Ani-man

I disagree with that it's either black or it's white viewpoint, namely on account of the fact that while an animal can't physically speak words, they do speak with body language, language any pet owner and most not pet owers can easily recognize; What does a dog do when you get out brush and start brushing, get out a food dish, leash, favorite toy or treats? How does the behavior displayed differ from the behavior observed if the dog is being hurt, threatened, people are yelling at it, or the dog is in a situation that is fearful, threatening by a stranger, or potentially injurious? Are the ears up or down? teeth bared? In both cases the body language/action/reaction is clear as a bell and the dog has clearly communicated to the observer that the dog is saying; yes continue- that pleases me, or stay away it frightens/upsets me and I'm either going to bite or run.

Thank you Carl. I'm not sure the road show would know much about this kind of art, it's so different than regular art if you know what I mean. I did however locate the daughter in law of the fellow who professionally repainted this years ago and signed his name on the side. She said he passed away in 1992 and that he opened his statuary painting business in 1930 and retired around 1980 So I had a good lead there, but 13 years late and now a dead end no pun intended... It might have come from a German Catholic church in his town that he repainted many statues in which was hit by lightening and burned to the ground! Several things point to that as a good possibility.

I bought this antique plaster station for a paltry $199 and it seems to have come from Covington KY region where the seller is located, it was apparently repainted years ago by A Bert A Moriconi of Covington and I'm trying to find out it's origins/history. I am also curious, who the various figures on this were to represent (besides the obvious Jesus) there are two men and four women figures.

From the article I'd say both, though it was largely a political piece about a bestiality case in the news and referred to the columnist who wrote a similar piece opposing any lawThings have changed; " Seattle Post Intelligencer's liberal columnist, Robert L. Jamieson Jr. In a July 23 column, Jamieson ridiculed Roach's proposal, writing that practices such as masturbation, oral sex, and gay sex were once considered wrong, too," I'd say Jamieson has a point as did Singer- even masturbation was considered terrible, kids were told they would go blind etc- creating generations of paranoids. Things have changed over time, we now know you won't go blind, women do not determine the sex of the baby, women are not simply "incubators" for ###### which was once thought to contain miniature babies only needing an incubator (woman) and we know scientifically and proven that strange monsters and half-breeds resulting from bestiality are physically, utterly and positively impossible and it was the fear of creating "monsters" that was behind many of the laws, executions etc

