Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thanks To Democrats, Pedophilia Now Classified As A Sexual Orientation
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Keith Miller
Nov 8, 2013, 10:24:35 PM11/8/13
to
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
orientation
People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association
(APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and
pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation
or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation,
whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is
used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.
(ALSO READ: A Timeline Of Sexual Assault At USC)
APA's decision has given rise to numerous pedophilia-advocacy
groups, the chief of them being B4U-ACT, a non-profit grassroots
organization based in Maryland. Created in 2003 primarily as a
means for �minor-attracted persons� to be open about their
sexual preferences in a supportive atmosphere, B4U-ACT is now
widening the scope of their organization.
According to spokesperson and registered sex offender Paul
Christiano, the pedophilia-advocacy group is �working towards de-
stigmatizing the mental health community.� Christiano explained
that negative societal attitudes towards minor-attracted persons
�trickle down to policy-making and the mental health community.�
�Policy-making� is used chiefly in reference to the sex-offender
registry. Christiano is not alone in advocating change within
the system. Caitlin Myers, a doctorate student in Sociology here
at the University of Southern California, says the registry
needs to be �more senstitive to the nature of crime.� Myers
explained that the chief problem within the sex-offender
registry itself is the �one size fits all� viewpoint it bears
towards sexual offenses. �There could be a man who committed 20
consecutive rapes and a 19-year-old boy who had sex with his 17-
year-old girlfriend and they would be punished in the same
manner.�
Change to the system is understandable, yet B4U-ACT�s grounds
for such change remains murky. When questioned about the most
responsible way in which a pedophile could manage his sexual
preferences, Christiano answered that while B4U-ACT encouraged
minor-attracted persons within the organization to openly
acknowledge their feelings and desires, such sexual preferences
must remain purely a mental exercise and therefore entirely
unconsummated. In other words, pedophiles must be allowed to
fantasize about minors, as long as such acts are never
consummated.
�B4U-ACT does not condone illegal activity,� Christiano insisted.
Yet how can we be assured that such behavior remains entirely in
the mind and not carried out in the bedroom? Answer: we can�t.
Myers confirmed that it is �scientifically impossible to settle
the question of whether or not a minor-attracted person will act
on their compulsion.�
In an essay written for his senior thesis as a graduate student,
Christiano argued for the �sexual autonomy� of children, citing
that children �should not be left in the dark about their own
sexuality.� With more education about their sexuality, reasoned
Christiano, comes more knowledge of boundaries and what they do
or don�t want.
However, there is an underlying suggestion that with sexual
knowledge comes sexual consent. If children were permitted to be
more sexually autonomous, would they then be able to fully
consent to a sexual relationship or more importantly, a sexual
relationship with an adult?
While Myers agrees that open discussion and acknowledgement of
sexuality is something our current society is lacking, she
emphasizes that children cannot give consent. �In theory,� Myers
says, �pedophilia as a practiced sexual orientation walks a thin
line. There is no possibility of pedophilia becoming an accepted
sexual orientation in current culture.�
According to Christiano, people must be allowed to celebrate sex
and sexuality, �one of the few freely-given pleasures in life.�
The community of minor-attracted persons is, as a whole, �denied
their complexities.�
orientation
People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association
(APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and
pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation
or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation,
whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is
used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.
(ALSO READ: A Timeline Of Sexual Assault At USC)
APA's decision has given rise to numerous pedophilia-advocacy
groups, the chief of them being B4U-ACT, a non-profit grassroots
organization based in Maryland. Created in 2003 primarily as a
means for �minor-attracted persons� to be open about their
sexual preferences in a supportive atmosphere, B4U-ACT is now
widening the scope of their organization.
According to spokesperson and registered sex offender Paul
Christiano, the pedophilia-advocacy group is �working towards de-
stigmatizing the mental health community.� Christiano explained
that negative societal attitudes towards minor-attracted persons
�trickle down to policy-making and the mental health community.�
�Policy-making� is used chiefly in reference to the sex-offender
registry. Christiano is not alone in advocating change within
the system. Caitlin Myers, a doctorate student in Sociology here
at the University of Southern California, says the registry
needs to be �more senstitive to the nature of crime.� Myers
explained that the chief problem within the sex-offender
registry itself is the �one size fits all� viewpoint it bears
towards sexual offenses. �There could be a man who committed 20
consecutive rapes and a 19-year-old boy who had sex with his 17-
year-old girlfriend and they would be punished in the same
manner.�
Change to the system is understandable, yet B4U-ACT�s grounds
for such change remains murky. When questioned about the most
responsible way in which a pedophile could manage his sexual
preferences, Christiano answered that while B4U-ACT encouraged
minor-attracted persons within the organization to openly
acknowledge their feelings and desires, such sexual preferences
must remain purely a mental exercise and therefore entirely
unconsummated. In other words, pedophiles must be allowed to
fantasize about minors, as long as such acts are never
consummated.
�B4U-ACT does not condone illegal activity,� Christiano insisted.
Yet how can we be assured that such behavior remains entirely in
the mind and not carried out in the bedroom? Answer: we can�t.
Myers confirmed that it is �scientifically impossible to settle
the question of whether or not a minor-attracted person will act
on their compulsion.�
In an essay written for his senior thesis as a graduate student,
Christiano argued for the �sexual autonomy� of children, citing
that children �should not be left in the dark about their own
sexuality.� With more education about their sexuality, reasoned
Christiano, comes more knowledge of boundaries and what they do
or don�t want.
However, there is an underlying suggestion that with sexual
knowledge comes sexual consent. If children were permitted to be
more sexually autonomous, would they then be able to fully
consent to a sexual relationship or more importantly, a sexual
relationship with an adult?
While Myers agrees that open discussion and acknowledgement of
sexuality is something our current society is lacking, she
emphasizes that children cannot give consent. �In theory,� Myers
says, �pedophilia as a practiced sexual orientation walks a thin
line. There is no possibility of pedophilia becoming an accepted
sexual orientation in current culture.�
According to Christiano, people must be allowed to celebrate sex
and sexuality, �one of the few freely-given pleasures in life.�
The community of minor-attracted persons is, as a whole, �denied
their complexities.�
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 8, 2013, 10:28:35 PM11/8/13
to
In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
it's classified?
--
JD
"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
"Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> orientation
>
> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> orientation
>
> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
it's classified?
--
JD
"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
David R. Birch
Nov 8, 2013, 10:54:46 PM11/8/13
to
On 11/8/2013 9:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>> orientation
>>
>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
>
> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> it's classified?
Mr. Miller is expressing his hope that his personal preference will one
> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>> orientation
>>
>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
>
> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> it's classified?
day be accepted.
Is a metrosexual someone seeking relations with the Paris subway?
David
BottleBob
Nov 9, 2013, 12:12:42 AM11/9/13
to
On Friday, November 8, 2013 7:24:35 PM UTC-8, Keith Miller wrote:
> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> orientation
>
>
>
> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
> In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
> Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association
> (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and
> pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation...
> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> orientation
>
>
>
> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
> In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
> Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association
> (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and
Keith:
That can't be right. Let me go check something....
Yeah, I thought it sounded goofy.
=========================================================
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/13-67-DSM-Correction-103113.pdf
APA Statement on DSM-5 Text Error
Pedophilic disorder text error to be corrected
The American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) has recently been published after a comprehensive multi-year
research and review of all of its diagnostic categories.
In the case of pedophilic disorder, the diagnostic criteria essentially remained the same as in
DSM-IV-TR. Only the disorder name was changed from “pedophilia” to “pedophilic disorder” to
maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.
“Sexual orientation” is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its
use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read “sexual interest.” In fact, APA
considers pedophilic disorder a “paraphilia,” not a “sexual orientation.” This error will be
corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual.
APA stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit
children and adolescents. We also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those
with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse.
=========================================================
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
#28
Google searchin'
Lookin' for facts
Just a researchin'
One eyed Jacks
Keith Miller
Nov 9, 2013, 1:05:58 AM11/9/13
to
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
orientation
People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association
(APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and
orientation
People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association
(APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 9, 2013, 1:21:28 AM11/9/13
to
Why did you post this in alt.atheism?
Hell, why did you post it in rec.crafts.metalworking?
Oh, hell, why did you post it to ANY of the groups you posted it to? How
is it relevant to any of them?
David R. Birch
Nov 9, 2013, 6:59:42 AM11/9/13
to
On 11/9/2013 12:21 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> Why did you post this in alt.atheism?
>
> Hell, why did you post it in rec.crafts.metalworking?
>
> Oh, hell, why did you post it to ANY of the groups you posted it to? How
> is it relevant to any of them?
Probably because his pedophilia has made him enjoy exhibitionism, too.
> Why did you post this in alt.atheism?
>
> Hell, why did you post it in rec.crafts.metalworking?
>
> Oh, hell, why did you post it to ANY of the groups you posted it to? How
> is it relevant to any of them?
David
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 9, 2013, 9:41:33 AM11/9/13
to
On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>> orientation
>>
>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
>
> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> it's classified?
>
Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>> orientation
>>
>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
>
> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> it's classified?
>
their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
with them.
Bestiality?
--
*Rumination*
#38 - Using the Government and the LAW to steal is the ultimate crime.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 9, 2013, 9:47:57 AM11/9/13
to
On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>> orientation
>>
>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
>
> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> it's classified?
>
Incest is illegal yet there is NO "reason" for it to be illegal when
> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>> orientation
>>
>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
>
> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> it's classified?
>
gays are incestuous, because there is no offspring.... So incest will
become a legal form of sexual orientation.
