you are right about what he thinks.) Now there 
| are a quarter of a billion more in this country who need to be likewise 
| converted.  Get to work.

	Converted? Wow.... talk about talking out of your butt joe. I had
nothing to do with it. We were talking one day and he revealed all of it to me.
He was telling me about what some guy said at work about gays. I was shocked he
even brought it up to begin with, cuz it had the word gay in it. Yet to have
him go into how he felt, well, I was very surprised. 

	Maybe if you stopped telling people what they mean and ask them, you
wouldn't look so bad.

| >	Wow.... pure stupidity.... if we all lived by your thinking, there
| >would still be slavery, the inquisitions would be happening still, etc. Joe,
| >you really should put more thought into your replies.

| That you have to attribute these things to me shows how desperate
| you are in your need to attack me.  It is quite telling and sad.

	If telling you to put more thought into your replies is attacking, then
you're looking at it the wrong way.

	Wish you were still on vacation Jim? :-)

    **** Warning **** **** Warning **** **** Warning **** **** Warning ****
                            Rat Hole Alert
    **** Warning **** **** Warning **** **** Warning **** **** Warning ****
    
    > >   Now there are a quarter of a billion more in this country who
    > >   need to be likewise converted.  Get to work.
    > 
    > A rather vast exaggeration, Joe, no?

    Last I heard there were over 250 million Americans, which is a quarter
    of a billion.  Mind you not all will have to be converted; but given
    that there is only one person doing the conversion, and that people are
    still being born in this country,.....
    I think a quarter of a billion is VERY low !
    
    HTH
    :-)
    Dan

	Hey Dan, I wonder who will do more converting.... the gays of this
land, or the born agains???? :-)

    
    > Hey Dan, I wonder who will do more converting.... the gays of this
    > land, or the born agains???? :-)
    
    hhhhmmmmmm ..... good question.....
    
    I'd give the born agains a 6:10 rating over the gays in 80 years....
    
    :-)
    Dan

:-)

    
    There's 273 million Americans, but who's... er um... counting?
    
    -b

    
    well -b, maybe the census bureau?

	re .101


>>	Maybe if you stopped telling people what they mean and ask them, you
>>	wouldn't look so bad.

	Maybe if started saying what you mean, no one would have to ask.

>>	If telling you to put more thought into your replies is attacking, then
>>	you're looking at it the wrong way.

	Right, Glen.  I told you this, and I got the canned response from
	line 1 above.  P & K note, anyone ?

	Re .105

	Careful Glen, you're a born again, too, aren't you ?


	

    
      By the way, there was a gigantic NYC parade this past weekend,
     with more marching than I would care to do.  Personally, I hate
     parades.  When I had little kids I used to have to sit them on
     my shoulders and get neck cramps.  Also, I remember endless
     parking lot marching practice in the service.  So if I never
     see any more marching, I'll be fine.  Particularly on my hate
     list are those float ones crowding the airwaves when I arise with
     my annual hangover New Year's Day.
    
      The NYC gay pride parade was led by Louganis/Lauper, I believe.
     It occurred without incident, so far as I know.
    
      bb

    Lauper as in Cyndi Lauper?  I thought she was married to a member ofthe
    opposite sex.

    
    
    Hmmmmmmm...
    
     If someone has a parade and no-one watches (or cares), does it make a
    sound??

	I, too, don't care for parades.

	

    weee don need no steengking parades

| <<< Note 465.110 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Revive us, Oh Lord" >>>


| >>	Maybe if you stopped telling people what they mean and ask them, you
| >>	wouldn't look so bad.

| Maybe if started saying what you mean, no one would have to ask.

	You know Karen, I'm sorry. But man oh man.... you are really strange to
me. You sit there and give me the impression that if you feel someone has a
communication problem, then it is ok to say what you think they mean, instead
of asking. If this is true, which your notes seem to make it so, then you
really take the cake. If I put a note in, do you think that I don't view it as
knowing what it means? Do you really think I put in a note that I have no clue
as to what it is saying? Come on..... be real. Ask, don't tell.

| Careful Glen, you're a born again, too, aren't you ?

