I don't know if this is true, so if anyone knows more about it please
post it here. What I heard is that California is actually using tax
money to pay the relocations costs of HIV patients from other states.

My brother is gay and both he and his black transexual freak of a
former boyfried are HIV+. The negro's brother is also gay and a
transvestite and HIV+ (what a surprise). All lived in Las Vegas,
Nevada and all presumably contracted the virus there.

Anyway, my brother breaks up with the negro and the negro goes to
Los Angeles, California, where he receives welfare, food stamps, and
free public housing. I thought that was bad enough - that he should
be allowed to not only move freely (and spread his virus), but also
choose to move to a state with very liberal welfare benefits - why
should California taxpayers have to pay to care for other states'
AIDS patients?

But the story gets better. As I said, the negro's brother (who
lives in Las Vegas) also has AIDS. So California actually PAID
to relocate him from Nevada to California so he could go on
California's welfare and Medicaid. We are not talking about a
state giving these benefits to newly-arrived residents, we are
talking about a state actually PAYING to move people who live in
other states to that state so they can drain that state's
welfare services.

And the story gets even better. The reason I heard (remember I
have not verified this) why California was doing this is because
there were too many Mexicans and not enough blacks receiving
California social services (or maybe it was just HIV+ blacks).
I don't know if a court ordered it, but for some reason
California decided that it needed to import HIV+ negros from
other states so it could meet its quota.

"Uday Hussein" <uday@iraq.net> wrote in message
news:4jC_d.7375$qW.485@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...

By Kathleen Rhodes
CNSNews.com Correspondent
March 18, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The Virginia House of Delegates approved a constitutional
amendment this week that would ban homosexual marriage. Now homosexual
advocates claim that Virginia is producing more anti-homosexual legislation
than most other states.

"The law that is most egregious is the Marriage Affirmation Act (House Bill
751). It passed last year... and it bans pretty much any gay relationship
and it also bans private contracts between couples," said Joe Crea, former
staff writer for the Washington Blade. "But I suspect that it's not going to
stand in a court of law."

Crea was one of the panelists who evaluated recent bills they consider to be
detrimental to homosexuals during a panel discussion, entitled "Virginia's
War on Homosexuals?" at the American University's Washington College of Law
Thursday.

The bill states that "a civil union, partnership contract or other
arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the
privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited and that such an
arrangement entered into in another state or jurisdiction is void in
Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby are void and
unenforceable."

American University law professor Jane Dolkart, who specializes in gender
and sexuality, said Virginia is the only state that has a law banning
private partnership contracts for homosexuals. "I am quite certain that it
is unconstitutional ... to ban contracts (between homosexuals)," she added.

"There are other states that have passed constitutional amendments that
cover not just same-sex marriage but domestic partnerships as well. I admit
that this legislation seems to go well beyond," said Dolkart. "It's so vague
that it's hard to know how to interpret it."

The bill does not outright ban other arrangements or partnership agreements,
the panelists admitted, but according to openly homosexual Virginia Delegate
Adam Ebbin, "The big question in Virginia is how will it be appropriated if
it is used to challenge" an existing legal contract.

Ebbin said "The scariest [piece of legislation] to me was the proposal that
didn't pass, that would have outlawed gay adoption in Virginia." He was
referring to House Bill 2921, which was passed in the House and was referred
to a Senate Subcommittee.

Ebbin said the proposal "came before a subcommittee I was on, and it was
drastically watered down to merely require information on whether someone is
known to currently participate in voluntary homosexual activity, which
sounds pretty frightening and intrusive."

Literally, the bill states, "No person under this statute may adopt if that
person is a homosexual" and requires that the circuit court inquire as to
whether the potential parents "engage in current voluntary homosexual
activity."

"I thought that was a new level," Ebbin added.

The panelists also said there was a measure proposed that would allow school
boards to ban "gay/straight alliances" at public schools.

According to the "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer
Encyclopedia" website, a gay/straight alliance" is "defined as a youth-led,
school- or community-based group that provides a safe, welcoming, and
affirming physical and emotional space for glbtq students, as well as those
who are perceived" as such, "those who are questioning their sexual
orientation and/or gender identity, children from glbtq families, and
heterosexual students who want to be allies of their glbtq peers."

Dolkart said that this sort of thing would be normally be protected under
the Federal Equal Access Act, which allows most non-curriculum, special
interest student groups to assemble in U.S. high schools.

"The bottom line is, if you [lend] your facilities to the public, you must
allow all points of view to be represented. If you have extra-curricular
activities in the school, then you have to allow gay/straight alliances,"
said Dolkart.