The end result will be incestuous marriages to pass on the family money
from parent to child and avoid the higher estate tax. That has already
been a law suit that was at the supreme court to get gays the right to
marry, so why NOT incestuous gays. Don't they deserve the same rights?
*Rumination*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imUyBlc7NHQ
Pelosi tells you she will do *whatever* it takes to pass ObamaCare.
ObamaCare violates OUR RIGHT TO LIBERTY, it taxes you for breathing air.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 9, 2013, 10:04:17 AM11/9/13
to
On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>> orientation
>>
>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
>
> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> it's classified?
>
Little gay boys and girls need love too ;)
> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>> orientation
>>
>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>
>
> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> it's classified?
>
RogerN
Nov 9, 2013, 11:35:00 AM11/9/13
to
"Keith Miller" wrote in message
news:826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com...
>http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>orientation
>
>People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
Why stop there, they need to stop all discrimination. Rapists can't help
it, they were born that way. A person should be able to marry their pet if
they want to. What about people that need more than one spouse, they
shouldn't be discriminated against, bisexuals need a wife and a husband,
stop the hateful discrimination!
And also stop discriminating against murderers, they can't help they were
born that way. If they feel the need to kill people, they shouldn't have to
control themselves. It's all about discrimination.
EVERYBODY has to control themselves except homosexuals! That is
discrimination!
Homosexuals want tolerance but they don't tolerate anyone that doesn't
approve of homosexuality. That is discrimination!
RogerN
news:826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com...
>http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>orientation
>
>People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
it, they were born that way. A person should be able to marry their pet if
they want to. What about people that need more than one spouse, they
shouldn't be discriminated against, bisexuals need a wife and a husband,
stop the hateful discrimination!
And also stop discriminating against murderers, they can't help they were
born that way. If they feel the need to kill people, they shouldn't have to
control themselves. It's all about discrimination.
EVERYBODY has to control themselves except homosexuals! That is
discrimination!
Homosexuals want tolerance but they don't tolerate anyone that doesn't
approve of homosexuality. That is discrimination!
RogerN
Message has been deleted
Malte Runz
Nov 9, 2013, 12:54:09 PM11/9/13
to
"David R. Birch" skrev i meddelelsen news:l5kbk...@news4.newsguy.com...
(snip)
> Is a metrosexual someone seeking relations with the Paris subway?
Is that what she calls it these days?
--
Malte Runz
(snip)
> Is a metrosexual someone seeking relations with the Paris subway?
--
Malte Runz
Wayne
Nov 9, 2013, 12:58:08 PM11/9/13
to
"Siri Cruz" wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-BA1C5...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
> Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association
> (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and
> pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation
> or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation,
> whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is
> used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.
# According this then pedophilia is not a crime unless you want thought
> Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association
> (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and
> pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation
> or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation,
> whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is
> used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.
crime.
Thought is already considered a crime by lefties.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 9, 2013, 1:15:37 PM11/9/13
to
Free Lunch
Nov 9, 2013, 1:20:11 PM11/9/13
to
On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 13:15:37 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
She's a busy lady.
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
David R. Birch
Nov 9, 2013, 3:45:07 PM11/9/13
to
David
rangerssuck
Nov 9, 2013, 4:57:55 PM11/9/13
to
RogerN
Nov 9, 2013, 5:44:11 PM11/9/13
to
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
news:c2db3218-af0e-4f3b...@googlegroups.com...
>On Saturday, November 9, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-5, RogerN wrote:
<snip>
don't exercise self control and indulge in homosexuality are more likely
catch STD's than heterosexuals are. Also there is scientific evidence that
not all homosexuals were born that way, liberals try to suppress and distort
this evidence to fit their political correctness.
So is it OK for a child molester to molest children if they consent?
Why should someone with road rage control their desire to kill a rude piece
of crap driver but someone with same sex attraction should require approval
for their sexual perversion? I'm not saying that homosexuality should be
illegal like murder is, but it shouldn't be a hate crime to not approve of
homosexual behavior. Liberals are trying to make morality a hate crime for
people that don't approve of immorality.
Chris Christie signed some law where it will be illegal to counsel people
with same sex attraction. There is a lawsuit about it because parents of a
suicidal gender confused child is being helped by counseling and a
politician wants to make his treatment illegal in the name of political
correctness.
After having a baby, the mother asks the doctor "Is it a boy or a girl".
The Doctor replies "We'll have to wait until it decides".
RogerN
news:c2db3218-af0e-4f3b...@googlegroups.com...
>On Saturday, November 9, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-5, RogerN wrote:
>>
>> Homosexuals want tolerance but they don't tolerate anyone that doesn't
>>
>> approve of homosexuality. That is discrimination!
>>
>> RogerN
>
>Roger, if you can't see the difference between homosexuality, rape and
>murder, you're crazier than I thought.
Homosexuality is sexual perversion approved of by liberals. People that
>> Homosexuals want tolerance but they don't tolerate anyone that doesn't
>>
>> approve of homosexuality. That is discrimination!
>>
>> RogerN
>
>Roger, if you can't see the difference between homosexuality, rape and
>murder, you're crazier than I thought.
don't exercise self control and indulge in homosexuality are more likely
catch STD's than heterosexuals are. Also there is scientific evidence that
not all homosexuals were born that way, liberals try to suppress and distort
this evidence to fit their political correctness.
So is it OK for a child molester to molest children if they consent?
Why should someone with road rage control their desire to kill a rude piece
of crap driver but someone with same sex attraction should require approval
for their sexual perversion? I'm not saying that homosexuality should be
illegal like murder is, but it shouldn't be a hate crime to not approve of
homosexual behavior. Liberals are trying to make morality a hate crime for
people that don't approve of immorality.
Chris Christie signed some law where it will be illegal to counsel people
with same sex attraction. There is a lawsuit about it because parents of a
suicidal gender confused child is being helped by counseling and a
politician wants to make his treatment illegal in the name of political
correctness.
After having a baby, the mother asks the doctor "Is it a boy or a girl".
The Doctor replies "We'll have to wait until it decides".
RogerN
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 9, 2013, 7:20:16 PM11/9/13
to
In article <W9sfu.132552$gp1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>,
Wow. You just said raping children is just fine.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 9, 2013, 7:22:06 PM11/9/13
to
In article <DWrfu.38208$0I1...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>,
I don't give a damn what consenting ADULTS do; it's nobody's business.
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> > "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> >> orientation
> >>
> >> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> >> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> >> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> >
> >
> > Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> > it's classified?
> >
> Incest is illegal yet there is NO "reason" for it to be illegal when
> gays are incestuous, because there is no offspring.... So incest will
> become a legal form of sexual orientation.
>
> The end result will be incestuous marriages to pass on the family money
> from parent to child and avoid the higher estate tax. That has already
> been a law suit that was at the supreme court to get gays the right to
> marry, so why NOT incestuous gays. Don't they deserve the same rights?
Yes, they do.
> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> > "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> >> orientation
> >>
> >> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> >> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> >> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> >
> >
> > Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> > it's classified?
> >
> Incest is illegal yet there is NO "reason" for it to be illegal when
> gays are incestuous, because there is no offspring.... So incest will
> become a legal form of sexual orientation.
>
> The end result will be incestuous marriages to pass on the family money
> from parent to child and avoid the higher estate tax. That has already
> been a law suit that was at the supreme court to get gays the right to
> marry, so why NOT incestuous gays. Don't they deserve the same rights?
I don't give a damn what consenting ADULTS do; it's nobody's business.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 9, 2013, 7:24:27 PM11/9/13
to
In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
Can animals give legal informed consent?
You're just getting silly.
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> > "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> >> orientation
> >>
> >> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> >> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> >> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> >
> >
> > Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> > it's classified?
> >
> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
> with them.
>
>
> Bestiality?
Can dead people give legal informed consent?
> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> > "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> >> orientation
> >>
> >> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> >> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> >> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> >
> >
> > Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> > it's classified?
> >
> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
> with them.
>
>
> Bestiality?
Can animals give legal informed consent?
You're just getting silly.
Uncle Steve
Nov 9, 2013, 7:27:17 PM11/9/13
to
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 04:20:16PM -0800, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <W9sfu.132552$gp1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > > In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> > > "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> > >> orientation
> > >>
> > >> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> > >> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> > >> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> > > it's classified?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Little gay boys and girls need love too ;)
>
> Wow. You just said raping children is just fine.
Sounds a little like he might be associated with law-enforcement.
> In article <W9sfu.132552$gp1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > > In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> > > "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> > >> orientation
> > >>
> > >> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> > >> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> > >> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> > > it's classified?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Little gay boys and girls need love too ;)
>
> Wow. You just said raping children is just fine.
They are prone to that sort of reasoning.
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
Innumerate poets
Expressing ideas poorly
They cry, it is art
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2013, 8:59:00 AM11/10/13
to
On 11/9/2013 7:20 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <W9sfu.132552$gp1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>> orientation
>>>>
>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>> it's classified?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Little gay boys and girls need love too ;)
>
> Wow. You just said raping children is just fine.
>
NO I just said that little boys and girls gay rapists think it's OK....
> In article <W9sfu.132552$gp1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>> orientation
>>>>
>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>> it's classified?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Little gay boys and girls need love too ;)
>
> Wow. You just said raping children is just fine.
>
See this ;) A wink.
More under aged young girls are being seduced by gay women in schools.
remember that gay is NOT a gender. there is NO such thing as gay rights
because it would be as if Pedophiles have special rights.
They are sexual aversions to heterosexual behavior.... They are NOT
genders.
