Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban. WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour
testtes...@googlemail.com
Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
ban on gay marriage.
Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.
MissB...@aol.com
NINE DOLLARS FOR BEER!!!!!????? That IS disturbing!
--
Miss Binky
For Europeans
Go ride your dog harlot
SODDI
"For Europeans" <sweep...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:c8d2a1f6-6564-4b5b...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Go suck your mom's dick, hillbilly.
HEMI-Powered
It helps to remember that this is Kalyfornia we're talking about
here. Interesting fellow who's the major of San Francisco, too,
huh? Even Arnold has somehow lost his way from being a conservative
to running scared from both the queers and the illegal Mexicans.
Guess these people will do most anything for a few votes.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!" -
increasingly seen on bumper sticker
iDRMRSR
[*]
-----
zzpat
>>
>> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
>> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
>> ban on gay marriage.
>>
>
minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
Which group will these nuts target next?
I'm ashamed of my country. We're bigger than this.
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
Zapanaz
Thunder crashed, zzpat laughed madly, then wrote:
>Impeach Bush
>http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
this is a little moot at this point.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Insulting someone who can't respond is like hunting puppies in a cardboard
box with a surface to puppy missle.
- ICEKNIFE
:: Currently listening to Ripcord, 1993, by Radiohead, from "Pablo Honey"
MissB...@aol.com
> "For Europeans" <sweep101...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
hee hee.
SODDI I wuv u
--
Miss Binky
MissB...@aol.com
> MissBin...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
> >> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
> >> ban on gay marriage.
>
> Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights away from a
> minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
>
> Which group will these nuts target next?
>
> I'm ashamed of my country. �We're bigger than this.
>
> --
Hey wait a minute, how did this quote get ascribed to ME??? ...Alls I
said was that they had expensive beer.
--
Miss Binky
SilentOtto
The only guys who care what gays are doing are other gays.
The rest of us are thinking about women.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
MissB...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm pretty sure you're right on that one. I personally have never sat
up nights wondering what sexual activities ANY of the gay people I
know are currently engaged in.
While I don't think about "women", I think about the same thing gay
guys think about...well sort of: men. Only, after seeing some of
those photos, I definitely KNOW we are (gay men and I)thinking about
different men. ...I don't recognize ANY of those guys from my
fantasies...I'd remember that.
--
Miss Binky
Scott Dorsey
>
>I'm pretty sure you're right on that one. I personally have never sat
>up nights wondering what sexual activities ANY of the gay people I
>know are currently engaged in.
This is crossposted rec.audio.pro. And here on rec.audio.pro we don't
care what anyone does in bed as long as they never use an SM-58 on
stage.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
SODDI
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gevpus$k9u$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> <MissB...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'm pretty sure you're right on that one. I personally have never sat
>>up nights wondering what sexual activities ANY of the gay people I
>>know are currently engaged in.
>
> This is crossposted rec.audio.pro. And here on rec.audio.pro we don't
> care what anyone does in bed as long as they never use an SM-58 on
> stage.
> --scott
Miss Binky - THIS Scott Dorsey.
MissB...@aol.com
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gevpus$k9u$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
>
> >>I'm pretty sure you're right on that one. �I personally have never sat
> >>up nights wondering what sexual activities ANY of the gay people I
> >>know are currently engaged in.
>
> > This is crossposted rec.audio.pro. �And here on rec.audio.pro we don't
> > care what anyone does in bed as long as they never use an SM-58 on
> > stage.
> > --scott
>
> Miss Binky - THIS Scott Dorsey.
OH, Hey Scott! ...Thanks for the virus!! ;0
--
Miss Binky
zzpat
> zzpat hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> Thunder crashed, zzpat laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>
>> Impeach Bush
>> http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
>>
>
> this is a little moot at this point.
>
>
>
old now. I'll be changing the name of the site to something like "The
Legacy of Bush" or "The Legacy of Conservatism."
One of my other websites is called "Reagan Versus Clinton." Google it
and you'll find it's #1 Sadly, my impeach site is #3. You can't win
them all.
When the economic #'s come out on Bush, I'll do a Clinton Versus Bush
website.
zzpat
>
>
> The only guys who care what gays are doing are other gays.
>
> The rest of us are thinking about women.
>
>
about gay people getting married. Do gays think about straight people
ruining their marriages also?
Seon Ferguson
there life's. Those gay people clearly want the right to be married and that
has been taken away from them by ignorant homophobes.
<testtes...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1633568b-d603-4666...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Rev. Richard Skull
> "For Europeans" <sweep101...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
HE can't, his Mom charges 25 cents, and thats almost a months wage for
him.
Rev. Richard Skull
Rev. Richard Skull
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe the fact that HE-man Aaarrrrny (who was kicked out of the
Austrian Army for unknown reasons) earned money by doing layouts in
Gay Magazines while he lived in Austria.
FoodForThought
>I don't see why people think they have the right to tell people how to live
>there life's. Those gay people clearly want the right to be married and that
>has been taken away from them by ignorant homophobes.
>
People who are secure in their own sexuality never feel threatened by the
sexual-orientation of others. Simple fact, not opinion.
Heteros who know who they are have no qualms nor hesitations about hugging or
even friend-kissing a gay person. Just as a gay person has no fears nor
hesitations about hugging a hetero friend. They both know, without question,
that the act of showing genuine affection does not change who they are. There is
no reason to not show support, affection, and concern for the other. There will
be nothing but genuine affection exchanged. There is no ulterior motive between
those who are secure in their own sexual-orientations.
Every homophobe and gay-basher in existence is just a deeply disturbed and
wholly insecure gay person. They can't look in the mirror so they take (what
they think) is the easier way out, to try to rid the world of everything that
reminds them of their own feelings, the feelings of anyone that they were taught
to hate in life, including their own. In the wise word of Confucius: "When we
see men of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see men of contrary
character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves." Not only can
gay-bashers try to appear to be not gay to all they know by hating and showing
violence towards others, but they find it's the only socially acceptable way of
obtaining intense/intimate attention from other gay people, those like
themselves. How amazingly sad and pathetic as humans they are. Weak and insecure
and frightened. There is nothing so dangerous in nature than a frightened and
injured animal. In humanity that would be the "gay basher" (or sexually-insecure
political leader).
Aside: Note the similarity between the "gay basher" and leaders of the
middle-east, that use their excuse for "camaraderie" over some religious or
political issue to gain affection and praise from other fellow males, while
abusing and persecuting their women and wives. As long as they can kill another
man as an excuse to kiss and hug each other then its acceptable behavior. The
folly of such blatantly insecure closet-case humans would be laughable if it
weren't so sad. They're nothing but a whole region of the world of insecure
closet-cases, decreed by their chosen religion, so they may suffer and bring
their suffering upon the rest of the world in trying to avoid their own feelings
and sexual-orientations. Even sadder are their idiot followers and supporters
that don't recognize their "leader's" behavior for what it truly is.
