Homosexuals have limited rights
J
Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
http://www.citifmonline.com/site/news/news/view/19917/1
by - Emile Short
The retired Head of the Human Rights Commission Justice Emile Short says
homosexuals do not have unrestricted rights as far as the exercise of their
sexual orientation is concerned.
According to Justice Short, gays and lesbians must not be seen as having
comprehensive rights as heterosexuals.
His successor, Anna Bossman told Citi FM a couple of weeks ago that the
rights of gays and lesbians in expressing and practicing their sexual
orientation should be respected once those practices do not impinge on the
laws and rights of others in society.
She added that homosexuals must not be condemned on the basis of moral
arguments since different people hold different beliefs and preferences in
any society.
The Criminal code abhors unnatural carnal knowledge such as bestiality and
sodomy but makes no explicit mention of homosexuality. Some lawyers ride on
sodomy to argue against same sex relationships.
Other lawyers capitalize on the grey area of the code to either argue for
the rights of gays to exercise their preferred sexual orientation or sit on
the fence.
However, Justice Short speaking on the Citi Breakfast Show on Thursday
January 6 said the rights of homosexuals must be separated since gays and
lesbianism do not have blanket rights.
"In terms of guaranteeing social services to gays and lesbians, there is no
doubt that you cannot discriminate or deny them such services".
"Talking about gays and lesbians getting married, our legislation does not
permit it.and I think it is wrong for people to just say that homosexuals
and gays have rights generally, they must try and find out what rights we
are talking about".
--
J Young
jvis...@live.com
Seon
"J" <jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:4c2ugo....@news.alt.net...
>
>
> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
>
>
So?
Yap
> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
What he meant was homo couples couldn't give rise to
descendants...which carries limited rights from such situation.
He did not meant the society had the full right cut down for them.
Please read the text carefully before you jump the gun....but we do
not mind you jump off the cliff.
anone
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be804de3-e205-4e3a...@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On 7 Jan, 12:40, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
No.
What he meant was homo couples couldn't give rise to
descendants...which carries limited rights from such situation.
He did not meant the society had the full right cut down for them.
Please read the text carefully before you jump the gun....but we do
not mind you jump off the cliff.
>
> http://www.citifmonline.com/site/news/news/view/19917/1
>
The Bible teaches that marriage is a union between man and woman for life,
when it is sanctified in the eyes of God. The very essence of Christian
marriage is in the consent of both parties, who join together before God and
publicly acknowledge their troth (faithfulness; loyalty) to each other. This
act, according to the Bible, makes them "one flesh." (See Gen. 2:23; Matt.
19:5,6; Mark 10:8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31). This covenant between man and
wife can only be broken by the unfaithfulness of one or the other, or by
death. The marriage bond may only be broken through the "adultery" of one
party or the other, never for incompatibility.'' No man has the authority to
break this marriage bond; no judge, no preacher.
The marriage ceremony is a covenant, which imposes on both parties, certain
mutual duties and invests both with certain inalienable, God-given rights.
These rights must be jealously guarded by both parties. By becoming "one
flesh," they have become something special in the eyes of God. The mutual
duty of husband and wife is to remain pure and chaste, honoring and loving
each other. Neither may lawfully (God's law) join in covenants with others,
which will infringe on these conjugal rights.
This Christian Covenant comes into immediate conflict with the Masonic and
Judaic Covenants, since both of these protect the man's right to commit
adultery. If either of these covenants are accepted in lieu of Christianity,
it will doom Christian marriage and the Christian family. Of course, this is
the purpose of both Masonry and Judaism.
The wife in a Christian marriage covenant has the inalienable right to know
the nature of any contract her husband may enter into with others,
especially if this contract might weaken or annul his duty to remain chaste
and pure. There is a Divine law involved here, which neither the man nor
woman may evade with impunity. Their agreement is a matter of written record
and neither has the moral nor spiritual right to overstep the bounds of this
contract.
The husband is bound to respect the law of God and follow it, just as he
should expect his wife to do. There can be no such thing as a
"double-standard" for either of them, as has been so common in both Masonry
and Judaism.
In the Masonic contract, the wife is not consulted on the matter of the
man's morals, neither by the Lodge, or by her husband. Even if she agrees
with him becoming a Mason, she knows nothing about the nature of the
covenant he has made with the Lodge and how it may effect her marriage. To
all intents and purposes, she has become a "chattel." The Masonic Covenant
supersedes any other covenant the Mason may make with God or his fellowmen.
He must subordinate everything, even his family, to his Masonic belief.
Olrik
Doc Smartass
september.org:
> The Bible teaches
That book is obsolete. Sorry.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
A Christian has to be Adolf Hitler to be called militant.
All an atheist has to do is write a book. -- Tommy Holland
Dänk 666
> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
Although the Democrap Party claims ownership of African-Americans and
has decreed that they must hold the same viewpoints as their white
liberal masters, in reality many are very conservative, socially and
religiously.
This is why the attempt to get out the black vote for Obama in
California backfired when 70% of African-Americans, many of whom would
never have bothered to vote had a black man not been running for
president, voted FOR Proposition 8. This came as a shock to
Democraps, who simply assumed that blacks would voted against Prop. 8
because they were told to.
> http://www.citifmonline.com/site/news/news/view/19917/1
>
> by - Emile Short
>
> The retired Head of the Human Rights Commission Justice Emile Short says
> homosexuals do not have unrestricted rights as far as the exercise of their
> sexual orientation is concerned.
>
> According to Justice Short, gays and lesbians must not be seen as having
> comprehensive rights as heterosexuals.
>
> His successor, Anna Bossman told Citi FM a couple of weeks ago that the
> rights of gays and lesbians in expressing and practicing their sexual
> orientation should be respected once those practices do not impinge on the
> laws and rights of others in society.
I agree with this. However, the right to engage in homosexual sex has
since evolved into a right to spread disease indiscriminately. But as
long as all participants are consenting adults, and no expensive-to-
treat diseases are transmitted, then there should be no restrictions.