--
*Rumination*
#14 - If more Government, solves all the problems, prison must be a
Socialists Utopia.... and a Club Med vacation for Liberals.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2013, 9:07:28 AM11/10/13
to
On 11/9/2013 7:22 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <DWrfu.38208$0I1...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>> orientation
>>>>
>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>> it's classified?
>>>
>> Incest is illegal yet there is NO "reason" for it to be illegal when
>> gays are incestuous, because there is no offspring.... So incest will
>> become a legal form of sexual orientation.
>>
>> The end result will be incestuous marriages to pass on the family money
>> from parent to child and avoid the higher estate tax. That has already
>> been a law suit that was at the supreme court to get gays the right to
>> marry, so why NOT incestuous gays. Don't they deserve the same rights?
>
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> I don't give a damn what consenting ADULTS do; it's nobody's business.
Great, then the consenting adults can create a new family structure that
> In article <DWrfu.38208$0I1...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>> orientation
>>>>
>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>> it's classified?
>>>
>> Incest is illegal yet there is NO "reason" for it to be illegal when
>> gays are incestuous, because there is no offspring.... So incest will
>> become a legal form of sexual orientation.
>>
>> The end result will be incestuous marriages to pass on the family money
>> from parent to child and avoid the higher estate tax. That has already
>> been a law suit that was at the supreme court to get gays the right to
>> marry, so why NOT incestuous gays. Don't they deserve the same rights?
>
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> I don't give a damn what consenting ADULTS do; it's nobody's business.
isn't based on marriage rather than destroying and corrupting the
meaning and established laws of Marriage.
Besides if ObamaCare is the law and we have to get used to it, then
Marriage is the law so get used to it.
They can do as they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights
of others. That's the way the constitution works. Restructuring
"marriage" does infringe on the religious rights of others. So go
create any "family or couples union" you like that doesn't infringe on
the rights of others. Or is it that gays and Liberals aren't creative
enough to come up with anything that hasn't been done before?
--
*Rumination*
#5 - You can't have Social Justice and Equal Justice at the same time,
they are 'mutually exclusive'.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2013, 9:28:42 AM11/10/13
to
On 11/9/2013 7:24 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>> orientation
>>>>
>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>> it's classified?
>>>
>> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
>> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
>> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
>> with them.
>>
>>
>> Bestiality?
>
> Can dead people give legal informed consent?
It's in a Last Will and Testament. They also don't need to consent if
> In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>> orientation
>>>>
>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>> it's classified?
>>>
>> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
>> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
>> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
>> with them.
>>
>>
>> Bestiality?
>
> Can dead people give legal informed consent?
they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
destructive and violent.
Can a Fetus be killed but NOT be married?
>
> Can animals give legal informed consent?
If he didn't like the food or a pat on the head, he would have bitten
me. It's NOT like I chained and caged my dogs "they ran free" he came
to live on my porch all on his own and then refused to leave.
People would just drive out into the country and dump their dogs, I
lived in the country. I had several dogs that came to live at my place
just like that. It seemed like they consented to some sort of limited
and mutual relationship where they protected their and my property and I
would toss them the dinner scraps for doing it.
>
> You're just getting silly.
>
being beaten? Or is she too stupid to give informed consent?
Is it Masochism or legal informed consent when a woman stays with a
person that abused her?
Is this a sign of a woman who's as dumb as an animal?
Liberalism has NO logic. They will use any method that gets them where
they think they want to be. Liberalism is an ideology that chases it's
own tail.
--
*Rumination*
#3 - Liberals live in fear of anyone that promotes the notion of
self-sufficiency and responsible behavior.
Don Kresch
Nov 10, 2013, 12:06:01 PM11/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:28:42 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>On 11/9/2013 7:24 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>>> orientation
>>>>>
>>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>>> it's classified?
>>>>
>>> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
>>> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
>>> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
>>> with them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bestiality?
>>
>> Can dead people give legal informed consent?
>
>It's in a Last Will and Testament.
....of a living person. Not a dead person.
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>On 11/9/2013 7:24 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>>> orientation
>>>>>
>>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>>> it's classified?
>>>>
>>> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
>>> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
>>> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
>>> with them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bestiality?
>>
>> Can dead people give legal informed consent?
>
>It's in a Last Will and Testament.
> They also don't need to consent if
>they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
>uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
>destructive and violent.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Uncle Steve
Nov 10, 2013, 12:10:01 PM11/10/13
to
the best way to go about constructing the family unit. What threatens
you is strong assertive women who wouldn't have sex with the likes of
you under any circumstances. Right-tard brain-washees perhaps, but
not independent minded women.
You should wake up, smell the coffee, and be happy your antiquated
sociology still turns out women who don't find losers like you as
repulsive as they should.
Wayne
Nov 10, 2013, 12:24:33 PM11/10/13
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
news:CKMfu.14390$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
On 11/9/2013 7:24 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>> orientation
>>>>
>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>> it's classified?
>>>
>> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
>> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
>> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
>> with them.
>>
>>
>> Bestiality?
>
> Can dead people give legal informed consent?
# they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
# uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
# destructive and violent.
# Can a Fetus be killed but NOT be married?
Well, in states such as California, a person might very well be allowed to
marry a fetus. In CA, marriage is not between just a man and a woman, so
the door is wide open for any kind of mixture you can dream up.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2013, 12:24:32 PM11/10/13
to
On 11/10/2013 12:06 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:28:42 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2013 7:24 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>>>> orientation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>>>> it's classified?
>>>>>
>>>> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
>>>> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
>>>> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
>>>> with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bestiality?
>>>
>>> Can dead people give legal informed consent?
>>
>> It's in a Last Will and Testament.
>
> ....of a living person. Not a dead person.
Dead are NOT persons even live babies in a uterus are NOT persons
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:28:42 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2013 7:24 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
>>>>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
>>>>>> orientation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
>>>>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
>>>>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
>>>>> it's classified?
>>>>>
>>>> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
>>>> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
>>>> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
>>>> with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bestiality?
>>>
>>> Can dead people give legal informed consent?
>>
>> It's in a Last Will and Testament.
>
> ....of a living person. Not a dead person.
according to Liberal mantra. If you can't abuse a live fetus then
defiling a dead body is NOT possible either.
NO consent needed. Like your phone records no consent needed.
>
>> They also don't need to consent if
>> they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
>> uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
>> destructive and violent.
>
> Does the woman own her womb?
A woman's uterus is NO different than any other parts where ObamaCare
dictates the terms of any treatment.
ObamaCare doesn't allow you any NEW rights it simply limits the old
RIGHTS you already had.
%
Nov 10, 2013, 12:38:23 PM11/10/13
to
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2013, 12:36:43 PM11/10/13
to
reasons as there are women.
Sex isn't the reason for Marriage, in fact you are more likely to have
more sex before you marry and in the first year of marriage than you
will have the entire rest of your marriage.
> You should wake up, smell the coffee, and be happy your antiquated
> sociology still turns out women who don't find losers like you as
> repulsive as they should.
Oh great and omnipotent Straw man, please grace us with your presence
once again. But wait till the Oz has given and tested your new brain.
Wayne
Nov 10, 2013, 12:40:53 PM11/10/13
to
"Uncle Steve" wrote in message news:e908ab86a3...@gmail.com...
# the best way to go about constructing the family unit.
So what's your model for a family unit that's better?
RogerN
Nov 10, 2013, 1:48:47 PM11/10/13
to
"Uncle Steve" wrote in message news:e908ab86a3...@gmail.com...
>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 09:07:28AM -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
<snip>
>> They can do as they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights
>> of others. That's the way the constitution works. Restructuring
>> "marriage" does infringe on the religious rights of others. So go
>> create any "family or couples union" you like that doesn't infringe on
>> the rights of others. Or is it that gays and Liberals aren't creative
>> enough to come up with anything that hasn't been done before?
>
>I think the issue is that church-mediated patriarchy isn't necessarily
>the best way to go about constructing the family unit.
That's what you think but you are wrong. There are studies that prove you
>> of others. That's the way the constitution works. Restructuring
>> "marriage" does infringe on the religious rights of others. So go
>> create any "family or couples union" you like that doesn't infringe on
>> the rights of others. Or is it that gays and Liberals aren't creative
>> enough to come up with anything that hasn't been done before?
>
>I think the issue is that church-mediated patriarchy isn't necessarily
>the best way to go about constructing the family unit.
are wrong, you don't hear about them because facts that disagree with
liberal fantasy aren't politically correct.
Because of the politically correct fantasy world, studies that show
"children raised in traditional families do better" are attacked by
homosexual activists so they do their own biased studies and pick and choose
criteria to produce the results they want.
http://factn.org/fact-report-august-15-2012/
Professor Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas is under fire for a study
that attempted to determine the effect of same-sex parenting on children.
Some claim that his New Family Structures Study shows that gay parenting is
bad for children, while gay activists are enraged, saying that Professor
Regnerus should be fired and that the study should never have been published
at all.
But rising above the all the controversy, is one undeniable finding:
Children raised in a stable family with a mom-and-dad fare better than
those in any of the so-called "new" family structures.
The good old "mom and pop" family structure is not new, but it is the best
family structure for kids, after all.
Tom McDonald
Nov 10, 2013, 2:00:05 PM11/10/13
to
patriarchy?
Don Kresch
Nov 10, 2013, 4:37:19 PM11/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 12:24:32 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
But the living person who created the will is a person.
doubly a red herring. Answer my question.
>
>
>>
>>> They also don't need to consent if
>>> they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
>>> uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
>>> destructive and violent.
>>
>> Does the woman own her womb?
>
>ObamaCare
is irrelevant to my question. And I'm an anarchist, so it's
>
>>
>>> They also don't need to consent if
>>> they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
>>> uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
>>> destructive and violent.
>>
>> Does the woman own her womb?
>
>ObamaCare
doubly a red herring. Answer my question.
Uncle Steve
Nov 10, 2013, 5:07:13 PM11/10/13
to
concerned with assuring conjugal relations on your terms, and your
terms only?
> > You should wake up, smell the coffee, and be happy your antiquated
> > sociology still turns out women who don't find losers like you as
> > repulsive as they should.
>
> You feel you Liberals have evolved far beyond us humble mortals?
>
> Oh great and omnipotent Straw man, please grace us with your presence
> once again. But wait till the Oz has given and tested your new brain.
childish. I have observed that people like you imply that the
Left/Right dichotomy is all their is so as to deny the existence and
validity of political ideology that you repudiate even as you might
hew to such forms yourself, but only in secret.
It's called "limiting the terms of debate" and evidences a deep
reliance on the Orwellian memory-hole to consign that which is not for
public consumption out of the sphere of public debate. Another
paternalistic sentiment reminiscient of the "not in front of the
children, dear" attitude of the intelligence community.
%
Nov 10, 2013, 5:37:27 PM11/10/13
to
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 10, 2013, 5:44:25 PM11/10/13
to
In article <IqMfu.132867$sp1....@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com>,
How? I mean, seriously, how does anybody's marriage have anything to do
with yours?
> So go
> create any "family or couples union" you like that doesn't infringe on
> the rights of others. Or is it that gays and Liberals aren't creative
> enough to come up with anything that hasn't been done before?
Why would they invent something new when the current system contains
over a thousand rights for married couples than unmarried couples don't
get?
with yours?
> So go
> create any "family or couples union" you like that doesn't infringe on
> the rights of others. Or is it that gays and Liberals aren't creative
> enough to come up with anything that hasn't been done before?
over a thousand rights for married couples than unmarried couples don't
get?
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 10, 2013, 5:47:33 PM11/10/13
to
In article <MiMfu.137227$4q1.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com>,
> remember that gay is NOT a gender. there is NO such thing as gay rights
> because it would be as if Pedophiles have special rights.
Why?
> They are sexual aversions to heterosexual behavior.... They are NOT
> genders.
What the fuck are you talking about?
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> On 11/9/2013 7:20 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <W9sfu.132552$gp1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> >>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> >>>> orientation
> >>>>
> >>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> >>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> >>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> >>> it's classified?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Little gay boys and girls need love too ;)
> >
> > Wow. You just said raping children is just fine.
> >
> NO I just said that little boys and girls gay rapists think it's OK....
>
> See this ;) A wink.
>
> More under aged young girls are being seduced by gay women in schools.
I'm sure you have evidence for this assertion. I'd love to see it.
> On 11/9/2013 7:20 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <W9sfu.132552$gp1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> >>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> >>>> orientation
> >>>>
> >>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> >>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> >>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> >>> it's classified?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Little gay boys and girls need love too ;)
> >
> > Wow. You just said raping children is just fine.
> >
> NO I just said that little boys and girls gay rapists think it's OK....
>
> See this ;) A wink.
>
> More under aged young girls are being seduced by gay women in schools.
> remember that gay is NOT a gender. there is NO such thing as gay rights
> because it would be as if Pedophiles have special rights.
> They are sexual aversions to heterosexual behavior.... They are NOT
> genders.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 10, 2013, 5:51:37 PM11/10/13
to
In article <CKMfu.14390$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Can a Fetus be killed but NOT be married?
Since a fetus isn't a consenting adult, how could it be married?
> > Can animals give legal informed consent?
>
> My dog consented to eating and petting when I put food out for him....
It wasn't legal nor informed. It's pure instinct.
> If he didn't like the food or a pat on the head, he would have bitten
> me. It's NOT like I chained and caged my dogs "they ran free" he came
> to live on my porch all on his own and then refused to leave.
What does instinct have to do with legal informed consent?
> People would just drive out into the country and dump their dogs, I
> lived in the country. I had several dogs that came to live at my place
> just like that. It seemed like they consented to some sort of limited
> and mutual relationship where they protected their and my property and I
> would toss them the dinner scraps for doing it.
Yep, the strongest instinct any dog has is to be part of a pack. Without
a pack, a dog is incomplete.
> > You're just getting silly.
> >
>
> Is a woman in an abusive marriage and being beaten giving consent to
> being beaten? Or is she too stupid to give informed consent?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
> Is it Masochism or legal informed consent when a woman stays with a
> person that abused her?
It's a tragedy that women have been taught to be meek and not fight
back. That is changing, thank goodness.
And, of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with legal informed
consent.
> Is this a sign of a woman who's as dumb as an animal?
Why would you say something so evil?
> Liberalism has NO logic. They will use any method that gets them where
> they think they want to be. Liberalism is an ideology that chases it's
> own tail.
You're really really funny.
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> On 11/9/2013 7:24 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> >>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> >>>> orientation
> >>>>
> >>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> >>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> >>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> >>> it's classified?
> >>>
> >> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
> >> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
> >> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
> >> with them.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bestiality?
> >
> > Can dead people give legal informed consent?
>
> It's in a Last Will and Testament. They also don't need to consent if
> they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
> uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
> destructive and violent.
Huh? Care to translate that word salad into English.
> On 11/9/2013 7:24 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <DQrfu.27567$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/8/2013 10:28 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>> In article <826e49a53a8d3d31...@dizum.com>,
> >>> "Keith Miller" <kmi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-
> >>>> orientation
> >>>>
> >>>> People can classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual,
> >>>> asexual, metrosexual. There are endless sexual orientations
> >>>> under the sun, and now, pedophilia can be added to the list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Pedophilia is still illegal and will remain illegal. So who cares how
> >>> it's classified?
> >>>
> >> Don't forget Necrophiliacs.... they are an orientation, and they have
> >> their live partners lay in a tub full of ice water and become very still
> >> if they can't find a dead partner or they kill someone so they can be
> >> with them.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bestiality?
> >
> > Can dead people give legal informed consent?
>
> It's in a Last Will and Testament. They also don't need to consent if
> they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
> uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
> destructive and violent.
> Can a Fetus be killed but NOT be married?
> > Can animals give legal informed consent?
>
> My dog consented to eating and petting when I put food out for him....
> If he didn't like the food or a pat on the head, he would have bitten
> me. It's NOT like I chained and caged my dogs "they ran free" he came
> to live on my porch all on his own and then refused to leave.
> People would just drive out into the country and dump their dogs, I
> lived in the country. I had several dogs that came to live at my place
> just like that. It seemed like they consented to some sort of limited
> and mutual relationship where they protected their and my property and I
> would toss them the dinner scraps for doing it.
a pack, a dog is incomplete.
> > You're just getting silly.
> >
>
> Is a woman in an abusive marriage and being beaten giving consent to
> being beaten? Or is she too stupid to give informed consent?
> Is it Masochism or legal informed consent when a woman stays with a
> person that abused her?
back. That is changing, thank goodness.
And, of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with legal informed
consent.
> Is this a sign of a woman who's as dumb as an animal?
> Liberalism has NO logic. They will use any method that gets them where
> they think they want to be. Liberalism is an ideology that chases it's
> own tail.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 10, 2013, 5:55:41 PM11/10/13
to
In article <tjPfu.30197$9X3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
Not a person according to the law and biology. Not to mention the
Constitution in the US.
> If you can't abuse a live fetus then
> defiling a dead body is NOT possible either.
are you unable to actually stick to the topic without bringing up all
these total irrelevancies?
> A woman's uterus is NO different than any other parts where ObamaCare
> dictates the terms of any treatment.
It's not Obamacare that's demanding that women have invasive medical
procedures (that would be rape by instrument when a transvaginal
ultrasound is required; out in the world, sticking an object in a
woman's vagina without her permission gets you years in prison).
> ObamaCare doesn't allow you any NEW rights it simply limits the old
> RIGHTS you already had.
What rights does Obamacare take away?
Constitution in the US.
> If you can't abuse a live fetus then
> defiling a dead body is NOT possible either.
Care to translate that word salad into English.
> >> They also don't need to consent if
> >> they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
> >> uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
> >> destructive and violent.
> >
> > Does the woman own her womb?
>
> ObamaCare owns your body and you pay for what they allow you to have.
What does Obamacare have to do with informed legal consent for sex? Why
> >> they aren't a person and check your liberal view of what a baby in the
> >> uterus is, you KILL them and certainly Marriage to a corps is far less
> >> destructive and violent.
> >
> > Does the woman own her womb?
>
> ObamaCare owns your body and you pay for what they allow you to have.
are you unable to actually stick to the topic without bringing up all
these total irrelevancies?
> A woman's uterus is NO different than any other parts where ObamaCare
> dictates the terms of any treatment.
procedures (that would be rape by instrument when a transvaginal
ultrasound is required; out in the world, sticking an object in a
woman's vagina without her permission gets you years in prison).
> ObamaCare doesn't allow you any NEW rights it simply limits the old
> RIGHTS you already had.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 10, 2013, 5:56:41 PM11/10/13
to
In article <l5ofgl$aib$1...@dont-email.me>,
And yet another moron proves he has no idea what legal informed consent
is.
How does a fetus give legal informed consent? Or a corpse?
is.
How does a fetus give legal informed consent? Or a corpse?
Wayne
Nov 10, 2013, 8:14:08 PM11/10/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-5EB494...@news.giganews.com...
# is.
# How does a fetus give legal informed consent? Or a corpse?
Simple. The same bunch of dufusses that have perverted the legal definition
of "marriage", have the same ability to change the laws on "legal informed
consent".
Anything and everything is now up for grabs by whoever run to a court
whining about "equal rights". The precedent has been set.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 10, 2013, 9:25:09 PM11/10/13
to
In article <l5pb12$gt1$1...@dont-email.me>,
Nonsense.
Why on earth would you believe something so ridiculous?
Why on earth would you believe something so ridiculous?
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2013, 11:31:35 PM11/10/13
to
Do you need consent to marry a robot?
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 10, 2013, 11:43:41 PM11/10/13
to
In article <Q4Zfu.18239$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
Who said they're not either. A fetus is both human and life, but it is
not a person until birth.
> Do you need consent to marry a robot?
Can the robot give legal informed consent?
not a person until birth.
> Do you need consent to marry a robot?
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2013, 11:49:02 PM11/10/13
to
married without consent.... but you can kill it. Why would it have a
*RIGHT* to give it's consent before being married, if killing it is NOT
violating it's *RIGHTS* ?
It would seem that killing a fetus is violating that fetus more than
marrying it would.
--
*Rumination*
#76 - I'm NOT confident that I'm always right, I'm just confident that
Liberals are always wrong.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2013, 11:50:28 PM11/10/13
to
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 12:14:42 AM11/11/13
to
a parents permission is sufficient in some states for an under aged child.
Or no consent is necessary since it isn't a human person. The consent
doesn't apply to non persons as in something that's NOT a man or a
woman. If man and woman can be changed to man and man... so can the
consent requirement and it will have to be to become constitutional.
--
*Rumination*
#49 - I'll die protecting my freedom.... will you die protecting your
Socialism?
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 12:25:10 AM11/11/13
to
process. Simply cut all those "RIGHTS" that marriage has
unconstitutionally created.
Why do married people deserve rights not possessed by single people?
That's NOT equal. And giving those "RIGHTS" to more married people still
doesn't make it equal. The only way to make it equal is to give those
RIGHTS to *ALL or NONE* .
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 12:01:14 AM11/11/13
to
man and woman or any other limiting factor other than children that are
already protected from sex with adults by other laws besides marriage
laws so marriage is NOT preventing children from marriage it's the laws
on pedophilia that stop those child/adult marriages.
A fetus is NOT a child (according to Liberal MANTRA) so there is No ban
on it via pedophilia. Having never been a person "according to
Liberals" a fetus is NOT a corpse either that means it can and should be
eligible for marriage.
It's a sick world and I'm simply pointing out who the sick ones are, and
they are the Liberals.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 11, 2013, 1:11:33 AM11/11/13
to
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 11, 2013, 1:12:12 AM11/11/13
to
In article <clZfu.159101$rp1.1...@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com>,
You're really getting awfully silly in your desperation here.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 11, 2013, 1:12:58 AM11/11/13
to
Don Kresch
Nov 11, 2013, 8:23:29 AM11/11/13
to
Uncle Steve
Nov 11, 2013, 8:22:12 AM11/11/13
to
Uncle Steve
Nov 11, 2013, 8:28:30 AM11/11/13
to
only reason you spew about abortion and marriage; so you don't have to
think about the details of your racist moron policies.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 9:07:40 AM11/11/13
to
marriage to a Man and woman? Won't it also or still "violate my rights"
when you limit marriage to only heterosexuals and gays?
Why one and NOT the other? If I have a right to marry another man why
NOT a right to marry anything else? If marriage can be limited to gays
and Heterosexuals like you want, then limiting it to just Heterosexuals
must also be legal and constitutional, and if NOT then you also have no
power to limit it to just those two groups you want.
Can I marry a black or an Asian? What is the reasoning behind you
limiting my right to just allowing me to marry a woman a gay or an Asian
or Black.... shouldn't I be able to marry anyone and anything?
Otherwise you violate my right, OUR rights don't come in legal
coalitions like marriage, they are individual Rights. We don't have a
RIGHT to get married as a couple.... INSTEAD I have an individual RIGHT
TO MARRY. And when you try to limit it to ONLY Gay and hetero marriage
or just Black to black or white to white that violates "MY" rights and
NOT some couples rights.
It's NOT A CASE OF WE have a right as GAYS to marry it's I have a RIGHT
as a Citizen to marry anyone or anything as long as I am NOT violating
YOUR RIGHTS.
That means a fetus can marry a citizen under the constitution.
Unless you Liberals admit that it's a person and a child.
The sick part is the Liberal logic that would make marrying a fetus
legal. This is why Liberalism always fails, their logic is skewed with
emotional self gratification.
They will ignore logic simply because they want to feel good, they have
no will power to recognize their flawed logic because if they did they
would NOT get to feel good for the moment. Liberalism is all about short
term gratification and that's obvious by looking at who votes Democrat
and what their policies are.
People who want instant gratification and will ignore everything else to
get it are the Democrat voters.
--
*Rumination*
#19 - Deciding how much Socialism is too much, is like deciding how much
dog shit in your ice cream is too much.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 9:11:03 AM11/11/13
to
others....
what makes you so sure that gay marriage and killing human life in the
uterus isn't silly?
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 9:35:55 AM11/11/13
to
to limit the rights of a baby inside the uterus NOT me.
I was telling you that you are the racist, sexist and age discriminator
that wants to limit people.
ALL or NONE is all inclusive, it doesn't discriminate against race sex
or age like you do.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 9:52:53 AM11/11/13
to
Been to a Code Pink rally lately?
The Pot is calling the kettle....
Wayne
Nov 11, 2013, 11:58:05 AM11/11/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
# Why on earth would you believe something so ridiculous?
Because of the "two eyes, one brain" test. We have already seen the
ridiculous happen. Precedence has been established for more insane legal
interpretations.
Wayne
Nov 11, 2013, 12:02:18 PM11/11/13
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
news:4TZfu.147255$gp1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
# process. Simply cut all those "RIGHTS" that marriage has
# unconstitutionally created.
# Why do married people deserve rights not possessed by single people?
# That's NOT equal. And giving those "RIGHTS" to more married people still
# doesn't make it equal. The only way to make it equal is to give those
# RIGHTS to *ALL or NONE* .
Which gives more fuel to the notion that the government should not be
involved in marriage, but confine itself to legal contracts.
Gunner Asch
Nov 11, 2013, 1:34:18 PM11/11/13
to
more women. One of them is married already..but its her right to
marry 2 men...and a woman.
The Left tells me this. And so...Its my Right!!
Only distaff side I can see..is when one of us dies...all the rest get
their Social Security.
--
Liberals want everyone to think like them.
Conservatives want everyone to think.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 1:43:30 PM11/11/13
to
"if it bans gays" then it's also unconstitutional if it bans others.
So it's all or none.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 1:54:32 PM11/11/13
to
us and our RIGHTS aren't hurt by it.
Marry your Goat and a few machines too like maybe a computer or a
blow-up doll.
Gunner Asch
Nov 11, 2013, 3:52:07 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:54:32 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
Goats? Nah...Ill leave the goats to Leftwingers.
Im glad I have the approval of the Left to be a polygamist. It is
going to make my life far more simple...and far more interesting!!
Gunner
Im glad I have the approval of the Left to be a polygamist. It is
going to make my life far more simple...and far more interesting!!
Gunner
Ray Keller
Nov 11, 2013, 4:23:01 PM11/11/13
to
An appeal, Veteran's Day 2013.
I watched "Killing Kennedy" last night and remembered those times - I was
there. The society of the time didn't believe that an presidential
assassination was possible. Not in modern America. Not in the 20th century.
That sort of thing only happened in the "banana republics". That is why it
was such a shock to everyone, Democrat and Republican alike. People walked
around in a dream - a nightmare. But it could and it did. I detect a similar
attitude in today's society. American government overthrown? Not posible,
this is the 21th century. But it can be and all the signs are out in the
open, it is happening.
Is civics taught in schools today? Mostly not in public schools, but for
those of us who have studied government and how they are born and die it is
all to obvious. Socialists have made great strides: they control most of the
Democrat party (they admit it) and the Executive Branch is filled with them
from the top down.
America a Socialist Union? Today, it is more likely than to continue to be
the free nation our Founders dreamed of.
So that is why the letter than came in my email this morning is so chilling.
Ed Schriber sees the signs, many of us see the signs. It is up to us, don't
let Liberty die.
-- Bill Davis
The email:
Below is a letter from Ed Schriber, Col. USMC (Ret.). Lengthy but a necessary
read to fully understand the essence of the presidents REAL agenda.
Why ObamaCare is a Fantastic Success
There are two major political parties in America. I'm a member of the naďve,
stupid, and cowardly one. I'm a Republican.
How stupid is the GOP? They still don't get it.
I told them 5 years ago, 2 books ago, a national bestseller ago ("The
Ultimate Obama Survival Guide"), and in hundreds of articles and
commentaries, that ObamaCare was never meant to help America, or heal the
sick, or lower healthcare costs, or lower the debt, or expand the economy.
The GOP needs to stop calling ObamaCare a "trainwreck." That means it's a
mistake, or accident. That means it's a gigantic flop, or failure. It's NOT.
This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S.
economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism.
It's not a failure, it's Obama's grand success.
It's not a "trainwreck," ObamaCare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us,
to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept
big government.
Obama's hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky -- a radical Marxist intent on
destroying capitalism. Alinsky's stated advice was to call the other guy "a
terrorist" to hide your own intentions.
To scream that the other guy is "ruining America," while you are the one
actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again...in
every sentence of every speech...that you are "saving the middle class,"
while you are busy wiping out the middle class.
The GOP is so stupid they can't see it. There are no mistakes here. This is a
planned purposeful attack.
The tell-tale sign isn't the disastrous start to ObamaCare. Or the
devastating effect the new taxes are having on the economy. Or the death of
full-time jobs. Or the overwhelming debt. Or the dramatic increases in health
insurance rates. Or the 70% of doctors now thinking of retiring- bringing on
a healthcare crisis of unimaginable proportions. Forget all that.
The real sign that this is a purposeful attack upon capitalism is how many
Obama administration members and Democratic Congressmen are openly calling
Tea Party Republicans and anyone who wants to stop ObamaCare "terrorists."
There's the clue. Even the clueless GOP should be able to see that.
They are calling the reasonable people...the patriots...the people who
believe in the Constitution ... the people who believe exactly what the
Founding Fathers believed...the people who want to take power away from
corrupt politicians who have put America $17 trillion in debt...terrorists?
That's because they are Saul Alinsky-ing the GOP. The people trying to
purposely hurt America, capitalism and the middle class...are calling the
patriots by a terrible name to fool, confuse and distract the public.
ObamaCare is a raving, rollicking, fantastic success. Stop calling it a
failure. Here is what it was created to do. It is succeeding on all counts:
1. ObamaCare was intended to bring about the Marxist dream -- redistribution
of wealth.
Rich people, small business owners, and the middle class are being robbed, so
that the money can be redistributed to poor people (who vote for Democrats).
Think about it. If you're rich or middle class, you now have to pay for your
own health care costs (at much higher rates) AND 40 million other people's
costs too (through massive tax increases).
So you're stuck paying for both bills. You are left broke. Brilliant.
2. ObamaCare was intended to wipe out the middle class and make them
dependent on government.
Think about it. Even Obama's IRS predicts that health insurance for a typical
American family by 2016 will be $20,000 per year. But how would middle class
Americans pay that bill and have anything left for food or housing or living?
People that make $40K, or $50K, or $60K can't possibly hope to spend $20K on
health insurance without becoming homeless.
Bingo. That's how you make middle class people dependent on government.
That's how you make everyone addicted to government checks. Brilliant.
3. As a bonus, ObamaCare is intended to kill every decent paying job in the
economy, creating only crummy, crappy part-time jobs.
Why? Just to make sure the middle class is trapped, with no way out. Just to
make sure no one has the $20,000 per year to pay for health insurance,
thereby guaranteeing they become wards of the state. Brilliant.
4. ObamaCare is intended to bankrupt small business, and therefore starve
donations to the GOP.
Think about it. Do you know a small business owner? I know hundreds of them.
Their rates are being doubled, tripled and quadrupled by ObamaCare.
Guess who writes 75% of the checks to Republican candidates and conservative
causes? The GOP.
Even if a small business owner manages to survive, he or she certainly can't
write a big check to the GOP anymore. Money is the "mother's milk" of
politics. Without donations, a political party ceases to exist. Bingo.
That's the point of ObamaCare. Obama is bankrupting his political opposition
and drying up donations to the GOP. Brilliant.
5. ObamaCare is intended to make the IRS all-powerful.
It adds thousands of new IRS agents. It puts the IRS in charge of overseeing
15% of the U.S. economy. The IRS has the right because of ObamaCare to snoop
into every aspect of your life, to go into your bank accounts, to fine you,
to frighten you, to intimidate you. And Obama and his socialist cabal have
access to your deepest medical secrets.
By law your doctor has to ask your sexual history. That information is now in
the hands of Obama and the IRS to blackmail GOP candidates into either not
running, or supporting bigger government, or leaking the info and ruining
your campaign.
Or have you forgotten the IRS harassed, intimidated and persecuted critics of
Obama and conservative groups?
Now Obama hands the IRS even more power. Big Brother rules our lives.
Brilliant.
6. ObamaCare is intended to unionize 15 million healthcare workers.
That produces $15 billion in new union dues. That money goes to fund
Democratic candidates and socialist causes -- thereby guaranteeing Obama's
friends never lose another election, and Obama's policies keep ruining
capitalism and bankrupting business owners long after he's out of office.
Message to the GOP: This isn't a game. This isn't tiddly-winks. This is a
serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism.
This isn't a trainwreck. It's purposeful suicide.
It's not failing, it's working exactly according to plan. Obama knows what
he's doing. Stop apologizing and start fighting.
Oh and one more thing...Conservatives aren't "terrorists." We are patriots
and saviors. We represent the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. We are
the heroes and good guys. Unless you get all this through your thick skulls,
America is lost...forever.
Ed Schriber
Col. USMC (Ret.)
"Semper Fi"
pyotr filipivich
Nov 11, 2013, 5:30:59 PM11/11/13
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:34:18 -0800
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
survivors. Now, it might be a problem (for 'you') if SSA decides that
your widows get "one" benefit, to be divided amongst all of them. It
becomes "my" problem if the SSA decides that I get to pony up for a
full up benefit for each of them.
The only question the Democrats have left that they can ask is: do
you love each other? And two out of three would qualify.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"What was I, before I was what I am, and will I be when I'm not?
You were what you are before you are what you is, and you will be what you
ain't."
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>
>>They will ignore logic simply because they want to feel good, they have
>>no will power to recognize their flawed logic because if they did they
>>would NOT get to feel good for the moment. Liberalism is all about short
>>term gratification and that's obvious by looking at who votes Democrat
>>and what their policies are.
>>
>>People who want instant gratification and will ignore everything else to
>>get it are the Democrat voters.
>>
>
>I want to marry both of my lady friends. Its my Right to marry 2 or
>more women. One of them is married already..but its her right to
>marry 2 men...and a woman.
>
>The Left tells me this. And so...Its my Right!!
>
>Only distaff side I can see..is when one of us dies...all the rest get
>their Social Security.
And this is a problem ... how? Survivor benefits go to the
>>They will ignore logic simply because they want to feel good, they have
>>no will power to recognize their flawed logic because if they did they
>>would NOT get to feel good for the moment. Liberalism is all about short
>>term gratification and that's obvious by looking at who votes Democrat
>>and what their policies are.
>>
>>People who want instant gratification and will ignore everything else to
>>get it are the Democrat voters.
>>
>
>I want to marry both of my lady friends. Its my Right to marry 2 or
>more women. One of them is married already..but its her right to
>marry 2 men...and a woman.
>
>The Left tells me this. And so...Its my Right!!
>
>Only distaff side I can see..is when one of us dies...all the rest get
>their Social Security.
survivors. Now, it might be a problem (for 'you') if SSA decides that
your widows get "one" benefit, to be divided amongst all of them. It
becomes "my" problem if the SSA decides that I get to pony up for a
full up benefit for each of them.
The only question the Democrats have left that they can ask is: do
you love each other? And two out of three would qualify.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"What was I, before I was what I am, and will I be when I'm not?
You were what you are before you are what you is, and you will be what you
ain't."
pyotr filipivich
Nov 11, 2013, 5:39:57 PM11/11/13
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:52:07 -0800
even if they are homosexuals.
Except my right to not support that which I know to put my mortal
soul at risk. But then, I've reached the conclusion that Democrats
don't have souls (or rather, they believe that they do not), and don't
understand the issue.
than one mother-in-law!
And even if you do marry sisters - your mother in law is going to
be all over you for playing favorites.
>...and far more interesting!!
That is a word for it. B-)
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:54:32 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>On 11/11/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>On 11/11/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:07:40 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if it violates MY rights and YOUR rights when government limits
>>>> marriage to a Man and woman? Won't it also or still "violate my rights"
>>>> when you limit marriage to only heterosexuals and gays?
The laws as written still violate the rights of siblings to marry,
>>>
>>>> But if it violates MY rights and YOUR rights when government limits
>>>> marriage to a Man and woman? Won't it also or still "violate my rights"
>>>> when you limit marriage to only heterosexuals and gays?
even if they are homosexuals.
soul at risk. But then, I've reached the conclusion that Democrats
don't have souls (or rather, they believe that they do not), and don't
understand the issue.
>>
>>
>>Marry your Goat and a few machines too like maybe a computer or a
>>blow-up doll.
>>
>Goats? Nah...Ill leave the goats to Leftwingers.
>
>Im glad I have the approval of the Left to be a polygamist. It is
>going to make my life far more simple
Simpler? Unless you marry sisters - you are going to have more
>>
>>Marry your Goat and a few machines too like maybe a computer or a
>>blow-up doll.
>>
>Goats? Nah...Ill leave the goats to Leftwingers.
>
>Im glad I have the approval of the Left to be a polygamist. It is
>going to make my life far more simple
than one mother-in-law!
And even if you do marry sisters - your mother in law is going to
be all over you for playing favorites.
>...and far more interesting!!
That is a word for it. B-)
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Message has been deleted
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 11, 2013, 5:53:04 PM11/11/13
to
In article <jb6gu.34512$Lj7....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
What do gay parades and Code Pink have to do with marriage rights?
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 11, 2013, 5:53:25 PM11/11/13
to
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 11, 2013, 5:55:00 PM11/11/13
to
In article <Ww5gu.36350$SO1....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com>,
Wow. That's quite the silly strawman you've built there.
Your desperate silliness is getting boring. Up your game.
Your desperate silliness is getting boring. Up your game.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 11, 2013, 5:55:49 PM11/11/13
to
In article <SJ9gu.36694$SO1....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com>,
Let's see some evidence for this silly assertion.
F. George McDuffee
Nov 11, 2013, 6:57:27 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:39:57 -0800, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
There are some very good practical/public health reasons for
a society to prohibit marriage or sexual relations between
close blood relatives. Namely the higher incidence of
deformity and other genetic diseases in their off-spring.
In cultures which allow/encourage intra family/clan
marriage, for example between first cousins, the frequency
of genetic problems is significantly higher than in
societies which discourage such relationships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam
<snip>
A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in the United Kingdom, 55%
of whom marry a first cousin. Given the high rate of such
marriages, many children come from repeat generations of
first-cousin marriages. The report states that these
children are 13 times more likely than the general
population to produce children with genetic disorders, and
one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham
either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability.
<snip>
Chronic genetic conditions are expensive to treat, and
generally result in a significantly shorter life span and
lower quality of life.
While this does indeed somewhat limit the freedom of the
individual, IMNSHO, the aggregate benefit to society is far
greater.
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> But if it violates MY rights and YOUR rights when government limits
>>>>> marriage to a Man and woman? Won't it also or still "violate my rights"
>>>>> when you limit marriage to only heterosexuals and gays?
>
> The laws as written still violate the rights of siblings to marry,
>even if they are homosexuals.
<snip>
>>>>> marriage to a Man and woman? Won't it also or still "violate my rights"
>>>>> when you limit marriage to only heterosexuals and gays?
>
> The laws as written still violate the rights of siblings to marry,
>even if they are homosexuals.
There are some very good practical/public health reasons for
a society to prohibit marriage or sexual relations between
close blood relatives. Namely the higher incidence of
deformity and other genetic diseases in their off-spring.
In cultures which allow/encourage intra family/clan
marriage, for example between first cousins, the frequency
of genetic problems is significantly higher than in
societies which discourage such relationships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam
<snip>
A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in the United Kingdom, 55%
of whom marry a first cousin. Given the high rate of such
marriages, many children come from repeat generations of
first-cousin marriages. The report states that these
children are 13 times more likely than the general
population to produce children with genetic disorders, and
one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham
either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability.
<snip>
Chronic genetic conditions are expensive to treat, and
generally result in a significantly shorter life span and
lower quality of life.
While this does indeed somewhat limit the freedom of the
individual, IMNSHO, the aggregate benefit to society is far
greater.
Don Kresch
Nov 11, 2013, 7:07:32 PM11/11/13
to
>
>Why one and NOT the other? If I have a right to marry another man why
>NOT a right to marry anything else?
called "consent", and I'd LOVE to see you show that, say, a fetus can
consent. Do it. I fucking DARE you.
Oh, and remember: I'm an anarchist. Anything you say about
"liberals" does not apply to me.
Free Lunch
Nov 11, 2013, 7:15:15 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:07:32 -0600, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
If you are "pro-life" you are a huge fan of big government.
wrote in alt.atheism:
Gunner Asch
Nov 11, 2013, 7:16:17 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:30:59 -0800, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:34:18 -0800
>typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>
>>>They will ignore logic simply because they want to feel good, they have
>>>no will power to recognize their flawed logic because if they did they
>>>would NOT get to feel good for the moment. Liberalism is all about short
>>>term gratification and that's obvious by looking at who votes Democrat
>>>and what their policies are.
>>>
>>>People who want instant gratification and will ignore everything else to
>>>get it are the Democrat voters.
>>>
>>
>>I want to marry both of my lady friends. Its my Right to marry 2 or
>>more women. One of them is married already..but its her right to
>>marry 2 men...and a woman.
>>
>>The Left tells me this. And so...Its my Right!!
>>
>>Only distaff side I can see..is when one of us dies...all the rest get
>>their Social Security.
>
> And this is a problem ... how? Survivor benefits go to the
>survivors. Now, it might be a problem (for 'you') if SSA decides that
>your widows get "one" benefit, to be divided amongst all of them. It
>becomes "my" problem if the SSA decides that I get to pony up for a
>full up benefit for each of them.
Ayup. The final survivor would be living pretty damned good.
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:34:18 -0800
>typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>
>>>They will ignore logic simply because they want to feel good, they have
>>>no will power to recognize their flawed logic because if they did they
>>>would NOT get to feel good for the moment. Liberalism is all about short
>>>term gratification and that's obvious by looking at who votes Democrat
>>>and what their policies are.
>>>
>>>People who want instant gratification and will ignore everything else to
>>>get it are the Democrat voters.
>>>
>>
>>I want to marry both of my lady friends. Its my Right to marry 2 or
>>more women. One of them is married already..but its her right to
>>marry 2 men...and a woman.
>>
>>The Left tells me this. And so...Its my Right!!
>>
>>Only distaff side I can see..is when one of us dies...all the rest get
>>their Social Security.
>
> And this is a problem ... how? Survivor benefits go to the
>survivors. Now, it might be a problem (for 'you') if SSA decides that
>your widows get "one" benefit, to be divided amongst all of them. It
>becomes "my" problem if the SSA decides that I get to pony up for a
>full up benefit for each of them.
>
> The only question the Democrats have left that they can ask is: do
>you love each other? And two out of three would qualify.
>
>tschus
>pyotr
Ayup.
> The only question the Democrats have left that they can ask is: do
>you love each other? And two out of three would qualify.
>
>tschus
>pyotr
Gunner Asch
Nov 11, 2013, 7:18:17 PM11/11/13
to
> And even if you do marry sisters - your mother in law is going to
>be all over you for playing favorites.
>
>>...and far more interesting!!
>
> That is a word for it. B-)
<VBG>
>>...and far more interesting!!
>
> That is a word for it. B-)
Gunner Asch
Nov 11, 2013, 7:38:03 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:07:32 -0600, Don Kresch
abortionist is considered to be a murder or homicide.....and yet the
abortionist doesnt kill a human being..just a tissue mass.
Doesnt that twist your 5 brain cells right into a knot?
>
>Don
>aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Gunner Asch
Nov 11, 2013, 7:41:26 PM11/11/13
to
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 7:45:13 PM11/11/13
to
and licensed to it, or even a gun when you get one and are liable for it
and linked to it(closer than the laws links you to your Spouse).
What is a prenuptial but a contract to recognize you are married to your
personal property always before your other, human spouse.
In a round about way, we already marry things other than a woman or man.
We marry our stuff. Those items we hold more dear than the spouse that
we would take as a secondary spouse in a polygamist marriage. And a
fetus being it's NOT a person according to Liberals, is Not the
recipient of any rights until it's born. At least that's how it works in
the Liberal universe.
A fetus is NOT a child or a person according to Liberals.
If we are all equal and can marry anything or anyone that no other laws
preclude you from marrying like pedophilia laws then a fetus needs no
consent since it's NOT owned and is NOT a child or a person with RIGHTS.
There is NO law that forbids marrying a fetus and if Marriage laws can't
limit who gets married as Gays and Liberals say they can't.
Then getting married to a fetus is the logical extension of gay
marriage, as is marrying a robot or a piece of software or even an image.
I'm Not saying that it's the way it should be, it's Liberals saying gays
have a right to marry and that heterosexuals don't have a right to an
exclusive form of bonding...... They are saying a fetus can be married
to a U.S. citizen with because the U.S. citizen has a right to be
married to whom ever or what ever does not infringe on another citizens
Rights.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 8:07:31 PM11/11/13
to
On 11/11/2013 6:57 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:39:57 -0800, pyotr filipivich
> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>>>> But if it violates MY rights and YOUR rights when government limits
>>>>>> marriage to a Man and woman? Won't it also or still "violate my rights"
>>>>>> when you limit marriage to only heterosexuals and gays?
>>
>> The laws as written still violate the rights of siblings to marry,
>> even if they are homosexuals.
> <snip>
>
> There are some very good practical/public health reasons for
> a society to prohibit marriage or sexual relations between
> close blood relatives. Namely the higher incidence of
> deformity and other genetic diseases in their off-spring.
NOT if they are GAY....
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:39:57 -0800, pyotr filipivich
> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>>>> But if it violates MY rights and YOUR rights when government limits
>>>>>> marriage to a Man and woman? Won't it also or still "violate my rights"
>>>>>> when you limit marriage to only heterosexuals and gays?
>>
>> The laws as written still violate the rights of siblings to marry,
>> even if they are homosexuals.
> <snip>
>
> There are some very good practical/public health reasons for
> a society to prohibit marriage or sexual relations between
> close blood relatives. Namely the higher incidence of
> deformity and other genetic diseases in their off-spring.
>
> In cultures which allow/encourage intra family/clan
> marriage, for example between first cousins, the frequency
> of genetic problems is significantly higher than in
> societies which discourage such relationships.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
> http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam
offspring? But isn't that violating their GAY RIGHTS?
> <snip>
> A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in the United Kingdom, 55%
> of whom marry a first cousin. Given the high rate of such
> marriages, many children come from repeat generations of
> first-cousin marriages. The report states that these
> children are 13 times more likely than the general
> population to produce children with genetic disorders, and
> one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham
> either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability.
different RIGHTS due to differences in the outcome of the marriage?
(mainly children)
> <snip>
>
> Chronic genetic conditions are expensive to treat, and
> generally result in a significantly shorter life span and
> lower quality of life.
limitation is what you think society wants, given the high cost of life
and medical needs that come with allowing everyone to exercise the
Marriage RIGHTS they were endowed with.
Can't violate the GAY RIGHTS and yet you are damned if you allow gay
marriage and no incest... and damned if you don't allow gay marriage at
all. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
That is how Liberal logic works.
> While this does indeed somewhat limit the freedom of the
> individual, IMNSHO, the aggregate benefit to society is far
> greater.
per Liberals logic and discriminate against the minority or violate all
GAYS RIGHTS defined by that famous Liberal logic?
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 8:23:08 PM11/11/13
to
On 11/11/2013 4:42 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <hdm28918jcdkl3bv0...@4ax.com>,
> currently lobbying or suing for it. When someone does have a shot at it, then
> you can start yapping.
>
NO.... we can point out the logic and show where the logical end will
be. Whether Liberal Judges use Logic is unknown because Judges logic is
random. But the fact that the courts might ignore logic means that they
are losing support and the confidence of the people.
Because you can't have equal justice and Social Justice at the same time.
> In article <hdm28918jcdkl3bv0...@4ax.com>,
> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> And this is a problem ... how? Survivor benefits go to the
>
> No, it's not. No state currently recognises this as a marriage. Nobody is
>
>> And this is a problem ... how? Survivor benefits go to the
>
> currently lobbying or suing for it. When someone does have a shot at it, then
> you can start yapping.
>
NO.... we can point out the logic and show where the logical end will
be. Whether Liberal Judges use Logic is unknown because Judges logic is
random. But the fact that the courts might ignore logic means that they
are losing support and the confidence of the people.
Because you can't have equal justice and Social Justice at the same time.
Sancho Panza
Nov 11, 2013, 8:36:51 PM11/11/13
to
Don Kresch
Nov 11, 2013, 8:38:01 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:38:03 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
No, it's not odd. Whatever gives you the idiotic idea that it
is?
is?
Don Kresch
Nov 11, 2013, 8:39:04 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:45:13 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
That's nice, but doesn't show that a fetus can consent.
And why do you keep bringing up "liberals"? That's a red
herring with me, given that I'm an ANARCHIST.
And why do you keep bringing up "liberals"? That's a red
herring with me, given that I'm an ANARCHIST.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 8:53:07 PM11/11/13
to
they kill their pregnant wife.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2013, 8:57:39 PM11/11/13
to
You're more akin to Liberals and the chaos they create with their
illogical interpretations of the Constitution. You are more likely to
vote for Obama than for Romney.
Obama is creating chaos, you want chaos. Looks like a *MARRIAGE* made
in utopia.
--
*Rumination*
#44 - Love your country, but fear your Government, and when they say
we're here from the government and we're here to help.... run Forest run.
Message has been deleted
pyotr filipivich
Nov 11, 2013, 9:43:08 PM11/11/13
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:18:17 -0800
thinking.
means, that you will have to perform for both of them. Tonight. (I
recall a scene in Little Big Man, where Jack Crabb, having four wives
- sisters, finds himself having to perform his manly duties - for all
of them.
Jack Crabb: I was determined to stay out of them buffalo robes. Three
young and healthy women with no man for who knows how long. The very
idea kinda shrunk me like a spider on a hot stove.
...
Sunshine: [Seeing Jack crawling out from under her sister's buffalo
robe] The others too?
Jack Crabb: Uh, huh.
Sunshine: I knew you were a good man.
It ain't all beer and skittles, being the stud.
Well, a man has to do, what a man has to do.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>
>
>>>Goats? Nah...Ill leave the goats to Leftwingers.
>>>
>>>Im glad I have the approval of the Left to be a polygamist. It is
>>>going to make my life far more simple
>>
>> Simpler? Unless you marry sisters - you are going to have more
>>than one mother-in-law!
>
>EEEP!! Gasp...I didnt even think about that aspect!!! Groan....
See, that is what happens when you let the little head do all the
>>>
>>>Im glad I have the approval of the Left to be a polygamist. It is
>>>going to make my life far more simple
>>
>> Simpler? Unless you marry sisters - you are going to have more
>>than one mother-in-law!
>
>EEEP!! Gasp...I didnt even think about that aspect!!! Groan....
thinking.
>
>> And even if you do marry sisters - your mother in law is going to
>>be all over you for playing favorites.
>
>And they would be all over me trying to prove who was best......(Grin)
Or, consider this. You have to be "fair" to both of them. Which
>> And even if you do marry sisters - your mother in law is going to
>>be all over you for playing favorites.
>
>And they would be all over me trying to prove who was best......(Grin)
means, that you will have to perform for both of them. Tonight. (I
recall a scene in Little Big Man, where Jack Crabb, having four wives
- sisters, finds himself having to perform his manly duties - for all
of them.
Jack Crabb: I was determined to stay out of them buffalo robes. Three
young and healthy women with no man for who knows how long. The very
idea kinda shrunk me like a spider on a hot stove.
...
Sunshine: [Seeing Jack crawling out from under her sister's buffalo
robe] The others too?
Jack Crabb: Uh, huh.
Sunshine: I knew you were a good man.
It ain't all beer and skittles, being the stud.
Well, a man has to do, what a man has to do.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Don Kresch
Nov 11, 2013, 9:51:59 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:53:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
So how is that odd?
Don Kresch
Nov 11, 2013, 9:54:01 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:57:39 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
That's nice, but again: has nothing to do with me. So bringing
up what "liberals" have done when you post to me is really a red
herring.
>
>You're more akin to Liberals and the chaos they create with their
>illogical interpretations of the Constitution.
No, you and the "liberals" are the enemy to me. You are both
socialists (statists). All government is socialist. You want there to
be a government. Therefore, you want there to be socialism.
> You are more likely to
>vote for Obama than for Romney.
Voting is immoral.
>
>Obama is creating chaos, you want chaos.
No, chaos is what you get with government. Anarchy is natural
order.
up what "liberals" have done when you post to me is really a red
herring.
>
>You're more akin to Liberals and the chaos they create with their
>illogical interpretations of the Constitution.
socialists (statists). All government is socialist. You want there to
be a government. Therefore, you want there to be socialism.
> You are more likely to
>vote for Obama than for Romney.
>
>Obama is creating chaos, you want chaos.
order.
Mitchell Holman
Nov 11, 2013, 10:09:57 PM11/11/13
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:i0u28998slllprlr7...@4ax.com:
If you don't like abortion don't get one.
Next?
news:i0u28998slllprlr7...@4ax.com:
Next?
F. George McDuffee
Nov 11, 2013, 10:34:06 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:41:26 -0800, Gunner Asch
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Chronic genetic conditions are expensive to treat, and
>>generally result in a significantly shorter life span and
>>lower quality of life.
>>
>>While this does indeed somewhat limit the freedom of the
>>individual, IMNSHO, the aggregate benefit to society is far
>>greater.
>>
>
>Yet the English did it for many centuries.
======================
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Chronic genetic conditions are expensive to treat, and
>>generally result in a significantly shorter life span and
>>lower quality of life.
>>
>>While this does indeed somewhat limit the freedom of the
>>individual, IMNSHO, the aggregate benefit to society is far
>>greater.
>>
>
>Yet the English did it for many centuries.
I don't want to play "bash the Brits," but this may well
have caused the demise of three empires [Germany, Austria,
Russia], millions of deaths (WW1&2) and changed the course
of world history.
For what ever reason, hemophilia was in Queen Victoria's
bloodline. Hemophilia is passed by the woman, but expressed
almost exclusively in their male descendants.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ualberta.ca/~pletendr/tm-modules/genetics/images/hemophilia.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ualberta.ca/~pletendr/tm-modules/genetics/70gen-hemophil.html&h=450&w=600&sz=196&tbnid=9rysdL-dmjB-ZM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=123&zoom=1&usg=__X31aw7mIlXs2RcrvW8-AoYpt3FM=&docid=cOvTiN9W582a-M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I5yBUsytKanQ2AXl4YHQBA&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/haemophilia.html
<snip>
The disease was spread to the Romanov dynasty through the
marriage of Alice's fourth daughter Alix, to Tsar Nicholas
II. The highly attractive Alix had previously refused a
proposal from Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale,
and heir to the British throne, the eldest son of Bertie,
Prince of Wales. Had she accepted, haemophilia could have
re-entered the British Royal line. Nicholas had long loved
and cherished dreams of marrying Alix, but she turned down
his first proposal as she could not bring herself to change
her Protestant religion to the Russian Orthodoxy required of
a future Tsarina, but after much soul searching, accepted
when he proposed for a second time.
Alix, who became known as the Empress Alexandra, produced
four daughters before giving birth to their only son, the
Tsarevitch Alexis (11), heir to the Russian empire, who was
also stricken with haemophilia. As with most mother's of
haemophiliacs, Alix was overprotective of her son and
worried about him constantly. ==>Through his supposed
ability to heal the Tsarevich, and the Tsarina's compete
confidence in him, Rasputin acquired a fatal influence over
the Tsar's decisions which lead directly to the Russian
Revolution.<=={emphasis added} The entire family perished at
the hands of a Bolshevik firing squad in a cellar at
Ekaterinberg on 17th July, 1918.
<snip>
Talk about a butterfly effect!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Olrik
Nov 11, 2013, 11:27:02 PM11/11/13
to
Le 2013-11-11 20:39, Don Kresch a �crit :
KOOK FIGHT!
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Gunner Asch
Nov 12, 2013, 12:59:07 AM11/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:38:01 -0600, Don Kresch
So you consider that to be logical?
You vote leftwing doncha?
>
>
>Don
>aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
You vote leftwing doncha?
>
>
>Don
>aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
--
Liberals want everyone to think like them.
Conservatives want everyone to think.
Liberals want everyone to think like them.
Conservatives want everyone to think.
Gunner Asch
Nov 12, 2013, 1:00:08 AM11/12/13
to
That makes you a far far far Leftwinger.
>
>
>Don
>aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages