Dr. Laura destroys lives- personal examples
AliceACF
early 40s, each out of the closet for 20+ years. Both very close to
their parents, who were very tolerant, accepting etc.
Then about a year ago, one of them calls me in tears- her sweet mother
was suddenly on this anti-gay rampage, and kept citing "this Dr. Laura
person" as proof that this gayness thing was immoral and against God,
etc. The mother had always been moderately religious, but not with
any religion that ordered her to hate gay people.
I heard from my friend last week, after a week-long visit w/ her
partner to her mom's. The whole week was spent trying to "un-gay"
them, with lots of "Dr. Laura says..." and lots of anger/coldness when
they refused to de-gay. My friend, 45 years old, is devastated that
her relationship with her mother has gone from great to horrible.
Thanks Dr. Laura. Way to improve lives!
PSierut
strong 'moral' code: "Okay, but if I 'de-gay' myself, I will also have to
emulate Dr. Laura in every other way as well, including terminating my
relationship with you. But don't worry, I'll come to your funeral after the
police find your rotted corpse on the bathroom floor."
William Kunka
the 'gay lifestyle' that is so worthy of exaltation? It is merely a
aspect of casual sex play...with the consequences of disease and death.
Sorry,but that is just the way it is.
Bill
Randomity
general population. Unless you are a total dumb fuck I think you can figure out
why.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
Tinas49ers
>The mother had always been moderately religious, but not with
>any religion that ordered her to hate gay people.
What religion does teach people to hate gays?
Tin@
Save a life, give blood
1-800-GIVE LIFE
Tinas49ers
Bill, there's no proof that gays are any more casual about sex and
relationships than straight people.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Tinas49ers wrote:
>
> >From: bnoise
>
> >
> >If their is fault to be assigned,it is with the mother. what is it about
> >the 'gay lifestyle' that is so worthy of exaltation? It is merely a
> >aspect of casual sex play...with the consequences of disease and death.
> >Sorry,but that is just the way it is.
> >Bill
>
> Bill, there's no proof that gays are any more casual about sex and
> relationships than straight people.
>
I suppose the literally thousands of sex partners a year that some male
homosexuals engaged with are not evidence suggesting something.
TheLoneRanger100
It's funny that these people "didn't" know that their Queer Kids were looked
upon as abberations in this society......In fact, most people in the world see
Queers as not being part of the normal world.......
gk
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F480091...@backpacker.com...
We should encourage them to be monogamous.
William Kunka
relationships than straight people.
Tin@
Save a life, give blood
1-800-GIVE LIFE
I know..but gay can only be casual. I Have my own ways of
misbehaving....but I don't crow about it and demand special rights.
Bill
gk
news:20030823193209...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >From: aliceac_2000
>
> >The mother had always been moderately religious, but not with
> >any religion that ordered her to hate gay people.
>
> What religion does teach people to hate gays?
The religion of Fred Phelps and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry Falwell.
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
> I know..but gay can only be casual.
Why do you believe that?
>but I don't crow about it and demand special rights.
Gays are demanding equal rights not special rights. Why are you
against that?
--
Every effort to confine Americanism to a single
pattern, to constrain it to a single formula,
is disloyalty to everything that is valid in Americanism.
--"Henry Steele Commager"
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
Rob
Besides which, the consequence of merely living seems to be death. Or
so I've been told.
Rob
"some" people doing x is evidence suggesting "something"? Let me write
that down in my book of things I absolutely must remember.
And for someone who was on about exaggeration (re the San Francisco
hospital bill) "thousands of sex partners a year" for any male is,
well, probably an exaggeration. Although (heavy sigh) you'll doubtless
express surprise that anyone could question anything you might care to
say.
Tinas49ers
>
>The religion of Fred Phelps and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry Falwell.
And what religions are those? Or did you really mean that's what those
individuals advocate?
Tinas49ers
>I suppose the literally thousands of sex partners a year that some male
>homosexuals engaged with are not evidence suggesting something.
>
And straight guys are as promiscuous? Or wish they could be at least. Besides,
do you really think gays, as a whole view, relationships much differently than
straights?
Tinas49ers
Everyone should be encouraged to be monogamous, that way the diseases wouldn't
be spread and Bill wouldn't knock up some woman he'd have to pay child support
to because he's too stupid to wear a condom.
Tinas49ers
>I know..but gay can only be casual.
Really? They NEVER have committed relationships?
>I Have my own ways of
>misbehaving....but I don't crow about it and demand special rights.
>Bill
Nor do all gays. You can't blame eveybody for the nuts in a group.
gk
> >From: "gk"
>
> >
> >The religion of Fred Phelps and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry
Falwell.
>
> And what religions are those?
Their respective branches of Christianity.
>Or did you really mean that's what those individuals advocate?
A religion is, of course, the collective opinion and beliefs of its
individual leaders and followers.
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
> Everyone should be encouraged to be monogamous, that way the
> diseases wouldn't be spread and Bill wouldn't knock up some
> woman he'd have to pay child support to because he's too stupid
> to wear a condom.
If you believe that, why did you vote for Proposition 22?
--
"The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and
has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the
visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation
to invoke security "necessities" to justify an encroachment
upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security
argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism."
--Justice William Brennan
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
gk
I think gay marriage would help encourage monogamy among gay people. That,
and the fact that I believe those in committed gay relationships should have
the same financial and medical decision making rights as those in straight
marriages are why I support it.
William Kunka
Tim wrote:
Gays are demanding equal rights not special rights. Why are you against
that?
Hate crime legislation? If harsher penalties are provided for those
commiting crimes against gays than against heteros,that seems 'special'
to me. This stuff is being considered. When gays commit crimes against
straights,including some ghastly ones,the silence from the news service
is deafening.
Bill
Tinas49ers
>
>"Tinas49ers" <tinas...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030823225552...@mb-m17.aol.com...
>> >From: "gk"
>>
>> >
>> >The religion of Fred Phelps and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry
>Falwell.
>>
>> And what religions are those?
>
>Their respective branches of Christianity.
>
Come on, be specific. What religion? I don't know what branches of religion
they are.
>>Or did you really mean that's what those individuals advocate?
>
>A religion is, of course, the collective opinion and beliefs of its
>individual leaders and followers.
I am of the Christian religion and I don't advocate hatred of anyone, gay or
straight.
So, what you are saying is a lie.
