Bill on 'hate crimes' ignores hatred towards traditional marriage backers
J
gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and 'same-sex
marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of morality and
decency; not hatred. To oppose a lifestyle that leads one to an early death
complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is not the same as casting
someone as evil and deserving of violent assault. This bill should be
relegated to the trash bin of history.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17470
Bill on 'hate crimes' ignores hatred towards traditional marriage backers,
Tony Perkins says
Washington D.C., Oct 22, 2009 / 06:15 pm (CNA).- The advance of a bill that
would create penalties to punish "hate crimes" comes at a time of increasing
intolerance towards those who support the traditional definition of marriage
and reject homosexual activism, Family Research Council President Tony
Perkins noted on Wednesday, causing him to ask, "Where's the protection for
them?"
In his e-mail newsletter, Perkins urged his readers to voice opposition to
the hate crimes bill currently under consideration in the Senate, saying it
was "not an inconsequential vote."
"Expanding hate crimes puts America in lock-step with the stated agenda of
homosexual activists," he wrote, predicting that its backers will then turn
to the Employment Non-discrimination Act, the repeal of the ban on open
homosexuality in the military and the Defense of Marriage Act.
He reported that more than 100,000 people have signed a petition opposing
the hate crimes measure as a violation of the First Amendment. The measure
is attached to a military spending bill.
Perkins noted the threats and harassment supporters of traditional marriage
face.
"We get reports almost daily from donors who have given to pro-marriage
campaigns in the states and are being awakened in the middle of the night by
harassing phone calls and death threats. Where's the protection for them?
Where are those blowing the trumpet of tolerance?"
He recounted that Family Research Council Senior Vice President Tom McClusky
recently received a threatening voicemail from someone complaining about
"homophobic comments" and saying that being an "intolerant bigot" would
cause a reaction.
"You reap what you sow and when you start spreadin' hate against other
people, that's exactly what you're gonna get back. And, you know, who knows
what effect that could have on you, or your family, or your office, you
know, on G Street?" the caller continued, naming the Washington, D.C. street
on which the Family Research Council's offices are located.
"Uh, just a bit of advice for ya. You should really learn, really-stop bein'
such a redneck piece of s**t," the caller's voicemail continued, according
to Perkins.
"While Congress is busy giving preferential treatment to homosexuals, maybe
it's time to point out the kind of calls we receive from the side of
'tolerance,'" Perkins said.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Mitchell Holman
> Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
> 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
> morality and decency; not hatred.
And your proof of that is.......?
> To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
> to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
> not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
> assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>
>
Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
Mitchell Holman
Well, "J"?
Spartakus
> Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> for gays,
You can check one out the next time you walk by a mirror.
> the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and 'same-sex
> marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of morality and
> decency; not hatred. To oppose a lifestyle that leads one to an early
> death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is not the
> same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent assault.
> This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
Ha ha! Haven't been keeping up with the news, have you?
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act passes Congress, finally
http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_13628360
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17470
>
> Bill on 'hate crimes' ignores hatred towards traditional marriage backers,
> Tony Perkins says
[--Perkin's douchebaggy whining deleted--]
From the comments for the cited article:
"Haters of Traditional Marriage." What an ignorant and untrue
statement. I am embarrassed to be Catholic these days. I
thought that church was "Pro Life and Pro Family" What
about the teens who have killed themselves because their
family and church has rejected them. Change is coming
with or without the church. This type of article will be viewed
by history as another stain on the Church.
Published by: Dr Council
Tuscon Arizona 10/23/2009 02:37 PM EST
Tony Perkins' remarks are flat wrong in every way. Catholics
have enjoyed this kind of "hate crimes" law protection SINCE
THE 60'S, and I didn't see him arguing that it was
unconstitutional before or arguing that it should be revoked.
Indeed, while he's arguing that it's unconstitutional and that
gay people must have it, I don't see him making any plans
to give up that same protection himself. I believe that's called
a "hypocrite".
Published by: Tom
Somerville, MA 10/23/2009 02:31 PM EST
I have no sympathy for bigots and judgemental christianists
who think they have the market cornered on what is good
and right in the world. Gays need the protections afforded
by hate crimes legislation, and anyone that opposes on
religious grounds is simply using their faith as justification
for hatred. These people are not "supporters of traditional
marriage" -- they're evil people with no concept of faith or
spirituality.
Published by: Pam
US 10/23/2009 10:06 AM EST
A lotta Catholics have evolved for the better, leaving the Vatican
(and *you*) behind.
W.T.S.
news:37vs5r....@news.alt.net...
> Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred for
> gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and 'same-sex
> marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of morality and
> decency; not hatred. To oppose a lifestyle that leads one to an early
> death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is not the same as
> casting someone as evil and deserving of violent assault. This bill should
> be relegated to the trash bin of history.
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17470
Hate crime laws don't protect haters, no matter how much they protest
they're really not haters. The law knows better, we all know better. The
RCC and most other churches are cesspools of hate and bigotry.
Bible, bad. Sex, good.
J
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CAFEC32E2788...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
> Well, "J"?
>
I oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
[ This comprehensive study and conclusions should be required reading for
every student in all nations living in denial ]
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Osprey
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. They choose NOT to
be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them. I choose
not to be in a homosexual relationship, I oppose that lifestyle.
Now, I could ask you why do you oppose peoples rights to have
different opinions than yours.
I also noticed in the thread about death threats to Obama and/or Bush.
You asked what death threats to Bush, and I gave you a whole bunch of
examples.
You suddenly got quiet.
Now that's not like you. If I post something to you, you usually run
off with the mouth. This time, you got silent.
Hmmm.
Are you ok?
panam...@hotmail.com
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CAFEC32E2788...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
> > Well, "J"?
>
> I oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
Your failure to understand that homosexuality is part of human
behavior for the entire time of our race's time on the planet shows
that you have no idea what the word "humanitarian" actually implies.
Your constant whining about homosexuality may actually be evidence
that you are interested in homosexuality. After all, it's been
demonstrated that most homophobes are attempting to deny their own
homosexual tendencies..
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Ray Fischer
>Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred for
>gays,
People like you nazi turds, for example.
> the majority of people
The majority of people are not bigoted homophobes like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9CAFEC32E2788...@216.196.97.130...
>>
>>
>> Well, "J"?
>
>I oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
Just like Hitler killed Jews and gays in order to benefit humanity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Syd M.
> Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred for
> gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and 'same-sex
> bigotry; not decency.
PDW
Syd M.
>
> news:Xns9CAFEC32E2788...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
> > Well, "J"?
>
> I oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
>
>
Another day, another Junkie Young lie.
PDW
fasgnadh
> homosexuality is part of human
> behavior for the entire time
your gaping arse must really be sore! B^D
Don't you even stop to shower?
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Boo Radley
<panam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a2e288e-74b8-4d86...@u13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 26, 12:45 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>that you are interested in homosexuality. After all, it's been
>demonstrated that most homophobes are attempting to deny their own
>homosexual tendencies..
J is very interested in homosexual practices and would love to be someone's
kinky bottom but since he is so repulsively ugly and has zero fashion sense,
no gay will have him so he has set out to spread lies and propaganda to make
all of them pay for not wanting to spank his bottom with a riding crop
while he is dressed in a navy uniform with assless chinos and a tattoo on
his ass that says "All Aboard". Do you realize how many nights in a row that
he has cried himself to sleep with no penis in his asshole? He volunteered
to be an altar boy and even the priest wouldn't molest him. Cry for J, he
does.
.
pnyikos
>
> > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
> > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
> > morality and decency;
The reasonable Judeo-Christian opponents of same-sex marriage [and
that includes almost all the pastors, columists, etc. whose writings
I've read on the subject) oppose it because it is one more (and very
significant) step in the devaluation of marriage. The Judeo-Christian
ideal is clearly laid out at the end of the second chapter of Genesis,
and in the words of Jesus alluding to it.
