Discussion:
"Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays" (AJC)
(too old to reply)
Tarkus
2004-07-26 14:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays

By Darren Everson and Jim Rich
New York Daily News
Published on: 07/25/04

New York -- Before he stuck his foot in his mouth in a major way earlier
this season, no one ever confused John Smoltz with John Rocker. Smoltz,
the Atlanta Braves' well-spoken closer, can stand and chat with reporters
for 20 minutes, as he did at Shea Stadium on Friday, and do so without
offending anyone.

But Smoltz, who is also a devout Christian, caused a stir earlier this
month with comments about gay marriage. He was quoted in an Associated
Press story as saying, "What's next? Marrying an animal?"

Before Friday night's Mets-Braves game was rained out, Smoltz explained
himself. Although he has apologized for that remark, which he said was
made in a joking manner after an interview, he does not apologize for his
stance on gay marriage.

He said, however, that he does not have a problem with the idea of having
a gay teammate.

"The question was posed to me, would I have trouble with a gay teammate?"
Smoltz said. "Absolutely not. I have no problems at all, as long as
anybody doesn't impose their ways on anybody, whether it's faith,
religion or personal preference.

"As we were done and walking off," Smoltz said of the interview, which he
said occurred three or four months ago, "I said, 'What's next . . .' - in
a joking manner," Smoltz said. "And then they put that and (Smoltz's
stance on gay marriage) together."

As it happens, Smoltz did have a gay teammate - although he didn't know
it at the time.

Billy Bean, a former big leaguer who has since acknowledged being gay and
written a book ("Going the Other Way: Lessons from a Life in and out of
Major-League Baseball") on the subject, called Smoltz's remarks
"uninformed" and said, "It is pretty unsettling."

"There is a born-again mentality in baseball that is right in line with
what I would expect him to say," Bean said of Smoltz. Bean also said,
however, that he and Smoltz were "close friends" when they were in the
Tigers' organization in the 1980s.

"If we played golf or pickup hoops, we would bond like two regular guys,
and he would evolve as a person," said Bean, who said he hasn't talked to
Smoltz since announcing he was gay.

Braves backup catcher Eddie Perez also drew criticism for comments he
made in the same article. "If I knew a guy was gay, then I could work it
out. I could be prepared. I could hide when I'm getting disrobed," Perez
was quoted as saying. "It would be hard to play with someone all year and
then find out they're gay." Perez has said he was misquoted.

Smoltz wants it made clear that he has nothing against gays. "Nowhere in
my conversation was I critical of gays," he said.

What obviously isn't a misunderstanding, though, is his stance on gay
marriage.
--
"He could help his on-base percentage by taking some more pitches,
walking a little more, and being a little more selective."
- Chipper Jones on Rafael Furcal

Now playing: the radio
bgs
2004-07-26 16:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays
By Darren Everson and Jim Rich
New York Daily News
Published on: 07/25/04
New York -- Before he stuck his foot in his mouth in a major way earlier
this season, no one ever confused John Smoltz with John Rocker. Smoltz,
the Atlanta Braves' well-spoken closer, can stand and chat with reporters
for 20 minutes, as he did at Shea Stadium on Friday, and do so without
offending anyone.
But Smoltz, who is also a devout Christian, caused a stir earlier this
month with comments about gay marriage. He was quoted in an Associated
Press story as saying, "What's next? Marrying an animal?"
Before Friday night's Mets-Braves game was rained out, Smoltz explained
himself. Although he has apologized for that remark, which he said was
made in a joking manner after an interview, he does not apologize for his
stance on gay marriage.
He said, however, that he does not have a problem with the idea of having
a gay teammate.
"The question was posed to me, would I have trouble with a gay teammate?"
Smoltz said. "Absolutely not. I have no problems at all, as long as
anybody doesn't impose their ways on anybody, whether it's faith,
religion or personal preference.
"As we were done and walking off," Smoltz said of the interview, which he
said occurred three or four months ago, "I said, 'What's next . . .' - in
a joking manner," Smoltz said. "And then they put that and (Smoltz's
stance on gay marriage) together."
As it happens, Smoltz did have a gay teammate - although he didn't know
it at the time.
Billy Bean, a former big leaguer who has since acknowledged being gay and
written a book ("Going the Other Way: Lessons from a Life in and out of
Major-League Baseball") on the subject, called Smoltz's remarks
"uninformed" and said, "It is pretty unsettling."
"There is a born-again mentality in baseball that is right in line with
what I would expect him to say," Bean said of Smoltz. Bean also said,
however, that he and Smoltz were "close friends" when they were in the
Tigers' organization in the 1980s.
"If we played golf or pickup hoops, we would bond like two regular guys,
and he would evolve as a person," said Bean, who said he hasn't talked to
Smoltz since announcing he was gay.
Braves backup catcher Eddie Perez also drew criticism for comments he
made in the same article. "If I knew a guy was gay, then I could work it
out. I could be prepared. I could hide when I'm getting disrobed," Perez
was quoted as saying. "It would be hard to play with someone all year and
then find out they're gay." Perez has said he was misquoted.
Smoltz wants it made clear that he has nothing against gays. "Nowhere in
my conversation was I critical of gays," he said.
What obviously isn't a misunderstanding, though, is his stance on gay
marriage.
--
"He could help his on-base percentage by taking some more pitches,
walking a little more, and being a little more selective."
- Chipper Jones on Rafael Furcal
Now playing: the radio
Wow, I figured John was Jewish... just goes to show.
Justin D.
2004-07-26 17:01:42 UTC
Permalink
"Tarkus" <***@beer.com> wrote in message

[snip]

Thanks for posting that. Do you happen to have a link?
--
JD

"The goal is to be in first place when the season ends." -- Braves manager
Bobby Cox
Tarkus
2004-07-26 18:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin D.
[snip]
Thanks for posting that. Do you happen to have a link?
http://www.ajc.com/braves/content/sports/braves/0704/25smoltz.html
--
"Once I got past the tomahawk chop of the Atlanta Braves that haunted me
for 10 years, it allowed me to get a weight off my chest." - Barry Bonds

Now playing: the radio
S321Saint
2004-07-26 20:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
"Once I got past the tomahawk chop of the Atlanta Braves that haunted me
for 10 years, it allowed me to get a weight off my chest." - Barry Bonds
Good lord, did Barry actually say that?...what a wimp....I thought he was
tougher than that..
S321Saint
2004-07-26 20:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays
By Darren Everson and Jim Rich
New York Daily News
Published on: 07/25/04
New York -- Before he stuck his foot in his mouth in a major way earlier
this season, no one ever confused John Smoltz with John Rocker. Smoltz,
the Atlanta Braves' well-spoken closer, can stand and chat with reporters
for 20 minutes, as he did at Shea Stadium on Friday, and do so without
offending anyone.
But Smoltz, who is also a devout Christian, caused a stir earlier this
month with comments about gay marriage. He was quoted in an Associated
Press story as saying, "What's next? Marrying an animal?"
Before Friday night's Mets-Braves game was rained out, Smoltz explained
himself. Although he has apologized for that remark, which he said was
made in a joking manner after an interview, he does not apologize for his
stance on gay marriage.
He said, however, that he does not have a problem with the idea of having
a gay teammate.
"The question was posed to me, would I have trouble with a gay teammate?"
Smoltz said. "Absolutely not. I have no problems at all, as long as
anybody doesn't impose their ways on anybody, whether it's faith,
religion or personal preference.
"As we were done and walking off," Smoltz said of the interview, which he
said occurred three or four months ago, "I said, 'What's next . . .' - in
a joking manner," Smoltz said. "And then they put that and (Smoltz's
stance on gay marriage) together."
As it happens, Smoltz did have a gay teammate - although he didn't know
it at the time.
Billy Bean, a former big leaguer who has since acknowledged being gay and
written a book ("Going the Other Way: Lessons from a Life in and out of
Major-League Baseball") on the subject, called Smoltz's remarks
"uninformed" and said, "It is pretty unsettling."
"There is a born-again mentality in baseball that is right in line with
what I would expect him to say," Bean said of Smoltz. Bean also said,
however, that he and Smoltz were "close friends" when they were in the
Tigers' organization in the 1980s.
"If we played golf or pickup hoops, we would bond like two regular guys,
and he would evolve as a person," said Bean, who said he hasn't talked to
Smoltz since announcing he was gay.
Braves backup catcher Eddie Perez also drew criticism for comments he
made in the same article. "If I knew a guy was gay, then I could work it
out. I could be prepared. I could hide when I'm getting disrobed," Perez
was quoted as saying. "It would be hard to play with someone all year and
then find out they're gay." Perez has said he was misquoted.
Smoltz wants it made clear that he has nothing against gays. "Nowhere in
my conversation was I critical of gays," he said.
What obviously isn't a misunderstanding, though, is his stance on gay
marriage.
--
"He could help his on-base percentage by taking some more pitches,
walking a little more, and being a little more selective."
- Chipper Jones on Rafael Furcal
Now playing: the radio
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's comments were
considered out of line and that he should apologize. I think it was also
obvious that anyone who didnt jump up and castigate Smoltz for his personal and
religious views is somehow intolerant and anti-gay. Notice how they
automatically brought up John Rocker's comments even though there was no real
connection between sets of comments. Methinks Everson and Rich should do
articles straightforward instead of pandering to the gay lobby.
Tarkus
2004-07-26 21:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to gays
marrying would be marrying an animal.
--
"eRosa makes Swiss cheese look solid." - Braves Vent