Tinas49ers
>> Everyone should be encouraged to be monogamous, that way the
>> diseases wouldn't be spread and Bill wouldn't knock up some
>> woman he'd have to pay child support to because he's too stupid
>> to wear a condom.
>
>If you believe that, why did you vote for Proposition 22?
What does Prop 22 have to do with being monogamous? It had to do with calling
gay relationships marriage and they are a marriage. A marriage is between a man
and a woman.
Tinas49ers
>
>I think gay marriage would help encourage monogamy among gay people.
No more than it does in straight marriages, these days at least.
> That,
>and the fact that I believe those in committed gay relationships should have
>the same financial and medical decision making rights as those in straight
>marriages are why I support it.
I believe they should have the same rights too, except I dont think it should
be called a marriage, since a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Tinas49ers
This is just a laughable response.
BlackMonk
Where in civil law does it say that? There may be religious laws saying that
marriage is between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage and a religious
marriage are two different things.
William Kunka
I know..but gay can only be casual.
Tina wrote:
Really? They NEVER have committed relationships?
oops! I certainly misspoke! I get excited.
Bill
Tinas49ers
At least you admit when you're wrong.
Tinas49ers
Then call it a civil relationship Marriage is between a man and woman.
BlackMonk
Again, RELIGIOUS marriage is. We're talking about civil marriage. The state
has no power to define religious marriage and religion has no power to
define civil marriage.
Some religions only consider marriage valid if both people are members of
that religion. Should the state also refuse to recognize interfaith
marriages?
William Kunka
Tin@
Save a life, give blood
1-800-GIVE LIFE
It may be a big laugh but,truly,when a gay assaults a straight or a
minor child you have to listen Very carefully to hear about it. When
Jesse Dirkhising was bound,drugged and gagged,in northern arkansas and
sexually tortured for several hours by Davis Carpenter and Joshua
Brown...he died. This occured in 1999. Jesse was 13 years old. The
regular news services were very silent. I'll bet very few people are
laughing in Benton County,AK..I'm not 'laughing' either.
Bill
gk
> >From: "gk
>
> >
> >"Tinas49ers" <tinas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030823225552...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >> >From: "gk"
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The religion of Fred Phelps and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry
> >Falwell.
> >>
> >> And what religions are those?
> >
> >Their respective branches of Christianity.
>
> Come on, be specific. What religion? I don't know what branches of
religion
> they are.
They're both fundamentalist Southern Baptists. Phelps is pastor of a fairly
notorious church, Westboro Baptist Church, that pickets funerals and claims
that "God hates fags".
> >>Or did you really mean that's what those individuals advocate?
> >
> >A religion is, of course, the collective opinion and beliefs of its
> >individual leaders and followers.
>
>
> I am of the Christian religion and I don't advocate hatred of anyone, gay
or
> straight.
There is no one single "Christian religion". Some branches are actually
becoing inclusive, the Episcopal church comes to mind. This is good.
Tinas49ers
>Again, RELIGIOUS marriage is. We're talking about civil marriage.
You may be. I'm not.
>The state
>has no power to define religious marriage and religion has no power to
>define civil marriage.
I disagree...and so far, so do the laws.
>Some religions only consider marriage valid if both people are members of
>that religion. Should the state also refuse to recognize interfaith
>marriages?
That's not a concern of mine, so I feel no need to comment.
Tinas49ers
>It may be a big laugh but,truly,when a gay assaults a straight or a
>minor child you have to listen Very carefully to hear about it. When
>Jesse Dirkhising was bound,drugged and gagged,in northern arkansas and
>sexually tortured for several hours by Davis Carpenter and Joshua
>Brown...he died. This occured in 1999. Jesse was 13 years old. The
>regular news services were very silent. I'll bet very few people are
>laughing in Benton County,AK..I'm not 'laughing' either.
>Bill
He wasn't attacked because he was straight, he was attacked because the
bastards were sick. Them being gay had nothing to do with the fact that they
were sick individuals.
Tinas49ers
>
>They're both fundamentalist Southern Baptists. Phelps is pastor of a fairly
>notorious church, Westboro Baptist Church, that pickets funerals and claims
>that "God hates fags".
And I'm sure the majority of Baptists and Christians don't support this view or
preach it from the pulpit. I go to a Baptist church, not So. Baptist and I have
never heard my pastor preach such hatred. Again, its the individual, not the
religion.
>There is no one single "Christian religion". Some branches are actually
>becoing inclusive, the Episcopal church comes to mind. This is good
Not if it goes against God's word. Accepting homosexuality is one thing,
accepting the sin is another thing.
gk
Whatever. It's just a word. If the couple considers themselves married, I
don't see why they can't be recognized as such. Attitudes are changing,
though. On the latest edition of The Amazing Race, the gay couple that won
was described as "married" throughout the series. That didn't seem to raise
as much of a stink as it would have even a few years ago.
Clave
Why are same-sex marriages of enough concern to you to comment?
Jim
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
> Tim wrote:
> Gays are demanding equal rights not special rights. Why are you
> against that?
>
> Hate crime legislation? If harsher penalties are provided for
> those commiting crimes against gays than against heteros,that
> seems 'special' to me.
Read the laws. Hate crime laws are written to protect everyone. If
gays start beating up heterosexuals simply BECAUSE they are straight,
then those gays are subject to being prosecuted for a hate crime.
> This stuff is being considered.
Hate crime laws are on the books in many states.
> When gays
> commit crimes against straights,including some ghastly ones,the
> silence from the news service is deafening.
What does that have to do with legal rights?
--
"In an age of Rambo patriotism, it is good to be reminded of
Capra patriotism--to remember that America is not just about
fighting and winning, but about defending our freedoms. If we
defeat the enemy at the cost of our own principles, who has won?"
--Roger Ebert
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
> It may be a big laugh but,truly,when a gay assaults a straight
> or a minor child you have to listen Very carefully to hear about
> it. When Jesse Dirkhising was bound,drugged and gagged,in
> northern arkansas and sexually tortured for several hours by
> Davis Carpenter and Joshua Brown...he died.
First, do you have any evidence that they killed the boy BECAUSE he
was a heterosexual? If so, does Arkansas have a hate crime law that
covers sexual orientation? if the answer to either question is no,
the case has no relevance to a discussion of hate crime laws or
equal rights vs special rights.
Second, we have a free press in this country. They can choose to
cover anything they want. Do you support a constitutional amendment
to change that?