The courts in Virginia have also been unfavorable to homosexuals, Dolkart
said. "Virginia pretty much will not grant custody to a lesbian parent," she
said, adding that "they have gone so far as to deny custody to a lesbian
parent in favor of her parent."

In Virginia, Dolkart added, "They still have a sodomy law on the books that
is on its face unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court decision (in
Lawrence vs. Texas)."

She asked "Why Virginia? There are other states that are at least, if not
more conservative than Virginia that have done many bad things, but I don't
think I have ever seen ... as much [anti-homosexual] legislation in one
state as here."

"One thing is it's an election year in Virginia," Ebbin said, in an attempt
to explain.
He indicated that because of the political season, legislators would try to
appear more conservative to win votes, and that this would put homosexuals
at a disadvantage.

"The challenge in most districts is to be conservative enough that if you're
gonna have an election challenge, in many cases, you're concern is winning a
Republican primary against conservatives," Ebbin said.

William J. Howell, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates (28th
District), dismissed the idea that the Virginia Legislature was conducting a
"war on homosexuals."

"I would disagree with that," Howell told the Cybercast News Service
Thursday. "I think all the legislature is trying to do is to make the laws
clear and follow the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the constituents
in the Commonwealth."

Howell said the constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to one man and
one woman was necessary. "I think the concern that they have in the
legislature is that we have statutes already on the books," he claimed, "
but they may be superceded by other states' laws ... so we feel it's
important to have it in our constitution."

If the General Assembly approves the amendment during the 2006 legislative
session, it will go before Virginia voters in the 2006 mid-term elections.

Howell had no opinion about the issue of "gay/straight alliances" being
allowed in public schools, saying, "I have no idea what a gay/straight
alliance is to begin with and so I couldn't tell you whether I think we
should have them in schools or not."

Crea and Ebbin said a number of homosexual couples have left the state
because they see Virginia law as unfriendly to homosexuals.

(Cybercast News Service Managing Editor David Thibault contributed to this
article.)

"Uday Hussein" <uday@iraq.net> wrote in message
news:4jC_d.7375$qW.485@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...

Sounds like a load of horse hockey to me.


--
Paris Hilton used one of these on Ashlee Simpson...
http://tinyurl.com/z6uc

"dwacon" <aunt.jemima@pancake.mix> wrote in message
newsfD_d.65119$7z6.17715@lakeread04...
Of course it is - no sources, no references, just pure racist, homophobic
bullshit. This person needs to get a life.

"scott tittle" <stittle@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
I enjoyed the homophobic remark, thanks for that laugh.

Don't ya just hate the NAMBLA Handbook of Rote Catch Phrases
especially when they don't supply the instructions on how to use them? LOL

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:55:11 -0600, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

LOL...and you're a known racist homophobe.

Don't you love it when people are all so insecure and twisted up
inside they have to express their infantile anger in the form of
ethnic and gender hostility?

Of course, we know about homophobes. They're generally just wannabe
cocksuckers.

George M. Carter

**
Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with
homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-445.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013,
USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively
heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual
individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n =
35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to
groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W.
Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually
explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual,
and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were
monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss
& M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile
circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only
the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male
homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the
homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

What puzzles me is, why you kneel for everything.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:18:16 -0600, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

LOL. You deny it all the time. You're too much of a coward to use your
real name.

Silly bully. I don't kneel for everything. But kneeling is fine and no
particular source of puzzlement.

Whether praying (which I don't do in any traditional sense) or to
engage in oral sex. You never kneel to give oral sex? Women must find
you dull.

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

Some women have no humor.
Given a choice though, I prefer Death over Snoop Doggie Dog.

But then, I'd bet you had a point to make.
I'll leave this space below for you to do so.

"scott tittle" <stittle@socal.rr.com> wrote...
I think I mentioned I had no references, I asked if anyone else knew
anything about it. As for source, it came from my brother, but I
will admit he's insane (bipolar from all the crystal meth). I don't
know why he would lie about it though.

"Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote...
And as for racist, I happily admit my dislike of blacks, and also
that they're the only group of people in the world that I don't
like. But I'm not sure what part of my post you found "racist,"
the transexual WAS black; perhaps it was the term "negro" you
found offensive, but how offended are you by the United Negro
College Fund or the Negro League (baseball) hall of fame? Just
remember that you can't say "colored people" but you can say
"people of color."

