Re: Disturbing article

February 15, 2004

The minority you mention is not asking for a " privilege. " They just want the

freedom to choose their partner with the same protections and benefits that

people the Christian church defines as " normal " have.

Your comment points out very well what I said about Christians being the

most judgmental and least tolerant of all people.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

[snip]

It is really about a minority who wants a " priveledge " granted to them and

uses all kinds of pathethic smoke screens to manipulate and get what they

" simply want " . This is not the first time. I use to be sympathetic with

your cause, I am not any more. You want " rights " and you want respect for

your way of life? Then give the same back to others who are different from

you.

February 15, 2004

At 11:13 PM 2/14/2004, you wrote:

>I certainly haven't seen a poll of scientists, but in the mags I

>read (Discover, New Scientist, Science News) most of the published

>articles are of the same view ... that *something* biological is

>happening with gay men (not too much about lesbian women).

well of course they don't have anything to say about lesbian women. men

aren't threatened by lesbian women (on the contrary). they only need to

find an answer for gay men because they feel threatened.

grr.

February 15, 2004

It's not only the Christian church, how about Muslims and Jews?

But then, all Christians and Muslims and Jews are individuals and have

an opinion of their own!

Anja

--- In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

wrote:

> The minority you mention is not asking for a " privilege. " They just

want the freedom to choose their partner with the same protections and

benefits that people the Christian church defines as " normal " have.

> Your comment points out very well what I said about Christians being

the most judgmental and least tolerant of all people.

> Judith Alta

February 15, 2004

And what about ADHS/ADS kids? You think that's not being caused by

nutrition?

I do think that what mankind does to what they eat, before they eat

it, can change lots!

I wouldn't be surprised if that was true, as I'm sure that what you

ingest can change your behaviour. Feed oats to your horse and feel the

difference

Lots of people say they are a lot calmer and feeling so much better

and are more stable when eating the NT-way.

The point is not whether you love men or women, the point is are you

happy with the one you are in love with (and how about them?) and with

your life!

Anja

> I just got my Wise Traditions Winter 2003 and I'm disturbed by the

> review of the book " The Truth About Children's Health. " The reviewer

> writes:

> In his chapter on The Ancestry Factor he even talks about sexual

> preference and the biological and physiological reasons for the

> propensity towards homosexuality--as appeared in the Pottenger cat

> studies.

>

> So...being gay or lesbian is a defect caused by improper nutrition?

> Haven't we already tried, and one would hope, abandoned, eugenics?

> This idea would just be stupid if it wasn't dangerous. Anyone with a

> search engine can, in ten minutes, survey the vast diversity of human

> societies and their different approaches to human sexuality, from

> socities where same-sex behavior is expected and therefore universal,

> to societies like ours where same-sex behvior is taboo and supressed.

> Do I really have to say that it has nothing to do with their food?

> This country has seen an exposion in degenerative diseases due to

> industrialized food, but there aren't any more gay and lesbian people

> than there were 50 years ago.

>

> Or forget Pottenger's cats. Let's look at Lierre's backyard. The male

> goose has a marked preference for the female duck. The female duck,

> for her part, has a serious crush on one of the female geese and it

> must be reciprocated as they go at it every night before bedtime.

> It's not just same-sex, it's cross-species out there. I've got hens

> mounting other hens, and also a pair of lesbian pigeons. Ultimately I

> think it's silly to have to even argue about what's " natural " and

> what's not--we're human, and have way more complex psychology and

> behavior than other animals.

>

> I'm writing to Sally Fallon with my concerns. Is this book

> representative of the WAP Foundation's ideas about gays and lesbians?

> I'm going to be really depressed if I'm the only one who finds this

> disturbing.

> Lierre

February 15, 2004

I do not disagree with you. It's just that I have more familiarity with the

Christian church.

There is more death and misery committed " in the name of GOD " (any god,

Christian or otherwise) than for any other reason.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Anja [mailto:schnittie01734@...]

It's not only the Christian church, how about Muslims and Jews?

But then, all Christians and Muslims and Jews are individuals and have

an opinion of their own!

Anja

--- In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

wrote:

> The minority you mention is not asking for a " privilege. " They just

want the freedom to choose their partner with the same protections and

benefits that people the Christian church defines as " normal " have.

> Your comment points out very well what I said about Christians being

the most judgmental and least tolerant of all people.

