Over 1,000 English priests write letter defending marriage

[J]

Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.







http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/over-1000-english-priests-write-letter-defending-marriage/







London, England, Jan 15, 2013 / 02:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- More than
one thousand priests signed a letter to a British daily urging local
lawmakers �not to be afraid to reject� a proposed measure which would
allow for same-sex �marriage� in the country.

�Legislation for same-sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have
many legal consequences,� warned the letter, which was published Jan.
12.

The move would �severely restrict� Catholics' ability to �teach the
truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or
places of worship,� the priests said.

In December the Conservative government announced plans to introduce
legislation allowing for same-sex �marriage� before 2015. The prime
minister, David Cameron, said religious groups would be allowed but
not compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

The 1,067 signatories represent a quarter of the priests of England
and Wales. They include eight bishops, as well as the ordinary of the
group for Anglican converts and four Benedictine abbots.

The letter opens by remembering that Catholics were persecuted for
centuries in Britain, and only in recent times have been able to �be
members of the professions and participate fully in the life� of the
country.

Until 1829 Catholics in Britain were prohibited from entering some
professions, and the Church in England was left without bishops from
the time of Elizabeth I until 1850. Professing Catholicism remains the
only faith which would bar a member of the Royal Family from becoming
the reigning monarch.











J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Syd M.]

On Jan 18, 5:29 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics,

And what about Catholic's history of discriminating against everyone?

PDW

[Virgil]

In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80al...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Marriage is a union of one
> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.

Marriage as a religious ritual may well be so limited, and least in some
religions, but marriage, at least in some countries, is a civil contract
between two persons establishing legal rights and legal obligations
different from those between two persons not married to each other.

And to deny all these rights and obligations because of the genders of
those applying for them is a great evil.
--

[Alan Ferris]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:29:56 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>
>Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
>which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
>man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.

Why do you not mention the majority (over 75%) of priests who declined to add
their name to the document?
--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Atheist #1211
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.

SERV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q

[Christopher A. Lee]

And it's none of the priests' business.

[abelard]

none of yours either mister dumbo

[abelard]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:29:56 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>

>Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
>which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
>man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.

did you get that off a stone tablet?

[Claire]

On Jan 18, 10:29 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of >one
> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.

Except that Anglicans agree with them and that is why they pushed for
a ban on gay marriage laws applying to the Anglican Church


> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/over-1000-english-priests-writ...

>
> London, England, Jan 15, 2013 / 02:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- More than
> one thousand priests signed a letter to a British daily urging local
> lawmakers not to be afraid to reject a proposed measure which would
> allow for same-sex marriage in the country.
>
> Legislation for same-sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have
> many legal consequences, warned the letter, which was published Jan.
> 12.
>
> The move would severely restrict Catholics' ability to teach the
> truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or
> places of worship, the priests said.

Which would of course be wrong.

> In December the Conservative government announced plans to introduce
> legislation allowing for same-sex marriage before 2015. The prime
> minister, David Cameron, said religious groups would be allowed but
> not compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
>
> The 1,067 signatories represent a quarter of the priests of England
> and Wales. They include eight bishops, as well as the ordinary of the
> group for Anglican converts and four Benedictine abbots.
>
> The letter opens by remembering that Catholics were persecuted for
> centuries in Britain, and only in recent times have been able to be
> members of the professions and participate fully in the life of the
> country.
>
> Until 1829 Catholics in Britain were prohibited from entering some
> professions, and the Church in England was left without bishops from
> the time of Elizabeth I until 1850.

Yes but I am not sure what the relevance of that is to this issue?

Professing Catholicism remains the
> only faith which would bar a member of the Royal Family from becoming
> the reigning monarch.

It applies to anybody not an Anglican or Presbyterian, and to think
that I could have been Queen were it not for that! ;-)

>
> J Young
> jdyou...@ymail.com

[Svenne]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:29:56 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>

>Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
>which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
>man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.

The hetro gendernorm is an artificial social construction and is
grossly discriminatory against people in alternative relationships.

There is a wide spectrum of possible human and interspecies
relationships and these polymorphous relationships have as much right
to legal recognition as hetro gendernorm marriages. People in same sex
marriages of two people or plural marriages of groups of men or groups
of women or any combination of both should be just as valid as the
present hetro gendernorm.

The limitation of marriage to members of one species is speciesism and
is also grossly discriminatory. Other species have every right to
enter into marriage with each other as well as with other species in
trans-species marriage. A man or woman has as much natural right to
marry his dog or cat or any other living creature as they have to
marry another man or woman or multiple men or women or even multiple
dogs or cats or any other animal.

Priests who refuse to marry a plurality of genders and species in any
numbers and combinations should be prosecuted.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80al...@4ax.com>,
J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.

What do those priests know about marriage?

Nothing.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[JNugent]

Nice attempt at a wind-up.

[Andy Wainwright]

Just remember- marriage is first and foremost about LOVE.

It's not about discrimination. In fact some so-called Christians object
to consensual marriage between unrelated adults just because they are
different colours. Or religion. Or class. I mean, how retarded is that?
Whilst tradition has it's place in religion, there is a big difference
between ethics and fashionable mores.

What would you prefer. Gay priests and gay weddings than priests raping
children and forced marriages. The latter two are pressing ethical
issues- they have *real victims*

Homophobia is often targeted at straight men, particularly men who are
in touch with their feminine side. How many women have their hearts
broken, get pregnant , raped or catch STDs because some guy is trying to
prove his masculinity.

Why is a women who has a lot of lovers called a slag, slut and so forth
yet there's few equivalent derogatory terms for a man who sleeps around.

Men suffer too. I'd rather have honest prostitution than gold diggers
and trophy wives.

And as for the world, children are seen as status symbols as opposed to
the expression of love between parents. Here in the West just like the
third world. For instance a rich couple who have a lot of children are
seen as more responsible than a couple or even single parent on social
security who has just one. This suggests that children are essentially
property which are earned like a car or big house.

Unfortunately, a lot of so-called religious sexual rules are not
heavenly based at all, but simply monkey dominance rituals. They suit
the "king ape", who has the power to make their minions believe there is
something divine about their man-made rules.

Here's the only two sensible sex rules that need apply.

From a moral one, all parties should be fully consenting. If there is
polygamy or partner-swapping, the other partners involved in the
relationship should consent to. Basically, no cheating.

From a biological one, close realtives who wish to have children should
undergo genetic suitability tests. Any in-breeding should ideally be
mixed with out-breeding.


Lastly, a little bit about sex before marriage. If you don't believe in
this, but want to find out if you are sexually compatible there's a
simple solution. Man has sex with a condom , condom has sex with woman.

The levels of intimacy possible by a physical sexual act are limited-
the more mature soul seeks a deeper relationship. Only marriage- whether
legal, civil partnership or common law, can provide this.

Let Love Lead The Way.

You support marriage- love- or you support hate. Your choice mate.

[JNugent]

On 19/01/2013 00:59, Andy Wainwright wrote:

> Men suffer too. I'd rather have honest prostitution than gold diggers
> and trophy wives.

You must lose a lot of sleep worrying that women are only after you for
your money.

[Mitchell Holman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in
news:shijf8hcmrnlb80al...@4ax.com:

>
> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>
>
>
>

What would Catholic priests know about being married?

[JNugent]

On 19/01/2013 01:02, Mitchell Holman wrote:

> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
>> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
>> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.

> What would Catholic priests know about being married?

What would they need to know about being married?

Their expertise lies in knowing who to marry and who not to marry.

[Dakota]

And their ongoing discrimination. J loves the RCC because they treat
women like trash.

[Dakota]

If priests had moral any fiber at all, pedopriests would have been
turned over to legal authorities. The RCC is a sham.

[Dakota]

J is a queen in his own mind.

[Georg von Krapp]

"Svenne" <tvaer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7gojf897qbhmh28qq...@4ax.com...

I hear that Roger Taylor is 'In Love With His Car'. Seems unfair not to let
him take it down the aisle. Or up the tailpipe.

[Georg von Krapp]

"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kdcr58$vqb$1...@dont-email.me...

> Just remember- marriage is first and foremost about LOVE.
>
> It's not about discrimination. In fact some so-called Christians object to
> consensual marriage between unrelated adults just because they are
> different colours. Or religion. Or class. I mean, how retarded is that?
> Whilst tradition has it's place in religion, there is a big difference
> between ethics and fashionable mores.

It's all about which group you want to join, and then maintaining the
boundaries.

[Andy Wainwright]

Was quite well off in the 90s, even briefly famous, though only had
three short relationships in the whole decade. I'm neither bad looking
or bad in bed, but a lot of women prefer more conventional
personalities- often prefering the pushy and aggressive to the
sensitive, ponderous types. An odd era really- several of the nicest
guys I know didn't lose their virginity till middle age, despite having
jobs and their own home.

I think the media distorts love and sex and thus suitability, which may
explain the increasing divorce rates. In particular, similarity is
confused with compatibility.

I've a funny effect on women :) Some seem to find me friendly,
interesting and caring, others seem to think I'm some sort of creepy sex
case, despite not using any verbal or body language indicative of sexual
intention.
A great example of this was a few years back, there was a lass at
karaoke who sounded really good. I asked her if she wouldn't mind coming
round mine and the missus' place (I said bring her boyfriend too) and
putting a vocal on a demo I was composing, offering her �50 to do so.
She pretty much told me to f-off, as if I'd offered the cash for
unprotected anal or something.

It seems some are "acceptable" focused, others are "genuine" oriented.
The latter I'd value more anyway, as it's possible to have a more
intimate level of friendship with.

Still, am very happily married, and when I proposed to my other half she
said "you've made all my dreams come true".

I've aslo enjoyed many close platonic relationships with women. With
relationships with either sex, I go for quality over quantity.

[Mitchell Holman]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:alu9qcFjtq3U3
@mid.individual.net:

And children to diddle and which ones to leave alone.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <alu9qc...@mid.individual.net>,

What is their expertise on the subject?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Bugger all.