Now playing: the radio
JPM III
2004-07-26 21:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
Colin William
2004-07-26 22:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
However it just so happened that his claimed jest is parallel to a serious
argument made by many conservatives in the same debate.

Colin
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 00:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
I think he is just confused like most of the world about the commercial
decision to embrace and glorify homosexuality. It's pretty difficult to
understand why a man does not desire a woman. You know, it wasn't so long
ago that homosexuals were persona non-grata in society. Now, they are
praised and accepted because of one reason: the profit potential of
commercial interests. It simply doesn't benefit commerce to have unhappy
patrons in society.

Indeed, many people may wonder if animals (and/or children) will be next.
At one time, people couldn't conceive of two men getting married and
having their marriage wholeheartedly sanctioned and endorsed by the
government, the church, and society. Considering this, I would not rule
out other sexually perverse practices becoming mainstream at some point in
the future, perhaps even including animals and children as participants.
Sickening, but quite plausible, especially if there is a healthy profit
potential for commercial interests. Some may say, "yeah, but there's a
difference. We're talking about two consenting adults here. With
children and animals, that is not the case." That's true now, but give
it time. Across time, perhaps more liberal attitudes will prevail and
become dominant, just as we have witnessed with the relatively recent
acceptance of homosexuality. It won't shock me when it happens, because
this would be quite indicative of this crazy, f*cked up world we live in.
It's only about money.

Jolly Rogers
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-27 00:25:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:18:39 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
I think he is just confused like most of the world about the commercial
decision to embrace and glorify homosexuality. It's pretty difficult to
understand why a man does not desire a woman. You know, it wasn't so long
ago that homosexuals were persona non-grata in society. Now, they are
praised and accepted because of one reason: the profit potential of
commercial interests.
you're a complete fucking lunatic.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 00:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made the
same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know, someday, men
sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be acceptable in society and
even cool with the government and church."

Sadly, it turns out that the people who said those things not too long ago
weren't cuckoo after all. Ya know?

In other words, as the world turns, crazy $hit happens. What seems crazy
now may not seem crazy to the majority someday. Even now, most people are
opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriages (if we are to believe most
standard polls), but a sizeable enough minority has embraced the notion
(or at least said "who cares?") so that it may now be enforced on society
by the church and state.

Jolly Rogers
JPM III
2004-07-27 06:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and church."
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think about
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.

The end.
Tarkus
2004-07-27 18:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think about
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
Well, that goes without saying.
--
"If Cox advances this Red Cross team to playoffs, he should not have to
wait 5 years for Cooperstown." - Braves Vent

Now playing: "02 - No No No"
bgs
2004-07-27 21:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Post by JPM III
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think about
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
Well, that goes without saying.
--
"If Cox advances this Red Cross team to playoffs, he should not have to
wait 5 years for Cooperstown." - Braves Vent
Now playing: "02 - No No No"
Yet, why do so many guys seem to deny that when their wives are around?
Boggles my mind anyway.
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 00:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and church."
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think about
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
no, it's not. you don't find the idea of lesbianism to be a turn on
at all. you find the idea of femail *bi-sexuality* to be a turn on,
because it allows you to fantasize about being a third in the
two-girls-and-a-guy scenario. your arousal at the idea of two women
together has nothing to do with lesbian sexuality and everything to do
with your wet dreams about being involved in a menage a trois. i
would guess that actual lesbianism, that is to say women who are
sexually attracted to other women and could give a shit about you, and
who in no way whatsoever wish to facilitate you wet dreams about
two-on-one action wouldn't interest you at all.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
ziggy
2004-07-28 00:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and church."
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think about
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
no, it's not. you don't find the idea of lesbianism to be a turn on
at all. you find the idea of femail *bi-sexuality* to be a turn on,
because it allows you to fantasize about being a third in the
two-girls-and-a-guy scenario. your arousal at the idea of two women
together has nothing to do with lesbian sexuality and everything to do
with your wet dreams about being involved in a menage a trois. i
would guess that actual lesbianism, that is to say women who are
sexually attracted to other women and could give a shit about you, and
who in no way whatsoever wish to facilitate you wet dreams about
two-on-one action wouldn't interest you at all.
wow...ya just *had* to throw that wet blanket out there, didn't ya?
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 00:09:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:05:05 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and church."
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think
about
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
no, it's not. you don't find the idea of lesbianism to be a turn on
at all. you find the idea of femail *bi-sexuality* to be a turn on,
because it allows you to fantasize about being a third in the
two-girls-and-a-guy scenario. your arousal at the idea of two women
together has nothing to do with lesbian sexuality and everything to do
with your wet dreams about being involved in a menage a trois. i
would guess that actual lesbianism, that is to say women who are
sexually attracted to other women and could give a shit about you, and
who in no way whatsoever wish to facilitate you wet dreams about
two-on-one action wouldn't interest you at all.
wow...ya just *had* to throw that wet blanket out there, didn't ya?
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce their
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a woody
watching.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
ziggy
2004-07-28 00:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:05:05 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and church."
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think
about
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
no, it's not. you don't find the idea of lesbianism to be a turn on
at all. you find the idea of femail *bi-sexuality* to be a turn on,
because it allows you to fantasize about being a third in the
two-girls-and-a-guy scenario. your arousal at the idea of two women
together has nothing to do with lesbian sexuality and everything to do
with your wet dreams about being involved in a menage a trois. i
would guess that actual lesbianism, that is to say women who are
sexually attracted to other women and could give a shit about you, and
who in no way whatsoever wish to facilitate you wet dreams about
two-on-one action wouldn't interest you at all.
wow...ya just *had* to throw that wet blanket out there, didn't ya?
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce their
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a woody
watching.
so you're saying *all* those porno movies i watched back in my teen years
were wrong? i just don't know what life's about anymore.
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 00:29:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce their
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a woody
watching.
so you're saying *all* those porno movies i watched back in my teen years
were wrong? i just don't know what life's about anymore.
no more so or less so than any other use of objectification, no. all
of those pornos were made specifically because they knew you wanted to
watch. the eroticism that drives pornography is that of voyeurism.
you watch because your subconscious wraps you "into" the frame of the
movie, places you as part of the action, and allows you in many cases
to experience a filmed version of the three-way (or four-way, or
twelve-way, or whatever it is you're watching) fantasy. but none of
this has anything to do with lesbianism.

another interesting fact about your own mind to choke down one day is
that all of the arousal you've felt when watching video of one-guy,
one-girl, is actually arousal you're gaining from the idea of a
two-guy, one-girl three-way.

would you like for me to stop now and allow you to preserve your
misguided sense of sexual specificness now? or should i continue on
and take a hack out of the very idea of gender and the
religio-biological mythology that drives the idea that male and female
are distinct categories of existence?

s/



*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
ziggy
2004-07-28 00:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce their
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a woody
watching.
so you're saying *all* those porno movies i watched back in my teen years
were wrong? i just don't know what life's about anymore.
no more so or less so than any other use of objectification, no. all
of those pornos were made specifically because they knew you wanted to
watch. the eroticism that drives pornography is that of voyeurism.
you watch because your subconscious wraps you "into" the frame of the
movie, places you as part of the action, and allows you in many cases
to experience a filmed version of the three-way (or four-way, or
twelve-way, or whatever it is you're watching) fantasy. but none of
this has anything to do with lesbianism.
another interesting fact about your own mind to choke down one day is
that all of the arousal you've felt when watching video of one-guy,
one-girl, is actually arousal you're gaining from the idea of a
two-guy, one-girl three-way.
would you like for me to stop now and allow you to preserve your
misguided sense of sexual specificness now? or should i continue on
and take a hack out of the very idea of gender and the
religio-biological mythology that drives the idea that male and female
are distinct categories of existence?
dude, lighten up.
it's a joke.
bgs
2004-07-28 02:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce their
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a woody
watching.
so you're saying *all* those porno movies i watched back in my teen years
were wrong? i just don't know what life's about anymore.
no more so or less so than any other use of objectification, no. all
of those pornos were made specifically because they knew you wanted to
watch. the eroticism that drives pornography is that of voyeurism.
you watch because your subconscious wraps you "into" the frame of the
movie, places you as part of the action, and allows you in many cases
to experience a filmed version of the three-way (or four-way, or
twelve-way, or whatever it is you're watching) fantasy. but none of
this has anything to do with lesbianism.
another interesting fact about your own mind to choke down one day is
that all of the arousal you've felt when watching video of one-guy,
one-girl, is actually arousal you're gaining from the idea of a
two-guy, one-girl three-way.
would you like for me to stop now and allow you to preserve your
misguided sense of sexual specificness now? or should i continue on
and take a hack out of the very idea of gender and the
religio-biological mythology that drives the idea that male and female
are distinct categories of existence?
dude, lighten up.
it's a joke.
psssst... I think someone forgot their Paxil today.
ziggy
2004-07-28 03:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce their
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a woody
watching.
so you're saying *all* those porno movies i watched back in my teen
years
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by ziggy
were wrong? i just don't know what life's about anymore.
no more so or less so than any other use of objectification, no. all
of those pornos were made specifically because they knew you wanted to
watch. the eroticism that drives pornography is that of voyeurism.
you watch because your subconscious wraps you "into" the frame of the
movie, places you as part of the action, and allows you in many cases
to experience a filmed version of the three-way (or four-way, or
twelve-way, or whatever it is you're watching) fantasy. but none of
this has anything to do with lesbianism.
another interesting fact about your own mind to choke down one day is
that all of the arousal you've felt when watching video of one-guy,
one-girl, is actually arousal you're gaining from the idea of a
two-guy, one-girl three-way.
would you like for me to stop now and allow you to preserve your
misguided sense of sexual specificness now? or should i continue on
and take a hack out of the very idea of gender and the
religio-biological mythology that drives the idea that male and female
are distinct categories of existence?
dude, lighten up.
it's a joke.
psssst... I think someone forgot their Paxil today.
ah, this thread has degenerated into a "fag"--> "i know you are but what am
i?" deal. i think it is a lot easier to be vitriolic on usenet and most of
the participants here including jolly and sam (yes jjm also) are decent
reasonable folks who wouldn't speak like that to each other in real life.
it's a lot easier to hide behind a keyboard and be uncivil. all i care
about is a laugh or 2, some braves info, and maybe tossing some of my own
ideas in the mix. therefore, i don't expect to be taken seriously. ever.
real life has plenty of that. i've seen too much drama erupt in other
groups and that's why i've purposely avoided poking jolly for the past few
months. i don't ever mean any harm.
bgs
2004-07-28 04:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by Sam Hutcheson
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce their
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a woody
watching.
<snip>
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
psssst... I think someone forgot their Paxil today.
ah, this thread has degenerated into a "fag"--> "i know you are but what am
i?" deal. i think it is a lot easier to be vitriolic on usenet and most of
the participants here including jolly and sam (yes jjm also) are decent
reasonable folks who wouldn't speak like that to each other in real life.
it's a lot easier to hide behind a keyboard and be uncivil. all i care
about is a laugh or 2, some braves info, and maybe tossing some of my own
ideas in the mix. therefore, i don't expect to be taken seriously. ever.
real life has plenty of that. i've seen too much drama erupt in other
groups and that's why i've purposely avoided poking jolly for the past few
months. i don't ever mean any harm.
Hey man, you don't have to splain yourself to me. I know your just messin
about and never meaning any harm. My "psssst/paxil" was in that very tone
as well. Although, I do hope Sam will answer my question, since if his
comments are accurate, it'll be some insight that I've never contemplated
before.

The thread did go graphic pretty quick though, didn't it?
Justin D.
2004-07-28 04:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by Sam Hutcheson
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce
their
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by Sam Hutcheson
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a
woody
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by Sam Hutcheson
watching.
<snip>
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
psssst... I think someone forgot their Paxil today.
ah, this thread has degenerated into a "fag"--> "i know you are but what
am
Post by ziggy
i?" deal. i think it is a lot easier to be vitriolic on usenet and most
of
Post by ziggy
the participants here including jolly and sam (yes jjm also) are decent
reasonable folks who wouldn't speak like that to each other in real life.
it's a lot easier to hide behind a keyboard and be uncivil. all i care
about is a laugh or 2, some braves info, and maybe tossing some of my own
ideas in the mix. therefore, i don't expect to be taken seriously.
ever.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
real life has plenty of that. i've seen too much drama erupt in other
groups and that's why i've purposely avoided poking jolly for the past few
months. i don't ever mean any harm.
Hey man, you don't have to splain yourself to me. I know your just messin
about and never meaning any harm. My "psssst/paxil" was in that very tone
as well. Although, I do hope Sam will answer my question, since if his
comments are accurate, it'll be some insight that I've never contemplated
before.
The thread did go graphic pretty quick though, didn't it?
More graphic than I care for. But, it was probally right up your alley
wasn't it, Scotty? :)
--
JD