The Weekly Standard (and other major newspapers) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Check.asp?id...le=5985&r=pgwjh Shorter version; The debate in Washington state about bestiality is actually a fight over human exceptionalism. by Wesley J. Smith A WASHINGTON MAN died recently from internal injuries he sustained while having sex with a horse. After his body was dropped off at a hospital, police discovered that out-of-towners had rented a rural farm and then made local animals available for use in bestiality. Yes, video taping was involved. However, police discovered that there is no law against bestiality in Washington. Enter Republican state Senator Pam Roach, who announced plans to introduce legislation in the next legislative session to make it a felony in Washington to commit bestiality. Roach told me she is receiving cooperation from the Democratic leaders of the legislature, but to her surprise, the proposed bill has stirred some controversy. The most prominent voice so far against outlawing bestiality is the Seattle Post Intelligencer's liberal columnist, Robert L. Jamieson Jr. In a July 23 column, Jamieson ridiculed Roach's proposal, writing that practices such as masturbation, oral sex, and gay sex were once considered wrong, too, and so why worry now about human/animal copulation if the animal isn't injured? "Human sex with animals remains a towering taboo, booty and the beast. But as Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer, the father of the animal rights movement, has put it, 'Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.'" As to Roach's argument that having sex with animals is wrong because they can't consent to sex, Jamieson noted that animals also don't consent to "being ground into all-beef patties," and accused Roach of "taking animal love to extremes," for seeking to outlaw bestiality. BOTH JAMIESON AND ROACH (and a very mild Post Intelligencer editorial supporting Roach) miss the true nub of what makes this repugnant issue so important. Bestiality is so very wrong not only because using animals sexually is abusive, but because such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe--a concept known as "human exceptionalism." And this brings us back to Peter Singer, the world's most famous bioethicist and philosopher, who clearly does understand that the crucial moral issue of our time is whether human life has intrinsic value simply--merely--because it is human. Indeed, Singer is an avowed enemy of human exceptionalism. Thus, it is no surprise that when he was asked in 2000 to review a book extolling bestiality for an online pornography magazine, he leaped at the chance to bestow his approval. In "Heavy Petting" Singer, in often vulgar language, asserted that since both humans and animals copulate and both have the same sex organs, the continuing "taboo" against bestiality merely reflects "our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals." In support of his thesis that this distinction is irrational, Singer writes of attending a conference and speaking to a woman who had been sexually assaulted by an orangutan while visiting an animal rehabilitation center. When she called out for help, the operator of the facility, a woman named Birute Galdikas, told the distraught woman not to worry because orangutans are not well endowed. (The animal lost interest before completing the assault.) This lack of concern deeply impressed Singer. "Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings." In other words, bestiality is fine, for those who are attracted to that sort of thing, because it merely constitutes two animals rubbing body parts. IT ISN'T JUST PETER SINGER. There is apparently a deep and growing yearning across an alarmingly wide swath of public advocacy to destroy the wall of moral distinction that separates animals and humans. In the bioethics movement, for example, to assert that humans have special value is denigrated as "speciesism," that is, discrimination against animals. This concept is taught in most of our major colleges and universities. Similarly, the animal liberation movement claims that it is the ability to feel pain, rather than humanhood, which bestows equal moral value. "We are all animals," a PETA advocacy slogan asserts, by which they are not merely stating a biological fact but espousing an explicit moral equality between man and beasts. Thus, since both cows and humans can feel pain, PETA claims cattle ranching to be as evil as human slavery. The London Zoo has actually put a herd of humans on display to "demonstrate the basic nature of man as an animal and examine the impact that Homo sapiens have on the rest of the animal kingdom." We even see this theme popping up in the ongoing controversy over high school science curricula. Thus, Verlyn Klinkenborg, a member of the New York Times editorial board, savaged critics of materialistic Darwinism in part on philosophical grounds, because (he believes) they seek "to preserve the myth that there is a separate, divine creation for humans," that separates us from animals. "But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance to this myth," Klinkenborg writes. "It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here." MOST PEOPLE take human exceptionalism for granted. They can no longer afford to do so. The great philosophical question of the 21st Century is going to be whether we will knock humans off the pedestal of moral exceptionalism and instead define ourselves as just another animal in the forest. The stakes of the coming debate couldn't be more important: It is our exalted moral status that both bestows special rights upon us and imposes unique and solemn moral responsibilities--including the human duty not to abuse animals. Nothing would more graphically demonstrate our unexceptionalism than countenancing human/animal sex. Thus, when Roach's legislation passes, the law's preamble should explicitly state that one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind's inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth. Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His current book is Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.

The abstinence group probably came to realize what a crock this was, but there's no way to tell, here, by us anyway but statistically that's interesting. Yes Des, nine, and that was quite a long time ago that I had single digit birthdays! I was reading an article on HIV and noticed the name of a church in it whose quotes sounded good, so I did a search and found their web site and they welcome "ALL", I think the pastor was mentioned as being openly gay but don't quote me, I might have it mixed up with another church in the long article. The church is Episcopal and in Miamia area, here is what they say on their site however, http://www.ststcg.org/pastor.html What we believe to be particularly special about St. Stephen’s is the way we strive to live out Jesus’ commandment to love others as he first loved us: unconditionally and without judgment. You see, here at St. Stephen’s there truly are no outcasts. All are welcomed here, no matter their age or race or gender. All are welcomed no matter their economic circumstance, sexual orientation, marital status, or ethnic background. Our pews are filled with old and young, rich and poor (and in between), black and white, gay and straight, Anglo and Latino.

