Decency Wins - AGAIN!!!
J
have to say "No"?
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
IAAH
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> have to say "No"?
>
Iben, what's decent about denying minority rights?
Eh, scratch that. You'll have some convoluted
religious crap "reason" but it's enough to note
that you think there's something decent about
denying minority rights.
--
"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
LC
Run Away "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:38on05....@news.alt.net...
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the
> people have to say "No"?
You're going to find that the courts will have something to say about
tyranny of the majority soon enough, J<unkie>.
But by all means, enjoy your brief moment of glee.
Oh, and speaking of "farce", why are you stalling on addressing this?:
"America, with the exception of the jews and niggers, are not a
nation of pigs."
From: "J" <bi...@ass.com>
Message-ID: <1f4mfa....@news.alt.net>
noauth
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> have to say "No"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> J Young
> Jvis...@live.com
>
The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.
It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
IAAH
And when a gay couple gets married, what exactly
is being forced on YOU?
Mike
> On 11/4/09 10:11 AM, * noauth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> >> have to say "No"?
>
> >>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>
> >> --
> >> J Young
>
> > The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
>
> > The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.
>
> > It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
>
> > Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
>
> And when a gay couple gets married, what exactly
> is being forced on YOU?
Moral approval. By trying to force a sea change in the definition of
marriage, the gays are looking to use the government to force approval
of their lifestyle on all of society.
thomas p.
"noauth" <an...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> skrev i meddelelsen
news:5a9dc8b1ac317547...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx...
If you have a classroom and a dictionary I am sure that the law and society
will protect your rights thereto against the same fascists who oppress
minorities such as homosexuals. Welcome brother.
IAAH
Oh? So every time someone gets married someone is
coming to you for your 'moral approval', huh?
Bullshit. Try again. Nobody is requiring you to
approve of anything.
Mike
> On 11/4/09 10:35 AM, * Mike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 9:18 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >> On 11/4/09 10:11 AM, * noauth wrote:
>
> >>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
> >>>> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> >>>> have to say "No"?
> >>>>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
> >>>> --
> >>>> J Young
> >>>> Jvisi...@live.com
> >>> The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
> >>> The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.
> >>> It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
> >>> Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
> >> And when a gay couple gets married, what exactly
> >> is being forced on YOU?
>
> > Moral approval. By trying to force a sea change in the definition of
> > marriage, the gays are looking to use the government to force approval
> > of their lifestyle on all of society.
>
> Oh? So every time someone gets married someone is
> coming to you for your 'moral approval', huh?
>
> Bullshit. Try again. Nobody is requiring you to
> approve of anything.
>
Obviously, the whole strategy is to go over all the people's heads and
get the government to force gay marriage in to society whether people
approve or not. Anyone who lives in that society has had the radical
idea of gay marriage forced on them.
IAAH
Yet NOBODY is asking for your approval, so your
point fails there. Approval is irrelevant in civil
rights matters. What is being forced on you?
There is nothing "radical" about marriage. The
radical thing here is that you think you're so
privileged and superior that your special
snowflake prejudice is good enough to deny rights
to a minority.
Mike
It is not a civil rights matter. That argument is phony through and
through, as gays have always been allowed to marry, go to school, and
vote. Calling it a civil rights issue is slap in the face for the
blacks, who struggled for decades to get the same rights homosexuals
already had.
> There is nothing "radical" about marriage.
Marriage is not radical. Gay marriage is radical, as it seeks to
change the most elementary part of what constitutes marriage. It's as
radical as trying to make polygamy legal here, or allowing brothers
and sisters to wed. (I'm using the gays' own standard who say that
any consenting adults who love and care for each other should be able
to get married with the full blessings of society).
The
> radical thing here is that you think you're so
> privileged and superior that your special
> snowflake prejudice is good enough to deny rights
> to a minority.
I know those sour grapes aren't going down very good, but the fact is,
gay marriage is a real loser. Don't expect it to get much better.
IAAH
Since marriage has already been declared as a
fundamental human right multiple times in multiple
findings, it IS a civil rights matter. You are wrong.
As for your "slap in the face" metaphor, when did
equal rights for black people become the point
where it all just stops?
>
>> There is nothing "radical" about marriage.
>
> Marriage is not radical. Gay marriage is radical, as it seeks to
> change the most elementary part of what constitutes marriage. It's as
> radical as trying to make polygamy legal here, or allowing brothers
> and sisters to wed. (I'm using the gays' own standard who say that
> any consenting adults who love and care for each other should be able
> to get married with the full blessings of society).
Not radical at all. Homosexual marriage is
thousands of years old. As for your strawman
argument about familial marriage, well, I reject
it since it's bullshit. That's not the common
argument at all.
>
> The
>> radical thing here is that you think you're so
>> privileged and superior that your special
>> snowflake prejudice is good enough to deny rights
>> to a minority.
>
> I know those sour grapes aren't going down very good, but the fact is,
> gay marriage is a real loser. Don't expect it to get much better.
The sickening triumph coming from the bigots -
like you - who oppose equal rights smells bad. So
far there is not ONE reason against SSM that
stands up to intellectual scrutiny, and you
certainly haven't done anything to change that.
Spartakus
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do
> the people have to say "No"?
This is not the end, and the final chapter will be full equality.
Boo Radley
> people have to say "No"?
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>
And the same thing happens that happened when slavery was ended, the
government says freedom and equality but the Christians oppose it in droves.
IAAH
The really sickening people are the ones who have
made prejudice and bigotry and oppression into a
virtue. It's not hard to find examples of that on
Usenet.
W.T.S.
> people have to say "No"?
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
Bible, bad. Sex, good.
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
Mike
Marriage, not "gay marriage." You are talking about the artificial
right to redefine what marriage means for the whole of society. You
never answered my argument. What's wrong with brothers marrying
sisters, or having multiple husbands/wifes? Isn't society also
violating their civil rights? If human adults who love and care for
each other want to marry, is society being bigoted because it refuses
them?
>
> As for your "slap in the face" metaphor, when did
> equal rights for black people become the point
> where it all just stops?
When it becomes completely artificial and manufactured, as when the
gays took up the equal rights banner. Gays do not have to deal with
a fraction of what the blacks put up with. I don't recall any Jim
Crow laws to systematically keep gays as a whole from voting like
there was with blacks. That's why the civil rights argument applied
to gays is phony and ludicrous. In fact, gays on the march are
indulged and coddled like spoiled-rotten brats compared to what the
blacks had to go through.
>
> >> There is nothing "radical" about marriage.
>
> > Marriage is not radical. Gay marriage is radical, as it seeks to
> > change the most elementary part of what constitutes marriage. It's as
> > radical as trying to make polygamy legal here, or allowing brothers
> > and sisters to wed. (I'm using the gays' own standard who say that
> > any consenting adults who love and care for each other should be able
> > to get married with the full blessings of society).
>
> Not radical at all. Homosexual marriage is
> thousands of years old. As for your strawman
> argument about familial marriage, well, I reject
> it since it's bullshit. That's not the common
> argument at all.
>
Against the backdrop of the whole sweep and scope of human history,
homosexual marriage is an aberration. I'm sure you can cite examples
where it existed for a short period of time, but they are isolated
pockets.
>
> > The
> >> radical thing here is that you think you're so
> >> privileged and superior that your special
> >> snowflake prejudice is good enough to deny rights
> >> to a minority.
>
> > I know those sour grapes aren't going down very good, but the fact is,
> > gay marriage is a real loser. Don't expect it to get much better.
>
> The sickening triumph coming from the bigots -
> like you - who oppose equal rights smells bad. So
> far there is not ONE reason against SSM that
> stands up to intellectual scrutiny, and you
> certainly haven't done anything to change that.
There is something entirely pathological going on with the gay rights
movement, that is, adults acting like children. The child being
denied instant gratification and the lesbian couple seeking immediate
validation for their union act much the same. If they don't get what
they want, they become petulant, they cry, they say, "But why can't I,
you're so mean!" The adult knows that there are consequences to what
the child wants.
I suggest that many people understand that there will be consequences
for society if gay marriage is adopted as the new norm. They know
that getting gay marriage in every state is not the end, but the
beginning. They know that the gays want a completely gender-neutral
orientation society, with everything that entails.
So you ask me what has gay marriage got to do with me? Everything.
noauth
> equal rights for black people become the point
> where it all just stops?
>
>>
>>
>> Marriage is not radical. Gay marriage is radical, as it seeks to
>> change the most elementary part of what constitutes marriage. It's as
>> radical as trying to make polygamy legal here, or allowing brothers
>> and sisters to wed. (I'm using the gays' own standard who say that
>> any consenting adults who love and care for each other should be able
>> to get married with the full blessings of society).
>
> Not radical at all. Homosexual marriage is
> thousands of years old. As for your strawman
> argument about familial marriage, well, I reject
> it since it's bullshit. That's not the common
> argument at all.
>
>>
>>> radical thing here is that you think you're so
>>> privileged and superior that your special
>>> snowflake prejudice is good enough to deny rights
>>> to a minority.
>>
>> I know those sour grapes aren't going down very good, but the fact is,
>> gay marriage is a real loser. Don't expect it to get much better.
>
> The sickening triumph coming from the bigots -
> like you - who oppose equal rights smells bad. So
> far there is not ONE reason against SSM that
> stands up to intellectual scrutiny, and you
> certainly haven't done anything to change that.
>
> "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
Intellectual scrutiny? Please.
You're the one who claims that it doesn't hurt anyone. When we object and say that it DOES hurt, you dismiss the hurt as unimportant.
You claimed that marriage is a human right. That's a pretty whacky assertion from someone who constantly insists that the right to life is NOT a fundamental human right.
In addition to being a religious sacrament, Marriage is a legal right, not a human right. It is conferred by the state, because it has been in the best interests of the state to promote and support families and the production of children. Historically, this has been for multiple reasons, including providing workers, staffing family farms, providing soldiers, producing consumption, and populating the state in order to govern it.
Gay marriage cannot accomplish these goals, and other than providing gay votes for queasy politicians, there is no state interest in gay marriage. There is a state interest to oppose such marriages.