"The goal is to be in first place when the season ends." -- Braves manager
Bobby Cox
bgs
2004-07-28 12:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by Sam Hutcheson
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce
their
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by Sam Hutcheson
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a
woody
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by Sam Hutcheson
watching.
<snip>
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
psssst... I think someone forgot their Paxil today.
ah, this thread has degenerated into a "fag"--> "i know you are but what
am
Post by ziggy
i?" deal. i think it is a lot easier to be vitriolic on usenet and most
of
Post by ziggy
the participants here including jolly and sam (yes jjm also) are decent
reasonable folks who wouldn't speak like that to each other in real
life.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
it's a lot easier to hide behind a keyboard and be uncivil. all i care
about is a laugh or 2, some braves info, and maybe tossing some of my
own
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
ideas in the mix. therefore, i don't expect to be taken seriously.
ever.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
real life has plenty of that. i've seen too much drama erupt in other
groups and that's why i've purposely avoided poking jolly for the past
few
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
months. i don't ever mean any harm.
Hey man, you don't have to splain yourself to me. I know your just messin
about and never meaning any harm. My "psssst/paxil" was in that very tone
as well. Although, I do hope Sam will answer my question, since if his
comments are accurate, it'll be some insight that I've never
contemplated
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
before.
The thread did go graphic pretty quick though, didn't it?
More graphic than I care for. But, it was probally right up your alley
wasn't it, Scotty? :)
--
JD
"The goal is to be in first place when the season ends." -- Braves manager
Bobby Cox
No. I consider myself a reforming homophobic, but we often reach a level of
graphic and distastefulness around here that goes way beyond my comfort
zone....often on this very subject. Hmmm...
Justin D.
2004-07-28 15:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ziggy
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by Sam Hutcheson
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce
their
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by Sam Hutcheson
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a
woody
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by Sam Hutcheson
watching.
<snip>
Post by ziggy
Post by bgs
psssst... I think someone forgot their Paxil today.
ah, this thread has degenerated into a "fag"--> "i know you are but
what
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
am
Post by ziggy
i?" deal. i think it is a lot easier to be vitriolic on usenet and
most
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
of
Post by ziggy
the participants here including jolly and sam (yes jjm also) are
decent
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
reasonable folks who wouldn't speak like that to each other in real
life.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
it's a lot easier to hide behind a keyboard and be uncivil. all i
care
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
about is a laugh or 2, some braves info, and maybe tossing some of my
own
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
ideas in the mix. therefore, i don't expect to be taken seriously.
ever.
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
real life has plenty of that. i've seen too much drama erupt in other
groups and that's why i've purposely avoided poking jolly for the past
few
Post by bgs
Post by ziggy
months. i don't ever mean any harm.
Hey man, you don't have to splain yourself to me. I know your just
messin
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
about and never meaning any harm. My "psssst/paxil" was in that very
tone
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
as well. Although, I do hope Sam will answer my question, since if his
comments are accurate, it'll be some insight that I've never
contemplated
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
before.
The thread did go graphic pretty quick though, didn't it?
More graphic than I care for. But, it was probally right up your alley
wasn't it, Scotty? :)
--
JD
"The goal is to be in first place when the season ends." -- Braves manager
Bobby Cox
No. I consider myself a reforming homophobic, but we often reach a level of
graphic and distastefulness around here that goes way beyond my comfort
zone....often on this very subject. Hmmm...
I was kidding.
--
JD

"The goal is to be in first place when the season ends." -- Braves manager
Bobby Cox
bgs
2004-07-28 16:16:56 UTC
Permalink
"Justin D." <justindevereaux31 at gmail dot com> wrote in message news:SpmdnYvZ9PJzV5rcRVn-***@cybersouth.com...
<snip>
.
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
Post by Justin D.
Post by bgs
The thread did go graphic pretty quick though, didn't it?
More graphic than I care for. But, it was probally right up your alley
wasn't it, Scotty? :)
--
JD
No. I consider myself a reforming homophobic, but we often reach a level
of
Post by bgs
graphic and distastefulness around here that goes way beyond my comfort
zone....often on this very subject. Hmmm...
I was kidding.
--
JD
I knew you were kidding in the second sentence. But I felt compelled to be
serious about the first one. :)
Colin William
2004-07-28 19:43:08 UTC
Permalink
"Justin D." <justindevereaux31 at gmail dot com> wrote ...
"Justin D." <justindevereaux31 at gmail dot com> wrote ...
wrote...
Could I perhaps echo Terry's early sentiment about editing posts a little?
Not sure we need a nine-level history of how we get to any given comment ;-)

Colin
David Blackburn
2004-07-28 20:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin William
"Justin D." <justindevereaux31 at gmail dot com> wrote ...
...
...
...
"Sam Hutcheson"
wrote...
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:16:23 -0400, "ziggy"
Could I perhaps echo Terry's early sentiment about editing
posts a little? Not sure we need a nine-level history of
how we get to any given comment ;-)
Colin
When I read the first sentence I thought, surely he's lost it.
Even though the expressive content of this thread has reached
the schoolyard language level, they'll crucify you for
suggesting they edit their language. I'm glad you are only
suggesting they edit for length, so they can continue to say
motherfucking anything they fucking well cocksucking please.
Colin William
2004-07-28 21:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Blackburn
When I read the first sentence I thought, surely he's lost it.
Even though the expressive content of this thread has reached
the schoolyard language level, they'll crucify you for
suggesting they edit their language. I'm glad you are only
suggesting they edit for length, so they can continue to say
motherfucking anything they fucking well cocksucking please.
Aieeee, I picked the wrong thread to go down that road. Just saw all the
attributions before I looked at content, snipped all the content and went
from there.

Colin
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 22:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Blackburn
When I read the first sentence I thought, surely he's lost it.
Even though the expressive content of this thread has reached
the schoolyard language level, they'll crucify you for
suggesting they edit their language. I'm glad you are only
suggesting they edit for length, so they can continue to say
motherfucking anything they fucking well cocksucking please.
i agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion here, but i would like to
point out that the truly abysmal, pubescently vulgar depths of this
thread are mostly attributable to one cro-magnon in particular.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 22:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
i agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion here, but i would like to
point out that the truly abysmal, pubescently vulgar depths of this
thread are mostly attributable to one cro-magnon in particular.
Yeah, you're always an innocent bystander.

Jolly Rogers
Dale Hicks
2004-07-28 04:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
another interesting fact about your own mind to choke down one day is
that all of the arousal you've felt when watching video of one-guy,
one-girl, is actually arousal you're gaining from the idea of a
two-guy, one-girl three-way.
You're a fucking loon.
Post by Sam Hutcheson
would you like for me to stop now and allow you to preserve your
misguided sense of sexual specificness now? or should i continue on
and take a hack out of the very idea of gender and the
religio-biological mythology that drives the idea that male and female
are distinct categories of existence?
Troll.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 22:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Hicks
Post by Sam Hutcheson
another interesting fact about your own mind to choke down one day is
that all of the arousal you've felt when watching video of one-guy,
one-girl, is actually arousal you're gaining from the idea of a
two-guy, one-girl three-way.
You're a fucking loon.
you're a plagaristic hack.
Post by Dale Hicks
Post by Sam Hutcheson
would you like for me to stop now and allow you to preserve your
misguided sense of sexual specificness now? or should i continue on
and take a hack out of the very idea of gender and the
religio-biological mythology that drives the idea that male and female
are distinct categories of existence?
Troll.
and what a troll it was. i mean, who else would troll about gender
definitions?

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Dale Hicks
2004-07-28 04:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
another interesting fact about your own mind to choke down one day is
that all of the arousal you've felt when watching video of one-guy,
one-girl, is actually arousal you're gaining from the idea of a
two-guy, one-girl three-way.
No, that's the arousal you get from watching MMF videos. Keep it
straight.

