Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Happy Ninth Anniversary!
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 19, 2013, 9:45:50 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:04:45 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> "BeeSting Alergy" <bees...@harvard.edu> wrote in
>> news:xn0ii7rfl4s3lhc006 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >> Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>> >> 05/17/2013
>> >
>> > "Happy", sometimes, yes - other times, no.
>> > "9th Anni" - sure.
>> >
>> > Marriage is a day to day struggle for straight couples. The pressure
>> > on homosexuals has to be a little more.
>> >
>> > Just a little, wouldn't you say?
>> >
>> >> Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage
>> >> nine years ago on Friday, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
>> >> Court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits
>> >> and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of
>> >> the same sex who wish to marry."
>> >
>> > Is it such a strech that Massachusetts was the first?
>> >
>> > I mean, isn't this the same state that housed Ted "Mary Jo" Kennedy
>> > (circa 1960's) & Dhokar/Tamerlan Tsarnaev (circa NOW)?
>>
>> Also the state that elected Scott Brown
>> and Mitt Romney. How very liberal of them.
>
> OK, OK -- mine was a cheap shot. Fact is, the genie is already out of
> the bottle when it comes to gay marriage. But the fear is -- that NYU
> professor chatting up polygamy.
>
> Two questions (one repeat) -- why are you so hung up on gay marriage,
> Mitch? Is legalized polygamy ok with you?
>
> Just asking.
I have no problem with polygamy as long as they're all consenting adults.
Why do you?
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> "BeeSting Alergy" <bees...@harvard.edu> wrote in
>> news:xn0ii7rfl4s3lhc006 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >> Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>> >> 05/17/2013
>> >
>> > "Happy", sometimes, yes - other times, no.
>> > "9th Anni" - sure.
>> >
>> > Marriage is a day to day struggle for straight couples. The pressure
>> > on homosexuals has to be a little more.
>> >
>> > Just a little, wouldn't you say?
>> >
>> >> Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage
>> >> nine years ago on Friday, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
>> >> Court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits
>> >> and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of
>> >> the same sex who wish to marry."
>> >
>> > Is it such a strech that Massachusetts was the first?
>> >
>> > I mean, isn't this the same state that housed Ted "Mary Jo" Kennedy
>> > (circa 1960's) & Dhokar/Tamerlan Tsarnaev (circa NOW)?
>>
>> Also the state that elected Scott Brown
>> and Mitt Romney. How very liberal of them.
>
> OK, OK -- mine was a cheap shot. Fact is, the genie is already out of
> the bottle when it comes to gay marriage. But the fear is -- that NYU
> professor chatting up polygamy.
>
> Two questions (one repeat) -- why are you so hung up on gay marriage,
> Mitch? Is legalized polygamy ok with you?
>
> Just asking.
I have no problem with polygamy as long as they're all consenting adults.
Why do you?
Dänk 42Ø
May 19, 2013, 11:34:11 PM5/19/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:45:50 +0000, quack:
Same-sex marriage advocates insulted polygamy during the Proposition 8
campaign, calling it "offensive" that gay marriage should be compared to
it, and poo-poohing suggestions that legalization of one would lead to
legalization of the other. (Rather like the "medical" marijuana debate,
with proponents dismissing suggestions that legalization of pot for
terminal cancer patients would lead to half the people in California
getting prescriptions for it for "back pain," baldness, etc.)
During the Prop. 8 protest rally I attended in San Francisco on 15 Nov
2008, I saw many placards insulting the Mormon cult for its practice of
polygamy in the past (e.g. "You have TWO wives, why can't I have ONE
husband?).*
Of course, the "mainstream" LDS Mormon faction officially renounced
polygamy in 1890, as a condition for Congress granting statehood to Ut*h.
This led to a theological schism, with the "heretical" polygamous FLDS
sect splitting off, and which still continues to practice polygamy today.
Due to the collapse of the California economy, I currently occupy space
in Southern Ut*h, and regularly encounter polygamists while shopping.
(The men and boys always wear button-down long-sleeved shirts and jeans
-- even when performing manual labor in sweltering heat -- and the women
and girls always wear 19th-century style prairie dresses.)
The heretical FLDS sect is viciously persecuted by the mainstream LDS
sect, though attempts to enforce the state "bigamy" law ended after a
bloody confrontation in the 1950s. Members of the FLDS are suing to have
the anti-polygamy law overturned by the courts, cleverly using "Lawrence
v. Texas" (the SCOTUS ruling that said that anti-sodomy laws were
unconstitutional) in their legal argument. If this approach fails, they
will certainly be able to use the inevitable SCOTUS ruling against
heterosexual-only marriage laws.
Gay marriage advocates COULD have found a useful ally in Mormon FLDS
polygamists, but they chose to insult them instead. And the reason the
"mainstream" LDS sect is so hellbent on stopping same-sex marriage is
because they know that it will set a precedent for legalization of
polygamy!
The LDS' moral authority over the FLDS stems from the fact that polygamy
is ILLEGAL. Legalize polygamy, and the moral authority vanishes, with
FLDS followers permitted to participate in "mainstream" Ut*h society and
politics. The LDS is less concerned about homosexuality and much more
concerned with preventing a heretical rival sect from gaining influence
in Ut*h -- and this is why it spent so much money supporting Proposition
8 in California.
*
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/20081115190709.jpg/
campaign, calling it "offensive" that gay marriage should be compared to
it, and poo-poohing suggestions that legalization of one would lead to
legalization of the other. (Rather like the "medical" marijuana debate,
with proponents dismissing suggestions that legalization of pot for
terminal cancer patients would lead to half the people in California
getting prescriptions for it for "back pain," baldness, etc.)
During the Prop. 8 protest rally I attended in San Francisco on 15 Nov
2008, I saw many placards insulting the Mormon cult for its practice of
polygamy in the past (e.g. "You have TWO wives, why can't I have ONE
husband?).*
Of course, the "mainstream" LDS Mormon faction officially renounced
polygamy in 1890, as a condition for Congress granting statehood to Ut*h.