> The Criminal code abhors unnatural carnal knowledge such as bestiality and
> sodomy but makes no explicit mention of homosexuality. Some lawyers ride on
> sodomy to argue against same sex relationships.
Sodomy laws were struck down a decade ago. And before that, "sodomy"
was never clearly defined, and simply referred to "unnatural" acts
which are purely subjective and could refer to everything from
homosexual felching to heterosexual vaginal intercourse between
unmarried adults.
> Other lawyers capitalize on the grey area of the code to either argue for
> the rights of gays to exercise their preferred sexual orientation or sit on
> the fence.
>
> However, Justice Short speaking on the Citi Breakfast Show on Thursday
> January 6 said the rights of homosexuals must be separated since gays and
> lesbianism do not have blanket rights.
>
> "In terms of guaranteeing social services to gays and lesbians, there is no
> doubt that you cannot discriminate or deny them such services".
>
> "Talking about gays and lesbians getting married, our legislation does not
> permit it.and I think it is wrong for people to just say that homosexuals
> and gays have rights generally, they must try and find out what rights we
> are talking about".
At least Barack Obama has clearly stated which right homosexuals do
NOT have: he has publicly stated that he does not believe that gays
have a right to marry. That was in 2008, just months before the
election. More recently, he babbled something about how his views on
the subject were "evolving" and then he "moved forward" to an
unrelated subject.
Jude Alexander
>> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the
>> former Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a
>> liberal.
I think the world KNOWS that people who have and/or do suffer from bigotry
can also be bigots themselves. It's amazing but true. Leave it to people
to be able live like with without twang z chord of consciencousness of their
own disgusting display of double standards.
Bill Graham
The very concept of a "God", much less a Christian God, is a religious idea,
and certainly not generally accepted by reasonable, thinking individuals. To
quote it, or the Christian bible as an excuse for matters of law is
unconstitutional, and certainly cuts no ice with me. I am 75 years old, and
have never seen any evidence of anything supernatural in my entire life. No
ghosts, angels, devils, saints, heavens or hells. A typewriter, thrown from
the roof of a 100 story office building, has as much chance of hitting a
child as a trash can. Only the percentwge of the sidewalk area occluded by
either enters into the equation. "Nor all your tears wash out a word of
it..." God has nothing to do with it. When a tidal wave hits the shore, the
same percentage of innocent children die as do nasty old men. I have been
keeping track of this my entire life. So don't put your god into my laws,
please.....
Jude Alexander
You're an antheist/agnostic and you're stuck with the name Billy Graham?
Ain't that ironic, huh? :)
Bill Graham
I suppose so, but it really hasn't impacted me that much. Generally, I leave
the religious alone, unless they push their myths onto my practical life.
Then, as an atheist, I am compelled to push back. Usually, their pushing
gets them bitten in the ass. Like, the change to the Pledge of Allegience
they got through congress back in the 50's. It is now chewing on their asses
big time. The atheists are scratching the name of their god off of all the
public buildings, library and school books, and tee shirts, etc. I don't
have any ax to grind with all this, but I am amused, and love to watch it
take place. If they would only learn to leave well enough alone.....
Jude Alexander
Well, Bill, (and I'm surprised nobody has ribbed you about the name)
Christians are under the impression, be it correct or incorrect, that they
have to try and prostelyize others to the faith. It kind of goes like this:
If so-and-so goes to hell at judgment and you had a chance to "witness" to
them, then you will be held accountable. So, if you're not interested,
perhaps the best thing to do is ignore their efforts to get to to become a
Christians after you have said "no." They really should stop after you've
complained that you're not interested.
Bill Graham
Yeah, but things could be a lot worse. They could slit my throat to get me
into Hell sooner, rather than later, like the Moslims do. So, I thank
god/whoever for small favors....:^)
Yap
> anone wrote:
> > "Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You are quite right.
This world has never, never and never witnessed any sky pixie at all.
The lesser beings are weak and greedy people who are not satisfied
with their current lives.
anone
><plonk>
OH NO! please don't plonk me....please. I'll try better, harder. I know
I'm stupid, so please understand. I go off my meds now and then because
they make me constipated and then I'm really full of...well you know.
maf1029
Jude@de_swamp.net says...
> Well, Bill, (and I'm surprised nobody has ribbed you about the
> name)
> Christians are under the impression, be it correct or incorrect, that they
> have to try and prostelyize others to the faith.
They have a mandate to "go ye forth and whine to all the
nations," with a "convert or die" policy which is strictly
enforced with zero-tolerance for heathens, infidels, heretics,
non-whites, gays, lesbians, women with IQ's in the triple
digits, and other Christians of the "wrong" sect.
I really wish they'd just finish eating their own already. After
2000 years, you'd think they'd be done with that.
--
maf 1029, aa #1954
EAC Cruise Director
juanjo
> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
>
> http://www.citifmonline.com/site/news/news/view/19917/1
>
J you stupid idiot, this is an article from a newspaper in Ghana
referencing Ghanan law. As for all members of a Human Right
Commission being liberals, I remind you of what Clarence Thomas'
former employment was before he became a justice.
juanjo
> On Jan 6, 10:40 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> > Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
>
> Although the Democrap Party claims ownership of African-Americans and
> has decreed that they must hold the same viewpoints as their white
> liberal masters, in reality many are very conservative, socially and
> religiously.
>
Even our friend the Drugged One, a notorious drug abuser who lives in
his parents' basement in Utah was taken in by J. Dankie dear this is
an article form a newspaper in Ghana. As for your comments about
homosexuals being disease vectors, you have been handed your head on
that assertion in the past. If you were not such a serious drug
abuser and therefore completely out of touch with reality, you might
have realized it.
Tut-ank-clay-ton
"anone" wrote in message news:ig7klt$e7j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be804de3-e205-4e3a...@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On 7 Jan, 12:40, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
No.
What he meant was homo couples couldn't give rise to
descendants...which carries limited rights from such situation.
He did not meant the society had the full right cut down for them.
Please read the text carefully before you jump the gun....but we do
not mind you jump off the cliff.
>
> http://www.citifmonline.com/site/news/news/view/19917/1
>
The Bible teaches that marriage is a union between man and woman for life,
when it is sanctified in the eyes of God.
The Bible says lots and lots and lots of bullshit like that....it's totally
irrelevant what your big book of lies says. We live in the real world!
lango...@here.now
They are told to go forth and spread the gospel. The only whining around
here is from you. There are faiths that do not openly solicit members.
Islam is one of them.
J
"Mickey" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1cfdefeb-feb2-4fed...@u3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 8:16 pm, "Jude Alexander" <Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote:
> > Bill Graham wrote:
> >
> > You're an antheist/agnostic and you're stuck with the name Billy Graham?
> And, I am an atheist with the name Michelle Malkin.
Amongst many other nyms that you've already admitted to using
> The rightard bigot and idiot so-called 'journalist'
> who uses my name got her last name from her
> husband.
At least the name is real, unlike your's.
--
J Young
jvis...@live.com
pop...@westpac1964.mil
CDC: AIDS 50 Times Higher In Gay/Bi Men
A report from the Centers for Disease Control says that gay and
bisexual men contract HIV/AIDS at a rate fifty times higher than the
general population. To my knowledge, the CDC has not previously made
such a comparison, instead relying on the raw data of confirmed cases.
CDC official Dr. Amy Lansky announced today at a plenary session of
the National HIV Prevention Conference the CDC's finding that, in the
United States, gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) have
AIDS at a rate more than 50 times (that's right, FIFTY TIMES) greater
than women and non-gay/bi men. This confirms in emphatic terms that of
all the disparities and disproportionate impacts in the HIV/AIDS
epidemic in the United States, the greatest one is the extraordinarily
disproportionate impact on gay and bisexual men -- of all races and
ethnicities-- though the most disproportionate impact is on African
American gay, bi and other MSM. As incidence estimates released by CDC
last year revealed, MSM constitute more than half of all new cases of
HIV and are the group in which the number of new cases each continues
to slowly increase. What's new today is that the CDC has calculated
*rates* of HIV/AIDS prevalence among MSM, not just raw numbers. Lansky
says the CDC estimates that there were 692.2 new HIV cases in 2007 per
100,000 MSM. Having a rate as well as the raw numbers allows
comparisons for the first time to other population groups at risk,
such as women and heterosexual men.
alon...@pi.org
<gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>This post is sorry.
The smart assed benny boy makes these notice-post on a regular basis
to assure everyone that he is at least shooting par.
The Chief Instigator
>
>
> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
Pull your head out of your moronic ass and quit fantasizing you're in the
1960s, Junked Young. Try living in the second decade of the third
millennium, for once in your *ahem* life.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
(http://www.io.com/~patrick) AA #2237
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Lake Erie 0 (January 7)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, January 9 vs. San Antonio, 4:05
cai...@caribben.sea
wrote:
> The atheists are scratching the name of their god off of all the
>public buildings, library and school books, and tee shirts, etc. I don't
>have any ax to grind with all this, but I am amused, and love to watch it
>take place. If they would only learn to leave well enough alone.....
Agreed, the atheists are some fuck-witted freaks alright. They've been
declared a religion by a high court and recognized in a national
survey as the most hated group in the U.S. and they still don't get
it. Somebody needs to stick a 220 volt wire up their collective asses
and jump start their brain.
cai...@caribben.sea
wrote:
>On 8 Jan, 06:59, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> anone wrote:
>> > "Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:be804de3-e205-4e3a...@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 7 Jan, 12:40, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
(...)
>> The very concept of a "God", much less a Christian God, is a religious idea,
>> and certainly not generally accepted by reasonable, thinking individuals. To
>> quote it, or the Christian bible as an excuse for matters of law is
>> unconstitutional, and certainly cuts no ice with me. I am 75 years old, and
>> have never seen any evidence of anything supernatural in my entire life. No
>> ghosts, angels, devils, saints, heavens or hells. A typewriter, thrown from
>> the roof of a 100 story office building, has as much chance of hitting a
>> child as a trash can. Only the percentwge of the sidewalk area occluded by
>> either enters into the equation. "Nor all your tears wash out a word of
>> it..." God has nothing to do with it. When a tidal wave hits the shore, the
>> same percentage of innocent children die as do nasty old men. I have been
>> keeping track of this my entire life. So don't put your god into my laws,
>> please.....
>
>You are quite right.
>This world has never, never and never witnessed any sky pixie at all.
>The lesser beings are weak and greedy people who are not satisfied
>with their current lives.
But such finite thinking always that leaves this question unanswered;
"What if I'm wrong?" Life is like a craps table...
James Dale Guckert
> The Bible teaches
Irrelevant.
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> Somebody needs to stick a 220 volt wire up their collective asses
> and jump start their brain.
So you were just warming up at Abu Ghraib, then.
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> But such finite thinking always that leaves this question unanswered;
> "What if I'm wrong?" Life is like a craps table...
Such ardor! Any god would weep tears of joy at these words of devotion.
--
JDG
The Chief Instigator
You're a mental train wreck in progress over that last two decades, Jerky
Young.
90a...@sunrise.org
wrote:
>In the Masonic contract, the wife is not consulted on the matter of the
>man's morals, neither by the Lodge, or by her husband. Even if she agrees
>with him becoming a Mason, she knows nothing about the nature of the
>covenant he has made with the Lodge and how it may effect her marriage. To
>all intents and purposes, she has become a "chattel." The Masonic Covenant
>supersedes any other covenant the Mason may make with God or his fellowmen.
>He must subordinate everything, even his family, to his Masonic belief.
Not so. It's clear that you know nothing of the Masonic Fraternity.
The fact is that any Mason who neglects the needs of his family will
be admonished by his Lodge.
Bill Graham
Wnen the religious nuts modified the pledge of allegience back in the 50's
to read, "under God", they were the ones who did not leave well enough
alone. They started a war that is still ongoing, and they are losing....
Bill Graham
Even if I'm wrong, and there is a God, he wouldn't even come close to
approximating the Christian concept of God. He would look at my life as a
whole, and reward me or not accdording to the preponderence of good that I
did vs. the bad. The Christian concept of a God is ridiculous on multiple
levels. It is so bad and illogical, that, even though I was exposed to it at
a tender age, I knew immediately that I could never believe in such an
entity.
Bill Graham
But what if your wife's, "needs" include pole dancing at the local strippers
club until 2:00 AM every morning.....
RamRod Sword of Baal
I think it was cai...@caribben.sea who scribbled some long note that said
world wide, homosexuals were responsible for 5% to 10% of all HIV infections
around the world, but unfortunately I seem to have disposed of that note,
sorry.
If that is correct that still leaves at leaves 90% of world wide infections
of HIV being heterosexuals, so I am not sure what his point was, unless he
was backing up the fact that world wide heterosexuals are the leading group
in HIV infection.
-----------------------------
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian
//HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse.
Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV
transmissions worldwide \\
--------------------------
http://www.mtnstopshiv.org/about/hiv_aids
//Most new cases of HIV result from sexual intercourse between couples in
which one partner is, knowingly or unknowingly, infected with HIV. In women,
between 70 and 90 percent of all HIV infections are due to heterosexual
intercourse.\\
--------------------------
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/artic/hiv_aids_statistics_niaid_fact_sheet_niaid.htm
//Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted
from heterosexual intercourse\\
---------------------------
http://www.aegis.com/factshts/niaid/2000/niaid2000_fact_sheet_aidsstat.html
//Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted
from heterosexual intercourse\\
---------------------------
http://www.phuketgazette.net/archives/articles/2010/article9500.html
November 12, 2010
An estimated 80% of reported STD infections occur through heterosexual sex,
but that only includes cases the PPHO knows about. Many more cases are
treated at private clinics.
----------------------------
http://aids.about.com/od/dataandstatistics/a/world_facts.htm
Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted
from heterosexual intercourse
-----------------------------
Thu, Nov. 11, 2010 Philadelphia
//Heterosexual sex is the most common risk factor for HIV here. \\
--------------------------------
Read more:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20101111_Local_black_clergy_unite_to_fight_HIV_AIDS.html?viewAll=y#ixzz152gZVW2j
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else
http://www.thebody.com/content/art6580.html
//Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted
from heterosexual intercourse\\
--------------------------------
http://www.webnewswire.com/node/614410
November 3, 2010
Heterosexual transmission in men over 50 is up a shocking 94%, and the rate
in women has doubled since 1991. Heterosexual sex and needle sharing among
IV drug users are the main methods of transmission in older adults.
---------------------------------
http://www.globalpolitician.com/2524-health-aids
//Worldwide, more than 75% of all adult HIV infections have occurred from
heterosexual intercourse\\
--------------------------------
9/11/2010
//Since 2007, heterosexual transmission has replaced injecting drug use as
the primary transmission mode of all HIV infections in China.\\
-----------------------
In the USA and UK.
http://www.alwaysyourchoice.org/ayc/articles/hetero_hiv.php
Meanwhile, transmission of HIV through heterosexual intercourse is
unmistakably on the rise. According to The Journal of the American Medical
Women's Association, the rate of HIV infection through vaginal intercourse
of teenage girls alone rose by nearly 117% between 1994 and 1998.
----------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-87270/HIV-infection-spreading-heterosexual-sex.html
Saturday, Nov 06 2010
Britain was today marking World Aids Day as new figures show over half of
all HIV infection in the UK is from heterosexual contact - an increase of
37% from last year. Research from Taylor Nelson Sofres Healthcare (TNSH)
shows that 54% of all HIV infections in the UK are from heterosexual sex.
---------------------
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101022/NEWS/10220321/-1/NEWSMAP
October 22, 2010
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the state rate for HIV and AIDS was 284.2 per every
100,000 residents, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health. New Bedford's rate was nearly twice that, at 523.6, but
significantly lower than Boston's with 906.2.
New Bedford's data for new HIV diagnoses from 2006-08 showed that 47 percent
were females. At 34 percent, heterosexual sex or "presumed heterosexual sex"
ranked higher than male-to-male sex or injection drug use in causing new
infections for that period of time.
======================
Doc Smartass
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:40:44 -0600, Doc Smartass
> <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This post is sorry.
>
> The sm<ack>
Shaddap.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
A Christian has to be Adolf Hitler to be called militant.
All an atheist has to do is write a book. -- Tommy Holland
Doc Smartass
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:40:44 -0600, Doc Smartass
> <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This post is sorry.
>
> The sm<ack>
Shaddap again.
cai...@caribben.sea
No, bamboo splinters under the fingernails (up to the cuticle) was
reserved for you face fucked atheists...
cai...@caribben.sea
Holy Fuck! You get turned on pretty easily don't you, cupcake?
cai...@caribben.sea
wrote:
My goodness (no pun intended) I've never seen a real change of horses
in mid-stream before, nice trick you've got there.
!. Atheism is a religion -- are they among the religious nuts?
2. more Americans would rather their child marry a homosexual than an
atheist -- Is this war against atheists still going on?
cai...@caribben.sea
wrote:
>cai...@caribben.sea wrote:
That's the broadest paint brush I've ever seen! Where did you get it
Is it Muslim by chance?
> He would look at my life as a whole, and reward me or not
>accdording to the preponderence of good that I did vs. the bad.
How do you know that?
>The Christian concept of a God is ridiculous on multiple levels.
Do you mean the foundational concept or do you base your belief on the
christians that have had some impact, good or bad. on your life?
>It is so bad and illogical, that, even though I was exposed to it at
>a tender age, I knew immediately that I could never believe in such an
>entity.
Because it's a personal thing how can a personal belief be bad and
illogical? Put another way, your "I knew immediately that I could
never believe in such an entity" could easily be called" bad and
illogical", don't you agree?
alon...@pi.org
<gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>This post is sorry.
Of course it is that's your trademark, smart ass.
alon...@pi.org
<gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>This post is sorry.
As I pointed out in my previous post, this little smart ass guy who
post as a smart ass does on a regular basis confirm that his posts are
still up to par, i.e., "Sorry", by posting a notice such as he has
done above.
cai...@caribben.sea
<ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>
>
>I think it was cai...@caribben.sea who scribbled some long note that said
>world wide, homosexuals were responsible for 5% to 10% of all HIV infections
>around the world, but unfortunately I seem to have disposed of that note,
>sorry.
>
>If that is correct that still leaves at leaves 90% of world wide infections
>of HIV being heterosexuals, so I am not sure what his point was, unless he
>was backing up the fact that world wide heterosexuals are the leading group
>in HIV infection.
>
>-----------------------------
>
>http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian
>
>//HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse.
>Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV
>transmissions worldwide \\
BULL SHIT!
The invisible worldwide HIV epidemic: MSM
Men who have sex with men are at the heart of the HIV epidemic
throughout the world, yet they remain invisible. It is because of
denial.
Even in the United States where the epidemic was first identified
among gay men more than 25 years ago and more than half of all
infections are attributed to male/male sexual contact there continues
to be a downplaying of that fact. Prevention resources are not
proportionally allocated to reach this affected population.
The situation is even worse in most of the developing world, as was
made clear at a conference on MSM and HIV in Mexico City, prior to the
XVII International AIDS Conference.
What we are seeing today in Asia, in every single major city that we
have looked at, are epidemics of HIV of men who have sex with men that
remind me of what we saw in the US, and Western Europe, and Australia
in the 1980s, said Peter Piot, executive director of UNAIDS. Modeling
suggests that by 2020, half of all new infections in Asia will be
among MSM.
But the response with targeted prevention is not there at all. Piot
pointed to homophobia in all its forms as one of the top five
obstacles to really stopping this epidemic.
David Wilson, who heads up the World Bank's HIV efforts, said within
the last five years we have come to realize that HIV epidemics are far
more concentrated than we had believed. General population
heterosexual transmission is only the major source in two regions,
Africa and the Caribbean.
Everywhere else we are facing concentrated epidemics of sex workers,
drug users, and men who have sex with men. They are the norm, not the
exception. And our programs globally need to reflect this.
In the countries of Latin America, MSM constitute anywhere from half
to 90 percent of local infections. It is massively higher than in sex
workers, said Wilson. I don't think that is sufficiently understood.
Identity and persecution
Kenneth Mayer, with Fenway Community Health in Boston, said a study of
MSM that they collaborated on in Mumbai (formally Bombay) , India'
largest city, found that married men were more likely than
gay-identified men to be infected with HIV.
In India, and I think it is probably true in other countries, if you
are male identified, you are not effeminate at all, and you are
married to a woman, you have met societal goals. It means that the man
can do what he wants. He feels that I'm not really gay because I'm not
like these other people; I have sex with a woman and I'm married.
Mayer thinks it likely that prevention messages developed for gay men
probably don't resonate with MSM who do not identify as gay.
Wilson pointed to one survey of 10,000 people in Saigon where not a
single person acknowledged having sex with another man. It is as
emblematic of the problem that agencies and officials face in even
understanding patterns of infection.
*************************************************************
AIDS IS A HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE WORLD WIDE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT
HOMOSEXUALS REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT SO THE EPIDEMIC CONTINUES
AND MORE HOMOSEXUALS DIE
maf1029
lango...@here.now says...
>
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 22:34:32 -0600, maf1029
> <maf...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <ig8gke$b33$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >Jude@de_swamp.net says...
> >> Well, Bill, (and I'm surprised nobody has ribbed you about the
> >> name)
> >> Christians are under the impression, be it correct or incorrect, that they
> >> have to try and prostelyize others to the faith.
> >
> >They have a mandate to "go ye forth and whine to all the
> >nations," with a "convert or die" policy which is strictly
> >enforced with zero-tolerance for heathens, infidels, heretics,
> >non-whites, gays, lesbians, women with IQ's in the triple
> >digits, and other Christians of the "wrong" sect.
> >I really wish they'd just finish eating their own already. After
> >2000 years, you'd think they'd be done with that.
> >
> They are told to go forth and spread the gospel.
"Whine to all the nations".... same difference.
> The only whining around
> here is from you.
Don't project. It's unbecoming. Expected, but unbecoming.
There are faiths that do not openly solicit members.
> Islam is one of them.
LOL
Thanks for proving my point, christstain bigot.
--
maf 1029, aa #1954
EAC Cruise Director
Lango...@ocean.net
Atheists are more endowed with faith than most of the religious population.
With God, there is a source, with Atheisism there is no source. All that is
because it is. That in itself takes tremendous faith.
Calling them names, debasing them serves no purpose and in fact empowers
them. If you failed to give them attention, they might be satisfied with
attention from themselves.
Lango...@ocean.net
<Dip...@Yahoo.Invalid> wrote:
>On 1/7/11 10:06 AM, anone wrote:
>> The Bible teaches
>
>Irrelevant.
To an unbeliever, you are correct. You are irrelevant as well.
Bob
Like sad Hitch I'll sing the universal song of Trotsky-ite Liberty
We demand the right to fuck
We demand it!
We Demand the right to fuck
We demand it!
We demand the right to fuck
We demand it!
http://www.thatincrediblemrhitchens.blogspot.com
Rob
Lango...@ocean.net
You cannot force anyone to beleive as you want them to believe nor do
insults serve any purpose.
Lango...@ocean.net
To make such a statement one would need to be God. There is only one who
will not share the realm with imposters.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 20:44:46 -0500, cai...@caribben.sea wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:46:03 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> The atheists are scratching the name of their god off of all the
>>>public buildings, library and school books, and tee shirts, etc. I don't
>>>have any ax to grind with all this, but I am amused, and love to watch it
>>>take place. If they would only learn to leave well enough alone.....
>>
>>
>>Agreed, the atheists are some fuck-witted freaks alright. They've been
>>declared a religion by a high court and recognized in a national
>>survey as the most hated group in the U.S. and they still don't get
>>it. Somebody needs to stick a 220 volt wire up their collective asses
>>and jump start their brain.
>>
>Atheists are more endowed with faith than most of the religious population.
That is a silly claim that has often been repeated by those who have no
idea what they are talking about or are being intentionally dishonest.
>With God, there is a source, with Atheisism there is no source. All that is
>because it is. That in itself takes tremendous faith.
There's no evidence that any gods exist. There is no need for a source.
>Calling them names, debasing them serves no purpose and in fact empowers
>them. If you failed to give them attention, they might be satisfied with
>attention from themselves.
I respond to people in the way they engage in the discussion. If someone
repeats a falsehood without correcting himself, it is not calling them
names to point out that they are lying. If they repeated engage in that
behavior, they have demonstrated that they are liars.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:01:21 -0800, James Dale Guckert
As far as anyone can tell, there are zero gods. The one you worship has
no more supporting evidence than the ones that were worshipped by Greeks
or Romans or Germanic tribes in the past.
Stephen Powers
wrote:
>
>In the Masonic contract, the wife is not consulted on the matter of the
>man's morals, neither by the Lodge, or by her husband. Even if she agrees
>with him becoming a Mason, she knows nothing about the nature of the
>covenant he has made with the Lodge and how it may effect her marriage. To
>all intents and purposes, she has become a "chattel." The Masonic Covenant
>supersedes any other covenant the Mason may make with God or his fellowmen.
>He must subordinate everything, even his family, to his Masonic belief.
>
accepted for membership, he and his wife meet with a committee where all
questions are answered. You seem to have forgotten to add this into your
tale.
Lango...@ocean.net
If the non-religious were comfortable with their own positions, they would
have no desire to engage in any conflict with believers. The change in the
Pledge of Allegience did not cause any conflicts. The weaknesses of the non
believers did so.
Lango...@ocean.net
You imply disbelief while espousing attributes of what you do not beleive
in. The fact that God is real is not your issue. Argument is your issue
senseless as it is.
Stephen Powers
Your statement is as irrelevant as your arguments.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:49:08 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
Why should non-religious be expected to ignore the attempts of religious
people to violate the Constitution?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:02:48 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> There's no evidence that any gods exist. There is no need for a source.
>
>It's called faith, idiot. Stop requiring some sort of logical reasoning
>when it comes to faith.
I do not complain about people who acknowledge that they believe in a
god because of faith. I complain about those who assert that there is
evidence for their gods. When people refuse to accept discoveries of
science because of their claims about what they think their god wants, I
see no reason to treat their claims with respect.
Lango...@ocean.net
<ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>
>
>I think it was cai...@caribben.sea who scribbled some long note that said
>world wide, homosexuals were responsible for 5% to 10% of all HIV infections
>around the world, but unfortunately I seem to have disposed of that note,
>sorry.
>
>If that is correct that still leaves at leaves 90% of world wide infections
>of HIV being heterosexuals, so I am not sure what his point was, unless he
>was backing up the fact that world wide heterosexuals are the leading group
>in HIV infection.
>
The fact that HIV originated in Monkeys is not disputable. Humans having sex
with monkeys caused the infection to spread.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:59:35 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
There is no evidence to support your assertion that God is real.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:35:04 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> the Constitution
>
>Hey, assmunch, there are various countries that have constitutions -
>which do you mean, or are you always this unclear in your muddy little
>mind?
I wasn't aware that there were any concerted attempts outside the United
States to violate the separation of church and state.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>You are arguing on usenet, dumbfuck, what did you expect?
I expect self-described Christians to lie to me and to celebrate their
ignorance, but that is not because I think they should.
Uncle Steve
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:02:48 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
> when it comes to faith.
You may not require logical reasoning in your little world, but that
doesn't mean we cannot apply logical reasoning to positions you hold
on faith, or actions you may take on the basis of "faith".
IOW: you can believe anything you want, but the universe is not
required to keep a straight face. So commit suicide by stupidity if
you wish. Just don't require that everyone else do the same or there
will be trouble.
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
Liberals show the true value of the public education system.
Uncle Steve
Because religion is sacred and is supposed to superseed any temporal
authority. The definition of theocracy. The separation of curch and
sate is a myth in the West. Right-wing retards are getting a free
lunch, or so they would like to think.
Joe Bruno
> Don't forget; these are the words of a colored man who is also the former
> Head of the Human Rights Commission. In other words, a liberal.
>
> http://www.citifmonline.com/site/news/news/view/19917/1
>
> by - Emile Short
>
> The retired Head of the Human Rights Commission Justice Emile Short says
> homosexuals do not have unrestricted rights as far as the exercise of their
> sexual orientation is concerned.
>
> According to Justice Short, gays and lesbians must not be seen as having
> comprehensive rights as heterosexuals.
>
> His successor, Anna Bossman told Citi FM a couple of weeks ago that the
> rights of gays and lesbians in expressing and practicing their sexual
> orientation should be respected once those practices do not impinge on the
> laws and rights of others in society.
>
> She added that homosexuals must not be condemned on the basis of moral
> arguments since different people hold different beliefs and preferences in
> any society.
>
> The Criminal code abhors unnatural carnal knowledge such as bestiality and
> sodomy but makes no explicit mention of homosexuality. Some lawyers ride on
> sodomy to argue against same sex relationships.
>
> Other lawyers capitalize on the grey area of the code to either argue for
> the rights of gays to exercise their preferred sexual orientation or sit on
> the fence.
>
> However, Justice Short speaking on the Citi Breakfast Show on Thursday
> January 6 said the rights of homosexuals must be separated since gays and
> lesbianism do not have blanket rights.
>
> "In terms of guaranteeing social services to gays and lesbians, there is no
> doubt that you cannot discriminate or deny them such services".
>
> "Talking about gays and lesbians getting married, our legislation does not
> permit it.and I think it is wrong for people to just say that homosexuals
> and gays have rights generally, they must try and find out what rights we
> are talking about".
>
> --
> J Young
> jvisi...@live.com
What I don't understand is why anyone has to tell anyone else about
their sex life. Mine is personal.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Then you need to get out from your little America blanket and take a look
>around you.
Please name some that you are thinking of.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Learn to be disappointed, fucko.
Christians are the best argument against Christianity.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:56:13 -0500, Uncle Steve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 06:14:41PM +0000, IMBJR wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:02:48 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>> > There's no evidence that any gods exist. There is no need for a
>>> > source.
>>>
>>> It's called faith, idiot. Stop requiring some sort of logical reasoning
>>> when it comes to faith.
>>
>> You may not require logical reasoning in your little world, but that
>> doesn't mean we cannot apply logical reasoning to positions you hold on
>> faith, or actions you may take on the basis of "faith".
>
>Then you are an idiot. Faith transcends mere reason.
Why would it?
>This what a lot of
>these atheist types get wrong: you cannot reason logically about articles
>of faith - because of the very nature of faith.
That does not mean that faith transcends reason, only that it ignores
it.
>> IOW: you can believe anything you want, but the universe is not
>> required to keep a straight face.
>
>Like you know anything of the universe.
>
>>So commit suicide by stupidity if you
>> wish. Just don't require that everyone else do the same or there will
>> be trouble.
>
>I just require you to dig your little hole here on usenet.
Uncle Steve
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:56:13 -0500, Uncle Steve wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:02:48 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
> >>
> >> > There's no evidence that any gods exist. There is no need for a
> >> > source.
> >>
> >> It's called faith, idiot. Stop requiring some sort of logical reasoning
> >> when it comes to faith.
> >
> > You may not require logical reasoning in your little world, but that
> > doesn't mean we cannot apply logical reasoning to positions you hold on
> > faith, or actions you may take on the basis of "faith".
>
> of faith - because of the very nature of faith.
I can do anything It want to with your precious little faith except
believe it. It takes invincible ignorance (read, stupidity) to
trancend logic or the real, in which case you're merely deluded.
> > IOW: you can ibelieve anything you want, but the universe is not
> > required to keep a straight face.
>
> Like you know anything of the universe.
What is your position on the universe, dumbfuck? Oh, I know. You're
the center of everything; me me me is all.
> >So commit suicide by stupidity if you
> > wish. Just don't require that everyone else do the same or there will
> > be trouble.
>
> I just require you to dig your little hole here on usenet.
Uh-oh. You made me post here again. You RU113, 311t3 master!
Lango...@ocean.net
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:56:03 -0800, James Dale Guckert
><Dip...@Yahoo.Invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 1/8/11 5:44 PM, cai...@caribben.sea wrote:
>>> Somebody needs to stick a 220 volt wire up their collective asses
>>> and jump start their brain.
>>
>>So you were just warming up at Abu Ghraib, then.
>
>No, bamboo splinters under the fingernails (up to the cuticle) was
>reserved for you face fucked atheists...
>
Probably not wise to feed their fears. They could hurt themselves.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:41:32 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 11:25:41 -0700, Lango...@ocean.net wrote in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:59:35 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>cai...@caribben.sea wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 18:55:46 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 Jan, 06:59, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> anone wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:be804de3-e205-4e3a-9a75-
>fe87f5...@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>Faith is all one needs, fucko.
Faith provides nothing but a false sense of security.
Lango...@ocean.net
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:01:21 -0800, James Dale Guckert
><Dip...@Yahoo.Invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 1/8/11 5:52 PM, cai...@caribben.sea wrote:
>>
>>> But such finite thinking always that leaves this question unanswered;
>>> "What if I'm wrong?" Life is like a craps table...
>>
>>Such ardor! Any god would weep tears of joy at these words of devotion.
>
>Holy Fuck! You get turned on pretty easily don't you, cupcake?
>
Both are unbalanced and it doesn't take much for their fears to overwhelm
them. For something they do not believe in, they have certainly made up a
mountain of creation effects.
Doc Smartass
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:12:30 -0600, Doc Smartass
> <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This post is sorry.
>
> Of course.
So shaddap then.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
A Christian has to be Adolf Hitler to be called militant.
All an atheist has to do is write a book. -- Tommy Holland
Doc Smartass
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:12:57 -0600, Doc Smartass
> <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This post is sorry.
>
> As I pointed out in my previous post
...you're an idiot.
Doc Smartass
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:12:57 -0600, Doc Smartass
> <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This post is sorry.
>
> As I...
...are still an idiot.
juanjo
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 13:53:42 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>
>
>
> <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>
> >I think it was cai...@caribben.sea who scribbled some long note that said
> >world wide, homosexuals were responsible for 5% to 10% of all HIV infections
> >around the world, but unfortunately I seem to have disposed of that note,
> >sorry.
>
> >If that is correct that still leaves at leaves 90% of world wide infections
> >of HIV being heterosexuals, so I am not sure what his point was, unless he
> >was backing up the fact that world wide heterosexuals are the leading group
> >in HIV infection.
>
> >-----------------------------
>
> >http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian
>
> >//HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse.
> >Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV
> >transmissions worldwide \\
>
> BULL SHIT!
>
> The invisible worldwide HIV epidemic: MSM
>
> Men who have sex with men are at the heart of the HIV epidemic
> throughout the world, yet they remain invisible. It is because of
> denial.
>
> Even in the United States where the epidemic was first identified
> among gay men more than 25 years ago and more than half of all
> infections are attributed to male/male sexual contact there continues
> to be a downplaying of that fact. Prevention resources are not
> proportionally allocated to reach this affected population.
>
> The situation is even worse in most of the developing world, as was
> made clear at a conference on MSM and HIV in Mexico City, prior to the
> XVII International AIDS Conference.
>
> What we are seeing today in Asia, in every single major city that we
> have looked at, are epidemics of HIV of men who have sex with men that
> remind me of what we saw in the US, and Western Europe, and Australia
> in the 1980s, said Peter Piot, executive director of UNAIDS. Modeling
> suggests that by 2020, half of all new infections in Asia will be
> among MSM.