And although I know you (Scott Tittle) don't care, from what I
can figure of my brother's twisted psychology, it was not true
love that led him to adopt the transexual negro as his companion,
it was that it would give our parents heart attacks. While my
family is definitely not the KKK and as "liberal" as our parents
profess to be, this just killed them. It was hard enough for
them to accept a gay son and that he was dating a transexual,
not just a transexual but a NEGRO transexual (with AIDS as we
later learned), literally drove them over the edge. I mentioned
that my brother is bipolar and while I'll admit a few quirks of
my own (plus I flipped out on crystal meth), my brother seems to
have some very severe and deeply-rooted psychological problems;
in other words, it seems most of his actions seem designed to
piss our parents off immensely. I might mention the recent event
where our parents went to visit him in the condo our father
BOUGHT for him and charges no rent for, and they actually found
some other negro LIVING in the garage. My brother was actually
letting some crackhead negro he met at the gay bar one night
live in his garage, AND to top it off the negro had his 1200W
space heater plugged into the electricity our father pays for!
And having a full month's advance notice that they were coming
to visit he STILL had the negro there when they arrived! AND
after our father kicked the negro out, as soon as they left my
brother moved the negro back in!

I don't give a flying fuck if you call me racist. I hate negros
and my parents don't really care for them either, despite all
their protests to the contrary. My brother's bizarre fascination
with negros is some sort of passive-aggressive rebellion against
the family he seems to see as having oppressed him in the past.
All I can tell you is that the transexual negro acted as some
sort of focal point for my brother's bipolar obsession; he created
a sort of fantasy bubble universe where he, his flamboyant
faggotry (and keep in mind I'm gay and not necessarily discreet),
his transexual pre-op cross-dressing negro on estrogen, the gay
bar, the gay bar, the gay bar, the gay bar, the gay bar, the gay
bar, HIV, and the annual gay pride parade were all defined as
"normal," whereas anything that deviated even slightly from that
(i.e. the real world) was "bigoted" and "intolerant."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he
has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
'negro,' 'oriental,' 'handicapped' or 'chick' for an African, an Asian,
a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation.
'Broad' and 'chick' were merely the feminine equivalents of 'guy,'
'dude' or 'fellow.' The negative connotations have been attached to
these terms by the activists themselves."
-- The Unabomber Manifesto; Paragraph 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Uday Hussein" <uday@iraq.net> wrote in message

Perhaps it was the play on the name change that confused Scott
or he didn't recognize your style of writing...

That would be the benefit of the doubt.......

However I believe the fool just lashed out not knowing anything.
Homophobic is a word that flows out of his mouth like sperm.
He threw in racist thinking it would be PC.
He wants documentation for your opinion because he had
nothing else to contribute to the thread.

How many times have I seen this?

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:16:15 -0600, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:


You and your homophobic buddy. Wow. How silly and sad you guys are.

And the really sad thing is that folks like you are like that poor,
Nazi-loving fuckup that murdered all those people in Minnesota.

It's not just sad and pathetic--it's dangerous.

Don't you think life is too short to waste it on such anger and hate?
I guess not. But that is your misery to live with.

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

He (my buddy) is neither my buddy or homophobic.
As for myself, I am not homophobic. I have no fear of
a faggot. To the contrary I find them quite entertaining.

Lets use you as an example.
Below you compare me to a Nazi loving fuckup.
Just for a laugh, tell me your address and we can discuss
this over tea.


I don't give 2 shits for life, mine or yours.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:12:43 -0600, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

snip

Wow. Too bad.

But not unexpected.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2vg141ld1opcr3l6rmqgdn9557cj2gaulp@4ax.com...
statement makes him.

Lacking any concern for life is the equivalent of being dead. Yet he feels
the need for approval so deeply that he spends the amount of time he does
posting to Usenet, what a self deluded fool he must be.

Gary Stein

"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message
Sounds like you have named your own poison.
I'd wager you are too blinded by your hypocrisy
to notice.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:18:26 -0600, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

There's a difference between Gary's posts and yours. Gary likes life.
Wants to live. Thus, it is not hypocrisy. But I wager you're too blind
to understand that in the emptiness of your existence.

I hope you wake up to the beauty and joy of life and find healing for
all the hate and ugliness. That's your choice, your option, YOUR life.
I can't imagine feeling all that ugliness can be all that fun or
engaging.

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

There sure is. To see the difference look above.
There you will notice usenet is the topic.
You babble on though, he can use the distraction.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
his dick in their asshole.

I can't imagine a male wanting to suck
someone elses dick.

I can't imagine someone with aids doing those
things and calling it anything but murder.

Tell the disease spreading faggots how you feel
about the lives they ruin through their actions.

No, wait, just sit on your ass and call me nazi
because I don't accept their perversion and say so.