> Judith Alta

February 15, 2004

Judith,

This whole thread did not start with an article written by a Christian - I do

believe it was written by a scientist.

This subject minority has the freedom to choose their partners. They have the

freedom to stay with each other for life or not. Power of attorneys, prenuptial

agreements, property agreements, and wills can grant many of the protections and

benefits that are being sought - these are quite available today and have been.

To be frank, I think they are a wiser avenue for anyone rather than simply

accepting what the states have defined in these areas. These vary greatly by

state. People typically don't realize what all state laws mean until the

relationship goes sour and or they deal with divorce. And all they mean is not

necessarily so great anyway (goes with that be careful what you pray for). What

remains are privileges - they are not freedoms, they are not rights. These

include claims to social security survivor benefits and insurance coverage as

dependents. These things are privileges granted to heterosexual marriages - and

they are still privileges when sought by homosexuals. That has nothing to do

with intolerance nor judgment. It's not saying they should be given to

homosexual relationships or not.

Another thing sought is social perception of this particular lifestyle as

" normal " which was the number one underlying goal of the gay agenda started many

decades ago. What that is about is not rights, protections, freedoms, nor

privileges for them. That is about changing society beliefs and values of non

homosexual people into believing that homosexual lifestyle is normal. And that

goal is not simply acceptance or tolerance of the lifestyle. It is affirmation

of " normal " . This is why Christie took objection in the very beginning of this

thread - the article was implying that homosexual inclinations were biologically

based and not normal. This guy was coming from the perspective of a biologist -

his views have nothing to do with morals or values or tolerance or judgment - it

is science to him which addresses sexual reproduction of ALL organisms. You

cannot really as a scientist substantiate that homosexuality is normal - you got

to define the word but it just can't be done rationally in science. But that is

not the objective of this movement and they have and they do seek to suppress

intellect thought, discourse, and opinion on the subject if it in anyway

disagrees with their desire to be considered " normal " . If you really want to

address issues of " freedom " - then freedom of expression and freedom of belief

that homosexuals seek to suppress in others who disagree with them is really

much more relevant. It is their intolerance and judgmental tactics of people

who disagree with them that I am intolerant of - not their sexual orientation

which I really don't care about.

RE: re: Disturbing article

The minority you mention is not asking for a " privilege. " They just want the

freedom to choose their partner with the same protections and benefits that

people the Christian church defines as " normal " have.

Your comment points out very well what I said about Christians being the

most judgmental and least tolerant of all people.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

[snip]

It is really about a minority who wants a " priveledge " granted to them and

uses all kinds of pathethic smoke screens to manipulate and get what they

" simply want " . This is not the first time. I use to be sympathetic with

your cause, I am not any more. You want " rights " and you want respect for

your way of life? Then give the same back to others who are different from

you.

February 15, 2004

Scientists are not Christian?

So you would abolish all marriage, as it is known today, in favor of powers

of attorney, prenuptial agreements, property agreements, and wills.

If same sex partners are not allowed to marry why would they need a

prenuptial agreement?

A same sex partner should have the same insurance and pension benefits from

an employer that any opposite sex partner has. To deny them that privilege

is, indeed, discrimination.

Christianity has, from the beginning sought to suppress intellect, thought,

discourse, and opinion on the subject if it in anyway disagrees with

their(s.)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

Judith,

This whole thread did not start with an article written by a Christian - I

do believe it was written by a scientist.

This subject minority has the freedom to choose their partners. They have

the freedom to stay with each other for life or not. Power of attorneys,

prenuptial agreements, property agreements, and wills can grant many of the

protections and benefits that are being sought - these are quite available

today and have been. To be frank, I think they are a wiser avenue for

anyone rather than simply accepting what the states have defined in these

areas. These vary greatly by state. People typically don't realize what all

state laws mean until the relationship goes sour and or they deal with

divorce. And all they mean is not necessarily so great anyway (goes with

that be careful what you pray for). What remains are privileges - they are

not freedoms, they are not rights. These include claims to social security

survivor benefits and insurance coverage as dependents. These things are

privileges granted to heterosexual marriages - and they are still privileges

when sought by homosexuals. That has nothing to do with intolerance nor

judgment. It's not saying they should be given to homosexual relationships

or not.

Another thing sought is social perception of this particular lifestyle as

" normal " which was the number one underlying goal of the gay agenda started

many decades ago. What that is about is not rights, protections, freedoms,

nor privileges for them. That is about changing society beliefs and values

of non homosexual people into believing that homosexual lifestyle is normal.