	For God? Yeah. For your brand of Christianity, no.



Glen

    ZZ        For God? Yeah. For your brand of Christianity, no.
    
    What's a brand of Christianity...I don't get that one.  
    
    -Jack

    <-------
    
    You know, General Mills, Purina, etc. .....
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    re: .117
    
    Why Jack.... it's the "Church of the Pick and Choose".... doncha know!!
    

	My parsometer has just been broken.

    
    RE: .121
    
    > where you  hope the game ends soon and both sides lose.
    
      Maybe "YOU" hope the game ends soon!!
    
    
     I always liked those kinds of matchups.... "anything goes" Miami vs.
    "slog it out" Michigan...
    
     two different approaches.... one game.... one winner... (usually)
    

    Probably Miami because anything in the Big 10 or the Pac (10?) is fake
    football anyway!
    
    -Jack

    Jack Martin you are a fool.  Big 10 IS football son and don't you even
    think about forgetting it.  Hmmmph. 

| <<< Note 465.119 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease!" >>>



| Why Jack.... it's the "Church of the Pick and Choose".... doncha know!!

	I sometimes get that impression from the Right myself Andy. 

    
    
    Well La-Dee-Da!!!
    

 Ah, the Right...

    
    
    It's a "fact" donchaknow.....!!!
    

	I believe I said impression.... 

    
    
    Ahhhh.... REASONING 101 is catching on!!!
    

    
    .124
    
    Brian, you are a man of incredible forsight!! Big 10 is football, much
    better than that stuff the Big East calls, football. Miami is the only
    "professional" team in that conference.

Flag football perhaps.  The only real football played in this great land is on
the hallowed fields of the SEC!!!!


Mikey

Securities and Exchange Commission?

    Exactly my point Mikey.  The Big East is a joke too...just like the Big
    10.  Real football consists ONLY of the ACC and the SEC.  
    
    Boston College for example.  They're overrated and they play against
    losers!
    
    -Jack

St. Patrick's Day, people, St. Patrick's Day!

    	The Fighting Irish are usually a pretty good team...

    Yeah...The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame stink too!!  
    
    -Jack

The Flittin' Irish don't belong to a conference do they?


Jack:

	I take exception to any ACC school(except maybe FSU, and pre 1960 GA
Tech) being lumped with programs like Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, and of
course 'dem Jawja Bulldawgs.

Mikey ;->

    
    <------
    
    They are part of the Big 10...
    
    
    How has the Big 10 fared in, say, the past 20 or so Rose Bowls??
    

    Notre Dame {shudder} is not part of the Big 10 TYVM.  They play a lot
    of the Big 10 schools though.  They are conference challenged.  They
    also most likely would not allow gays to march in their St. Patrick's 
    parade.  
    

    
    re: .140
    
    My apologies.... you are correct... 
    
    I knew ND was going into the "Big" something in one of the sports, and
    it's the Big East (basketball)...

    Mikey:
    
    Clemson and North Carolina were of some substance to a degree....and
    you may have your battles against the ACC.  However, one thing we
    should agree on is that a school (Such as BC the year of Doug Flutie)
    had no business playing teams like Temple, Rutgers, Holy Cross (Heck
    they may as well have played my high school team here), anyway...play a
    bunch of losers and yet make the Cotton Bowl against a team that was
    ranked 21st.  I find this a prostitution of college football.
    
    -Jack

    >I find this a prostitution of college football.
    
     Tautology alert.

	Amen to that Jack.(Is that the thumper alarm?)  Clemson, and NC have had
their moments, but have not had consistantly good teams, like the others
mentioned. I threw GT in cause they used to be a powerhouse til they started
making their football players enroll in school. Miami is the new kid on the
block compared to a lot of the other "southern"* schools.  They will soon reach
their salary cap though.  And you mean Boston College is a real college team?   

	


Mikey





* anything south of Jacksonville can no longer be considered southern due to the
mass influx of yankees down there 

    they all ought to be wearing dresses. Aussie football, now that's
    football!

    
    .139
    
    well Andy, I believe they have won 3 out of the last 4. The Big 11
    is the best conference, at least over the past 10 years or so.