(I don't even want to know what you'd say what the MMMF videos
represent)
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
bgs
2004-07-28 02:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:05:05 -0400, "ziggy"
Post by ziggy
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and church."
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think
about
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
no, it's not. you don't find the idea of lesbianism to be a turn on
at all. you find the idea of femail *bi-sexuality* to be a turn on,
because it allows you to fantasize about being a third in the
two-girls-and-a-guy scenario. your arousal at the idea of two women
together has nothing to do with lesbian sexuality and everything to do
with your wet dreams about being involved in a menage a trois. i
would guess that actual lesbianism, that is to say women who are
sexually attracted to other women and could give a shit about you, and
who in no way whatsoever wish to facilitate you wet dreams about
two-on-one action wouldn't interest you at all.
wow...ya just *had* to throw that wet blanket out there, didn't ya?
yes. it's insulting to gay and lesbian individuals to reduce their
sexual identities to a referendum on whether or not you get a woody
watching.
s/
Is this a known fact or are you presuming it to be insulting? I can see how
it might intellectually, but I've never heard this expressed by anyone known
to be gay or not.
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 22:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bgs
Is this a known fact or are you presuming it to be insulting? I can see how
it might intellectually, but I've never heard this expressed by anyone known
to be gay or not.
well, i don't have any polling data or anything.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
bgs
2004-07-28 22:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by bgs
Is this a known fact or are you presuming it to be insulting? I can see how
it might intellectually, but I've never heard this expressed by anyone known
to be gay or not.
well, i don't have any polling data or anything.
s/
It's just not something I've ever contemplated nor would've occurred to me
on my most sensitive of days. I don't mind insulting someone from time to
time, but I'd at least like to know when I'm doing it.
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 22:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by bgs
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by bgs
Is this a known fact or are you presuming it to be insulting? I can see
how
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by bgs
it might intellectually, but I've never heard this expressed by anyone
known
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by bgs
to be gay or not.
well, i don't have any polling data or anything.
s/
It's just not something I've ever contemplated nor would've occurred to me
on my most sensitive of days. I don't mind insulting someone from time to
time, but I'd at least like to know when I'm doing it.
well, my general theory is "would it insult me if someone reduced me
in such a way?" maybe, maybe not. but when in doubt, why not stray
to the side of being nice to people, excepting of course those who
truly deserve to be battered to a pulp.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Daniel Kolle
2004-07-28 15:32:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:01:36 -0400, Sam Hutcheson
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and church."
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think about
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
no, it's not. you don't find the idea of lesbianism to be a turn on
at all. you find the idea of femail *bi-sexuality* to be a turn on,
because it allows you to fantasize about being a third in the
two-girls-and-a-guy scenario. your arousal at the idea of two women
together has nothing to do with lesbian sexuality and everything to do
with your wet dreams about being involved in a menage a trois. i
would guess that actual lesbianism, that is to say women who are
sexually attracted to other women and could give a shit about you, and
who in no way whatsoever wish to facilitate you wet dreams about
two-on-one action wouldn't interest you at all.
You had to ruin it!
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
bgs
2004-07-28 16:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Kolle
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:01:36 -0400, Sam Hutcheson
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and church."
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think about
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
no, it's not. you don't find the idea of lesbianism to be a turn on
at all. you find the idea of femail *bi-sexuality* to be a turn on,
because it allows you to fantasize about being a third in the
two-girls-and-a-guy scenario. your arousal at the idea of two women
together has nothing to do with lesbian sexuality and everything to do
with your wet dreams about being involved in a menage a trois. i
would guess that actual lesbianism, that is to say women who are
sexually attracted to other women and could give a shit about you, and
who in no way whatsoever wish to facilitate you wet dreams about
two-on-one action wouldn't interest you at all.
You had to ruin it!
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
Now be honest. It only ruined it for a few seconds, right? You then
contemplated it, discovered it was presumptious and *perhaps* lacked any
legitimate basis in fact and returned to dream the impossible dream mode.

-- IOW, The fantasy lives!!!!! :)
Lance Freezeland
2004-07-28 18:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made
the same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know,
someday, men sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be
acceptable in society and even cool with the government and
church."
Post by Sam Hutcheson
Post by JPM III
On a personal note, I'll have to admit that I would rather not think about
male homosexuality, but female homosexuality is quite the turn-on.
no, it's not. you don't find the idea of lesbianism to be a turn on
at all. you find the idea of femail *bi-sexuality* to be a turn on,
because it allows you to fantasize about being a third in the
two-girls-and-a-guy scenario. your arousal at the idea of two women
together has nothing to do with lesbian sexuality and everything to do
with your wet dreams about being involved in a menage a trois.
Wrong. There are plenty of FFM threesome movies out there if that's
what you want. You can just imagine away Ron Jeremy's face and
pretend it's you if that's what floats your boat. But that's
distinctly different from watching two chicks get it on. The turn-on
there is the taboo nature of the act, and the idea that women aren't
"supposed" to be the horndogs we men are. It's the idea that these
chicks are so horny and slutty that they'll do anything, which means
they might do you too. The attraction is to the wild woman persona
and the fact that "she'll do anything, dude!"
Post by Sam Hutcheson
i
would guess that actual lesbianism, that is to say women who are
sexually attracted to other women and could give a shit about you, and
who in no way whatsoever wish to facilitate you wet dreams about
two-on-one action wouldn't interest you at all.
This I can agree on. Actual lesbians don't look like Jenna Jameson in
stiletto heels and body piercings. Rather, at least one of them
usually looks like a sad impersonation of Matt Stairs, complete with
mullet haircut, lumberjack wardrobe and comfortable shoes. I don't
want to see her in action, baby.
--
Lance

"I believe in the Church of Baseball" Annie Savoy
tom dunne
2004-07-28 19:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lance Freezeland
This I can agree on. Actual lesbians don't look like Jenna Jameson in
stiletto heels and body piercings. Rather, at least one of them
usually looks like a sad impersonation of Matt Stairs, complete with
mullet haircut, lumberjack wardrobe and comfortable shoes. I don't
want to see her in action, baby.
If she can hit like Matt Stairs, Atlanta might be able to find some
action for her at 1B...
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 00:02:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:56:53 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made the
same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know, someday, men
sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be acceptable in society and
even cool with the government and church."
yeah. we're consistently moving

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 00:05:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:56:53 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made the
same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know, someday, men
sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be acceptable in society and
even cool with the government and church."
they probably did. luckily we're still managing to move forward
despite throwbacks like yourself.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
JPM III
2004-07-27 06:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should
apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step
to gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in
jest that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just
suggested.
I think he is just confused like most of the world about the
commercial decision to embrace and glorify homosexuality. It's
pretty difficult to understand why a man does not desire a woman.
You know, it wasn't so long ago that homosexuals were persona
non-grata in society.
It wasn't long before that in the grand scheme of things that homosexuality
was barely even a concept and sexual promiscuity was not an issue and people
roamed around in little or no clothing with little worry about the sexual
connotations of an extended extremity (well, at least not all the time).
We're all humans of the same kind. If some make different choices, fine. If
you don't want it to affect the way you live your *personal* life, then you
should have the right to keep it out. But to have the right to prevent
others from letting it affect their personal lives if they want it to is
unjust.

That's my opinion...
Tarkus
2004-07-27 03:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
--
"If Cox advances this Red Cross team to playoffs, he should not have to
wait 5 years for Cooperstown." - Braves Vent

Now playing: the radio
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 03:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.

Jolly Rogers
Alice Faber
2004-07-27 03:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Tarkus
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?!!!!!!!!!!!
--
"If you love the Rangers set them free; if they win, they're yours, if
they don't they never were...."
--Hadrian Wall on the Zen of fandom
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 03:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alice Faber
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Tarkus
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's what. See, it's like this, Doc. Adam and Eve fit quite nicely
together. Adam and Steve do not. It's funny how nature worked it all out
that way, isn't it? But you already know those facts, and this has
absolutely nothing to do with religion in my view.

See, the penis belongs in a willing woman's vagina. It's a natural fit,
tailor made by nature. Contrarily, consider the fact that feces comes out
of a man's anus. A penis should not be inserted in there. It is an exit
pipe only. Nature obviously did not intend for a man to stick his penis
in another man's anus.

I think many more people will respect John Smoltz and laugh at his jokes
than respect a male with another male's penis in his mouth or up his anus.
It follows that holding disdain for something so contemptuous as same sex
marriage is quite natural. Asking "WTF" to someone questioning something
so bizarre is out of place and odd in my view, Doc.

Your view is still in the minority. I consent that it may not always be
that way, but for now, your view is in the minority. Again, nothing was
wrong with what Smoltz said. If some people were offended, that's too
bad. Homosexuality offends the majority. See?

