Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
J
Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
and one woman.
"To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
which it is," the bishops said.
The heterosexuality of marriage is not a private matter or religious choice,
they stressed, "but a reality that has its roots in the very nature of the
human person, who is male and female."
The bishops recalled that this natural reality precedes positive law, and
for this reason it is the duty of lawmakers to legally protect marriage,
which is the foundation of the family. Both, they said, have been protected
from the very beginnings of humanity by civilized society.
The Argentinian bishops then affirmed that the diversity and reciprocity
between man and woman becomes even "the foundation for a healthy and
necessary sexual education."
"It would not be possible to educate boys or girls about sexuality without a
clear understanding of the sexual meaning or language of the body. These
aspects that refer to sexual diversity and to the beginnings of life were
always taken into consideration as a basis for legislation when defining the
essence and purpose of marriage," the bishops said.
For this reason, the bishops urged that marriage be protected as "a good of
humanity" and that sincere dialogue take place amidst "the difficult task of
legislating on these issues."
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
IAAH
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
>
>
>
>
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
> and one woman.
>
> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
> which it is," the bishops said.
Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
And to say that it's not discriminatory to say
that only gay people can't marry the person they
love is a hoot - but it's also a lie.
--
"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
W.T.S.
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
And how does whatever a Bishop says concern anyone?
Church, bad. Sex, good.
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
Uncle Vic
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
What else would one expect a clergyman to say?
--
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.
The Chief Instigator
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
Why the bloody fuck should _they_ care? They're supposedly celibate, which
is a pretty shabby excuse, considering how many altar boys get molested and
the CrapLick Church decides to transfer the offenders to a different diocese
that's not as likely to prosecute. It's just about time to pull the plug on
this two-millennia-old fraud of a "church".
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (November 7)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 13 at Lake Erie, 6:35
Pat Magroyne
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
You a Catholic, J? That would explain your obsession with
homosexuality, I guess...
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory,
It discriminates against non-heterosexuals.
> say bishops
They're lying, as I prove above.
Syd M.
>
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
Then they don't know (Or care) what discrimination is.
PDW
JTEM
"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not
> discriminatory, say bishops
So what you're telling us is that identification as a
Bishop does not preclude being a moron.
This is just a guess, but I bet most people here
already knew that.
Ray Fischer
>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
The very same bishops who insist that women are inferior and who think
that protecting priests is more important than protecting children.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
LC
"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message news:39257v....@news.alt.net...
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
In other news, the bishops said that men wearing expensive dresses and
fabulous hats while pretending to be celibate is completely normal.
duke
>On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
>> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
>> and one woman.
>>
>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
>> which it is," the bishops said.
>
>Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
>motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
>And to say that it's not discriminatory to say
>that only gay people can't marry the person they
>love is a hoot - but it's also a lie.
There is no such thing as a marriage between queers.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
>What else would one expect a clergyman to say?
Or God.
duke
>J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
>The very same bishops who insist that women are inferior and who think
>that protecting priests is more important than protecting children.
Where do the bishops say women are inferior, unless you consider talking on a
cell phone at 5pm on a work day.
Ray Fischer
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>
>>On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
>>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
>>> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
>>> and one woman.
>>>
>>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
>>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
>>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
>>> which it is," the bishops said.
>>
>>Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
>>motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
>
>Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
Puke is lying. There is no such description in the Bible
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>>Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>>
>>The very same bishops who insist that women are inferior and who think
>>that protecting priests is more important than protecting children.
>
>Where do the bishops say women are inferior,
How many female priests are there, puke?
Who controls the church, puke?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
IAAH
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
>>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
>>> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
>>> and one woman.
>>>
>>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
>>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
>>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
>>> which it is," the bishops said.
>> Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
>> motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
>
> Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
But it doesn't matter what your bible or your
sky-fairy say, since it is a matter of equal
rights. Religion belongs on the sidelines here.
Put it this way:
Moral sin :: legal standards : banana custard ::
high speed motocross.
>
>> And to say that it's not discriminatory to say
>> that only gay people can't marry the person they
>> love is a hoot - but it's also a lie.
>
> There is no such thing as a marriage between queers.
Yes, there certainly is.
Hey, how are you coming along on showing us the
harm that SSM is supposed to be doing, or what
special right it would be, anyway?
I mean, I wouldn't want to think that you had just
cut and run from explaining your claims on those.
Syd M.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
> >>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> >> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> >> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
> >> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
> >> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
> >> and one woman.
>
> >> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
> >> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
> >> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
> >> which it is," the bishops said.
>
> >Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
> >motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
>
> Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
>
Sorry, Dork, that is not for you to decide.
> >And to say that it's not discriminatory to say
> >that only gay people can't marry the person they
> >love is a hoot - but it's also a lie.
>
> There is no such thing as a marriage between queers.
>
>
Sorry, Dork. You don't get to decide that.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:20:50 -0600, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> >One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> >What else would one expect a clergyman to say?
>
> Or God.
>
>
Prove 'god' exists, Dork.
PDW
The Chief Instigator
Pure Duke bullshit...there is such a thing in four states in this country,
and all of Canada. Choke on that fact.
Mike
> On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> > Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> > Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
> > committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
> > Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
> > and one woman.
>
> > "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
> > discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
> > presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
> > which it is," the bishops said.
>
> Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
> motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
It' simply stating the glaringly obvious.
>
> And to say that it's not discriminatory to say
> that only gay people can't marry the person they
> love is a hoot - but it's also a lie.
And to say it is discriminatory is to say that all of humanity has
discriminated against gays for all of recorded history. I wonder how
it feels to be an embittered, downtrodden victim of the whole world,
all the time.
William Smith
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
>
>
>
>
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
In related news, mullahs said that circumcision is good for health
but only if it is done at the age of 8 years.
Boo Radley
> "It would not be possible to educate boys or girls about sexuality without
> a clear understanding of the sexual meaning or language of the body.
Is this why Catholic Priests feel it's their divine right to rape little
boys?
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Boo Radley" <Kil...@mockingbird.com> wrote:
> "Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>> "It would not be possible to educate boys or girls about
>> sexuality without a clear understanding of the sexual meaning
>> or language of the body.
> Is this why Catholic Priests feel it's their divine right to
> rape little boys?
Goes with the territory in that CULT.
WangoTango
>
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
Sure it is.
As soon as the State got into the marriage business they made it
available to all citizens, as in equal protection.
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:20:50 -0600, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> >One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
> >
> >What else would one expect a clergyman to say?
>
> Or God.
Well, then shy didn't 'he' speak up?
Seems to be a pretty meager deity, having a bunch of old men in funny
dresses do all his fighting.
anonymous
>
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:50:08 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >
> >>On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
> >>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
> >>>
> >>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
> >>>
> >>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
> >>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
> >>> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
> >>> and one woman.
> >>>
> >>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
> >>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
> >>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
> >>> which it is," the bishops said.
> >>
> >>Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
> >>motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
> >
> > Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
> >
> >>And to say that it's not discriminatory to say
> >>that only gay people can't marry the person they
> >>love is a hoot - but it's also a lie.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a marriage between queers.
>
> Pure Duke bullshit...there is such a thing in four states in this country,
> and all of Canada. Choke on that fact.
Biships, priests and brothers of the church, not to mention the paying
congregation of the church are a liberty to express their opinions and
live by the laws created by and for the church congregation. To suggest
that a anybody from any church speaks for anyone outside the church is
simply making a comment with no more weight than a stranger would
have.
It is true that there is no such thing as marriage between catholic
queers. They screw like rabbits under the cover of darkness within
their living quarters and have since the beginning of time. Again that
is a private matter for the paying congregation and the leaders in Rome.
In Canada as in other countries many homosexuals hold marriage licenses
and live an awesome life. That, of course, doesn't mean it should
happen in any other country on the planet that doesn't want to extend
marriage rights to homosexuals. But it does mean that there is an
awesome country where people really are equal regardess of religion,
ethnic background or sexual orientation. Blessed be Canada.
RamRod Sword of Baal
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:50:08 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal
>> sin.
It seem that the people of Washington State do not support your ideas, as a
majority of them just voted in legal same sex unions with all the blessing
of legal marriage.
Some of them must have been Roman Catholics given the numbers, despite what
your Bishops and clergy try and force them to believe.
Washington State just approved Referendum 71, giving Gay registered couples
the same rights as married
folks. So there it seems they approve of Gays.
See what the Seattle Times has to say.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2010219375_ryan08.html
The gay and lesbian community broke through another barrier to equality last
week with the approval of Referendum 71.
The struggle for equal rights has been a long, frustrating battle for
lesbians and gays. This victory is a major step toward equality but there is
still work to be done.
Before that work begins, the gay and lesbian community should take a moment
and enjoy what happened last week. It is no small thing that Washingtonians
believe that gays and lesbians are owed basic rights granted to heterosexual
couples.
--------------------
Maybe you prefer this from Komo News :-
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/69333537.html
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state voters have approved the state's new
"everything but marriage" law, marking a significant expansion of rights for
gay couples who are registered as domestic partners.
National gay-rights groups say the passage of Referendum 71 marks the first
time a state's voters have approved a gay equality measure at the ballot
box.
duke
You don't know the bible, do you.
duke
>On 11/8/09 2:50 PM, * duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>>>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
>>>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
>>>> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
>>>> and one woman.
>>>>
>>>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
>>>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
>>>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
>>>> which it is," the bishops said.
>>> Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
>>> motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
>>
>> Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
>
>But it doesn't matter what your bible or your
>sky-fairy say, since it is a matter of equal
>rights. Religion belongs on the sidelines here.
Equal rights is only a civil action. God says no.
duke
>In article <j88ef5holbkbrmkki...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:20:50 -0600, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>> >
>> >What else would one expect a clergyman to say?
>>
>> Or God.
>Well, then shy didn't 'he' speak up?
He did.
>Seems to be a pretty meager deity, having a bunch of old men in funny
>dresses do all his fighting.
They're pushing love. Fight pushing is pagan.
IAAH
Then it's a good thing your god has no relevance,
isn't it?
Now, about that "special right", or the "harm"?
Perhaps this is this you surrendering that matter?
The Chief Instigator
In my 54 and a half years, so far, I've been to Canada twice. The first
time, I was 21, and my girlfriend took me to her family's home in Niagara
Falls for the holidays. We went across the bridge to the Ontarian Niagara
Falls on what turned out to be Boxing Day, which explained the lack of
activity on that side. 21 years later, the wife (not the one from the
Falls) and I spent a week up at a Catholic school that served as a
campground during the summer, about 80 km up A-15 just below
Ste-Agathe-des-M�nts. That was a week in which we got to experience
poutine, discovered that Canadian Tire sells hockey sticks, made a trip down
to Ottawa to take the tour of Parliament, and made a few new friends. These
days, with the paranoia in DC, I suspect we'll never be allowed to visit
outside this country again.
The Chief Instigator
You ditched yours long ago, Dork.
The Chief Instigator
...and since your supposed "god" doesn't exist, kindly shove your had back
up your senile ass and mind your own business, Dreck.
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:39:27 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <j88ef5holbkbrmkki...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
> >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:20:50 -0600, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
> >> >
> >> >What else would one expect a clergyman to say?
> >>
> >> Or God.
>
> >Well, then shy didn't 'he' speak up?
>
> He did.
The voices in your head don't count.
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
Dänk 1010011010
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
> and one woman.
>
> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
> which it is," the bishops said.
This is true as long as marriage is defined as a religious
institution. Once the government starts recognizing marriage, then
discrimination is forbidden. The solution is not for the government
to legalize same-sex marriage, but for the government to refuse to
recognize ANY type of marriage, and letting the marketplace determine
what two or more consenting adults of any gender should be allowed to
call themselves.
For example, the Catholic church could trademark the term "Catholic
Married," and only heterosexual couples who have never been divorced
would be allowed to describe themselves with that term. Mormons could
trademark "Mormon Married, "and only heterosexual polygamists could
describe themselves with that term. The generic term "married" would
be in the public domain and could be used by anyone regardless of any
religious endorsement of their union, but would have no legal
definition, and would confer no special rights or privileges under the
law.
BE-VA
<ram...@truthonly.com> said:
>
>
> Maybe you prefer this from Komo News :-
>
> http://www.komonews.com/news/local/69333537.html
>
> OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state voters have approved the state's
> new "everything but marriage" law, marking a significant expansion of
> rights for gay couples who are registered as domestic partners.
>
> National gay-rights groups say the passage of Referendum 71 marks the
> first time a state's voters have approved a gay equality measure at the
> ballot box.
Oh, yes those darlings in Washington state who just recently legalized
marijuana -- They hope to change their state name to New Amsterdam in
the near future.
Alan Ford
>> Maybe you prefer this from Komo News :-
>>
>> http://www.komonews.com/news/local/69333537.html
>>
>> OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state voters have approved the
>> state's new "everything but marriage" law, marking a significant
>> expansion of rights for gay couples who are registered as domestic
>> partners.
>>
>> National gay-rights groups say the passage of Referendum 71 marks the
>> first time a state's voters have approved a gay equality measure at
>> the ballot box.
>
> Oh, yes those darlings in Washington state who just recently legalized
> marijuana -- They hope to change their state name to New Amsterdam in
> the near future.
Stay away from Washington. We don't need human garbage like yourself
around. Don't venture out of your trailer park.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
BE-VA
> BE-VA wrote:
>
>>> Maybe you prefer this from Komo News :-
>>>
>>> http://www.komonews.com/news/local/69333537.html
>>>
>>> OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state voters have approved the state's
>>> new "everything but marriage" law, marking a significant expansion of
>>> rights for gay couples who are registered as domestic partners.
>>>
>>> National gay-rights groups say the passage of Referendum 71 marks the
>>> first time a state's voters have approved a gay equality measure at the
>>> ballot box.
>>
>> Oh, yes those darlings in Washington state who just recently legalized
>> marijuana -- They hope to change their state name to New Amsterdam in
>> the near future.
>
> Stay away from Washington. We don't need human garbage like yourself
> around. Don't venture out of your trailer park.
All who can do stay away from Washington State. The prevailing wind
permeates the area with the smell of rotting salmon that arises from
the crotches of homosexual males and the sloshy cuts of lesbians with
their crabs gone sour smell is too gross to even speak about.
Washington State, excepting the small town of Oak Harbor, became
uninhabitable in December, 1959.
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-11-13 03:45:16 -0500, Alan Ford <zzz...@qqq.net> said:
>
>> BE-VA wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe you prefer this from Komo News :-
>>>>
>>>> http://www.komonews.com/news/local/69333537.html
>>>>
>>>> OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state voters have approved the state's
>>>> new "everything but marriage" law, marking a significant expansion of
>>>> rights for gay couples who are registered as domestic partners.
>>>>
>>>> National gay-rights groups say the passage of Referendum 71 marks the
>>>> first time a state's voters have approved a gay equality measure at the
>>>> ballot box.
>>>
>>> Oh, yes those darlings in Washington state who just recently legalized
>>> marijuana -- They hope to change their state name to New Amsterdam in
>>> the near future.
>>
>> Stay away from Washington. We don't need human garbage like yourself
>> around. Don't venture out of your trailer park.
>
>All who can do stay away from Washington State. The prevailing wind
>permeates the area with the smell of rotting salmon that arises from
You just hate pretty much anything and everyone.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
JohnN
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
Neither is requiring a penis for ordination, right?
JohnN
Alan Ford
Then it's agreed: you and Southern inbred trailer trash like you will
stay away from Washington and the Puget Sound area in particular and I
will avoid the Bible belt like a plague. Matter of fact, why don't you
fuckers declare independence again. I have a feeling no one's going to
stop you this time around.
juanjo
> On 08 Nov 2009 20:10:14 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>
> >>>On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
> >>>>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> >>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> >>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
> >>>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
> >>>> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man
> >>>> and one woman.
>
> >>>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
> >>>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
> >>>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
> >>>> which it is," the bishops said.
>
> >>>Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
> >>>motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
>
> >>Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
>
> >Puke is lying. There is no such description in the Bible
>
> You don't know the bible, do you.
>
it.
juanjo
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:39:27 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In article <j88ef5holbkbrmkkifrj6re0rqrog8n...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
> >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:20:50 -0600, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> >> >One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> >> >What else would one expect a clergyman to say?
>
> >> Or God.
> >Well, then shy didn't 'he' speak up?
>
> He did.
Funny how only you heard him.
>
> >Seems to be a pretty meager deity, having a bunch of old men in funny
> >dresses do all his fighting.
>
> They're pushing love.
We know, that's why they have been sued in the courts.
juanjo
Sounds like someone is envious.
BE-VA
> On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the
>> National Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union
>> between one man and one woman.
>>
>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is,
>> that which it is," the bishops said.
>
> Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion, motived by
> prejudice. It's not even original.
>
> And to say that it's not discriminatory to say that only gay people
> can't marry the person they love is a hoot - but it's also a lie.
I suspect that you may love your mother but you can't file a joint tax
return with her. The government, local, state and federal doesn't give
a fuck wether or not you love your mother they won't grant you a
marriage license to marry her which you must have to file a joint tax
return. Do you consider that "denial of privilege" discriminatory too,
boy?
BE-VA
> "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message news:39257v....@news.alt.net...
>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
> "catholicnewsagency, Working like the Devil to bring back the Dark Ages!"
> And how does whatever a Bishop says concern anyone?
And how does whatever a AIDS spreader such as you say concern anyone?
> Church, bad. Sex, good.
Homosexual sex -- Good for spreading AIDS in the US.
50% of all AIDS cases in the US are among homosexual males a minority
that represents less than 5% of the population
No One
"LC" aka Elsie, LCU, LST, & STD <LC_...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message news:39257v....@news.alt.net...
>
>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> In other news, the bishops said that men wearing expensive dresses and
> fabulous hats while pretending to be celibate is completely normal.
Elsie, you are such a bore, always bragging about your wardrobe.
No One
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:59:38 -0500,
> "Boo Radley" <Kil...@mockingbird.com> wrote:
>> "Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> "It would not be possible to educate boys or girls about
>>> sexuality without a clear understanding of the sexual meaning
>>> or language of the body.
>
>> Is this why Catholic Priests feel it's their divine right to
>> rape little boys?
Because they are homosexuals
>
> Goes with the territory in that CULT.
Homosexuals have a cult there too? I thought most of them were happy
with their North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) membership.
Becoming a priest simply to gain access to boys and young men seems
like such a bother when NAMBLA already teaches means and methods for
homosexuals to MEAT boys.
--
Semper Gumby
BE-VA
> In article <39257v....@news.alt.net>, Jvis...@live.com says...
>>
>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> Sure it is.
> As soon as the State got into the marriage business they made it
> available to all citizens, as in equal protection.
Really? Mother and son, daughter? Father and daughter, son? Brothers? Sisters?
Interesting, tell us more.
BE-VA
Go suck a dick, salmon egg, you're way too up-tight.
BTW -- Wisconsin is hardly Southern or Bible-Belt <grin>
--
Washington state, excepting the small town of Oak Harbor, became
uninhabitable in December, 1959. In fact, it's so bad now that Boeing
is moving to to South Carolina.
BE-VA
> On Nov 7, 10:59�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> You a Catholic, J? That would explain your obsession with
> homosexuality, I guess...
Of course you are alluding to the fact that many of the priest are
homosexuals and have "preyed" on the boys in the churches and young men
in the seminaries all over the world. Raping tens of thousands of them
just as they do in the general population.
JumpsOnFire
>
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not
>> discriminatory, say bishops
>
> So what you're telling us is that identification as a
> Bishop does not preclude being a moron.
>
> This is just a guess, but I bet most people here
> already knew that.
"No One" posted some time back that you had died 9 months ago from AIDS.
BE-VA
> On Nov 8, 2:50�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>>> On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>>>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>
>>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bish
> ops
>>
>>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
>>>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the Na
> tional
>>>> Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union between on
> e man
>>>> and one woman.
>>
>>>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
>>>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
>>>> presupposition. �The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that i
> s, that
>>>> which it is," the bishops said.
>>
>>> Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion,
>>> motived by prejudice. It's not even original.
>>
>> Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal s
> in.
>>
>
> Sorry, Dork, that is not for you to decide.
The people of Maine did recently and California and some 30 other sates
did so before them. A number of other states have legislation pending
that will do the same thing.
>
>>> And to say that it's not discriminatory to say
>>> that only gay people can't marry the person they
>>> love is a hoot - but it's also a lie.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a marriage between queers.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, Dork. You don't get to decide that.
The people of Maine did recently and California and some 30 other sates
did so before them. A number of other states have legislation pending
that will do the same thing.
> PDW
JumpsOnFire
> On Nov 8, 2:51�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:20:50 -0600, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrot
> e:
>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bish
> ops
>>
>>> What else would one expect a clergyman to say?
>>
>> Or God.
>>
>>
>
> Prove 'god' exists, Dork.
Why?
>
> PDW
BE-VA
Yes, it seems that you are. However, practice diligently and you too
may someday acquire the skills required to write an interesting Usenet
post. Failing that you will forever remain at the Henny Youngman level.
Alan Ford
>>>>> Oh, yes those darlings in Washington state who just recently
>>>>> legalized marijuana -- They hope to change their state name to New
>>>>> Amsterdam in the near future.
>>>>
>>>> Stay away from Washington. We don't need human garbage like yourself
>>>> around. Don't venture out of your trailer park.
>>>
>>> All who can do stay away from Washington State. The prevailing wind
>>> permeates the area with the smell of rotting salmon that arises from
>>> the crotches of homosexual males and the sloshy cuts of lesbians with
>>> their crabs gone sour smell is too gross to even speak about.
>>> Washington State, excepting the small town of Oak Harbor, became
>>> uninhabitable in December, 1959.
>>
>> Then it's agreed: you and Southern inbred trailer trash like you will
>> stay away from Washington and the Puget Sound area in particular and I
>> will avoid the Bible belt like a plague. Matter of fact, why don't you
>> fuckers declare independence again. I have a feeling no one's going to
>> stop you this time around.
>
> Go suck a dick, salmon egg, you're way too up-tight.
> BTW -- Wisconsin is hardly Southern or Bible-Belt <grin>
Being Southern Trailer trash is a state of mind, not necessarily
restricted to the whereabouts of a given redneck.
> Washington state, excepting the small town of Oak Harbor, became
> uninhabitable in December, 1959. In fact, it's so bad now that Boeing is
> moving to to South Carolina.
No, Mr.Trash, you have misread the headline in the newspaper lining your
cage. Boeing is not moving anywhere.
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-11-08 02:27:36 -0500, Pat Magroyne <patma...@null.net> said:
>
>> On Nov 7, 10:59�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>
>> You a Catholic, J? That would explain your obsession with
>> homosexuality, I guess...
>
>Of course you are alluding to the fact that many of the priest are
>homosexuals and have "preyed" on the boys in the churches and young men
>in the seminaries all over the world.
Being the evil bigot that you are, you ignore and excuse the rapes of
little girls by heterosexual priests.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-11-09 10:05:19 -0500, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���)
><www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:59:38 -0500,
>> "Boo Radley" <Kil...@mockingbird.com> wrote:
>>> "Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> "It would not be possible to educate boys or girls about
>>>> sexuality without a clear understanding of the sexual meaning
>>>> or language of the body.
>>
>>> Is this why Catholic Priests feel it's their divine right to
>>> rape little boys?
>
>Because they are homosexuals
And why do you think it's alright to rpae little girls?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
WangoTango
blackwater...@testland.org says...
So, you think those groups do not have sex, just because of a marriage
license?
Your unnatural attraction to your siblings is YOUR problem.
Nature builds in an aversion to procreating with close relations, and
those that are missing that safe guard are going to do it with or
without a piece of paper.
What you need to do is stop worrying about what MIGHT happen and
concentrate on what IS happening. The government is denying equal
protection under the law based on a religious precept that may not be
held by all citizens.
haiku jones
> On 2009-11-09 11:37:47 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> said:
>
> > In article <39257v.r2.1...@news.alt.net>, Jvisi...@live.com says...
>
> >> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>
> > Sure it is.
> > As soon as the State got into the marriage business they made it
> > available to all citizens, as in equal protection.
>
> Really? Mother and son, daughter? Father and daughter, son? Brothers? Sisters?
You have a rather strange mind. To quote Ellen Degeneres,
"...and they think *we're* weird...."
Haiku Jones
> Interesting, tell us more.
BE-VA
So when you look at the facts and examine the consequences if what you
homos are pushing happens it scares you, huh, boy?
BE-VA
> On 11/8/09 2:50 PM, * duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>>>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
>>>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the
>>>> National Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union
>>>> between one man and one woman.
>>>>
>>>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
>>>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
>>>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is,
>>>> that which it is," the bishops said.
>>> Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion, motived by
>>> prejudice. It's not even original.
>>
>> Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
>
> But it doesn't matter what your bible or your sky-fairy say, since it
> is a matter of equal rights.
Homosexuals want MORE THAN EQUAL rights. You want all the benefits you
associate with marriage to be given you without you having to marry --
and you need only declare that you are in a "homosexual partnership" to
get them. Heterosexuals can't do that because they would be lying in
the first place and in the second place they should not be forced to
claim to be something they are not simply to gain the same rights that
homosexuals have.
BE-VA
> BE-VA wrote:
>
>>>>>> Oh, yes those darlings in Washington state who just recently legalized
>>>>>> marijuana -- They hope to change their state name to New Amsterdam in
>>>>>> the near future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stay away from Washington. We don't need human garbage like yourself
>>>>> around. Don't venture out of your trailer park.
>>>>
>>>> All who can do stay away from Washington State. The prevailing wind
>>>> permeates the area with the smell of rotting salmon that arises from
>>>> the crotches of homosexual males and the sloshy cuts of lesbians with
>>>> their crabs gone sour smell is too gross to even speak about.
>>>> Washington State, excepting the small town of Oak Harbor, became
>>>> uninhabitable in December, 1959.
>>>
>>> Then it's agreed: you and Southern inbred trailer trash like you will
>>> stay away from Washington and the Puget Sound area in particular and I
>>> will avoid the Bible belt like a plague. Matter of fact, why don't you
>>> fuckers declare independence again. I have a feeling no one's going to
>>> stop you this time around.
>>
>> Go suck a dick, salmon egg, you're way too up-tight.
>> BTW -- Wisconsin is hardly Southern or Bible-Belt <grin>
>
> Being Southern Trailer trash is a state of mind
And I'm sure that you enjoy rolling in it all the time.
>> Washington state, excepting the small town of Oak Harbor, became
>> uninhabitable in December, 1959. In fact, it's so bad now that Boeing
>> is moving to to South Carolina.
>
>
> No, Mr.Trash, you have misread the headline in the newspaper lining
> your cage. Boeing is not moving anywhere.
You ignorant hillbilly, you can't see the writtng on the wall? READ IT
AND WEEP, BOY!
Boeing Picks South Carolina Over Seattle for 787 Line
By Susanna Ray
Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. will build an assembly line for the
787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, reaching for the first time outside
its historic Seattle manufacturing hub to set up a new commercial-plane
factory.
The North Charleston facility, adjacent to a parts plant Boeing bought
in July, will be used along with one in Washington state to build, test
and deliver the aircraft, Chicago-based Boeing said in a statement
today.
“Establishing a second 787 assembly line in Charleston will expand our
production capability to meet the market demand for the airplane,” said
Jim Albaugh, chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
“We’re taking prudent steps to protect the interests of our customers.”
The new line will help Boeing recover from delays that have set the 787
back at least 2 1/2 years. The planemaker’s board picked South
Carolina, a less unionized state, after failing to reach a no-strike
deal with Seattle-area workers. The International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers shuttered Boeing factories four times
in 20 years with walkouts, including a two-month strike in 2008.
“Boeing has betrayed our loyalty,” Tom Wroblewski, president of
Machinists Local 751, said on a conference call. The union offered
Boeing a 10-year labor agreement and floated ideas on health-care
costs, wages and pensions, he said.
(Poster's Note: Boeing is about to hog fuck Washington, Seattle and the
Unions all in one big orgy -- YEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAA!)
“Most of the time, they didn’t even take notes,” Wroblewski said. “It’s
now clear that Boeing was only using our talks as a smoke screen, and
as a bargaining chip to extort a bigger tax handout from South
Carolina.”
Tipping Point
The tipping point was the union’s demand that Boeing not communicate
with employees if the labor group tried to organize in any non-union
plants, including North Charleston, said Yvonne Leach, a Boeing
spokeswoman in Everett, Washington. “We would be giving up the right to
address our employees, and that wasn’t something we were willing to
give up.”
The union’s economic demands during the proposed 10-year agreement
“just weren’t anything we could sustain,” Leach said, declining to give
further details.
Anything that would reduce the risk of another strike would more than
compensate for the cost of setting up a plant in North Charleston,
Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Fairfax, Virginia-based Teal
Group aerospace research group, said in an interview before the
decision was announced.
Construction Plans
Boeing plans to start construction by the end of November, spokeswoman
Leach said, declining to comment on how much the company will spend.
There will be “several thousand” new employees, she said.
The 787’s rear fuselage is already made in North Charleston, where
Vought Aircraft Industries had a contract to ship sections to Boeing
for final assembly in Everett. Boeing bought the operations from Vought
in July, and workers there rejected membership in the machinists union
last month. Unlike Washington, South Carolina is a right-to-work state,
meaning it forbids requiring union membership as a condition of
employment.
The new plant, added to the one Boeing just bought, will give Boeing
its first assembly center outside Seattle and could siphon more jobs
away from Washington as the company considers other new aircraft models.
South Carolina’s legislature approved an incentives package today that
would provide infrastructure, equipment, training facilities and tax
breaks, Leach said, declining to put a value on the deal. The package,
which does not specifically name Boeing as the beneficiary, is valued
at about $170 million, according to the unions.
Governors React
The decision “represents not only enormously good news for our state’s
economy, but also a telling dividend from our state’s continued efforts
to better our business climate,” South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford
said in a statement.
Washington Governor Chris Gregoire called it “obviously a very
disappointing day” in her state.
The Puget Sound area has been home to the planemaker’s commercial
operations since 1916, when lumberman Bill Boeing built a wooden float
plane on the shores of Lake Union. The company moved corporate
headquarters to Chicago in 2001, and its military operations are based
in St. Louis. The industry supports more than 200,000 jobs and
generates $36 billion for Washington state.
“Everett will continue to design and produce airplanes, including the
787, and there is tremendous opportunity for our current and future
products here,” Albaugh said. “We remain committed to Puget Sound.”
Dreamliner Delays
Boeing is the world’s second-largest commercial-plane maker by 2008
deliveries, trailing Toulouse, France-based Airbus SAS. Boeing rose 4
cents to $47.26 at 6:40 p.m. after the regular close of New York Stock
Exchange trading. The shares have dropped 52 percent since the first of
five 787 delays became known in October 2007.
Boeing has 840 orders for Dreamliners, making it the most successful
new-plane sales campaign ever. The 787 is made mainly of lightweight
composites in a new manufacturing process that relies on vendors to
make large parts of the aircraft for Boeing to later assemble.
The plane has been beset by delays ranging from parts shortages to
unexpected stresses in engineering tests. The jet is due now to fly for
the first time by year-end and be delivered by late next year. The
original target was May 2008.
“We are astounded that Boeing has chosen to compound the problems of
the 787 program by further fragmenting the supply chain,” said Ray
Goforth, executive director of the Society of Professional Engineering
Employees in Aerospace-IFPTE Local 2001 in Seattle. “There was no
credible business case for this decision.”
*******
You're weeping now huh, Salmon Egg?
Pat Magroyne
> Homosexuals
> "homosexual partnership"
> homosexuals have.
Care to explain your obsession with homosexuals?
BE-VA
> In article <2009111702161564440-blackwaterevangelist@testlandorg>,
> blackwater...@testland.org says...
>> On 2009-11-09 11:37:47 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <39257v....@news.alt.net>, Jvis...@live.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>>>
>>> Sure it is.
>>> As soon as the State got into the marriage business they made it
>>> available to all citizens, as in equal protection.
>>
>> Really? Mother and son, daughter? Father and daughter, son? Brothers? Sisters?
>> Interesting, tell us more.
> Yes, really, get over it.
> So, you think those groups do not have sex, just because of a marriage
> license?
So, you're fucking your mother and/or sister?
(...)
>
>
> What you need to do is stop worrying about what MIGHT happen and
> concentrate on what IS happening. The government is denying equal
> protection under the law based on a religious precept that may not be
> held by all citizens.
WRONG, BOY! Homosexuals are demanding rights that they DO NOT DESERVE.
If you want the rights that other people obtain by marriage then do
what the laws say the other people have to do to get them. Failing
that, take a clue from the people of Maine and California and STFU!
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-11-08 15:45:42 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> said:
>
>> On 11/8/09 2:50 PM, * duke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:44 -0500, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/7/09 10:59 PM, * J wrote:
>>>>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
>>>>> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the
>>>>> National Parliament to protect authentic marriage based on the union
>>>>> between one man and one woman.
>>>>>
>>>>> "To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to
>>>>> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
>>>>> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is,
>>>>> that which it is," the bishops said.
>>>> Argument by tautology and assuming the conclusion, motived by
>>>> prejudice. It's not even original.
>>>
>>> Queer sex is clearly described as a depravity in the bible and a mortal sin.
>>
>> But it doesn't matter what your bible or your sky-fairy say, since it
>> is a matter of equal rights.
>
>Homosexuals want MORE THAN EQUAL rights.
List them.
> You want all the benefits you
>associate with marriage to be given you without you having to marry --
An outright lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Ford
>>>>>>> Oh, yes those darlings in Washington state who just recently
>>>>>>> legalized marijuana -- They hope to change their state name to
>>>>>>> New Amsterdam in the near future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stay away from Washington. We don't need human garbage like
>>>>>> yourself around. Don't venture out of your trailer park.
>>>>>
>>>>> All who can do stay away from Washington State. The prevailing wind
>>>>> permeates the area with the smell of rotting salmon that arises
>>>>> from the crotches of homosexual males and the sloshy cuts of
>>>>> lesbians with their crabs gone sour smell is too gross to even
>>>>> speak about. Washington State, excepting the small town of Oak
>>>>> Harbor, became uninhabitable in December, 1959.
>>>>
>>>> Then it's agreed: you and Southern inbred trailer trash like you
>>>> will stay away from Washington and the Puget Sound area in
>>>> particular and I will avoid the Bible belt like a plague. Matter of
>>>> fact, why don't you fuckers declare independence again. I have a
>>>> feeling no one's going to stop you this time around.
>>>
>>> Go suck a dick, salmon egg, you're way too up-tight.
>>> BTW -- Wisconsin is hardly Southern or Bible-Belt <grin>
>>
>> Being Southern Trailer trash is a state of mind
>
> And I'm sure that you enjoy rolling in it all the time.
Snappy comeback!!! How long did it take you, two, three hours to think
this up?
>>> Washington state, excepting the small town of Oak Harbor, became
>>> uninhabitable in December, 1959. In fact, it's so bad now that Boeing
>>> is moving to to South Carolina.
>>
>>
>> No, Mr.Trash, you have misread the headline in the newspaper lining
>> your cage. Boeing is not moving anywhere.
>
> You ignorant hillbilly, you can't see the writtng on the wall? READ IT
> AND WEEP, BOY!
>
> Boeing Picks South Carolina Over Seattle for 787 Line
Yes, they are opening a new plant in SC for the assembly of the 787. How
does that translate into "Boeing is moving"? One cannot move something
that doesn't yet exist, while keeping all the existing stuff where it is.
Go and buy "Idiot's Guide To Idiocy". You are failure even at being an
idiot.
haiku jones
> On 2009-11-17 11:32:57 -0500, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 12:16 am, BE-VA <blackwater-evangel...@testland.org> wrote:
> >> On 2009-11-09 11:37:47 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> said:
>
> >>> In article <39257v.r2.1...@news.alt.net>, Jvisi...@live.com says...
>
> >>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bish
> > ops
>
> >>> Sure it is.
> >>> As soon as the State got into the marriage business they made it
> >>> available to all citizens, as in equal protection.
>
> >> Really? Mother and son, daughter? Father and daughter, son? Brothers? Sis
> > ters?
>
> > You have a rather strange mind. To quote Ellen Degeneres,
> > "...and they think *we're* weird...."
>
> So when you look at the facts and examine the consequences if what you
> homos are pushing happens it scares you, huh, boy?
The consequences of allowing heterosexual marriageare what concern
me. If men are allowed to marry women, nothing will prevent
a daughter from marrying her daughter. If women are allowed
to marry men, what's to stop a farm girl from marrying her rooster?
Haiku Jones
WangoTango
blackwater...@testland.org says...
> On 2009-11-17 11:17:30 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> said:
>
> > In article <2009111702161564440-blackwaterevangelist@testlandorg>,
> > blackwater...@testland.org says...
> >> On 2009-11-09 11:37:47 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <39257v....@news.alt.net>, Jvis...@live.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> Requiring heterosexuality for marriage is not discriminatory, say bishops
> >>>
> >>> Sure it is.
> >>> As soon as the State got into the marriage business they made it
> >>> available to all citizens, as in equal protection.
> >>
> >> Really? Mother and son, daughter? Father and daughter, son? Brothers? Sisters?
> >> Interesting, tell us more.
>
> > Yes, really, get over it.
>
> > So, you think those groups do not have sex, just because of a marriage
> > license?
>
> So, you're fucking your mother and/or sister?
parents and/or siblings.
>
> (...)
>
> >
> >
> > What you need to do is stop worrying about what MIGHT happen and
> > concentrate on what IS happening. The government is denying equal
> > protection under the law based on a religious precept that may not be
> > held by all citizens.
>
> WRONG, BOY! Homosexuals are demanding rights that they DO NOT DESERVE.
> If you want the rights that other people obtain by marriage then do
> what the laws say the other people have to do to get them. Failing
> that, take a clue from the people of Maine and California and STFU!
WRONG, BOY, the government is not in the position to PROTECT rights only
for those it thinks deserves them.
You really don't understand the role government is allow to play in the
US.
BTW, I have the right to express my opinion and educate backwards fucks
like you, so I don't have to STFU. Welcome to the US.
The Chief Instigator
Too bad for the anonymous coward you are...they have those rights in four
states in this country, and you'll likely kill yourself when that bothersome
Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution eradicates your delusionary
dream. Have someone literate explain that clause to you, if you can
actually comprehend.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Chicago 2, Houston 1 (November 15)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 18 vs. Peoria, 7:05
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Boo Radley" <Kil...@mockingbird.com> wrote:
> "Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>> "It would not be possible to educate boys or girls about
>> sexuality without a clear understanding of the sexual meaning
>> or language of the body.
> Is this why Catholic Priests feel it's their divine right to
> rape little boys?
Goes with the territory in that CULT.
BE-VA
My dislike of homosexual behavior is quite prevalent among heterosexual
males. Better use of the bandwidth would be that you explain why you
suck dicks.
BE-VA
Your attempt at "Haiku" is piss poor, boy. Too many lines, too many syllables.
BTW - WTF is "Homosexual marriageare"
BE-VA
You have lent your copy to your mama, salmon egg?
BOEING WILL LEAVE WASHINGTON it simply a matter of time -- many large
corporation are moving to "Right to Work" states and leaving the unions
(you must be a member) and their ridiculous demands behind. Weep,
salmon egg, WEEP!
BE-VA
> BTW, I have the right to express my opinion and educate backwards fucks
> like you
I'm not trying to educate you, boy.
BTW - "backwards fuck", what a telling phrase coming from a homosexual.
Bill Taylor
Hypocrit. You malign priests when they get caught, but you deny
all when it's just some fag from the neighborhood.
Don Martin
of buggaring altar boys: what moral authority!
haiku jones
Oh dear...My warning came too late didn't it?
You mother had already married her rooster.
Um, so, well...you want some seeds or something?
(my GOD, can you imagine how mortified
his grandparents must be?)
Haiku Jones
WangoTango
blackwater...@testland.org says...
You do NOT speak for all hetero males, because most 'truly' hetero males
don't give a shit one way or another. Now if you are referring to those
that have repressed homosexual desires, that's a whole other ball of
wax.
WangoTango
blackwater...@testland.org says...
There is no doubt that you aren't trying to educate anyone.
And it is quite telling that you ASSUME that I am a homosexual, just
because I am not some homophobe.
Ray Fischer
> Pat Magroyne <patma...@null.net> said:
>> Care to explain your obsession with homosexuals?
>
>My dislike of homosexual behavior is quite prevalent among heterosexual
>males.
No, it isn't.
Normal heterosexual men really do not care about the sex lives of
other men. We care about the sex lives of women.
Why do YOU care about the sex lives of men?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Ford
So now it's no longer "Boeing is moving" but "Boeing will leave", I see.
Your crystal ball notwithstanding, the fact that corporations are
always on a lookout for cheaper labor is not news to anyone. For each
South Carolina county that wins over Washington, there is a city in
China or India that wins over the US.
The only problem in this is that all these increasingly non-American
corporations still enjoy constitutional protection and preferential
treatment from the American politicians while stupid fucks like you
imagine they have control over their lives if they can prevent a couple
of fags from marrying. That is sure going to pay for your children's
education one day, asshole.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "Boo Radley" <Kil...@mockingbird.com> wrote:
>>> "Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> "It would not be possible to educate boys or girls about
>>>> sexuality without a clear understanding of the sexual meaning
>>>> or language of the body.
>>> Is this why Catholic Priests feel it's their divine right to
>>> rape little boys?
>> Goes with the territory in that CULT.
> Hypocrit. You malign priests when they get caught, but you deny
> all when it's just some [gay person] from the neighborhood.
Wrong. There are both homosexual and heterosexual child
molesters, and they ALL deserve to be in jail. NO pedophile priests
should EVER have been shielded by their heinous and credibility-free
CULT from the criminal justice system.
*THERE* is the HYPOCRISY.
Lefty
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> Requiring consent for sex is not necessary, say bishops
>
> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
> and many children.
>
> "To affirm pedosexuality as a requirement for the priesthood is not to
> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
> presupposition. The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
> which it is," the bishops said.
>
> they stressed, "but a reality that has its roots in the very nature of the
> Catholic church."
> The bishops recalled that this natural reality precedes positive law, and
> for this reason it is the duty of lawmakers to legally protect pedophiles,
> which is the foundation of the church. Both, they said, have been protected
> from the very beginnings of humanity by civilized society.
>
> The Argentinian bishops then affirmed that the diversity and reciprocity
> between man and child becomes even "the foundation for a healthy and
> necessary sexual education."
>
> "It would not be possible to educate boys or girls about sexuality without a
> clear understanding of the sexual meaning or language of the body. These
> aspects that refer to sexual diversity and to the beginnings of life were
> always taken into consideration as a basis for legislation when defining the
> essence and purpose of marriage," the bishops said. They added "plus, sex
>with children is a good method of natural family planning which avoids
>the evils of contraception."
> For this reason, the bishops urged that pedophiles be protected as "a good of
> humanity" and that sincere dialogue take place amidst "the difficult task of
> legislating on these issues."
duke
>On Nov 7, 10:59�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
C_cksuckers like you need to be horse whipped.
www.catholicnewsagency.com web
November 2009
Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive committee
of the Bishops� Conference of Argentina has called on the National Parliament to
protect authentic marriage based on the union between one man and one woman.
�To affirm heterosexuality as a requirement for marriage is not to discriminate,
but rather to start from an objective point that is its presupposition. The
contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that which it is,� the bishops
said.
The heterosexuality of marriage is not a private matter or religious choice,
they stressed, �but a reality that has its roots in the very nature of the human
person, who is male and female.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote...
...NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
= = = = = = = = = = =
On Nov 7, 10:59�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
>
> Requiring consent for sex is not necessary, say bishops
>
> Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 7, 2009 / 07:56 pm (CNA).- The executive
> committee of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on the National
> Parliament to protect pedophiles based on the union between one man
> and many children.
>
> "To affirm pedosexuality as a requirement for the priesthood is not to
> discriminate, but rather to start from an objective point that is its
> presupposition. �The contrary would be to ignore its essence, that is, that
> which it is," the bishops said.
>
> The pedosexuality of the RCC is a private matter or religious choice,
> they stressed, "but a reality that has its roots in the very nature of the
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.uighilhidy.com> " <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:14:34 -0600,
> Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote...
>
>
> ...NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
>
> So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
>
> = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> On Nov 7, 10:59�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17625
> >
Your choice.
>
>
>
> ________________
> /| /| | |
> ||__|| | CRAIG CHILTON |
> / O O\ | HOMO |
> / \ | QUEERUS! |
> / \ \|_______________ |
> / _ \ \ ||
> / |\___\ \ ||
> / | | | |\__/ ||
> / \|_|_|/ | _ ||
> / / \ |____| ||
> / | | | --|
> | | | |__ _ --|
> * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
> / _ \\ | / `
> * / \_ /- | | |
> * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c______FAG______
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
BILL TAYLOR: Immature Loser
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:36:52 -0400,
On 7-19-09, "Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "Attila" wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> A troll. He will tire soon.
>> Bill Taylor has ALWAYS been nothing but an ignorant and
>> worthless troll. But he apparently is too bone-DUMB to tire,
>> even after being PROVEN wrong constantly.
> Most of those people could not care less about being proven
> anything. They like to see their comments in print, like to see
> they are 'important' enough to get a response, and are delighted
> to have enough of an impact to get a rise out of anyone about
> anything.
>
> A psychologist could make a lot of detailed observations about
> them -- things like not being much in real live so they must try to
> become someone here.
I'll bet that "profound inferiority complex" would be a phrase
that the psychologist would employ very EARLY in that analysis.
"Immature" and "arrested development" would almost surely come
into play as well, I feel certain.
> They are like the people who drive at below the speed limit in
> the left lane. No one pays any attention to them anywhere else
> but at least they can have some kind of a psychological impact
> there. It feeds their ego.
I can sum that mentality/mindset up in one word: "Loser."
-- Craig Chilton, 7-19-09
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
bam
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
message news:4fkdg5ltvmvh5ek07...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:14:34 -0600,
> Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote...
>
>
> ...NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
>
> So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
That would be "mis-re-presented".
BAM
duke
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:14:34 -0600,
>Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote...
>
>
> ...NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
>
>So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
So stated the baby killer.
The Chief Instigator
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:32:09 GMT, "(?`?.?Craig Chilton?.???)
><www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:14:34 -0600,
>>Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote...
>>
>>
>> ...NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
>>
>>So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
>
> So stated the baby killer.
Are you going to attempt to prove that abortion is de facto murder, Besotted
Duke? (I don't think the Rotting Catholic Church would spend their
trillions on wreckage like you, who try to attempt libel.)
--
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: Milwaukee 3, Houston 2 (November 20)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, November 22 vs. Milwaukee, 4:05
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote...
...NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
= = = = = = = = = = =
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote...
...NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
= = = = = = = = = = =
Ray Fischer
> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���)
>> ...NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
>>
>>So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
>
>So stated the baby killer.
And there is proof that you are a liar, and thus an athiest.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> Earl wrote NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
>>>
>>> So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
>> So stated the baby killer.
It is probably that NO one who has ever posted in here has
EVER either killed a baby, or advocated same, since ALL babies
have been BORN. So you continue to prove yourself to be a
BRAINLESS dolt, Earl.
> And there is proof that you are a liar, and thus an athiest.
I agree with you assessment, Ray, that Earl is obviously a liar.
But "thus" an atheist?
Most of the atheists I've known have been better than most
people at being TRUTHFUL!
And WHY would you want to disparage atheists? They are
some of the fairest and most intelligent people on the planet!
Comparing ANY atheist to Earl Weber would be an INSULT
to the atheist.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> Earl wrote NOTHING intelligent, as usual.
>>>
>>> So the PREVIOUS post is re-presented:
>> So stated the baby killer.
It is probable that NO one who has ever posted in here has
EVER either killed a baby, or advocated same, since ALL babies
have been BORN. So you continue to prove yourself to be a
BRAINLESS dolt, Earl.
> And there is proof that you are a liar, and thus an athiest.
I agree with you assessment, Ray, that Earl is obviously a liar.