And that goal is not simply acceptance or tolerance of the lifestyle. It is

affirmation of " normal " . This is why Christie took objection in the very

beginning of this thread - the article was implying that homosexual

inclinations were biologically based and not normal. This guy was coming

from the perspective of a biologist - his views have nothing to do with

morals or values or tolerance or judgment - it is science to him which

addresses sexual reproduction of ALL organisms. You cannot really as a

scientist substantiate that homosexuality is normal - you got to define the

word but it just can't be done rationally in science. But that is not the

objective of this movement and they have and they do seek to suppress

intellect thought, discourse, and opinion on the subject if it in anyway

disagrees with their desire to be considered " normal " . If you really want

to address issues of " freedom " - then freedom of expression and freedom of

belief that homosexuals seek to suppress in others who disagree with them is

really much more relevant. It is their intolerance and judgmental tactics

of people who disagree with them that I am intolerant of - not their sexual

orientation which I really don't care about.

RE: re: Disturbing article

The minority you mention is not asking for a " privilege. " They just want

the

freedom to choose their partner with the same protections and benefits

that

people the Christian church defines as " normal " have.

Your comment points out very well what I said about Christians being the

most judgmental and least tolerant of all people.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

[snip]

It is really about a minority who wants a " priveledge " granted to them and

uses all kinds of pathethic smoke screens to manipulate and get what they

" simply want " . This is not the first time. I use to be sympathetic with

your cause, I am not any more. You want " rights " and you want respect for

your way of life? Then give the same back to others who are different

from

you.

February 15, 2004

At 10:20 AM 2/15/2004, you wrote:

>If you really want to address issues of " freedom " - then freedom of

>expression and freedom of belief that homosexuals seek to suppress in

>others who disagree with them is really much more relevant.

see mary, again with this bitter confusion. you seem really intent that

somehow if gays marry, you will lose your freedom of expression. i don't

understand how that can be. you could witness a gay wedding and go to

church and complain about it all day to the other ladies over coffee and

donuts, and no one is stopping you. heck, you could write letters to the

editor about how disgusted you are with the depravity of these sinners blah

blah fishcakes, and while you probably wouldn't make any friends in town

(except the ones you already have cheering you on), you'd be completely

free to do that. you can continue to believe in hell and believe that all

gay people will burn in it, and you can continue to believe in your god and

believe that if you pray fervently, all those filthy gay people will be

saved and come to christ - and if they don't, then you can believe that

your god has turned his back on them and damned them to the aforementioned

hell you are still free to believe in. you are even still free to believe

that gayness is a genetic defect and if you're rich enough, you're free to

fund all the scientific studies in the world to try to prove that. you're

free to find a private school with no gay students to send your child to if

you choose, where they won't teach anything in health class about gay sex

and where they won't teach anything in science other than creation and

gayness being a genetic defect (which the scientific study you funded

" proved " ), and where the children will not be permitted to question

anything their teacher says. you're free to play bridge with other

heterosexual christian homophobes, and if a gay girl wants to join your

daughter's soccer team, you're free to make your daughter play on a

different team so that she won't be contaminated with the gay cooties

you're free to believe in. you're free to choose to shop in stores that are

not owned by gay people and to vote for heterosexual politicians. gay

people getting married doesn't change *any* of this. in fact, gay people

getting married won't change one single thing in your life!

so, how are your freedoms being suppressed?

February 15, 2004

Yeah, you go and find out whether those scientists that wrote the

article were Christians or not and whether they go to church regularly...

Anja

--- In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

wrote:

> Scientists are not Christian?

> Judith Alta

February 15, 2004

>well of course they don't have anything to say about lesbian women. men

>aren't threatened by lesbian women (on the contrary). they only need to

>find an answer for gay men because they feel threatened.

>

>grr.

I wouldn't get too angry about it -- there HAS been research done, but

what I have heard isn't very flashy, which I think is part of the problem.

For instance, lesbians have a low rate of STDs, tend to treat

each other with more empathy than hetero couples. (That was verbal,

I won't vouch for it, but it was from a university person).

But I HAVE noticed the total LACK of " ick factor " when it comes to

men and lesbians. I think it has to do with male dominance ... most

males want to be the ONLY male and any other male is a threat.