Third, read this and tell us why the conservative press stopped
covering the story:
"Poor Jesse Dirkhising
A dead 13-year-old gets adopted by conservatives as the anti-Matthew
Shepard. But where's the ConWeb now that one of the boy's accused
killers is on trial?
By Terry Krepel
Poor Jesse Dirkhising is dead, which is bad enough. The Arkansas 13-
year-old died horribly in 1999 of asphyxiation during kinky sex at
the hands of two men.
Because those two accused killers are homosexual, things have become
political. Conservatives like Brent Bozell, Jerry Falwell and Joseph
Farah howled that liberal bias kept Dirkhising's death from getting
the nationwide attention given to the death of Matthew Shepard, a
Wyoming man killed for no real reason other than being homosexual.
Even the ConWeb claims a piece of Dirkhising; WorldNetDaily happily
proclaims that it was "first to provide national exposure to the
story." Both WorldNetDaily and CNSNews.com have run stories over the
past year or so on preparations and motions in the case.
The howling continues to this day -- and got a slight wave of renewal
when one of Dirkhising's accused killers, Joshua Brown, went on trial
last week. But is the ConWeb?
Nowheresville.
CNSNews.com ran a story March 15 on the start of jury selection in
the trial, a story NewsMax picked up, then added its own clumsy
editorializing. The second paragraph of the NewsMax version of the
story reads, 'The media should give as much attention to this case as
they did to the highly publicized 'hate crime' murder of Wyoming
college student Matthew Shepard, the family groups say,' but it never
says who these 'family groups' are. Professional journalism demands
such accusations be attributed to a specific source.
The irony here is that aside from that story, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily
and CNSNews.com have not offered such 'attention' in the way of daily
coverage of the trial, the most important phase of a criminal case
when all sorts of juicy details about the crime surface. They're not
giving the attention to the case they demanded others provide.
It's not that it didn't exist. Due most likely to the aforementioned
howling from conservatives, daily reports on the trial appeared on
the Associated Press national wire. However, these ConWeb leaders do
not belong to the Associated Press. A March 19 Media Research Center
CyberAlert acknowledges the AP coverage and also notes that the Fox
News Channel was reporting on the trial; it also includes parts of a
New York Post commentary that quotes liberally from MRC (and
CNSNews.com) boss Bozell.
The only other mention of the case by the ConWeb at the trial's start
was a March 15 commentary by Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values
Coalition on CNSNews.com, who recycles the argument that 'liberal
journalists' spiked the story: 'Could it be that liberals place a
higher value on the death of a homosexual, than on the brutal murders
committed by homosexuals? How many other acts of rape and violence
committed by homosexuals are being spiked by a journalistic community
co-opted by radical sex groups?'
Whoops. The 'journalistic community' of the ConWeb seems to have
spiked it, too. When trial time came, the champions of the Dirkhising
cause celebre went AWOL.
Why? Perhaps the boy has outlived his usefulness. Perhaps the details
arising out of the trial are too graphic for even a ConWeb obsessed
by Bill Clinton's penis. (And it is graphic; as one Associated Press
story notes, 'the evidence includes bloody pillows, crumpled and
twisted duct tape, feces- and vomit-covered shirts and underwear,
prescription pill bottles, and photos of items that prosecutors say
Brown used to sodomize the child.')
The ConWeb's coverage of Brown's March 22 conviction, such as it was,
seem to bear out the point that conservatives care more about
Dirkhising as a political tool than a crime victim. Both
WorldNetDaily and NewsMax linked to the Fox News version of the the
story (which actually came from the Associated Press).
WorldNetDaily's Jon Dougherty later pounded out a cover-your-ass
story, seemingly geared only to get the conviction in the WND
database, that is mostly a recap of WND's coverage of the Dirkhising
case. (Dougherty also botches an important fact in his story. He
writes that Brown 'could face either life in prison or the death
penalty'; Brown was convicted of first-degree murder, which in
Arkansas rules out the death penalty.) Both WND and NewsMax provided
links to a Washington Times story and a column by The New Republic's
Andrew Sullivan rehashing the 'liberal bias' canard. CNSNews.com,
meanwhile, never ran anything more than a brief on its 'In News This
Hour' page.
It is possible -- but highly unlikely -- the ConWeb came to its
senses and realized that death of a boy because of someone's
perverted sexual fantasy is not comparable to the killing of a man
solely for the type of person he is. After all, conservatives have
demonstrated that they would love to take the fact that Dirkhising's
accused killers are homosexual and extrapolate that into a general
statement that all gays brutally sodomize young boys, which would
certainly play into the hands on their political agenda.
Sheldon all but admits the political agenda in his CNSNews.com
commentary: 'Shortly after the murder, Katie Couric asked the
governor of Wyoming if Christians were responsible for Shepard's
death because of their intolerance of homosexuality. Why didn't she
ask the governor of Arkansas if all homosexuals are responsible for
Dirkhising's death because of their sex practices-which frequently
includes sado-masochism?'
The relevant question here is not 'why did such a feller have to
die?' but rather why the ConWeb suddenly lost interest in a pet cause
-- and why it bothered to turn Jesse Dirkhising into a pet cause in
the first place."
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2001/jesse.html
--
'And I must say, for some people in the
administration, I'm beginning to think that
blaming Clinton is a substitute for thinking.'
--Sandy Berger
Tim
'Fair and Balanced'
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
> I believe they should have the same rights too, except I dont
> think it should be called a marriage, since a marriage is
> between a man and a woman.
Perhaps marraige should be a religous ceremony that isn't recognized
civilly. Everyone would have to get civil union licences to have
their relationship recognized by the state. I think that solves the
problem for everyone, doesn't it.
BTW, other than your horrible response to Tom which was inexcusable,
I do think you're a much better read than you use to be. You have
changed and you should get credit for that. It's a pity that you undo
all of that when you celebrate someone's terrible misfortune.
You shouldn't let me bait you. Nobody, really thinks I'm exposing you
as a drunk when I ask you if you've been drinking, although your
angry responses may make them wonder if I hit a bit too close to the
truth.
You should also apologize to Maddi for posting her address.
Maddi Fair&Balanced Sojourner
>>From: "gk
>
>
>>"Tinas49ers" <tinas...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20030823225552...@mb-m17.aol.com...
>>
>>>>From: "gk"
>>>
>>>>The religion of Fred Phelps and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry
>>
>>Falwell.