>
> But the response with targeted prevention is not there at all. Piot
> pointed to homophobia in all its forms as one of the top five
> obstacles to really stopping this epidemic.
>
> David Wilson, who heads up the World Bank's HIV efforts, said within
> the last five years we have come to realize that HIV epidemics are far
> more concentrated than we had believed. General population
> heterosexual transmission is only the major source in two regions,
> Africa and the Caribbean.
>
> Everywhere else we are facing concentrated epidemics of sex workers,
> drug users, and men who have sex with men. They are the norm, not the
> exception. And our programs globally need to reflect this.
>
> In the countries of Latin America, MSM constitute anywhere from half
> to 90 percent of local infections. It is massively higher than in sex
> workers, said Wilson. I don't think that is sufficiently understood.
>
> Identity and persecution
>
> Kenneth Mayer, with Fenway Community Health in Boston, said a study of
> MSM that they collaborated on in Mumbai (formally Bombay) , India'
> largest city, found that married men were more likely than
> gay-identified men to be infected with HIV.
>
> In India, and I think it is probably true in other countries, if you
> are male identified, you are not effeminate at all, and you are
> married to a woman, you have met societal goals. It means that the man
> can do what he wants. He feels that I'm not really gay because I'm not
> like these other people; I have sex with a woman and I'm married.
>
> Mayer thinks it likely that prevention messages developed for gay men
> probably don't resonate with MSM who do not identify as gay.
>
> Wilson pointed to one survey of 10,000 people in Saigon where not a
> single person acknowledged having sex with another man. It is as
> emblematic of the problem that agencies and officials face in even
> understanding patterns of infection.
>
> *************************************************************
>
> AIDS IS A HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE WORLD WIDE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT
> HOMOSEXUALS REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT SO THE EPIDEMIC CONTINUES
> AND MORE HOMOSEXUALS DIE
Shouting by mentally deficient anonymous coward who cannot understand
the very article he has posted.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>*sigh*
>
>You want me to hold your hand? No. Perhaps this is the first time someone
>has said that to you, but you need it. Do your own research correctly.
>Stop thinking of America and experience the world, then you will realise
>just how provincial you sound.
A number of very civilized countries still have a state religion. The
concept of full separation of religion from state is not universal.
juanjo
> If the non-religious were comfortable with their own positions, they would
> have no desire to engage in any conflict with believers. The change in the
> Pledge of Allegience did not cause any conflicts. The weaknesses of the non
> believers did so.
A silly statement if ever one was written. It was Christian believers
who imposed their own superstitions on the general population in the
hysteria surrounding the "Red Menace" in the 1950's. One needs only
to read the legislative history of the change to see this is the
case. The result is that every child in elementary school was forced
to stand and recite a pledge which included a statement affirming the
existence of a Christian deity whether they believed it or not or face
sanction for refusing to do so because patriotism was tied to
Christian beliefs. If Christians were comfortable in the so-called
faith that their deity existed and was indeed on their side, then they
would have had no need to engage in this type of action.
juanjo
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 13:53:42 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>
> <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>
> >I think it was cai...@caribben.sea who scribbled some long note that said
> >world wide, homosexuals were responsible for 5% to 10% of all HIV infections
> >around the world, but unfortunately I seem to have disposed of that note,
> >sorry.
>
> >If that is correct that still leaves at leaves 90% of world wide infections
> >of HIV being heterosexuals, so I am not sure what his point was, unless he
> >was backing up the fact that world wide heterosexuals are the leading group
> >in HIV infection.
>
> with monkeys caused the infection to spread.
enough of speaking of Blobby and Carol's sexual practices
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Again, did the big boys teach you to say that? Try some original thought
>in your head for once.
Objections to religion are old and well-documented. There's really
nothing more to say about why religion should be ignored.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:20:52 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:01:39 +0000 (UTC), IMBJR <im...@cloon.fucker>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:56:13 -0500, Uncle Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 06:14:41PM +0000, IMBJR wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:02:48 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > There's no evidence that any gods exist. There is no need for a
>>>>> > source.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's called faith, idiot. Stop requiring some sort of logical
>>>>> reasoning when it comes to faith.
>>>>
>>>> You may not require logical reasoning in your little world, but that
>>>> doesn't mean we cannot apply logical reasoning to positions you hold
>>>> on faith, or actions you may take on the basis of "faith".
>>>
>>>Then you are an idiot. Faith transcends mere reason.
>>
>> Why would it?
>
>Because it is faith, numbnuts.
>
>>
>> That does not mean that faith transcends reason, only that it ignores
>> it.
>
>You are not very familiar with theology I see.
Sufficiently so to know that it is not worth the time people spent
inventing it.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Again, you are merely quoting the big boys you have heard say this. THINK
>FOR YOURSELF.
>
>Faith is not about security. Your rational mind needs to get past its
>little rationalisations and accept just how deep the mystery of faith is.
Yes, faith is about being a victim of religious fraud.
Doc Smartass
4ax.com:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:56:03 -0800, James Dale Guckert
> <Dip...@Yahoo.Invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 1/8/11 5:44 PM, cai...@caribben.sea wrote:
>>> Somebody needs to stick a 220 volt wire up their collective asses
>>> and jump start their brain.
>>
>>So you were just warming up at Abu Ghraib, then.
>
> No, bamboo splinters under the fingernails (up to the cuticle) was
> reserved for you face fucked atheists...
Big talk from a pissant right-wing mouth-breather.
Tell us more, little pup. Those milk teeth sure look sharp!
Bob T.
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:22:00 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:05:50 +0000 (UTC), IMBJR <im...@cloon.fucker>
> > wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:41:32 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>
> >>> alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:59:35 -0800, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>cai...@caribben.sea wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 18:55:46 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 8 Jan, 06:59, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> anone wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:be804de3-e205-4e3a-9a75-
> FOR YOURSELF.
>
> Faith is not about security. Your rational mind needs to get past its
> little rationalisations and accept just how deep the mystery of faith is.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain
- Bob T
>
> - Show quoted text -