Now, having a harem is not a threat, it's the norm in the animal

world, and having a harem that entertains you with it's antics ...

hey, it's a guy's dream. Alpha male!

Actually I suspect that in the past, the men killed each other off

so much or got killed hunting that there was probably a high

female to male ratio, so polygamy was maybe the norm. Since

women tend to work together so well (in my experience) I

could easily envision a household with 5 gals and a guy ...

as long as the guy wasn't the " lord and master " as is the case

in Mormon households. In our company we have more women

than men, and the women tend to get together and come

to decisions and do the planning ... we can do it faster because

there isn't the ego-issue and need to be " right " , so there aren't

many arguments, just a coming to consensus.

-- Heidi Jean

February 15, 2004

>You cannot really as a scientist substantiate that homosexuality is normal -

you got to define the word but it just can't be done rationally in science.

Actually I'd have to disagree here ... the term " normal " *is* defined

rationally in science. " Socially acceptable " is not so defined (and

" socially acceptable " changes -- women wearing pants was VERY

non-acceptable 100 years ago). But the " norm " has to do with

" what usually happens " and can be defined in percentages and

bell curves etc.

And, as has been pointed out, what *normally* happens, in both

animal and people populations, is that a smaller percentage of people

(and animals) do not have the same sexual orientation as the

rest of the population. The *rational* question is, given that reality,

what do you do about it?

Our answer in the US, up to recent history is: we hide the fact

and ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, same as we do with

a host of other realities. Is such denial really healthy?

We are just now beginning to tackle some of the OTHER issues

we've swept under the rug ... incest, pedophilia, wife beating.

Those have well-understood (by the psychological community,

anyway) bad effects on at least one of the participants, hence,

we enact laws against them. The psychological community

at one point felt homosexuality also had bad effects, but

the viewpoint is changing as the science progresses.

-- Heidi Jean

>

February 15, 2004

Judith,

Don't be rediculos. Why would I abolish marraige? Marriage is a good situation

if children are involved. But personally I would not take that avenue since

children are not an issue for me - you do not get something for nothing in life

and there are legal strings as well - like having to split property that you

otherwise wouldn't. There are credit issues and income tax issues - augh,

mutual responsibilities they are called. I knew a girl who married a guy that

was a drug dealer, middle man on a very high level. She knew nothing about it

until he was arrested, sent to the penn and the IRS estimated all his unclaimed

earnings and gave her the bill, of course they seized everything. You can't

prenup those taxes. The reason for prenuptials is the division of property

mutually obtained during the duration of the relationship. Like I said, laws

vary by state. Some have alimony laws - no freedom forever! I think you are

much better off setting all your agreements in the beginning yourselves.

Everything always looks great going in, reality can become something else in

time, and the going out is another story of no song and dance. The grass is

always greener on the other side - that is until you get there.

I disagree with you about Christianity being suppressive of intellectual

pursuit. There are certainly aspects of this occurring in history, but I think

it is human inclination to do evil and not good - that actually is an important

point of their beliefs. Just because someone claims to be something or to do

something in name of, does not mean they are acting in line with those teachings

and representative of it. If for example you look back at the Catholic Church -

there was such mixing of government and church leaders who were appointed based

on family royalty, not devotion to Christian belief, you cannot equate their

actions with the teachings of the Bible. They simply used the name. Many issues

and conflicts are not that simply defined such as wars. We are very limited in

our perspectives. We can certainly look at Hitler in hindsight and say yes, we

were right to stop such an evil because we have all these undeniable pictures of

his chambers and victims, but other assessments are not so easy to judge. You

know he gassed something like 1100 Catholic priests who stood up to him.

Dietrich Bonnhoffer perished to his hands. I am unaware of any religion that has

greater respect for intellectual pursuit than Judism - they support their Rabbis

to study and study, next would be Catholicism - many brilliant theologians and

schalors in many fields. You know the Pope speaks 11 languages? Have you ever

read him? People grab statements from him without reading the whole arguments

he presents - when you do, it's a whole other ballgame. Incredibly brilliant

man. Who do you think set up the first schools in this country and still have

those schools, and then Islam too has high regard for education. I am unaware of

no greater suppression of such than by the aethistic governments in Russia and

China who burned books and murdered intellectuals in massive numbers, way beyond

what Hitler did. They were doing as you and blaming Christians for the evil of

the world - yea right. The Romans use to feed Christians to the lions - now that

is real suppression. Stalin would kill them just for reading their bibles.

