D.C. Gay Marriage Bill Flawed
J
November 16, 2009
Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
marriage:
When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
marriages. But then gay overreach took place: the language was changed to
narrow the religious liberty protections. Because the archdiocese fears that
the new language could be used to force it to provide health benefits to gay
couples, and allow for gay adoption, it said it could not abide by the
revised bill. In practical terms, this means that Catholic Charities would
suspend its city services, a move that would terminate its medical clinics,
foster care and adoption services, tutoring for GED tests, mental health
services, homeless shelters, etc.
The reaction from the Church's critics has not only been harsh, it has been
over the top. "What the Church is doing is an uncharitable and cruel
maneuver," wrote Petula Dvorak in the Washington Post. In the Huffington
Post, Allison Kilkenny concluded that "If gay folk can marry, the Catholic
church refuses to feed the homeless." Adele M. Stan at AlterNet said that
this decision, along with the bishops' opposition to a health care bill that
offered abortion coverage, "serve the bishops' obsession with the sex lives
and reproductive organs of others." She showed her true colors when she
opined, "As an institution, it [the Catholic Church] ranks among the world's
most sexually dysfunctional."
If Alabama Governor George Wallace had told the Archdiocese of Mobile that
as a condition of receiving state aid for social services it had to cease
performing interracial marriages, few would have criticized the archdiocese
for exercising its doctrinal prerogatives. Indeed, it may even have been
applauded for doing so. Now it should not matter what the issue is that the
Church decides it cannot in good conscience support-what should matter is
its First Amendment religious liberty right to do so. The unprincipled, of
course, cannot understand such logic.
Copyright � 1997-2009 by Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
*Material from this website may be reprinted and disseminated with
accompanying attribution
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Science Stunted Bonsai Brain
> applauded for doing so. Now it should not matter what the issue is that the
> Church decides it cannot in good conscience support-what should matter is
> its First Amendment religious liberty right to do so. The unprincipled, of
> course, cannot understand such logic.
What's the point of having principles if they force you to do the
wrong thing?
IAAH
> November 16, 2009
>
>
Since charitable actions aren't (by definition,
yet!) meant to have a price, it's obvious that the
Catholics aren't acting in a charitable fashion (a
revelation that should come as a surprise to
exactly no-one).
Frankly, by taking a stand against bigotry and
saying that a stand *supporting* bigotry is just
as admirable, this church has shown all that's
needed to be known about them.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Uncle Vic
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill
> on gay marriage:
You'd think men in dresses would welcome the proposition. Especially when
the Catholic Church has shown that they support the idea that their priests
go after altar boys.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Pat Magroyne
>
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> marriage:
Fuck 'im.
juanjo
> November 16, 2009
>
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> marriage:
>
> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> marriages.
Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
sex marriages. However in non-religious businesses that the church
might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
Pat Magroyne
DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
Boo Radley
"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:39pocv....@news.alt.net...
><snip Bullshit>
If they want to get the Catholic Church onboard with Gay Marriage and
Abortion then all they have to do is add in a rider that allows catholic
priests all the little boy ass they can grab. Maybe as part of the vote or
bill we send all young boys sentenced to juvenile detention to catholic
priest assraping centers. This will serve 2 purposes, it will lower juvenile
crime rates and it will lower victimization of catholic parishioner's young
boy's assholes. since the priests can rape all the little boys they wish at
these centers. I know, I know, the perverted priests still want the
forbidden fruit of a innocent young catholic boy but it will still lower the
amount of time poor little trusting altar boys spend on their knees
servicing the priest.
If they did this then the Catholic Church would support Gay Marriage, Gay
Adoption and Abortion because there's nothing a perverted dude wearing a
dress likes more than fucking little boys in the asshole.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 16, 6:47�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> November 16, 2009
>>
>> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
>> marriage:
>>
>> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
>> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
>> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>> marriages.
>
>Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
>bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>sex marriages.
Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs. It's
contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
our free practice of our faith.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
wrote:
Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. God said that.
Without God involved, no marriage is possible. God said that.
Nothing is new.
Mr. B
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue
...has an opinion that is irrelevant to atheists. Stop posting his rants in
alt.atheism.
-- B
haiku jones
> November 16, 2009
>
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue
I believe you meant "Bill `apoplexies on demand' Donohue?
Sorry, but whimpering "poor poor pitiful us" gets
old really fast.
Haiku Jones
Dan Listermann
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:v465g55orm7qrl79n...@4ax.com...
you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
Dan Listermann
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>> November 16, 2009
>>>
>>> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>>> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on
>>> gay
>>> marriage:
>>>
>>> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
>>> D.C.,
>>> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
>>> protected
>>> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>>> marriages.
>>
>>Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
>>bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>>sex marriages.
>
> Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs.
> It's
> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the
> Constitution in
> our free practice of our faith.
>
religion in the name of freedom of religion?