A serious related "aside": The wife-beater is also a 100% closet-case. They beat
their wives in order to get attention from the men that will eventually stop
them from doing so. (Note the direct similarities of them and their values and
leaders of the middle-east who are desperately trying to gain attention from
more powerful male leaders of other countries.) Doesn't matter what wife they
have, as long as they can use them to eventually get attention from men who are
more powerful than they. (Here's a plaintive "Sorry!" to all battered-wives. But
in reality he really doesn't give one shit about you or he wouldn't treat you
that way. You're only being used so he can get attention from other more
powerful men. Think about it.) Civilization and heteros in particular are one
gigantic royally fucked-up mess in their own childish sexual-insecurities.
zzpat
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:35:13 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't see why people think they have the right to tell people how to live
>> there life's. Those gay people clearly want the right to be married and that
>> has been taken away from them by ignorant homophobes.
>>
>>
>
> People who are secure in their own sexuality never feel threatened by the
> sexual-orientation of others. Simple fact, not opinion.
>
>
are afraid...they were afraid of terrorists after 911 and now they're
afraid the money they saved for retirement is gone. This loss of control
leads many to try to control others or stay in control of something and
which better group to control than gays.
I'd submit that there would be not thought whatsoever of banning gays if
911 and the Wall Street Meltdown hadn't taken place.
Archdea...@gmail.com
> I don't see why people think they have the right to tell people how to live
> there life's. Those gay people clearly want the right to be married and that
> has been taken away from them by ignorant homophobes.
>
>
> news:1633568b-d603-4666...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Gay California street party
> > Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
> > Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
> > engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
> >http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
> > Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
> > Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
> > ban on gay marriage.
>
> > Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
> > Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
> > blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.
>
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html
I agree. I don't see why disease-carrying psychotic homosexuals, who
engage in suicidally-risky behavior that causes rampant disease
outbreaks want to force their psychotic death-style on to people who
don't want it. I dont' understand why they go into elementray schools
and indoctrinate young children into accepting what is not acceptable.
I don't see why they think they have the right to tell other people
what to think, or how to run their society.
Rich
> Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
> Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
> engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
> ban on gay marriage.
The Democrats KNEW mobilizing black voters would do this, they are
something like 2x likely to vote against gay initiatives as whites.
The religious blacks are very conservative. But the Democrats were
simply practicing "real" politics.
SilentOtto
Well...
I'll fess up to wondering what lesbians are up to from time to time.
But, I wasn't wondering how I could stop them. :)
Jenn
<86032d0d-81ce-4e4e...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
Archdea...@gmail.com wrote:
We're gay just to piss you off, and I see that it worked.
SilentOtto
> On Nov 6, 6:35 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't see why people think they have the right to tell people how to live
> > there life's. Those gay people clearly want the right to be married and that
> > has been taken away from them by ignorant homophobes.
>
> > <testtest505...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1633568b-d603-4666...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Gay California street party
> > > Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
> > > Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
> > > engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
> > >http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
> > > Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
> > > Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
> > > ban on gay marriage.
>
> > > Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
> > > Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
> > > blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.
>
> > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html
>
> I agree. I don't see why disease-carrying psychotic homosexuals, who
> engage in suicidally-risky behavior that causes rampant disease
> outbreaks
Name ONE thing gays do that heterosexuals don't do.
Just one...
In fact...
I can point your sorry rightard ass to thousands and thousands of
pictures and videos of heterosexuals engaging in public sex acts every
bit as explicit as those referenced in the original post.
The guys flashing?
Ever been to Mardi Gras and seen what the women are doing?
Public sex acts?
Go to spring break or a biker rally sometime.
There was NOTHING in ANY of those pictures that heterosexuals don't
do.
Not a single fucking thing.
> want to force their psychotic death-style on to people who
> don't want it.
Someone tried to force you to be a homosexual?
I don't believe you.
I think you're LYING for dramatic effect.
>I dont' understand why they go into elementray schools
> and indoctrinate young children into accepting what is not acceptable.
What's not acceptable about homosexuality?
I think teaching children that they've no justification to attack
others because their different is a good thing.
> I don't see why they think they have the right to tell other people
> what to think, or how to run their society.
You rightards can "think" (if that's what you want to call it) what
ever you want.
What I don't like is when you try and codify your discriminatory
impulses into law.
If you don't think homosexuality is moral, then don't be a homosexual.
It really is that simple.
Heh heh...
Rightards.
Closet queers every one...
SilentOtto
> SilentOtto wrote:
>
> > The only guys who care what gays are doing are other gays.
>
> > The rest of us are thinking about women.
>
> Which is why I find it odd that so many straight people are thinking
> about gay people getting married. Do gays think about straight people
> ruining their marriages also?
:)
>
> --
> Impeach Bushhttp://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
Seon Ferguson
<Archdea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:86032d0d-81ce-4e4e...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
Maybe it's Religion. They are so brainwashed when they see people actually
enjoying life without living in fear and doing things they think their
Religion says they can't do they get jelous and have to spoil it for
everyone. The Homophobe is a sad creature and no better than a racist.
Seon Ferguson
"zzpat" <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gf00t...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> FoodForThought wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:35:13 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't see why people think they have the right to tell people how to
>>> live there life's. Those gay people clearly want the right to be married
>>> and that has been taken away from them by ignorant homophobes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> People who are secure in their own sexuality never feel threatened by the
>> sexual-orientation of others. Simple fact, not opinion.
>>
>>
> You're very much correct, but there's something else afoot. Americans are
> afraid...they were afraid of terrorists after 911 and now they're afraid
> the money they saved for retirement is gone. This loss of control leads
> many to try to control others or stay in control of something and which
> better group to control than gays.
>
> I'd submit that there would be not thought whatsoever of banning gays if
> 911 and the Wall Street Meltdown hadn't taken place.
>
> --
Even if 11/9 hadn't taken place there is no way America would become the
police state anti American traitors like you want it to be.
Seon Ferguson
"FoodForThought" <foodfo...@emailunknown.org> wrote in message
news:4417h4dtt9kn7ef2g...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:35:13 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I don't see why people think they have the right to tell people how to
>>live
>>there life's. Those gay people clearly want the right to be married and
>>that
>>has been taken away from them by ignorant homophobes.
>>
>
> People who are secure in their own sexuality never feel threatened by the
> sexual-orientation of others. Simple fact, not opinion.
>
one bit. They don't even threaten marriage. i will still be able to marry a
women when I meet the right one.
Yep you're absalutly right. Fear and ignorance leads to hatred.
Seon Ferguson
"Jenn" <jennco...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:jennconducts-3658...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
Not on me I couldn't giev a tinkers toot.
tony cooper
It's not what they get up to, but what they go down on.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Seon Ferguson
"SilentOtto" <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e7d186a-303a-43ea...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Just one...
In fact...
The guys flashing?
Public sex acts?
Heh heh...
Rightards.
Closet queers every one...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey I missread this right tards reply. I thought he said homophobes not
homosexuals but now I see he's a gay basher just like every other useless
right tard.
Jenn
tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Then stop thinking about it so much.
Jenn
<4913c40c$0$22625$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Obviously"
For Europeans
> MissBin...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
> >> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
> >> ban on gay marriage.
>
> minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
Were you ever an American? Speak for yourself.
For Europeans
> This is crossposted rec.audio.pro. And here on rec.audio.pro we don't
> care what anyone does in bed
Now you know why.
Rev. Diva Schematic
> <MissB...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure you're right on that one. I personally have never sat
>> up nights wondering what sexual activities ANY of the gay people I
>> know are currently engaged in.
>
> stage.
> --scott
>
I think amps are a much under-used sexual aid.
Rev. Diva Schematic
William Sommerwerck
> engage in suicidally-risky behavior that causes rampant disease
> outbreaks want to force their psychotic death-style on to people who
> don't want it. I dont' understand why they go into elementray schools
> and indoctrinate young children into accepting what is not acceptable.
> I don't see why they think they have the right to tell other people
> what to think, or how to run their society.
I assume this is a hyperbolic joke.
If not, please get out and get to know a few gay men and women. You'll be
shocked to discover that you actually like some of them.
By the way, it's "our" society, too.
Rev. Richard Skull
> In article <99h7h4lsn1bis7q80mnko80tqgg21fn...@4ax.com>,
> tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 19:03:36 -0800 (PST), SilentOtto
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or go rent a DVD. MAke sure you have plenty of hand lotion and kleenex
ange...@gmail.com
my father go touch my private pade and also touch my na na i like it
is like sex.
Thanatos
<4e7d186a-303a-43ea...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
SilentOtto <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:31 pm, ArchdeaconMa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I agree. I don't see why disease-carrying psychotic homosexuals, who
> > engage in suicidally-risky behavior that causes rampant disease
> > outbreaks
>
> Name ONE thing gays do that heterosexuals don't do.
They have sex with members of the same gender.
HEMI-Powered
> Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights
> away from a minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
>
> Which group will these nuts target next?
>
> I'm ashamed of my country. We're bigger than this.
>
What "rights"? Show me where the right to dork your partner is
condoned by the people of the United States, besides which there is
a far bigger law involved here - that of God Almighty who says that
marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that the actions
of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked, religious law
trumped non-existant civil law.
One other thing, the way that states work and the federal
government works is that a majority CAN remove rights and freedoms
of minorities. The reasons and examples are so easy and so far
reaching that it is assinine to make an assertion such as yours.
Easy example: do you or do you not think that the majority of
people who want to be safe in their homes can take away the right
of a minority of people - criminals - to invade your privacy?
You Far Left Loons have simply GOT to get it through your thick
head that the majority of Americans still feel VERY strongly about
religion and family values, both of which are dangerous to the Left
Loons. e.g., president-elect Obama made a number of statements
decrying the rights of people in many states such as Pennsylvania
to vote against him claiming they "were clinging to their guns and
religion". Yep, you're right, Senator, and THAT is OUR right, my
friend!
HEMI-Powered
> zzpat hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> Thunder crashed, zzpat laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>>Impeach Bush
>>http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
>
> this is a little moot at this point.
>
Actually, it's not. It may be very unlikely but the Democratic
leadership in both the House and the Senate led by none other than
Dennis Kuchinich plans to take their new, larger majorities for a
test spin and try to impeach President Bush before he leaves
office. And, failing at that which is likely, they intend to get
the new AG to bring him up on charges of treason, abuse of power,
and obstruction of justice. Those charges ARE likely and may even
stick.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:35:13 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"
> <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't see why people think they have the right to tell
>>people how to live there life's. Those gay people clearly want
>>the right to be married and that has been taken away from them
>>by ignorant homophobes.
>>
>
> People who are secure in their own sexuality never feel
> threatened by the sexual-orientation of others. Simple fact,
> not opinion.
Irrelevant. Fact, not opinion. It matters not if one is or is not
secure in their own sexuality to recognize and oppose perversion
and attempt to stamp it out whenever it rears its ugly head.
> Heteros who know who they are have no qualms nor hesitations
> about hugging or even friend-kissing a gay person. Just as a
> gay person has no fears nor hesitations about hugging a hetero
> friend. They both know, without question, that the act of
> showing genuine affection does not change who they are. There
> is no reason to not show support, affection, and concern for
> the other. There will be nothing but genuine affection
> exchanged. There is no ulterior motive between those who are
> secure in their own sexual-orientations.
As Archie Bunker would say "F-A-G fruit" and no, I won't kiss a
queer or any member of the same sex.
if we stopped using the euphemisms "gay" and "lesbian" and stuck
with the more descriptive and easier to understand terms "queer"
and "pervert", it'd be a LOT easier for the average American to
stomp this shit out once and for all. I've heard that some 30
states allow queers to be fired just for being perverts. I'd like
to see that extended to all 50 states and territories via
Consitutional Amendment. God's Law shall not be ignored by some
nuts in Kalyfornia.
That said, queer bashing is a crime and should be prosecuted as
such - IF it results in harm to another citizen. NOte: aliens
both legal and illegal have NO rights under the Consitution so
don't bother going there. Now, it is NOT queer bashing to stop
butt fuckers and lezzies from defiling the sacrement of
matrimony, it is simple justice.
lawrence winters
>
>As Archie Bunker would say "F-A-G fruit" and no, I won't kiss a
>queer or any member of the same sex.
>
Your overt sexual-insecurity screams loud and clear that you are a major
closet-case.
How does it feel to have outted yourself to the world?
It feels better now that everyone knows, doesn't it. I bet you've been dying to
do that all your life.
But to the whole world? You should have outted yourself to just a few close
friends first. That's how most of them do it.
My bad, you probably have done that already, and it just wasn't enough. This
must be your phase-II.
Caesar Romano
approve gay-marriage ban.:
>Irrelevant. Fact, not opinion. It matters not if one is or is not
>secure in their own sexuality to recognize and oppose perversion
>and attempt to stamp it out whenever it rears its ugly head.
Good points, and very true. However, what is considered "perversion"?
That changes (usually slowly) as a culture and civilization "evolves"
over time. At one time, anything other than "missionary position"
between a husband and wife was publicly (not necessarily privately)
considered at the limit of propriety if not outright perverse.
That's certainly is not (for good or worse) the case today. So
"perversion" is really a matter of consensus. Therefore...
(here's the part you are going to love)
Given that men generally in our culture/society have become
progressively more effeminate over the past 50-years, it's not wonder
that many people no longer consider homosexuality as "perverse" as was
the case prior to the 1960's. Take a look at how men now act and dress
and compare it to 50 years ago.
No wonder it takes a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex
"marriage".
Jürgen Exner
>zzpat added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights
>> away from a minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
>>
>> Which group will these nuts target next?
>>
>> I'm ashamed of my country. We're bigger than this.
>>
>What "rights"?
"[...] all men are [...] endowed [...] with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Does that sound familiar to you?
>Show me where the right to dork your partner is
>condoned by the people of the United States, besides which there is
>a far bigger law involved here - that of God Almighty who says that
Please provide proof that such a creature exists.
>marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that the actions
>of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked, religious law
>trumped non-existant civil law.
Last time I looked this applies only in theocracies and inside of
religious orders. Most society have overcome religious pre-eminence a
long time ago in the 17th and 18th century.
>You Far Left Loons have simply GOT to get it through your thick
>head that the majority of Americans still feel VERY strongly about
>religion and family values,
And you are very welcome to do so. And I would strongly object to anyone
trying to interfere with your believes.
But how dare you trying to impose your believes on someone else? What
gives you the right to elevate your believes above the believes of
others?
I reject your fairy tale book. I denounce it and anything contained in
it. It is not my believe system and I dare you trying to enforce any
"law" stipulated in that book on me.
You are welcome to adhere to any rules you like to follow and even to
enforce those rules within whatever group that accepts those rules,
I DO NOT and I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT THOSE RULES because in western
countries (with exception of the Vatican) freedom of religion is one of
the basic human rights and religious laws, no matter if Halakha, Sharia,
Dharma, Old or New Testament or whatever do not take precedence over
basic civil and human rights.
jue
Rosin Taylor
wrote:
Well, you really can't blame him. He's not bright enough to make wiser choices
in life than that. This is what happens to everyone that chooses a religion
based on fear instead of love. They've been worshipping a false god and a false
love their whole lives. How could they know any different. They're too busy
being afraid to notice. Their chosen religion tells them to be that way. Even
worse, their chosen religion tells them that they aren't allowed to look for any
other answers elsewhere, to find out they've been lied to their whole lives.
Locked in a life of fear and ignorance, of their own choosing. The rest of us
just have to wait until they wake themselves up.
What I'll never understand is why anyone be so stupid and foolish to choose
those kinds of dead-end religions. It must be like an amusement park for them.
They want to scare themselves silly on a ride. It's one of the few strong
emotions that they can recognize anymore. A religious choice based on an fearful
endorphin rush evoked with their own imaginings. They're so wise. :-)
"I think that if any one or all of the gods gave us free choice they could have
at least given us a better ability at choosing." - caMel
Jürgen Exner
> God's Law shall not be ignored
Which one are you talking about?
Manu Smriti? Sharia? Halakha? Law of Christ? Divine/Abramic Law?
>Now, it is NOT queer bashing to stop
>butt fuckers and lezzies from defiling the sacrement of
>matrimony, it is simple justice.
As the term "sacrament" does not exist in legal law your statement has
no relevance outside of your religous group.
jue
Rev. Richard Skull
Look at his screen name, "Hemi-Powered"
Lets examine it, logicly as my Girl Frinded would say.
By HEMI, which mean he drive on of th e"Macho" vehicle, Probally a
Dodge Ram 4x4 that never leaves the asphalt, and has never hualed
anything larger then a bag of groceries. (My Chevy, 4 x 2 w/ a 4 cyl
on the other hand has towed U-Huals, Campers, new Washer & Dryer,
lumber, furnature, etc all over the eastern US and I only bought it
last December 31st.) So he buys to the V-8 HEmi BIG Truck that never
does any truck type things, while my "wimpy" 4 Cyl Colorado has infact
done much more truck type things. I buy trucks to hual and tow, he
buys his truck to make "A Statement". Thats Statement says "I'm a real
man!. And I bought this truck to prove it (to myself).
And the fact he bought a Chrysler proved he is not too smart to start
with! : )
About 30 years ago, when I was in The Army, I had this little short
skinny First Sergeant. He had been darfted in the Korea War and done 2
tours in Vietnam. HE got out of The Army 3 times and went back in 3
times, becuase in his own words "its the only palce a dumbshit like me
can get ahead in life" He always had great bits of wisdom to pass on
the us young guys. One of his that for me has always been proven
right: "The more macho they act, the gayer they are"
It have found over the yeasr it applies to everything. Not just sexual
Oreintation.
The ones who brag abaout their "Christainity" are the ones who are
breaking most of the 10 Commandments
The ones who wrap themselves in the flag are always the first ones to
run & hide when the shit hits the fan.
The ones who Worship the "Free maket" are always the first in line
with thier hands out.
Jürgen Exner
>At one time, anything other than "missionary position"
>between a husband and wife was publicly (not necessarily privately)
>considered at the limit of propriety if not outright perverse.
>
>That's certainly is not (for good or worse) the case today.
Don't be so sure about that. I seem to recall (sorry, don't have a
source) that many common-place practices are still outlawed in the US
mid-west and have been used as pretext for divorce.
jue
phillip grant
You forgot "respect". A religion based on love _and_ respect. Without respect
love is false. Respect is much more powerful and important than love will ever
be. A religion based on respect will harm no one. A love based on respect is
true love. Respect is the most important foundation. They can't respect others
and their religions because they've been worshipping a false god that doesn't
even know the power of respect. (Why is it that some human knows more than their
juvenile god? That sure is some "all knowing" god you've got there. :) )
Otherwise, excellent points. :)
TueDat
<msh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Look at his screen name, "Hemi-Powered"
>
>Lets examine it, logicly as my Girl Frinded would say.
>
>By HEMI, which mean he drive on of th e"Macho" vehicle
Yes, the signs of a true closet-case. Those effeminate men that have to try to
appear more macho on the outside to overcompensate for what they lack on the
inside. They think that others will never suspect if they try to cover it up
enough.
No offense to gay people, but I visited a few gay friends' bars with them when
they were hosting a "leather night". The more macho that theses guys in leather
tried to appear on the outside the more that a purse would drop out of their
mouth when they talked, instantly revealing the inside. More power to them if
that's what they need and want, to be closer to masculinity. But this
over-compensation now exposing the real, but opposite, person on the inside
became so blatantly obvious.
A guy who is truly masculine and secure in his masculinity will still appear so
even in a woman's dress. He'll not even have any problems doing so for the fun
and laughs. You can't disguise innate masculinity no matter how much you try.
But a guy who is effeminate and worried about others discovering their
homosexuality will _always_ try to overcompensate on the outside. Doing things
like wearing always leather, chains, using names like "Hemi-Powered" for their
screen names.
Hemi-Powered is just SO MACHO! Isn't he. (At least he's hoping everyone else
will think so.)
A good thing that we can't hear his voice and hear a purse drop out of his mouth
every time that he talks.
Salad
> On Nov 7, 8:10 am, lawrence winters <lwint...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:46:28 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As Archie Bunker would say "F-A-G fruit" and no, I won't kiss a
>>>queer or any member of the same sex.
>>
>>Your overt sexual-insecurity screams loud and clear that you are a major
>>closet-case.
>>
>>How does it feel to have outted yourself to the world?
>>
>>It feels better now that everyone knows, doesn't it. I bet you've been dying to
>>do that all your life.
>>
>>But to the whole world? You should have outted yourself to just a few close
>>friends first. That's how most of them do it.
>>
>>My bad, you probably have done that already, and it just wasn't enough. This
>>must be your phase-II.
>
>
> Look at his screen name, "Hemi-Powered"
>
> Lets examine it, logicly as my Girl Frinded would say.
>
> By HEMI, which mean he drive on of th e"Macho" vehicle, Probally a
> Dodge Ram 4x4 that never leaves the asphalt, and has never hualed
> anything larger then a bag of groceries.
It's called a "penis extender."
tony cooper
You are probably thinking of "blue laws". There have been many US laws
passed over the course of time that were passed to cover morality in
some way. Many of them were tied to religious beliefs. Most common
are laws pertaining to what is not allowed on the Sabbath.
When a law is referred as a "blue law", it means that the law still
exists on the books, but it is no longer enforced. The legislative or
governmental body involved never bothered to repeal the law. These
so-called "blue laws" were passed, enforced at one time, and then
disregarded and forgotten. The action covered by the law is still
"outlawed", but violations of the law are not enforced.
Occasionally, someone will find some out-dated law still on the books
and attempt to enforce it. The cases are invariably thrown out of
court. Once ruled against, the law no longer pertains under our
system of precedence. Even so, the appropriate governmental body will
usually formally repeal the law.
Quite often you will see a magazine, newspaper, or online article
about weird laws in the US. It's fun to find them, and report on
them, but don't believe that these laws are enforceable today.
There are two accepted explanations for the term "blue law". One is
that in colonial times in the US, the printed form of laws was bound
in blue paper. The second is the definition of "blue" to mean
"off-color" or "offensive" because the laws in question dealt with
subjects that were offensive to some people. No one knows for sure
which is the true origin.
Caesar Romano
California voters approve gay-marriage ban.:
>Caesar Romano <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
Yes, that is true. However I was referring to social acceptance rather
than legal acceptance. Those old laws from the eighteenth century are
still on the books, but only utilized when convenient or politically
expedient. At least that is what I observe.
SilentOtto
> In article
> <4e7d186a-303a-43ea-a4cc-1b88948df...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:31 pm, ArchdeaconMa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I agree. I don't see why disease-carrying psychotic homosexuals, who
> > > engage in suicidally-risky behavior that causes rampant disease
> > > outbreaks
>
> > Name ONE thing gays do that heterosexuals don't do.
>
> They have sex with members of the same gender.
Cute...
Now name a sex act that homosexuals do that straight people don't.
Don't bother...
I already know you can't.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
J. Clarke
The blue laws in Massachussetts are most assuredly still in force and
are still enforced. The current statement on them can be found at
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdsubtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Workers+and+Unions&L2=Wage+and+Employment+Related+Programs&L3=The+Massachusetts'+Blue+Laws&sid=Elwd.
In 2005 several Boston businesses were charged with violation of them
for staying open on Thanksgiving.
I do not believe, however, that these are the laws to which Caesar was
referring. His reference seemed to be specifically with regard to
prohibited sexual acts, collectively referred to as "sodomy". In 2003
the Supreme Court effectively struck down all anti-sodomy laws in the
United States. Prior to that time a number of states had such laws on
the books and per a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that was overturned by
the 2003 ruling, those laws were valid. Penalties ranged from a fine
of a few hundred dollars to ten or more years in prison depending on
the state. Note that such laws generally did not distinguish between
acts committed by couples of the same gender or of opposite genders,
and such were not explicitly anti-homosexuality laws, although they
were usually enforced more rigidly against homosexuals.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:10:47 -0800, Jürgen Exner
><jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Caesar Romano <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>At one time, anything other than "missionary position"
>>>between a husband and wife was publicly (not necessarily privately)
>>>considered at the limit of propriety if not outright perverse.
>>>
>>>That's certainly is not (for good or worse) the case today.
>>
>>Don't be so sure about that. I seem to recall (sorry, don't have a
>>source) that many common-place practices are still outlawed in the US
>>mid-west and have been used as pretext for divorce.
>
>You are probably thinking of "blue laws". There have been many US laws
>passed over the course of time that were passed to cover morality in
>some way. Many of them were tied to religious beliefs. Most common
>are laws pertaining to what is not allowed on the Sabbath.
Do you mean a Sabbath which can be a Friday, Saturday or Sunday
or do you mean on of those days in particular?
Don't you hate it when some else's religious law impinges on civil law
and God's law?
Morality is a movable feast and impossible to legislate for.
>When a law is referred as a "blue law", it means that the law still
>exists on the books, but it is no longer enforced. The legislative or
>governmental body involved never bothered to repeal the law. These
>so-called "blue laws" were passed, enforced at one time, and then
>disregarded and forgotten. The action covered by the law is still
>"outlawed", but violations of the law are not enforced.
That is a recipe for disaster.... removing laws always seems far more
problematical than creating them..
>Occasionally, someone will find some out-dated law still on the books
>and attempt to enforce it. The cases are invariably thrown out of
>court. Once ruled against, the law no longer pertains under our
>system of precedence. Even so, the appropriate governmental body will
>usually formally repeal the law.
That's good. BTW what is the criteria for repealing these laws?
>Quite often you will see a magazine, newspaper, or online article
>about weird laws in the US. It's fun to find them, and report on
>them, but don't believe that these laws are enforceable today.
That happens in most countries some of the old laws in the UK defy
belief.
>There are two accepted explanations for the term "blue law". One is
>that in colonial times in the US, the printed form of laws was bound
>in blue paper. The second is the definition of "blue" to mean
>"off-color" or "offensive" because the laws in question dealt with
>subjects that were offensive to some people. No one knows for sure
>which is the true origin.
I think there are multiple unconnected origin which have become confused
over the years (search on Blue Movies for example)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Caesar Romano
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote Re Re: Homosexuals take to the street
as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.:
>The blue laws in Massachussetts are most assuredly still in force and
>are still enforced. The current statement on them can be found at
>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdsubtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Workers+and+Unions&L2=Wage+and+Employment+Related+Programs&L3=The+Massachusetts'+Blue+Laws&sid=Elwd.
>In 2005 several Boston businesses were charged with violation of them
>for staying open on Thanksgiving.
>
>I do not believe, however, that these are the laws to which Caesar was
>referring. His reference seemed to be specifically with regard to
>prohibited sexual acts, collectively referred to as "sodomy".
Yes indeed, the "sodomy" laws were on by mind, but others also that
seek to enforce society's general consensus as to prohibiting or
punishing what it considers (at the time) perverse sexual behavior.
For example, in some states adultery was considered a crime. As I
recall, that was the case in Oklahoma in the early 1970's; although
that was one of the "blue" laws from an earlier time.
I guess my point is that all cultures and societies seek to enshrine
their moral consensus at the point of a gun, but that the consensus
changes slowly over time. As it changes, there is a period of time
when there is effectively no clear consensus and that is where we are
now on this particular (and many other) issues.
carlton_adams
Doesn't matter what "laws" there are in any society. Laws are nothing more than
some majority's opinion put on paper, started by one fool with that opinion.
Non-realistic beliefs that the immature and insecure like to wrap their minds
in, like some "woobie" (a child's security blanket). Do you always follow the
opinions of the majority? If it is true that opinions are like assholes,
everyone has one, then it also follows true that laws when printed on paper are
proving those people who made those laws to be even bigger assholes by spreading
their opinion around so freely.
Make no mistake about it, any "law" in existence is just some fool's opinion
that other fools agreed upon.
"There are non so lost, as those who follow." ~caMel~
"Authority isn't something someone else has, it's something you've freely,
foolishly, and irresponsibly given away -- all by your little self" ~ caMel ~
"You will never be free as long as you allow yourself to be manipulated by
politicians and religious leaders." ~caMel~
"The 'truth' is any perception of reality that one or more people have where
they can successfully manipulate others into accepting that perception as their
own 'truth'. That is all that 'truth' is, that is all that 'truth' has ever
been. And that's the truth." - caMel
"If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
So much for your asshole's-opinion "laws", eh?
:-)
David Ruether
"HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns9B4F4F1D54E...@216.168.3.30...
> FoodForThought added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:35:13 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"
>> <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Sorry for the cross-postings, but....................]
>>>I don't see why people think they have the right to tell
>>>people how to live there life's. Those gay people clearly want
>>>the right to be married and that has been taken away from them
>>>by ignorant homophobes.
And in California, primarily by African-American voters. How
quickly they have forgotten the misogyny laws that prohibited
cross-racial marriages, and the struggle to eliminate such racist
nonsense... Being anti-gay is just plain sexism, and it is as
equally indefensible as racism.
>> People who are secure in their own sexuality never feel
>> threatened by the sexual-orientation of others. Simple fact,
>> not opinion.
Correct!
> Irrelevant. Fact, not opinion. It matters not if one is or is not
> secure in their own sexuality to recognize and oppose perversion
> and attempt to stamp it out whenever it rears its ugly head.
You've GOT to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a pathetic jerk you are, if not... Do you EVER do any
research on the topics you make such uninformed
pronouncements on before making them? If not, you are a
fool, too...
>> Heteros who know who they are have no qualms nor hesitations
>> about hugging or even friend-kissing a gay person. Just as a
>> gay person has no fears nor hesitations about hugging a hetero
>> friend. They both know, without question, that the act of
>> showing genuine affection does not change who they are. There
>> is no reason to not show support, affection, and concern for
>> the other. There will be nothing but genuine affection
>> exchanged. There is no ulterior motive between those who are
>> secure in their own sexual-orientations.
> As Archie Bunker would say "F-A-G fruit" and no, I won't kiss a
> queer or any member of the same sex.
That's up to you - but keep in mind that using the word "queer"
is equivalent to using the word "Nigger"...
[Good stuff deleted for brevity...]
> if we stopped using the euphemisms "gay" and "lesbian" and stuck
> with the more descriptive and easier to understand terms "queer"
> and "pervert", it'd be a LOT easier for the average American to
> stomp this shit out once and for all. I've heard that some 30
> states allow queers to be fired just for being perverts.
> I'd like to see that extended to all 50 states and territories via
> Consitutional Amendment. God's Law shall not be ignored by
> some nuts in Kalyfornia.
Ahem - the US is not a theocracy, and built into its constitution
is the prohibition against the establishment of any religion at all.
Oh, you are either a troll in these NGs, or are the consummate
stupid individual whose level of stupidity, ignorance, and lack of
sympathy for or understanding of your fellow humans knows no
bounds. You appear to have reached an ultimate station in life,
one to which most would not aspire.
Gee, c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s . . .
> That said, queer bashing is a crime and should be prosecuted as
> such - IF it results in harm to another citizen.
Gosh, how generous..... (it appears you don't care about the
safety of the, uh, "queer", though...). BTW, I can guarantee that
you have some homosexual relatives, just by the odds, and I
hope you will not hate them if you ever find out who they are
(and you really can't generally tell by how they sound or act,
any more than by their color...) as much as you appear to hate
yourself (and the reason for that is fairly clear...).
> NOte: aliens
> both legal and illegal have NO rights under the Consitution so
> don't bother going there. Now, it is NOT queer bashing to stop
> butt fuckers and lezzies from defiling the sacrement of
> matrimony, it is simple justice.
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
Hey, it's probably silly to point this out, but in no state (or country)
in which homosexual citizens have the rights enjoyed by the rest
of the citizenry has there been any negative effect resulting from
granting that equality, including the right of marriage. Legal gay
marriage does not diminish the institution (and, BTW, no group
or church is forced to perform ceremonies for any group), but it
does strengthen it by extending its availability, advantages, and
responsibilities to all people. And, gay relationships and families
can be formally and legally recognized and supported in society,
a positive result for society). The relationships already do exist,
but prejudice and legal limitations imposed by outdated laws.
As an aside, I think that much anti-homosexual rhetoric is based
on either a too particular reading of the bible (homosexuality is
rarely mentioned there, only obscurely, never by Jesus, and it
appears to be a sin similar in importance to a woman wearing a
red dress...;-), or a personal ***belief*** (not a researched
fact) that being homosexual is a choice. It isn't (except for some
bisexuals). But, all the above notwithstanding, narrow-minded
thoughtless prejudice and bigotry will unfortunately continue to
exist...
--David Ruether
www.donferrario.com/ruether
d_ru...@hotmail.com
zzpat
>
> Even if 11/9 hadn't taken place there is no way America would become
> the police state anti American traitors like you want it to be.
>
>
I favor equal rights for all Americans. "Anti American traitors" think
they have the right to take rights away from others without their
consent. Shame on you.
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
David Ruether
"TueDat" <tru...@truedat.com> wrote in message news:8an8h4hv9ct4jj19d...@4ax.com...
While there is much truth in the above, much of it is misleading. Male
and female homosexuals *naturally* run the gamut in personality
types from effeminate to macho, as do heterosexuals. But some like
to play a type either short term (for fun) or long term (to "pass").
--DR
zzpat
> A good thing that we can't hear his voice and hear a purse drop out of his mouth
> every time that he talks.
>
>
>
I know straight men who talk like gays are supposed to sound and I know
gay woman who can sing like Elvis. My point is it doesn't matter what a
person sounds like or how they look or what they're sexual orientation
is. It's like all the nut cases out there complaining that we have a
black president. What does skin color have to do with anything?
It's such a waste of time.
zzpat
biblical history (in the Bible itself) there isn't one marriage
performed by a priest, rabbi, minister or other religious entity of any
kind. All marriages in the Bible were civil ceremonies. Yet, there's
this belief that it's always been this way because the bible says so. Do
these people think? Do they care that what they say is based on idiocy?
zzpat
> I dont' understand why they go into elementray schools
> and indoctrinate young children into accepting what is not acceptable.
> I don't see why they think they have the right to tell other people
> what to think, or how to run their society.
>
I see the problem in reverse. Straight people tell their children that
being gay is wrong but that's a lie. There's nothing wrong with being
gay, in fact, I have many gay friends and each and every one of them is
more moral than right wing religious nuts.
Jesus Christ himself, never said a word about homosexuality. If it was a
problem for him, why did he forget to say something?
In fact, there are no references to the concept gay in the New Testament
whatsoever. There were words for gay people during the time of Christ,
but none of those words were used by Christ or his disciples. Reading
old(er) Bibles proves the bible has been rewritten so it conforms to
conservative doctrine (Roman's 1 was rewritten to be anti gay sounding
in the early 1960s).
Zapanaz
Thunder crashed, HEMI-Powered laughed madly, then wrote:
>What "rights"? Show me where the right to dork your partner is
>condoned by the people of the United States, besides which there is
>a far bigger law involved here - that of God Almighty who says that
>marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that the actions
>of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked, religious law
>trumped non-existant civil law.
Last time you looked, were you living in the middle ages or something?
' Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach
actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a
wall of separation between Church & State. '
- Thomas Jefferson
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
David Lynch:
"I sort of go by a duck when I work on a film because if you study a duck, you'll see
certain things. You'll see a bill, and the bill is a certain texture and a certain length.
Then you'll see a head, and the features on the head are a certain texture and it's
a certain shape and it goes into the neck. The texture of the bill for instance is very
smooth and it has quite precise detail in it and it reminds you somewhat of the legs.
The legs are a little bit bigger and a little more rubbery but it's enough so that your
eye goes back and forth. Now, the body being so big, it can be softer and the texture
is not so detailed, it's just kind of a cloud. And the key to the whole duck is the eye and
where the eye is placed. And it has to be placed in the head and it's the most detailed,
and it's like a little jewel. And if it was fixed, sitting on the bill, it would be two things that
were too busy, battling, they would not do so well. And if it was sitting in the middle of the body,
it would get lost. But it's so perfectly placed to show off a jewel right in the middle of the head like that,
next to this S-curve with the bill sitting out in front, but with enough distance so that the eye is very very
very well secluded and set out. So when you're working on a film, a lot of times you can get the bill and
the legs and the body and everything, but this eye of the duck is a certain scene, this jewel, that if it's
there, it's absolutely beautiful. It's just fantastic." "Film exists because we can go and have experiences
that would be pretty dangerous or strange for us in real life. We can go into a room and walk
into a dream. If we didn't want to upset anyone, we would make films about sewing, but
even that could be dangerous. But I think finally, in a film, it is how the balance is and
the feelings are. But I think there has to be those contrasts and strong things withing a
film for the total experience."
:: Currently listening to A Day in the Life, 1967, by The Beatles, from "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
zzpat
>
>
> We're gay just to piss you off, and I see that it worked.
>
You piss off most Christians, but not me.
BoringRepliesInc
wrote:
In case they try to refute this from another insecure's small-minded angle ...
"The ONLY unnatural sex-act is one that you cannot perform."
Think about it. :-)
tony cooper
>In message <bap8h4psl1mh6hvul...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:10:47 -0800, Jürgen Exner
>><jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Caesar Romano <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>>At one time, anything other than "missionary position"
>>>>between a husband and wife was publicly (not necessarily privately)
>>>>considered at the limit of propriety if not outright perverse.
>>>>
>>>>That's certainly is not (for good or worse) the case today.
>>>
>>>Don't be so sure about that. I seem to recall (sorry, don't have a
>>>source) that many common-place practices are still outlawed in the US
>>>mid-west and have been used as pretext for divorce.
>>
>>You are probably thinking of "blue laws". There have been many US laws
>>passed over the course of time that were passed to cover morality in
>>some way. Many of them were tied to religious beliefs. Most common
>>are laws pertaining to what is not allowed on the Sabbath.
>
>Do you mean a Sabbath which can be a Friday, Saturday or Sunday
>or do you mean on of those days in particular?
>
It's not what I mean that counts. It's what is defined as the Sabbath
in the law. As far as I'm personally concerned, the Sabbath is
whatever day you or your religion says it is. In the case of civil
law, the Sabbath is either defined as being a particular day of the
week or understood to be a particular day of the week by prevailing
local convention.
>Don't you hate it when some else's religious law impinges on civil law
>and God's law?
I recognize civil law, but I only recognize the rights of others to
declare that there is a God and that He has laws that they should
follow. I respect that they do so, but I will only respect them if
they recognize that I don't agree.
>Morality is a movable feast and impossible to legislate for.
Unfortunately, morality is often the subject of US legislation. Some
of it beneficial, and some of it not. Several states have, or are in
the process of passing, legislation on morality as it applies to who
can get married. Whether or not this is beneficial depends on
personal viewpoint. Mine is that such legislation is not beneficial.
>>Occasionally, someone will find some out-dated law still on the books
>>and attempt to enforce it. The cases are invariably thrown out of
>>court. Once ruled against, the law no longer pertains under our
>>system of precedence. Even so, the appropriate governmental body will
>>usually formally repeal the law.
>
>That's good. BTW what is the criteria for repealing these laws?
>
That would depend on the law and the governing body. The criteria are
different according to the nature of the body that is in a position to
repeal the law. The usual criterion is that the law is discovered to
be in conflict with something that the body wants to see allowable.
For example, a town might have an old law on the books that says that
only unmarried females can be hired as teachers. (There were laws on
this subject) The town may have been hiring married females as
teachers for years, but the old law was discovered. The town would
then formally repeal or amend the law.
GMAN
>Gay California street party
>Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
>Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
>engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
>http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
>
Pretty sick Mother FU%^ers!!!
zzpat
> On Nov 6, 9:23 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MissBin...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
>>>> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
>>>> ban on gay marriage.
>>>>
>> Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights away from a
>> minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
>>
>
> Were you ever an American? Speak for yourself.
>
If the majority rules than a majority of black people voting with a
majority of Hispanic people (and other minorities) can take the right
to marry away from white people. It's idiocy like this that makes us
all look bad.
zzpat
>
>
>> marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that the actions
>> of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked, religious law
>> trumped non-existant civil law.
>>
>
> religious orders. Most society have overcome religious pre-eminence a
> long time ago in the 17th and 18th century.
>
>
Bible thumpers seldom have a clue what their own bible says. Jesus
Christ said nothing about homosexuality being wrong. They simply make up
this belief and then demand that others follow their heresy.
Rev. Richard Skull
> TueDat wrote:
> > A good thing that we can't hear his voice and hear a purse drop out of his mouth
> > every time that he talks.
>
> I know straight men who talk like gays are supposed to sound and I know
> gay woman who can sing like Elvis. My point is it doesn't matter what a
> person sounds like or how they look or what they're sexual orientation
> is. It's like all the nut cases out there complaining that we have a
> black president. What does skin color have to do with anything?
>
> It's such a waste of time.
>
> --
Some people from certain areas of West Virginia have an accent thats
sounds like what most people think gays are supposed to sound like.
SODDI
"HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote>
> God's Law shall not be ignored by some
> nuts in Kalyfornia.
Your "god" never existed so who the fuck cares what some old beardie man
wrote down and pretended that was what some invisible sky daddy said.
You people are nothing but cave men.
Caesar Romano
<carlto...@spammenot.org> wrote Re Re: Homosexuals take to the
street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.:
>>I guess my point is that all cultures and societies seek to enshrine
>>their moral consensus at the point of a gun, but that the consensus
>>changes slowly over time. As it changes, there is a period of time
>>when there is effectively no clear consensus and that is where we are
>>now on this particular (and many other) issues.
>
>Doesn't matter what "laws" there are in any society. Laws are nothing more than
>some majority's opinion put on paper, started by one fool with that opinion.
That's true, until you have handcuffs on or are tied standing against
a wall. Then the laws are far more than just words on paper.
carlton_adams
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:56:15 -0600, carlton_adams
Doesn't matter what self-deceptive-reinforcement tactics that they use to try to
retain their own ignorance. It will still never make them "right". I could die a
lingering and suffering death at their hands and it still wouldn't make them
right.
The truth of the universe and reality is more important than the perpetuated
erroneous misperceived perception of the majority of self-deceptive humans. The
truth of reality and the universe will always outlive their insecure and
ignorant lives. (Hint, in some circles they call it "wisdom"--knowledge and
truth that outlasts fad beliefs.) Oh, wait, I get it now. You are so insecure
that you value your life above truth. I get it. It's the only way that something
like this would concern you. How very very sad.
Grow some balls. You fucking waste of human flesh.
Caesar Romano
<carlto...@spammenot.org> wrote Re Re: Homosexuals take to the
street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.:
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:39:26 -0600, Caesar Romano <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:56:15 -0600, carlton_adams
>> wrote Re Re: Homosexuals take to the
>>street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.:
>>
>>>>I guess my point is that all cultures and societies seek to enshrine
>>>>their moral consensus at the point of a gun, but that the consensus
>>>>changes slowly over time. As it changes, there is a period of time
>>>>when there is effectively no clear consensus and that is where we are
>>>>now on this particular (and many other) issues.
>>>
>>>Doesn't matter what "laws" there are in any society. Laws are nothing more than
>>>some majority's opinion put on paper, started by one fool with that opinion.
>>
>>That's true, until you have handcuffs on or are tied standing against
>>a wall. Then the laws are far more than just words on paper.
>
>Doesn't matter what self-deceptive-reinforcement tactics that they use to try to
>retain their own ignorance. It will still never make them "right". I could die a
>lingering and suffering death at their hands and it still wouldn't make them
>right.
No one proposed that it was "right". It's not a matter of right or
wrong. It's a matter of power. The "system", "law", "establishment" or
whatever you want to call it, has the power; so they can use it to
enforce their will. I don't have the power to overcome that.
You have even *less* power, as demonstrated by:
Rev. Richard Skull
> "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote>
As a person who have been claimed by many women to be a "cave man", I
take insult by that statement!
I'll see you in court!
NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
GMAN
>MissB...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
>>> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
>>> ban on gay marriage.
>>>
>>
>Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights away from a
>minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
>
But you feel that in reverse a few have the right to tell the majority how to
think?
A majority voting for a side is the american way.
William Sommerwerck
> zzpat added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
> > Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights
> > away from a minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
> >
> >
> > I'm ashamed of my country. We're bigger than this.
> What "rights"?
The conservative California supreme court said we had the right.
> Show me where the right to dork your partner is
> condoned by the people of the United States,
Whether the majority of people damn or condone someothing is beside the
point. Democracy is not about majority rule.
> besides which there is a far bigger law involved here - that of God
> Almighty who says that marriage is a union of one man and one woman
It is? David had multiple wives.
> and that the actions of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked,
> religious law trumped non-existant civil law.
Not in this country. Read the 2nd Amendment.
William Sommerwerck
> leadership in both the House and the Senate led by none other than
> Dennis Kuchinich plans to take their new, larger majorities for a
> test spin and try to impeach President Bush before he leaves
> office. And, failing at that which is likely, they intend to get
> the new AG to bring him up on charges of treason, abuse of power,
> and obstruction of justice. Those charges ARE likely and may even
> stick.
I certainly hope so. But there's so little time.
What the Democrats should do is have public hearings outlining the "high
crimes and misdemeanors" of one the most-corrupt and anti-democratic
adminstrations of my lifetime.
William Sommerwerck
> International Satanic Conspiracy
> Customer Support Specialist
Are you a CSS for the ISC? If so, what sort of support do your customers
need?
William Sommerwerck
> with the more descriptive and easier to understand terms "queer"
> and "pervert", it'd be a LOT easier for the average American to
> stomp this shit out once and for all. I've heard that some 30
> states allow queers to be fired just for being perverts. I'd like
> to see that extended to all 50 states and territories via
> nuts in Kalyfornia.
On what basis is the Federal government supposed to vet laws against
Biblical standards?
And what right do you have to tell me how I should live my life --
especially when I had no say-so in the matter?
GMAN
>J=FCrgen Exner wrote:
>>
>> =20
>>> marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that the actions=20
>>> of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked, religious law=20
>>> trumped non-existant civil law.
>>> =20
>>
>> Last time I looked this applies only in theocracies and inside of
>> religious orders. Most society have overcome religious pre-eminence a
>> long time ago in the 17th and 18th century.
>>
>Bible thumpers seldom have a clue what their own bible says. Jesus=20
>Christ said nothing about homosexuality being wrong. They simply make up =
>
>this belief and then demand that others follow their heresy.
Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination."
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon
them.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Deuteronomy 22:5 "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor
shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an
abomination to the LORD your God."
Proverbs 3:32 for the perverse man is an abomination to the LORD, but the
upright are in his confidence.
Proverbs 11:20 Men of perverse mind are an abomination to the LORD, but those
of blameless ways are his delight.
Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous
are both alike an abomination to the LORD.
GMAN
>I guess this means that poor old Sulu has to "shack up" once again.
>
>[*]
>-----
>
>
shields, SHIELDS!!!!
GMAN
>I don't see why people think they have the right to tell people how to live
>there life's. Those gay people clearly want the right to be married and that
>has been taken away from them by ignorant homophobes.
The reason so many churches are for banning these marriages is because if its
allowed, churches will be both forced to recognise these marriages and perform
them. that is very wrong for the state to force a religion to do what they do
not want to do.
><testtes...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:1633568b-d603-4666...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> Gay California street party
>> Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
>> Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
>> engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>>
>> http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>>
>>
>>
>> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
>> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
>> ban on gay marriage.
>>
>> Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
>> Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
>> blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html
>
GoodGief
Careful, if you believe all that then you're going to have to kill every
football player too. It is an abomination to touch the skin of a pig.
QUICK! Kill all football players and people that eat bacon for breakfast! They
are non-savable sinners! STONE THEM! MURDER THEM! KILL THEM NOW! DO IT NOW!
You fuckin' useless idiot.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
William Sommerwerck
"GMAN" <glen...@nospam.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:gf2rr0$kv3$1...@news.xmission.com...
Why am I obliged to follow these rules? Why is the government of a civil
society expected to enforce them?
By the way, the Bible actually reads: "You shall not lie with a male as with
a woman; it is abomination." (No "the".) Ditto for eating shellfish.
HandyAndy
wrote:
LOL! Good one! Hehehehe....
Here's a fun saying:
"Beware of reading religious books, you might kill someone from a misprint."
LOL!
SODDI
"Rev. Richard Skull" <msh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:a5857301-c643-481d...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Those women only said that because you didn't come out and tell them what
you really were.
Liberate your true metoh kangmi nature! Be proud of your yetinsyni heritage,
my brother!
WE'RE HERE! WE'RE METOH KANGMI! AND WE'RE HUNGRY!
William Sommerwerck
> with the more descriptive and easier to understand terms "queer"
> and "pervert", it'd be a LOT easier for the average American to
> stomp this shit out once and for all. I've heard that some 30
> states allow queers to be fired just for being perverts. I'd like
> to see that extended to all 50 states and territories via
> nuts in Kalyfornia.
On what basis is the Federal government supposed to vet laws against
Biblical standards?
And what right do you have to tell me how I should live my life --
especially when I had no say-so in the matter?
PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
e-mail address.
SODDI
"HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9B4F4DCF1DE...@216.168.3.30...
> zzpat added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights
>> away from a minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
>>
>> Which group will these nuts target next?
>>
>> I'm ashamed of my country. We're bigger than this.
>>
> condoned by the people of the United States, besides which there is
> a far bigger law involved here - that of God Almighty who says that
> trumped non-existant civil law.
>
> One other thing, the way that states work and the federal
> government works is that a majority CAN remove rights and freedoms
> of minorities. The reasons and examples are so easy and so far
> reaching that it is assinine to make an assertion such as yours.
> Easy example: do you or do you not think that the majority of
> people who want to be safe in their homes can take away the right
> of a minority of people - criminals - to invade your privacy?
>
> You Far Left Loons have simply GOT to get it through your thick
> head that the majority of Americans still feel VERY strongly about
> religion and family values, both of which are dangerous to the Left
> Loons. e.g., president-elect Obama made a number of statements
> decrying the rights of people in many states such as Pennsylvania
> to vote against him claiming they "were clinging to their guns and
> religion". Yep, you're right, Senator, and THAT is OUR right, my
> friend!
People like you are the reason the Conservative movement in this country is
on the long slow slide out. Reasonable people take one look at your
diatribes, caluminies and outright lies and want nothing to do with you or
your candidates.