Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Don't Religious Conservatives Tell Us That Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Too_Many_Tools
May 27, 2012, 12:58:44 AM5/27/12
to
Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
She create both in the same person?
Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
TMT
Man Admitted to Hospital for Kidney Stone, Discovers He's a Woman
ABC News Blogs - Fri, 25th May 2012 11:00 AM
A Colorado man who was admitted to the hospital for a kidney stone
received surprising news when the nurse came back with test results
revealing he was actually a woman.
Denver photographer Steve Crecelius said he's felt a little different
all his life.
"When I was about 6 years old, I started having these feminine
feelings, but that was in the '60s. Wearing my mom's makeup, I thought
I looked pretty," Crecelius told ABC News.
So when he went to the emergency room five years ago, he wasn't too
shocked when the nurse told him she found traits of both genders in
his ultrasound results.
He was intersex, meaning he had both male genitalia and internal
female sex organs.
"The nurse is reading the ultrasound and says, 'Huh, this says you're
a female,' Crecelius said. "It was very liberating. I had spent so
much energy after the age of 13 constantly evaluating how people
looked at me and acted towards me."
Steve, who now goes by "Stevie," said his wife and their six children
accepted his new identity right away.
"We told them individually. Some were in person and some weren't,"
Crecelius said. "Every one of them said, 'We don't care one way or the
other. We love you for who you are and you're still my dad.'"
Crecelius and his wife, Debbie, have been together for 25 years and
she's supported him every step of the way, including taking him to buy
his first bra.
She told Crecelius, "You know, when I first saw you, I said to myself,
'He runs like a girl.'"
"I think we were pretty good when she began to mourn the loss of her
husband," Crecelius said. "We worked through what we needed to. The
concept of unconditional love is a larger story."
Intersex is a term used to describe people who bear both external
genitals and internal organs, such as testes and ovaries.
A person with the condition may have male genitals along with
fallopian tubes and ovaries.
"The condition used to be called hermaphroditism, meaning that person
can't be identified as male or female," Crecelius said.
According to the Intersex Society of North America, more than 1,500
children a year are born intersex.
For Crecelius, he hopes he can be an advocate for those born intersex
and same-sex couples.
"I think of bullying, because I haven't heard anyone talk about this.
It's important to talk about," Crecelius said. "People need to be
accepting and understand. I was born this way, and loving each other
and supporting each other will always be the main factor in our
household."
If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
She create both in the same person?
Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
TMT
Man Admitted to Hospital for Kidney Stone, Discovers He's a Woman
ABC News Blogs - Fri, 25th May 2012 11:00 AM
A Colorado man who was admitted to the hospital for a kidney stone
received surprising news when the nurse came back with test results
revealing he was actually a woman.
Denver photographer Steve Crecelius said he's felt a little different
all his life.
"When I was about 6 years old, I started having these feminine
feelings, but that was in the '60s. Wearing my mom's makeup, I thought
I looked pretty," Crecelius told ABC News.
So when he went to the emergency room five years ago, he wasn't too
shocked when the nurse told him she found traits of both genders in
his ultrasound results.
He was intersex, meaning he had both male genitalia and internal
female sex organs.
"The nurse is reading the ultrasound and says, 'Huh, this says you're
a female,' Crecelius said. "It was very liberating. I had spent so
much energy after the age of 13 constantly evaluating how people
looked at me and acted towards me."
Steve, who now goes by "Stevie," said his wife and their six children
accepted his new identity right away.
"We told them individually. Some were in person and some weren't,"
Crecelius said. "Every one of them said, 'We don't care one way or the
other. We love you for who you are and you're still my dad.'"
Crecelius and his wife, Debbie, have been together for 25 years and
she's supported him every step of the way, including taking him to buy
his first bra.
She told Crecelius, "You know, when I first saw you, I said to myself,
'He runs like a girl.'"
"I think we were pretty good when she began to mourn the loss of her
husband," Crecelius said. "We worked through what we needed to. The
concept of unconditional love is a larger story."
Intersex is a term used to describe people who bear both external
genitals and internal organs, such as testes and ovaries.
A person with the condition may have male genitals along with
fallopian tubes and ovaries.
"The condition used to be called hermaphroditism, meaning that person
can't be identified as male or female," Crecelius said.
According to the Intersex Society of North America, more than 1,500
children a year are born intersex.
For Crecelius, he hopes he can be an advocate for those born intersex
and same-sex couples.
"I think of bullying, because I haven't heard anyone talk about this.