Jimbo
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> November 16, 2009
>
> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> marriage:
>
> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> marriages.
>
> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >sex marriages.
>
> Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs.
This coming from an idiot that supports his pedophile priests.
Jimbo
> November 16, 2009
>
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> marriage:
>
> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> marriages. But then gay overreach took place: the language was changed to
> narrow the religious liberty protections.
In what way, please be specific, cite the relevant passages in the
bill. My guess is that you and donahue are lying catholic pieces of
pedophile protecting shit who hasn't a clue what the bill actually
says.
Jimbo
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 17, 12:35 am, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> > November 16, 2009
>
> >> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> > marriage:
>
> >> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> > marriages.
>
> >> Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >> sex marriages. However in non-religious businesses that the church
> >> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
> >> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
> >> discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> >> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
> >> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
> >DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
> >notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
> >marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
> >there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
>
> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible.
Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
> God said that.
You have yet to prove your god thing exists, much less prove that he
said anything.
LC
Has a man-crush of Fat Bill, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:39pocv....@news.alt.net...
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue
...gets pwned.
juanjo
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> November 16, 2009
>
> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> marriage:
>
> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> marriages.
>
> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >sex marriages.
>
> Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs. It's
> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
> our free practice of our faith.
>
Unclear on the concept aren't you Dukie? The bill already says that
no church is required to perform same sex marriages. The RCC is
simply misrepresenting the facts again for political advantage.
juanjo
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net>
Syd M.
> November 16, 2009
>
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> marriage:
>
US to Bill Donohue and the RCC: Mind your own fucking business.
PDW
duke
God said that's the way it is.
duke
>> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. �
>Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
A marriage requires God's participation, and he said queer sex is a mortal sin.
>> God said that. �
>You have yet to prove your god thing exists, much less prove that he
>said anything.
That's your problem, not mine.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 4:36�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
But there is still no marriage between queers.
duke
There's only one God, and he calls the shots.
duke
You support a pedo priest more than I do. I say put'em in jail.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 4:35�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Nope. God spoke. Queer sex is a mortal sin, and the only place for those that
partake are the fires of hell.
The Chief Instigator
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> November 16, 2009
>>>
>>> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>>> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
>>> marriage:
>>>
>>> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
>>> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
>>> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>>> marriages.
>>
>>Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
>>bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>>sex marriages.
>
> Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs. It's
> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
> our free practice of our faith.
Free clue, Wasted Weber: you don't dictate anyone else's morals, and your
sorry church has one hell of a lot to apologize for over twenty centuries
of its psychotic lust for complete power. Bomb the Vatican.
--
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: Chicago 2, Houston 1 (November 15)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 18 vs. Peoria, 7:05
The Chief Instigator
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne <patma...@null.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Nov 16, 6:47?pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > November 16, 2009
>>>
>>> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>>> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
>>> > marriage:
>>>
>>> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
>>> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
>>> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>>> > marriages.
>>>
>>> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>>> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
>>> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
>>> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
>>> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
>
>>DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
>>notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
>>marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
>>there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
>
> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>
> Without God involved, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>
> Nothing is new.
...especially your senile bullshit. Too bad the state of Texas and the Feds
recognize the marriage I'm half of, despite not having a religious ceremony.
We couldn't care less about the psychosis of a malignant asshole who's about
a four and a half-hour drive from where we live.
Pat Magroyne
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:41:27 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 17, 4:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >> November 16, 2009
>
> >> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> >> marriage:
>
> >> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> >> marriages.
>
> >> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >> >sex marriages.
>
> >> Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs. It's
> >> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
> >> our free practice of our faith.
> >Unclear on the concept aren't you Dukie? The bill already says that
> >no church is required to perform same sex marriages. The RCC is
> >simply misrepresenting the facts again for political advantage.
>
> Nope. God spoke. Queer sex is a mortal sin, and the only place for those that
> partake are the fires of hell.
That's the same place the shellfish eaters and mixed-cloth wearers are
going, right?
Dan Listermann
haiku jones
Naw, that was the demanding,, cranky, wrathful God of the Old
Testament,
the one who gave you over 600 commandments you had to keep
straight -- many of which were "abominations" to transgress --
and who might have you stoned to death for breaking any
number of them, even once.
But that was as bad as it got: stoned to death. There was no
talk of hell and eternal punishment under that covenant.
But with this new, kinder and gentler, more merciful and
approachable God, you can get eternal punishment for
just a momentary sin. Infinite punishment for finite
transgressions.
See how much nicer that is?
Haiku Jones
Dan Listermann
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 17, 12:35 am, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > November 16, 2009
>
> > > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> > > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> > > marriage:
>
> > > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> > > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> > > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> > > marriages.