However much this hurts your feelings, there is no logic to gay marriage. Proponents have chosen to avoid logic, and attempt to confuse the citizenry with claims of bogotry and loving relationships. We in these newsgroups have rarely seen any sign of love from proponents - only harsh and vulgar language.
It is clear that you believe that loudness wins arguments. Unfortunately for you, we have grown accustomed to your shrillness, and are no longer moved by your tantrums, mockery, and insults.
Rob Par
The conservatives Claim to be in the right. The conservatives have
once again denied a minority their rights long from the first time and
even longer from the last. The conservatives are the Fascist, alway
have been always will be. Yet most of the stands taken by conservative
have went the way of the Dodo.
Freedom from the religious right is the basis of all freedoms. Some
day our descendants will look back with kind of wonder most now feel
about black slavery, A cause supported by religious conservatives.
IAAH
What harm can another couple's marriage do to you
or any group?
I mean, REAL harm. Not offense, not the usual
bigoted protestations involving the bible.
Demonstrate some REAL, provable harm. Make sure
you demonstrate real, provable harm that is
greater than the harm done by denying fundamental
rights to a minority.
>
> You claimed that marriage is a human right.
> That's a pretty whacky assertion from someone
> who constantly insists that the right to life
> is NOT a fundamental human right.
That's a pretty unsupported claim.
>
> In addition to being a religious sacrament,
Irrelevant.
> Marriage is a legal right, not a human right.
Wrong. I can cite the SCOTUS and the UN UDHR to
support my claim. Who are you citing?
> It is conferred by the state, because it has
> been in the best interests of the state to
> promote and support families and the production
> of children. Historically, this has been for
> multiple reasons, including providing workers,
> staffing family farms, providing soldiers,
> producing consumption, and populating the state
> in order to govern it.
Ah, the failed "procreation" argument.
Like I say, it's a failure.
>
> Gay marriage cannot accomplish these goals, and
> other than providing gay votes for queasy
> politicians, there is no state interest in gay
> marriage. There is a state interest to oppose
> such marriages.
What interest? What "narrowly tailored and
compelling interest" would the state have in
actively forbidding SSM, as that is a condition
usually regarded as necessary to remove or deny
human rights?
>
> However much this hurts your feelings, there is
> no logic to gay marriage. Proponents have
> chosen to avoid logic, and attempt to confuse
> the citizenry with claims of bogotry and loving
> relationships. We in these newsgroups have
> rarely seen any sign of love from proponents -
> only harsh and vulgar language.
So far there is no logic to forbidding SSM. And as
for harsh language - that's what you bigots deserve.
>
> It is clear that you believe that loudness wins
> arguments. Unfortunately for you, we have grown
> accustomed to your shrillness, and are no
> longer moved by your tantrums, mockery, and
> insults.
Yet there still remains that gap where any
arguments against SSM that are founded in logic
would go.
Ray Fischer
>Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce.
Free reign for the nazi turds to resume murdering gays.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 4, 9:18�am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> On 11/4/09 10:11 AM, * noauth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
>> >> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
>> >> have to say "No"?
>>
>> >>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>>
>> >> --
>> >> J Young
>> >> Jvisi...@live.com
>>
>> > The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
>>
>> > The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and
>Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.
>>
>> > It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
>>
>> > Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
>>
>> And when a gay couple gets married, what exactly
>> is being forced on YOU?
>
>Moral approval.
But we're supposed to provide moral approval for your murderous hatred
and evil bigotry?
> By trying to force a sea change in the definition of
>marriage,
Stop lying, bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
IAAH
Marriage, not "heterosexual marriage".
> You are talking about the artificial
> right to redefine what marriage means for the whole of society.
Completely wrong. If you don't want a gay
marriage, don't get one. SSM doesn't define my
marriage in any way or form. If you think it does
affect your marriage, the problem lies with you.
You
> never answered my argument. What's wrong with brothers marrying
> sisters, or having multiple husbands/wifes? Isn't society also
> violating their civil rights? If human adults who love and care for
> each other want to marry, is society being bigoted because it refuses
> them?
That's the "You have to support all marriage to
support gay marriage" argument, and it's irrelevant.
>
>> As for your "slap in the face" metaphor, when did
>> equal rights for black people become the point
>> where it all just stops?
>
> When it becomes completely artificial and manufactured, as when the
> gays took up the equal rights banner. Gays do not have to deal with
> a fraction of what the blacks put up with.
Irrelevant.
> I don't recall any Jim
> Crow laws to systematically keep gays as a whole from voting like
> there was with blacks. That's why the civil rights argument applied
> to gays is phony and ludicrous. In fact, gays on the march are
> indulged and coddled like spoiled-rotten brats compared to what the
> blacks had to go through.
Irrelevant.
>
>>>> There is nothing "radical" about marriage.
>>> Marriage is not radical. Gay marriage is radical, as it seeks to
>>> change the most elementary part of what constitutes marriage. It's as
>>> radical as trying to make polygamy legal here, or allowing brothers
>>> and sisters to wed. (I'm using the gays' own standard who say that
>>> any consenting adults who love and care for each other should be able
>>> to get married with the full blessings of society).
>> Not radical at all. Homosexual marriage is
>> thousands of years old. As for your strawman
>> argument about familial marriage, well, I reject
>> it since it's bullshit. That's not the common
>> argument at all.
>>
> Against the backdrop of the whole sweep and scope of human history,
> homosexual marriage is an aberration. I'm sure you can cite examples
> where it existed for a short period of time, but they are isolated
> pockets.
No, they aren't.
Many of the longest-lived civilizations in history
included gay marriage. Your historical ignorance
isn't compelling, only unsurprising.
>>> The
>>>> radical thing here is that you think you're so
>>>> privileged and superior that your special
>>>> snowflake prejudice is good enough to deny rights
>>>> to a minority.
>>> I know those sour grapes aren't going down very good, but the fact is,
>>> gay marriage is a real loser. Don't expect it to get much better.
>> The sickening triumph coming from the bigots -
>> like you - who oppose equal rights smells bad. So
>> far there is not ONE reason against SSM that
>> stands up to intellectual scrutiny, and you
>> certainly haven't done anything to change that.
>
> There is something entirely pathological going on with the gay rights
> movement, that is, adults acting like children. The child being
> denied instant gratification and the lesbian couple seeking immediate
> validation for their union act much the same. If they don't get what
> they want, they become petulant, they cry, they say, "But why can't I,
> you're so mean!" The adult knows that there are consequences to what
> the child wants.
No logical argument against SSM.
>
> I suggest that many people understand that there will be consequences
> for society if gay marriage is adopted as the new norm. They know
> that getting gay marriage in every state is not the end, but the
> beginning. They know that the gays want a completely gender-neutral
> orientation society, with everything that entails.
Oooh, a slippery-slope fallacy! Discarded.
>
> So you ask me what has gay marriage got to do with me? Everything.
Yet another failure to demonstrate how it would
actually affect you.
juanjo
Personally I do not give a rat's patootie as to whether you morally
approve of gay men and women or not. That is irrelevant. Your
approval is not needed. Neither should you goive a rat's patootie
aboput whether I morally approve of all [or some] the things you
endorse. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that each of us be
allowed to live our lives and participate in the free exercise of our
respective right, privileges and obligations without interference
except where absolutely necessary for the common good of the society.
Allowing gay men and women to marry the persons of their choice
neither impacts you personally or our society in a negative fashion.
In fact it benefits society in the same way any marriage does as it
promotes stability.
Osprey
You are a homo, I knew it. Why didn't you just come out and be honest
about it in the first place? Oh wait, asking you to be honest is like
asking Obama not to break any of his campaign promises.
Look, you don't get it and you never will. You are a control freak,
like most libs. You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
agreeing with you.
Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
homo of course you will not believe that.
But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
change their mind. You simply don't have that kind of control and you
never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
that you like to suck a penis and take one up in the anal cavity, then
you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
favorably at you.
Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
is a sin.
If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
think homosexual acts are o.k.
And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
attack their beliefs. That's what you do and I expect that. But you
want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
Wipe your chin, you got something on it.
Oooop..sorry, I forgot.
Osprey
That is not up for you to decide. A persons beliefs are not for you to
determine if they are right or wrong.
And you don't understand the conflict that a person who believes in
God's word and that homosexuality is wrong, and is suddenly asked if
he or she wants to support SSM. It's a conflict, period so yes it does
impact them personally.
IAAH
Mmmm, Bipolar Bob swings heavy into gay panic
mode. It's not unusual.
>
> Look, you don't get it and you never will. You are a control freak,
> like most libs. You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
> issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
> pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
> agreeing with you.
An entire paragraph of ad-hominem, instead of
actually giving any arguments.
Still, being accused of being a control freak by a
bigot who wants to continue to deny equal rights
to minorities is quite priceless, n'est-ce pas?
>
> Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
> sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
> homo of course you will not believe that.
More gay panic and irrelevant god-talk.
> But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
> change their mind. You simply don't have that kind of control and you
> never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
> that you like to suck a penis and take one up in the anal cavity, then
> you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
> favorably at you.
MORE gay panic - from the prison guard that keeps
on proudly telling us all about his encounters
with male prisoners.
>
> Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
> going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
I don't care if you approve or not. I suspect gay
couples don't either, because the approval of a
sticky little homophobe like yourself lies far
down below their radar.
The question is what harm does it do, Bipolar Bob?
>
> Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
> is a sin.
Irrelevant. Your and their religion has no
bearing. Conceit is the only reason you think it does.
>
> If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
> then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
> think homosexual acts are o.k.
No, it really isn't. That's just an excuse you've
made up for yourself so you don't have to admit
your bigotry. Gay couples don't want your
"support". I'm entirely sure that they'd rather
you just left them alone, bigot.
>
> And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
> many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
Irrelevant. Fundamental rights have no basis in
your skewed and bigoted religion.
>
> I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
> attack their beliefs. That's what you do and I expect that. But you
> want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
No, you gave me irrelevancies.
As usual, mind.