[DVH]

On 19/01/2013 00:37, Svenne wrote:

Tee hee.

They do like to make up words eg gendernorm. The wk entry on transwoman
is a soup of newspeak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transwoman

[thomas p.]

"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:kdcta3$9lh$2...@dont-email.me...

It doesn't seem fair that a Catholic cannot become queen. After all a queen
became Pope.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[Cassandra]

Substantially more than the people they are marrying.

[Cassandra]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:38:27 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

Patonising the mentally ill into believeing they are normal is equally
cruel

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <50fa6dee...@news.virginmedia.com>,

What mentally ill people are you talking about?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <50fa6d39...@news.virginmedia.com>,

They know nothing.

[Syd M.]

On Jan 18, 7:06 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:54:08 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:38:27 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>

> >>In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80alpg8msbpkc1uqfv...@4ax.com>,

> >> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Marriage is a union of one
> >>> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>
> >>Marriage as a religious ritual may well be so limited, and least in some
> >>religions, but marriage, at least in some countries, is a civil contract
> >>between two persons establishing legal rights and legal obligations
> >>different from those between two persons not married to each other.
>
> >>And to deny all these rights and obligations because of the genders of
> >>those applying for them is a great evil.
>
> >And it's none of the priests' business.
>
> none of yours either mister dumbo

He doesn't try to tell people how to live, control freak.

PDW

[Syd M.]

Hey, they set an example for him to live up to.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Jan 19, 4:55 am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:02:50 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> >J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote in

> >news:shijf8hcmrnlb80al...@4ax.com:
>
> >> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
> >> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
> >> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
> >> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>
> >    What would Catholic priests know about being married?
>
> Substantially more than the people they are marrying.

Yeah, right.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Jan 19, 4:58 am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:38:27 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> >In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80alpg8msbpkc1uqfv...@4ax.com>,

> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Marriage is a union of one
> >> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>
> >Marriage as a religious ritual may well be so limited, and least in some
> >religions, but marriage, at least in some countries, is a civil contract
> >between two persons establishing legal rights and legal obligations
> >different from those between two persons not married to each other.
>
> >And to deny all these rights and obligations because of the genders of
> >those applying for them is a great evil.
>
> Patonising the mentally ill into believeing they are normal is equally
> cruel

Since being gay is NOT a mental illness, no one is being cruel.
Except you, of course.

PDW

[Claire]

It would seem though that some in the gay rights movement, as well as
those erroneously calling themselves “secularists” now want to control
the church and tell Christians how to live and what to believe though.
I hardly think that is very fair either.

[thomas p.]

"Claire" <claireo...@googlemail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:2a43553c-6216-4f8b...@n9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

Would you mind providing documentation of this? I have seen no examples of
any such desire.

[Geopelia]

"Cassandra" <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:50fa6d39...@news.virginmedia.com...

1 Timothy 3 has something to say. (KJV) Bishops and Deacons should be the
"husband of one wife".


1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he
desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but
patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity;

5 (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take
care of the church of God?)

6 not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the
condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest
he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.


8 � Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given
to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office
of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful
in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children
and their own houses well.

13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to
themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ
Jesus.

[thomas p.]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hlwdjsd2-E143C7...@news.giganews.com...

Perhaps she is thinking of homophobes.

[Claire]

On Jan 19, 11:24 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Claire" <claireonuse...@googlemail.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:2a43553c-6216-4f8b...@n9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

If I must, but maybe we don’t live in the same country?

[Malygris]

thomas p. wrote:

> "Claire" <claireo...@googlemail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:2a43553c-6216-4f8b...@n9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 19, 11:03 am, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 7:06 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:

>>> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:54:08 -0800, Christopher A. Lee

>>> > >And it's none of the priests' business.
>>>
>>> > none of yours either mister dumbo
>>>
>>> He doesn't try to tell people how to live, control freak.
>>>
>>> PDW
>>
>>It would seem though that some in the gay rights movement, as well as
>>those erroneously calling themselves �secularists� now want to control
>>the church and tell Christians how to live and what to believe though.
>>I hardly think that is very fair either.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Would you mind providing documentation of this? I have seen no examples
> of any such desire.

I think she might be referring to secular law which in recent centuries has
limited the religion's rights to turtore and kill heretics and witches.
Realy unfair, don't you think?

--
Malygris

[abelard]

he just did..in his dull terms

[abelard]

you're so ambitious...why do you want to do that cwissy?

[abelard]

how come?
do you have to put your hand in the fire to know that
as a foolish action?
can a psychotherapist not advise a queer unless the
therapist also is queer...
(british and european law now state that you can be
sacked if you refuse such advise)
can a divorce lawyer not practice unless he is divorced?
can i not treat cancer unless i have cancer?

do any of your atheist cultists ever think for yourselves?

[Cassandra]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:25:56 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

There is no such condtion
Repulsion towards homosexual behaviour is perfectly normal

It makes as much sense as calling people fartophobes

[Svenne]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 01:38:14 -0000, "Georg von Krapp"
<ge...@vonkrapp.com> wrote:

>
>"Svenne" <tvaer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:7gojf897qbhmh28qq...@4ax.com...

>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:29:56 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>

>>>Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>>>is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy

>>>which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one

>>>man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>>

>> The hetro gendernorm is an artificial social construction and is
>> grossly discriminatory against people in alternative relationships.
>>
>> There is a wide spectrum of possible human and interspecies
>> relationships and these polymorphous relationships have as much right
>> to legal recognition as hetro gendernorm marriages. People in same sex
>> marriages of two people or plural marriages of groups of men or groups
>> of women or any combination of both should be just as valid as the
>> present hetro gendernorm.
>>
>> The limitation of marriage to members of one species is speciesism and
>> is also grossly discriminatory. Other species have every right to
>> enter into marriage with each other as well as with other species in
>> trans-species marriage. A man or woman has as much natural right to
>> marry his dog or cat or any other living creature as they have to
>> marry another man or woman or multiple men or women or even multiple
>> dogs or cats or any other animal.
>>
>> Priests who refuse to marry a plurality of genders and species in any
>> numbers and combinations should be prosecuted.

>I hear that Roger Taylor is 'In Love With His Car'. Seems unfair not to let
>him take it down the aisle. Or up the tailpipe.

Mechanophilia is just as valid a sexual orientation as hetrosexuality,
homosexuality, paedophilia and biophilia. It is self evident that a
man should be able to marry his car. motorcycle or lawnmower or even
all of them together if he so desires, just as a woman should be able
to marry her ironing board or sewing machine. And domestic pets should
not be excluded from this plurality of relationships.

Multiple marriges of men, women, pets and appliances in whole
contellations of people, animals and machines all living together in
meaningful relationships is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice It is
a question of basic human, animal and mechanical rights.

Everyone also has a right to have children and while men and women can
have children through mutual biological interaction, fulfilling this
basic right is problematic with same sex couples and humans married to
dogs, cats, horses or machines. Adoption of a baby, a kitten or a box
of spare parts is not an optimal solution as the the parent and child
will not share genetic material. With the development of artificial
wombs and advances in genetic engineering it will eventually be
possible for gay men or groups of gay men to have their own child
together through genetic splicing. This technique will eventually make
it possible for a man and his dog happily married together to have a
hybrid child by splicing their genectic materiel and implanting it in
an artificial womb.

Realising the right of eukaryotes and machines to full biomechanical
reproduction might also become possible with time.

[Cassandra]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 03:06:07 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
<pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Other less well marketed forms of sexual attraction are considered
mental illness, such as pedophillia, zoophillia and necrophillia.

These are just as abnormal as homosexuality

[Claire]

Why then are people who act on those preferences sent to prisons not
hospitals? People choose how they act.

> These are just as abnormal as homosexuality

They also harm others and that is why they are illegal.

[abelard]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:59:03 +0200, Svenne <tvaer...@aol.com>
wrote:

i'm happy someone believes in equality...all marriages
should also attract tax advantages to protect the stability
of society...
i applied for child allowances for my yaks and car...and was
refused!! this is intolerable discrimination....
this injustice riles me every time the lefties take yet another
slice of our cake fore their abominable schemes

>Everyone also has a right to have children and while men and women can
>have children through mutual biological interaction, fulfilling this
>basic right is problematic with same sex couples and humans married to
>dogs, cats, horses or machines. Adoption of a baby, a kitten or a box
>of spare parts is not an optimal solution as the the parent and child
>will not share genetic material. With the development of artificial
>wombs and advances in genetic engineering it will eventually be
>possible for gay men or groups of gay men to have their own child
>together through genetic splicing. This technique will eventually make
>it possible for a man and his dog happily married together to have a
>hybrid child by splicing their genectic materiel and implanting it in
>an artificial womb.

the cat and the sewing machine tell me they wish to marry
and adopt children...but the mayor obdurately refuses to
marry them!

where is the eussr bill of rights when it comes down to it!

>Realising the right of eukaryotes and machines to full biomechanical
>reproduction might also become possible with time.

i'm glad to see at least one poster who cares about justice

[Claire]

On Jan 19, 12:54 pm, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:25:56 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:hlwdjsd2-E143C7...@news.giganews.com...
> >> In article <50fa6dee.57217...@news.virginmedia.com>,

> >> cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:38:27 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>

> >>> >In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80alpg8msbpkc1uqfv...@4ax.com>,

> >>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> Marriage is a union of one
> >>> >> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>
> >>> >Marriage as a religious ritual may well be so limited, and least in some
> >>> >religions, but marriage, at least in some countries, is a civil contract
> >>> >between two persons establishing legal rights and legal obligations
> >>> >different from those between two persons not married to each other.
>
> >>> >And to deny all these rights and obligations because of the genders of
> >>> >those applying for them is a great evil.
>
> >>> Patonising the mentally ill into believeing they are normal is equally
> >>> cruel
>
> >> What mentally ill people are you talking about?
>
> >Perhaps she is thinking of homophobes.
>
> There is no such condtion
> Repulsion towards homosexual behaviour is perfectly normal
>
> It makes as much sense as calling people  fartophobes

Personally I don’t see why some people are repulsed by homosexual
behaviour any more than any other sin. The hate some express towards
homosexuals is absolutely shameful, especially if Christian teaching
is cited in justification for it. We have all sinned and fall short of
the glory of God. That said, I would not find it acceptable for
exceptions to be made for practicing homosexuals within the church so
that they could be proud of their sin, whilst the rest of us are
called to repent. That argument undermines our whole faith in my view.
Even so, people tend to lose the bigger picture when they get arguing
about this issue.

[abelard]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 05:22:49 -0800 (PST), Claire
<claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote:


>Personally I don�t see why some people are repulsed by homosexual
>behaviour any more than any other sin. The hate some express towards
>homosexuals is absolutely shameful, especially if Christian teaching
>is cited in justification for it. We have all sinned and fall short of
>the glory of God. That said, I would not find it acceptable for
>exceptions to be made for practicing homosexuals within the church so
>that they could be proud of their sin, whilst the rest of us are
>called to repent. That argument undermines our whole faith in my view.
>Even so, people tend to lose the bigger picture when they get arguing
>about this issue.

like

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:03:20 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

Does the moron seriously imagine that not being able to impose RCC
views on the country, is "persecution"?

Why can't they just mind their own business?

[Claire]

On Jan 19, 12:33 pm, Malygris <Highlander2...@gmx.de> wrote:
> thomas p. wrote:
> > "Claire" <claireonuse...@googlemail.com> skrev i meddelelsen

I have no objection to the original idea of secularism which was that
the monarch cannot control the conscience of his or her people in the
name of state authority. That came out of the persicutions which
followed the reformation and to me seems like a very good idea.

[Claire]

On Jan 19, 1:30 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 05:22:49 -0800 (PST), Claire
>

Was that a question or an endorsement?

[Christopher A. Lee]

The RCC refuses to allow others to live and let live even though it no
longer has the power although it arrogantly and stupidly acts as if it
did, poking its nose in other people's business where what it says is
irrelevant.

It's about time people stopped treating it with the deference it has
never deserved.



>PDW

[abelard]

indeed...we should impose the moronic views of cwissy on the world

[abelard]

it was a 'like'...a la farcebook...

however, it wasn't an endorsement...just admiration
of the construction of your argument :-)

[Claire]

Lol. Like! ;-)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:24:01 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Lies noted.

>Would you mind providing documentation of this? I have seen no examples of
>any such desire.

The church and its members can believe what they like - as long as
they mind their own business and don't try to tell others what they
can and can't do.

[duke]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:41:03 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80al...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>

>> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy

>> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one

>> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.

>What do those priests know about marriage?
>Nothing.

A lot more than you do, jdyke.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:28:45 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/18/2013 5:48 PM, Alan Ferris wrote:

>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:29:56 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>>> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
>>> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
>>> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>>

>> Why do you not mention the majority (over 75%) of priests who declined to add
>> their name to the document?
>> --
>> Ferrit
>>
>> ()'.'.'()
>> ( (T) )
>> ( ) . ( )
>> (")_(")
>> Atheist #1211
>> EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
>>
>> SERV:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q
>>
>If priests had moral any fiber at all, pedopriests would have been
>turned over to legal authorities. The RCC is a sham.

Based on what evidence?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Is it?

Where I live it simply isn't an issue - I have had lesbian and gay
colleagues who became friends through work, the bar after work etc and
I didn't even know they were until later. Also openly fellow
volunteers at the same PBS radio station. Gay members of the model
railway group. Etc.

With none of these was it even an issue. We were friends, worked
together etc because of what we had in common, not what we didn't.

What two people get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom never
came up. And it's a pretty safe bet that practically everything gay
couples do (although I'm not very imaginative) is done heterosexually
too - eg straights also practice oral and anal sex, etc. Both are also
used as forms of birth control when contraception isn't available.

>It makes as much sense as calling people fartophobes

It's an accurate label though.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Children,animals and the dead aren't capable of consent - so there
goes your assertion.

Homosexuality is observed in other species too. From ducks to
chimpanzees.

[Mitchell Holman]

abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in
news:p55lf8pb399mfc8qm...@4ax.com:

Should single people tell parents how to raise
their children?

Oh, wait - the Pope, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh,
Catholic priests - already do.

Never mind.............

[abelard]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:58:59 -0600, Mitchell Holman

with some of them...the children should tell them

[abelard]

as long as cwissy can tell them what they can and cannot do

you should contact dedfromtheneckupman, you're running him
close in the extraordinarily dim stakes

[abelard]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 05:49:39 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:


>Where I live it simply isn't an issue - I have had lesbian and gay
>colleagues who became friends through work, the bar after work etc and
>I didn't even know they were until later. Also openly fellow
>volunteers at the same PBS radio station. Gay members of the model
>railway group. Etc.

now there's a revelation! someone mustav invented you for a larf...

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:58:59 -0600, Mitchell Holman

What "atheist cultists" was the liar lying about?

> Should single people tell parents how to raise
>their children?
>
> Oh, wait - the Pope, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh,
>Catholic priests - already do.

How the heck are government policies that don't impose the bigots'
hangups on everybody else, discrimination against the bigots,
"attacking their moral fibre", etc when they should simply mind their
own business?

> Never mind.............

[abelard]

so is murder...are you a duck or a chimp?

[Mitchell Holman]

cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote in
news:50fa970d...@news.virginmedia.com:

What homosexual behavior are you talking about?

Sodomy? Nope, most of that is going on between
heterosexual people.

Crossdressing, the sort Leviticus condemns? Nope
most of that is being down by straight women.

Perhaps you should be more specific.

[Mitchell Holman]

Claire <claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:2a43553c-6216-4f8b...@n9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 19, 11:03 am, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Jan 18, 7:06 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:54:08 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
>>

>> > <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > >On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:38:27 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com>
>> > >wrote:
>>

>> > >>In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80alpg8msbpkc1uqfv...@4ax.com>,

>> > >> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> Marriage is a union of one
>> > >>> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>>
>> > >>Marriage as a religious ritual may well be so limited, and least
>> > >>in s
> ome
>> > >>religions, but marriage, at least in some countries, is a civil
>> > >>contr
> act
>> > >>between two persons establishing legal rights and legal
>> > >>obligations different from those between two persons not married
>> > >>to each other.
>>
>> > >>And to deny all these rights and obligations because of the
>> > >>genders o
> f
>> > >>those applying for them is a great evil.
>>

>> > >And it's none of the priests' business.
>>
>> > none of yours either mister dumbo
>>
>> He doesn't try to tell people how to live, control freak.
>>
>> PDW
>
> It would seem though that some in the gay rights movement, as well as
> those erroneously calling themselves “secularists” now want to control
> the church and tell Christians how to live and what to believe though.

Funny I have Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses and
Baptists and Lutherans come to my door trying to tell
me what to believe. But never any gays. Or atheists.

Do explain.

[abelard]

the atheistic cultists don't do evidence...they live by
daft assertions alone

[abelard]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:16:43 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

>Claire <claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote in

>> It would seem though that some in the gay rights movement, as well as
>> those erroneously calling themselves �secularists� now want to control
>> the church and tell Christians how to live and what to believe though.

> Funny I have Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses and
>Baptists and Lutherans come to my door trying to tell
>me what to believe. But never any gays. Or atheists.
>
> Do explain.

they lack intelligence? there are too few of them?
people would larf?
your house looks too poor? you have a big dirty misbehaved dog?

there is a legion of possibilities...

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:16:43 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

Mormons, JWs, Baptists and Lutherans imagine their religious beliefs
apply to everybody else.

Like the idiots here who talk about "truth" and cite the Bible to try
and back it up.

Funny how this goes hand in glove with intolerance.

[Claire]

On Jan 19, 2:29 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:16:43 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> >Claire <claireonuse...@googlemail.com> wrote in

Oh-ho-ho! Rich to hear you talk of all people about intolerance!!

[abelard]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:32:35 -0800 (PST), Claire
<claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote:


>Oh-ho-ho! Rich to hear you talk of all people about intolerance!!

cwissy will never understand that remark...he's a natural fundy...

[JNugent]

On 19/01/2013 03:50, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <alu9qc...@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
>> On 19/01/2013 01:02, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>>>> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy

>>>> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one

>>>> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>>

>>> What would Catholic priests know about being married?
>>

>> What would they need to know about being married?
>>
>> Their expertise lies in knowing who to marry and who not to marry.
>
> What is their expertise on the subject?

The (canon) laws on marriage.

Did you really not know that?

[Claire]

On Jan 19, 2:16 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

It does not feel as though they are telling you what to believe
because you already believe them. ;-) The issue here for me is not
people's right to a different opinion but the State’s encroaching on
what is a matter of individual religious belief and conscience.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:37:47 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

wrote:

>On 19/01/2013 03:50, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <alu9qc...@mid.individual.net>,
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/01/2013 01:02, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
>>>>> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
>>>>> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
>>>>> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>>>
>>>> What would Catholic priests know about being married?
>>>
>>> What would they need to know about being married?
>>>
>>> Their expertise lies in knowing who to marry and who not to marry.
>>
>> What is their expertise on the subject?
>
>The (canon) laws on marriage.
>
>Did you really not know that?

The canon laws are irrelevant.

Did you really not know that?

The canon laws are not the law of the land.

[Claire]

On Jan 19, 2:40 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:37:47 +0000, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 19/01/2013 03:50, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> >> In article <alu9qcFjtq...@mid.individual.net>,

> >>   JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >>> On 19/01/2013 01:02, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>

> >>>> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against Catholics, it
> >>>>> is no surprise that these priests would rise in unity against a policy
> >>>>> which would be attack on their moral fiber. Marriage is a union of one
> >>>>> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>
> >>>>       What would Catholic priests know about being married?
>
> >>> What would they need to know about being married?
>
> >>> Their expertise lies in knowing who to marry and who not to marry.
>
> >> What is their expertise on the subject?
>
> >The (canon) laws on marriage.
>
> >Did you really not know that?
>
> The canon laws are irrelevant.
>
> Did you really not know that?
>
> The canon laws are not the law of the land.
>
> Did you really not know that?

Does the Anglican Church not have cannon laws? Presumably these are
technically the laws of the land in the UK?

[Mitchell Holman]

Christopher A. Lee <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2s7lf8lojo5fdsgb2...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:03:20 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <50fa6d39...@news.virginmedia.com>,

>> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:

>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:02:50 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in
>>> >news:shijf8hcmrnlb80al...@4ax.com:
>>> >
>>> >>

>>> >> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against
>>> >> Catholics, it is no surprise that these priests would rise in
>>> >> unity against a policy which would be attack on their moral
>>> >> fiber. Marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Anything
>>> >> else is a sham.
>>> >>
>>> > What would Catholic priests know about being married?
>>> >

>>> Substantially more than the people they are marrying.
>>
>>They know nothing.
>

> Does the moron seriously imagine that not being able to impose RCC
> views on the country, is "persecution"?
>
> Why can't they just mind their own business?

Catholics are incapable of minding their
own business. If they don't like it, you can't
do it.

[Mitchell Holman]

Christopher A. Lee <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:bp9lf8dib6e5gdsnu...@4ax.com:

Personally I would like to see a strand of
this "moral fiber". It seems to endangered by
everything from racy books to gay marriages to
assisted suicide to birth control. If it is that
fragile why is it being defended so vigorously?

[Mitchell Holman]

Claire <claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:b81c3f5c-830b-474f...@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

So far I don't see gays and atheists trying to
limit my birth control options or marriage options
or assisted suicide options or sunday shopping
options.

Can you say the same about Christians?

[Mitchell Holman]

Claire <claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:542b4cb9-b237-40a6...@h6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 19, 2:16 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Claire <claireonuse...@googlemail.com> wrote

>> innews:2a43553c-6216-4f8b-a2
> 66-9546...@n9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

What "state encroachments" are those?

[abelard]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:45:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman

do please mind your own business

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:45:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman

At the grassroots level many aren't like that although far too many
are.

The obvious response to Catholics telling non-Catholics how to behave,
is to ask them why most American Catholics have small families.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:48:51 -0600, Mitchell Holman

I think what bugs most people are the hypocrisy and arrogance.

A corrupt organisation that needs to get its house in order over
pedophile priests etc has no business talking about their own or
anybody else's moral fibre.

Let alone to attack non-Catholics because they don't follow RCC rules.

[Mitchell Holman]

abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in
news:n6blf815h7qnp7m93...@4ax.com:

Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out
from defending belief based on faith alone to claim
that atheists aren't providing enough proof.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:01:47 -0600, Mitchell Holman

Somebody ask the projecting liar where atheists are intolerant?

If morons like her kept their religion where it belongs, ie among
their fellow believers instead of pushing it where it is neither
wanted nor needed and insisting its doctrines apply to everybody there
would be no reaction.

> So far I don't see gays and atheists trying to
>limit my birth control options or marriage options
>or assisted suicide options or sunday shopping
>options.

Exactly.

But she believes what her religion says therefore it is all true and
everybody else has to obey it.

> Can you say the same about Christians?

In what passes for their minds Christianity is absolute truth that
everybody else should obey.

But that's not all Christians, just intolerant fundamentalists who
have neither intelligence, nor honesty nor human decency.

Even in liberal big cities there are demographically more Christians
than everybody else put together.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:03:12 -0600, Mitchell Holman

Is she really this stupid or just pretending?

It would appear that the state is trying to reduce encroaching on
individual belief and conscience.

It is her kind of religionist who is opposing that.

If she doesn't want to marry another woman, nobody is forcing her to.

And it's none of her business if somebody else does.

[DVH]

Sounds like an improvement.

[DVH]

On 19/01/2013 15:10, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>
> I think what bugs most people are the hypocrisy and arrogance.
>
> A corrupt organisation that needs to get its house in order over
> pedophile priests etc has no business talking about their own or
> anybody else's moral fibre.

The lack of humility is very useful. The innocents don't know enough
about sin and will always be taken advantage of.

Set a thief to catch a thief.

If you want to prevent hacking, hire Kevin Mitnick

If all these naughty people lay down and mortified themselves, the
crime-fighting industry would lose half its expertise.

Adam and Eve didn't catch evil from the apple, they were innocents who
caught the knowledge of good and evil.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Atheists have nothing to prove.

In the real world there are thousands of different god beliefs - we're
simply people who aren't any kind of theist,

It takes a frikking moron to imagine that the rest of the world
revolves abound their own religion, its doctrines and its tenets.

And an equal moron to imagine that anybody outside their religion can
be described by them.

As well as psychopathically nasty to invent positions people outside
it don't have to attack them for.

But Christians have to prove their god or shut up, when they presume
it where it is inappropriate, ie outside the confines of their
religion.

Lying about those who only want them to keep it where it belongs, just
makes things worse.

[Cassandra]

You can't excuse cannibalism by pointing out non-cannibals also eat
meat

[Cassandra]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 05:52:00 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:59:11 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>(Cassandra) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 03:06:07 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
>><pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>>On Jan 19, 4:58=A0am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:38:27 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>>>> >In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80alpg8msbpkc1uqfv...@4ax.com>,

>>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Marriage is a union of one
>>>> >> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>>>>
>>>> >Marriage as a religious ritual may well be so limited, and least in some
>>>> >religions, but marriage, at least in some countries, is a civil contract
>>>> >between two persons establishing legal rights and legal obligations
>>>> >different from those between two persons not married to each other.
>>>>
>>>> >And to deny all these rights and obligations because of the genders of
>>>> >those applying for them is a great evil.
>>>>
>>>> Patonising the mentally ill into believeing they are normal is equally
>>>> cruel
>>>

>>>Since being gay is NOT a mental illness, no one is being cruel.
>>>Except you, of course.
>>>
>>
>>Other less well marketed forms of sexual attraction are considered
>>mental illness, such as pedophillia, zoophillia and necrophillia.
>>
>>These are just as abnormal as homosexuality
>
>Children,animals and the dead aren't capable of consent - so there
>goes your assertion.
>
In that case rapists aren't heterosexual

>Homosexuality is observed in other species too. From ducks to
>chimpanzees.

Abnormally is common in all species.

[Svenne]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:20:41 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

>>Realising the right of eukaryotes and machines to full biomechanical
>>reproduction might also become possible with time.
>
>i'm glad to see at least one poster who cares about justice

Being a supporter of polymorphous rights is not easy in this narrow
minded and prejudiced society. People should be permitted to marry who
and what they will in a society that considers itself tolerant and
inclusive.

I was pondering on the injustice of the hetro gendernorm the other day
when I proposed to my grandfather while standing next to his grave.
After digging up his remains I put them in a plastic bag which I'm
going to take to the church tomorrow and demand that the priest marry
us. I've bought a beautiful bridal veil to drape over his skull and
chosen John Cage's delightful post modern melody "Variations III" as
the wedding march as I push his bones along the isle in a wheelbarrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsgAyZvgwY

[Cassandra]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 05:08:15 -0800 (PST), Claire
<claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 19, 12:59=A0pm, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 03:06:07 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >On Jan 19, 4:58=3DA0am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:38:27 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <shijf8hcmrnlb80alpg8msbpkc1uqfv...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Marriage is a union of one
>> >> >> man and one woman. Anything else is a sham.
>>

>> >> >Marriage as a religious ritual may well be so limited, and least in s=
>ome
>> >> >religions, but marriage, at least in some countries, is a civil contr=

>act
>> >> >between two persons establishing legal rights and legal obligations
>> >> >different from those between two persons not married to each other.
>>

>> >> >And to deny all these rights and obligations because of the genders o=

>f
>> >> >those applying for them is a great evil.
>>
>> >> Patonising the mentally ill into believeing they are normal is equally
>> >> cruel
>>
>> >Since being gay is NOT a mental illness, no one is being cruel.
>> >Except you, of course.
>>
>> Other less well marketed forms of sexual attraction are considered
>> mental illness, such as pedophillia, zoophillia and necrophillia.
>

>Why then are people who act on those preferences sent to prisons not
>hospitals?

Because homosexuals are hypocrites who claim they are born that way
and are therefore untouchable, but deny the same logic to other sexaul
deviants

>People choose how they act.

>
>> These are just as abnormal as homosexuality
>

>They also harm others and that is why they are illegal.

Preventing heterosexuals from expressing a rational and biological
neccessary dislike harms others rights to free speech.

[Cassandra]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:58:59 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in

>news:p55lf8pb399mfc8qm...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:03:20 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <50fa6d39...@news.virginmedia.com>,

>>> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:

>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:02:50 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in
>>>> >news:shijf8hcmrnlb80al...@4ax.com:
>>>> >
>>>> >>

>>>> >> Considering Britian's history of discrimination against
>>>> >> Catholics, it is no surprise that these priests would rise in
>>>> >> unity against a policy which would be attack on their moral

>>>> >> fiber. Marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Anything
>>>> >> else is a sham.
>>

>>>> > What would Catholic priests know about being married?
>>>> >
>>>> Substantially more than the people they are marrying.
>>>
>>>They know nothing.
>>
>> how come?
>> do you have to put your hand in the fire to know that
>> as a foolish action?
>> can a psychotherapist not advise a queer unless the
>> therapist also is queer...
>> (british and european law now state that you can be
>> sacked if you refuse such advise)
>> can a divorce lawyer not practice unless he is divorced?
>> can i not treat cancer unless i have cancer?
>>
>> do any of your atheist cultists ever think for yourselves?
>
>

> Should single people tell parents how to raise
>their children?
>
> Oh, wait - the Pope, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh,
>Catholic priests - already do.
>

> Never mind.............
>
Single people do raise children

[abelard]

then go away dummy...
rbu

[abelard]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:21:25 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

why are you trying to change the subject?

[Cassandra]

Athests are quite happy to attack Catholics for following Catholic
dogma and not an atheist one. It is they who are the control freaks.