To paraphrase what Jesus said, the erosion of Christian support for
this ideal began by reason of the hardness of people's hearts: the
Protestant reformation brought with it an acceptance of divorce; in
the 19th century some denominations allowed as to how premarital
intercourse could be moral between engaged couples who had a long wait
to get married; and then in the 1960's one denomination after another
said extramarital intercourse was acceptable as long as the two
seriously loved each other, even if there was no intention of ever
getting married.
These things were accepted by the general public (including many who
believe themselves to be Christians) long before they became tolerated
by the leaders of the various churches. All of them undermine the
marriage bond in one way or another. And now with the radical change
posed by same-sex marriage, already accepted by some denominations,
the leaders of other denominations have decided to take a firm stand
to prevent any further erosion of the meaning of marriage.
not hatred.
> Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>
> Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
The author of "A Gay Manifesto" (the original one, not the bogus thing
that is completely unrelated to it) did oppose it, saying things like
"exclusively heterosexual sex is all fucked up," and I've never heard
of any GLBT organization repudiating it.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> > for gays,
>
> You can check one out the next time you walk by a mirror.
That's true if AND ONLY IF J has posted the kinds of bigotry that seem
to come from his personal computer. LC and I have posted seemingly
incontrovertible evidence of that, and J has never contested it.
Spartakus, you've sneered at the "and I" part when I posted a similar
statement before, but it's true: look up a post where I say, "Come on,
LC, you can do better than that!" and I proceeded to post the
strongest evidence I've ever found. LC has posted similarly strong
evidence, but he often posts much weaker evidence, perhaps to bait J
into a denial, because the really strong evidence never gets a
response from J.
> > the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and 'same-sex
> > marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of morality and
> > decency; not hatred. To oppose a lifestyle that leads one to an early
> > death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is not the
> > same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent assault.
> > This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>
> Ha ha! Haven't been keeping up with the news, have you?
No bill is law until Obama signs it. But it's a done deal: Obama
would never veto a bill like that, if past behavior is any indication.
> Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act passes Congress, finally
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_13628360
>
> >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17470
>
> > Bill on 'hate crimes' ignores hatred towards traditional marriage backers,
> > Tony Perkins says
Now you come forth with a typically raunchy put-down which strengthens
my suspicion that you are a mere gofer for much more intelligent and
knowledgeable pro-choicers who prefer not to get mixed up on the
Usenet abortion newsgroups:
> [--Perkin's douchebaggy whining deleted--]
WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
were it made logically consistent and defined
broadly enough to encompass the most influential
uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
it would mean "anything that can be construed,
in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
and hence would encompass much or all
of each of the following:
the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
Manifesto, Mark Antony's funeral oration
in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
John the Baptist's denunciation of
Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
Peter Nyikos
Mitchell Holman
1dd8d2...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 26, 12:12�am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>>
>> > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
>> > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
>> > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
>> > morality and decency; not hatred.
>>
>> � � And your proof of that is.......?
>>
>> > To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
>> > to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
>> > not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
>> > assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>>
>> � � �Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>>
>> � � �Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
> Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. They choose NOT to
> be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them.
Show us where gays have lobbied against or tried
to limit ANY right reversed for heteros.
> I choose
> not to be in a homosexual relationship, I oppose that lifestyle.
Just because you oppose everything you do not
participate in doesn't mean others are equally bigotted.
>
> Now, I could ask you why do you oppose peoples rights to have
> different opinions than yours.
>
What are you talking about?
> I also noticed in the thread about death threats to Obama and/or Bush.
> You asked what death threats to Bush, and I gave you a whole bunch of
> examples.
>
> You suddenly got quiet.
That is because the matter ended when I proved that
Obama is getting 400% more death threats than Bush.
http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-
tells/comment-page-1/
http://www.manolith.com/2009/10/14/president-obama-receives-400-more-death-
threats-than-any-other-president/
Mitchell Holman
7de4f6...@z29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
I can remember these same "undermining marriage" and
"devaluing the marriage institution" arguments when
miscegination laws were being defended. It was a pointless
argument then, it is still pointless now.
Can you show is any negative effect on "the institution
of marriage" in those states where same sex marriage is now
legal?
>> � � �Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>>
>> � � �Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
> The author of "A Gay Manifesto" (the original one, not the bogus thing
> that is completely unrelated to it) did oppose it, saying things like
> "exclusively heterosexual sex is all fucked up," and I've never heard
> of any GLBT organization repudiating it.
Name for us any gay rights organization which is
lobbying to restrict the rights currently enjoyed by
straight people.
Mitchell Holman
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
Boo Radley
"Osprey" <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53494f82-b84e-4305...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>
> > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
> > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
> > morality and decency; not hatred.
>
> And your proof of that is.......?
>
> > To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
> > to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
> > not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
> > assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>
> Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>
> Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
>Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. They choose NOT to
>be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them. I choose
>not to be in a homosexual relationship, I oppose that lifestyle.
The problem is coward ,that heterosexuals do not have a choice to be
homosexual, they are heterosexual. If you have a choice of being in a
homosexual relationship then you are a homosexual. So tell us pussy, when
did you choose to be heterosexual and oppress your fellow homosexuals? You
just don't get it that heterosexuals don't crave penis, they don't want a
man to penetrate their butthole, heterosexuals want women and there are no
other choices. So besides being a cowardly little bitch Osprey, you are a
cock-loving homosexual.
Boo Radley
Osprey is a homosexual that is angry because none of them were interested in
his pimple covered butt so he takes out his anger against his fellow
homosexuals that are happy with life and would like to have equal rights. If
Osprey can't have 14 guys spray their seed all over his face then no one
should.
Mitchell Holman
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CAFEC32E2788...@216.196.97.130...
>>
>>
>> Well, "J"?
>>
>
>
> I oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
>
>
Because it might expand your humanity?
IAAH
> On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>>
>>> Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
>>> for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
>>> 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
>>> morality and decency; not hatred.
>> And your proof of that is.......?
>>
>>> To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
>>> to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
>>> not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
>>> assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>> Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>>
>> Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
> Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. They choose NOT to
> be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them. I choose
> not to be in a homosexual relationship, I oppose that lifestyle.
Making a choice not to do something isn't anything
like the same as opposing it, you immense idiot.
Only someone looking for an excuse for his bigotry
would come up with that one.
>
> Now, I could ask you why do you oppose peoples rights to have
> different opinions than yours.
When an opinion different than yours is expressed,
you damn near always come up with that same stale
whine. Nothing in the post you replied to
expressed a wish to oppose anyone's rights - quite
the opposite, in fact.
Your post, on the other hand, certainly expresses
a wish to oppose peoples' rights.
Osprey
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:53494f82-b84e-4305-bbb7-
> 1dd8d25a6...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>
> >> > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> >> > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
> >> > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
> >> > morality and decency; not hatred.
>
> >> And your proof of that is.......?
>
> >> > To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
> >> > to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
> >> > not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
> >> > assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>
> >> Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>
> >> Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
> > Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. They choose NOT to
> > be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them.
>
> Show us where gays have lobbied against or tried
> to limit ANY right reversed for heteros.
You don't understand do you?
This is going right over your head.
>
> > I choose
> > not to be in a homosexual relationship, I oppose that lifestyle.
>
> Just because you oppose everything you do not
> participate in doesn't mean others are equally bigotted.
>
>
>
> > Now, I could ask you why do you oppose peoples rights to have
> > different opinions than yours.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> > I also noticed in the thread about death threats to Obama and/or Bush.
> > You asked what death threats to Bush, and I gave you a whole bunch of
> > examples.