It's important to talk about," Crecelius said. "People need to be
accepting and understand. I was born this way, and loving each other
and supporting each other will always be the main factor in our
household."
de...@dudu.org
May 27, 2012, 9:07:30 AM5/27/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>
>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>She create both in the same person?
>
>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
Marriage is not just between a man and a woman. Anything is ok
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>
>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>She create both in the same person?
>
>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
between priests and little boys. Just ask the Catholic Church.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 27, 2012, 9:20:55 AM5/27/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>
>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>She create both in the same person?
>>
>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>
>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
Of course it is.
marriage
Noun:
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
which they become husband and wife.
"Gay activists are rejecting civil unions that are literally identical
to state-enforced marriage contracts except in name, on principle.
This is because they want to mimic the religious heterosexuals that
hate them. It's also to send the message that gays can be just as
boring and domestic as religious weirdos; a desperate desire to be
seen as a "traditional family." Sorry, honey, as long as your junk
don't interlock, you're not. This has transcended mere legal equality
and the convenience of standard-form contracts and crossed into
ceremonial jealously.
Knock it off. You're a queer. Get used to it. And go suck a few
dicks."
http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/
>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>
>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>She create both in the same person?
>>
>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>
>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
marriage
Noun:
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
which they become husband and wife.
"Gay activists are rejecting civil unions that are literally identical
to state-enforced marriage contracts except in name, on principle.
This is because they want to mimic the religious heterosexuals that
hate them. It's also to send the message that gays can be just as
boring and domestic as religious weirdos; a desperate desire to be
seen as a "traditional family." Sorry, honey, as long as your junk
don't interlock, you're not. This has transcended mere legal equality
and the convenience of standard-form contracts and crossed into
ceremonial jealously.
Knock it off. You're a queer. Get used to it. And go suck a few
dicks."
http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/
de...@dudu.org
May 27, 2012, 9:53:32 AM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>>
>>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>>She create both in the same person?
>>>
>>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>>
>>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
>
>Of course it is.
>
>marriage
>Noun:
>The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
>which they become husband and wife.
How does it in any way effect the union of a heterosexual man and
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>>
>>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>>She create both in the same person?
>>>
>>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>>
>>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
>
>Of course it is.
>
>marriage
>Noun:
>The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
>which they become husband and wife.
woman if two men or two women want to enjoy the same union of a loving
couple and call it a marriage? I don't see how it changes a marriage
between a man and a woman at all. But once again the conservatives
are the word police and demand the right to force their prejudice and
ignorance and hatred on everyone else.
And of course you cherry pick and highly edit any definitions you
post.
mar·riage
noun \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
<same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons :
wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a
marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
See marriage defined for English-language learners »
See marriage defined for kids »
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 27, 2012, 10:11:35 AM5/27/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>>>
>>>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>>>She create both in the same person?
>>>>
>>>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>>>
>>>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
>>
>>Of course it is.
>>
>>marriage
>>Noun:
>>The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
>>which they become husband and wife.
>
>How does it in any way effect the union of a heterosexual man and
>woman if two men or two women want to enjoy the same union
Um, because it's NOT the same?
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>>>
>>>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>>>She create both in the same person?
>>>>
>>>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>>>
>>>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
>>
>>Of course it is.
>>
>>marriage
>>Noun:
>>The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
>>which they become husband and wife.
>
>How does it in any way effect the union of a heterosexual man and
>woman if two men or two women want to enjoy the same union
>of a loving
>couple and call it a marriage?
> I don't see how it changes a marriage
>between a man and a woman at all.
> But once again the conservatives
>are the word police and demand the right to force their prejudice and
>ignorance and hatred on everyone else.
their agenda. Nothing new here, folks.
>And of course you cherry pick and highly edit any definitions you
>post.
>
>mar·riage
>noun \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
>Definition of MARRIAGE
>1
>a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
>husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
>recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
>same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
><same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons :
>wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a
>marriage
>2
>: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
>3
>: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
>See marriage defined for English-language learners »
>See marriage defined for kids »
cannot count you as one of these people-- the first definition is most
common. I'm not denying that leftists have already perverted the
meaning of words.
And I notice you cut the entire commentary out, which I will now
repost:
RogerN
May 27, 2012, 10:54:49 AM5/27/12
to
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
news:f4f69540-a4d2-4094...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>
>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>She create both in the same person?
>
>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>
>TMT
It's just like Gunner says, there are birth defects. But it's not the norm.
Could this man/woman marry themself and count as 2 people? Do the have M/F
both on their drivers license?
I'm sure Gunner will be glad to see you admit he's right again!
RogerN
news:f4f69540-a4d2-4094...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>
>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>She create both in the same person?
>
>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>
>TMT
Could this man/woman marry themself and count as 2 people? Do the have M/F
both on their drivers license?
I'm sure Gunner will be glad to see you admit he's right again!
RogerN
de...@dudu.org
May 27, 2012, 11:38:17 AM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 07:11:35 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
calling their union a marriage in any way change the marriage between
the heterosexual neighbors?
>
>>of a loving
>>couple and call it a marriage?
>
>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
What's wrong with calling you a homophobic asshole? Nothing at all.
>
>> I don't see how it changes a marriage
>>between a man and a woman at all.
>
>That's easily explainable. You're stupid.
No, because it doesn't. Show the cause and effect. please
You won't because you can't.
>
>> But once again the conservatives
>>are the word police and demand the right to force their prejudice and
>>ignorance and hatred on everyone else.
>
>Once again leftists try to distort the meaning of words to fit to
>their agenda. Nothing new here, folks.
Well, gee, that's EXACTLY what you are doing. Progressives, on the
contrary, are trying to explain to you that it doesn't make any
difference. The word means exactly the same thing regardless.
>
>
>>And of course you cherry pick and highly edit any definitions you
>>post.
>>
>>mar·riage
>>noun \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
>>Definition of MARRIAGE
>>1
>>a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
>>husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
>>recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
>>same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
>><same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons :
>>wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a
>>marriage
>>2
>>: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
>>3
>>: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
>>See marriage defined for English-language learners »
>>See marriage defined for kids »
>
>Wrong again. As anyone who regularly uses the dictionary knows-- and I
>cannot count you as one of these people-- the first definition is most
>common. I'm not denying that leftists have already perverted the
>meaning of words.
Most common perhaps but not the only one of course. But clearly it's
you who is trying to redefine the term and demand that it only applies
to the people YOU say. Typical right wing authoritarian hate freak.
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>>>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>>>>She create both in the same person?
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>>>>
>>>>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
>>>
>>>Of course it is.
>>>
>>>marriage
>>>Noun:
>>>The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
>>>which they become husband and wife.
>>
>>How does it in any way effect the union of a heterosexual man and
>>woman if two men or two women want to enjoy the same union
>
>Um, because it's NOT the same?
So??? How does one affect the other? How does a gay male couple
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>>>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>>>>She create both in the same person?
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>>>>
>>>>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
>>>
>>>Of course it is.
>>>
>>>marriage
>>>Noun:
>>>The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
>>>which they become husband and wife.
>>
>>How does it in any way effect the union of a heterosexual man and
>>woman if two men or two women want to enjoy the same union
>
>Um, because it's NOT the same?
calling their union a marriage in any way change the marriage between
the heterosexual neighbors?
>
>>of a loving
>>couple and call it a marriage?
>
>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
>
>> I don't see how it changes a marriage
>>between a man and a woman at all.
>
>That's easily explainable. You're stupid.
You won't because you can't.
>
>> But once again the conservatives
>>are the word police and demand the right to force their prejudice and
>>ignorance and hatred on everyone else.
>
>Once again leftists try to distort the meaning of words to fit to
>their agenda. Nothing new here, folks.
contrary, are trying to explain to you that it doesn't make any
difference. The word means exactly the same thing regardless.
>
>
>>And of course you cherry pick and highly edit any definitions you
>>post.
>>
>>mar·riage
>>noun \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
>>Definition of MARRIAGE
>>1
>>a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
>>husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
>>recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
>>same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
>><same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons :
>>wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a
>>marriage
>>2
>>: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
>>3
>>: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
>>See marriage defined for English-language learners »
>>See marriage defined for kids »
>
>Wrong again. As anyone who regularly uses the dictionary knows-- and I
>cannot count you as one of these people-- the first definition is most
>common. I'm not denying that leftists have already perverted the
>meaning of words.
you who is trying to redefine the term and demand that it only applies
to the people YOU say. Typical right wing authoritarian hate freak.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 27, 2012, 1:01:14 PM5/27/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 07:11:35 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>>>>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>>>>>She create both in the same person?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>>marriage
>>>>Noun:
>>>>The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
>>>>which they become husband and wife.
>>>
>>>How does it in any way effect the union of a heterosexual man and
>>>woman if two men or two women want to enjoy the same union
>>
>>Um, because it's NOT the same?
>
>So??? How does one affect the other?
Killing whales doesn't effect marriage either. So what?
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 07:11:35 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>>>>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
>>>>>>She create both in the same person?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Marriage is not just between a man and a woman.