This led to a theological schism, with the "heretical" polygamous FLDS
sect splitting off, and which still continues to practice polygamy today.
Due to the collapse of the California economy, I currently occupy space
in Southern Ut*h, and regularly encounter polygamists while shopping.
(The men and boys always wear button-down long-sleeved shirts and jeans
-- even when performing manual labor in sweltering heat -- and the women
and girls always wear 19th-century style prairie dresses.)
The heretical FLDS sect is viciously persecuted by the mainstream LDS
sect, though attempts to enforce the state "bigamy" law ended after a
bloody confrontation in the 1950s. Members of the FLDS are suing to have
the anti-polygamy law overturned by the courts, cleverly using "Lawrence
v. Texas" (the SCOTUS ruling that said that anti-sodomy laws were
unconstitutional) in their legal argument. If this approach fails, they
will certainly be able to use the inevitable SCOTUS ruling against
heterosexual-only marriage laws.
Gay marriage advocates COULD have found a useful ally in Mormon FLDS
polygamists, but they chose to insult them instead. And the reason the
"mainstream" LDS sect is so hellbent on stopping same-sex marriage is
because they know that it will set a precedent for legalization of
polygamy!
The LDS' moral authority over the FLDS stems from the fact that polygamy
is ILLEGAL. Legalize polygamy, and the moral authority vanishes, with
FLDS followers permitted to participate in "mainstream" Ut*h society and
politics. The LDS is less concerned about homosexuality and much more
concerned with preventing a heretical rival sect from gaining influence
in Ut*h -- and this is why it spent so much money supporting Proposition
8 in California.
*
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/20081115190709.jpg/
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 20, 2013, 7:41:35 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:31:01 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp shocked me:
> Honesty, from an otherwise dishonest agent. This was stupid, David. You
> really showed "your hole card" this time, dumbass.
>
> What defines "consenting adults"? Age? Mental acuity?
Basically, it's anyone over the age of 18 who is not under a guardianship
or declared incompetent by a court. Hell, you might qualify!
>
> If a mentally challenged (forget about you, Zepp) 26 year old male or
> female is forced into a polygamous relationship, simply being a
> "consenting adult" is all you have?
>
If they are forced into such a relationship, then it isn't consensual, is
it? My gaw, is this what passes in your world for thinking? Maybe you
aren't competent.
> Really, even for you, are you really that stupid?
>
Well, let's see: I specified consenting adults, and you tried to pretend
that someone incapable of giving consent might be forced into such a
relationship.
Since even for you that's a profoundly stupid objection, would you like
to try again.
Consenting adults. Polygamy. What's your objection?
>> Why do you?
>
> The following is ONE QUOTE (of many) from wikipedia.com:
>
> "In Nazi Germany, there was an effort by Martin Bormann and Heinrich
> Himmler to introduce new legislation concerning plural marriage. The
> argument ran that after the war, 3 to 4 million women would have to
> remain unmarried due to the great number of soldiers fallen in battle.
> In order to make it possible for these women to have children, a
> procedure for application and selection for suitable men (i.e. decorated
> war heroes) to enter a marital relationship with an additional woman was
> planned. The privileged position of the first wife was to be secured by
> awarding her the title Domina.
>
> The greatest fighter deserves the most beautiful woman ... If the German
> man is to be unreservedly ready to die as a soldier, he must have the
> freedom to love unreservedly. For struggle and love belong together. The
> philistine should be glad if he gets whatever is left... —Adolf
> Hitler"
>
> It's educational to see that you not only worship at the altar of the
> Taliban, but at the Nazi altar as well.
>
> Why do I?
>
> It's not civilized -- OBTW, neither are you, Zepp.
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp shocked me:
> really showed "your hole card" this time, dumbass.
>
> What defines "consenting adults"? Age? Mental acuity?
Basically, it's anyone over the age of 18 who is not under a guardianship
or declared incompetent by a court. Hell, you might qualify!
>
> If a mentally challenged (forget about you, Zepp) 26 year old male or
> female is forced into a polygamous relationship, simply being a
> "consenting adult" is all you have?
>
If they are forced into such a relationship, then it isn't consensual, is
it? My gaw, is this what passes in your world for thinking? Maybe you
aren't competent.
> Really, even for you, are you really that stupid?
>
Well, let's see: I specified consenting adults, and you tried to pretend
that someone incapable of giving consent might be forced into such a
relationship.
Since even for you that's a profoundly stupid objection, would you like
to try again.
Consenting adults. Polygamy. What's your objection?
>> Why do you?
>
> The following is ONE QUOTE (of many) from wikipedia.com:
>
> "In Nazi Germany, there was an effort by Martin Bormann and Heinrich
> Himmler to introduce new legislation concerning plural marriage. The
> argument ran that after the war, 3 to 4 million women would have to
> remain unmarried due to the great number of soldiers fallen in battle.
> In order to make it possible for these women to have children, a
> procedure for application and selection for suitable men (i.e. decorated
> war heroes) to enter a marital relationship with an additional woman was
> planned. The privileged position of the first wife was to be secured by
> awarding her the title Domina.
>
> The greatest fighter deserves the most beautiful woman ... If the German
> man is to be unreservedly ready to die as a soldier, he must have the
> freedom to love unreservedly. For struggle and love belong together. The
> philistine should be glad if he gets whatever is left... —Adolf
> Hitler"
>
> It's educational to see that you not only worship at the altar of the
> Taliban, but at the Nazi altar as well.
>
> Why do I?
>
> It's not civilized -- OBTW, neither are you, Zepp.
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 20, 2013, 9:08:14 PM5/20/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:37:33 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp ignores what I wrote, coward:
> Here we go again --
Germany, which leads me to think the article is bullshit.