>
> > You suddenly got quiet.
>
> That is because the matter ended when I proved that
> Obama is getting 400% more death threats than Bush.
Oh?
That's not what you were saying, now you want to change the subject.
>
> http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-
> tells/comment-page-1/
>
> http://www.manolith.com/2009/10/14/president-obama-receives-400-more-...
> threats-than-any-other-president/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Osprey
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB048A9EED8D...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:53494f82-b84e-4305-bbb7-
> > 1dd8d25a6...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > threats-than-any-other-president/
>
> Osprey is a homosexual
Hmm,
Married, four kids, and always been in relationships with women.
And now Boo comes in and starts lying.
that is angry because none of them were interested in
> his pimple covered butt so he takes out his anger against his fellow
> homosexuals that are happy with life and would like to have equal rights. If
> Osprey can't have 14 guys spray their seed all over his face then no one
> should.-
Sounds like Boo is just talking about himself and needs to vent his
anger.
Osprey
> "Osprey" <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:53494f82-b84e-4305...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>
> > > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> > > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
> > > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
> > > morality and decency; not hatred.
>
> > And your proof of that is.......?
>
> > > To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
> > > to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
> > > not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
> > > assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>
> > Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>
> > Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
> >Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. They choose NOT to
> >be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them. I choose
> >not to be in a homosexual relationship, I oppose that lifestyle.
>
> The problem is coward ,
My e-mail box is still empty. I thought you were going to come see me
and kick my ass or something like that.
LOL
I told you, e-mail me and I'll give you the directions. BUT..you got
to tell me who you are first.
that heterosexuals do not have a choice to be
> homosexual, they are heterosexual. If you have a choice of being in a
> homosexual relationship then you are a homosexual. So tell us pussy, when
> did you choose to be heterosexual and oppress your fellow homosexuals? You
> just don't get it that heterosexuals don't crave penis, they don't want a
> man to penetrate their butthole, heterosexuals want women and there are no
> other choices. So besides being a cowardly little bitch Osprey, you are a
> cock-loving homosexual.
Aww, poor Boo is just a tad bit on the bitter and anger side.
Jimbo
> On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>
> > > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> > > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
> > > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
> > > morality and decency; not hatred.
>
> > And your proof of that is.......?
>
> > > To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
> > > to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
> > > not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
> > > assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>
> > Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>
> > Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
> Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. They choose NOT to
> be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them.
Your logic is rather strained. Choosing a lifestyle for your self
doesn not indicate that you are opposed to other lifestyles for
others.
Spartakus
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote...
> > Well, "J"?
> I oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> [ This comprehensive study and conclusions should be required reading for
> every student in all nations living in denial ]
>
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
John R. Diggs is a liar.
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-on-phony-expert-john-r.html
thomas p.
> On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>>
>>> Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
>>> for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
>>> 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
>>> morality and decency;
>
> The reasonable Judeo-Christian opponents of same-sex marriage [and
> that includes almost all the pastors, columists, etc. whose writings
> I've read on the subject) oppose it because it is one more (and very
> significant) step in the devaluation of marriage. The Judeo-Christian
> ideal is clearly laid out at the end of the second chapter of Genesis,
> and in the words of Jesus alluding to it.
And a secular state has no obligation to uphold your religious opinions.
>
> To paraphrase what Jesus said, the erosion of Christian support for
> this ideal began by reason of the hardness of people's hearts: the
> Protestant reformation brought with it an acceptance of divorce; in
> the 19th century some denominations allowed as to how premarital
> intercourse could be moral between engaged couples who had a long wait
> to get married; and then in the 1960's one denomination after another
> said extramarital intercourse was acceptable as long as the two
> seriously loved each other, even if there was no intention of ever
> getting married.
>
> These things were accepted by the general public (including many who
> believe themselves to be Christians) long before they became tolerated
> by the leaders of the various churches. All of them undermine the
> marriage bond in one way or another. And now with the radical change
> posed by same-sex marriage, already accepted by some denominations,
> the leaders of other denominations have decided to take a firm stand
> to prevent any further erosion of the meaning of marriage.
> not hatred.
It is more than a little arrogant for you to think the state has to uphold
your religious views. Whatever you may think marriage is it is also a
secular contract. People have no right to dictate to you how you wish to
look upon marriage, but you have no right to impose your purely religious
view on others.
>
>> Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>>
>> Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
> The author of "A Gay Manifesto" (the original one, not the bogus thing
> that is completely unrelated to it) did oppose it, saying things like
> "exclusively heterosexual sex is all fucked up," and I've never heard
> of any GLBT organization repudiating it.
Whatever he may or may not have said is hardly relevant to the point. The
point being that opening the civil institution of marriage to same-sex
couples does absolutely nothing to you or to your marriage.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
> > > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> > > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
> > > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
> > > morality and decency;
> The reasonable Judeo-Christian opponents of same-sex marriage [and
> that includes almost all the pastors, columists, etc. whose writings
> I've read on the subject)
We already have evidence that the person posting as "Peter Nyikos"
doesn't actually read the abortion newsgroups. It makes sense, then,
to note that he wouldn't dream of reading any positive writings about
same-sex marriage from pastors, columnists, etc.
> oppose it because it is one more (and very significant) step in the
> devaluation of marriage.
Ha ha! Many of the highest profile opponents of same-sex marriage
have had multiple marriages and divorces themselves. A bit of the pot
calling the kettle black - before the kettle is taken out of the
pantry and used!
> The Judeo-Christian ideal is clearly laid out at the end of the
> second chapter of Genesis, and in the words of Jesus alluding
> to it.
But why should secular law follow the Bible, or one interpretation of
it?
There's nothing in any same-sex marriage proposal that forces churches
to marry same-sex couples.
> To paraphrase what Jesus said, the erosion of Christian support for
> this ideal began by reason of the hardness of people's hearts: the
> Protestant reformation brought with it an acceptance of divorce; in
> the 19th century some denominations allowed as to how premarital
> intercourse could be moral between engaged couples who had a long
> wait to get married; and then in the 1960's one denomination after
> another said extramarital intercourse was acceptable as long as the
> two seriously loved each other, even if there was no intention of ever
> getting married.
I'm not aware of any denomination that has ever found adultery to be
acceptable.
> These things were accepted by the general public (including many who
> believe themselves to be Christians) long before they became tolerated
> by the leaders of the various churches. All of them undermine the
> marriage bond in one way or another. And now with the radical change
> posed by same-sex marriage, already accepted by some denominations,
> the leaders of other denominations have decided to take a firm stand
> to prevent any further erosion of the meaning of marriage.
> not hatred.
> > Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
> >
> > Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
> The author of "A Gay Manifesto" (the original one, not the bogus thing
> that is completely unrelated to it) did oppose it, saying things like
> "exclusively heterosexual sex is all fucked up," and I've never heard
> of any GLBT organization repudiating it.
So your expectation here is that members of the GLBT community should
deny/demur/repudiate/condemn every offensive/inflammatory/stupid/silly
thing ever said or done by any GLBT people. This is like when racists
like Rush Limbaugh or Mike Savage demand that African-Americans *must*
*publicly* deny/demur/repudiate/condemn every offensive/inflammatory/
stupid/silly thing ever said or done by any African-American (like
"Hymietown", "black power salutes", or whatever Kayne West did at that
awards show).
At the same time, most anti-same-sex-marriage folks like you almost
never deny/demur/repudiate/condemn every offensive/inflammatory/stupid/
silly thing ever said or done by other anti-same-sex-marriage folks.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> > > for gays,
> > You can check one out the next time you walk by a mirror.
> That's true if AND ONLY IF J has posted the kinds of bigotry that seem
> to come from his personal computer. LC and I have posted seemingly
> incontrovertible evidence of that, and J has never contested it.
>
> Spartakus, you've sneered at the "and I" part when I posted a similar
> statement before, but it's true: look up a post where I say, "Come on,
> LC, you can do better than that!" and I proceeded to post the
> strongest evidence I've ever found. LC has posted similarly strong
> evidence, but he often posts much weaker evidence, perhaps to bait J
> into a denial, because the really strong evidence never gets a
> response from J.
Oh do fuck off with your pointless yammering, whoever you are.
> > > the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and 'same-sex
> > > marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of morality and
> > > decency; not hatred. To oppose a lifestyle that leads one to an early
> > > death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is not the
> > > same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent assault.
> > > This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
> > Ha ha! Haven't been keeping up with the news, have you?
> >
> > Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act passes Congress, finally
> >
> > http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_13628360
> No bill is law until Obama signs it. But it's a done deal: Obama
> would never veto a bill like that, if past behavior is any indication.
So once again, you had no point, but just felt like actualizing your
inner yapper.
> > >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17470
> > > Bill on 'hate crimes' ignores hatred towards traditional marriage backers,
> > > Tony Perkins says
> Now you come forth with a typically raunchy put-down [...]
And you respond by clutching your pearls and collapsing on the
fainting couch.
LC
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2c7bec93-be6a-4a57...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
> > > for gays,
> > You can check one out the next time you walk by a mirror.
> That's true if AND ONLY IF J has posted the kinds of bigotry that seem to
> come from his personal computer.
"Seems to come"?
If you still need convincing that "J" is a complete and utter bigot (let
alone a complete nutter), you haven't been paying attention.
> LC and I have posted seemingly incontrovertible evidence of that, and J
> has never contested it.
He won't, because he can't.
Simple as that.
<snip>
Boo Radley
On Oct 26, 8:29 am, "Boo Radley" <Kill...@mockingbird.com> wrote:
> Osprey is a homosexual
>
>Hmm,
>Married, four kids, and always been in relationships with women.
>And now Boo comes in and starts lying.
I think you've done enough lying, you are not married and there is no way a
woman would have you and there is no way semen from you got inside a woman
unless your male prostitute spit it into her snatch.
>that is angry because none of them were interested in
> his pimple covered butt so he takes out his anger against his fellow
> homosexuals that are happy with life and would like to have equal rights.
> If
> Osprey can't have 14 guys spray their seed all over his face then no one
> should.-
>
>Sounds like Boo is just talking about himself and needs to vent his
>anger.
Sounds like someone knows that he proved to everyone that he is in fact a
homosexual because he talked about his "choice". Silly faggot, there is no
choice but to be who you are or to lie, you chose to lie and take out your
pain against your fellow homosexuals that happen to be brave enough to be
who they are. Cry like a bitch little man and be glad that you are too much
of a pussy bitch to step out from behind your computer screen shield.
Mitchell Holman
news:1112c57d-d019-47ae...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
Just answer the question.
>
>
>>
>> > I choose
>> > not to be in a homosexual relationship, I oppose that lifestyle.
>>
>> � � � Just because you oppose everything you do not
>> participate in doesn't mean others are equally bigotted.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Now, I could ask you why do you oppose peoples rights to have
>> > different opinions than yours.
>>
>> � � � �What are you talking about?
>>
>> > I also noticed in the thread about death threats to Obama and/or
>> > Bush. You asked what death threats to Bush, and I gave you a whole
>> > bunch of examples.
>>
>> > You suddenly got quiet.
>>
>> � � �That is because the matter ended when I proved that
>> Obama is getting 400% more death threats than Bush.
>
> Oh?
>
> That's not what you were saying, now you want to change the subject.
>
>>
>> � � �http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pas
> tor-
>> tells/comment-page-1/
>>
>> http://www.manolith.com/2009/10/14/president-obama-receives-400-more-.
>> .. threats-than-any-other-president/- Hide quoted text -
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:cf95ab60-8c65-4cf8-ac27-
> 7de4f60b3...@z29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
By whom? People claiming to be Christian, yet trampling on what
Christianity stood for?
Can you name even one denomination whose leaders made such
statements? The Roman Catholic Church never did, that's for sure.
>It was a pointless
> argument then, it is still pointless now.
>
> Can you show is any negative effect on "the institution
> of marriage" in those states where same sex marriage is now
> legal?
Too early to tell--but note, the New England states already have the
lowest birth rate in the country, on the average.
> >> Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
>
> >> Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>
> > The author of "A Gay Manifesto" (the original one, not the bogus thing
> > that is completely unrelated to it) did oppose it, saying things like
> > "exclusively heterosexual sex is all fucked up," and I've never heard
> > of any GLBT organization repudiating it.
>
> Name for us any gay rights organization which is
> lobbying to restrict the rights currently enjoyed by
> straight people.
To the extent that this hate crime bill restricts the right of
people's freedom of speech, and various other freedoms we have taken
for granted, it is an example of restriction of rights--never mind
whether we are talking straight or whatever. I have in mind
particularly future claims that this or that pastor's saying that
homosexual behavior is sin "inciting" someone to commit a hate crime.
> Mitchell Holman
>
> Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
> marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
Where can I look up the statistics on this?
Peter Nyikos
martin
The Chief Instigator
> On Oct 26, 8:08?am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:53494f82-b84e-4305-bbb7-
>> 1dd8d25a6...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>>
>> >> > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
>> >> > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
>> >> > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
>> >> > morality and decency; not hatred.
>>
>>
>> >> > To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
>> >> > to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
>> >> > not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
>> >> > assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>>
>>
>> >> ? ? ?Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
>>
>> > Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. ?They choose NOT to
>> > be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them.
>>
>> to limit ANY right reversed for heteros.
>
> You don't understand do you?
> This is going right over your head.
...which is pretty damned funny when it comes from a professional canker
sore of Usenet, like you.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, San Antonio 0 (October 25)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, October 27 vs. Hamilton, 3:05
The Chief Instigator
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CAFEC32E2788...@216.196.97.130...
>>
>>
>> Well, "J"?
>
> I oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
>
> [ This comprehensive study and conclusions should be required reading for
> every student in all nations living in denial ]
>
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
Let me know when you intend to have your foul mind surgically removed from
Pope Ratzy's ass, Junkie.
Spartakus
> > Name for us any gay rights organization which is
> > lobbying to restrict the rights currently enjoyed by
> > straight people.
> To the extent that this hate crime bill restricts the right
> of people's freedom of speech, and various other freedoms
> we have taken for granted, it is an example of restriction
> of rights--never mind whether we are talking straight or
> whatever.
The hate crimes bill does not restrict any speech that is protected by
the 1st Amendment. Unless you think that whatever a perpetrator says
while he is beating the shit out of a member of a class protected by
this hate crimes bill should be protected.
> I have in mind particularly future claims that this or that
> pastor's saying that homosexual behavior is sin "inciting"
> someone to commit a hate crime.
Some pastors say that gambling is a sin. Others say that dancing is a
sin. A few say that any sexual activity besides coitus (like oral
sex) is a sin. What's your point?
Mitchell Holman
9a0e3a...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:
If you had grown up in the South in the 1950's
you would have seen that it was it was "good Christians"
defending miscegination laws, complete with Bible passages.
> Can you name even one denomination whose leaders made such
> statements? The Roman Catholic Church never did, that's for sure.
>
"In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity
groups have claimed that several verses in the Bible, for example
the story of Phinehas and the so-called "curse of Ham", should
be understood as referring to miscegenation and that these verses
expressly forbid it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
What provision of this law are you referring to?
>> Mitchell Holman
>>
>> Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
>> marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
>
> Where can I look up the statistics on this?
CDC Report Shows Massachusetts has Lowest Divorce Rate
A recently released study of divorce in the United States
shows that same-sex marriage has not ruined the institution
of marriage in Massachusetts as some opponents had claimed
it would back in 2004 when the state began issuing same-sex
marriage licenses following the Supreme Court decision in
the case of Goodridge vs. the Department of Public Health.
Looking at the total number of divorces in Massachusetts reveals
that the state had the lowest divorce rate in the nation for the
year 2007 according to a recent study released by the Division
of Vital Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control. In 2007,
Massachusetts had a divorce rate of 2.3 per 1000 people and a
marriage rate of 5.9 per 1000. Early reports indicate the divorce
rate has continued to fall in 2008 as well, with just 2 divorces
per 1000 people indicated in initial accounts for the year.
In fact, all five states in the U.S. that allow legalized same-sex
marriage have low divorce rates. According to the CDC, Connecticut,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont all have an average divorce
rate that is nearly 20% lower than the average of the rest of the
country. The average divorce rate for the five same-sex marriage
states is just 3 per 1000 people. The average rate for all the
other states that reported data is nearly 4% (3.95%).
http://www.divorce.com/blog/cdc-report-shows-massachusetts-has-lowest-
divorce-rate
Mitchell Holman
news:slrnhec934....@eris.io.com:
And "Osprey" (Robert Heishman) has the gall
to accuse others of dodging issues and abandoning
notestreams......
The Chief Instigator
Judging from his output, his only concern is himself. At least he can't
exercise his "powers" outside of his postage-stamp state.
Dysperdis
> On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>>
>>> Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
>>> for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
>>> 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
>>> morality and decency; not hatred.
>>
>>> To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
>>> to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and isolation is
>>> not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of violent
>>> assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash bin of history.
>>
>
> be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them. I choose
> not to be in a homosexual relationship, I oppose that lifestyle.
>
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
op⋅pose [uh-pohz] -posed, -pos⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to act against or provide resistance to; combat.
2. to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct.
3. to set as an opponent or adversary.
4. to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion: to oppose a resolution in
a debate.
5. to set as an obstacle or hindrance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oppose
Hmm, I don't see "not participate in" as one of the meanings. How about you?
> Now, I could ask you why do you oppose peoples rights to have
> different opinions than yours.
You're free to hold whatever stupid, insane opinion you want. The
opposition comes when you try to use that stupid, insane opinion to
dictate the actions of other people.
--
Society, like water, needs to move and change to remain fresh. To keep
it from doing so is to allow it to become stagnant and malodorous. The
religious right would have us all living in a swamp to assuage their own
fears.
”The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you
shine on it, the more it will contract.” –Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 26, 8:08�am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:53494f82-b84e-4305-bbb7-
>> > be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose them.
>>
>> � � � Show us where gays have lobbied against or tried
>> to limit ANY right reversed for heteros.
>
>You don't understand do you?
We understand that you're a lying bigot.
>This is going right over your head.
No, Asshole, it isn't, and your bullshitting and bluster won't save
you. It never has.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>My e-mail box is still empty.
That's because you're an asshole and nobody likes you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 26, 12:12�am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:37vs5r....@news.alt.net:
>>
>> > Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a hatred
>> > for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo lifestyle and
>> > 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their opposition on grounds of
>> > morality and decency;
>
Fallacy: Assuming the conclusion.
>[and
>that includes almost all the pastors, columists, etc.
Even those like Phelps? Even the child molesters?
> whose writings
>I've read on the subject) oppose it because it is one more (and very
>significant) step in the devaluation of marriage.
Which is an absurd claim with absolutely no facts to back it up.
> The Judeo-Christian
Screw it. This country is not the reliugious dictatorship you long
for.
>To paraphrase what Jesus said,
Try reading the 1st Amendment.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mitchell Holman
news:mYsFm.76192$lR3....@newsfe25.iad:
Heishman's paranoia is so extreme that he thinks
all failure to agree with him is "opposition".
Osprey
My response has absolutely nothing to do with any organization from
either side lobbying against or tried to limit any right for anyone.
My response is about people opposing lifestyles because it's not a
normal lifestyle for them.
INCLUDING GAYS. Gays are going to oppose the heterosexual lifestyle
because it's not their lifestyle.
Learn the definition of oppose.
It doesn't always mean that someone is going to lobby against you or
try to reverse any rights or limit any rights.
Now, do you have any other whines or bitching to do?
I'm sure you do.
thomas p.
Not being something is not equivalent to opposing it. That is very obvious.
>
> INCLUDING GAYS. Gays are going to oppose the heterosexual lifestyle
> because it's not their lifestyle.
>
> Learn the definition of oppose.
Good idea. The most common definitions are to be hostile to something or to
set yourself against it.
>
> It doesn't always mean that someone is going to lobby against you or
> try to reverse any rights or limit any rights.
It does mean that one is against something. I do not care for bicycle
races. I am not against them. I do not oppose them. I merely choose to
not watch or participate in them, because I find them boring. In other
words I do not oppose them.
>
> Now, do you have any other whines or bitching to do?
>
> I'm sure you do.
And disagreeing with you is not equivalent to whining or bitching.
thomas p.
> Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> My e-mail box is still empty.
>
> That's because you're an asshole and nobody likes you.
And they oppose him.
Mitchell Holman
news:0983a0f4-4061-4136...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 26, 5:51�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:1112c57d-d019-47ae-b3d8-7a8026
> ee1...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
So if you are not married you are opposed to other
people getting married?
How bizarre.
Osprey
Some people are, not everyone.
Just because someone opposes something doesn't mean they will oppose
others from doing that same thing.
A homosexual opposes a heterosexual lifestyle, that doesn't mean he or
she opposes someone else from having a homosexual lifestyle.
Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an extreme of
stupidity. So I'll end it now. If you are a homosexual, who cares.
Do your thing, or what ever it is you do. Only you have to answer for
your own choices.
Jimbo
Again, the logic is strained. It term "opposed" only has relevance if
they are opposed to the lifestyle for other people. Otherwise, it's
just a matter of personal preference.
>
> INCLUDING GAYS. Gays are going to oppose the heterosexual lifestyle
> because it's not their lifestyle.
I know of no gay person that opposes the heterosexual lifestyle for
others who are heterosexual, or bisexual.
>
> Learn the definition of oppose.
You seem to be trying to apply it in an illogical manner.
>
> It doesn't always mean that someone is going to lobby against you or
> try to reverse any rights or limit any rights.
Then what is the point of their "opposition" ?
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because I perfer Chips Ahoy, I must be opposed to Oatmeal Cookies?!?
The logic gets rather strained.
Jimbo
You set your earlier definition up as an axiom. So, you're now saying
that many gay people are not opposed to the heterosexual lifestyle?
Jimbo
Again, having a preference for is not the same thing as being opposed
to.
Mitchell Holman
news:9cd7cb96-c732-4d04...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 27, 7:11�am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:0983a0f4-4061-4136-b90a-b32128
> cba...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
There is no logic to it, strained or otherwise.
Mitchell Holman
news:08a1e836-793b-4ac7...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 27, 7:11�am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:0983a0f4-4061-4136-b90a-b32128
> cba...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
So they oppose it except for when they don't oppose it?
You are making less sense than usual.
> A homosexual opposes a heterosexual lifestyle,
What homosexual opposes heterosexual lifestyles?
All the ones I know are happy for others in good
relationships, regardless of orientation.
> that doesn't mean he or
> she opposes someone else from having a homosexual lifestyle.
>
> Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an extreme of
> stupidity.
This is YOUR position, not mine.
> So I'll end it now.
That's rich, coming from someone who regularly
blasts others for "running away" from arguments.
> If you are a homosexual, who cares.
> Do your thing, or what ever it is you do. Only you have to answer for
> your own choices.
"Answer" - to whom?
thomas p.
I see; just because someone is against something, doesn't mean they are
against it. Fascinating.
>
> Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an extreme of
> stupidity. So I'll end it now. If you are a homosexual, who cares.
> Do your thing, or what ever it is you do. Only you have to answer for
> your own choices.
And you are not opposed to it, just because you are opposed to it. Thank
you for explaining it.
thomas p.
Actually he is not saying anything at all. He is babbling.
martin
> Jimbo wrote:
>> You set your earlier definition up as an axiom. So, you're now saying
>> that many gay people are not opposed to the heterosexual lifestyle?
>
> Actually he is not saying anything at all. He is babbling.
More so than usual. He actually sounds like he's posting drunk. But that
would one hell of a binge.
>
>
Osprey
No, that's not what I am saying. I am saing that many will not oppose
others from having that lifestyle.
They oppose the lifestyle for themselves.
IAAH
Homosexuals aren't *allowed* to "do their own
thing", because people like you like laws that
make it impossible to do so.
martin
> Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an extreme of
> stupidity. So I'll end it now. If you are a homosexual, who cares.
> Do your thing, or what ever it is you do.
I take it from that you have no objections to gays getting married them?
Osprey
Of course they are. Who is going to stop them. Hell, even you..if you
want to hump a tree..hump a tree. I don't care. Just leave the trees
in my backyard alone. Enjoy yourself, enjoy life.
Osprey
I'm a happily married man. I will have to answer to God for my
decisions, not yours.
Do I agree that it's right in the eyes of God? No, I do not. But then
again, I am not God and you will not be facing me on your judgement
day.
That probably doesn't satisfy your question, but then again in these
newsgroups I haven't seen many people satisfied with any answer
without trying to twist things, draw it out, or make up allegations.
So be it, life will go on.
IAAH
Bipolar Bob, YOU support the laws that ensure that
homosexuals can't receive equal treatment.
I have no doubt that the thought of that enhances
your enjoyment, because your bigotry constantly
requires validation.
IAAH
Martin, he means that yes, he does object to SSM,
and he's in favour of the laws against it.
Osprey
Adam,
You have a strong desire for oppossition and disagreement. People
change through the course of their life, their opinions change too.
You're just looking for one of your silly little arguments because you
are so unhappy and disgruntled. I'm not going to give you the
satisfaction.
I don't care what homosexuals do, period. If you want to have gay
sex, go ahead. You only have to answer for your own choices, I have
to answer for mine.
Like I said, you want to hump a tree..I've got a big woods behind me.
You can hump away. Just leave the trees in my yard alone.
Osprey
Once again, the liberal shows that he or she is more interested in
putting words in peoples mouths and answering for others. A liberal
can't let a person be free to say what he or she wants.
If the laws change and support SSM, I will honor our laws. As Jesus
Christ even said, we must obey the laws of the land, and I intend to
do that.
Do I think that a homosexual couple could be married in the eyes of
God? No, I don't. A piece of paper isn't going to change that and
I'm not going to let a piece of paper dictated to me how I personally
feel.
As I said before, I am not God though. If God honors their marriage,
GREAT. If God doesn't, that is not for me to decide.
Are there any other words you would like to put in my mouth before you
leave?
IAAH
> On Oct 27, 1:15 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> On 10/27/09 1:13 PM, * Osprey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 27, 11:35 am, martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Osprey wrote:
>>>>> Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an extreme of
>>>>> stupidity. So I'll end it now. If you are a homosexual, who cares.
>>>>> Do your thing, or what ever it is you do.
>>>> I take it from that you have no objections to gays getting married them?
>>> I'm a happily married man. I will have to answer to God for my
>>> decisions, not yours.
>>> Do I agree that it's right in the eyes of God? No, I do not. But then
>>> again, I am not God and you will not be facing me on your judgement
>>> day.
>>> That probably doesn't satisfy your question, but then again in these
>>> newsgroups I haven't seen many people satisfied with any answer
>>> without trying to twist things, draw it out, or make up allegations.
>>> So be it, life will go on.
>> Martin, he means that yes, he does object to SSM,
>> and he's in favour of the laws against it.
>
> Once again, the liberal shows that he or she is more interested in
> putting words in peoples mouths and answering for others. A liberal
> can't let a person be free to say what he or she wants.
Is that some kind of claim that you *don't* oppose
SSM?
Let's face it, if you are making that claim,
you're lying.
>
> If the laws change and support SSM, I will honor our laws. As Jesus
> Christ even said, we must obey the laws of the land, and I intend to
> do that.
>
> Do I think that a homosexual couple could be married in the eyes of
> God? No, I don't. A piece of paper isn't going to change that and
> I'm not going to let a piece of paper dictated to me how I personally
> feel.
> As I said before, I am not God though. If God honors their marriage,
> GREAT. If God doesn't, that is not for me to decide.
>
> Are there any other words you would like to put in my mouth before you
> leave?
Damn, you really have trouble staying on track,
don't you?
"God" has nothing to do with this. He/She/It isn't
invited. Keep your red herrings and your fictional
sky-fairies at home.
IAAH
There's no Adam here, Bipolar Bob. Only another
ill-fated attempt of yours to obfuscate your bigotry.
>
> You have a strong desire for oppossition and disagreement. People
> change through the course of their life, their opinions change too.
> You're just looking for one of your silly little arguments because you
> are so unhappy and disgruntled. I'm not going to give you the
> satisfaction.
There is no "argument" to have, Bipolar Bob. You
DO support laws that deny gay couples equality.
For some reason you also keep trying to bring god
into it, as if that's relevant. Just guessing, but
the reason you have to do so is then you'll whine
about "religious oppression" when you get called
on your bigotry.
>
> I don't care what homosexuals do, period. If you want to have gay
> sex, go ahead. You only have to answer for your own choices, I have
> to answer for mine.
> Like I said, you want to hump a tree..I've got a big woods behind me.
> You can hump away. Just leave the trees in my yard alone.
>
You seem to have gay sex and tree humping on the
brain, but that's not what this thread is about.
Stop projecting.
Osprey
I have no doubt that you will make that claim. Who cares? I have my
opinions and you have yours.
>
>
>
> > If the laws change and support SSM, I will honor our laws. As Jesus
> > Christ even said, we must obey the laws of the land, and I intend to
> > do that.
>
> > Do I think that a homosexual couple could be married in the eyes of
> > God? No, I don't. A piece of paper isn't going to change that and
> > I'm not going to let a piece of paper dictated to me how I personally
> > feel.
> > As I said before, I am not God though. If God honors their marriage,
> > GREAT. If God doesn't, that is not for me to decide.
>
> > Are there any other words you would like to put in my mouth before you
> > leave?
>
> Damn, you really have trouble staying on track,
> don't you?
It's not my problem if you have personal issues and can't deal with
other opinions.
>
> "God" has nothing to do with this.
That's your opinion.
He/She/It isn't
> invited. Keep your red herrings and your fictional
> sky-fairies at home.
Ah, and here we see the hypocricy.
On one hand if a person says they should keep their homosexual
behavior in their own bedroom and out of the public eye, they are
called bigots and hateful.
On the other hand, we see IAAH (Adam) telling people to keep their
beliefs in God "at home".
Ironic isn't it? Adam can call someone a bigot on one hand but on the
other hand can't recognize his own bigotry.
What a shame.
Osprey
If you say so Adam.
>Bipolar Bob.
There's no Bipolar Bob here.
Only another
> ill-fated attempt of yours to obfuscate your bigotry.
Hmm, really? Weren't you just telling me to keep my beliefs in God to
myself and keep them at home?
That isn't bigotry? You're not trying to dictate to me when, where,
and how I can talk about my beliefs in God?
>
>
>
> > You have a strong desire for oppossition and disagreement. People
> > change through the course of their life, their opinions change too.
> > You're just looking for one of your silly little arguments because you
> > are so unhappy and disgruntled. I'm not going to give you the
> > satisfaction.
>
> There is no "argument" to have, Bipolar Bob. You
> DO support laws that deny gay couples equality.
You are entirely free to think what ever you want Adam.
>
> For some reason you also keep trying to bring god
> into it, as if that's relevant. Just guessing, but
> the reason you have to do so is then you'll whine
> about "religious oppression" when you get called
> on your bigotry.
"yawn"
>
>
>
> > I don't care what homosexuals do, period. If you want to have gay
> > sex, go ahead. You only have to answer for your own choices, I have
> > to answer for mine.
> > Like I said, you want to hump a tree..I've got a big woods behind me.
> > You can hump away. Just leave the trees in my yard alone.
>
> You seem to have gay sex and tree humping on the
> brain, but that's not what this thread is about.
> Stop projecting.
Go suck some guys penis, I don't care. If that's what you need for
satisfaction, so what? I'm not telling you not to.
Or if you want him to stick his penis in your anus, go for it. Again,
I don't care. If that is what gets you satisfaction, only you have to
deal with it. You're just not going to be sucking any guys penis or
having any guy stick his penis in your anus in my back yard. That's
all. Do what you got to do Adam, I really don't care.
IAAH
Oh, there really is.
>
> Only another
>> ill-fated attempt of yours to obfuscate your bigotry.
>
> Hmm, really? Weren't you just telling me to keep my beliefs in God to
> myself and keep them at home?
>
> That isn't bigotry? You're not trying to dictate to me when, where,
> and how I can talk about my beliefs in God?
Are you ceding that sort of control to me now? How
exciting.
What laws am I now supporting that would affect
your religious beliefs and practices?
Ho-lee, you are *obsessed*. I think Bipolar Bob
wants some strange.
IAAH
You are *very* eager to avoid that topic, aren't you?
>
>
>>
>>
>>> If the laws change and support SSM, I will honor our laws. As Jesus
>>> Christ even said, we must obey the laws of the land, and I intend to
>>> do that.
>>> Do I think that a homosexual couple could be married in the eyes of
>>> God? No, I don't. A piece of paper isn't going to change that and
>>> I'm not going to let a piece of paper dictated to me how I personally
>>> feel.
>>> As I said before, I am not God though. If God honors their marriage,
>>> GREAT. If God doesn't, that is not for me to decide.
>>> Are there any other words you would like to put in my mouth before you
>>> leave?
>> Damn, you really have trouble staying on track,
>> don't you?
>
> It's not my problem if you have personal issues and can't deal with
> other opinions.
>
>> "God" has nothing to do with this.
>
> That's your opinion.
Actually, it's a fact. The topic under discussion
is civil marriages for same-sex couples.
>
> He/She/It isn't
>> invited. Keep your red herrings and your fictional
>> sky-fairies at home.
>
> Ah, and here we see the hypocricy.
> On one hand if a person says they should keep their homosexual
> behavior in their own bedroom and out of the public eye, they are
> called bigots and hateful.
This thread is about denying same-sex couples
equal rights, Bipolar Bob.
>
> On the other hand, we see IAAH (Adam) telling people to keep their
> beliefs in God "at home".
Instead of trying to inject your sky-fairy beliefs
into laws that take rights away, yes.
>
> Ironic isn't it? Adam can call someone a bigot on one hand but on the
> other hand can't recognize his own bigotry.
>
> What a shame.
Can you demonstrate at any point where I supported
laws that would affect your equality?
elizabeth
Oh my, he's getting even dumber. Didn't think that was possible.
> They oppose the lifestyle for themselves.- Hide quoted text -
Uh, no, Oopsey, they don't oppose the het lifestyle for themselves,
they just don't do it. i know a lot of gays who don't oppose
straights, and many who have tried to be straight and tried het
marriage.
Osprey
Only in your fantasies and imagination.
>
>
>
> > Only another
> >> ill-fated attempt of yours to obfuscate your bigotry.
>
> > Hmm, really? Weren't you just telling me to keep my beliefs in God to
> > myself and keep them at home?
>
> > That isn't bigotry? You're not trying to dictate to me when, where,
> > and how I can talk about my beliefs in God?
>
> Are you ceding that sort of control to me now? How
> exciting.
> What laws am I now supporting that would affect
> your religious beliefs and practices?
Did you not tell me to keep my beliefs in God at home?
> wants some strange.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Osprey
No, I'm just satisfied and comfortable with my opinions. You are the
one who has the hang up.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> If the laws change and support SSM, I will honor our laws. As Jesus
> >>> Christ even said, we must obey the laws of the land, and I intend to
> >>> do that.
> >>> Do I think that a homosexual couple could be married in the eyes of
> >>> God? No, I don't. A piece of paper isn't going to change that and
> >>> I'm not going to let a piece of paper dictated to me how I personally
> >>> feel.
> >>> As I said before, I am not God though. If God honors their marriage,
> >>> GREAT. If God doesn't, that is not for me to decide.
> >>> Are there any other words you would like to put in my mouth before you
> >>> leave?
> >> Damn, you really have trouble staying on track,
> >> don't you?
>
> > It's not my problem if you have personal issues and can't deal with
> > other opinions.
>
> >> "God" has nothing to do with this.
>
> > That's your opinion.
>
> Actually, it's a fact.
No, it's your opinion.
The topic under discussion
> is civil marriages for same-sex couples.
>
>
>
> > He/She/It isn't
> >> invited. Keep your red herrings and your fictional
> >> sky-fairies at home.
>
> > Ah, and here we see the hypocricy.
> > On one hand if a person says they should keep their homosexual
> > behavior in their own bedroom and out of the public eye, they are
> > called bigots and hateful.
>
> This thread is about denying same-sex couples
> equal rights, Bipolar Bob.
I'm not denying anyone anything.
>
>
>
> > On the other hand, we see IAAH (Adam) telling people to keep their
> > beliefs in God "at home".
>
> Instead of trying to inject your sky-fairy beliefs
> into laws that take rights away, yes.
Well news flash. You're not going to stop me.
>
>
>
> > Ironic isn't it? Adam can call someone a bigot on one hand but on the
> > other hand can't recognize his own bigotry.
>
> > What a shame.
>
> Can you demonstrate at any point where I supported
> laws that would affect your equality?
Ask me tomorrow if I care.
IAAH
What LAWS, Bipolar Bob?
What position am I taking that is equivalent to
your support of laws that deny equality to gay
couples?
(This is really just your attempt at a shitey
religious persecution argument, isn't it?)
IAAH
It's nice to see you admit that you're "satisfied"
with being a bigot.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> If the laws change and support SSM, I will honor our laws. As Jesus
>>>>> Christ even said, we must obey the laws of the land, and I intend to
>>>>> do that.
>>>>> Do I think that a homosexual couple could be married in the eyes of
>>>>> God? No, I don't. A piece of paper isn't going to change that and
>>>>> I'm not going to let a piece of paper dictated to me how I personally
>>>>> feel.
>>>>> As I said before, I am not God though. If God honors their marriage,
>>>>> GREAT. If God doesn't, that is not for me to decide.
>>>>> Are there any other words you would like to put in my mouth before you
>>>>> leave?
>>>> Damn, you really have trouble staying on track,
>>>> don't you?
>>> It's not my problem if you have personal issues and can't deal with
>>> other opinions.
>>>> "God" has nothing to do with this.
>>> That's your opinion.
>> Actually, it's a fact.
>
> No, it's your opinion.
>
> The topic under discussion
>> is civil marriages for same-sex couples.
THAT'S why it's a fact.
>>
>>
>>
>>> He/She/It isn't
>>>> invited. Keep your red herrings and your fictional
>>>> sky-fairies at home.
>>> Ah, and here we see the hypocricy.
>>> On one hand if a person says they should keep their homosexual
>>> behavior in their own bedroom and out of the public eye, they are
>>> called bigots and hateful.
>> This thread is about denying same-sex couples
>> equal rights, Bipolar Bob.
>
> I'm not denying anyone anything.
You support laws that explicitly and purposely
deny equal rights.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, we see IAAH (Adam) telling people to keep their
>>> beliefs in God "at home".
>> Instead of trying to inject your sky-fairy beliefs
>> into laws that take rights away, yes.
>
> Well news flash. You're not going to stop me.
You already admitted your bigotry, you know. We
don't need to see such a nauseating thing twice.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Ironic isn't it? Adam can call someone a bigot on one hand but on the
>>> other hand can't recognize his own bigotry.
>>> What a shame.
>> Can you demonstrate at any point where I supported
>> laws that would affect your equality?
>
> Ask me tomorrow if I care.
That would be a "no". I see that my guess at your
reasons was completely correct.
Osprey
What are you screaming about now Adam?
Did you not tell me to keep my beliefs in God at home?
>
> What position am I taking that is equivalent to
> your support of laws that deny equality to gay
> couples?
I don't care about the laws for gay couples Adam. If the states pass
laws for SSM, fine. Who cares?
I don't.
Osprey
Ah, now the next lie in Adam's book.
Did you not tell me to keep my beliefs in God at home?
Are you satisfied with being a bigot?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> If the laws change and support SSM, I will honor our laws. As Jesus
> >>>>> Christ even said, we must obey the laws of the land, and I intend to
> >>>>> do that.
> >>>>> Do I think that a homosexual couple could be married in the eyes of
> >>>>> God? No, I don't. A piece of paper isn't going to change that and
> >>>>> I'm not going to let a piece of paper dictated to me how I personally
> >>>>> feel.
> >>>>> As I said before, I am not God though. If God honors their marriage,
> >>>>> GREAT. If God doesn't, that is not for me to decide.
> >>>>> Are there any other words you would like to put in my mouth before you
> >>>>> leave?
> >>>> Damn, you really have trouble staying on track,
> >>>> don't you?
> >>> It's not my problem if you have personal issues and can't deal with
> >>> other opinions.
> >>>> "God" has nothing to do with this.
> >>> That's your opinion.
> >> Actually, it's a fact.
>
> > No, it's your opinion.
>
> > The topic under discussion
> >> is civil marriages for same-sex couples.
>
> THAT'S why it's a fact.
Nope, it's an opinion.
>
>
>
> >>> He/She/It isn't
> >>>> invited. Keep your red herrings and your fictional
> >>>> sky-fairies at home.
> >>> Ah, and here we see the hypocricy.
> >>> On one hand if a person says they should keep their homosexual
> >>> behavior in their own bedroom and out of the public eye, they are
> >>> called bigots and hateful.
> >> This thread is about denying same-sex couples
> >> equal rights, Bipolar Bob.
>
> > I'm not denying anyone anything.
>
> You support laws that explicitly and purposely
> deny equal rights.
I might have at one time, but that doesn't mean I changed my position.
I don't care if they change the laws Adam. I'm satisfied with my own
life.
It's a shame you can't be satisfied with yours. I have no objection
to them passing the laws to support SSM.
It's not an issue for me.
>
>
>
> >>> On the other hand, we see IAAH (Adam) telling people to keep their
> >>> beliefs in God "at home".
> >> Instead of trying to inject your sky-fairy beliefs
> >> into laws that take rights away, yes.
>
> > Well news flash. You're not going to stop me.
>
> You already admitted your bigotry, you know.
Oh? And were do you see that?
A quote? Message ID?
>
>
>
> >>> Ironic isn't it? Adam can call someone a bigot on one hand but on the
> >>> other hand can't recognize his own bigotry.
> >>> What a shame.
> >> Can you demonstrate at any point where I supported
> >> laws that would affect your equality?
>
> > Ask me tomorrow if I care.
>
> That would be a "no".
That I don't care. Yes, you're right...I don't.
Ray Fischer
IAAH
Okay, so it was just a cheap attempt to invoke an
"Oh, I'm so persecuted because I say I'm
Christian" whine.
Osprey
Osprey
How many times have you dodge that question?
IAAH
Nope. I didn't say that.
Jimbo
> On Oct 27, 8:35 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > that many gay people are not opposed to the heterosexual lifestyle?-
>
> No, that's not what I am saying. I am saing that many will not oppose
> others from having that lifestyle.
>
You're making a pointless point.
Jimbo
Numerous laws.
Osprey
From: IAAH <n...@email.exist>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:28:31 -0400
Message-ID: <hc7ajv$qdj$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
"God" has nothing to do with this. He/She/It isn't
Osprey
O.k.
martin
It was a very simple question. I'd have thought "yes I have no
objections" or "no, I have objections" would have fitted the response.
Not a none answer of evasion.
I think you're right
thomas p.
Have you changed your mind about the meaning of "oppose"?
snip
IAAH
Hmmm. Where's "belief" mentioned there, Bipolar Bob?
If you can't show it, don't answer it. Let's keep
your Usenet pollution to a local minimum.
Osprey
> IAAH wrote:
> > On 10/27/09 1:13 PM, * Osprey wrote:
> >> On Oct 27, 11:35 am, martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Osprey wrote:
> >>>> Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an extreme of
> >>>> stupidity. So I'll end it now. If you are a homosexual, who cares.
> >>>> Do your thing, or what ever it is you do.
> >>> I take it from that you have no objections to gays getting married them?
>
> >> I'm a happily married man. I will have to answer to God for my
> >> decisions, not yours.
> >> Do I agree that it's right in the eyes of God? No, I do not. But then
> >> again, I am not God and you will not be facing me on your judgement
> >> day.
>
> >> That probably doesn't satisfy your question, but then again in these
> >> newsgroups I haven't seen many people satisfied with any answer
> >> without trying to twist things, draw it out, or make up allegations.
>
> >> So be it, life will go on.
>
> > Martin, he means that yes, he does object to SSM, and he's in favour of
> > the laws against it.
>
> It was a very simple question.
And I answered your question
Osprey
Ah, you're going to play that game. O.k., no problem.
Where did I say I would reward companies who provide assistance to
rapist?
If you can't show it, don't answr it. Let's keep your Usenet pollution
to a local minimum.
IAAH
Awww, look. Bipolar Bob wants to be like the big boys.
IAAH
(The reason I didn't answer that is that it's not
a claim I made).
Osprey
Alright then, then lets go with your exact quote.
From: IAAH <n...@email.exist>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion,talk.politics.misc,soc.women
Subject: Re: Here are the 30 Republican Senators, 3/4 of Their
Representation,
Who Voted to Enable Rape
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:06:11 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <hbi9ql$rci$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
(take a note: Osprey, aka Bipolar Bob, believes in
REWARDING companies that try to remove from rape
victims the right to take that crime to court with
more government contracts, instead of refusing to
hire them until company policy changes).
Now, can you show where I ever said I believe in rewarding companies
that try to remove from rape victims the right to take that crime to
court with more government contracts, instead of refusing to hire them
until company policy changes?
IAAH
You claimed that not hiring such companies as
government policy was 'punishing' them, did you
not? You opposed the Franken Amendment.
The reward for a successful bid is the contract,
and you certainly believe in hiring companies that
require mandatory arbitration.
Proved. QED. You're done like dinner.
Next up: BB lies about it.