>
> > Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> > bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> > might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
> > That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
> > discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> > here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
> > duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
>
> DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
> notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
> marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
> there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
I've been thinking along similar lines for quite some time now
(actually, I think I posted it here as a joke, and the thought just
never left my head). I wonder if anyone in the US has ever challenged
a marriage on C&S grounds..after all, just *why* does the government
recognize the actions of religious agents?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Mr. B
>>> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible.
>>Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
>
> A marriage requires God's participation, and he said queer sex is a mortal
> sin.
1. Which one of Catholicisms thousands of gods (ahem saints) would you be
referring to?
2. Why, even if any particular gods exist, would there be any need for any
deities in marriage?
-- B
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
Mark Sebree
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> November 16, 2009
>
> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> marriage:
>
> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> marriages.
>
> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >sex marriages.
>
> Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs.
Dogs cannot give informed consent, and 2 pagans of whatever religion
can get married without any problem.
> It's
> contrary to our religious beliefs,
"our" in this context meaning some Roman Catholics and the Roman
Catholic hierarchy. Christians in general are not bound by their
dictates, and any number of them will perform same sex marriages
without any conflict to their beliefs.
> which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
> our free practice of our faith.
However, that same freedom of religion means that you cannot impose
your religion onto others and deny them the right to freely practice
THEIR beliefs.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Mark Sebree
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 17, 12:35 am, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> > November 16, 2009
>
> >> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> > marriage:
>
> >> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> > marriages.
>
> >> Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
> >> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
> >> discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> >> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
> >> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
> >DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
> >notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
> >marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
> >there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
>
> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible.
A lie, as proven by the fact that 2 men or 2 women can get married in
several countries and several states in the USA.
> God said that.
Correction, your religious hierarchy said that.
>
> Without God involved, no marriage is possible.
Actually, most marriages in the world do not involve your deity, which
shows that marriage is easily possible without your deity.
> God said that.
No, your religious hierarchy said that in order to try to bring in
more money and try to control the populous more.
>
> Nothing is new.
Certainly not from you. You are still ignoring the facts and trying
to claim that everyone is subject to and must kowtow to your religious
hierarchy and your religious beliefs.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Mark Sebree
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:35:39 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >news:v465g55orm7qrl79n...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
No, your religious hierarchy is trying to say that is the way it is
when it obviously is not that way.
And given your sidelong answer, it is obvious that you think that you
do have the right to inflict your religious views on others.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Pat Magroyne
That's MUCH nicer. Thank God that there's a red devil underground
with horns and a pointy tail to keep us in line through fear that we
might end up as his "guests" at his fiery ETERNAL BARBECUE!
Pat Magroyne
Not real sure, but when they perform a marriage, whether they're
religious or not, or religious agents or not, the government
recognizes the marriages they perform as legal. But make no mistake,
it is the government that grants the power. "By the powers vested in
me by the state of ___, I now pronounce you ..."
Mark Sebree
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible.
> >Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
>
> A marriage requires God's participation,
No, it does not. Most marriages in the world exist without any
reference to your deity.
> and he said queer sex is a mortal sin.
Sorry, but a nonexistent entity cannot say anything. Men in your
religious hierarchy are the ones that have claimed that homosexual sex
is a sin, and their opinion ONLY applies to members of your
denomination who think that it is a sin. Homosexual sex is NOT a sin
to those who do not believe that it is a sin. Your beliefs are no
applicable to anyone who does not belong to your denomination and does
not subscribe to your beliefs. You do not have the right to determine
what other people believe is and is not a sin, and you do not have the
right to impose your beliefs onto anyone else.
>
> >> God said that.
> >You have yet to prove your god thing exists, much less prove that he
> >said anything.
>
> That's your problem, not mine.
Then he has no problem since it is actually your responsibility to
support your claims. You have claimed that your deity exists, and
that your deity has said certain things. Therefore, you are the one
that is responsible for objectively supporting your claims.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
anonymous
>
> On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > November 16, 2009
> >
> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> > marriage:
> >
> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> > marriages.
>
> Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> sex marriages. However in non-religious businesses that the church
> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
> discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
Churches are all about money, liquor, weddings and bingo/gambling.
Liquor, wedding/party/banquet and gambling laws are tightly related and
it is unlikely that the church can discriminate in those area. Also if
they can refuse a homo they could refuse a non-homo who is not catholic
like racial minorites. So it could get dirty.
Ban The Poofters
news:b1c547f5-6d83-415c...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 16, 6:47�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> November 16, 2009
>>
>> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill
>> on gay marriage:
>>
>> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
>> D.C.
> ,
>> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
>> protected the right of churches and other houses of worship not to
>> perform gay marriages.
>
> Note the use of this line to attack the bill.
Noted and approved. Children do not need to see queers indulging in
those filthy gay sexual practices in public.
Smiler
Yep. He's typing. What's new?
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
anonymous
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne <patma...@null.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 17, 12:35 am, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > November 16, 2009
> >>
> >> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> > marriage:
> >>
> >> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> > marriages.