>>
>>>And what religions are those?
>>
>>Their respective branches of Christianity.
>
> Come on, be specific. What religion? I don't know what branches of religion
> they are.
Neither do they.
>>>Or did you really mean that's what those individuals advocate?
>>
>>A religion is, of course, the collective opinion and beliefs of its
>>individual leaders and followers.
>
> I am of the Christian religion and I don't advocate hatred of anyone, gay or
> straight.
> So, what you are saying is a lie.
Inductive fallacy.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/induct.htm
Also an error of composition.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm
Not too clear on what a lie is, either.
Truly Religious Don't Misinform
gk
> >From: "gk"
>
> >
> >They're both fundamentalist Southern Baptists. Phelps is pastor of a
fairly
> >notorious church, Westboro Baptist Church, that pickets funerals and
claims
> >that "God hates fags".
>
> And I'm sure the majority of Baptists and Christians don't support this
view or
> preach it from the pulpit. I go to a Baptist church, not So. Baptist and I
have
> never heard my pastor preach such hatred. Again, its the individual, not
the
> religion.
Come on. Remember, the SBC officially boycotted Disney because they dared to
offer spousal benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. They promote
"Ex-gay conversion therapy". If there is a stand to take on any gay issue,
they take the anti-gay route. So it's more than just the opinion of a few
individuals.
> >There is no one single "Christian religion". Some branches are actually
> >becoing inclusive, the Episcopal church comes to mind. This is good
>
> Not if it goes against God's word. Accepting homosexuality is one thing,
> accepting the sin is another thing.
Maybe they take Jesus' words to heart when he said "Let he who is without
sin cast the first stone", or they recognize that it's hypocritical to
single out the sinfulness of homosexuality while ignoring all of the other
prohibitions in Leviticus. Either way, they apparantly just interpret it
differently than you do.
William Kunka
bastards were sick. Them being gay had nothing to do with the fact that
they were sick individuals.
Tin@
Save a life, give blood
1-800-GIVE LIFE
Of course! I know...really! My only point is that certain groups of
people are held out for examination and others are not whether they are
politicians,very wealthy or...whatever.Carpenter and Brown were,first
and foremost,sick and twisted. Due to the fact that they were homosexual
the news serv. was disinclined t do much reporting.The law is not
letting them off.that of course is the main thing.
Bill
Maddi Fair&Balanced Sojourner
> On 23 Aug 2003, tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers) posted this:
>>I believe they should have the same rights too, except I dont
>>think it should be called a marriage, since a marriage is
>>between a man and a woman.
>
> Perhaps marraige should be a religous ceremony that isn't recognized
> civilly. Everyone would have to get civil union licences to have
> their relationship recognized by the state. I think that solves the
> problem for everyone, doesn't it.
Hey cool, you're Destroying The American Family! Eric, Tim's
got a hot idea, better call out the troops.
> BTW, other than your horrible response to Tom which was inexcusable,
> I do think you're a much better read than you use to be. You have
> changed and you should get credit for that. It's a pity that you undo
> all of that when you celebrate someone's terrible misfortune.
Tim, what do you mean Tina has changed? Have you been drinking?
Example: hit 'n run posting. Tina posted that California Gov.
Grey Davis deserved to be recalled for committing various crimes,
but was asked several times to list the crimes and didn't come
up with anything even truthful, let alone an actual violation of
California laws.
Also the fun game she instituted on artd-l called Start Another
Thread. Why we had hours of fun with that one, it was almost
as big a kick as Snipe Hunt.
And let us not forget the endless whiny laments I Ain't
Changin' Til You Do It First So There, and the reliable
hit You Can't Make Me, Poopy-Head with the dance B-side
Why Can't You Act Like An Adult You Stupid Asshole Jerk?
> You shouldn't let me bait you. Nobody, really thinks I'm exposing you
> as a drunk when I ask you if you've been drinking, although your
> angry responses may make them wonder if I hit a bit too close to the
> truth.
So I guess she's doing the exposing that way.
> You should also apologize to Maddi for posting her address.
Well there's should, and then there's will.
And apologize to Tom, without any weaseling about what was
read or not read.
And apologize to Claire, Cleo, Ellen, Gary, Eric, Otis, Malapert,
Hawkster, gk, Lord dk, Neutrodyne, Randomity, Mr. Red, mmsvva,
Rob, Rick, Scott, Avital, Jim, no one special, heck, just about
everyone special here.
And then Tim can apologize for the claim above, and I
can apologize for wasting everyone's time this past week
trying to reason with the unreasonable.
Truer Responses Didn't Merit
William Kunka
commentary: 'Shortly after the murder, Katie Couric asked the governor
of Wyoming if Christians were responsible for Shepard's death because of
their intolerance of homosexuality. Why didn't she ask the governor of
Arkansas if all homosexuals are responsible for Dirkhising's death
because of their sex practices-which frequently includes
sado-masochism?'
The relevant question here is not 'why did such a feller have to die?'
but rather why the ConWeb suddenly lost interest in a pet cause -- and
why it bothered to turn Jesse Dirkhising into a pet cause in the first
place."
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2001/jesse.html
--
'And I must say, for some people in the
administration, I'm beginning to think that blaming Clinton is a
substitute for thinking.' --Sandy Berger
Tim
'Fair and Balanced'
<If ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN and for that matter PBS did a reasonably even handed
job of reporting,all the fairly recent 'start up' conservative news
services would not exist.
Bill
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
<madha...@alumspamni.princespamton.edspamu> posted this:
> And then Tim can apologize for the claim above
I'm sorry
--
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
>
> Of course! I know...really! My only point is that certain groups
> of people are held out for examination and others are not
> whether they are politicians,very wealthy
> or...whatever.Carpenter and Brown were,first and foremost,sick
> and twisted. Due to the fact that they were homosexual the news
> serv. was disinclined t do much reporting.The law is not letting
> them off.that of course is the main thing.
So basically, you're trying to change the subject from your claim
that gays want special rights not equal rights.
I'm not falling for it. Please explain how gays are asking for
anything but equality.
BlackMonk
> >From: "BlackMonk"
>
> >Again, RELIGIOUS marriage is. We're talking about civil marriage.
>
> You may be. I'm not.
>
Yes, you are. When you talk about when the legal code should be, you're
talking about civil marriage.
> >The state
> >has no power to define religious marriage and religion has no power to
> >define civil marriage.
>
> I disagree...and so far, so do the laws.
>
Specifics, please.
> >Some religions only consider marriage valid if both people are members of
> >that religion. Should the state also refuse to recognize interfaith
> >marriages?
>
> That's not a concern of mine, so I feel no need to comment.
>
I'll take that as you being unwilling to consider the implications of your
position.
Why is it a concern of yours that the religious definition of marriage be
enshrined legally in one case but not in others?
Tinas49ers
>> I believe they should have the same rights too, except I dont think it
>should
>> be called a marriage, since a marriage is between a man and a woman.
>
>Whatever. It's just a word.
It's a very important word.
>On the latest edition of The Amazing Race, the gay couple that won
>was described as "married" throughout the series. That didn't seem to raise
>as much of a stink as it would have even a few years ago.
Then I guess you didn't read the Amazing Race board, because there was plenty
said about them being "married".
Tinas49ers
>
>BTW, other than your horrible response to Tom which was inexcusable,
Funny, you never chastised Tom for all the inexcusable things he has said to
me, so your stupid little opinion means absouletely nada, sweetie.
>It's a pity that you undo
>all of that when you celebrate someone's terrible misfortune.
Timmmy, don't lie. I never did any such thing. Repeating lies doesn't change
the truth.
>You shouldn't let me bait you. Nobody, really thinks I'm exposing you
>as a drunk when I ask you if you've been drinking, although your
>angry responses may make them wonder if I hit a bit too close to the
>truth.
The truth is I haven't had anything to drink in over 3 weeks, so what you say
is simply just stupid.
>You should also apologize to Maddi for posting her address.
>
I didn't and your lies are getting old.
Tinas49ers
Because I think it destroys the definition of marriage.
Tinas49ers
>"Tinas49ers" <tinas...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030824015501...@mb-m18.aol.com...
>> >From: "BlackMonk"
>>
>> >Again, RELIGIOUS marriage is. We're talking about civil marriage.
>>
>> You may be. I'm not.
>Yes, you are
No, I'm not.
gk
In that case, I'm glad they won. But I'm not talking about a few idiots on
a message board. A few years ago it would have sparked boycotts and a
national debate, like the Ellen DeGeneres show did.
John H. Smith
>From: tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers)
>Date: 8/24/2003 10:40 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030824114016...@mb-m02.aol.com>
I think divorce has done more toward that end than same sex marriage ever
could. If "Dr." Laura had stayed married to her boring dentist in New Jersey
and become a SAHM like she says everyone else should, think how much better off
thousands of marriages would be!
Neutrodyne
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
Boy, was I wrong.
--
"The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and
has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the
visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation
to invoke security "necessities" to justify an encroachment
upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security
argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism."
--Justice William Brennan
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
John H. Smith
>Date: 8/24/2003 11:50 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns93E1646E230...@216.168.3.44>
>On 24 Aug 2003, tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers) posted this:
>
>>>From: Patriotboy
>>
>>>
>>>BTW, other than your horrible response to Tom which was
>>>inexcusable,
>>
>> Funny, you never chastised Tom for all the inexcusable things he
>> has said to me, so your stupid little opinion means absouletely
>> nada, sweetie.
>>
>>>It's a pity that you undo
>>>all of that when you celebrate someone's terrible misfortune.
>>
>> Timmmy, don't lie. I never did any such thing. Repeating lies
>> doesn't change the truth.
>>
>>>You shouldn't let me bait you. Nobody, really thinks I'm
>>>exposing you as a drunk when I ask you if you've been drinking,
>>>although your angry responses may make them wonder if I hit a
>>>bit too close to the truth.
>>
>> The truth is I haven't had anything to drink in over 3 weeks, so
>> what you say is simply just stupid.
Ouch.
Neutrodyne
William Kunka
Well,I got laughed at for this.It hinges on the 'hate crime proposals'.
I don't think penalties should be assigned for anything except the
actual crime. Some gay groups want this and if crime against a gay or
minority carries a heavier penalty this is special treatment.Maybe it
should. I disagree. The penalties for murder should be meted in a
dispassionate way. Maybe the black man wasn't killed because he was
black...or te gay because he was gay.
When a news service selects which ethnic group they will discuss thats
'special' treatment too.
Some time ago a man was brutally murdered in Montana.
A child was brutally murdered in Arkansas.
The very different level of reporting in these cases favors the group
known as 'homosexuals'.
The loss of the childs life was less notable than the loss of Matthew
Sheperds.
Bill
Tinas49ers
>
>In that case, I'm glad they won. But I'm not talking about a few idiots on
>a message board.
It wasn't a few and its your opinion that they were idiots. You're just mad
because you aren't in touch with what people think outside your little world.
And their moronic speech at the end, IMO, took away from their victory. THEY
made themselves sound like being gay is a handicap or something.
Tinas49ers
>Boy, was I wrong.
Nice to see you can actually tell the truth.
BlackMonk
> >From: "BlackMonk"
>
> >"Tinas49ers" <tinas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030824015501...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >> >From: "BlackMonk"
> >>
> >> >Again, RELIGIOUS marriage is. We're talking about civil marriage.
> >>
> >> You may be. I'm not.
>
> >Yes, you are
>
> No, I'm not.
>
Then civil laws have nothing to do with what you're talking about, so you
shouldn't have any opinion one way or the other about them.
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
> Well,I got laughed at for this.It hinges on the 'hate crime
> proposals'. I don't think penalties should be assigned for
> anything except the actual crime.
So you don't think that premeditated murder should be punushed more
severely than the killing of a person in a fight.
> Some gay groups want this and
> if crime against a gay or minority carries a heavier penalty
> this is special treatment.
That isn't true. I've pointed out before that gay on straight
violence may also be a hate crime if it's done BECAUSE of the victims
sexual orientation.
> Maybe it should. I disagree. The
> penalties for murder should be meted in a dispassionate way.
> Maybe the black man wasn't killed because he was black...or te
> gay because he was gay.
If that's the case then it wasn't a hate crime. Ypu really need to
read the actual laws and stop depending on Limbaugh or his ilk to
tell you what they say.
Here's California's. Tell me how it gives "special rights" to gays.
"PENAL CODE
SECTION 422.6-422.95
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual
orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has
one or more of those characteristics.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall
knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of
any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, because of the other
person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she
perceives that the other person has one or more of those
characteristics.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall
be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year,
or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by
both that imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the
defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed
400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days,
during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school
attendance. However, no person shall be convicted of violating
subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that
the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or
group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to
carry out the threat."
> When a news service selects which ethnic group they will discuss
> thats 'special' treatment too.
That's a free press. What do you want to do about it?
> Some time ago a man was brutally murdered in Montana.
> A child was brutally murdered in Arkansas.
> The very different level of reporting in these cases favors the
> group known as 'homosexuals'.
Were they killed BECAUSE they were straight?
> The loss of the childs life was less notable than the loss of
> Matthew Sheperds.
That is certainly the case; however, Sheperd was killed BECAUSE he
was gay.
Inasmuch as you are only arguing about hate crimes--and wrongly at
that--I suppose you agree that the other rights gays are asking for,
the right to marriage, equal housing and employment are equal rights
rather than "special" rights.
--
"The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights
that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
--"Justice" Antonin Scalia
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
William Kunka
So you don't think that premeditated murder should be punushed more
severely than the killing of a person in a fight.
<These are different crimes. The perpetrators could be of any ethnicity
or sexual orientation. The potential for introducing real injustice
exists with a provision that allows flexible sentencing based on
something as nebulous as motivation. Maybe the suspect is disliked by a
lawyer or judge.With 'hate crime' opportunity exists to Really hammer
this guy whether hate had anything to do with it,or not. I will admit
that the criminal charge has to be ironed out. The determination that a
'hate' motivation exists has to be determined...and a wrong dcision
could unduly injure anyone(gay/straight black/white) Hate crime is bad
news. Murder is murder and I really don't want iffy suppositions about
motivation to be a part in sentencing.
Bill
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?
gk wrote:
>
> "Tinas49ers" <tinas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030824001612...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> > >From: "gk"
> >
> > >
> > >I think gay marriage would help encourage monogamy among gay people.
> >
> > No more than it does in straight marriages, these days at least.
> >
> > > That,
> > >and the fact that I believe those in committed gay relationships should
> have
> > >the same financial and medical decision making rights as those in
> straight
> > >marriages are why I support it.
> >
> > I believe they should have the same rights too, except I dont think it
> should
> > be called a marriage, since a marriage is between a man and a woman.
>
> Whatever. It's just a word.
>
It may be *just* a word to you but I know that the homosexual activists,
at least those in aph, are hung up on it big time. They do not want to
accept something like a generic way of defining who has and the order of
next of kin rights.
> If the couple considers themselves married, I
> don't see why they can't be recognized as such.
>
Anyone should be able to claim to be married to anyone else who agrees.
That is private marriage, not the same as religious marriage, defined by
a religious organization, or societal marriage, defined by the society
and its government.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?
Tinas49ers wrote:
>
> >From: bnoise
>
> >It may be a big laugh but,truly,when a gay assaults a straight or a
> >minor child you have to listen Very carefully to hear about it. When
> >Jesse Dirkhising was bound,drugged and gagged,in northern arkansas and
> >sexually tortured for several hours by Davis Carpenter and Joshua
> >Brown...he died. This occured in 1999. Jesse was 13 years old. The
> >regular news services were very silent. I'll bet very few people are
> >laughing in Benton County,AK..I'm not 'laughing' either.
> >Bill
>
> He wasn't attacked because he was straight, he was attacked because the
> bastards were sick. Them being gay had nothing to do with the fact that they
> were sick individuals.
>
Couldn't the same sort of argument be made when a homosexual is attacked
by someone who is at least nominally heterosexual?
M is for Malapert
"AliceACF" <alicea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7b770d0e.03082...@posting.google.com...
> I heard from my friend last week, after a week-long visit w/ her
> partner to her mom's. The whole week was spent trying to "un-gay"
> them, with lots of "Dr. Laura says..." and lots of anger/coldness when
> they refused to de-gay. My friend, 45 years old, is devastated that
> her relationship with her mother has gone from great to horrible.
Talk about irony, given that Laura's two new bestest dearest most
enlightened spiritualest friends are lesbians. Not amusing irony either.
How awfully sad.
gk
> >From: "gk"
>
> >
> >In that case, I'm glad they won. But I'm not talking about a few idiots
on
> >a message board.
>
> It wasn't a few and its your opinion that they were idiots.
Why, yes it is. Sorry, didn't mean to strike a nerve if you were one of
them.
> You're just mad
> because you aren't in touch with what people think outside your little
world.
I'm glad they won, and I'm glad that there was relatively very little outcry
over the fact that they call themselves married and that CBS & the show went
along with that. Somehow you get from that that I'm mad? The fact is, it was
rather uneventful, and that is a good thing. Next time there will be even
fewer idiots complaining about it.
> And their moronic speech at the end, IMO, took away from their victory.
THEY
> made themselves sound like being gay is a handicap or something.
It was a bit silly, but it was spontaneous & I don't remember any great
memorable victory speeches in previous seasons.
Tinas49ers
It could be. Did you have a case you are referring to or just being
hypothetical?
Tinas49ers
>>
>> It wasn't a few and its your opinion that they were idiots.
>
>Why, yes it is. Sorry, didn't mean to strike a nerve if you were one of
>them.
No nerve on me was struck.
>I'm glad they won, and I'm glad that there was relatively very little outcry
>over the fact that they call themselves married and that CBS & the show went
>along with that. Somehow you get from that that I'm mad?
You seem to be upset that you don't have a pulse on society.
>It was a bit silly, but it was spontaneous & I don't remember any great
>memorable victory speeches in previous seasons.
I never watched previous seasons, so I have nothing to base victory speeches
on. I just know that them being gay was not a factor in them winning. We both
know they made their fair share of stupid mistakes.
John H. Smith
>Date: 8/24/2003 5:35 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030824183519...@mb-m26.aol.com>
>
>It could be. Did you have a case you are referring to or just being
>hypothetical?
I think he better cut you off at a 12 pack.
Neutrodyne
It's the Nyquill talkin', I tells ya!
Clave
Why would you care?
Jim
Tinas49ers
Why do you care if I care?
Hawkster
news:20030824213346...@mb-m04.aol.com:
Why do you care if he cares whether you care?
Hawkster
Just saving ya time, Jim
Clave
Oh, I don't give a rat's ass whether you care or not. I was just seeing how
little you'd actually thought about your position.
Jim
Tinas49ers
Why do you care if I care if he cares?
Tinas49ers
My position has a lot of thought. I know what marriage means and the value of
it. If gays want to be joined in a union, I say go for it, but I will never
call a gay union a marriage.
Clave
<...>
> My position has a lot of thought. I know what marriage means and the value of
> it.
You've been *told.*
> If gays want to be joined in a union, I say go for it, but I will never
> call a gay union a marriage.
Many people don't consider interfaith unions "marriages" either. *Why* are you
so concerned with gay marriages, which won't ever affect your life, any more
than interfaith marriages?
What if a Christian marries a Muslim without either converting? What kind of
religious marriage would you call that? Or a marriage between atheists for that
matter?
Jim
Tinas49ers
>
>> My position has a lot of thought. I know what marriage means and the value
>of
>> it.
>
>You've been *told.*
Oh, have I? By who?
>*Why* are you
>so concerned with gay marriages, which won't ever affect your life, any more
>than interfaith marriages?
Why are you concerned with why I'm concerned? Someone has to be concerned with
all the barriers that fall down all around everywhere. Next thing you know you
wont have a problem with family members marrying each other...or children,
etc...
Tinas49ers
>I believe
>Christ existed. Was one of the most wonderful humans of all time. However,
>I
>don't believe in creation or creator. Does this still make me Christian
>because
>I believe he existed?
No, a Christian is someone who has accepted Christ as their Savior and has
confessed their sins. Believing that Jesus existed doesn't make you a
Christian.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?
Why do you ask?
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?
animaux wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:02:25 -0700, "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced
> Conservatives," <std...@backpacker.com> opined:
>
> >I suppose the literally thousands of sex partners a year that some male
> >homosexuals engaged with are not evidence suggesting something.
>
> THOUSANDS per year? Wow. Let's see if I can do my guzzintas...many thousands
> divided by 365 days...holy shit, that's about 10 guys a day. Men WISH they
> could get it that often. Even gay men aren't that eager.
>
CDC was having difficulty with these new numbers too and had to change
the definitions of what having a lot of sexual partners a year was.
Clave
> >From: "Clave"
>
> >
> >> My position has a lot of thought. I know what marriage means and the value
> >> of it.
> >
> >You've been *told.*
>
> Oh, have I? By who?
Oh, I'm sorry for the assumption. When were you married, and for how long?
> >*Why* are you
> >so concerned with gay marriages, which won't ever affect your life, any more
> >than interfaith marriages?
>
> Why are you concerned with why I'm concerned?
Just wondering why you're concerned about one more than the other.
I'm simply gauging the depth of the hypocrisy.
> Someone has to be concerned with
> all the barriers that fall down all around everywhere.
It's SUPER-TINA!!! Guardian of all that's Moral and Right! According to her
and her Invisible Cloud Friend!
> Next thing you know you
> wont have a problem with family members marrying each other...or children,
> etc...
...dogs and cats living together, yeah I know. And when I start advocating
such, you'll have a point. Not before.
Jim
dINGbAT
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if that's already taken place. And, what's the next
step? Household pets? One can possibly argue on a 'legal' foundation on
why marrying your cat should be accepted into society but they'll be hard
pressed to succeed on a 'religious' level.
Perhaps we *should* have a distinction between 'religious, 'social' and/or
'legal' marriages. Can anyone offer an argument as to why we shouldn't?
db
BlackMonk
"dINGbAT" <din...@onemainspamerooney.com> wrote in message
news:vkj4jpr...@corp.supernews.com...
One could make sound legal arguments why marrying children and animals
shouldn't be possible. To start with, neither can enter into valid
contracts.
William Kunka
Let's see this list of ghastly crimes cast upon people from gays. Name
some, cite them.
Are you trying to tell me that gays do more crimes against heterosexual
people and you didn't think the entire contents of my mouth full of soda
wouldn't splash all over the place?
Wake up you dim wit. Please do explain your definition of a hate crime.
Do you know what it is?
<Well,there is the Jesse Dirkhising case. Several years ago there was a
lesbian couple.one of the ladies had children,the other did not. Moms
girlfriend systematically tortured the kids for some periob of time and
was finally taken into custody.
I served on three ships while in the US Navy. On two of them(at least)
Sailors were discharged for slinkin' around at night and touching the
genitals of their sleeping shipmates.Those were the ones who woke up!
A short list. What is the minimum number of offenses when it becomes
unacceptable?
Keep your soda in your face.You'll look even sillier with it al over
your shirt.
Bill
Maddi Fair&Balanced Sojourner
>>From: "Clave"
These are the same arguments that were made against miscigenation
in the 1950s. Are you against that, too?
Total Racists Don't Mix
Maddi Fair&Balanced Sojourner
> On 24 Aug 2003, Maddi Fair&Balanced Sojourner
> <madha...@alumspamni.princespamton.edspamu> posted this:
>>And then Tim can apologize for the claim above
>
> I'm sorry
And I'm sorry for making you say you're sorry, you
big lovable galoot, ya.
Maddi Fair&Balanced Sojourner
>>From: Patriotboy
>>Boy, was I wrong.
>
> Nice to see you can actually tell the truth.
I suspect he meant he was wrong in saying
you had changed.
Tina's Rational Demeanor Mocked!
AliceACF
Laura had taught her (and convinced her) that GOD HIMSELF thinks gay
people are to be loathed, avoided, and shunned. If anyone is
mis-stating a religion, its Dr. Laura... and all the bigot Christians
I've ever met....
Sorry to generalize re: all people of any certain religion hates
gays... kind of like you generalizing re: all gay people are
promiscuous.
Yes, the mom was previously aware that certain people, esp.
evangelical ones, hate gays or at least "their sin." What really
pisses me off at Laura is that she is so smart, so eloquent, so
entertaining, etc. that she has the opportunity and means to persuade
people to change their minds-- people who would never listen to the
obvious homophobic freaks in our society. Laura has a very special
talent and intelligence that makes her an excellent celebrity talk
show host. She uses that power for evil. And she reaches people who
would otherwise not be reached.
Tinas49ers
>> >> My position has a lot of thought. I know what marriage means and the
>value
>> >> of it.
>> >
>> >You've been *told.*
>>
>> Oh, have I? By who?
>Oh, I'm sorry for the assumption. When were you married, and for how long?
You're trying to tell me I have to be married to know the value of marriage?
>> Why are you concerned with why I'm concerned?
>
>Just wondering why you're concerned about one more than the other.
>I'm simply gauging the depth of the hypocrisy.
There is none.
>> Someone has to be concerned with
>> all the barriers that fall down all around everywhere.
>
>It's SUPER-TINA!!! Guardian of all that's Moral and Right! According to her
>and her Invisible Cloud Friend!
Yawn.
Tinas49ers
>
>One could make sound legal arguments why marrying children and animals
>shouldn't be possible. To start with, neither can enter into valid
>contracts.
Remember *I* did not bring up animals, but what about family members marrying
each other, who are adults, it just happened a few weeks ago, in Arkansas I
believe. The barriers are there for a reason.
Tinas49ers
>These are the same arguments that were made against miscigenation
>in the 1950s. Are you against that, too?
Nope, and you spelt it wrong too. Its miscegenation. Thought you want to know.
Like I said, I'm not against gays committing to each other, just calling it
marriage.
Tinas49ers
>kind of like you generalizing re: all gay people are
>promiscuous.
I didn't make that generalization
I'd suggest you quote people in the future so such an error doesn't happen.
gk
> >From: "BlackMonk"
>
> >
> >One could make sound legal arguments why marrying children and animals
> >shouldn't be possible. To start with, neither can enter into valid
> >contracts.
>
> Remember *I* did not bring up animals, but what about family members
marrying
> each other, who are adults, it just happened a few weeks ago, in Arkansas
I
> believe. The barriers are there for a reason.
1) There are already avenues for family members to obtain next of kin and
decision making rights.
2) sexual relations between family members, monogamous or otherwise, should
obviously be discouraged.
Two of the big reasons for supporting gay marriage don't apply to immediate
family members, so your slippery slope argument is without merit.
BlackMonk
> >From: "BlackMonk"
>
> >
> >One could make sound legal arguments why marrying children and animals
> >shouldn't be possible. To start with, neither can enter into valid
> >contracts.
>
> Remember *I* did not bring up animals, but what about family members
marrying
> each other, who are adults, it just happened a few weeks ago, in Arkansas
I
> believe. The barriers are there for a reason.
>
Again, there are reasons beyond religion. There are medical reasons why
closer relatives shouldn't be married.
However, if it just happened a few weeks ago (and I'd like to see something
concrete about that) then the barriers aren't there.
Mr. (Fair'n'Balanced) Red
tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers) wrote:
OK...Here we go!
"I glad my stoopid old husband died."--DL 5 years from now.
"I hate my son's stoopid fat ugly wife."--DL 10 years from now.
"I wish I wasn't estranged from my son."--DL 15 years from now.
"I am I gonna die alone in this condo?"--DL 20 years from now.
Cheers,
Mr. (visiting from the future) Red
"I shall never forget the weekend Laura died. A silver sun burned through
the sky like a huge magnifying glass. It was the hottest Sunday in my
recollection. I felt as if I were the only human being left in New York.
For Laura's horrible death, I was alone. I, Waldo Lydecker, was the only
one who really knew her. And I had just begun to write Laura's story when -
another of those detectives came to see me. I had him wait. I could watch
him through the half-open door. I noted that his attention was fixed upon
my clock. There was only one other in existence, and that was in Laura's
apartment in the very room where she was murdered."
--Waldo Lydecker (Clifton Webb)
LAURA (1944)
Muffy
>From: drj...@MmmmmmmSpam.concentric.net (Mr. (Fair'n'Balanced) Red )
>Date: 8/25/03 10:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <drj2000-ya0230800...@news.concentric.net>
>
>In article <20030825091603...@mb-m18.aol.com>,
>tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers) wrote:
>
>> >From: aliceac_2000
>>
>> >kind of like you generalizing re: all gay people are
>> >promiscuous.
>>
>> I didn't make that generalization
>>
>> I'd suggest you quote people in the future so such an error doesn't happen.
>>
>>
>> Tin@
>> Save a life, give blood
>> 1-800-GIVE LIFE
>
>
>OK...Here we go!
>
>
>"I glad my stoopid old husband died."--DL 5 years from now.
>
>"I hate my son's stoopid fat ugly wife."--DL 10 years from now.
>
>"I wish I wasn't estranged from my son."--DL 15 years from now.
>
>"I am I gonna die alone in this condo?"--DL 20 years from now.
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Mr. (visiting from the future) Red
That was funny.
M+U=FFY!
William Kunka
Re: Dr. Laura destroys lives- personal examples
From: ani...@plmvawr.com (animaux)
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:56:46 -0400 (EDT), bno...@webtv.net (William
Kunka) opined:
<Well,there is the Jesse Dirkhising case. Several years ago there was a
lesbian couple.one of the ladies had children,the other did not. Moms
girlfriend systematically tortured the kids for some periob of time and
was finally taken into custody.
Please site the case. Dates, charges, etc.
<I served on three ships while in the US Navy. On two of them(at least)
Sailors were discharged for slinkin' around at night and touching the
genitals of their sleeping shipmates.Those were the ones who woke up!
Please site the cases. Dates, charges, etc.
>A short list. What is the minimum number of offenses when it becomes
unacceptable?
I don't know. Maybe you could go ask the Pope. He seems to believe if
you only did it once, it's okay for priests to rape children. Ooop, I
used the wrong terminology..."molest."
<Keep your soda in your face.You'll look even sillier with it al over
your shirt.
Bill
Not quite as silly as you.
<No.You may take my word for it
Tinas49ers
>tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers) opined:
>
>
>>No, a Christian is someone who has accepted Christ as their Savior and has
>>confessed their sins. Believing that Jesus existed doesn't make you a
>>Christian.
>
>Yes, that would be correct. Because you do believe Christ is your savior and
>you've confessed your sins does not mean marriage is meant only for men and
>women in hetero relationships.
My opinion of marriage has nothing to do with religioius beliefs.
Just because you believe in a book called the
>bible does not mean YOU have the right to enforce that mythos on anyone else.
I'm sorry, where was I trying to "enforce" anything? I gave an OPINION. Can you
grasp the difference between the 2?
Tinas49ers
>2) sexual relations between family members, monogamous or otherwise, should
>obviously be discouraged.
IMO, so should sex between members of the same sex.
>
>Two of the big reasons for supporting gay marriage don't apply to immediate
>family members, so your slippery slope argument is without merit.
>
It could. Couldn't 2 brothers get married if we go down this slippery slope you
brought up?