But it also has this: "According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of
1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny,
588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[3] At the same time,
even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of
polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for
example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[7] Within
polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol
denoting wealth, power, and fame."
Just because they don't have it in East Bumfuck Arkansas or whereever the
fuck it is you live doesn't mean it's evil.
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp ignores what I wrote, coward:
>
> The following is ONE QUOTE (of many) from wikipedia.com:
>
> "In Nazi Germany, there was an effort by Martin Bormann and Heinrich
> Himmler to introduce new legislation concerning plural marriage. The
> argument ran that after the war, 3 to 4 million women would have to
> remain unmarried due to the great number of soldiers fallen in battle.
> In order to make it possible for these women to have children, a
> procedure for application and selection for suitable men (i.e. decorated
> war heroes) to enter a marital relationship with an additional woman was
> planned. The privileged position of the first wife was to be secured by
> awarding her the title Domina.
>
> The greatest fighter deserves the most beautiful woman ... If the German
> man is to be unreservedly ready to die as a soldier, he must have the
> freedom to love unreservedly. For struggle and love belong together. The
> philistine should be glad if he gets whatever is left...  Adolf
> The following is ONE QUOTE (of many) from wikipedia.com:
>
> "In Nazi Germany, there was an effort by Martin Bormann and Heinrich
> Himmler to introduce new legislation concerning plural marriage. The
> argument ran that after the war, 3 to 4 million women would have to
> remain unmarried due to the great number of soldiers fallen in battle.
> In order to make it possible for these women to have children, a
> procedure for application and selection for suitable men (i.e. decorated
> war heroes) to enter a marital relationship with an additional woman was
> planned. The privileged position of the first wife was to be secured by
> awarding her the title Domina.
>
> The greatest fighter deserves the most beautiful woman ... If the German
> man is to be unreservedly ready to die as a soldier, he must have the
> freedom to love unreservedly. For struggle and love belong together. The
> Hitler"
>
> It's educational to see that you not only worship at the altar of the
> Taliban, but at the Nazi altar as well.
>
> My objection?
>
> It's educational to see that you not only worship at the altar of the
> Taliban, but at the Nazi altar as well.
>
>
> It's not civilized -- OBTW, neither are you, Zepp.
There wasn't much in the way of "legislation" going on in late-war
> It's not civilized -- OBTW, neither are you, Zepp.
Germany, which leads me to think the article is bullshit.
But it also has this: "According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of
1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny,
588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[3] At the same time,
even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of
polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for
example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[7] Within
polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol
denoting wealth, power, and fame."
Just because they don't have it in East Bumfuck Arkansas or whereever the
fuck it is you live doesn't mean it's evil.
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 12:50:29 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:07:46 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp is really not a deep thinker:
>> > left...  Adolf Hitler"
> You are a "fluffer", David. (You do know what the term means, right?
> lol)
>
> Fact is, there isn't much in the way of "legislation" when it comes to
> polygamy in any of the "57 states (Obama's quote)" here in America. So
> that approach is shot down. You lose again.
My, but that was incoherent.
Even North Carolina maintains at least a pretense of legislative
activity, fascist joke that it is. Hitler didn't even bother with the
pretense. No legislature, no legislation. Get it, bubbles?
> dysfunctional, tribal failed state of Senegal? You are a moron, David.
>
Or Hawaii, before the "Christians" ruined the place.
By the way, bubbles, aside from a really inept effort at smear by
association, you haven't said what your problem with polygamy was. You
do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages, right?
> (OBTW, you call the East Village, "North Bumfuck, NYC" if you want.)
>
> LOL
>
> I never used the word "evil", stupid ass -- but I'm glad you did.
>
> Polygamy is "evil" in Western societies & cultures; we've all revolted
> against this evil. Your guilt is showing, idiot.
>
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp to
> "go back to Africa"? lol
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp is really not a deep thinker:
>> >
>> > It's educational to see that you not only worship at the altar of the
>> > Taliban, but at the Nazi altar as well.
>> >
>> > My objection?
>> >
>> > It's not civilized -- OBTW, neither are you, Zepp.
>>
>> There wasn't much in the way of "legislation" going on in late-war
>> Germany, which leads me to think the article is bullshit.
>
> When you can't except reality, you fluff it off, shit4brains.
>> > It's educational to see that you not only worship at the altar of the
>> > Taliban, but at the Nazi altar as well.
>> >
>> > My objection?
>> >
>> > It's not civilized -- OBTW, neither are you, Zepp.
>>
>> There wasn't much in the way of "legislation" going on in late-war
>> Germany, which leads me to think the article is bullshit.
>
> You are a "fluffer", David. (You do know what the term means, right?
> lol)
>
> Fact is, there isn't much in the way of "legislation" when it comes to
> polygamy in any of the "57 states (Obama's quote)" here in America. So
> that approach is shot down. You lose again.
My, but that was incoherent.
Even North Carolina maintains at least a pretense of legislative
activity, fascist joke that it is. Hitler didn't even bother with the
pretense. No legislature, no legislation. Get it, bubbles?
>
>> But it also has this: "According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of
>> 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional
>> polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[3] At
>> the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual
>> practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in
>> Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[7]
>> Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status
>> symbol denoting wealth, power, and fame."
>
> So -- you want the United States of America to devolve into the
>> But it also has this: "According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of
>> 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional
>> polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[3] At
>> the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual
>> practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in
>> Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[7]
>> Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status
>> symbol denoting wealth, power, and fame."
>
> dysfunctional, tribal failed state of Senegal? You are a moron, David.
>
Or Hawaii, before the "Christians" ruined the place.
By the way, bubbles, aside from a really inept effort at smear by
association, you haven't said what your problem with polygamy was. You
do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages, right?
>> Just because they don't have it in East Bumfuck Arkansas or whereever
>> the fuck it is you live doesn't mean it's evil.
>
> Uhhh -- "they don't have it in the East Village" either, dumbfuck.
