Gays Can Marry, But UnApproved Churches BEWARE!
Trace
when the gays finally get all that they want, a group of homosexuals
will be able to marry.
BUT
In Texas, child molesters who are organized under the name of
N.A.M.B.L.A. have state approval, but if you're white, and
heterosexual, and you are a member of an unapproved church, LOOK
OUT!
The state of Texas will park tanks near your home, and take your kids
away even on the basis of a single prank phone call! And, you cannot
question the power of the state in Texas. It is God Almighty per our
legislature and state thug bureaucrats.
Beware the CPS: Chile Parent Separation
Jerk Y. Chainey
> In California, at least two homosexuals can marry now. In the future,
> when the gays finally get all that they want, a group of homosexuals
> will be able to marry.
>
Your deepest wishes revealed.
Roedy Green
<trace...@yahoo.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>In Texas, child molesters who are organized under the name of
>N.A.M.B.L.A. have state approval, but if you're white, and
>heterosexual, and you are a member of an unapproved church, LOOK
>OUT!
there is no political will for that to happen.
That is a "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/slipperyslope.html
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Trace
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Trace
> said :
>
> >In Texas, child molesters who are organized under the name of
> >N.A.M.B.L.A. have state approval, but if you're white, and
> >heterosexual, and you are a member of an unapproved church, LOOK
> >OUT!
>
> there is no political will for that to happen.
>
> That is a "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
>
Really? Based upon what? Gays are saying that they want to be able to
marry each other in every state in the Union.
Why do they claim they have the same right to marry as heterosexuals?
Answer: Because they, and many others on the left believe homosexuals
are born gay, and thus because of their inborn desire for the same
sex, they have no control over their sexuality and as such, have the
same fixation for sexuality as do heterosexuals, but for the same
gender.
Based upon the above reasoning, any person or group can step forward
and say that they were born such and such way with such and such
sexual orientation, and as such, they have a right too to be
married.
That is the only basis for same sex marriage: a mutual attraction for
each other that they claim they were born with.
If you were born with a desire for sheep, you can thus marry your
sheep. If you believe that you were born with a desire for multiple
mates, and you claim that Mormons do it, and Old Testament Jews did
it, and you have the same desire as they, but for the same gender, you
too have a valid point.
If you were born with a strong attraction to chihuahuas and you want
to marry a small herd of them, who can say you're wrong if we are
basing marriage not on the biblical example, but upon inborn desire,
your desires for your chihuahua herd are no better or worse than those
of homosexuals who want to marry their boyfriend(s), or girlfriend(s).
Zomby...@cox.net
Hmm, the Chihuahua Alliance -- has a nice ring to it.
All-in-all it isn't a "right" that they are after, but the
legitimization. They have a great desire to be mainstreamed, while
not desiring to swim in the same stream. The ultimate push will come
when simple tolerance is not enough and legislative acceptance is
pushed on the entire society via "Protected Class" status. Just sit
back & wait, it isn't an issue of "marriage", any two people can
declare themselves married -- there is no upside (even though Gays
claim there is) to being married as it is simply a mindset.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli
Support our troups, O5 and below. SeaWoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
The proposed human mate, or sheep, or mouse must convince the legal
authorities that they desire the weddings take place.
It looks like that leaves just humans availabe to marry another
human.
Laws prevent more that one wedded mate.
Over the years I've been trying to figure out if you are playing some
sort of silly game or a real nut. It certain that you did not get a
good grade in Logic or Debating.
Support our troups, O5 and below. SeaWoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess that "married" has more than one definition.
As for me, I don't care what relationship exists between people, just
as long as no one of them is hurt.
Trace
As you admit, you have been reading my posts for years. Why? If I am
a "nut", why would you spend that much time reading the words of a
nut? Do you read other nuts and have you done so for years? I am not
a nut, however, I am a thorn in the side of a number of nuts on the
left. And that brings a smile to my face when I think it.