Lets get real Judith. I don't think there is currently any group or idealogies

who experience more suppression these days in the US than Catholics and

Christians. And all this blasting on the board the last couple of days

represents it.

RE: re: Disturbing article

The minority you mention is not asking for a " privilege. " They just want

the

freedom to choose their partner with the same protections and benefits

that

people the Christian church defines as " normal " have.

Your comment points out very well what I said about Christians being the

most judgmental and least tolerant of all people.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

[snip]

It is really about a minority who wants a " priveledge " granted to them and

uses all kinds of pathethic smoke screens to manipulate and get what they

" simply want " . This is not the first time. I use to be sympathetic with

your cause, I am not any more. You want " rights " and you want respect for

your way of life? Then give the same back to others who are different

from

you.

February 15, 2004

Katja,

Let's get one thing straight right now. I don't care if you marry or not.

Homosexuals have been in committed relationships since before I was born. I

have never done anything to stop that, I have never seen anyone else do anything

to stop that. I don't care if you are homosexual or not Katja. It is your

problem. It is not mine. But when you put your sexual activities in my face

which has been going on this board for the last few days, you are making your

problem mine. When someone disagrees with you guys, you do slanderous attacks

back. You guys set the level of discussion but you don't like your own tactics

being used back at you. Sorry - I have my own life too and it isn't freakin

perfect either but I don't dump it on everyone else and expect them to make life

" fairer " to me or the way I want it. I do not expect anyone to change their

beliefs or their opinions to be in line with mine or support activities I want

to engage in. I am enough of my own person that I am comfortable making my own

decisions and living my own life as suits me within whatever confines of society

or laws that exist. Nobody has to affirm me or agree with me. I am still okay

with who I am. I grew up a long ago.

When this movement started 30 years ago, yalls idea was that all your

unhappiness, the high drug rates within your kind, the high suicide rates within

your kind, were being caused by the rest of societies unacceptance of your life

style. Responsibility for your state and changing your misery was put on the

rest of us. Not that things were that bad 30 years ago but your lifestyle has

certainly seen dramatic acceptance. You are still miserable and you are still

making us responsible for it. I have listened to it for over 30 freakin years.

Half of my friends back then came out of the closet - and nobody ever freakin

stopped them. None of them wallow now in such BS as you guys on this board do.

They live their lives the way they want just like I do within the confines of

society. And they have no problem letting others live their lives. No big

freakin deal really. You are as intolerant as you are trying to make everyone

else out to be. Now if you find your lifestyle that miserable, YOU change it -

stop expecting me and everyone else to change for you.

The financial wealth within your community is such that it is completely

ridiculous to try and play on sympathy and discrimination issues. This issue now

is only about wanting more when collectively as a group, you have way beyond

average. You have an extremely strong political alliance, you get privilege

anyway that others do not get. Nothing but politics got your condition removed

from the DSM-IV. Why should AIDS get funded on different criteria and basis

than any other illness that inflicts people? Because you are a poor suppressed

group of people? BS - you are very strong politically and very wealthy but you

still cry for pity pot me as if you were not. Why should gay sex be addressed in

school in a health class when it is an issue for such a minority of people? It

is privilege you get Katja all the time. What group of people could go to

Disneyland and run around necked performing sex in public and not be arrested?

No one but you guys because you got privilege. Do I really care? No I don't

except when you keep shoving it in my face, crying like babies for more, acting

like you are so persecuted.

Is your problem genetic? Heck if I knew and to be honest Katja, heck if I care.

It's your problem not mine. Why would I fund research for your problem if I was

rich? You guys got your political lobby getting NIH to fund what you want, you

work to keep any scientist from expressing his opinion on your orientation. That

is intellectual suppression and that is done by you guys to the rest of us - it

is not the reverse. That is the freakin truth of the situation.

As far as soccer, my daughter's teams and the people on them are about soccer -

nobody cares about who may or may not be gay, nobody cares what you do in your

bedroom. This is what I am talking about being self centered and self focused.

I don't know whether you are going to hell or not, I don't know if I am either.

If it exists and I don't know that for sure either, the decision is not going to

be mine whether I do or you do or whoever does. Rediculous statements. But if

the church is so durn offensive to you guys, then why did your group have to

take over the Episcopalian Church and start redefining it to suit you?

Re: re: Disturbing article