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>>marriage
>>>>Noun:
>>>>The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by
>>>>which they become husband and wife.
>>>
>>>How does it in any way effect the union of a heterosexual man and
>>>woman if two men or two women want to enjoy the same union
>>
>>Um, because it's NOT the same?
>
>So??? How does one affect the other?
> How does a gay male couple
>calling their union a marriage in any way change the marriage between
>the heterosexual neighbors?
normal marriage?
>>>of a loving
>>>couple and call it a marriage?
>>
>>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
>
>What's wrong with calling you a homophobic asshole? Nothing at all.
See the difference?
>
>>
>>> I don't see how it changes a marriage
>>>between a man and a woman at all.
>>
>>That's easily explainable. You're stupid.
>
>No, because it doesn't. Show the cause and effect. please
>
>You won't because you can't.
>>> But once again the conservatives
>>>are the word police and demand the right to force their prejudice and
>>>ignorance and hatred on everyone else.
>>
>>Once again leftists try to distort the meaning of words to fit to
>>their agenda. Nothing new here, folks.
>
>Well, gee, that's EXACTLY what you are doing.
> Progressives, on the
>contrary, are trying to explain to you that it doesn't make any
>difference. The word means exactly the same thing regardless.
>>>And of course you cherry pick and highly edit any definitions you
>>>post.
>>>
>>>mar·riage
>>>noun \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
>>>Definition of MARRIAGE
>>>1
>>>a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
>>>husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
>>>recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
>>>same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
>>><same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons :
>>>wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a
>>>marriage
>>>2
>>>: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
>>>3
>>>: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
>>>See marriage defined for English-language learners »
>>>See marriage defined for kids »
>>
>>Wrong again. As anyone who regularly uses the dictionary knows-- and I
>>cannot count you as one of these people-- the first definition is most
>>common. I'm not denying that leftists have already perverted the
>>meaning of words.
>
>Most common perhaps but not the only one of course.
ignorant buffoon.
>But clearly it's
>you who is trying to redefine the term and demand that it only applies
>to the people YOU say. Typical right wing authoritarian hate freak.
you're a lying asshole?
[restoring the words Dudu is so afraid of]
de...@dudu.org
May 27, 2012, 1:36:35 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:01:14 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
What other reason do you have to demand that people aren't allowed to
call their union a marriage? That is the problem here. You demanding
the right to say what words people can use. Just like pursuit. At
least you're consistent.
>
>>>>of a loving
>>>>couple and call it a marriage?
>>>
>>>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
>>
>>What's wrong with calling you a homophobic asshole? Nothing at all.
>
>Except you'd be lying, just like you usually do. I wouldn't be lying.
Everybody knows that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
actually repressed homos themselves. You substitute your hatred for
yourselves with hatred for others.
Maybe you should just come out of the closet and then maybe you can
find yourself another S&M Nazi and you two can get married and have
all the leather, whips, and chains in your bedroom you could ever
want.
call their union a marriage? That is the problem here. You demanding
the right to say what words people can use. Just like pursuit. At
least you're consistent.
>
>>>>of a loving
>>>>couple and call it a marriage?
>>>
>>>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
>>
>>What's wrong with calling you a homophobic asshole? Nothing at all.
>
>Except you'd be lying, just like you usually do. I wouldn't be lying.
actually repressed homos themselves. You substitute your hatred for
yourselves with hatred for others.
Maybe you should just come out of the closet and then maybe you can
find yourself another S&M Nazi and you two can get married and have
all the leather, whips, and chains in your bedroom you could ever
want.
JamesHutchinson
May 27, 2012, 1:55:06 PM5/27/12
to
DooDoo wrote in message news:1bp4s75b69ai4aa2n...@4ax.com...
Who said he hates or fears you homo's?
CITE!
I certainly don't fear you OR hate your kind either.
YOU on the other hand , are fucked in the head, and I wouldn't have hand to
hand combat with you on national TV without YOU first having a blood test,
to make sure that you don’t have the COOTIES!
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 27, 2012, 2:03:45 PM5/27/12
to
aren't "squash" and a gay civil union isn't "marriage."
>That is the problem here. You demanding
>the right to say what words people can use.
words to mean something fundamentally different.
>Just like pursuit. At
>least you're consistent.
>>>>>of a loving
>>>>>couple and call it a marriage?
>>>>
>>>>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
>>>
>>>What's wrong with calling you a homophobic asshole? Nothing at all.
>>
>>Except you'd be lying, just like you usually do. I wouldn't be lying.
>
>Everybody knows
>that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
>actually repressed homos themselves.
in a most cowardly fashion three times- means he's a.... repressed
homosexual?
THAT makes a lot of sense.
>You substitute your hatred for yourselves with hatred for others.
>Maybe you should just come out of the closet and then maybe you can
>find yourself another S&M Nazi and you two can get married and have
>all the leather, whips, and chains in your bedroom you could ever
>want.
are homosexuals is pretty stupid, and I can see what you wield it.
It's simple, your child-like mind can grasp it easily, and a lot of
people will then try to defend themselves against your baseless
accusation.
I think it's pretty funny.
Here's the part you snipped AGAIN.
Too_Many_Tools
May 27, 2012, 6:54:31 PM5/27/12
to
Doesn't the Bible say that God created ONLY Man and Woman...looks like
the Bible is WRONG!!!
As for what is normal...how do you know that you aren't the birth
defect....your exwife would say you are.
And have you decided on the status of The Holy Thing yet?
Laugh..laugh..laugh...
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 27, 2012, 7:04:33 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 12:01 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >d...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >>>d...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >>>>>d...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> dicks."http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Killing whales doesn't effect marriage either. So what? "
How do you know that killing whales doesn't effect marriage...where is
your proof?
Provide the evidence or admit that you are a lying sack of
conservative crap.
TMT
<klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >d...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >On Sun, 27 May 2012 07:11:35 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> ><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>d...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> >>><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:20:55 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> >>>>>d...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Killing whales doesn't effect marriage either. So what? "
your proof?
Provide the evidence or admit that you are a lying sack of
conservative crap.
TMT
Gunner Asch
May 27, 2012, 9:31:43 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:55:06 -0400, "JamesHutchinson"
<Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>Everybody knows that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
>actually repressed homos themselves.
Everbody? Cites!!
<Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>Everybody knows that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
>actually repressed homos themselves.
We will be waiting with great and amused interest for your citations
and proof.
Failure to provide clear proof will simply show everyone that you are in
fact..a dolt of the worst sort.
Bring it on!
Gunner
--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".
pyotr filipivich
May 28, 2012, 2:34:56 AM5/28/12
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Sun, 27 May 2012 18:31:43 -0700
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
that they consider lying when sex is involved to not be bad, wrong, or
even a prosecutable offense when done under oath.
So, if sex is involved, why should anyone trust a Democrat to
speak truthfully?
--
pyotr filipivich
Old farts these days - not like when I was a boy! We used to
have us Real Geezers in those days! Now, they'll let anybody
with a little gray hair be an old fart!
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:55:06 -0400, "JamesHutchinson"
><Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>Everybody knows that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
>>actually repressed homos themselves.
>
>Everbody? Cites!!
Who needs cites? Democrats have been on record for over a decade
><Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>Everybody knows that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
>>actually repressed homos themselves.
>
>Everbody? Cites!!
that they consider lying when sex is involved to not be bad, wrong, or
even a prosecutable offense when done under oath.
So, if sex is involved, why should anyone trust a Democrat to
speak truthfully?
--
pyotr filipivich
Old farts these days - not like when I was a boy! We used to
have us Real Geezers in those days! Now, they'll let anybody
with a little gray hair be an old fart!
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 28, 2012, 8:16:18 AM5/28/12
to
>Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>"Killing whales doesn't effect marriage either. So what? "
>
>How do you know that killing whales doesn't effect marriage...where is
>your proof?
>
>Provide the evidence or admit that you are a lying sack of
>conservative crap.
Shouldn't you just take that guy's advice and go suck a few dicks?
>
>How do you know that killing whales doesn't effect marriage...where is
>your proof?
>
>Provide the evidence or admit that you are a lying sack of
>conservative crap.
Too_Many_Tools
May 28, 2012, 8:25:22 AM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 7:16 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> Shouldn't you just take that guy's advice and go suck a few dicks?- Hide quoted text -
Right now you are showing how sucking whale dicks affects one's IQ.
Laugh..laugh..laugh..
TMT
wrote:
> >Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> - Show quoted text -
So have you showed how killing whales affect marriage yet?
> - Show quoted text -
Right now you are showing how sucking whale dicks affects one's IQ.
Laugh..laugh..laugh..
TMT
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 28, 2012, 8:36:57 AM5/28/12
to
>Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
So have you sucked a few dicks yet?
de...@dudu.org
May 28, 2012, 11:49:02 AM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:03:45 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Says whom?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
>
>>That is the problem here. You demanding
>>the right to say what words people can use.
>
>No, the problem here is people trying to change the definitions of
>words to mean something fundamentally different.
Nonsense. Once again you can do nothing but lie because society won't
let you redefine words to fit your hatred, ignorance and prejudice.
>
>>Just like pursuit. At
>>least you're consistent.
>
>Follow does not mean pursue, and vice versa.
Gee, too bad Roget and Oxford disagree with you. Just more over
educated idiots right? In your mind everyone with and education is
somehow stupid. too funny
>
>>>>>>of a loving
>>>>>>couple and call it a marriage?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
>>>>
>>>>What's wrong with calling you a homophobic asshole? Nothing at all.
>>>
>>>Except you'd be lying, just like you usually do. I wouldn't be lying.
>>
>>Everybody knows
>
>argumentum ad populum fallacy
says the repressed homosexual who's just been outed.
too funny
>
>>that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
>>actually repressed homos themselves.
>
>I see. So the comment I posted from the gay person- which you snipped
>in a most cowardly fashion three times- means he's a.... repressed
>homosexual?
You need to look up repressed, along with all the other words you
misuse.
>
>THAT makes a lot of sense.
>
>>You substitute your hatred for yourselves with hatred for others.
>>Maybe you should just come out of the closet and then maybe you can
>>find yourself another S&M Nazi and you two can get married and have
>>all the leather, whips, and chains in your bedroom you could ever
>>want.
>
>Your "argument" that anyone who is against "gay marriage" means they
>are homosexuals is pretty stupid, and I can see what you wield it.
>It's simple, your child-like mind can grasp it easily, and a lot of
>people will then try to defend themselves against your baseless
>accusation.
It's your homophobia faggot. The roots of your hatred are obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
>
>>That is the problem here. You demanding
>>the right to say what words people can use.
>
>No, the problem here is people trying to change the definitions of
>words to mean something fundamentally different.
let you redefine words to fit your hatred, ignorance and prejudice.
>
>>Just like pursuit. At
>>least you're consistent.
>
>Follow does not mean pursue, and vice versa.
educated idiots right? In your mind everyone with and education is
somehow stupid. too funny
>
>>>>>>of a loving
>>>>>>couple and call it a marriage?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
>>>>
>>>>What's wrong with calling you a homophobic asshole? Nothing at all.
>>>
>>>Except you'd be lying, just like you usually do. I wouldn't be lying.
>>
>>Everybody knows
>
>argumentum ad populum fallacy
too funny
>
>>that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
>>actually repressed homos themselves.
>
>I see. So the comment I posted from the gay person- which you snipped
>in a most cowardly fashion three times- means he's a.... repressed
>homosexual?
misuse.
>
>THAT makes a lot of sense.
>
>>You substitute your hatred for yourselves with hatred for others.
>>Maybe you should just come out of the closet and then maybe you can
>>find yourself another S&M Nazi and you two can get married and have
>>all the leather, whips, and chains in your bedroom you could ever
>>want.
>
>Your "argument" that anyone who is against "gay marriage" means they
>are homosexuals is pretty stupid, and I can see what you wield it.
>It's simple, your child-like mind can grasp it easily, and a lot of
>people will then try to defend themselves against your baseless
>accusation.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 28, 2012, 2:03:38 PM5/28/12
to
>>>That is the problem here. You demanding
>>>the right to say what words people can use.
>>
>>No, the problem here is people trying to change the definitions of
>>words to mean something fundamentally different.
>
>Nonsense. Once again you can do nothing but lie because society won't
>let you redefine words to fit your hatred, ignorance and prejudice.
You are afraid to answer, aren't you?
>>>Just like pursuit. At
>>>least you're consistent.
>>
>>Follow does not mean pursue, and vice versa.
>
>Gee, too bad Roget and Oxford disagree with you. Just more over
>educated idiots right? In your mind everyone with and education is
>somehow stupid. too funny
distinct meanings, as I've provided for you already.
>>>>>>>of a loving
>>>>>>>couple and call it a marriage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do they need to call it marriage? What's wrong with HomoUnion?
>>>>>
>>>>>What's wrong with calling you a homophobic asshole? Nothing at all.
>>>>
>>>>Except you'd be lying, just like you usually do. I wouldn't be lying.
>>>
>>>Everybody knows
>>
>>argumentum ad populum fallacy
>
>
>
>
>says the repressed homosexual who's just been outed.
[chuckle]
>
>says the repressed homosexual who's just been outed.
>too funny
It's REALLY funny that's the best argument you seem to have.
>>
>>>that people like you who hate and fear homosexuals are
>>>actually repressed homos themselves.
>>
>>I see. So the comment I posted from the gay person- which you snipped
>>in a most cowardly fashion three times- means he's a.... repressed
>>homosexual?
>
>You need to look up repressed, along with all the other words you
>misuse.
[chuckle]
>>THAT makes a lot of sense.
>>
>>>You substitute your hatred for yourselves with hatred for others.
>>>Maybe you should just come out of the closet and then maybe you can
>>>find yourself another S&M Nazi and you two can get married and have
>>>all the leather, whips, and chains in your bedroom you could ever
>>>want.
>>
>>Your "argument" that anyone who is against "gay marriage" means they
>>It's simple, your child-like mind can grasp it easily, and a lot of
>>people will then try to defend themselves against your baseless
>>accusation.
>
>It's your homophobia faggot. The roots of your hatred are obvious.
Go ahead and explain how the gay person I quote- which you snipped for
>>people will then try to defend themselves against your baseless
>>accusation.
>
>It's your homophobia faggot. The roots of your hatred are obvious.
the FOURTH time- means he has homophobia.
the roots of your illogic and stupidity are obvious.
de...@dudu.org
May 28, 2012, 2:14:06 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:03:38 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
um, who writes and publishes dictionaries, moron? Large corporations.
Owned and controlled by ultra wealthy, in most cases conservatives.
dumbass.
>
>>>>That is the problem here. You demanding
>>>>the right to say what words people can use.
>>>
>>>No, the problem here is people trying to change the definitions of
>>>words to mean something fundamentally different.
>>
>>Nonsense. Once again you can do nothing but lie because society won't
>>let you redefine words to fit your hatred, ignorance and prejudice.
>
>Again- what word am I "redefining?"
Marriage. You are claiming it only applies to the people you say,
rather than everyone equally. You are demanding the right to deny
others the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Why are
you trying to destroy the Constitution rather than allow someone else
the right to happiness?
>
>You are afraid to answer, aren't you?
No, you are. Why are you trying to deny others their rights?
>
>>>>Just like pursuit. At
>>>>least you're consistent.
>>>
>>>Follow does not mean pursue, and vice versa.
>>
>>Gee, too bad Roget and Oxford disagree with you. Just more over
>>educated idiots right? In your mind everyone with and education is
>>somehow stupid. too funny
>
>They don't disagree with me. They are not the same word, and have two
>distinct meanings, as I've provided for you already.
Yep, and they both mean follow.
um, who writes and publishes dictionaries, moron? Large corporations.
Owned and controlled by ultra wealthy, in most cases conservatives.
dumbass.
>
>>>>That is the problem here. You demanding
>>>>the right to say what words people can use.
>>>
>>>No, the problem here is people trying to change the definitions of
>>>words to mean something fundamentally different.
>>
>>Nonsense. Once again you can do nothing but lie because society won't
>>let you redefine words to fit your hatred, ignorance and prejudice.
>
>Again- what word am I "redefining?"
rather than everyone equally. You are demanding the right to deny
others the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Why are
you trying to destroy the Constitution rather than allow someone else
the right to happiness?
>
>You are afraid to answer, aren't you?
>
>>>>Just like pursuit. At
>>>>least you're consistent.
>>>
>>>Follow does not mean pursue, and vice versa.
>>
>>Gee, too bad Roget and Oxford disagree with you. Just more over
>>educated idiots right? In your mind everyone with and education is
>>somehow stupid. too funny
>
>They don't disagree with me. They are not the same word, and have two
>distinct meanings, as I've provided for you already.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 28, 2012, 2:23:00 PM5/28/12
to
>dumbass.
No need to sign your posts.
>>
>>>>>That is the problem here. You demanding
>>>>>the right to say what words people can use.
>>>>
>>>>No, the problem here is people trying to change the definitions of
>>>>words to mean something fundamentally different.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Once again you can do nothing but lie because society won't
>>>let you redefine words to fit your hatred, ignorance and prejudice.
>>
>>Again- what word am I "redefining?"
>
>Marriage. You are claiming it only applies to the people you say,
>rather than everyone equally.
between a man and a woman.
It wasn't until recently that it was REDEFINED my the left to mean
between any sex.
Are you too stupid to understand this? Of course you are.
>You are demanding the right to deny
>others the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
pursuit of happiness with a civil contract.
>Why are
>you trying to destroy the Constitution rather than allow someone else
>the right to happiness?
>>You are afraid to answer, aren't you?
>
>No, you are. Why are you trying to deny others their rights?
>>>>>Just like pursuit. At
>>>>>least you're consistent.
>>>>
>>>>Follow does not mean pursue, and vice versa.
>>>
>>>Gee, too bad Roget and Oxford disagree with you. Just more over
>>>educated idiots right? In your mind everyone with and education is
>>>somehow stupid. too funny
>>
>>They don't disagree with me. They are not the same word, and have two
>>distinct meanings, as I've provided for you already.
>
>Yep, and they both mean follow.
pursue: Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them.
JamesHutchinson
May 28, 2012, 2:53:52 PM5/28/12
to
DOODOO PARANOIDALY wrote in message
news:ltf7s7lc1rr9jjgd3...@4ax.com...
> um, who writes and publishes dictionaries, moron? Large corporations.
> Owned and controlled by ultra wealthy, in most cases conservatives.
> dumbass.
According to "DUMBASS" (AKA DooDoo), all words are made up and defined by
"LARGE CORPORATIONS" !
Especially the BIG ones that he can't understand!
JamesHutchinson
May 28, 2012, 3:00:28 PM5/28/12
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:ubg7s7ts3ng69c3ot...@4ax.com...
RATS!
You beat me to it!
I was busy cutting the grass around my "fortress" , and cooking fresh BRAIN
FOOD!
I bet that DooDoo's last fish meal was a can of bottom eating carp from
Costco.
RogerN
May 28, 2012, 3:57:46 PM5/28/12
to
>"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
>news:23b288b5-71a2-49e9...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
><snip>
excuse for their lust. Are you suggesting gay marriage should only apply to
those that have opposite sex organs too?
A normal heterosexual has desires too, and they aren't always allowed to
satisfy their desires. In other words if a man doesn't have a girlfriend
ready to satisfy him, he isn't suppose to just go out and rape whoever he
wants.
RogerN
>news:23b288b5-71a2-49e9...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
><snip>
>>
>> It's just like Gunner says, there are birth defects. But it's not the
>> norm.
>> Could this man/woman marry themself and count as 2 people? Do the have
>> M/F
>> both on their drivers license?
>>
>> I'm sure Gunner will be glad to see you admit he's right again!
>>
>> RogerN
>
>What ....no BS Bible verse Roger...you are slipping.
>
>Doesn't the Bible say that God created ONLY Man and Woman...looks like
>the Bible is WRONG!!!
>
>As for what is normal...how do you know that you aren't the birth
>defect....your exwife would say you are.
>
>And have you decided on the status of The Holy Thing yet?
>
>Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
>TMT
There have always been birth defects AFAIK, at least that person has an
>> It's just like Gunner says, there are birth defects. But it's not the
>> norm.
>> Could this man/woman marry themself and count as 2 people? Do the have
>> M/F
>> both on their drivers license?
>>
>> I'm sure Gunner will be glad to see you admit he's right again!
>>
>> RogerN
>
>What ....no BS Bible verse Roger...you are slipping.
>
>Doesn't the Bible say that God created ONLY Man and Woman...looks like
>the Bible is WRONG!!!
>
>As for what is normal...how do you know that you aren't the birth
>defect....your exwife would say you are.
>
>And have you decided on the status of The Holy Thing yet?
>
>Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
>TMT
excuse for their lust. Are you suggesting gay marriage should only apply to
those that have opposite sex organs too?
A normal heterosexual has desires too, and they aren't always allowed to
satisfy their desires. In other words if a man doesn't have a girlfriend
ready to satisfy him, he isn't suppose to just go out and rape whoever he
wants.
RogerN
Alim Nassor
May 28, 2012, 9:15:37 PM5/28/12
to
Just do it, doesn't matter with whom or where. They seem to have no
ability to control their urges
Harold Burton
May 28, 2012, 9:30:54 PM5/28/12
to
In article
<f4f69540-a4d2-4094...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
Nope, try again.
snicker
<f4f69540-a4d2-4094...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>
> If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
> She create both in the same person?
Modern "science" is fucking up?
> Well it would seem that they are WRONG.
>
> If God created Man and Woman according to the Bible, then why would
> She create both in the same person?
> Looks like religious conservatives are WRONG again.
snicker
Harold Burton
May 28, 2012, 9:32:28 PM5/28/12
to
In article
<23b288b5-71a2-49e9...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Leftards, batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
snicker
<23b288b5-71a2-49e9...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Doesn't the Bible say that God created ONLY Man and Woman...
Nope, but feel free to cite the passage you "thing" says that.
> Doesn't the Bible say that God created ONLY Man and Woman...
Leftards, batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
snicker
0 new messages