> >>
> >> Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
> >> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
> >> discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> >> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
> >> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
>
> >notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
> >marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
> >there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
>
Oh, he did, eh?
He got out pen and paper and wrote it down?
>
> Without God involved, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>
Oh, God said that, too?
I think it is your church that said that without a pastor, no marriage
can take place in our church.
There is no proof that God said anything to anyone.
But a leader of any church, a leader of any country can only bind people
under his authority. So God or religion doesn't speak for the entire
world or any country even. It only speaks to those people who give the
church every month.
> Nothing is new.
panam...@hotmail.com
Oh, yes..I agree! And that's actually the starting place of my new
idea. I just wonder about taking it another step further by asking
*why* religious agents are actually *allowed* to have those "powers"
in a country that is (on paper, at least) secular in nature. IMO, this
could be seized upon as a C&S issue by someone with the status to
present the case. If it's not legal for some religious idiot
pharmacist to deny filling a prescription for contraception, why is it
legal for their various shamans to discriminate when performing a
ceremony that is accepted by the government?
BTW: I find the idea interesting enough that I dug up (*that's* an
exaggeration-it was only last month!) the post where I made the "joke"
I mentioned in my previous post.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0d33c952b8d77917
-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
Dave U. Random
Homosexuals and Coprophagia.
There are literally dozens of groups of individuals who engage
in bizarre sexual behaviors and who have mental conditions known
as paraphilias or behaviors known as fetishes. These include
Coprophagia�individuals who get sexual satisfaction from eating
feces; Klismaphilia� individuals who are sexually aroused by
enemas; Pederasty�male homosexuals who enjoy having sex with
children; Sadomasochism�individuals who derive sexual pleasure
from receiving or inflicting pain upon others; Diaper
fetishes�adults who get sexual pleasure from wearing diapers and
wetting themselves; Necrophilia�individuals who are sexually
aroused by viewing or having sex with corpses.
All of these behaviors could be considered to be "sexual
orientations"�and many of the individuals who engage in these
behaviors are working to have their peculiar sexual behaviors
declared to be normal in psychiatry and in the culture at large.
At a symposium sponsored by the American Psychiatric Association
(APA) in San Francisco on May 19, 2003, two psychiatrists
presented a paper arguing for such deviant sexual behaviors as
Pedophilia, Sadomasochism, as well as other Gender Identity
Disorders to be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR). The presenters were Drs.
Charles Moser from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human
Sexuality in San Francisco and Peggy Kleinplatz of the
University of Ottawa. Both are involved in an international
organization called "ReviseF65 Project," a subsidiary group of
the Norwegian National Association for Lesbian and Gay
Liberation. This group lobbies national governments to remove
Sadomasochism as a mental disorder from psychiatric guidelines.
Sociologists refer to groups of individuals who engage in
bizarre sex practices as "deviant subcultures." With the success
of homosexuals and transgenders in organizing as pressure groups
to normalize what has been considered abnormal behaviors, other
groups will feel empowered to do the same. Pedophiles, for
example, have found allies in academia who support adult/child
sex. In 1999, the University of Minnesota press published Judith
Levine's book, Harmful to Minors, which argues that adult/child
sex is not necessarily a bad thing. The foreword to her book was
penned by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders.
juanjo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A marriage requires God's participation, and he said queer sex is a mortal sin.
>
have your god give me a call so we can chat about what he said.
juanjo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:42:20 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 17, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net>
>
> >> >> > November 16, 2009
>
> >> >> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> >> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> >> > marriage:
>
> >> >> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> >> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> >> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> >> > marriages.
>
> >> >> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >> >> sex marriages. However in non-religious businesses that the church
> >> >> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
> >> >> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
> >> >> discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> >> >> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
> >> >> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
> >> >DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
> >> >notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
> >> >marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
> >> >there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
>
>
> >> Without God involved, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>
>
> >Right, your same rant as always and just as irrelevant as always.
>
> But there is still no marriage between queers.
In your fantasy world perhaps but in the real world there are several
states and several countries where there is same sex marriage. So far
your god has seen fit not to intervene.
juanjo
>
> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>>> November 16, 2009
>
> >>>> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >>>> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on
> >>>> gay
> >>>> marriage:
>
> >>>> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
> >>>> D.C.,
> >>>> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
> >>>> protected
> >>>> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >>>> marriages.
>
> >>>Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >>>bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >>>sex marriages.
>
> >> It's
> >> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the
> >> Constitution in
> >> our free practice of our faith.
>
> >religion in the name of freedom of religion?
>
> There's only one God, and he calls the shots.
sorry sweetie but you have yet to establish that as fact.
juanjo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:41:27 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 17, 4:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >> November 16, 2009
>
> >> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> >> marriage:
>
> >> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> >> marriages.
>
> >> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >> >sex marriages.
>
> >> Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs. It's
> >> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
> >> our free practice of our faith.
> >no church is required to perform same sex marriages. The RCC is
> >simply misrepresenting the facts again for political advantage.
>
> Nope. God spoke.
Funny that he only speaks to you.
juanjo
> On 16 Nov 2009, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> posted somenews:b1c547f5-6d83-415c...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
silly homophobe. Do try to keep up. Your snipping lines and making
stupid pronouncements only betrays your lack of intellectual ability.
juanjo
inter.net> wrote:
> In article <hsf9CC6D757679DD...@yes.on.prop.8.com>
> Ban The Poofters <nopooft...@queensland.au> wrote:
Oh my, more silly homophobe tricks by an anonymous poster
Robibnikoff
"Ban The Poofters" <nopoo...@queensland.au> wrote in message
news:hsf9CC6D7...@yes.on.prop.8.com...
Then perhaps you should stop taking your kids with you when you frequent
your favorite gay bars, idiot.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & Belly Dancer Supreme
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Jimbo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:35:39 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> >> <patmagro...@null.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 17, 12:35 am, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> > November 16, 2009
>
> >>>> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >>>> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill
> >>>> > on gay
> >>>> > marriage:
>
> >>>> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
> >>>> > D.C.,
> >>>> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
> >>>> > protected
> >>>> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >>>> > marriages.
>
> >>>> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >>>> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
> >>>> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
> >>>> discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> >>>> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
> >>>> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
>
> >>>DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
> >>>notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
> >>>marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
> >>>there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
>
> >> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>
> >> Without God involved, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>
> >> Nothing is new.
>
> >you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
>
> God said that's the way it is.
>
You have yet to prove this god thing exists. Additionally, the US is
not now, nor has it ever been, a chrisitan theocratic state, so what
your make believe sky-daddy does or does not say is not relevant.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A marriage requires God's participation
No, a marriage does not rerquire your make believe sky daddy's
participation.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:42:20 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 17, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> But there is still no marriage between queers.
>
Sure their is, lying pedophile loving earl. You're the queerest
person on usenet, and you are married.
Jimbo
>
> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>>> November 16, 2009
>
> >>>> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >>>> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on
> >>>> gay
> >>>> marriage:
>
> >>>> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
> >>>> D.C.,
> >>>> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
> >>>> protected
> >>>> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >>>> marriages.
>
> >>>Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >>>bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >>>sex marriages.
>
> >> It's
> >> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the
> >> Constitution in
> >> our free practice of our faith.
>
> >religion in the name of freedom of religion?
>
> There's only one God,
You have yet to prove that your make-believe sky-daddy exists.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:03:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 17, 7:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >> November 16, 2009
>
> >> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> >> marriage:
>
> >> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> >> marriages.
>
> >> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >> >sex marriages.
>
> >> Absolutely. That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs.
>
>
> You support a pedo priest more than I do. I say put'em in jail.
>
Nonsense. We discussed the matter at length in a couple of threads,
and you defended your pedophile priests, and your church who enabled
them. I'm the one that said that they and their enablers should all
be put in jail, you defended them tooth and nail, lying pedophile
loving earl. You never once, not one time, during that exchange ever
said they should be put in jail.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:41:27 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 17, 4:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >> November 16, 2009
>
> >> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
> >> >> marriage:
>
> >> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
> >> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
> >> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >> >> marriages.
>
> >> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >> >sex marriages.
>
> >> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
> >> our free practice of our faith.
> >no church is required to perform same sex marriages. The RCC is
> >simply misrepresenting the facts again for political advantage.
>
> Nope. God spoke.
You have supplied no proof for that assertion, lying pedophile loving
earl.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible.
>
> A marriage requires God's participation, and he said queer sex is a mortal sin.
>
> >You have yet to prove your god thing exists, much less prove that he
> >said anything.
>
> That's your problem, not mine.
>
Nope, it is definitely your problem. One day, our authorities will
wake up to the fact that people that worship imaginary sky-daddies
need serious mental help. Perhaps you can get the help you so
desperately need.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:35:39 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:v465g55orm7qrl79n...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>>>> <patma...@null.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 17, 12:35 am, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > November 16, 2009
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>>>>>> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill
>>>>>> > on gay
>>>>>> > marriage:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
>>>>>> > D.C.,
>>>>>> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
>>>>>> > protected
>>>>>> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>>>>>> > marriages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
>>>>>> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>>>>>> sex marriages. However in non-religious businesses that the church
>>>>>> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
>>>>>> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
>>>>>> discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
>>>>>> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
>>>>>> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
>>>>
>>>>>DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
>>>>>notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
>>>>>marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
>>>>>there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
>>>>
>>>> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>>>>
>>>> Without God involved, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is new.
>>>>
>>>And you have every right to not marry a man if that is what you want. Do
>>>you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
>>
>>God said that's the way it is.
>
>Puke is lying. God said nothing of the sort.
When you little atheist wannabes get to the point where you can't debate, you
immediately scream "liar".
duke
wrote:
>> >> Nothing is new.
>> >And you have every right to not marry a man if that is what you want. �Do
>> >you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
>> God said that's the way it is.
>No, your religious hierarchy is trying to say that is the way it is
>when it obviously is not that way.
How would a little gay blade like you know?
>And given your sidelong answer, it is obvious that you think that you
>do have the right to inflict your religious views on others.
I believe in God.
duke
Your problem, not mine.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 1:15�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
He's been telling you all you need to know since the day you were conceived.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 1:16�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
No, there are only special laws passed to allow same sex civil contracts.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 1:16�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
It's established. Even if you refuse the overbearing evidence.
duke
>On Nov 17, 4:17�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:03:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 17, 7:35�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Nov 16, 6:47�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >> >> November 16, 2009
>>
>> >> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>> >> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
>> >> >> marriage:
>>
>> >> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
>> >> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
>> >> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>> >> >> marriages.
>>
>> >> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. �The fact is that the
>> >> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>> >> >sex marriages.
>>
>> >> Absolutely. �That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs.
>>
>> >This coming from an idiot that supports his pedophile priests.
>>
>> You support a pedo priest more than I do. � I say put'em in jail.
>Nonsense. We discussed the matter at length in a couple of threads,
>and you defended your pedophile priests, and your church who enabled
>them.
Nope. I say put'em in jail
> I'm the one that said that they and their enablers should all
>be put in jail, you defended them tooth and nail, lying pedophile
>loving earl.
Nope. I only stated why the court trials would be so difficult.
> You never once, not one time, during that exchange ever
>said they should be put in jail.
I was saying that long before you came along, vacant lot.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 4:18�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:41:27 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 17, 4:35�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Nov 16, 6:47�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >> >> November 16, 2009
>>
>> >> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>> >> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
>> >> >> marriage:
>>
>> >> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
>> >> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
>> >> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>> >> >> marriages.
>>
>> >> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. �The fact is that the
>> >> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>> >> >sex marriages.
>>
>> >> Absolutely. �That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs. �It's
>> >> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
>> >> our free practice of our faith.
>> >Unclear on the concept aren't you Dukie? �The bill already says that
>> >no church is required to perform same sex marriages. �The RCC is
>> >simply misrepresenting the facts again for political advantage.
>>
>> Nope. �God spoke. �Queer sex is a mortal sin, and the only place for those that
>> partake are the fires of hell.
>
>That's the same place the shellfish eaters and mixed-cloth wearers are
>going, right?
Those are Jewish man-made laws.
duke
wrote:
>Naw, that was the demanding,, cranky, wrathful God of the Old
>Testament,
>the one who gave you over 600 commandments you had to keep
>straight -- many of which were "abominations" to transgress --
>and who might have you stoned to death for breaking any
>number of them, even once.
>
>But that was as bad as it got: stoned to death. There was no
>talk of hell and eternal punishment under that covenant.
>But with this new, kinder and gentler, more merciful and
>approachable God, you can get eternal punishment for
>just a momentary sin.
Wrong. That punishment comes when one embraces the sin, revels in it, loving
it, kissing it, all in opposition to the word of God.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:41:27 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 17, 4:35�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Nov 16, 6:47�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> >> November 16, 2009
>>>>
>>>> >> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>>>> >> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay
>>>> >> marriage:
>>>>
>>>> >> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C.,
>>>> >> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it protected
>>>> >> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>>>> >> marriages.
>>>>
>>>> >Note the use of this line to attack the bill. �The fact is that the
>>>> >bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>>>> >sex marriages.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely. �That's the same difference as marrying 2 pagans or 2 dogs. �It's
>>>> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the Constitution in
>>>> our free practice of our faith.
>>
>>>Unclear on the concept aren't you Dukie? The bill already says that
>>>no church is required to perform same sex marriages. The RCC is
>>>simply misrepresenting the facts again for political advantage.
>>
>>Nope. God spoke. Queer sex is a mortal sin,
>
>Puke is lying.
Your other name must be attilla.
duke
The bill can't take over the laws of God.
Jimbo
> On 18 Nov 2009 04:08:31 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:35:39 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >>>news:v465g55orm7qrl79n...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
That would be because you lie a lot. No big mystery there, liar
pedophile loving earl. You wouldn't know a true debate if it came up
and slapped you in your altar boy molestor.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:44:56 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> Nothing is new.
> >> >And you have every right to not marry a man if that is what you want. Do
> >> >you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
> >> God said that's the way it is.
> >No, your religious hierarchy is trying to say that is the way it is
> >when it obviously is not that way.
>
> How would a little gay blade like you know?
>
> >And given your sidelong answer, it is obvious that you think that you
> >do have the right to inflict your religious views on others.
>
> I believe in God.
>
You have yet to prove your imaginary sky-daddy exists.
Jimbo
Jimbo
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
Nope, it's nonsense.
Jimbo
Nope, you never did. You're lying now to cover the fact that you are
a pedophile supporting liar.
>
> > I'm the one that said that they and their enablers should all
> >be put in jail, you defended them tooth and nail, lying pedophile
> >loving earl.
>
> Nope.
Yep, you did. The court trials were not difficult at all.
Jimbo
The US is not now, has it ever been, nor will it ever be a theocratic
state. The laws of your imaginary sky pixie are irrelevant.
haiku jones
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:30:09 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
Don't be silly. According to Scripture, I'm condemned for
what a couple of naive kids did 6,000 years before
I showed up. Your Augustine laid this out in great
detail.
Haiku Jones
Dan Listermann
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
> juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
>> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. �
>>> >Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
>>>
>>> A marriage requires God's participation, and he said queer sex is a mortal sin.
>>>
>>
>>have your god give me a call so we can chat about what he said.
>
>He's been telling you all you need to know since the day you were conceived.
He tells me that you're a liar and an agent for Satan.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Syd
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:37:09 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:n165g5l3a0pk9ldrt...@4ax.com...
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>>> November 16, 2009
>
> >>>> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >>>> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on
> >>>> gay
> >>>> marriage:
>
> >>>> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
> >>>> D.C.,
> >>>> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
> >>>> protected
> >>>> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >>>> marriages.
>
> >>>Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >>>bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >>>sex marriages.
>
> >> It's
> >> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the
> >> Constitution in
> >> our free practice of our faith.
>
> >So your "religious beliefs" can applied to those who do not practice your
> >religion in the name of freedom of religion?
>
> There's only one God, and he calls the shots.
>
>
More unsupported assertions.
C'mon Dork... We're not gonna take your word for it.
Cough up evidence.
PDW
Syd
>
> >>"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Nov 17, 12:35 am, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> > November 16, 2009
>
> >>>>> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
> >>>>> > critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill
> >>>>> > on gay
> >>>>> > marriage:
>
> >>>>> > When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
> >>>>> > D.C.,
> >>>>> > the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
> >>>>> > protected
> >>>>> > the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
> >>>>> > marriages.
>
> >>>>> Note the use of this line to attack the bill. The fact is that the
> >>>>> bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
> >>>>> might operate, it cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
> >>>>> That has always been the law since the DC council passed an anti
> >>>>> discrimination ordinance. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> >>>>> here is attempting to get a special exemption relieving them of their
> >>>>> duty to operate their businesses in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
>
> >>>>DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. Go to a
> >>>>notary public or justice of the peace. Let your clergy bless the
> >>>>marriage if you need to. They're under no obligation to do so (and
> >>>>there is no legal need to do it). Problem solved.
>
> >>> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>
> >>> Without God involved, no marriage is possible. God said that.
>
> >>> Nothing is new.
>
> >>And you have every right to not marry a man if that is what you want. Do
> >>you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
>
> >God said that's the way it is.
>
> Puke is lying. God said nothing of the sort.
>
It's kinda tought for a fictional character to say anything.
PDW
Syd
>
>
>
>
>
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:35:39 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >>>news:v465g55orm7qrl79n...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:22 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
What debate? You want to dictate to us, lyar Webber.
And we don't like liars.
PDW
The Chief Instigator
In your sorry case, it's just accurate in a sizable majority of the times
you trot out your whine.
--
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: Chicago 2, Houston 1 (November 15)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 18 vs. Peoria, 7:05
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:44:56 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> >> Nothing is new.
>
>>> >you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
>
>>> God said that's the way it is.
>
>>No, your religious hierarchy is trying to say that is the way it is
>>when it obviously is not that way.
>
> How would a little gay blade like you know?
Asshole Duke, why are you trying to libel him? I support same-sex marriage,
and I'm 100% heterosexual. Shove your delusions back from where you
extricated them and mind your own stinking business.
>>And given your sidelong answer, it is obvious that you think that you
>>do have the right to inflict your religious views on others.
>
> I believe in God.
Good for you. Quit trying to force your fucking fairy tale on the rest of
us, unless you want to lose your hearing.
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:20:27 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
>>>
>>> A marriage requires God's participation, and he said queer sex is a mortal sin.
>>>
>>
>>have your god give me a call so we can chat about what he said.
>
> He's been telling you all you need to know since the day you were conceived.
It's never intruded upon me...just assholes like you who hear voices in
what's left of your head.
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:37:09 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:n165g5l3a0pk9ldrt...@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:12 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>On Nov 16, 6:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> November 16, 2009
>>>
>>> >>>> Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are
>>> >>>> critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on
>>> >>>> gay
>>> >>>> marriage:
>>>
>>> >>>> When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in
>>> >>>> D.C.,
>>> >>>> the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That's because it
>>> >>>> protected
>>> >>>> the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay
>>> >>>> marriages.
>>>
>>> >>>bill still says that churches have the right to refuse to perform same
>>> >>>sex marriages.
>>>
>>> >> It's
>>> >> contrary to our religious beliefs, which are guaranteed by the
>>> >> Constitution in
>>> >> our free practice of our faith.
>>>
>>> >So your "religious beliefs" can applied to those who do not practice your
>>> >religion in the name of freedom of religion?
>>>
>>> There's only one God, and he calls the shots.
>>
>>sorry sweetie but you have yet to establish that as fact.
>
> It's established. Even if you refuse the overbearing evidence.
You could save a lot of NNTP traffic if you were (for once in your sorry
life) truthful, and keep it to "Because I said so". That's far more honesty
than you usually exhibit.
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 17, 4:15?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. ?
>> >Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
>>
>> A marriage requires God's participation
>
> participation.
Ours didn't have some imaginary sky pixie, and it was done by a Harris
County Justice of the Peace. (The late Howard Wayland.)
Jimbo
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:49:45 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 4:15?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. ?
> >> >Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
>
> >> A marriage requires God's participation
>
> > No, a marriage does not rerquire your make believe sky daddy's
> > participation.
>
> Ours didn't have some imaginary sky pixie, and it was done by a Harris
> County Justice of the Peace. (The late Howard Wayland.)
>
Well, duke is an idiot. No one's marriage requires his imaginary sky-
daddies participation.
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 18, 1:41?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:49:45 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 17, 4:15?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. ?
>> >> >Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
>>
>> >> A marriage requires God's participation
>>
>> > No, a marriage does not rerquire your make believe sky daddy's
>> > participation.
>>
>> Ours didn't have some imaginary sky pixie, and it was done by a Harris
>>
>
> Well, duke is an idiot. No one's marriage requires his imaginary sky-
> daddies participation.
SubSCRIBE.
duke
>> >>>>>DC should just revoke the right of clergy to marry anyone. �ｿｽGo to a
>> >>>>>notary public or justice of the peace. �ｿｽLet your clergy bless the
>> >>>>>marriage if you need to. �ｿｽThey're under no obligation to do so (and
>> >>>>>there is no legal need to do it). �ｿｽProblem solved.
>>
>> >>>> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. �ｿｽGod said that.
>>
>> >>>> Without God involved, no marriage is possible. �ｿｽGod said that.
>>
>> >>>> Nothing is new.
>>
>> >>>And you have every right to not marry a man if that is what you want. �ｿｽDo
>> >>>you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
>>
>> >>God said that's the way it is.
>>
>> >Puke is lying. �ｿｽGod said nothing of the sort.
>>
>> When you little atheist wannabes get to the point where you can't debate, you
>> immediately scream "liar".
>That would be because you lie a lot.
Oh, noooo. I never lie on the ng, and you can't name one time I did.
duke
Believing that basis the evidence covers that.
duke
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:22:17 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:44:56 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> >> Nothing is new.
>>
>>>> >And you have every right to not marry a man if that is what you want. ?Do
>>>> >you have a right to inflict your religious views on others?
>>
>>>> God said that's the way it is.
>>
>>>No, your religious hierarchy is trying to say that is the way it is
>>>when it obviously is not that way.
>>
>> How would a little gay blade like you know?
>
>Asshole Duke, why are you trying to libel him? I support same-sex marriage,
>and I'm 100% heterosexual. Shove your delusions back from where you
>extricated them and mind your own stinking business.
You don't know that about sebreese.
>>>And given your sidelong answer, it is obvious that you think that you
>>>do have the right to inflict your religious views on others.
>> I believe in God.
>Good for you. Quit trying to force your fucking fairy tale on the rest of
>us, unless you want to lose your hearing.
This is my discussion area.
duke
Nope, I'm not the one committing spiritual suicide. You just mumble some of
that vacant lot mumbo jumbo about pedophiles.
duke
You're an atheist. You don't believe in God, so he can't speak to you.
duke
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:24:11 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:20:27 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 17, 1:15?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:04:06 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Without one man and one woman, no marriage is possible. ?
>>>> >Nonsense, liar, pedophile earl.
>>>>
>>>> A marriage requires God's participation, and he said queer sex is a mortal sin.
>>>>
>>>
>>>have your god give me a call so we can chat about what he said.
>>
>> He's been telling you all you need to know since the day you were conceived.
>
>It's never intruded upon me...just assholes like you who hear voices in
>what's left of your head.
Well, turn your radio on, west loop. Hey, that sounds like a neat song. You
might even accidentally listen in on a religious station. That'd do wonders for
the salvation of your soul.