>> the fuck it is you live doesn't mean it's evil.
>
> (OBTW, you call the East Village, "North Bumfuck, NYC" if you want.)
>
> LOL
>
> I never used the word "evil", stupid ass -- but I'm glad you did.
>
> Polygamy is "evil" in Western societies & cultures; we've all revolted
> against this evil. Your guilt is showing, idiot.
>
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp to
> "go back to Africa"? lol
Steve
May 21, 2013, 12:58:06 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:50:29 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
Hey Wordsong, isn't today a one year anniversary for you?
Hey Wordsong, isn't today a one year anniversary for you?
Dänk 42Ø
May 21, 2013, 1:21:20 PM5/21/13
to
same-sex marriage advocates alienated a potential ally in polygamous
Mormons by insulting their lifestyle, calling it "offensive" to compare
same-sex marriage (an idea that has been around for ten years) to
polygamy (a custom that has existed since the dawn of time).
The "mainstream" Mormon (LDS) sect officially renounced polygamy in 1890,
as a condition for Utah statehood. The rival FLDS sect continues to
practice polygamy, and is harshly persecuted by the LDS.
The moral authority of the LDS over its heretical rival stems from the
fact that polygamy is ILLEGAL. The LDS fears that legalization of same-
sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy, which is why it was
so active in the Proposition 8 campaign.
After Prop. 8 passed, gay activists lashed out at the LDS, insulting its
abolished practice of polygamy. This, along with having alienated
potential FLDS allies, played right into the hands of the LDS. This is
why even though I am gay myself, I have nothing but contempt for the
stupidity and bleating leftardation of other American gays.
In fact, I voted *FOR* Prop. 8, since they insisted on linking it so
strongly with the Obama campaign, again shooting themselves in the foot
by alienating a potential ally. Ironically, the African-Americans that
white liberals encouraged to register and vote wound up voting for Prop.
8, their numbers exceeding the total number of Mormon voters.
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 1:30:06 PM5/21/13
to
separation of church and state, justified in part by past history, but
hypocritical nonetheless.
> The "mainstream" Mormon (LDS) sect officially renounced polygamy in
> 1890,
> as a condition for Utah statehood. The rival FLDS sect continues to
> practice polygamy, and is harshly persecuted by the LDS.
>
> The moral authority of the LDS over its heretical rival stems from the
> fact that polygamy is ILLEGAL. The LDS fears that legalization of same-
> sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy, which is why it was
> so active in the Proposition 8 campaign.
>
> After Prop. 8 passed, gay activists lashed out at the LDS, insulting its
> abolished practice of polygamy. This, along with having alienated
> potential FLDS allies, played right into the hands of the LDS. This is
> why even though I am gay myself, I have nothing but contempt for the
> stupidity and bleating leftardation of other American gays.
>
> In fact, I voted *FOR* Prop. 8, since they insisted on linking it so
> strongly with the Obama campaign, again shooting themselves in the foot
> by alienating a potential ally. Ironically, the African-Americans that
> white liberals encouraged to register and vote wound up voting for Prop.
> 8, their numbers exceeding the total number of Mormon voters.
Sheer nonsense.
> 1890,
> as a condition for Utah statehood. The rival FLDS sect continues to
> practice polygamy, and is harshly persecuted by the LDS.
>
> The moral authority of the LDS over its heretical rival stems from the
> fact that polygamy is ILLEGAL. The LDS fears that legalization of same-
> sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy, which is why it was
> so active in the Proposition 8 campaign.
>
> After Prop. 8 passed, gay activists lashed out at the LDS, insulting its
> abolished practice of polygamy. This, along with having alienated
> potential FLDS allies, played right into the hands of the LDS. This is
> why even though I am gay myself, I have nothing but contempt for the
> stupidity and bleating leftardation of other American gays.
>
> In fact, I voted *FOR* Prop. 8, since they insisted on linking it so
> strongly with the Obama campaign, again shooting themselves in the foot
> by alienating a potential ally. Ironically, the African-Americans that
> white liberals encouraged to register and vote wound up voting for Prop.
> 8, their numbers exceeding the total number of Mormon voters.
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 1:31:06 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:58:06 -0400, Steve wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:50:29 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Wordsong, isn't today a one year anniversary for you?
Not planning on resuming stalking me, are you?
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:50:29 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Wordsong, isn't today a one year anniversary for you?
Dänk 42Ø
May 21, 2013, 2:33:22 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:30:06 +0000, quack:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:21:20 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>>> You do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages,
>>> right?
>>
>> Nobody noticed my previous response to this thread, where I described
>> how same-sex marriage advocates alienated a potential ally in
>> polygamous Mormons by insulting their lifestyle, calling it "offensive"
>> to compare same-sex marriage (an idea that has been around for ten
>> years) to polygamy (a custom that has existed since the dawn of time).
>
> I'm a bit picky about my allies. The LDS Church does not respect
> separation of church and state, justified in part by past history, but
> hypocritical nonetheless.
If by separation of church and state you mean the Mormon church's
promotion of Proposition 8, it seems no more egregious than the Methodist
church's promotion of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, or the United
Church of Christ's (Obama's own denomination) vocal support for or
opposition to a long list of secular political issues.*
>> The "mainstream" Mormon (LDS) sect officially renounced polygamy in
>> 1890,
>> as a condition for Utah statehood. The rival FLDS sect continues to
>> practice polygamy, and is harshly persecuted by the LDS.
>>
>> The moral authority of the LDS over its heretical rival stems from the
>> fact that polygamy is ILLEGAL. The LDS fears that legalization of
>> same- sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy, which is why
>> it was so active in the Proposition 8 campaign.
>>
>> After Prop. 8 passed, gay activists lashed out at the LDS, insulting
>> its abolished practice of polygamy. This, along with having alienated
>> potential FLDS allies, played right into the hands of the LDS. This is
>> why even though I am gay myself, I have nothing but contempt for the
>> stupidity and bleating leftardation of other American gays.