Abstinence only is asinine, the cat is out of the bag now Des, there is now going back, heck, you have kids (and adults) having sex w/o condoms despite ALL the media attention etc etc focussing on their use to prevent HIV. After awhile you just have to let the clueless deal with their own problems they created, they made their beds now they can lay in them. I get tired of reading all the cautions, warnings, public service announcements etc etc, if people don't know by NOW or don't care that having sex with other people is a death sentence if the other person is HIV positive and refuse to use condoms, then to heck with them- adios amigo! One has to stop wasting time trying to protect idiots from themselves. I never heard back from that Kelly Boggs, maybe I should resend my email, maybe I left him speechless who knows. Of course a high percentage of those teens are having sex, I remember starting when I was 9 and my friends were already active!

I found this article and wasn't happy with the author's comments. I emailed him my comments, I add a few of mine here in bold text; FIRST-PERSON: Sex as a civil right? Sep 23, 2005 By Kelly Boggs Baptist Press McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)--I once viewed the description “pro-choice” as disingenuous. I don’t anymore. Those who support abortion on demand do support choice. They want individuals to be able to choose to pursue any sexual behavior without restrictions or consequences -– especially the consequence of “unintended pregnancy.” In the liberal worldview, sex is a civil right not to be infringed upon. How else can you explain the liberal aversion to sex education programs that feature abstinence as the only absolute way to avoid pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases? According to The Washington Times, the ACLU Sept. 21 launched a campaign to persuade education officials in 18 states to reject federal government-affiliated abstinence-only sex education programs. The ACLU complains the programs are too religious in nature, give out inaccurate information and discriminate against homosexuals. However, the real motivation for the ACLU’s crusade is “sex as a civil right.” Teens should have the right to fornicate whenever they want and in whatever manner they choose. To dissuade them would be infringing on their civil right to sex. “Sex as a civil right” has as its foundation Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that struck down the abortion restrictions in America. The Roe decision grew out of the social upheaval of the 1960s that was characterized by a youth movement insistent upon experimenting with sex and drugs. The 60s generation soon discovered that free love had a price. Irresponsible promiscuous sex often resulted in “unintended” pregnancies. While the seeds for Roe were planted in two earlier Supreme Court decisions (Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972), both having to do with the right to obtain contraceptives, the 1973 decision was the consummation of the “sex with no consequences movement.” In the past three decades the “choice” movement has grown beyond “sex as a civil right” for heterosexuals. It now includes homosexuals, bisexuals and those who seek even more bizarre forms of sexual expression. The “sex as a civil right” issue is no better illustrated than with the approach that is taken in combating the disease known as AIDS. If AIDS were not primarily spread by sexual contact, it would be dealt with more aggressively. Instead of calling for abstinence among those most at risk, the medical community urges “safe sex,” which is the watchword for condom use. When it comes to AIDS, safe sex is an illusion. According to a summary report issued in 2000 by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services, “consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85 percent.” Some will argue that encouraging a practice that is 85 percent effective is responsible. However, in the game of Russian roulette there is always an 83.4 percent chance of firing an empty chamber. Even though the odds of getting a bullet are relatively low, participation is not promoted because the stakes are simply too high. The only explanation for refusing to urge abstinence among homosexuals infected with HIV/AIDS is that sex is viewed as a civil right. As a result, no restrictions are tolerated. If you think that the “sex as a civil right” movement has reached its zenith by advocating for homosexual, bisexual and transgender behaviors, you are sadly mistaken. Already in the academic community there are those who are seeking to legitimize pedophilia and bestiality. In 2002, The University of Minnesota Press published “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex.” Author Judith Levine wrote that the Dutch age-of-consent law is a “good model” -- Dutch law permits consensual sex between an adult and a child beginning at age 12. “Teens often seek out sex with older people, and they do so for understandable reasons,” Levine wrote. “An older person makes them feel sexy and grown-up, protected and special.” It should be noted that Levine acknowledged having had a sexual relationship with an adult when she was a minor. Peter Singer, professor at Princeton University, has long been a defender of bestiality. He views human-animal sex as a taboo that should crumble. Singer’s only concern in bestiality is that the animals involved should never be harmed. I agree, it should crumble as a taboo, there is more than ample evidence that it's completely harmless depending on the intent and motives of the person involved- the extremes would be for; love/relationship, or strictly raw forced sex. There are no STD's as we see between people possibe- (AIDS, Herpes, VD, Ghonnoreah, etc etc, or unwanted pregnancies, potentials for abortion later) God gave sex as a glorious gift to be enjoyed by a man and a woman within the commitment of marriage. Marriage is a church and societal invention designed to extract taxes, fees and control real and personal property in the courts To make it a crass choice or an unrestricted civil right is to distort and cheapen it. When sex becomes a civil right, marriage and the family -– the building blocks of society -– are undermined. The old slippery slope, sex IS a civil right, no one has the right to tell another they can't engage in sex. As far as marriage goes- 50% end in divorce, and it's not because of gays g0ys or sex No civilization has ever survived the dissolution of the family. But to liberals, sexual choice trumps societal survival. --30-- Kelly Boggs is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Ore. His column appears each Friday in Baptist Press.

Cool Des I wonder what happened to our g0y guy, hope I didn't scare him off, but maybe I did

Des said: This is a round-about way at looking at this, yes true, but remember that each individual in the USA when they are born start using paper/disposable diapers by the hundreds, then comes the clothing, baby furniture, toys and so forth. When they hit 18 it's usually the case they get a driver's license and a cheap OLD V8 car to drive around for a while, then they buy a brand new car- so there's another car on the road. Then they soon move out to another place out of mom/dad's hair and now you have another space that requires electric, heat, air conditioning, trash disposal, lawn chemicals, sewage, water, paint, furniture, carpeting and all the rest. Eventually the individual may build a new house, clear cutting some location in the woods, pave over part for a driveway and so forth. That is why now there is very little in the way of remote areas that one can buy that isn't public lands. More food required means more forests get cut for agriculture, more pesticides applied, more chemicals, fertilizer, nitrogen etc that leaks into the rivers, streams etc. If the US had 1/2 the pop it does now then there wouldn't be much of an impact. Just 500 years ago there was no New York city with 9 million, it was forest! It was forest til the 1600's, and it was still woods and all in the Northern half into the 1800's before the "grid" was laid out and eventuially paved. By the 1870's all of Manhattan was paved over with housing and streets except Central Park and a few pocket parks here and there. You can see the dramatic change in so rapid a time frame and this is true of just about every large city with some variations on time. All of the old growth forests are gone except those few remaining pockets with the redwood trees, allmost all of the virgin forests that had diversity are gone, replanted with commercial species like Douglas fir, we have totally changed the landscape in a couple hundred years or less and it will never go backwards to what it was.

I think you need to do a bit more research into this area and take a look at the vanishing rain forests clear-cut stripped and slash burned for more agriculture, the global warming, melting ice caps- all proven via historical imaging and scientific instruments. Go to china, india or third world countries and see the families with ten kids each, not enough food, water, jobs, living quarters and more. Check out how China's energy use according to Smithsonian Magazine 75% from burning of dirty coal. The human population has grown far too large for the finite resources there ar all it will take to cause a huge sum of misery and a lot of deaths is a couple of back to back years or so of bad crop years and that can come from a repeat of the 1930's so called "Dust bowl" or a volcano erupts like the one in 1809 that caused the year to be known as the year that had no summer as the dust, ash and pollution blocked so much sun the temperatures dropped, crops failed, people died. We are at the point where one oil refinery gets blown up and put out of commission for the months or years it takes to rebuild it, and the price of gas, gasoline, heating oil, electric and everything else- including food skyrockets. Think gasoline going from $1.39 to $2.50 a gallon on a year is bad? talk about $4-5 a gallon gas as a result and see what that does to food prices, food requires oil and it's derivatives to plant, grow, fertilize, harvest, process, transport, store. People who have money will be able to buy it, people who don't are the problem. What happens to the poor people when heating oil hits $4 a gallon? they switch to gas? they and 50,000,000 OTHER people switch to gas at the same time, now the gas shortage hits and the price skyrockets. Think the cities and Govt will be able to help or fix that? a Govt in a 6 TRILLION dollars deficit and growing? We are also due for a major pandemic, we have been real lucky, time will come this luck will run out and in a major city like LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami, Boston, Beijing, Tokyo, London, Seattle all it takes is one sick airplane passenger to infect one planeload of fellow passengers, each of whom disembarks in different cities infecting other people and you are looking at a very serious problem! 100 years ago it wasn't as bad, things like this stayed local, not you have a plane in London and a few hours later it's in NYC and then it heads to SanFrancisco, this threat didn't exist till modern times. So while right now for the moment we have enough for the population we have, it won't last and with this level of population to sustain it will only take a bump in the road to cause a major major problem. One small tsunami now kills 100,000 people, 100 years ago probably no one would even have noticed it, but now people are packed in those areas like sardines and this tsunami resulted in the death of 100,000. What if next time this hits NYC? or terrorists set off a small crude nuke there under a bridge or tunnel or even threaten to in order to cause a panic? How do you evacuate a city of 9 MILLION people on an island, how many weeks would it take assuming no one panics? and more importantly WHERE do you evacuate them TO? See the problem?

I haven't seen it Des but it sounds funny In biology of course all males produce far more ###### than could ever be used, it's the order of things that most of these cells simply die or go un-used, it's like buying a 2 liter bottle of soda taking one sip and pouring the rest down the drain but that's how the whole thing was designed. The cells are constantly replaced over a specific cycle like every other cell in the body is. It's been shown I know at least in dogs that if they are not used for stud for long periods of time the first batch of spern collected are of poor quality and it takes flushing those out once or twice to produce the fresher much better quality ###### cells. So obviously just "sitting" there un-used is detremental and that can be proven scientifically under any microscope. It's also been shown that sexual inactivity can cause prostatitus and other problems, and it wouldn't surprise me if some testicular and prostate cancers coul dget their start this way. Females are born with all the eggs they will ever have, most of them die off before puberty. I forget the numbers but female dogs are born with a huge number of eggs, something like 200,000 and by the time she has her first cycle at 6- 12 months of age the numbers are down to something like 4,000, so a massive number of the eggs are similarly discarded naturally by the body. So with basic biology there one can see a better picture of these eggs and ###### cells and see that they are little different than any of the multitudes of other cells in the body that are created, divide, grow, die and are replaced- skin, organs, muscles, blood, bone etc.

Welcome to a post Hitler book burning, amazing thta in 2005 this goes on: Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters. "I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children." Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters. Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries. Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves. "And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser. "I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship. "It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok. "You know, it's a remarkable piece of work." But in book after book, Allen reads what he calls the "homosexual agenda," and he's alarmed. "It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for," says Allen. "And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal." He says he sees this as a line in the sand. In Alabama's legislature, the reviews of Allen's bill are still out on whether to lower this curtain for good.

Don't forget that it ALSO says you ar enot to covet your neighbor's ass, which in today's social setting makes for an interesting concept. That's the problem, it DOESN'T deal with the complexities of modern society because people who wrote the actual text of the Bible could not possibly fathom what we live with on a daily basis where it is no longer acceptable to keep slaves, kill or main someone who wrongs or insults you, conduct sacrifices and so forth. Morality aside, personally I think people have far too much of an obsession with fetus' and tissue, with the overpopulation problems, global warming, pollution, coming poil shortages and all the rest that this planet has the LAST thing we should be doing right now is bringing yet MORE mouths into this world. The breaking point is rapidly being approached, large segments of the world's population don't have enough food, clean water, South Africa and other areas have huge long term droughts and the USA simply cannot feed the entire planet either by producing the food or by economics. Something is GOING to give, and we are already seeing the start of new and serious diseases, antibiotic resistant germs, glaciers and pole ice melting at phenominal rates never seen at any point in history, climate changes and all the rest.

True! And did you know Mae West was arrested for indecent exposure after her performance at a play? This would be around the 1930's In Victorian times it was scandalous to see a woman's legs, it was like bare breasts in public is today here. Go to Switzerland and their culture doens't have this hangup on breasts, you cen see topless women in the park and no one thinks a second thought about it. But here the laws have this wierd criteria that the underside and the aereola must be covered (maybe mold or something terrible they don't want anyone to see grows under there or something?)