# Dutch filmmaker murdered by muslim extremist



## Guest (Nov 3, 2004)

--


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2004)

not good Wendy,not good at all.Poor guy.
These are dangerous times.

As for your 911 day theory,I wonder how the Bali bombing and the two Jakarta bombings tie in.
I thought that I was onto something because the America attack happened on the 11th of Sep and Bali was on the 12th of Oct.
I was convinced the next one would be on the 13th of Nov???


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2004)

> I was convinced the next one would be on the 13th of Nov???


Shelly. We'll have to wait and see lol. I dont know, but there seems to be a thing with days and dates and so on.
We can sort it out being the detectives we are..lol

Ofcourse it could all be coincidental. But maybe there ARE patterns.

Sherlock :wink:


----------



## Revelation_old (Aug 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> Ofcourse it could all be coincidental. But maybe there ARE patterns.


Awhile back there was a hoax that 911 is in the Koran and was a prophecy


```
<br />
Koran ( 9:11) -- For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a<br />
 fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands<br />
of<br />
 Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more<br />
 rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and<br />
there<br />
 was peace.<br />
```
It actually reads:


```
<br />
<br />
Koran 9:11 "But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and we make the communications clear for a people who know."
```
I don't believe in these 'patterns' personally


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2004)

Theres wars going on every day, ive come to realize that War & Violence is just a way of life and it always has been and always will be. Terrorism will never end. Also i don't think this is the best time for ANYONE to be making negative movies about Muslims seeing as a large portion of terrorist groups are infact Muslim.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

It's a different world than it was 10 years ago. These Muslim fundamentalists now have all sorts of communicative resources at their disposal than they used to. They can organize, plan and do it with precision. It's scary.

Eventually, these terrorists are going to keep pissing off the wrong people. It's not just the U.S. Spain has taken a more aggressive stance since those bombings. Look how Russia has changed positions ever since that school hostage situation a couple of months ago. Putin has nearly done a 180. Now, they're going after some stoned Dutch guy (kidding).


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2004)

I am hardly an expert in religions. However, it should be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the Muslim faith that, that particular religion preaches peace. The Muslim "fanatics" are not acting in the name of Allah. Rather, they are acting out of hatred and personal agenda - hiding behind their religion. The fact that there are so many "terrorists" from the Middle East is more a result of other cultural factors. And remember, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Take the Israeli government, for example. Middle Eastern country, non-Muslim, and yet perhaps the most active terrorist organization in the world. Openly sponsored by the United States - mostly for military reasons (we need a presence in that area).

Nothing is new under the sun. Terrorists, freedom fighters, fanatics, whatever you want to call them, have been around since the beginning. You take one out and ten more will rise in their place. It's not new, and it won't stop. The only surprising thing about it is that the U.S. has been soooooo lucky. So far.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

sc said:


> I am hardly an expert in religions. However, it should be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the Muslim faith that, that particular religion preaches peace. The Muslim "fanatics" are not acting in the name of Allah. Rather, they are acting out of hatred and personal agenda - hiding behind their religion. The fact that there are so many "terrorists" from the Middle East is more a result of other cultural factors. And remember, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Take the Israeli government, for example. Middle Eastern country, non-Muslim, and yet perhaps the most active terrorist organization in the world. Openly sponsored by the United States - mostly for military reasons (we need a presence in that area).
> 
> Nothing is new under the sun. Terrorists, freedom fighters, fanatics, whatever you want to call them, have been around since the beginning. You take one out and ten more will rise in their place. It's not new, and it won't stop. The only surprising thing about it is that the U.S. has been soooooo lucky. So far.


Agreed. I'll buy all of this. There are extremists in EVERY religion. There are so many sects that break off from the "mother" religion it makes one's head spin.

And religious pundits argue the meaning of religious texts... the Bible for goodness sake.

Extremests, zealots in any form -- political, religious, etc. -- are trouble, but they've always been out there.

Wendy I'm sorry to hear about that documentary maker. I did read a brief blurb about that.

And people forget, we are very lucky here in the US, but the WTC was attacked in 1993... a truck bomb that did far less damage.

Ah, and re: the numerical projections. I don't really buy that myself. Problem, sometimes these plans have to be scuttled at the last minute. And we know that one of the planes, possibly headed for the White House, was brought down by the passengers. Don't think the hijackers anticipated that.

If we found a numerical pattern, we'd be way ahead of the game.

Also, it's my understanding that there is a LOT of stuff going on that we simply can't hear about... intelligence, counter intelligence, etc. How can we reveal our actions ahead of time if we get a tip from a reliable source. And what if we act incorrectly with an unreliable source. There really is a James Bond game going on out there as well.

It's a mad world.
One day at a time.
I'm afraid to sleep, perchance to dream tonight.