>>
>> In fact, I voted *FOR* Prop. 8, since they insisted on linking it so
>> strongly with the Obama campaign, again shooting themselves in the foot
>> by alienating a potential ally. Ironically, the African-Americans that
>> white liberals encouraged to register and vote wound up voting for
>> Prop. 8, their numbers exceeding the total number of Mormon voters.
>
> Sheer nonsense.
Is that statement Gospel Truth bleated by Rachel Bladdow, or just a
personal anecdote?**
*
http://archive.wfn.org/2007/08/msg00330.html
"Two agencies of The United Methodist Church have joined 24 other
religious groups urging Congress to authorize the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to regulate tobacco products. The Commission on United
Methodist Men and the United Methodist Board of Church and Society are
urging a congressional subcommittee to back the Family Smoking Prevention
and Tobacco Control Act."
http://www.ucc.org/justice/jpanet.html
"As people of faith and hope, we are called to take care of God's
Creation and to cry out against environmental injustice. Tell President
Obama: 'Say No to the Keystone XL Pipeline.'"
**
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
"Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn
the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage,
according to exit polls for The Associated Press."
***
[My own "anecdote" of a photo I took at the Prop. 8 protest rally in San
Francisco on 15 Nov 2008]:
http://imageshack.us/f/822/20081115190709.jpg/
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:21:20 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>>> You do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages,
>>> right?
>>
>> Nobody noticed my previous response to this thread, where I described
>> how same-sex marriage advocates alienated a potential ally in
>> polygamous Mormons by insulting their lifestyle, calling it "offensive"
>> to compare same-sex marriage (an idea that has been around for ten
>> years) to polygamy (a custom that has existed since the dawn of time).
>
> I'm a bit picky about my allies. The LDS Church does not respect
> separation of church and state, justified in part by past history, but
> hypocritical nonetheless.
promotion of Proposition 8, it seems no more egregious than the Methodist
church's promotion of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, or the United
Church of Christ's (Obama's own denomination) vocal support for or
opposition to a long list of secular political issues.*
>> The "mainstream" Mormon (LDS) sect officially renounced polygamy in
>> 1890,
>> as a condition for Utah statehood. The rival FLDS sect continues to
>> practice polygamy, and is harshly persecuted by the LDS.
>>
>> The moral authority of the LDS over its heretical rival stems from the
>> fact that polygamy is ILLEGAL. The LDS fears that legalization of
>> same- sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy, which is why
>> it was so active in the Proposition 8 campaign.
>>
>> After Prop. 8 passed, gay activists lashed out at the LDS, insulting
>> its abolished practice of polygamy. This, along with having alienated
>> potential FLDS allies, played right into the hands of the LDS. This is
>> why even though I am gay myself, I have nothing but contempt for the
>> stupidity and bleating leftardation of other American gays.
>>
>> In fact, I voted *FOR* Prop. 8, since they insisted on linking it so
>> strongly with the Obama campaign, again shooting themselves in the foot
>> by alienating a potential ally. Ironically, the African-Americans that
>> white liberals encouraged to register and vote wound up voting for
>> Prop. 8, their numbers exceeding the total number of Mormon voters.
>
> Sheer nonsense.
personal anecdote?**
*
http://archive.wfn.org/2007/08/msg00330.html
"Two agencies of The United Methodist Church have joined 24 other
religious groups urging Congress to authorize the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to regulate tobacco products. The Commission on United
Methodist Men and the United Methodist Board of Church and Society are
urging a congressional subcommittee to back the Family Smoking Prevention
and Tobacco Control Act."
http://www.ucc.org/justice/jpanet.html
"As people of faith and hope, we are called to take care of God's
Creation and to cry out against environmental injustice. Tell President
Obama: 'Say No to the Keystone XL Pipeline.'"
**
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
"Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn
the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage,
according to exit polls for The Associated Press."
***
[My own "anecdote" of a photo I took at the Prop. 8 protest rally in San
Francisco on 15 Nov 2008]:
http://imageshack.us/f/822/20081115190709.jpg/
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 3:12:27 PM5/21/13
to
Steve
May 21, 2013, 5:16:37 PM5/21/13
to
wish you a happy anniversary.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 8:01:11 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:42:56 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp returns more of a moron as ever:
> âââ€ÅÂ
¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂÂ
> ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Adolf
> expert fluffer. lol
>
> "The North Carolina General Assembly is the state legislature of the
> U.S. state of North Carolina. The General Assembly drafts and legislates
> the state laws of North Carolina, also known as the General Statutes.
> The General Assembly is a bicameral legislature, consisting of the North
> Carolina House of Representatives (formerly the North Carolina House of
> Commons until 1868) and the North Carolina Senate.
> The House has 120 members, while the Senate has 50. There are no term
> limits for either chamber."
>
> Now don't you look stupid, David -- as always.
Non sequitur. But it is fun watching you wriggle and squirm.
>
> God, but you're stupid. Whenever someone shows you to be the dumbass you
> truly are, you namecall - in this case "before the Christians".
> Your medications are wearing off.
Are you disputing that back when it was a kingdom, Hawaii had pluralistic
marriages?
> the way God made your sorry ass. lol
>
No, you really haven't. What is your problem with it?
> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
> and run/hide.
>
> Coward.
>
> Yo, Jamieson -- reply to the below if you're not a coward:
>
>> Just because they don't have it (polygamy) in East Bumfuck Arkansas or
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp returns more of a moron as ever:
¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂÂ
> ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Adolf
>> Hitler" >> >
>> >> > It's educational to see that you not only worship at the altar
>> of the >> > Taliban, but at the Nazi altar as well.
>> >> >
>> >> > My objection?
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not civilized -- OBTW, neither are you, Zepp.
>> >>
>> >> There wasn't much in the way of "legislation" going on in late-war
>> >> Germany, which leads me to think the article is bullshit.