The biblical standard for marriage has been our national standard
since day 1. Now, we are told that because gays are born with a
certain attraction for each other, we must disavow that biblical
standard which God created, and adopt the Gay Standard which Gays have
created.
I don't think so. I don't think that homosexuals have the power to
change what God has established, and created. I don't think we have
to listen to the broken wristed crowd of funny boys. No, I think we
must stop the societal decay in its tracks by finally not pandering to
the homosexual lobby. In Texas, we have some man-haters in the CPS
office. They are clipped haired, bra burning, mean faced radicals and
of course, they are gay. Ask the 1200 people at the Mormon church
where nearly 500 kids were confiscated by these thugs which was, by
the way, the largest Kid Grab in US history! Yes, ask the affected
Mormons what they think about lesbianism and how so many lesbos hate
men. No, we do not have to do as we are told by sweet boys and
lesbians. They are the "Queers". We are the normal people. Normal
people know that marriage is between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
The Heretic
After reading this moronic post I presume that you claim to have been
born with an attraction for
the opposite sex and can not help yourself..so from there, where do we
go next. Having sex with children of the opposite sex? or having sex
with your dog, as long as it is the opposite sex?
Please tell me. This is your kind of logic.
Billzz
"The Heretic" <michae...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:51e7af26-3a74-4a66...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Just passing by with a note. I have both Tracey and Roedy in the kill file
and have had them there for years, simply because neither one displays
logic, as it is known in the western world. Save your sanity. I am posting
from alt.military.retired which neither of them seem to be. They just like
to cross-post all over USENet.
Trace
Once you step away from the biblical definition of marriage which is
what society has always accepted, you can define marriage any way you
want because the standard is wide open at that point.
If we are going to allow gays to get married, why not any other group
that says just like homosexuals, we are born with a certain desire,
therefore it is a natural desire?
Zomby...@cox.net
below. SeaWoe" <mid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<Snip>
>>
>> Hmm, the Chihuahua Alliance -- has a nice ring to it.
>>
>> All-in-all it isn't a "right" that they are after, but the
>> legitimization. They have a great desire to be mainstreamed, while
>> not desiring to swim in the same stream. The ultimate push will come
>> when simple tolerance is not enough and legislative acceptance is
>> pushed on the entire society via "Protected Class" status. Just sit
>> back & wait, it isn't an issue of "marriage", any two people can
>> declare themselves married -- there is no upside (even though Gays
>> claim there is) to being married as it is simply a mindset.
>> --
>> "Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I guess that "married" has more than one definition.
>As for me, I don't care what relationship exists between people, just
>as long as no one of them is hurt.
>
Personally I don't care either, although the textbook definition of
marriage is: the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the
decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife. However,
there is also the business context of -- a formal agreement between
two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc.,
for mutual benefit; merger, which I guess is the definition under
which "Gay Marriage would fit as the first one just won't work.
Personally I'm all for the infamous "Pursuit of Happiness", but do not
see this entire issue to be of significant enough importance to rise
to the level of national attention & debate that it has. If two
people want to live together in a mutual caring relationship, go for
it & be happy. However, if it rocks the current societal boat, don't
be surprised when not everyone wants to sanction it.
To me the entire issue isn't about two people living together in a
mutual caring & respectful manner, but about money. It is always
about money. For some reason many Gays think their is a Financial
upside to being Married, there isn't. They also think that they will
obtain certain legal benefits such as the right to inherit without a
Will or other legal documents, well that ain't true either.
So, if most of their false arguments can be shot-down, what exactly is
the issue? The issue is a desire to have what many people consider to
be an abnormal sexual desire legitimized via legislation. Our country
is already screwed up enough, and our kids even more so, without
adding the confusion of Timmy has two Mommy's or Daddy's.
If Gay's truly want to be mainstreamed into the "average" concept of
what normal is they need to give up many of their more flamboyant
stereotypical behaviors, disassociate themselves from certain fringe
elements such as NAMBLA, and simply accept the fact that they have
chosen life's dirt road (no pun intended) on which to travel. If one
wants to be considered part of regular "normal" society, one needs to
assimilate, not differentiate. To me, many of the so-called "Flaming"
Gays are simply putting on an act and do more harm to their overall
cause then those who simply have a desire to live in a union of a
mutual nurturing manner. When you stick out, society has a way of
harming you back down again.
Zomby...@cox.net
<trace...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Once you step away from the biblical definition of marriage which is
>what society has always accepted, you can define marriage any way you
>want because the standard is wide open at that point.
>
There isn't just the "biblical" definition of marriage, there is also
the current legal one. Remember not everyone who gets married
believes in the Bible nor desires a "Religious" Ceremony. There is
also a real good reason that Marriage is considered to be part of
contractual law. It is at its core a "contract" between two people.
Of course there is also the definition of -- a formal agreement
between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources,
etc., for mutual benefit; merger, which to me can/could also be two
people.
>
>If we are going to allow gays to get married, why not any other group
>that says just like homosexuals, we are born with a certain desire,
>therefore it is a natural desire?
>
Most, if not all of the hub-bub over "Gay" Marriage isn't from a point
of desire, it is from a financial one. Although many of the stated
reasons that Gays make for the financial reasons are false. Any Gay
couple who desire to protect the joint assets of a Union can do so via
legal documents. Nowadays even more & more companies are extending
benefits such as Health Insurance & Life Insurance to their "Gay
Couple" employees.
Once you cut to the ultimate chase, the issue is to be accepted as
"Normal" that which is not. While their desires & attractions "may"
be natural to them, it is not to society & mankind as a whole. Perhaps
Homosexuality is simply natures way of saying this particular organism
should not breed & pass on its genes into the general gene pool at
large. Natures way of culling the herd of certain members.
Right now today the large majority of the American public has a
tolerance for Gay's and are willing to accept that they are a
naturally occurring characteristic such as eye-color. However,
society as a whole also still realizes that Homosexuality is not a
good thing for a society to practice/accept as it will move the
boundaries of acceptable behaviors until the entire society
degenerates into its own morass of perversions. Look at what happened
to Rome as it became more & more tolerant/accepting of deviations from
the rules of its society. It rotted from within.
Trace
One of the funny things about liberals is that they love laws that
allow their perversions, i.e. homosexual marriage, but they hate
churches and religion, and so they don't mind telling you that you
can't have more than one wife though all involved are adults, yet they
advocate queer marriages. Funny.
Falstaff
No, the REAL funny thing is rightwing preachers like Haggarty and
Swaggart who preach "family values" in between their homosexual
liasons and whoremongering.
Why are you guys such hypocrites?
Hertz Donut
"Trace" <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80c89661-7d67-4481...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
So you are petitioning to marry the sheep you've been living with?
>
> If we are going to allow gays to get married, why not any other group
> that says just like homosexuals, we are born with a certain desire,
> therefore it is a natural desire?
Then there may be hope that you will find a spouse...there may be an animal
that is blind, can't smell your stink, and will accept your ignorance.
Honu
Trace
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean like Billy Bob Clinton and his attempt to lead the country
while commiting adultery, telling bald face lies about it to the
American public, embarrassing the country after admitting he lied, and
then getting impeached? Is this the kind of travesty you're referring
to? Yes, I do understand.
David Moffitt
%%%% ROTFLMAO!
"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't fuck her here!!" (From Inside The
White House by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 - Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she
spotted him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political
rally).
Trace
wrote:
> "Trace" <tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Hillary knew about his girlfriends, but she had power on her mind,
and wanted to win the White House at all costs, but she lost, and he
got impeached. How sad.
Two big losers in the end.
Falstaff
You mean the lies that started the Iraq quagmire, the lies about
his arrest record, the lies about WMD's found in Iraq, the nominations
of manifestly incompetent people like Harriet Miers and John Bolton
and "Brownie", his hatred for the "goddam piece of paper"
Constitution, and his rank as the most unpopular president in US
history? Boy are you naive.