Respectfully,
Jolly Rogers
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 03:54:44 UTC
Permalink
I consent that it may not always be...
Ooops. That should be, "I concede that it may not always be..."
bgs
2004-07-27 04:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Alice Faber
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Tarkus
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't
make
Post by Alice Faber
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Tarkus
it better because he was trying to be funny.
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's what. See, it's like this, Doc. Adam and Eve fit quite nicely
together. Adam and Steve do not. It's funny how nature worked it all out
that way, isn't it? But you already know those facts, and this has
absolutely nothing to do with religion in my view.
See, the penis belongs in a willing woman's vagina. It's a natural fit,
tailor made by nature. Contrarily, consider the fact that feces comes out
of a man's anus. A penis should not be inserted in there. It is an exit
pipe only. Nature obviously did not intend for a man to stick his penis
in another man's anus.
<snip of stuff that's true but shouldn't be>
Jeepers Jolly, I don't know what to comment on here, your taco shaped
weewee or my wife's dual use vagina.

So, I'll just say hi and goodnight.
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 04:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by bgs
Jeepers Jolly, I don't know what to comment on here, your taco shaped
weewee or my wife's dual use vagina.
So, I'll just say hi and goodnight.
LOL! Pleasant dreams, Scott.

Jolly Rogers
JJM1954
2004-07-27 19:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Here's what. See, it's like this, Doc. Adam and Eve fit quite nicely
together. Adam and Steve do not. It's funny how nature worked it all out
that way, isn't it?
Good Lord, have you been reading the Grade School Book for Stupid
Fundamentalists again? Do you think this crap is going to impress anyone with
its wisdom and perscipacity?

Explain this Einstein: If nature worked it all out, then homosexuality must be
a-okay, because many higher species (ie, mammals) exhibit it.
Post by Jolly Rogers
But you already know those facts, and this has
absolutely nothing to do with religion in my view.
So you're a moron when it comes to biology, as well.
Post by Jolly Rogers
See, the penis belongs in a willing woman's vagina.
It fits in many conceivable natural orifices, you absolute cretin.
Post by Jolly Rogers
I think many more people will respect John Smoltz and laugh at his jokes
than respect a male with another male's penis in his mouth or up his anus.
Why do morons like you have such vivid homoerotic fantasies, and enjoy
describing them in such detail? I think Nature is trying to tell you
something.
Post by Jolly Rogers
t follows that holding disdain for something so contemptuous as same sex
marriage is quite natural.
Yeah, if you're a moron.
Post by Jolly Rogers
Asking "WTF" to someone questioning something
so bizarre is out of place and odd in my view, Doc.
That's because you're a moron.
Post by Jolly Rogers
Your view is still in the minority.
No it isn't. sayin "WTF" to moronic questions is quite common in literate
societies.
Post by Jolly Rogers
Homosexuality offends the majority.
Only if they're busy-bodies, or morons.

By the way, thanks a lot lot Jolly. My Internet assignment for the day was to
use the word "moron" at least five times, and thanks to you, I managed to run
off my allotment in a single post. Again, thanks.
Jon Richardson
2004-07-27 20:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
By the way, thanks a lot lot Jolly. My Internet assignment for the day was to
use the word "moron" at least five times, and thanks to you, I managed to run
off my allotment in a single post. Again, thanks.
Is this a class/work project of some sort? Cause if so, man, I wish I had
your teacher/boss...

Jon
--
"All year, the hits just haven't been falling for him, and now this. I just
can't imagine anyone being more unfortunate than Greg [Norton] has been.
Well okay, maybe a teenaged girl whose surname is 'Hoover'."
-Alan Trammel
JJM1954
2004-07-27 20:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
Post by JJM1954
By the way, thanks a lot lot Jolly. My Internet assignment for the day
was to
Post by JJM1954
use the word "moron" at least five times, and thanks to you, I managed to
run
Post by JJM1954
off my allotment in a single post. Again, thanks.
Is this a class/work project of some sort? Cause if so, man, I wish I had
your teacher/boss...
No, self assigned.

Cheaper than taking blood-pressure medication.
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 00:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
Good Lord, have you been reading the Grade School Book for Stupid
Fundamentalists again?
<other nonsense snipped>

Look, I've made it clear in this NG before that I am not into religion. I
am agnostic. I strongly doubt there is a god or a deity as defined in
texts written by human beings. It follows that I have no interests in
what religious people or so-called fundamentalists believe. If I happen
to share any common beliefs with them it is purely coincidental, so do not
lecture me about matters regarding religion, because I do not give a f*ck
about what they have to say. As far as I am concerned, organized religion
is one huge sham designed to make weak minded people with weak
constitutions part with their money. Now, I am sure that many people
really do believe in their religion, and I have no problem with that as
long as they leave me alone or do not ask me for a single penny or any
assistance in furthering their agenda in any way, shape or form. I see
most of the Christian leadership as being completely untrustworthy,
backstabbing, conniving, selfish, self-centered, and immoral beyond my
ability to comprehend. So, do not go there with your little
fundamentalists comparisons. I am nothing like them.

Secondly, I think your attack of me is quite typical of folks like you.
You didn't even have the common decency to acknowledge me sending you the
spreadsheet data. Not that I sent you that expecting any gratitude, but I
would at least expect you not to attack me and my comments with your vile
name-calling.

Finally, if you want to be a cock$ucker or fudgepacker, knock yourself
out, dude. But don't act appalled if most folks don't happen to share
your enthusiasm for and defense of homosexuality. Homosexuality is
appalling to most people because it represents unnatural, deviant acts and
behaviors.

Jolly Rogers
JJM1954
2004-07-28 02:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JJM1954
Good Lord, have you been reading the Grade School Book for Stupid
Fundamentalists again?
Look, I've made it clear in this NG before that I am not into religion. I
No, you just quote from their talking points.
Post by Jolly Rogers
Secondly, I think your attack of me is quite typical of folks like you.
You're funny as shit, Jolly.

Folks like me, exactly how?
Post by Jolly Rogers
You didn't even have the common decency to acknowledge me sending you the
spreadsheet data.
Hey, moron. You sent me no data. That's why I "didn't have the deceny to
acknowledge" it. Dipshit.
Post by Jolly Rogers
ot that I sent you that expecting any gratitude, but I
would at least expect you not to attack me and my comments with your vile
name-calling.
Jesus Christ, you are one hypocritical mother fucker.

How's that for name calling, moron?
Post by Jolly Rogers
Finally, if you want to be a cock$ucker or fudgepacker, knock yourself
out, dude.
Hey, dude, you're the one who fantasies in copious detail, ON A BASEBALL NG,
about "cocksucking and fudgepacking." You know when "cocksucking and fudge
packing" crosses my mind? When I read stupid-ass posts from a moron like you.
IE, not very frigging often.
Post by Jolly Rogers
Homosexuality is
appalling to most people because it represents unnatural, deviant acts and
behaviors.
You conveniently forget to address the issue, which has been brought up
numerous times, as to how homosexuality can be "unatural" since it occurrs ALL
THE FRIGGING TIME IN NATURE.

But then, you're a moron.

By the way, more thanks. I calculate that if you post one more time, I'll have
used up my "moron" quotient for tomorrow, so I can take the day off.
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 02:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
You didn't even have the common decency to acknowledge me sending you the
spreadsheet data.
Hey, moron. You sent me no data. That's why I "didn't have the deceny to
acknowledge" it. Dipshit.
Well, you've got me there. I sent the data to someone else who requested
it. Color me dipshit and enjoy the laughs there, but the rest of your
crap is utter nonsense. I'll bet you can't wait for LOGO to start
broadcasting to you.

Jolly Rogers
JJM1954
2004-07-28 03:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
You didn't even have the common decency to acknowledge me sending you
the
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
spreadsheet data.
Hey, moron. You sent me no data. That's why I "didn't have the deceny
to
Post by JJM1954
acknowledge" it. Dipshit.
Well, you've got me there. I sent the data to someone else who requested
it. Color me dipshit and enjoy the laughs there, but the rest of your
crap is utter nonsense. I'll bet you can't wait for LOGO to start
broadcasting to you.
Moron.

Thanks. See you Thursday.
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 10:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
Moron.
Queer bait.
Post by JJM1954
Thanks. See you Thursday.
Oh no you won't! You'll be seeing your homo-fantasies.

Jolly Rogers
JJM1954
2004-07-28 14:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JJM1954
Moron.
Queer bait.
Post by JJM1954
Thanks. See you Thursday.
Oh no you won't! You'll be seeing your homo-fantasies.
Can you descend any lower into the depths of stupidity?

Come on. Post again, and we'll see.
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 22:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
Come on. Post again, and we'll see.
Nah, you're too boring and little league.

Jolly Rogers
JJM1954
2004-07-28 22:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JJM1954
Come on. Post again, and we'll see.
Nah, you're too boring and little league.
A reply to say I'm too insignificant to reply to.

Congrats. You ARE achieving new levels of stupidity. I knew you had it in
you.

This is almost too easy.
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 22:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JJM1954
Moron.
Queer bait.
Post by JJM1954
Thanks. See you Thursday.
Oh no you won't! You'll be seeing your homo-fantasies.
Can you descend any lower into the depths of stupidity?
Come on. Post again, and we'll see.
let's not test the boy, shall we?

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 22:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
let's not test the boy, shall we?
My, but don't you two make a lovely pair!? He screeches "moron," while
you bark "fucking loon." Very creative. I now pronounce you liberal and
beeotch (or dumb and dumber). You may kiss each others ass.

Jolly Rogers
JJM1954
2004-07-28 22:40:29 UTC
Permalink
From: Sam Hutcheson
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JJM1954
Moron.
Queer bait.
Post by JJM1954
Thanks. See you Thursday.
Oh no you won't! You'll be seeing your homo-fantasies.
Can you descend any lower into the depths of stupidity?
Come on. Post again, and we'll see.
let's not test the boy, shall we?
s/
Nonsense. He came through with flying colors.

ziggy
2004-07-28 03:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
You didn't even have the common decency to acknowledge me sending you
the
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
spreadsheet data.
Hey, moron. You sent me no data. That's why I "didn't have the deceny
to
Post by JJM1954
acknowledge" it. Dipshit.
Well, you've got me there. I sent the data to someone else who requested
it. Color me dipshit and enjoy the laughs there, but the rest of your
crap is utter nonsense. I'll bet you can't wait for LOGO to start
broadcasting to you.
Jolly Rogers
i get the jjms and jpms mixed up all the time.
sometimes i call either one of them jason who is J M so...
i lean more toward your point of view on this, but much less graphically.
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 00:06:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:49:47 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Alice Faber
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Tarkus
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't
make
Post by Alice Faber
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Tarkus
it better because he was trying to be funny.
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's what. See, it's like this, Doc. Adam and Eve fit quite nicely
together. Adam and Steve do not. It's funny how nature worked it all out
there are examples of homosexual behavior in virtually every phylum in
nature. lesbian penguins. gay rhinoceroses. bisexual frogs. human
beings have been having gay sex since before they dropped out of the
trees. all of which is to say that, once again, you have no idea what
you're talking about.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 00:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
there are examples of homosexual behavior in virtually every phylum in
nature. lesbian penguins. gay rhinoceroses. bisexual frogs. human
beings have been having gay sex since before they dropped out of the
trees. all of which is to say that, once again, you have no idea what
you're talking about.
Sounds like you might'uv sucked a dick... you know... just to try it.
Heh.

Jolly Rogers
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-28 01:34:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:45:22 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
there are examples of homosexual behavior in virtually every phylum in
nature. lesbian penguins. gay rhinoceroses. bisexual frogs. human
beings have been having gay sex since before they dropped out of the
trees. all of which is to say that, once again, you have no idea what
you're talking about.
Sounds like you might'uv sucked a dick... you know... just to try it.
Heh.
no, joseph spain. it sounds like you want to still, and just can't
deal with your own repressed desires.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 02:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
no, joseph spain. it sounds like you want to still, and just can't
deal with your own repressed desires.
LOL. That's a might testy, defensive response from someone who maintains
that sexual preference doesn't matter one iota.

Jolly Rogers
JJM1954
2004-07-28 02:44:59 UTC
Permalink
From: Sam Hutcheson
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:45:22 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
there are examples of homosexual behavior in virtually every phylum in
nature. lesbian penguins. gay rhinoceroses. bisexual frogs. human
beings have been having gay sex since before they dropped out of the
trees. all of which is to say that, once again, you have no idea what
you're talking about.
Sounds like you might'uv sucked a dick... you know... just to try it.
Heh.
no, joseph spain. it sounds like you want to still, and just can't
deal with your own repressed desires.
That, too.
JJM1954
2004-07-28 02:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Sam Hutcheson
there are examples of homosexual behavior in virtually every phylum in
nature. lesbian penguins. gay rhinoceroses. bisexual frogs. human
beings have been having gay sex since before they dropped out of the
trees. all of which is to say that, once again, you have no idea what
you're talking about.
Sounds like you might'uv sucked a dick... you know... just to try it.
Heh.
Sounds like you got your ass kicked again and produced this lame-ass
non-sequitor as a response. Heh.
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-28 02:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
Sounds like you got your ass kicked again and produced this lame-ass
non-sequitor as a response. Heh.
LOL. Sounds like you crave rods.

Jolly Rogers
JJM1954
2004-07-28 03:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JJM1954
Sounds like you got your ass kicked again and produced this lame-ass
non-sequitor as a response. Heh.
LOL. Sounds like you crave rods.
Awesome comeback, dood.

No matter what anyone says, claim they have homosexual fantasies.

Then sashay away. LOL. Heh.
Dale Hicks
2004-07-28 04:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
lesbian penguins. gay rhinoceroses. bisexual frogs.
Sig line, taken way out of context.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
JPM III
2004-07-27 07:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alice Faber
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Tarkus
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It
doesn't make it better because he was trying to be funny.
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you mean what the fuck? That's the fuck. He said it. :-)

I don't think there was anything *wrong* with what he said, but he probably
could have chosen his words more carefully or avoided saying them to avoid
the media shitstorm that followed. And, com'on, this is John Smoltz, not
John Rocker. He's a classy guy who has his own reasons for opposing
homosexuality. His opinion is only flouted because he's a celebrity. Let the
man's politics alone and let the man pitch.
JJM1954
2004-07-27 19:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
Please. Stop being a moron.
Tarkus
2004-07-27 20:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
Please. Stop being a moron.
Isn't that like asking the sun to stop being hot?
--
"DeRosa should change his name to Indiana Jones because every time he
fields it's an adventure." - Braves Vent

Now playing: "07 - No One Came"
JJM1954
2004-07-27 21:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Post by JJM1954
Post by Jolly Rogers
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
Please. Stop being a moron.
Isn't that like asking the sun to stop being hot?
--
Well, you never know. A polite request might have suddenly induced a
brain-numbing insight that might make him turn over a new leaf. It was worth a
shot.
bgs
2004-07-27 03:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
--
"If Cox advances this Red Cross team to playoffs, he should not have to
wait 5 years for Cooperstown." - Braves Vent
Now playing: the radio
I agree that he shouldn't have said it and suspect he wishes he didn't. I'm
inclined to think that since it didn't get a lot of media attention
(apparently) that most privy to the AP wire knew that wasn't a John Smoltz
kind of quote a left it alone. And, I can think of context where it
wouldn't even carry any impact at all and maybe not even refer to gays, but
rather reporters questions.

Having said that though, I think the real distinction in the "marriage"
component is likely going to be the only tolerable compromise in the near
future. It seems there are many willing to accept a legal civil union that
infers all the rights a married couple would have, but are as yet unable to
accept "marriage" itself. I don't fully understand the line of thinking,
except as it pertains to Christian religious beliefs. But, a legal union
ain't a bad next step.

--"many" may be a gross overstatement.
JPM III
2004-07-27 06:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should
apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step
to gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in
jest that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just
suggested.
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't
make it better because he was trying to be funny.
Less poor taste and more poor judgment. He probably realized the mistake as
soon as he said it. The media are ruthless, after all. If you have something
to exploit, they'll exploit it. (And while that's not always a bad thing, it
tends to be annoying.)
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-26 22:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by S321Saint
connection between sets of comments. Methinks Everson and Rich should do
articles straightforward instead of pandering to the gay lobby.
the gay lobby. that's down at the back entrance to the clairmont,
right?

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
JPM III
2004-07-26 21:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Two words: EXIT ONLY.

But that's just a personal preference. You're free to make your own
decisions, as long as you don't impose them on my unless I explicitly ask
for it. :-P
Post by Tarkus
Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays
[snip]
Post by Tarkus
"The question was posed to me, would I have trouble with a gay
teammate?" Smoltz said. "Absolutely not. I have no problems at all,
as long as anybody doesn't impose their ways on anybody, whether it's
faith, religion or personal preference.
Agreed.

[snip]
Post by Tarkus
Braves backup catcher Eddie Perez also drew criticism for comments he
made in the same article. "If I knew a guy was gay, then I could work
it out. I could be prepared. I could hide when I'm getting disrobed,"
Perez was quoted as saying. "It would be hard to play with someone
all year and then find out they're gay." Perez has said he was
misquoted.
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing around
guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason that I'm not
comfortable undressing around girls unless there's some romantic/physical
connection.

But I blame society for that; disdain for exhibiting the human form is not
innate.
Colin William
2004-07-26 22:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing around
guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason that I'm not
comfortable undressing around girls unless there's some romantic/physical
connection.
Would you feel better if the gay guy just told you he found you
unattractive?

Colin
ziggy
2004-07-26 23:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin William
Post by JPM III
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing around
guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason that I'm not
comfortable undressing around girls unless there's some
romantic/physical
Post by Colin William
Post by JPM III
connection.
Would you feel better if the gay guy just told you he found you
unattractive?
Colin
my feelings might be hurt a bit
heh
JPM III
2004-07-27 07:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin William
Post by JPM III
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing
around guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason
that I'm not comfortable undressing around girls unless there's
some romantic/physical connection.
Would you feel better if the gay guy just told you he found you
unattractive?
Do you feel better undressing in front of women who find you unattractive?
Colin William
2004-07-27 19:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Colin William
Would you feel better if the gay guy just told you he found you
unattractive?
Do you feel better undressing in front of women who find you unattractive?
I don't terribly like undressing in front of anyone I don't know, male or
female. Mostly because I'm a pasty skinny guy. But my aversion to undressing
in front of women has nothing to do with the potential that they might be
ogling me. I don't have that kind of ego, but plenty of straight men do when
it comes to homosexual men.

Colin
Jon Richardson
2004-07-27 14:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing around
guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason that I'm not
comfortable undressing around girls unless there's some romantic/physical
connection.
Ummmmm....wow. It's a penis. It's breasts. They aren't actually that
exciting. Maybe it's because I took Kin (thus ruining the mystique of the
human anatomy) or because I used to row and played sports for marks (thus
meaning I spent an awful lot of time in the shower) but if you want to get
clean, you have to get naked. That's a fact of life.

Even more amazing, men that are gay aren't attracted to every other man on
the planet! Just like females aren't attracted to every other man on the
planet! Incredible, huh...

Jon
--
"All year, the hits just haven't been falling for him, and now this. I just
can't imagine anyone being more unfortunate than Greg [Norton] has been.
Well okay, maybe a teenaged girl whose surname is 'Hoover'."
-Alan Trammel
Ben
2004-07-27 14:43:10 UTC
Permalink
if you want to get clean, you have to get naked. That's a fact of life.
taken out of context, that's sig line material. sounds like a corollary to the
law of preservation of filth (in order for anything to get clean, something else
has to get dirty.)
Even more amazing, men that are gay aren't attracted to every
other man on the planet! Just like females aren't attracted to
every other man on the planet! Incredible, huh...
really? since all women are attracted to me, i assumed all gay men were, too.
--
Ben
Alan Honeycutt
2004-07-27 17:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Jon Richardson
Even more amazing, men that are gay aren't attracted to every
other man on the planet! Just like females aren't attracted to
every other man on the planet! Incredible, huh...
really? since all women are attracted to me, i assumed all gay men were, too.
Why limit it to gay men, handsome?
Ben
2004-07-27 17:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Honeycutt
Post by Ben
really? since all women are attracted to me, i assumed all gay
men were,too.
Why limit it to gay men, handsome?
if a renowned big-game hunter is "attracted" to me, does it mean he would like
to shoot me?
--
Ben
bgs
2004-07-27 18:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Alan Honeycutt
Post by Ben
really? since all women are attracted to me, i assumed all gay
men were,too.
Why limit it to gay men, handsome?
if a renowned big-game hunter is "attracted" to me, does it mean he would like
to shoot me?
--
Ben
I think I would had left off the the 'shoot me' part and just gone with the
'big-game hunter' thingy. A much bigger ego boost that way.

Cheers,
David Blackburn
2004-07-27 19:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Alan Honeycutt
Post by Ben
really? since all women are attracted to me, i assumed
all gay men were,too.
Why limit it to gay men, handsome?
if a renowned big-game hunter is "attracted" to me, does it
mean he would like to shoot me?
This begs the question, but...ITAHT?
Tarkus
2004-07-27 18:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
if you want to get clean, you have to get naked. That's a fact of life.
taken out of context, that's sig line material.
Only if you're not Mormon.
--
"It was fun. Everybody was kind of shocked. It was great to strike
[Barry Bonds] out. That's what you pitch for, pitching against Hall of
Famers, guys like that, and pitching in big games. That's when I'm
having the most fun." - Horacio Ramirez

Now playing: "02 - No No No"
Jon Richardson
2004-07-27 20:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
if you want to get clean, you have to get naked. That's a fact of life.
taken out of context, that's sig line material. sounds like a corollary to the
law of preservation of filth (in order for anything to get clean, something else
has to get dirty.)
I actually hadn't heard the "preservation of filth" before. That's at least
as good as mine.

And having seen photos of jock itch (due to the entire population of the
school of Kin willingly showering naked we never experienced a case in my
time there), I can guarantee you that yes, if you want to really get clean,
you had better get naked.
Post by Ben
Even more amazing, men that are gay aren't attracted to every
other man on the planet! Just like females aren't attracted to
every other man on the planet! Incredible, huh...
really? since all women are attracted to me, i assumed all gay men were, too.
Don't forget about the bisexuals. I'm sure they at least find you cute...

Jon
--
"All year, the hits just haven't been falling for him, and now this. I just
can't imagine anyone being more unfortunate than Greg [Norton] has been.
Well okay, maybe a teenaged girl whose surname is 'Hoover'."
-Alan Trammel
Ben
2004-07-28 13:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Richardson
Post by Ben
since all women are attracted to me, i assumed all gay men were,
too.
Don't forget about the bisexuals. I'm sure they at least find you cute...
okay then, it's unanimous.
--
Ben
ziggy
2004-07-27 18:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Richardson
Post by JPM III
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing around
guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason that I'm not
comfortable undressing around girls unless there's some
romantic/physical
Post by Jon Richardson
Post by JPM III
connection.
Ummmmm....wow. It's a penis. It's breasts. They aren't actually that
exciting. Maybe it's because I took Kin (thus ruining the mystique of the
human anatomy) or because I used to row and played sports for marks (thus
meaning I spent an awful lot of time in the shower) but if you want to get
clean, you have to get naked. That's a fact of life.
Even more amazing, men that are gay aren't attracted to every other man on
the planet! Just like females aren't attracted to every other man on the
planet! Incredible, huh...
i think it's a little off-base to assume that men and women's brains
function similarly. most men are "attracted to" (IOW, will screw) anything
that moves and most women are not affected the same way.

but i do like the "if you want to get clean, you have to get naked" line.
Loading...