>> >
>> > When you can't except reality, you fluff it off, shit4brains.
>> > You are a "fluffer", David. (You do know what the term means, right?
>> > lol)
>> >
>> > Fact is, there isn't much in the way of "legislation" when it comes
>> > to polygamy in any of the "57 states (Obama's quote)" here in
>> > America. So that approach is shot down. You lose again.
>>
>> My, but that was incoherent.
>
> This is what you do, coward -- you just "fluff it off". You are the
>> >> > It's educational to see that you not only worship at the altar
>> of the >> > Taliban, but at the Nazi altar as well.
>> >> >
>> >> > My objection?
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not civilized -- OBTW, neither are you, Zepp.
>> >>
>> >> There wasn't much in the way of "legislation" going on in late-war
>> >> Germany, which leads me to think the article is bullshit.
>> >
>> > When you can't except reality, you fluff it off, shit4brains.
>> > You are a "fluffer", David. (You do know what the term means, right?
>> > lol)
>> >
>> > Fact is, there isn't much in the way of "legislation" when it comes
>> > to polygamy in any of the "57 states (Obama's quote)" here in
>> > America. So that approach is shot down. You lose again.
>>
>> My, but that was incoherent.
>
> expert fluffer. lol
>
>> Even North Carolina maintains at least a pretense of legislative
>> activity, fascist joke that it is. Hitler didn't even bother with the
>> pretense. No legislature, no legislation. Get it, bubbles?
>
> You are simply insane, David. Talk about "incoherent" rantings.
>> Even North Carolina maintains at least a pretense of legislative
>> activity, fascist joke that it is. Hitler didn't even bother with the
>> pretense. No legislature, no legislation. Get it, bubbles?
>
>
> "The North Carolina General Assembly is the state legislature of the
> U.S. state of North Carolina. The General Assembly drafts and legislates
> the state laws of North Carolina, also known as the General Statutes.
> The General Assembly is a bicameral legislature, consisting of the North
> Carolina House of Representatives (formerly the North Carolina House of
> Commons until 1868) and the North Carolina Senate.
> The House has 120 members, while the Senate has 50. There are no term
> limits for either chamber."
>
> Now don't you look stupid, David -- as always.
>
>> >> But it also has this: "According to the Ethnographic Atlas
>> Codebook, of >> 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had
>> occasional >> polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had
>> polyandry.[3] At >> the same time, even within societies which allow
>> polygyny, the actual >> practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely.
>> There are exceptions: in >> Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of
>> marriages are multiple.[7] >> Within polygynous societies, multiple
>> wives often become a status >> symbol denoting wealth, power, and
>> fame."
>> >
>> > So -- you want the United States of America to devolve into the
>> > dysfunctional, tribal failed state of Senegal? You are a moron,
>> > David.
>> >
>> Or Hawaii, before the "Christians" ruined the place.
>
> But not now, right, idiot?
>> >> But it also has this: "According to the Ethnographic Atlas
>> Codebook, of >> 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had
>> occasional >> polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had
>> polyandry.[3] At >> the same time, even within societies which allow
>> polygyny, the actual >> practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely.
>> There are exceptions: in >> Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of
>> marriages are multiple.[7] >> Within polygynous societies, multiple
>> wives often become a status >> symbol denoting wealth, power, and
>> fame."
>> >
>> > So -- you want the United States of America to devolve into the
>> > dysfunctional, tribal failed state of Senegal? You are a moron,
>> > David.
>> >
>> Or Hawaii, before the "Christians" ruined the place.
>
Non sequitur. But it is fun watching you wriggle and squirm.
>
> God, but you're stupid. Whenever someone shows you to be the dumbass you
> truly are, you namecall - in this case "before the Christians".
> Your medications are wearing off.
Are you disputing that back when it was a kingdom, Hawaii had pluralistic
marriages?
>
>> By the way, bubbles, aside from a really inept effort at smear by
>> association, you haven't said what your problem with polygamy was.
>
> Sure did. I can't help it if you cannot read for comprehesion. That's
>> By the way, bubbles, aside from a really inept effort at smear by
>> association, you haven't said what your problem with polygamy was.
>
> the way God made your sorry ass. lol
>
No, you really haven't. What is your problem with it?
>> You do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages,
>> right?
>
> "Hawaii BEFORE the "Christians" and now, "The Old Testament". You're
>> right?
>
> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
> and run/hide.
>
> Coward.
>
> Yo, Jamieson -- reply to the below if you're not a coward:
>
>> Just because they don't have it (polygamy) in East Bumfuck Arkansas or
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 9:02:40 PM5/21/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:57:49 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp is a proven coward lol:
>
> DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT "alt.dev.null" WOULD SAVE YOU?
> YOU ARE SO STUPID.
>
> LOL
I see you still try to redirect everything to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. I'm
just returning the favour.
> Does the state of Hawaii allow polygamy as a point of law, you dumb
> asshole?
>
> Answer the question, nimrod.
> allow polygamy as a point of law. I think (but am not sure) that no one
> in either of the STATE chambers has proffered legislation on the matter.
>
> Hey coward -- you continue to run away from the below. lol
>
> ================
>
> Coward wrote: What is your problem with it?
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp is a proven coward lol:
>
> DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT "alt.dev.null" WOULD SAVE YOU?
> YOU ARE SO STUPID.
>
> LOL
I see you still try to redirect everything to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. I'm
just returning the favour.
> asshole?
>
> Answer the question, nimrod.
>
>> > God, but you're stupid. Whenever someone shows you to be the dumbass
>> > you truly are, you namecall - in this case "before the Christians".
>> > Your medications are wearing off.
>>
>> Are you disputing that back when it was a kingdom, Hawaii had
>> pluralistic marriages?
>
> What I'm saying, idiot, is that today - the STATE of Hawaii does not
>> > God, but you're stupid. Whenever someone shows you to be the dumbass
>> > you truly are, you namecall - in this case "before the Christians".