Furthermore, you've cemented your bigotry by
making accusations of being gay into a bigoted
attack. It doesn't matter to me that you think I'm
gay (against reality), Bipolar Bob, because you
are nothing more than a shit-stained, bigoted
asshole - and I say that with total dispassion.
IAAH
When you demonstrate to me that you are following
all of the limitations and strictures laid down in
the bible where homosexuality is supposedly said
to be wrong, I may begin to give a damn about what
you say.
But you don't. You take one passage out of
Leviticus and conveniently just forget about
everything else that may actually require you to
discipline yourself. Now you comfort yourself by
saying "It's not bigotry, it's the Bible, so
that's okay."
noauth
> Mike <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 4, 9:18 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/09 10:11 AM, * noauth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
>>> >> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
>>> >> have to say "No"?
>>>
>>> >>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> J Young
>>> >> Jvisi...@live.com
>>>
>>> > The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
>>>
>>> > The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and
>>Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.
>>>
>>> > It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
>>>
>>> > Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
>>>
>>> And when a gay couple gets married, what exactly
>>> is being forced on YOU?
>>
>>Moral approval.
>
> and evil bigotry?
>
>>marriage,
>
Full disclosure time, Ray.
Are you gay?
Osprey
Paranoid IAAH doesn't understand. I probably have more association and
understanding of the gay homosexual lifestyle than he would ever have,
even though Paranoid IAAH prefers a little penis with whip cream on
top.
>
>
>
> > Look, you don't get it and you never will. You are a control freak,
> > like most libs. You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
> > issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
> > pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
> > agreeing with you.
>
> An entire paragraph of ad-hominem, instead of
> actually giving any arguments.
>
> Still, being accused of being a control freak by a
> bigot who wants to continue to deny equal rights
> to minorities is quite priceless, n'est-ce pas?
And paranoid IAAH continues to lie.
>
>
>
> > Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
> > sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
> > homo of course you will not believe that.
>
> More gay panic and irrelevant god-talk.
Ah, Paranoid IAAH shows his intolerence.
>
> > But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
> > change their mind. You simply don't have that kind of control and you
> > never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
> > that you like to suck a penis and take one up in the anal cavity, then
> > you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
> > favorably at you.
>
> MORE gay panic -
More intolerence.
from the prison guard that keeps
> on proudly telling us all about his encounters
> with male prisoners.
Aw, Paranoid IAAH now has to make things up.
>
>
>
> > Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
> > going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
>
> I don't care if you approve or not.
Yes you do.
I suspect gay
> couples don't either, because the approval of a
> sticky little homophobe like yourself lies far
> down below their radar.
Bullshit.
>
> The question is what harm does it do, Bipolar Bob?
I explained it Paranoid IAAH.
>
>
>
> > Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
> > is a sin.
>
> Irrelevant. Your and their religion has no
> bearing.
You don't decide that.
>
>
>
> > If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
> > then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
> > think homosexual acts are o.k.
>
> No, it really isn't.
Yes paranoid IAAH, it is.
That's just an excuse you've
> made up for yourself so you don't have to admit
> your bigotry. Gay couples don't want your
> "support". I'm entirely sure that they'd rather
> you just left them alone, bigot.
>
>
>
> > And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
> > many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
>
> Irrelevant. Fundamental rights have no basis in
> your skewed and bigoted religion.
Paranoid IAAH can't come up with a better argument or answer.
>
>
>
> > I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
> > attack their beliefs. That's what you do and I expect that. But you
> > want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
>
> No, you gave me irrelevancies.
In other words, you have no rebuttal.
>
> Furthermore, you've cemented your bigotry by
> making accusations of being gay into a bigoted
> attack.
Who cares, you prefer penis..I don't care.
It doesn't matter to me that you think I'm
> gay (against reality), Bipolar Bob, because you
> are nothing more than a shit-stained, bigoted
> asshole - and I say that with total dispassion.
>
> --
> "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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uncle Vic
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the
> people have to say "No"?
Until they can finally grasp the point that it is indecent to believe you
should be able to deny basic rights to others without a reasonable
foundation.
--
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.
Osprey
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the
> > people have to say "No"?
>
> Until they can finally grasp the point that it is indecent to believe you
> should be able to deny basic rights to others without a reasonable
> foundation.
What is your reasonable foundation in trying to force others to accept
something they clearly don't want to accept?
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
>
> The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New
> Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by judicial
> fiat, not by popular vote.
>
> It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone
> else.
Bwaaaaahahahahaha! Are you're being forced into a gay marriage? Or is it
YOU that wishes to impose his will on others?
>
> Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
Why are you trying to remain anonymous?
Uncle Vic
> Moral approval. By trying to force a sea change in the definition of
> marriage, the gays are looking to use the government to force approval
> of their lifestyle on all of society.
What ever happened to "turn the other cheek"? I guess that's the closest
biblical reference to the pinnacle of morality, "Live and Let Live". Why
was that concept left out of the bible?
Uncle Vic
> Obviously, the whole strategy is to go over all the people's heads and
> get the government to force gay marriage in to society whether people
> approve or not. Anyone who lives in that society has had the radical
> idea of gay marriage forced on them.
Are they forcing you to marry a man? Is the advent of gay marriage going
to change your lifestyle, other than giving you something else to whine
about?
I think marriage means something entirely different to you people. It's
like a trump card, isn't it? Maybe it's one of the last things you have
that someone else (who is not like you) can't get. Something you can use
to put others down. What a fucking loser.
Uncle Vic
It's not about public approval. It's all about denial of rights to a
minority. The overwhelming majority doesn't accept gay marriage. And back
in the 60s the overwhelming majority did not accept inter-racial marriage.
Has inter-racial marriage affected you *personally* in any way?
Lord Vetinari
news:90562365-e695-4395...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
You are a homo, I knew it.
*****************************************
You're funny, sitting there on your stack of Blue Boy.
*****************************************
Why didn't you just come out and be honest
about it in the first place? Oh wait, asking you to be honest is like
asking Obama not to break any of his campaign promises.
*****************************************
This, from a pervert crook prison employee. You've never spoken a truthful
word in all the years you've been harrassing people on usenet. I expect
that some day soon, you'll be found hanging from a convenient
branch/beam/hook, or whatever. We will rejoice.
*****************************************
Look, you don't get it and you never will.
****************************************
Speak for yourself, pervert. Stop banging your head against those
cinderblock walls, you'll feel much better.
****************************************
You are a control freak, like most libs.
**************************************
As usual, you've got it all backward. You're a creature full of hate for
people who've done you no harm, and you enjoy causing others pain. Go ask
for help, or find yourself a REAL man. Maybe then you'll finally come out
of the closet.
**************************************
You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
agreeing with you.
******************************************
There just ain't an ounce of truth in you, you nasty little boy.
******************************************
Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
homo of course you will not believe that.
But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
change their mind.
******************************************
More evidence that you have no idea of what rights are afforded to the
people of the United States of America. Crawl back under your rock,
shithead.
******************************************
You simply don't have that kind of control and you
never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
that you like to suck a penis
**********************************************
My wife enjoys that very much. You wouldn't know about it, having that
little bitty stub for a dick.
**********************************************
and take one up in the anal cavity, then
you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
favorably at you.
***************************************
THAT's your problem. No one likes you, your hand is getting blisters from
all that action, and it's tearing your dumb ass apart.
***************************************
Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
is a sin.
**************************************
That's two. Why don't you keep digging?
**************************************
If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
think homosexual acts are o.k.
And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
*****************************************
That's because THEY think it's ok to interfere in other's lives. Just like
you, sad sack.
*****************************************
I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
attack their beliefs.
*****************************************
Foolish illiterate, it ain't anything LIKE a tangent....and you can go fuck
yourself again.
*****************************************
That's what you do and I expect that. But you
want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
Wipe your chin, you got something on it.
Oooop..sorry, I forgot.
***********************************
You're so pathetic, you can't even spell oops right. No wonder you can't
remember anything. Now go die somewhere else.
***********************************
Syd M.
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> have to say "No"?
>
>
Apparently numerous times, since you refuse to listen, bigot Young.
PDW
Syd M.
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
> > have to say "No"?
>
>
> > --
> > J Young
> > Jvisi...@live.com
>
>
> The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.
>
> It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
>
Yes, moralistic fascist, why don't you?
PDW
Syd M.
> On Nov 4, 9:18 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
> > >> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> > >> have to say "No"?
>
> > >>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>
> > >> --
> > >> J Young
> > >> Jvisi...@live.com
>
> > > The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
>
> > > The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.
>
> > > It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
>
> > > Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
>
> > is being forced on YOU?
>
> marriage, the gays are looking to use the government to force approval
> of their lifestyle on all of society.
No.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Nov 4, 9:57 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11/4/09 10:51 AM, * Mike wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 4, 9:41 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> > >> coming to you for your 'moral approval', huh?
>
> > >> Bullshit. Try again. Nobody is requiring you to
> > >> approve of anything.
>
> > > get the government to force gay marriage in to society whether people
> > > approve or not. Anyone who lives in that society has had the radical
> > > idea of gay marriage forced on them.
>
> > point fails there. Approval is irrelevant in civil
> > rights matters. What is being forced on you?
>
> It is not a civil rights matter.
Yes it is.
The gays are simply asking for the same goddamn rights the straights
enjoy.
In fact, the only ones really demanding 'special rights' are the moral
fascists like you.
PDW
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce.
I agree. From here ON, the farce of BIGOTRY should
be history. This hateful outcome in Maine should be it's LAST
hurrah. Forevermore!
> How many times do the people have to say "No"?
With good luck, yesterday will turn out to be the LAST
time that such LOWLIFE SCMUCKS are ever in the majority!
Puck Greenman
>Paranoid IAAH doesn't understand. I probably have more association and
>understanding of the gay homosexual lifestyle than he would ever have,
>even though Paranoid IAAH prefers a little penis with whip cream on
>top.
Just because your priest is fucking you, doesn't make you an expert.
Puck Greenman
Or you, sweet cheeks.
Puck Greenman
>> Completely wrong. If you don't want a gay
>> marriage, don't get one. SSM doesn't define my
>> marriage in any way or form. If you think it does
>> affect your marriage, the problem lies with you.
>>
>
>You are a homo, I knew it.
You have got to be one of the most narrow minded, fuckwits in Usenet.
Of all the mindless assertions, "You aint homophobic, therefore you are gay", that must be
the most stupid.
Puck Greenman
>> Completely wrong. If you don't want a gay
>> marriage, don't get one. SSM doesn't define my
>> marriage in any way or form. If you think it does
>> affect your marriage, the problem lies with you.
>>
>
>You are a homo, I knew it.
The Chief Instigator
> have to say "No"?
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
Be careful of what you wish for, Junkie...you might get it, whether you
understand it or not.
--
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: Texas 3, Houston 1 (October 30)
NEXT GAME:Thursday, November 5 vs. Manitoba, 5:05
The Chief Instigator
Thanks for your confession that you're too stupid to distinguish between
equal rights and special rights. Look up Loving v. Virginia (presuming you
have a literate person who can translate it into your IQ-65 "mentality").
The basis of that verdict is going to destroy your fantasy.
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 4, 9:41?am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> On 11/4/09 10:35 AM, * Mike wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 4, 9:18 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> >> On 11/4/09 10:11 AM, * noauth wrote:
>>
>> >>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
>> >>>> have to say "No"?
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> J Young
>> >>>> Jvisi...@live.com
>> >>> The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
>> >>> The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.
>> >>> It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
>> >>> Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
>> >> And when a gay couple gets married, what exactly
>> >> is being forced on YOU?
>>
>> > marriage, the gays are looking to use the government to force approval
>> > of their lifestyle on all of society.
>>
>> coming to you for your 'moral approval', huh?
>>
>> Bullshit. Try again. Nobody is requiring you to
>> approve of anything.
>>
>
> Obviously, the whole strategy is to go over all the people's heads and
> get the government to force gay marriage in to society whether people
> approve or not. Anyone who lives in that society has had the radical
> idea of gay marriage forced on them.
...and you can't make yourself ignore them? I'm ashamed that you're in my
state, but at least I'm at the right end of I-45. Gay marriage hasn't
devalued my marriage in the soon to be two decades the wife and I have been
hitched. You can look for my marriage license at the Harris County website.
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 4, 9:57?am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> On 11/4/09 10:51 AM, * Mike wrote:
>> > idea of gay marriage forced on them.
>>
>> point fails there. Approval is irrelevant in civil
>> rights matters. What is being forced on you?
>
> through, as gays have always been allowed to marry, go to school, and
> vote. Calling it a civil rights issue is slap in the face for the
> blacks, who struggled for decades to get the same rights homosexuals
> already had.
Pull your head out of your ass, kid. I could marry the non-related
consenting adult of my choice, because I'm a Kinsey 0 heterosexual (100%, to
simpletons like you, in this instance), but in 46 states, homosexuals don't
have the equal right to marry the non-related consenting adult of their
choice. (Is English your first language? Your attitude makes me wonder.)
You want to see her, go to www.io.com/~patrick/dublin.html...she likes Dr.
Pepper, as even you could tell.
>> There is nothing "radical" about marriage.
>
> Marriage is not radical. Gay marriage is radical, as it seeks to
> change the most elementary part of what constitutes marriage. It's as
> radical as trying to make polygamy legal here, or allowing brothers
> and sisters to wed. (I'm using the gays' own standard who say that
> any consenting adults who love and care for each other should be able
> to get married with the full blessings of society).
>
> The
>> radical thing here is that you think you're so
>> privileged and superior that your special
>> snowflake prejudice is good enough to deny rights
>> to a minority.
>
> I know those sour grapes aren't going down very good, but the fact is,
> gay marriage is a real loser. Don't expect it to get much better.
Don't expect your fantasy to come true until the Constitution is destroyed,
and it's getting there a bit slower than you want. I want a restored
Constitution, and hold ALL elected officials to it, with prison time for
those who ignore it. (By that standard, all 44 Presidents would never have
served as much as a single full term. If they're going to be the chief
administrators of the law, they can goddamned well obey it.)
IAAH
More gay panic, I see. But apart from that little
insight into his preference, content-free.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Look, you don't get it and you never will. You are a control freak,
>>> like most libs. You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
>>> issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
>>> pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
>>> agreeing with you.
>> An entire paragraph of ad-hominem, instead of
>> actually giving any arguments.
>>
>> Still, being accused of being a control freak by a
>> bigot who wants to continue to deny equal rights
>> to minorities is quite priceless, n'est-ce pas?
>
> And paranoid IAAH continues to lie.
Not so, I'm afraid. You *do* want to continue to
deny equal rights to minorities.
>
>>
>>
>>> Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
>>> sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
>>> homo of course you will not believe that.
>> More gay panic and irrelevant god-talk.
>
> Ah, Paranoid IAAH shows his intolerence.
Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
>
>
>>> But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
>>> change their mind. You simply don't have that kind of control and you
>>> never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
>>> that you like to suck a penis and take one up in the anal cavity, then
>>> you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
>>> favorably at you.
>> MORE gay panic -
>
> More intolerence.
Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
>
> from the prison guard that keeps
>> on proudly telling us all about his encounters
>> with male prisoners.
>
> Aw, Paranoid IAAH now has to make things up.
Are you denying that you *haven't* trumpeted, on
occasion, your rough-tough job encounters?
>
>>
>>
>>> Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
>>> going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
>> I don't care if you approve or not.
>
> Yes you do.
I really don't.
>
> I suspect gay
>> couples don't either, because the approval of a
>> sticky little homophobe like yourself lies far
>> down below their radar.
>
> Bullshit.
My my, you *are* self-important today.
>
>> The question is what harm does it do, Bipolar Bob?
>
> I explained it Paranoid IAAH.
What you explained is that you think that SSM will
make you and other religious folk feel icky.
Which is manifestly your problem, and not worthy
of consideration in any wise.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
>>> is a sin.
>> Irrelevant. Your and their religion has no
>> bearing.
>
> You don't decide that.
When considering laws, and the denial of
fundamental rights, yes, it is exactly irrelevant.
Your religion is not a precious and unique
snowflake with special insight and relevance due
to your particular brand of sky-fairy. It has no
business insinuating itself into the legal
framework and demanding that its little ceremonies
and prejudices are so special that they outweigh
fundamental equalities.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
>>> then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
>>> think homosexual acts are o.k.
>> No, it really isn't.
>
> Yes paranoid IAAH, it is.
No, it's not. That's a fiction you've made up so
that you can continue to tell yourself that you're
not a bigot because your religion is *so* special
that you have to do what it says.
But that's not the case. When you want to enshrine
your religion into the body politic to the extent
that minorities suffer, then it is appropriate and
timely to tell you to take your religion and stuff
it someplace uncomfortable.
>
> That's just an excuse you've
>> made up for yourself so you don't have to admit
>> your bigotry. Gay couples don't want your
>> "support". I'm entirely sure that they'd rather
>> you just left them alone, bigot.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
>>> many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
>> Irrelevant. Fundamental rights have no basis in
>> your skewed and bigoted religion.
>
> Paranoid IAAH can't come up with a better argument or answer.
You have NO argument TO answer.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
>>> attack their beliefs. That's what you do and I expect that. But you
>>> want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
>> No, you gave me irrelevancies.
>
> In other words, you have no rebuttal.
You have given nothing that is worthy of rebuttal,
Bigoted Bipolar Bob. Your religion has no place
demanding the oppression of minorities.
>
>
>> Furthermore, you've cemented your bigotry by
>> making accusations of being gay into a bigoted
>> attack.
>
> Who cares, you prefer penis..I don't care.
That really is the best you have, isn't it?
Your obsession with penis isn't new.
Mark Sebree
> "IAAH" <n...@email.exist> wrote in messagenews:hcsa2u$tk9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > equal rights for black people become the point
> > where it all just stops?
>
> >>> There is nothing "radical" about marriage.
>
> >> Marriage is not radical. Gay marriage is radical, as it seeks to
> >> change the most elementary part of what constitutes marriage. It's as
> >> radical as trying to make polygamy legal here, or allowing brothers
> >> and sisters to wed. (I'm using the gays' own standard who say that
> >> any consenting adults who love and care for each other should be able
> >> to get married with the full blessings of society).
>
> > thousands of years old. As for your strawman
> > argument about familial marriage, well, I reject
> > it since it's bullshit. That's not the common
> > argument at all.
>
> >> The
> >>> radical thing here is that you think you're so
> >>> privileged and superior that your special
> >>> snowflake prejudice is good enough to deny rights
> >>> to a minority.
>
> >> I know those sour grapes aren't going down very good, but the fact is,
> >> gay marriage is a real loser. Don't expect it to get much better.
>
> > like you - who oppose equal rights smells bad. So
> > far there is not ONE reason against SSM that
> > stands up to intellectual scrutiny, and you
> > certainly haven't done anything to change that.
>
> > --
> > "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
>
>
> You're the one who claims that it doesn't hurt anyone. When we object and say that it DOES hurt, you dismiss the hurt as unimportant.
Because you cannot SHOW how and why it hurts you. The reasons that
you give are not valid ones in most cases. "Morals" are nothing more
than opinions about how other people should act, and are not
applicable since nobody is bound by your morals. Your religious
beliefs are not valid since we are a secular nation and religion is
supposed to have no place in our laws in addition to the fact that our
freedom of religion means that nobody else is bound by your beliefs.
>
> You claimed that marriage is a human right.
Because it has been rules as such by the US Supreme Court.
> That's a pretty whacky assertion from someone who constantly insists that the right to life is NOT a fundamental human right.
That is because it violates the WOMAN'S right to determine FOR HERSELF
how her body is to be used, and by whom, and to deny access to her
body and its resources to anyone or anything for any reason or no
reason at all, and then to act on that decision promptly and
effectively.
A pregnancy causes real, permanent, and measurable physical harm to
the woman even when nothing goes wrong, which means being forced to
continue an unwanted pregnancy is the same as forcing her to endure an
ongoing assault with ever increasing harm to her body without allowing
her any chance to escape or fight back.
>
> In addition to being a religious sacrament,
Which is irrelevant since civil marriage are just as legal.
> Marriage is a legal right,
Which means that EVERYONE should have access to it.
> not a human right. It is conferred by the state,
And recognized by the federal government to the tune of over 1100
federal laws which deal with marriage.
> because it has been in the best interests of the state to promote and support families and the production of children. Historically, this has been for multiple reasons, including providing workers, staffing family farms, providing soldiers, producing consumption, and populating the state in order to govern it.
All those reasons quickly fall flat. There is no requirement for a
couple to produce children in a marriage, and couples can get married
even when one or the other is KNOWN for a fact to be infertile.
Marriages are also not annulled by the state if no children are
produced.
Family farms are almost unknown now. The majority of farms in the USA
are corporate farms. Additionally, "staffing the farm" has not been a
big concern for over 100 years, since the Industrial Revolution
resulting in many machines that greatly increase the amount of work
one man can do.
We also have more than enough soldiers as it is. The USA has the one
of the largest, if not the largest, standing army in the world. The
combines size of all the US Armed Forces is about 1.5% - 2% of our
total population. If conscription became necessary, it could increase
the size of the military to perhaps double its current size in 6
months without a serious problem, and STILL not seriously deplete the
work force.
Production and consumption are not valid reason to limit marriage
heterosexuals since having people not producing anything or consuming
anything is not listed as a reason ANYWHERE for denying a couple a
marriage. The world already has too many people, and couples that do
not produce children help relieve that burden. And it is largely
because of our consumer culture that we have such a high trade
deficit, as well as a credit crisis. People buy and buy and buy
without considering the long term consequences. Increasing the
population will only make things worse.
>
> Gay marriage cannot accomplish these goals, and other than providing gay votes for queasy politicians, there is no state interest in gay marriage. There is a state interest to oppose such marriages.
Sorry, but your arguments failed in Iowa, and they would fail anywhere
else in the USA with honest judges. The "goals" you named are all
inapplicable. Homosexual couples can actually relieve some of certain
state's burdens. While they may not produce children of their own,
they can adopt children that are currently in the state's care. Then
the state no longer has to pay for those children, and the children
get homes where they know that the parents want them.
The truth is that the state has no reason to OPPOSE same sex marriage,
and that should be the guiding principle.
>
> However much this hurts your feelings, there is no logic to gay marriage.
Except, of course, for equality and following the US Constitution, and
thus the law.
Apparently you do not think that there is logic in any marriage.
However, there is, even if logic is not the reason that most people
get married. Married couples tend to have less stress in their lives,
which reduces long term medical costs. They potentially have 2
sources of income, which helps reduce the likelihood of bankruptcy.
There is someone there to care to the spouse when one gets sick.
There is help raising the children, and a guaranteed caretaker of
those children if something happens to one of the couple. (and yes,
homosexuals do have children.) Vacations by yourself can be dull and
boring, but then are much more enjoyable when you can spend them
without someone that you care about. And so on. This logic applies
equally to heterosexual married couples and homosexual married
couples.
> Proponents have chosen to avoid logic,
No, it is the opponents that choose to avoid logic.
> and attempt to confuse the citizenry with claims of bogotry and loving relationships.
Actually, the claims are bigotry against homosexuals are accurate, and
since we are talking about homosexuals couples who want to get married
for the same reasons and in the same manner as heterosexual couples,
we are obviously talking about loving relationships. Or do you think
that homosexual couples would remain together for decades if they did
not love each other?
> We in these newsgroups have rarely seen any sign of love from proponents
Then you have not been looking. However, most of the people in these
newsgroups are heterosexuals, and none of the groups are places where
one is expected to gush on about their relationships. It does not
help anyone's arguments.
> - only harsh and vulgar language.
There is more coming from the opponents of same sex marriage.
>
> It is clear that you believe that loudness wins arguments.
Well, that is the tactic that people like you like to use. I prefer
logic, facts, and reason, which is why I use them.
> Unfortunately for you, we have grown accustomed to your shrillness,
Actually, it is the opponents who have the habit of being
"shrill" (which is a good trick in a written medium)
> and are no longer moved by your tantrums, mockery, and insults.
If you look, it is the opponents of equality who tend to resort to
those things. Just has you have done in this post.
Mark Sebree
Uncle Vic
>
> Who cares, you prefer penis..I don't care.
Hypocrite! It bothers you deeply that a minority group of US citizens
wants the same rights you have. If you didn't care, like I don't
care, you wouldn't be bothered by this.
--
Uncle Vic
AA#2011
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the
> people have to say "No"?
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
Heh. You've long since lost this fight. You just don't know it yet.
There will be an inevitable expansion of gay marriage in your lifetime--
unless you take courage and kill yourself while celebrating this short
"victory."
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Hey, GOPpers: Grab a Mop!
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:bcaaa4ba-5836-4560...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
Oh, like the end of slavery, blacks getting the vote, women getting the
vote, and similar stuff pricks like you got all wrought-up over in
opposition?
You don't have a choice, son. It doesn't matter for shit what you
"accept" or not.
You will not repress others without a fight--and like with those other
examples, you and your pals have long since LOST this one.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:5106228e-9c9b-46e2...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 4, 9:18�am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> And when a gay couple gets married, what exactly
>> is being forced on YOU?
>
> Moral approval.
HAH! You don't seem to understand that it's not about you.
It doesn't matter whether you idiots "approve" or not, since it's none of
your damn business.
Do you go door to door with a little Notary stamp, giving your
"approval" to newlyweds? "Oh, FUCK! We gotta break up, baby--Mike doesn't
approve of us!"
Too bad, so sad, mind your own business.
Uncle Vic
>
> > The sickening triumph coming from the bigots -
> > like you - who oppose equal rights smells bad. So
> > far there is not ONE reason against SSM that
> > stands up to intellectual scrutiny, and you
> > certainly haven't done anything to change that.
>
> Intellectual scrutiny? Please.
>
> You're the one who claims that it doesn't hurt anyone. When we object and say that it DOES hurt, you dismiss the hurt as unimportant.
That's because your claim that SSM "hurts" society, you are lying.
Lying to protect your own interests with gross disregard for others
who happen to live here too.
>
> You claimed that marriage is a human right. That's a pretty whacky assertion from someone who constantly insists that the right to life is NOT a fundamental human right.
>
> In addition to being a religious sacrament, Marriage is a legal right, not a human right. It is conferred by the state, because it has been in the best interests of the state to promote and support families and the production of children.
So who's next? Shall we start writing laws to prohibit the infertile
from getting married? Shall we prohibit octogenarian marriage also?
> Historically, this has been for multiple reasons, including providing workers, staffing family farms, providing soldiers, producing consumption, and populating the state in order to govern it.
What do you think this is, a baby mill?
>
> Gay marriage cannot accomplish these goals, and other than providing gay votes for queasy politicians, there is no state interest in gay marriage. There is a state interest to oppose such marriages.
>
Pppppfffttt!
--
Uncle Vic
AA#2011
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:33ffe9c2-d001-4d0c...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Obviously, the whole strategy is to go over all the people's heads and
> get the government to force gay marriage in to society whether people
> approve or not. Anyone who lives in that society has had the radical
> idea of gay marriage forced on them.
That's fucking stupid, what you wrote. All of it. Here--let me fix it up
to put it in perspective:
The South, 1861:
> Obviously, the whole strategy is to go over all the people's heads and
> get the government to force Abolition on to society whether people
> approve or not. Anyone who lives in that society has had the radical
> idea of freed slaves forced on them.
Different freedom, same attitude. They lost. You have lost--within a few
decades, no one will give a second thought to gay marriage, and people
like you will rightly be treated as idiots if they pop up and whine.
> Obviously, the whole strategy is to go over all the people's heads and
> get the government to force desegregation onto society whether people
> approve or not. Anyone who lives in that society has had the radical
> idea of black children in white schools forced on them.
Different freedom, same attitude. We can play this all night, but it all
boils down to: You are wrong, you have lost. This is a setback, not a
defeat.
Dionisio
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> have to say "No"?
Until the sun goes nova.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"It's a basic human need to have somebody else to blame/confide in. The God/Satan duo are
a popular choice. I view it as a misplacement of responsibility."
-- Dionisio, August 26, 1994
(Brought to you by SigChanger.)
zamboni30...@yahooonspam.com
>Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
>have to say "No"?
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
Ahh, yes... tyranny of the masses is a wonderful thing. Well, unless
you're a minority and the majority are bigots and/or homophobes.
--
zamboni30000 AA#2139
"There are none more ignorant and useless, than they that seek answers
on their knees, with their eyes closed."
Janon
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> have to say "No"?
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>
> J Young
> Jvisi...@live.com
This is not surprising in that most voters are old farts that will
soon be dead. The younger generations are for gay marriage, and the
even younger generations even more so. It's only a matter of time.
All illogical Christian (and I am a Christian by the way) concepts
will be, just like the heliocentric model, Creationism, and so forth.
Janon
Smiler
If we use his 'argument', then 48% of Californians must be gay, as they
voted against Prop 8.
How much more stupid can he get?
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Smiler
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4af1be01$0$1584$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
>>>>>> the people have to say "No"?
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> J Young
>>>>>> Jvisi...@live.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts,
>>>>> New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by
>>>>> judicial fiat, not by popular vote. It would seem that the left
>>>>> wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone else.
>>>>
>>>>> Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
>>>>
>>>> is being forced on YOU?
>>>
>>> Moral approval.
>>
>> hatred and evil bigotry?
>>
>>> By trying to force a sea change in the definition of
>>> marriage,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>> rfis...@sonic.net
>>
>
> Full disclosure time, Ray.
>
> Are you gay?
Why is that any of your business?
Why can't you keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms?
IAAH
> Puck Greenman wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:58:43 -0800 (PST), Osprey
>> <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Completely wrong. If you don't want a gay
>>>> marriage, don't get one. SSM doesn't define my
>>>> marriage in any way or form. If you think it does
>>>> affect your marriage, the problem lies with you.
>>>>
>>> You are a homo, I knew it.
>>
>> You have got to be one of the most narrow minded, fuckwits in Usenet.
>>
>> Of all the mindless assertions, "You aint homophobic, therefore you
>> are gay", that must be the most stupid.
>
> If we use his 'argument', then 48% of Californians must be gay, as they
> voted against Prop 8.
> How much more stupid can he get?
>
Nobody knows. It was years ago that he crossed the
threshold that I had sworn was necessary for
breathing and being able to swallow without
choking himself to death, but he does just
continue the dive.
pandora
"juanjo" <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:f4f28149-6c65-4e58...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 7:35 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:18 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11/4/09 10:11 AM, * noauth wrote:
>
> > > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in
messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
> > >> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the
people
> > >> have to say "No"?
>
> > >>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>
> > >> --
> > >> J Young
> > >> Jvisi...@live.com
>
> > > The voters in 30 states have voted against same-sex marriage.
>
> > > The only states which have approved gay marriage, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa, have done so by judicial fiat,
not by popular vote.
>
> > > It would seem that the left wishes to FORCE their will upon everyone
else.
>
> > > Get out of my classroom and dictionary, fascists!
>
> > And when a gay couple gets married, what exactly
> > is being forced on YOU?
>
> marriage, the gays are looking to use the government to force approval
> of their lifestyle on all of society.
Personally I do not give a rat's patootie as to whether you morally
approve of gay men and women or not. That is irrelevant. Your
approval is not needed. Neither should you goive a rat's patootie
aboput whether I morally approve of all [or some] the things you
endorse. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that each of us be
allowed to live our lives and participate in the free exercise of our
respective right, privileges and obligations without interference
except where absolutely necessary for the common good of the society.
Allowing gay men and women to marry the persons of their choice
neither impacts you personally or our society in a negative fashion.
In fact it benefits society in the same way any marriage does as it
promotes stability.
pandora
"Osprey" <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:90562365-e695-4395...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 12:49 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> On 11/4/09 12:09 PM, * Mike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 10:28 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >> On 11/4/09 11:15 AM, * Mike wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 4, 9:57 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/4/09 10:51 AM, * Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>>>> coming to you for your 'moral approval', huh?
> >>>>>> Bullshit. Try again. Nobody is requiring you to
> >>>>>> approve of anything.
and
> >>>>> get the government to force gay marriage in to society whether
people
> >>>>> approve or not. Anyone who lives in that society has had the radical
> >>>>> idea of gay marriage forced on them.
> >>>> point fails there. Approval is irrelevant in civil
> >>>> rights matters. What is being forced on you?
> >>> It is not a civil rights matter. That argument is phony through and
> >>> through, as gays have always been allowed to marry, go to school, and
> >>> vote. Calling it a civil rights issue is slap in the face for the
> >>> blacks, who struggled for decades to get the same rights homosexuals
> >>> already had.
> >> Since marriage has already been declared as a
> >> fundamental human right multiple times in multiple
> >> findings, it IS a civil rights matter. You are wrong.
>
>
> Marriage, not "heterosexual marriage".
>
> > You are talking about the artificial
>
> > right to redefine what marriage means for the whole of society.
>
> marriage, don't get one. SSM doesn't define my
> marriage in any way or form. If you think it does
> affect your marriage, the problem lies with you.
>
You are a homo, I knew it. Why didn't you just come out and be honest
about it in the first place? Oh wait, asking you to be honest is like
asking Obama not to break any of his campaign promises.
Look, you don't get it and you never will. You are a control freak,
like most libs. You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
agreeing with you.
Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
homo of course you will not believe that.
But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
change their mind. You simply don't have that kind of control and you
never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
that you like to suck a penis and take one up in the anal cavity, then
you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
favorably at you.
Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
is a sin.
If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
think homosexual acts are o.k.
And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
attack their beliefs. That's what you do and I expect that. But you
want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
Wipe your chin, you got something on it.
Oooop..sorry, I forgot.
pandora
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB97774...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the
> > people have to say "No"?
>
> should be able to deny basic rights to others without a reasonable
> foundation.
Hey. WHEN heterosexuals give up their right to divorce, then and only
then will I give up my fight to allow gay marriage.
> --
> 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.
pandora
>
> > Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the
> > people have to say "No"?
>
> Until they can finally grasp the point that it is indecent to believe you
> should be able to deny basic rights to others without a reasonable
> foundation.
What is your reasonable foundation in trying to force others to accept
something they clearly don't want to accept?
*** Just don't attend any gay marriages. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
And no one is forcing anything on you. Just ignore it. It won't hurt you
at all.
thomas p.
On the other hand it is a great excuse for not being able to come up with a
reasonable argument.
Uncle Vic
>
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CB97774...@216.196.97.131...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do
>> > the people have to say "No"?
>>
>> Until they can finally grasp the point that it is indecent to believe
>> you should be able to deny basic rights to others without a
>> reasonable foundation.
>
> Hey. WHEN heterosexuals give up their right to divorce, then and only
> then will I give up my fight to allow gay marriage.
>
Good one. Can you put in a word against helmet laws while you're at it?
:-)
Dysperdis
you feed them if you tell them that you've got god on your side.
"Never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of god and says it's
absolute truth"
--
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.
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:01:11 -0500,> I agree. From here ON, the farce of BIGOTRY should
> be history. This hateful outcome in Maine should be it's LAST
> hurrah. Forevermore!
You're running out of states to lose in.
> > How many times do the people have to say "No"?
>
> With good luck, yesterday will turn out to be the LAST
> time that such LOWLIFE SCMUCKS are ever in the majority!
You lowlifes will never be in the majority.
Les Hellawell
wrote:
I know of no law that prevents a man and a woman from forming a
sexual union if they so wish. Same sex couples are obvious unable
to form such a sexual union therefore can never be considered as
'married' . All they can do is engage in mutual masterbation. If
that's what they want it is their business but no legislation in the
world can make such a union 'marriage' unless you change the very
meaning of the word.
Well they seem to have managed to pervert or change the meaning
of the word 'gay' so I guess in this Alice Through The Looking Glass'
world a word means just what they want t to mean so they will change
the meaning of the word 'marriage' from 'a sexual union' to also mean
a 'mutual masterbation union' whether the rest of the world likes it
or no.
Well there is a simple way to distinquish between these two
radically different unions. Next time I am asked 'am I married' I will
now have to say, 'Yes I am in traditional dull marriage not a new
gay one' I can eventually abbreviate that to 'traditional marriage'
and everybody will know what I mean.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
martin
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:18:35 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 10:41 am, Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who cares, you prefer penis..I don't care.
>>> Hypocrite! It bothers you deeply that a minority group of US citizens
>>> wants the same rights you have. If you didn't care, like I don't
>>> care, you wouldn't be bothered by this.
>> On the other hand it is a great excuse for not being able to come up with a
>> reasonable argument.
>
> I know of no law that prevents a man and a woman from forming a
> sexual union if they so wish. Same sex couples are obvious unable
> to form such a sexual union
What the fuck are you on? You're bloody barking, of course gay people
can have sex, fucking hell you're insane.
> --
> Les Hellawell
> Greetings from:
> YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
You make me feel ashamed to come from the same place as you.
thomas p.
"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:h395f59eo112docml...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:18:35 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 10:41 am, Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who cares, you prefer penis..I don't care.
>>>
>>> Hypocrite! It bothers you deeply that a minority group of US citizens
>>> wants the same rights you have. If you didn't care, like I don't
>>> care, you wouldn't be bothered by this.
>>
>>On the other hand it is a great excuse for not being able to come up with
>>a
>>reasonable argument.
>
> I know of no law that prevents a man and a woman from forming a
> sexual union if they so wish. Same sex couples are obvious unable
> to form such a sexual union therefore can never be considered as
> 'married' . All they can do is engage in mutual masterbation. If
> that's what they want it is their business but no legislation in the
> world can make such a union 'marriage' unless you change the very
> meaning of the word.
How many times are you going to use an argument repeatedly refuted?
Marriage does not require any particular kind of sex or any sex at all.
nor does it require the couple to have or be able to have children.
>
> Well they seem to have managed to pervert or change the meaning
> of the word 'gay' so I guess in this Alice Through The Looking Glass'
> world a word means just what they want t to mean so they will change
> the meaning of the word 'marriage' from 'a sexual union' to also mean
> a 'mutual masterbation union' whether the rest of the world likes it
> or no.
The meaning of marriage in the context of this discussion is a civil
contract between
two persons capable of making a valid contract. Your above comments are
irrelevant.
>
> Well there is a simple way to distinquish between these two
> radically different unions. Next time I am asked 'am I married' I will
> now have to say, 'Yes I am in traditional dull marriage not a new
> gay one' I can eventually abbreviate that to 'traditional marriage'
> and everybody will know what I mean.
Or you can say yes. All the rest of it has nothing to do with whether or
not two
people can enter into a valid civil marriage, and all legal marriages in the
US
are civil marriages whatever additional, personal meaning any couple might
add
to it.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce.
I agree. From here ON, the farce of BIGOTRY should
be history. This hateful outcome in Maine should be it's LAST
hurrah. Forevermore!
> How many times do the people have to say "No"?
With good luck, yesterday will turn out to be the LAST
time that such LOWLIFE SCHMUCKS are ever in the majority!
Osprey
I'm not bothered by it at all. I don't care what you want. You and
other's like you are not going to bully other people around into
changing their own opinions.
So just deal with it.
Osprey
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:bcaaa4ba-5836-4560...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do
> >> > the people have to say "No"?
>
> >> Until they can finally grasp the point that it is indecent to believe
> >> you should be able to deny basic rights to others without a
> >> reasonable foundation.
>
> > What is your reasonable foundation in trying to force others to accept
> > something they clearly don't want to accept?
>
> Oh, like the end of slavery, blacks getting the vote, women getting the
> vote, and similar stuff pricks like you got all wrought-up over in
> opposition?
>
> You don't have a choice, son. It doesn't matter for shit what you
> "accept" or not.
It doesn't matter for shit what you accept or not either, pop.
>
> You will not repress others without a fight--and like with those other
> examples, you and your pals have long since LOST this one.
You will not repress others without a fight who hold different
opinions.