Peace,
D


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2004)

I hope it wasn't Lars Von Trier. Not even sure if hes Dutch, but that would suck if he died.


----------



## Mies (Oct 13, 2004)

No, it was Theo Van Gogh.

The relationship between the dates isn't correct (sorry). 6th of May, Pim Fortuyn was shot, 911 days ago. Pim Fortuyn was also a dutch politician, with strong feelings about (against) foreigners living in Holland. Theo van Gogh was not only making a film about the islam girls being abused (using Koran quotes to justify the abuse), but also on the life of Pim Fortuyn.

Freedom of speach is one of the biggest values in a democracy, and we have all learned that words should be acted upon with words, not violence or weapons. Islam countries in trouble, fi Iraq, are an exception to that rule. If official investigations show that there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq, and as a "reward" we start bombing them, how are we supposed to expect that they will live by our rules, if we aren't even doing it ourselves?

They have got nothing, hence they have nothing to lose. They become so desperate, that they are willing to sacrifice their lives, because at least it will bring them and their families in paradise. It is the only voice they have the West will listen to.

I'm not saying they are right. I'm not saying we're wrong. But just as we have been misled and manipulated by our religion in the past, and in the present, they are experiencing the same.

There's difficult times to come...


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2004)

--


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

EDIT: Post removed - R


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

EDIT: Post removed - R


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

*ahem*

Thank you for your time. :wink:


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2004)

Yep. Thanks for re-electing Bush by the way. Just what we need is a mentally unstable bigot. You're just what this world needs! Thank you for existing.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Get over it, Ziggs. It's over. If the democrats want to achieve anything over the next few years, they need to start working with Republicans. The Democratic party in itself is such a hodge-podge of people anyway, they need to show they can also represent the "heartland" instead of bitching about how dumb people in Kansas and Oklahoma are. Person 3, not the choice of words I would have used but yes, the muslim extremist terrorists are worthy of contempt.

I don't know if you saw this in the papers today but the doors were blown off of a Muslim elementary school in The Netherlands, which many think is a counter-reaction to the death of Theo Van Gogh. I don't think there were any casualties or injuries (could be wrong), i just think the doors were blown off. Any thoughts?


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2004)

--


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm just very surprised and disappointed at the american public for this election. I backed George Bush over Gore in 2000. My values are a mixed bag all over the political spectrum. Oh, and after the left is done moping over the election, they'll be quite bent on activism and civil disobience. Ready for 10 more Michael Moore documentaries? Anyone here of any age and experience will understand that the United States is very polarized right now. I'm more or less in the middle and I have to lean towards the democrats. Well, lean quite a bit.

Okay, Bush can't speak: What does that have to do with his policy? Nothing. Bush was right about overthrowing Saddam Hussein. He totally screwed the entire operation up, but the basis for this foul-up is in the past. Sure, the war continues, but Kerry and Bush's plans for Iraq are virtually the same.

I see no major change in policy in the upcoming 4 years whether of not Kerry or Bush is in office. I consider myself part of the human race well before I consider myself to be an American. Nationalism is very unhealthy. Putting the world above America first, I realize that the world is losing its faith in the United States. Bush is representative of the United States' diplomatic failures, not just in his term, but even since Vietnam.

He represents us as a people, and we cannot have this man appeal to the far right while moderates like myself are partially represented and fledgling minorities, and the left are left high and dry.

Does anyone else see the insanity in this? I would move to the UK or Canada if I didn't decide to stick around and see if my voice and opinion could make a difference. I'm beginning to think this election led us into the point of no return. :x


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Some people will disagree with me on this, but I have actually been saying for months now that Bush will end up raising taxes in a couple of years, once the economy has stabilized which it kind of has already. If his idol Ronald Reagan could do it three times, so could he. Republicans are generally united on tax cuts, but having different tax brackets that disproportionately favor lower incomes is really what chaps people's asses. The rich, of course, pay more because they make more money. To boot, there are also tons of other taxes they have had to pay in the past which don't apply as much to the poor, like higher property taxes for living in nicer residential areas, inheritance and estate taxes, double taxation of dividends and capital gains. Nobody likes DEALING with taxes. It's always frustrating.

Another point. In an economy that is now 90% service oriented, the goverment's ability to create jobs isn't what it was 50 or 60 years ago. Leaving things up to the private sector is the future now. The government can redistribute wealth all they want to, but nothing they can offer will amount to what a job can offer. That goes for health care, too.

I have had a confidence that once we are some ways into his second term, he will start to bend on some of the more liberal social issues (which is more where I stand). With the stem cell research proposition supported in California (under a republican governor), there will be more and more pressure for him to cave. I think he has had to stick to his guns (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage) for the past few years to not alienate his voting base. As polls have indicated, this country is divided mainly on morals and the war. The war we have to keep fighting so he isn't really going to win people over that way. One way he could tame some of his rabid opponents is to approve stem-cell research which I think will happen within a few years. If they can allow abortion, they can allow stem-cell research. I don't think gay-marriage is going to happen any time soon.

He knows the country is polarized, and now that the election is over, he can finally start addressing some of these issues (and will be pressured to do so). Not everyone in the Republican congress and Senate is Christian fundamentalist so don't think they will be able to pass right-wing, Christian conservative legislature, even with the republican majority now.

And for anybody who thinks, even with new Bush appointed Supreme Court justices, they could ever overturn Roe v. Wade, you are crazy. Those guys have one boss, and that is the Constitution of the United States.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2004)

As far as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research is concerned, i'll be very angry with the bush regime if they attempt to nationalize their own beliefs. I'm not gay, I don't plan on having an abortion, therefore I refuse to pick sides on either of those issues but we should allow federalism to continue (allowing state discretion on these issues). I back stem cell research 100%. If the blue states want to allow these institutionalized acts, then we should accept that. Tennessee for instance will most likely not allow any of this so it shouldn't concern you. Guess it could be a hard pill to swallow for some though.

West Europe is much more liberal than the most liberal states (California, Massachusetts). If the right can ignore their practices, then why not accept the state rights. Hopefully Bush will just let things be in this situation.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

It does concern us. I think everybody is afraid of a domino effect with gay marriage. If gays in all the Northeast states are getting married, then the gays in Tennessee will start wanting to get married. That's what happened over the past year. One activist judge in guess where, massachusetts, started marrying gay couples, and then judges in California and New York started doing the same.

I'm for civil unions and crap, which should allow a lot of the same priveleges as marriage, but am against gay couples adopting children. 
While not a religious man, I think there is a reason it takes a penis and a vagina to have a child. I guess you can always circumvent the system and be artifically inseminated with David Crosby's sperm.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2004)

--


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2004)

--


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

No, I was suggesting Melissa Etheridge is the one who sports flannel and Dr. Martens. Did Jodie Foster get artificially inseminated (I hope she had more sense than to use sperm from a heroin addict and someone with the hygiene of David Crosby)? She does have a deep voice. From all the "Love Connections" I've seen on E!, I believe I remember seeing her date some male celebrity back in the early 90s. But, not since then. I wouldn't be surprised if she was into the ladies.


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

ziggo-

Actually, you don't know who I voted for.

I voted for Kerry.

I actually don't care much for/against either candidate (or previous candidate I guess), the only thing I really have a problem with (besides a-hole muslim extremist men who are mean to women) is people who are so anti-bush that they are threatening to move to canada. Fine, please do move. More room for me!


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2004)

I'll split hairs on the gay marriage issue. I think gay couples should have the right to adopt a child. If adoption laws prevented them from doing so, then I suppose many would choose to be artificially inseminated.
Sure, they offspring of a gay couple may turn out to be out of the norm and may have a higher chance of embracing the gay lifestyle. You need not be afraid of change. Don't you think two mommies is better than a single mommy? It isn't your right to disallow them the right to a child. That is everyone's right.

The right thinks that responsible gay couples who've passed a screen test for adoption cannot raise a child yet a 13 year old girl must be responsible for one. I think this is pretty hypocritical. I know, the left is littered with contradictions too.

Marriage just recently became an interesting topic inside of my foggy head. Marriage is a state institution. You can choose to bring religion into one's marriage yet ultimately, you can do so in a court. If two men or two women parade around boasting about being a married couple, this does not devalidate the union betwen a man and a woman.

To me, I consider the words marriage and civil union to be interchangable. Marriage is a civil union is it not? Or is civil union Marriage minus adoption rights, tax benefits, etc (whatever rights we won't allow them). I really think people should just drop this stigma as soon as possible.

Change is inevitable. Conservatism just fights this overall change. We need this force in order to keep liberalism from running wild, but the United States has been on conservative overload for far to long.

Am I on the right thread. I doubt it. I think I should be on the one right next to this one. Noone is reading these.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Person3, in the vein of your message, I saw a report on CNN where they went around interviewing all these people in NYC who are absolutely outraged Bush won the election. It was hilarious. Yes, some people were threatening to move to Canada. Other people said that in their good conscience they could never travel to a "red state." They did say they could fly over them to visit the West Coast, though. They interviewed this one gay guy who broke down crying and asked how people could be so intolerant. The only Bush supporter they interviewed was this black guy who said he had talked to Jesus Christ and who told him that Bush was on this Earth to defeat John Kerry. Liberal media?

On a more serious note, I don't know if you heard about that 25 year old guy from Athens, GA who was so distraught by Bush's reelection that he flew to New York and shot himself at Ground Zero. I have a friend from Athens, GA and asked him about this. He has an acquaintance who waited tables with this guy who said he was just really messed up and had probably been searching for a reason to kill himself. I'm sure that's no surprise, but thought it was worth mentioning.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2004)

--


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Ouch! Hope Jodie Foster isn't on this board. I can't stand Melissa Etheridge.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Nothing is simple. Where is there a safe place in this world?
Hang in there Wendy.
This is why I don't believe we can be isolationists. We are in a global, interconnected world... a tiny little planet. We've got to get our act together, TOGETHER, and I don't know how.
D

*Netherlands Braces for 'Jihad'
By Anthony Deutsch
Alternative Press | November 11, 2004*

THE HAGUE ? *"The Dutch government yesterday vowed tough measures against what a leading politician called "the arrival of jihad in the Netherlands" after a death threat to a Dutch lawmaker was found spiked with a knife to the body of a slain filmmaker by his radical Muslim attacker. *

A five-page letter released Thursday night by the justice minister forced political leaders ? including Amsterdam's Jewish mayor and members of parliament ? to take on bodyguards.

The document, attached to the body of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, was titled "An Open Letter to [Aayan] Hirsi Ali," referring to a Somali-born member of parliament. She had scripted Mr. van Gogh's latest film, "Submission," which criticized the treatment of women under Islam.

Miss Hirsi Ali, who calls herself an ex-Muslim, has gone into hiding.

"Death, Ms. Hirsi Ali, is the common theme of all that exists. You and the rest of the cosmos cannot escape this truth," the letter said.

"There will come a day when one soul cannot help another soul. A day that goes paired with terrible tortures, ... when the unjust will press horrible screams from their lungs.

"Screams, Ms. Hirsi Ali, that will cause chills to run down a person's back, and make the hairs on their heads stand straight up. People will be drunk with fear, while they are not drunken. Fear will fill the air on the Great Day," the letter said.

*"I know definitely that you, Oh America, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Europe, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Netherlands, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Hirsi Ali, will go down," it said.

Deputy Prime Minister Gerrit Zalm agreed with comments by other politicians who called Mr. van Gogh's slaying a declaration of Islamic jihad, or "holy war."*

"We are not going to tolerate this. We are going to ratchet up the fight against this sort of terrorism," he said. "The increase in radicalization is worse than we had thought."

Among measures under consideration is an emergency law to enable authorities to revoke the Dutch nationality of dual citizens suspected of terrorist activity so that they can be deported.

Mr. Zalm said the intelligence service, which already has expanded since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, would receive more funding to help it monitor potential terrorist recruits.

The suspected killer in the van Gogh case, a 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan national, was arraigned on six terrorism-related charges.

*Mr. van Gogh, a descendant of 19th-century Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh,* was fatally shot and stabbed Tuesday while cycling down an Amsterdam street. The remains of the provocative social commentator and author, whose throat was slashed in the attack, will be cremated Tuesday in a public service.

*The slaying is testing already strained relations between the ethnic Dutch population and the Muslim community. There are about 300,000 Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands out of a population of 16 million.

Mr. Zalm said talks were ongoing with Muslim groups over how to avoid a violent backlash against Muslims.*

Arsonists are believed to have set fire to a mosque in the central Dutch city of Utrecht, police spokesman Peter Keijzers said. There were no reports of injuries.

*Jozias van Aartsen, parliamentary speaker for the nationalist People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the second-largest party in the government of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, issued a statement that called Mr. van Gogh's slaying tantamount to a declaration of war.*******

"The jihad has come to the Netherlands and a small group of jihadist terrorists is attacking the principles of our country," he said. "I hope the Netherlands will now move beyond denial and do what is fitting in a democracy ? take action.

"These people don't want to change our society, they want to destroy it," he said.

The terrorist threat left by Mr. van Gogh's killer carries the ideology of a terrorist movement, Takfir wal Hijra or "Repentance and Flight," which advocates isolation from what it calls the sinful world, Dutch press reported.

Chief prosecutor Leo de Wit said the suspected killer, identified only as Mohammed B., faces at least six terrorism-related counts, including charges of murder and "participating in a criminal organization with terrorist characteristics."

The suspect, wounded in the leg in a shootout with police, has refused to talk to investigators. He was arrested with a note in his pocket titled "Drenched in Blood."

Authorities arrested eight other suspects in Mr. van Gogh's slaying and are looking into any links between the suspects and foreign terrorist groups.

Two suspects were released, Mr. de Wit said yesterday. Six will be charged with conspiring to commit murder, he said.

Prosecutors said all are Islamic radicals of North African ancestry. Four also were arrested Oct. 23 on suspicion of plotting a terrorist attack but were released for lack of evidence. Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner told parliament the four had contacts with a suspect in last year's Casablanca bombings."

Edit:
***** As Dreamer notes... and so it goes. Here the Dutch find the slaying of one man unnacceptable and "a declaration of war." And we in the US who lost 3,000 civilians .... what should we call this? It isn't a war, it isn't a war on terrorism, it is, what? A fight for survival. But we are all afraid.**************


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Also, don't know how Jodie Foster got into the middle of all this, LOL, but one comment on gay civil unions.

I'm for them.
I also have no problem with gay couples raising kids, but more importantly they should certainly be allowed to adopt them...

Why?

Well, I have a 1/2 brother who's 73 (didn't find me until I was 30 or so) who is gay. He and his partner have been together longer than many heterosexual couples I know -- over 40 years.

He and I are very different and don't communicate, but I have to say he is a responsible man, as is his partner.

My best friend from childhood is gay. She and her partner have had a very long relationship which she has had to keep secret from her mother. Only very few people know about it. She is a wonderful person.

In my day, in Los Angeles in particular, I ran into plenty of gay people. Some I liked, some I didn't.

But I know that:
1. There are many gay couples who remain monogamous and loyal to each other for decades, again, as long as many heterosexual couples.

2. I know of gay couples who have adopted sick children, as no one would adopt said children, and help them grow up, healthy, happy. Why should we keep unwanted children in foster care or worse, when there are loving stable gay couples dying to adopt. It makes no sense. And said couples should be monitored in the same way straight adoptive parents are. There are awful heterosexual foster families out there.

3. There is no study that would indicate that children raised by gay parents make said children gay -- hey, gay kids were born of heterosexual relations, and were raised by heterosexual couples.

There are PLENTY of people out there with messed up relationships, gay or straight. What matters is if someone is a decent human being, a loving person, a contributor to society in whatever way they can be.

I may be out of my mind, but I believe in the above. And again, as always, nothing is simple, nothing is perfect, and we are all unique.

L,
D


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I really could care less if a person was gay or not. I know gay people (despite living in sin...kidding) are perfectly capable of raising normal children and I know gays are as good of humans as anyone else. One thing I can say is that I don't like it when gay people are overly gay and rub it in your face the same way I don't like it when really intelligent people or rich people people try to show you how smart or rich they are. It's annoying. I think in this age of "coming out" we are seeing a lot of that, but I'm sure the novelty of that will wear off like Will & Grace's humor.

Dreamer, being the least Christian person I know to consider myself Christian, I really can't give you a good reason why I oppose gay marriage and gays adopting children, but I do. There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong with it. Obviously the institution of marriage has lost some of its credibility over the past century. But, since the beginning of history, marriage has been between a man and a woman and has been the primary vehicle for procreation. A child has a biological mother and a father and that fact should be respected. In cases where children are given up for adoption, it seems like you should try to simulate that as much as possible. If gays start to adopt, they should be at the back of the list.

I could go into this further but I probably can't without getting nasty and potentially graphic so I will quit. I will say that personally, the idea of two gay men getting it on is as disgusting to me as beastiality. The idea of two women getting their freak on doesn't really do anything for me, but the idea of me being sandwiched between two women...well, that's a different story.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2004)

--


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2004)

--


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Gimpy you said:


> If gays start to adopt, they should be at the back of the list.


Gimpy,
I know this is a hornet's nest and I didn't intend to kick it, but I did.

I realize we all have our own POVs on a lot of this stuff.

My only comment to this directly is there are MANY unwanted children who are sitting in foster care. Many are minority children, some have severe disabilities, a good number have AIDS. I can understand why many couples, gay or straight, would be afraid to take on such a responsibility.

I was very touched by a documentary I saw... forgot where... on a gay couple. One a pediatric nurse, the other a businessman of some sort. The nurse worked with sick children -- a good number with AIDS. They had been abandoned by their parents.

The senior phsycian on the ward was always in a quandry re: what to do with these children, and the nurse, (yes, he was openly gay) volunteered to take one child home, then another. The staff were always astounded that this gay couple would take on such a burden.

I believe in all they took home 5 children. I can't recall. It became a situation where the pediatric nurse stayed home, and his partner continued to be the breadwinner (and that is usually a situation I favor with heterosexual couples who raise children -- but then I was raised by a working mother who didn't give a hoot about me, and there are many exceptions to that -- so I guess I'm biased in that way. I also know in this day and age that isn't always practical financially.)

At any rate, they cared for these children for years. The first child they raised to be a teenager. I believe he is still HIV positive (the fault of his birthmother), but is healthy, an excellent student, a wonderful kid. The rest of the kids in that family (I believe over the years some came and went as they passed away) were happy, healthy, good kids who felt LOVED and WANTED.

The sad and miserable part of this story is, I believe this couple lived in Florida. After having custody of the oldest child (for ten or more years) they were told the children would have to be removed from the home for one reason -- they were gay. There is more to this re: Florida state law that I have forgotten. But bottom line, the state was ready to break up a HEALTHY loving family, take these kids away from the only parents they ever knew. The kids were miserable about it.

I believe the whole group moved to Oregon. I don't know where/how the case stands, but the couple continues to care for these children, as well as any heterosexual couple could, AND perhaps BETTER than many heterosexual couples. For goodness sake, one of their parents was a pediatric nurse! And he stayed home. He quit his job.

I wish I had more on the story. And someone correct me if the details are wrong. Oh, and none of the children "turned out gay."

But I was deeply touched by their story. It is unbelievable to me that
1. there are so many abandoned children in a seriously flawed foster care system
2. many couples and single parents are very hestitant to adobt sick children
3. yet, there are MANY gay couples who desperately want to adopt (as they can't have children themselves and prefer to adopt) and aren't allowed to. They can be often MORE QUALIFIED to adopt and are prohibited from it, and the children languish in the system.

Again this is a thorny issue, but something I am concerned about. I'll be honest, I'm less thrilled with single women choosing to have children alone. And someone will get angry with me at this bias, but I was the child of a single working woman, and got no love. NONE.

Again, I would take a loving accepting couple of ANY orientation that has a child's best interests at heart. And being heterosexual doesn't guarantee that at all.

I can understand your POV, but this is mine. And I don't intend this to turn into a gay argument. That will go nowehre fast, but it somehow popped up in this thread and I felt compelled to respond.

Peace,
D
Gimpy, sometimes a gay couple may be the most qualified on a list to adopt. I don't believe they should be passed over. The definition of family has changed over the years. And again, I'm biased, as I had two wealthy heterosexual parents, both doctors, they split up early on, and was never loved.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Forgot to say.

I am for gay "CIVIL UNIONS". I don't see "marriage" as the proper word. I.E. I can see that this is against church doctrine and churches have every right to refuse to marry gay couples, or synagogues or mosques,etc.

But I can see many benefits to civil unions which give said monogamous, commited couples important rights. And the end result is of benefit to society.

Again, my POV, and I know I don't speak for everyone here.
Best,
d


----------



## lone wolf (Aug 10, 2004)

Wendy said:


> It always strikes me that homosexuality is referred to as being about sex. Its not just about sex. Its about love, finding a relationship, share your life with the person you love etc. Sex is part of that, sure, as with anyone who falls in love with someone else, no difference there.


This is something I wonder too... Why some heterosexual people see homosexuality just an issue of sex, and bc of that disgusting (or at least their gender gay relationships), like homosexual relationships would be only of lust or something like that. I also see it is about love first and what disgusting can be there - in love? Indeed I think if someone sees someone else's relationship disgusting and only about sex/lust/whatever, that kind of person must have some serious unsolved issues in her/his own sexuality. At least I think like this, as I can't understand this thingy at all. :?:


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

No, I agree with you Dreamer. Thinking more about it last night, I guess I'm really not against gays adopting children. If there are unwanted children, it doesn't matter to me who gets them. If gays are the only ones willing to, then let them. But, if there is a child up for adoption and there is a straight couple competing for it vs. a gay couple, I think it should always go to the straight couple first as long as they prove they are competent enough to be able to take care of a child. I just think it's better for a child to have a male influence and a female influence in their life. It will probably save the child from ridicule, but that will be less of an issue in the future so I don't care about that.

Dreamer, I had the same discussion with friends a few months ago and I said the exact same thing, I don't care if there are going to be same sex unions, just call it something else! Cucumbers and pickles are the same thing, pickles have just been sitting in vinegar and other spices. So, call it at "civil union" or make up another word. That way you can also circumvent religious texts which define marriage as "between a man and a woman."

Wendy, it's not always about sex either, that just happens to be the most disturbing part. I know gays go gay it up in the bedroom behind closed doors (or at dance clubs). Me taking offense to open gay affection is really my problem. I'm sure girls don't mind seeing two naked guys together like I don't mind two naked women because I am attracted to women as women are to men. I don't really know what the general females consensus is towards lesbian sex so I can't speak for you all, but I know tons of guys would vomit at the sight of it. When I saw that sodomy scene in "Pulp Fiction" for the first time, I nearly threw up, and they really didn't show anything. I don't know. Most guys prefer be with well-groomed women with good hygiene and no body hair. No guy wants some sweathog. But, different strokes for different folks.

Didn't mean for that to be a pun.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Gimpy, you said the following, and I've received a number of PMs noting that these comments are extremely hurtful to a number of people on the board.

I don't wish to delete your post or lock this thread....



> I don't really know what the general females consensus is towards lesbian sex so I can't speak for you all, but I know tons of guys would vomit at the sight of it. When I saw that sodomy scene in "Pulp Fiction" for the first time, I nearly threw up, and they really didn't show anything. I don't know. Most guys prefer be with well-groomed women with good hygiene and no body hair. No guy wants some sweathog. But, different strokes for different folks.


Briefly, hoping to diffuse a situation I suppose I shouldn't have opened up...

Straight couples show sometimes "excessive" affection in public. There are also clubs for heterosexual sexual activity, "massage parlors" for men that are... far more than "massage parlors", there are prostitutes who service all manner of clientele gay and straight. There are strip clubs, websites, porn films which are directed at both straight and gay people, etc., etc., etc. It goes both ways.

Also, agreed. The association with being gay or straight is not focused strictly on sex, particularly a union of two people who love each other and are life companions.

*Gimpy, I think we're talking in stereotypes here, and it has gotten hurtful to a number of people here -- though yes, I believe in freedom of speech.

Um, this is fine for debate, but let's be a tad more considerate.
OIY, politics, religion, etc..... wonderful to debate, but delicate topics.
Yup, let's try a tad more courtesy here. I don't want to delete any posts ... or lock the thread. But, as noted, I have received a number of PMs regarding this -- regarding comments that become rude and hurtful. I would agree the above is rude and hurtful and sterotypical.*

I can't even remember what the topic was here... ah the murder of the artist in the Netherlands......

.... enuf.... as Gavin or someone else said somewhere else, "Let's play nice folks" ....

Thanks,
D


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2004)

Tolerance people. We are a diverse group - male/female, black/white/hispanic/asian, heterosexual/homosexual, catholic/muslim/baptist/atheist/etc, relatively rich/relatively poor........and it is from this diversity that we can draw strength from. 
Gay bashing, muslim bashing, etc. does nothing but increase the negative energy here.

If you have issues with a person's way of life, ethnic background, racial definition, etc. - fine. But don't play it out here please.
DP/DR doesn't discriminate. Neither should we.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Sorry once again. I'm not trying to hurt anybody and I did say earlier in that post that my attitude towards gays was my problem, and I know that. I will try to be more respectful but I won't make any promises because I have the tendency to speak my mind, and as I noted in an earlier post, it gets me in trouble sometimes.

Seriouslly, sorry people. Sometimes I just forget that I'm not around my friends who know when I'm being sarcastic and speaking in exaggerations. Since none of you can see me saying this stuff and you don't know me, you have no idea where I'm coming from, but trust me, there was no malintent. I am just one of those people who hardly takes anything seriously so I often forget that people are really sensitive to some things, even though I know they are.

Dreamer, you got me down in the count with two strikes and you never want to strike out, so I will try harder next time.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2004)

I'm a lefty freak, and I don't think anyone is out of line here. This is one of the most rational debates i've read in a while.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2004)

sc i don't think this group is that diverse at all outside of the Homosexual/Straight categories. Oh yeah and theres people from countries outside of the US...... but this website is like 90 % suburban middle class caucasion.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

I second that sb. I don?t disagree with what sc is saying. But I don?t think it?s a coincidence that the people who experience this disorder a mostly well educated, intelliegent, pretty well off people, with enough time on their hands, and enough unchanelled wasted mental energy to try and annihilate their reality.
The bande of the middle classes.

p.s.Yes I know people from all sorts of backgrounds can experience all types of mental illness, but I think that the intelligent middle class types have their own unique brand, that I read about mostly on this forum.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

SoulBrotha said:


> sc i don't think this group is that diverse at all outside of the Homosexual/Straight categories. Oh yeah and theres people from countries outside of the US...... but this website is like 90 % suburban middle class caucasion.


Dear Bro,
The board is skewed in terms of who posts. There are people from all over who merely view this board as guests, or lurk. Americans usually are fluent in English only, while members of other countries are fluent in English as well as their native language. Some fluent in more than 2 languages.

We have members from all over the world visit here, whether or not they post or identify themselves, and we have gay and straight members.

Regardless of how many are represented, this doesn't justify bashing other nationalities/religions/creeds/sexual orientation etc. Also, someone's family heritage could be of pride to an individual.

I believe in free speech on this board. But there is no excuse for cruel stereotyping and attacks, I don't care who is reading this board.

Also, remember this board is visited by DP researchers, and doctors who have been referred here by members (I've referred many people here from my site).

No attack is justified, and I hope I haven't been guilty of that.

This is a support forum. There is enough suffering here. We don't need to add insult to injury, even in an off-topic forum that helps us keep our minds OFF the DP.

Best,
D
Oh, and briefly re: civil unions. *Heterosexuals who are not part of any particular religion have civil unions. All a civil union is, is one done by a Justice of the Peace, etc. One can be perfomred at the location where one gets a marriage license.* I believe ship captains can perform civil ceremonies. Civil unions already exist for heterosexuals, and many are performed every year. I don't know the statistics.

They're also a helluva lot less expensive than having a wedding... but I personally (though I am not of any particular faith) wanted an informal religious ceremony vs. a civil ceremony. I wanted a pretty dress (I bought a lovely bridesmaid's dress), my husband in a tux, and a minister, and a photographer. Had I married as a young woman, I would have wanted the whole nine yards.

I really miss that, as I miss not having children.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

And I forgot to say, the mentally ill are stereotyped and bashed -- in the media, and by family members, friends, etc. *We are all subject to bashing for having DP and other disorders here such as anxiety, OCD, depression, etc., etc. We are misunderstood, accused of being weak and lazy. Attacked for taking medications.*

I'm always on my soapbox here saying I hate the words "schizo", "whako", etc. I know sometimes these things are said in an offhanded way and without malice, but on the internet, we can't "read" the humor all the times.

Also, in these times of profiling Muslims (which is inevitable since 9/11), well there are Muslims in the U.S., Canada, the UK, etc., etc., etc. And not all Muslims are terrorists, etc. This very topic is about Muslim extremists in the Netherlands!

Just unnecessary, and not justified.

OK, now off my soapbox.
In the spirit of healthy debate with some consideration.
And in peace, or the hope of peace.
L,
D


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2004)

I agree with everything Dreamer said (well, in this thread, grin)

We, the mentally ill or formerly mentally ill, are SO stigmatized. Some mentally ill people have committed murder. Some talk to themselves and frighten people. So most normal people who hear someone IS mentally ill shy away from us. They're scared of us. Me. Dreamer. Bro. Person3. sc. Who on earth could be scared of US? Answer: people who make snap judgments and carry prejudice.

The world is a lonely scary "I'm-not-like-"THOSE"-people kind of place. Let's not encourage it.

J


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2004)

I didn't read what dreamer wrote,sorry but I'm sure I agree with most of it.

I also agree with Janine's post..........mostly.
Today I had an experience with a guy who was clearly mentally ill.
This man was frightening to look at,huge,dirty,clothes hanging off him like rags.
He was speaking out loud to himself,well actually I think as far as he was concerned it was to somebody but naturally we couldn't see anybody with him.
He was acting agitated and unpredictable.On one level I felt sorry for this sad and insane person but at the same time I was afraid.He scared me.
I couldn't help but recall a situation I'd seen on the news where a person suffering from a mental illness,pulled out a gun and shot several innocent people.
I called the police because I wanted him taken away.I felt he was a possible threat.I have no proof that he would harm anyone.I just wasn't keen on taking any chances going on his behaviour.He was out on the street,approaching people,including children.People were crossing the road to avoid him.

I'm certain that by far the majority of people with a mental illness would never harm a fly.
Unfortuantely there have been a few who have been violent.
This does not mean the whole group deserves to be stigmatised.

Personally I don't see dp,anxiety disorders and depression as mental illness.Still I'm sure if I were to speak openly about dp(talking about acid trips etc)some people would think I was a brick short of a load.I'm very careful who I open up to,that's just me.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2004)

Oh, totally agree, Shelly. There certainly are very disturbed people who clearly LOOK disturbed who might very well be dangerous. My point was only that we should make decisions on a case by case basis. To simply HEAR that someone has mental problems and then immediately shun them is prejudice. To see someone who appears to be out of control and potentially dangerous and get away from them is just good sense!


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Most people I know probably think I'm crazy, or extremely flaky and lazy. I think most people know I've suffered from mental illness because I had to leave college a month into one semester. Since people know that, I actually think it helps being able to make fun of myself and joke about how crazy I am if it ties into conversation. I don't do this often or go out of my way to do it, but from what I can read, people think I'm less crazy when I make fun of myself. For a guy to laugh it off and admit he's crazy somehow makes people think I'm more sane.

I really don't care what people think of me anymore. If they think I'm crazy, let it be. The only time it worries me is when it comes down to employment and relationships.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2004)

A long time ago when I was having a difficult time with agoraphobia I stupidly was interviewed by the local newspaper about a new group being formed at the time.
Dumb idea.


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

Nobody is scared of me

RAR


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2004)

person3, that's not true.

Your "fellow" is scared of you, grin. You're powerful to someone when they're in love with you.

:lol: :lol: 8)


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

I think I'll scare him off first  what is love?


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

Wait if i'm always freaked out by him is that love or OCD or just freaked out in general???


----------