>> > Your medications are wearing off.
>>
>> Are you disputing that back when it was a kingdom, Hawaii had
>> pluralistic marriages?
>
> allow polygamy as a point of law. I think (but am not sure) that no one
> in either of the STATE chambers has proffered legislation on the matter.
>
>> >> By the way, bubbles, aside from a really inept effort at smear by
>> >> association, you haven't said what your problem with polygamy was.
>> >
>> > Sure did. I can't help it if you cannot read for comprehesion. That's
>> > the way God made your sorry ass. lol
>> >
>> No, you really haven't.
>
> Yes, I really have, you're just too stupid to comprehend.
>> >> By the way, bubbles, aside from a really inept effort at smear by
>> >> association, you haven't said what your problem with polygamy was.
>> >
>> > Sure did. I can't help it if you cannot read for comprehesion. That's
>> > the way God made your sorry ass. lol
>> >
>> No, you really haven't.
>
>
> Hey coward -- you continue to run away from the below. lol
>
> ================
>
> Coward wrote: What is your problem with it?
> You do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages,
> right?
>
> "Hawaii BEFORE the "Christians" and now, "The Old Testament". You're
> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
> and run/hide.
>
> Coward.
>
> Yo, Jamieson -- reply to the below if you're not a coward:
>
> Just because they don't have it (polygamy) in East Bumfuck Arkansas or
> >whereever the fuck it is you live doesn't mean it's evil.
>
> Uhhh -- "they don't have it in the East Village" either, dumbfuck.
> (OBTW, you call the East Village, "North Bumfuck, NYC" if you want.)
>
> LOL
>
> I never used the word "evil", stupid ass -- but I'm glad you did.
>
> Polygamy is "evil" in Western societies & cultures; we've all revolted
> against this evil. Your guilt is showing, idiot.
>
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp to
> "go back to Africa"? lol
>
> ================
> right?
>
> "Hawaii BEFORE the "Christians" and now, "The Old Testament". You're
> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
> and run/hide.
>
> Coward.
>
> Yo, Jamieson -- reply to the below if you're not a coward:
>
> Just because they don't have it (polygamy) in East Bumfuck Arkansas or
> >whereever the fuck it is you live doesn't mean it's evil.
>
> Uhhh -- "they don't have it in the East Village" either, dumbfuck.
> (OBTW, you call the East Village, "North Bumfuck, NYC" if you want.)
>
> LOL
>
> I never used the word "evil", stupid ass -- but I'm glad you did.
>
> Polygamy is "evil" in Western societies & cultures; we've all revolted
> against this evil. Your guilt is showing, idiot.
>
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp to
> "go back to Africa"? lol
>
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 10:54:39 PM5/21/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:31:29 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> Zepp wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:57:49 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>>
>> > David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp is a proven coward lol:
>> >
>> > DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT "alt.dev.null" WOULD SAVE YOU?
>> > YOU ARE SO STUPID.
>> >
>> > LOL
>>
>> I see you still try to redirect everything to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
>> I'm just returning the favour.
>
> Dumbass, don't you know that one of the three newsgroups you post to IS
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh?
>
> Are you really that stupid?
'Course I know, bubbles. It's the third most important of the ones I post
to.
>
> <*snips with benefits*>
>
> Since I know you're too much of a coward to reply to what was snipped,
> why not grow a spine and reply to the below, David?
>
> LOL
I snipped nothing, bubbles. Perhaps you did.
>
> ======================
> What is your problem with it (polygamy?
seem confused that I mentioned more than one. So tell us which one you
are capable of handling at one time, and we can discuss that. I don't
want to tax you, child.
> Coward.
Now, play nice, child.
> Zepp wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:57:49 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>>
>> > David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp is a proven coward lol:
>> >
>> > DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT "alt.dev.null" WOULD SAVE YOU?
>> > YOU ARE SO STUPID.
>> >
>> > LOL
>>
>> I see you still try to redirect everything to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
>> I'm just returning the favour.
>
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh?
>
> Are you really that stupid?
'Course I know, bubbles. It's the third most important of the ones I post
to.
>
> <*snips with benefits*>
>
> Since I know you're too much of a coward to reply to what was snipped,
> why not grow a spine and reply to the below, David?
>
> LOL
I snipped nothing, bubbles. Perhaps you did.
>
> ======================
> What is your problem with it (polygamy?
> You do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages,
> right?
>
> "Hawaii BEFORE the "Christians" and now, "The Old Testament". You're
> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
> and run/hide.
>
I offered examples of situations where polygamy was commonplace. You
> right?
>
> "Hawaii BEFORE the "Christians" and now, "The Old Testament". You're
> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
> and run/hide.
>
seem confused that I mentioned more than one. So tell us which one you
are capable of handling at one time, and we can discuss that. I don't
want to tax you, child.
> Coward.
Now, play nice, child.
>
> Yo, Jamieson -- reply to the below if you're not a coward:
>
> Yo, Jamieson -- reply to the below if you're not a coward:
>
> Coward wrote:
> Just because they don't have it (polygamy) in East Bumfuck Arkansas or
> whereever the fuck it is you live doesn't mean it's evil.
>
> Just because they don't have it (polygamy) in East Bumfuck Arkansas or
> whereever the fuck it is you live doesn't mean it's evil.
>
> BeeSting wrote:
> Uhhh -- "they don't have it in the East Village" either, dumbfuck.
> (OBTW, you call the East Village, "North Bumfuck, NYC" if you want.)
>
> LOL
>
> I never used the word "evil", stupid ass -- but I'm glad you did.
>
> Polygamy is "evil" in Western societies & cultures; we've all revolted
> against this evil. Your guilt is showing, idiot.
>
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp to
> "go back to Africa"? lol ======================
> Uhhh -- "they don't have it in the East Village" either, dumbfuck.