You and your pals will lose that too.
Osprey
> "Osprey" <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never said hit hurt me at all. I don't care what you do. Like I've
always said before, if you want to hump a tree I've got a whole entire
woods behind me. Hump away. You will leave the trees in my backyard
alone.
Osprey
> On 11/4/09 1:41 PM, * Osprey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 1:22 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >> On 11/4/09 12:58 PM, * Osprey wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 4, 12:49 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/4/09 12:09 PM, * Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 4, 10:28 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/4/09 11:15 AM, * Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:57 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/4/09 10:51 AM, * Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/09 10:35 AM, * Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:18 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/09 10:11 AM, * noauth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:38on05....@news.alt.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to say "No"?
> >> mode. It's not unusual.
>
> > Paranoid IAAH doesn't understand. I probably have more association and
> > understanding of the gay homosexual lifestyle than he would ever have,
> > even though Paranoid IAAH prefers a little penis with whip cream on
> > top.
>
> More gay panic, I see. But apart from that little
> insight into his preference, content-free.
What gay panic? I don't care what you prefer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Look, you don't get it and you never will. You are a control freak,
> >>> like most libs. You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
> >>> issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
> >>> pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
> >>> agreeing with you.
> >> An entire paragraph of ad-hominem, instead of
> >> actually giving any arguments.
>
> >> Still, being accused of being a control freak by a
> >> bigot who wants to continue to deny equal rights
> >> to minorities is quite priceless, n'est-ce pas?
>
> > And paranoid IAAH continues to lie.
>
> Not so, I'm afraid. You *do* want to continue to
> deny equal rights to minorities.
I don't want to deny anyone equal rights.
>
>
>
> >>> Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
> >>> sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
> >>> homo of course you will not believe that.
> >> More gay panic and irrelevant god-talk.
>
> > Ah, Paranoid IAAH shows his intolerence.
>
> Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
You are intolerant to opposing opinions. You are unable to and
unwilling to listen or open your mind to anyone elses different
opinons.
>
>
> >>> But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
> >>> change their mind. You simply don't have that kind of control and you
> >>> never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
> >>> that you like to suck a penis and take one up in the anal cavity, then
> >>> you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
> >>> favorably at you.
> >> MORE gay panic -
>
> > More intolerence.
>
> Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
>
>
>
> > from the prison guard that keeps
> >> on proudly telling us all about his encounters
> >> with male prisoners.
>
> > Aw, Paranoid IAAH now has to make things up.
>
> Are you denying that you *haven't* trumpeted, on
> occasion, your rough-tough job encounters?
>
>
>
> >>> Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
> >>> going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
> >> I don't care if you approve or not.
>
> > Yes you do.
>
> I really don't.
You do
>
>
>
> > I suspect gay
> >> couples don't either, because the approval of a
> >> sticky little homophobe like yourself lies far
> >> down below their radar.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> My my, you *are* self-important today.
>
>
>
> >> The question is what harm does it do, Bipolar Bob?
>
> > I explained it Paranoid IAAH.
>
> What you explained is that you think that SSM will
> make you and other religious folk feel icky.
I never said that, now you just go out and lie again.
> Which is manifestly your problem, and not worthy
> of consideration in any wise.
>
>
>
> >>> Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
> >>> is a sin.
> >> Irrelevant. Your and their religion has no
> >> bearing.
>
> > You don't decide that.
>
> When considering laws, and the denial of
> fundamental rights, yes, it is exactly irrelevant.
I'm not talking about the laws.
You asked why some people feel that supporting gay marriage effects
them.
I answered you.
It's due to a conflict.
Now, if you can't understand that or accept that then it really isn't
my problem.
>
>
> >>> If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
> >>> then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
> >>> think homosexual acts are o.k.
> >> No, it really isn't.
>
> > Yes paranoid IAAH, it is.
>
> No, it's not.
Yes Paranoid Adam,it is.
>
>
>
> > That's just an excuse you've
> >> made up for yourself so you don't have to admit
> >> your bigotry. Gay couples don't want your
> >> "support". I'm entirely sure that they'd rather
> >> you just left them alone, bigot.
>
> >>> And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
> >>> many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
> >> Irrelevant. Fundamental rights have no basis in
> >> your skewed and bigoted religion.
>
> > Paranoid IAAH can't come up with a better argument or answer.
>
> You have NO argument TO answer.
There was no argument to begin with. A question was asked, and I
provided you an answer.
>
>
>
> >>> I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
> >>> attack their beliefs. That's what you do and I expect that. But you
> >>> want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
> >> No, you gave me irrelevancies.
>
> > In other words, you have no rebuttal.
>
> You have given nothing that is worthy of rebuttal,
> Bigoted Bipolar Bob. Your religion has no place
> demanding the oppression of minorities.
Paranoid Adam, my religion or anyone elses religion has just as much
right to be involved in discussion as anything else.
Deal with it, because you can not squash it.
>
>
>
> >> Furthermore, you've cemented your bigotry by
> >> making accusations of being gay into a bigoted
> >> attack.
>
> > Who cares, you prefer penis..I don't care.
>
> That really is the best you have, isn't it?
> Your obsession with penis isn't new.
>
> --
> "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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray Fischer
Asshole doesn't care about justice or liberty. He just wants to force
people to live as he says (but not as he does, of course).
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Osprey
And of course Fischer goes to lying again.
Puck Greenman
>Puck Greenman wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:58:43 -0800 (PST), Osprey
>> <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Completely wrong. If you don't want a gay
>>>> marriage, don't get one. SSM doesn't define my
>>>> marriage in any way or form. If you think it does
>>>> affect your marriage, the problem lies with you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are a homo, I knew it.
>>
>>
>> You have got to be one of the most narrow minded, fuckwits in Usenet.
>>
>> Of all the mindless assertions, "You aint homophobic, therefore you
>> are gay", that must be the most stupid.
>
>If we use his 'argument', then 48% of Californians must be gay, as they
>voted against Prop 8.
>How much more stupid can he get?
I find it hard to believe that he has not reached his limit, but I am sure that whether he
has, or not, he will make every effort to excel himself.
IAAH
How are YOU being repressed by SSM, Bipolar Bob?
thomas p.
How would legalized same-sex marriage force you to change your opinion? For
example divorce is legal, did that force the Catholic Church to change its
opinion?
thomas p.
How can they lose a battle they are not involved in? Have the people in
Mass. been forced to change their opinion?
IAAH
On the contrary, you do care enough to make up
homoerotic fantasies, Bipolar Bob.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Look, you don't get it and you never will. You are a control freak,
>>>>> like most libs. You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
>>>>> issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
>>>>> pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
>>>>> agreeing with you.
>>>> An entire paragraph of ad-hominem, instead of
>>>> actually giving any arguments.
>>>> Still, being accused of being a control freak by a
>>>> bigot who wants to continue to deny equal rights
>>>> to minorities is quite priceless, n'est-ce pas?
>>> And paranoid IAAH continues to lie.
>> Not so, I'm afraid. You *do* want to continue to
>> deny equal rights to minorities.
>
> I don't want to deny anyone equal rights.
Bullshit.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>> Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
>>>>> sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
>>>>> homo of course you will not believe that.
>>>> More gay panic and irrelevant god-talk.
>>> Ah, Paranoid IAAH shows his intolerence.
>> Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
>
> You are intolerant to opposing opinions. You are unable to and
> unwilling to listen or open your mind to anyone elses different
> opinons.
You aren't able to articulate one single good
reason why the opinions of those who wish to deny
rights to others should be given any time at all.
Once people cross the line from religious worship
to oppression, their views should be discarded
with all swiftness. Just like yours have been.
>
>
>>
>>>>> But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
>>>>> change their mind. You simply don't have that kind of control and you
>>>>> never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
>>>>> that you like to suck a penis and take one up in the anal cavity, then
>>>>> you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
>>>>> favorably at you.
>>>> MORE gay panic -
>>> More intolerence.
>> Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
So none, then.
>>
>>
>>
>>> from the prison guard that keeps
>>>> on proudly telling us all about his encounters
>>>> with male prisoners.
>>> Aw, Paranoid IAAH now has to make things up.
>> Are you denying that you *haven't* trumpeted, on
>> occasion, your rough-tough job encounters?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
>>>>> going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
>>>> I don't care if you approve or not.
>>> Yes you do.
>> I really don't.
>
> You do
Bipolar Bob, you are not even a speck on the
metaphorical windshield of my life.
>
>>
>>
>>> I suspect gay
>>>> couples don't either, because the approval of a
>>>> sticky little homophobe like yourself lies far
>>>> down below their radar.
>>> Bullshit.
>> My my, you *are* self-important today.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The question is what harm does it do, Bipolar Bob?
>>> I explained it Paranoid IAAH.
>> What you explained is that you think that SSM will
>> make you and other religious folk feel icky.
>
> I never said that, now you just go out and lie again.
It nicely sums up what you said, Bipolar Bob.
>
>> Which is manifestly your problem, and not worthy
>> of consideration in any wise.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
>>>>> is a sin.
>>>> Irrelevant. Your and their religion has no
>>>> bearing.
>>> You don't decide that.
>> When considering laws, and the denial of
>> fundamental rights, yes, it is exactly irrelevant.
>
> I'm not talking about the laws.
> You asked why some people feel that supporting gay marriage effects
> them.
> I answered you.
> It's due to a conflict.
> Now, if you can't understand that or accept that then it really isn't
> my problem.
Your reason is bullshit and deserves no
consideration in the arena of equal rights.
>
>
>>
>>>>> If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
>>>>> then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
>>>>> think homosexual acts are o.k.
>>>> No, it really isn't.
>>> Yes paranoid IAAH, it is.
>> No, it's not.
>
> Yes Paranoid Adam,it is.
I'm going to give you a little hint, Bipolar Bob;
if you wish to try to get under my skin - an
effort that has manifestly failed on your part
thus far - you're going to have to find something
that works and then stick with it.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> That's just an excuse you've
>>>> made up for yourself so you don't have to admit
>>>> your bigotry. Gay couples don't want your
>>>> "support". I'm entirely sure that they'd rather
>>>> you just left them alone, bigot.
>>>>> And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
>>>>> many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
>>>> Irrelevant. Fundamental rights have no basis in
>>>> your skewed and bigoted religion.
>>> Paranoid IAAH can't come up with a better argument or answer.
>> You have NO argument TO answer.
>
> There was no argument to begin with. A question was asked, and I
> provided you an answer.
Which was your argument in favour of religious
oppression, Bipolar Bob.
Thus, an argument that has no merit.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>> I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
>>>>> attack their beliefs. That's what you do and I expect that. But you
>>>>> want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
>>>> No, you gave me irrelevancies.
>>> In other words, you have no rebuttal.
>> You have given nothing that is worthy of rebuttal,
>> Bigoted Bipolar Bob. Your religion has no place
>> demanding the oppression of minorities.
>
> Paranoid Adam, my religion or anyone elses religion has just as much
> right to be involved in discussion as anything else.
> Deal with it, because you can not squash it.
Your religious opinions have no place at all in a
discussion of same-sex marriage.
thomas p.
Oh good, you are not against allowing same-sex marriage then.
Osprey
I'm not and I never said I was, Paranoid Adam.
Osprey
Legalized SSM would "not" force me to change my opinion. I never said
it would.
Osprey
The only one talking about fantasies is you, Paranoid Adam.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> Look, you don't get it and you never will. You are a control freak,
> >>>>> like most libs. You don't accept anyone elses thoughts or ideas on an
> >>>>> issue unless they match yours and if they don't you try to act like a
> >>>>> pit bull and go on the attack trying to basically coerce people into
> >>>>> agreeing with you.
> >>>> An entire paragraph of ad-hominem, instead of
> >>>> actually giving any arguments.
> >>>> Still, being accused of being a control freak by a
> >>>> bigot who wants to continue to deny equal rights
> >>>> to minorities is quite priceless, n'est-ce pas?
> >>> And paranoid IAAH continues to lie.
> >> Not so, I'm afraid. You *do* want to continue to
> >> deny equal rights to minorities.
>
> > I don't want to deny anyone equal rights.
>
> Bullshit.
And now you've reached the point of being in total denial. Keep
slipping Paranoid Adam.
>
>
>
> >>>>> Many people do not accept homosexual acts because they believe it's a
> >>>>> sin in God's eyes. You don't have to believe that, wait you are a
> >>>>> homo of course you will not believe that.
> >>>> More gay panic and irrelevant god-talk.
> >>> Ah, Paranoid IAAH shows his intolerence.
> >> Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
>
> > You are intolerant to opposing opinions. You are unable to and
> > unwilling to listen or open your mind to anyone elses different
> > opinons.
>
> You aren't able to articulate one single good
> reason why the opinions of those who wish to deny
> rights to others should be given any time at all.
I did, you just refuse to open your mind and be tolerent and
understanding of different viewpoints.
That makes you a bigot, Paranoid Adam.
>
> Once people cross the line from religious worship
> to oppression, their views should be discarded
> with all swiftness. Just like yours have been.
>
>
>
> >>>>> But for those who do believe that, you don't have the right to try and
> >>>>> change their mind. You simply don't have that kind of control and you
> >>>>> never will. So accept it and deal with it. You want people to accept
> >>>>> that you like to suck a penis and take one up in the anal cavity, then
> >>>>> you are going to have to accept the fact people are not going to look
> >>>>> favorably at you.
> >>>> MORE gay panic -
> >>> More intolerence.
> >> Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
>
> So none, then.
It's too obvious Paranoid Adam. I'm not surprised you can't see it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> from the prison guard that keeps
> >>>> on proudly telling us all about his encounters
> >>>> with male prisoners.
> >>> Aw, Paranoid IAAH now has to make things up.
> >> Are you denying that you *haven't* trumpeted, on
> >> occasion, your rough-tough job encounters?
>
> >>>>> Now, you ask what does your SSM marriage have to do with others. I'm
> >>>>> going to explain why most don't approve of SSM.
> >>>> I don't care if you approve or not.
> >>> Yes you do.
> >> I really don't.
>
> > You do
>
> Bipolar Bob, you are not even a speck on the
> metaphorical windshield of my life.
Paranoid Adam, if that were true you wouldn't spend one second reading
any of my postings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I suspect gay
> >>>> couples don't either, because the approval of a
> >>>> sticky little homophobe like yourself lies far
> >>>> down below their radar.
> >>> Bullshit.
> >> My my, you *are* self-important today.
>
> >>>> The question is what harm does it do, Bipolar Bob?
> >>> I explained it Paranoid IAAH.
> >> What you explained is that you think that SSM will
> >> make you and other religious folk feel icky.
>
> > I never said that, now you just go out and lie again.
>
> It nicely sums up what you said, Bipolar Bob.
Paranoid Adam, yes, I did sum it up nicely. You lied.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Which is manifestly your problem, and not worthy
> >> of consideration in any wise.
>
> >>>>> Yes, it comes from a belief in God and the belief that homosexuality
> >>>>> is a sin.
> >>>> Irrelevant. Your and their religion has no
> >>>> bearing.
> >>> You don't decide that.
> >> When considering laws, and the denial of
> >> fundamental rights, yes, it is exactly irrelevant.
>
> > I'm not talking about the laws.
> > You asked why some people feel that supporting gay marriage effects
> > them.
> > I answered you.
> > It's due to a conflict.
> > Now, if you can't understand that or accept that then it really isn't
> > my problem.
>
> Your reason is bullshit and deserves no
> consideration in the arena of equal rights.
Poor Paranoid Adam, he just can't get along well with anyone.
>
>
>
> >>>>> If a person who believes that supports your SSM or anyone else's SSM,
> >>>>> then that's the same thing as someone turning around and saying they
> >>>>> think homosexual acts are o.k.
> >>>> No, it really isn't.
> >>> Yes paranoid IAAH, it is.
> >> No, it's not.
>
> > Yes Paranoid Adam,it is.
>
> I'm going to give you a little hint,
No, you're not Paranoid Adam.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> That's just an excuse you've
> >>>> made up for yourself so you don't have to admit
> >>>> your bigotry. Gay couples don't want your
> >>>> "support". I'm entirely sure that they'd rather
> >>>> you just left them alone, bigot.
> >>>>> And for people who believe that is a sin, that brings up conflict. So
> >>>>> many people who believe it is a sin will not support SSM.
> >>>> Irrelevant. Fundamental rights have no basis in
> >>>> your skewed and bigoted religion.
> >>> Paranoid IAAH can't come up with a better argument or answer.
> >> You have NO argument TO answer.
>
> > There was no argument to begin with. A question was asked, and I
> > provided you an answer.
>
> Which was your argument in favour of religious
> oppression, Bipolar Bob.
> Thus, an argument that has no merit.
"yawn"
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> I know..you are going to go off on one of your atheist tangents and
> >>>>> attack their beliefs. That's what you do and I expect that. But you
> >>>>> want an answer and a reason, and I gave it to you.
> >>>> No, you gave me irrelevancies.
> >>> In other words, you have no rebuttal.
> >> You have given nothing that is worthy of rebuttal,
> >> Bigoted Bipolar Bob. Your religion has no place
> >> demanding the oppression of minorities.
>
> > Paranoid Adam, my religion or
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Osprey
What our legislators do with our laws, I will respect.
As I've said before, I believe in God's word. And according to what my
understanding is, it's not an acceptable behavior in God's eyes.
With that being said, I will say this.
I would never mistreat anyone, regardless of their sexual preference.
I treat everyone as I would want to be treated myself, UNTIL they give
me good reason not too.
I would never hate a homosexual for what he or she does in their own
privacy. It's not my business.
I will not judge a person, or at least I try not to. It's almost
impossible not to judge people, we all do.
I am not the one that is going to judge people based on their acts
here on earth. So I'm not going to worry about it.
Now, if you ask me if I think that SSM is acceptable in God's eyes, I
will tell you no, I do not believe it is.
If it is acceptable in the laws of our country, I will accept that.
Even Jesus Christ said we must obey the laws of our land.
If you can't accept my opinions, that's too bad. But then it becomes
you who has become intolerent.
It takes acceptance and understanding from all sides, and that starts
by listening and trying to understand.
I understand the argument by gay couples and what they want.
That doesn't mean that I have to support their act.
As long as I am not out hurting anyone, and you are not out hurting
anyone we try to live in peace and harmony. We co-exist. That doesn't
mean we are always going to agree.
IAAH
There it is, finally - the "if you don't tolerate
MY bigotry you're a bigot" canard.
Which is, let's face it, the best argument you're
ever going to come up with, Bipolar Bob.
The rest of your post, being as nonsensical and
free of content as your attempt to excuse your
bigotry, is flushed.
IAAH
I guess that's why you use accusations of
homosexuality as a slur and an insult, right?
Osprey
Hey, you can cry all you want but you are a bigot by defition Paranoid
Adam.
You are a bigot towards anyone who has a different opionion, you are a
bigot towards religious people, you are a bigot towards anyone who
isn't as far left as you.
Deal with the proven facts: You are a bigot. Look up the definition of
bigot.
Osprey
Hey, if you took my noting you are a homosexual as an insult that's on
you.
So you are gay, I thought that the homosexuals were supposed to be
proud.
Why are you hiding it?
Look, you don't have to face me for any judgement. I'm not the one
who will be judging you in your final days.
So you don't have to please me or try to impress me any.
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
No one is trying to stop you from holding such idiotic opinions, but
don't expect that means you won't be called on it.
elizabeth
Here Oopsey goes again . ..
> > Which intolerance is that, Bigoted Bipolar Bob?
>
> You are intolerant to opposing opinions.
Nope. Many people have already completely rejected certain opinions.
Considered, analyzed, and rejected.
>You are unable to and
> unwilling to listen or open your mind to anyone elses different
> opinons.
The opinion of a corrupt, lying, fatass combover fucktard is just not
of much merit to me.
Jimbo
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
> have to say "No"?
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>
> --
> J Young
> Jvisi...@live.com
Since it is inevitable that same sex marriage will be the law of the
land, they won't have to say no much longer. :D