> (OBTW, you call the East Village, "North Bumfuck, NYC" if you want.)
>
> LOL
>
> I never used the word "evil", stupid ass -- but I'm glad you did.
>
> Polygamy is "evil" in Western societies & cultures; we've all revolted
> against this evil. Your guilt is showing, idiot.
>
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp to
Dänk 42Ø
May 22, 2013, 1:24:27 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 02:54:39 +0000, quack:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:31:29 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
>> quack:
when leftists denounce as "offensive" suggestions that legalization of
same-sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy. Your position
is not only contradictory, but counter-revolutionary. Off to the re-
education camp, comrade!
I do realize that they were simply trying to allay public fears regarding
the issue, but the fact is that they INSULTED polygamists, alienating a
group which would have been a natural ally. Even The Oprah has been
waging a crusade against Mormon polygamists (possibly upset that some men
have ten wives while she can't find a single man to marry her despite her
fabulous wealth).
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/A-giant-step-backward-for-
women-2543506.php
"Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign, which supports same-sex
marriage, finds any linkage of polygamy to same-sex marriage 'offensive.'"
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:31:29 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:57:49 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>>>
>>> > quack:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:57:49 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT "alt.dev.null" WOULD SAVE YOU? YOU ARE SO
>>> > STUPID.
>>> >
>>> > LOL
>>>
>>> I see you still try to redirect everything to alt.fan.***-********
>>> > DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT "alt.dev.null" WOULD SAVE YOU? YOU ARE SO
>>> > STUPID.
>>> >
>>> > LOL
>>>
>>> I'm just returning the favour.
>>
>> Dumbass, don't you know that one of the three newsgroups you post to IS
>> alt.fan.***-********
>>
>> Dumbass, don't you know that one of the three newsgroups you post to IS
>>
>> Are you really that stupid?
>
> 'Course I know, bubbles. It's the third most important of the ones I
> post to.
>>
>> <*snips with benefits*>
>>
>> Since I know you're too much of a coward to reply to what was snipped,
>> why not grow a spine and reply to the below, David?
>>
>> LOL
>
> I snipped nothing, bubbles. Perhaps you did.
>>
>> ======================
>> What is your problem with it (polygamy? You do know that many old
>> Testament prophets had polygamous marriages, right?
>>
>> "Hawaii BEFORE the "Christians" and now, "The Old Testament". You're
>> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
>> and run/hide.
>>
> I offered examples of situations where polygamy was commonplace.
I've noticed that you avoid my question of why you are defending polygamy
>> Are you really that stupid?
>
> 'Course I know, bubbles. It's the third most important of the ones I
> post to.
>>
>> <*snips with benefits*>
>>
>> Since I know you're too much of a coward to reply to what was snipped,
>> why not grow a spine and reply to the below, David?
>>
>> LOL
>
> I snipped nothing, bubbles. Perhaps you did.
>>
>> ======================
>> What is your problem with it (polygamy? You do know that many old
>> Testament prophets had polygamous marriages, right?
>>
>> "Hawaii BEFORE the "Christians" and now, "The Old Testament". You're
>> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
>> and run/hide.
>>
> I offered examples of situations where polygamy was commonplace.
when leftists denounce as "offensive" suggestions that legalization of
same-sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy. Your position
is not only contradictory, but counter-revolutionary. Off to the re-
education camp, comrade!
I do realize that they were simply trying to allay public fears regarding
the issue, but the fact is that they INSULTED polygamists, alienating a
group which would have been a natural ally. Even The Oprah has been
waging a crusade against Mormon polygamists (possibly upset that some men
have ten wives while she can't find a single man to marry her despite her
fabulous wealth).
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/A-giant-step-backward-for-
women-2543506.php
"Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign, which supports same-sex
marriage, finds any linkage of polygamy to same-sex marriage 'offensive.'"
Message has been deleted
Dänk 42Ø
May 23, 2013, 1:32:10 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:44:51 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell quack to
immigrated to the USA and became citizens, and when they applied for jobs
or university their attempt to mark their "race" as "African-American"
was rejected and denounced as "offensive" and "racist."
Like the United States of America, a significant percentage of South
Africa's population is descended from immigrants, including Europeans,
Indians, and Asians -- who live alongside with the "Natives" whose land
their ancestors allegedly stole. The difference is that it is taboo to
describe a South African citizen of Chinese descent as "African," while
describing an American citizen of Chinese descent as "American" is not
just acceptable but mandatory.
Taking this idea a step further, consider that Arab countries like Egypt
and Libya are technically part of the African continent, but describing
their citizens as "African" is taboo among lily-white Western liberals.
In the eyes of lily-white liberals (who claim to never see color or
race), "African" means one of those smelly dark-skinned Ethernopians
covered with flies they see on teevee. A persun of European, Asian or
Arab descent born and raised on the continent of Africa can NEVER be
"African." This idea is inherently racist in itself.
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell quack to
> "go back to Africa"? lol
I've heard stories about whites from South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. who
immigrated to the USA and became citizens, and when they applied for jobs
or university their attempt to mark their "race" as "African-American"
was rejected and denounced as "offensive" and "racist."
Like the United States of America, a significant percentage of South
Africa's population is descended from immigrants, including Europeans,
Indians, and Asians -- who live alongside with the "Natives" whose land
their ancestors allegedly stole. The difference is that it is taboo to
describe a South African citizen of Chinese descent as "African," while
describing an American citizen of Chinese descent as "American" is not
just acceptable but mandatory.
Taking this idea a step further, consider that Arab countries like Egypt
and Libya are technically part of the African continent, but describing
their citizens as "African" is taboo among lily-white Western liberals.
In the eyes of lily-white liberals (who claim to never see color or
race), "African" means one of those smelly dark-skinned Ethernopians
covered with flies they see on teevee. A persun of European, Asian or
Arab descent born and raised on the continent of Africa can NEVER be
"African." This idea is inherently racist in itself.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages