| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 11:47:58 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending. Let each man provide his own
health care, just like single straight people do. This notion that one
guy stays home and plays "Donna Reed" while the other one goes to work
should not become a burden on the American health care system. The
people of Michigan (and many other states) have spoken; No gay
marriage. Stop seeking "special" dispensations just because your
different.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm
Despite marriage ban, couples want health care
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Monday asking the
courts to protect same-sex couples' health benefits in light of a state
constitutional ban on gay marriage.
In the suit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, the ACLU asked the
court to stipulate that the ban on gay marriage does not extend to
health care benefits for same-sex partners. The amendment, they said,
is ambiguous.
The ACLU filed the suit less than a week after state Attorney General
Mike Cox issued his legal interpretation about what effect the
amendment should have on health benefits. He concluded that the
amendment bans government agencies from extending benefits to same-sex
couples in any future contract negotiations.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 04:35:38 PM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
Sir Marksman wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message
news:kp0r41landc49jvr1k4hg35f4jo12ueaid@4ax.com...
Oh look, another ***** whining about having no life.
Ah yes, a classic case. Someone with THIS much hostility towards
homosexuals is obviously fighting off his own desires in that arena.
You got that right. Just like the blacks hate the KKK.
It is so humorous when gay advocates put down their opponents by
accusing them of being gay.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
22 Apr 2005 09:22:36 AM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2005 12:53:43 -0700, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
Sir Marksman wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:kp0r41landc49jvr1k4hg35f4jo12ueaid@4ax.com...
Oh look, another ***** whining about having no life.
Ah yes, a classic case. Someone with THIS much hostility towards
homosexuals is obviously fighting off his own desires in that arena.
If you were normal, you'd have a life.
If you had a life, you'd be normal. You don't, and therefor you aren't,
not that this really needed to be pointed out. You may now proceed to
cast whatever insults at me and make those references to my sexual
orientation, but fair warning, I am the father of 9.
Ah...If I had a dollar (make that a Euro please) for everytime I've
heard "I'm married, I CAN'T be gay"..... I could retire to some
small third-world paradise...
hehe
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 08:04:14 PM |
|
|
Sir Marksman wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:kp0r41landc49jvr1k4hg35f4jo12ueaid@4ax.com...
Oh look, another ***** whining about having no life.
Except of course for the fact that I'm married, quite happily.
If you were normal, you'd have a life.
Normal is boring.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 05:39:27 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:04:12 -0800, in alt.politics.homosexuality
SMITH29 <smith29@comcast.net> wrote:
| Dionisio wrote:
|
| > SMITH29 wrote:
| >
| >> What has the American League have to do with this thread?
| >
| >
| >
| > Jockstraps, spandex pants, "pitchers" and "catchers," a knowledge of
| > "big wood," and a preoccupation with balls and "nailing" things...
| > Getting to first base, making it to second... Gee, I don't know.
| >
| xxxx
| Yer not implying that ball players are homo are you?
Watching a baseball game will never be the same :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMITH29" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 06:51:51 PM |
|
|
Jeff North wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:04:12 -0800, in alt.politics.homosexuality
SMITH29 <smith29@comcast.net> wrote:
| Dionisio wrote:
|
| > SMITH29 wrote:
| >
| >> What has the American League have to do with this thread?
| >
| >
| >
| > Jockstraps, spandex pants, "pitchers" and "catchers," a knowledge of
| > "big wood," and a preoccupation with balls and "nailing" things...
| > Getting to first base, making it to second... Gee, I don't know.
| >
| xxxx
| Yer not implying that ball players are homo are you?
Watching a baseball game will never be the same :-)
xxxx
Kinda ruined it for me.
Some are always grabbing themselves checking to see all of
it is still there.
Kinda like an insecurity thing or they're just playing with
themselves.
And that ring bulging out in the rear pocket. Turns out it's
a snuff can instead of a rubber.
29:-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 07:50:11 AM |
|
|
SMITH29 wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
SMITH29 wrote:
What has the American League have to do with this thread?
Jockstraps, spandex pants, "pitchers" and "catchers," a knowledge of
"big wood," and a preoccupation with balls and "nailing" things...
Getting to first base, making it to second... Gee, I don't know.
xxxx
Yer not implying that ball players are homo are you?
Were there ever any doubts? ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 09:45:55 PM |
|
|
SMITH29 wrote:
Yer not implying that ball players are homo are you?
That would depend on who's ball they were playing with, wouldn't it?
(You asked for that one.)
Exiting "facetious mode;" Some may be, some may not be. As long as they
get a good "crack" with their wood; get to first, second, third, and
slide themselves home; What do you care? (Hmm... I think I "exited"
prematurely.)
--
Quoted in the New Scientist [1995]:
A Doctor at Yale has observed that all the fingers have names, but that only the big toe has a name. He thus proposes names for all 5 toes: porcellus fori, porcellus domi, porcellus carnivorus, porcellus non voratus, porcellus plorans domum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMITH29" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 10:43:31 PM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
SMITH29 wrote:
Yer not implying that ball players are homo are you?
That would depend on who's ball they were playing with, wouldn't it?
(You asked for that one.)
xxxx
On the field They mostly clutch at their own balls. Checking
frequently to make sure noone stole them.
29
Exiting "facetious mode;" Some may be, some may not be. As long as they
get a good "crack" with their wood; get to first, second, third, and
slide themselves home; What do you care? (Hmm... I think I "exited"
prematurely.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
30 Mar 2005 10:55:17 PM |
|
|
SMITH29 wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Come back when you are actually willing to THINK about the matter as
an issue of
law.
xxxx
I did that long ago and my conclusion is I am opposed to gay marriage
and to say otherwise would be fudging on my part and I'm not about to do
that.
You have EVERY RIGHT to be against homosexual marriage. However, just
because you're against it doesn't mean that your word is law. If your
state passes a law allowing it, you will have no say over it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
30 Mar 2005 10:25:09 PM |
|
|
SMITH29 wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
SMITH29 wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
J Young wrote:
<snip>
Man was designed to fit into a woman's vagina.
So you are in favour of the state peering into the bedrooms of the
nation to make sure people are only having the "correct" kind of sex?
Are you planning to be amongst the first to volunteer to be a state
sanctioned peeping tom as a member of the "sex police"?
He wasn't designed to fit into another man's rectum.
A lot of men also feel they were designed to fit into a woman's
rectum... in fact, the vast majority of people who engage in anal sex
are HETEROSEXUALS!
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 01:54:34 AM |
|
|
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:x_OdnZ2A59A95tbfRVn-1g@golden.net...
SMITH29 wrote:
Man was designed to fit into a woman's vagina.
So you are in favour of the state peering into the bedrooms of the nation
to make sure people are only having the "correct" kind of sex? Are you
planning to be amongst the first to volunteer to be a state sanctioned
peeping tom as a member of the "sex police"?
He wasn't designed to fit into another man's rectum.
A lot of men also feel they were designed to fit into a woman's rectum...
in fact, the vast majority of people who engage in anal sex are
HETEROSEXUALS!
I was going to remark that there was obviously a design flaw, then, but you
beat me to it.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMITH29" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 05:32:04 PM |
|
|
Susan Cohen wrote:
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:x_OdnZ2A59A95tbfRVn-1g@golden.net...
SMITH29 wrote:
Man was designed to fit into a woman's vagina.
So you are in favour of the state peering into the bedrooms of the nation
to make sure people are only having the "correct" kind of sex? Are you
planning to be amongst the first to volunteer to be a state sanctioned
peeping tom as a member of the "sex police"?
He wasn't designed to fit into another man's rectum.
A lot of men also feel they were designed to fit into a woman's rectum...
in fact, the vast majority of people who engage in anal sex are
HETEROSEXUALS!
I was going to remark that there was obviously a design flaw, then, but you
beat me to it.
Susan
xxxx
You might call it the need for a tighter orifice. Some guys
are not too well endowed.
Most women don't like anal intercourse.
29:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SMITH29" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 05:28:11 PM |
|
|
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
SMITH29 wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
SMITH29 wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
J Young wrote:
<snip>
Man was designed to fit into a woman's vagina.
So you are in favour of the state peering into the bedrooms of the
nation to make sure people are only having the "correct" kind of sex?
xxxx
We'll check you out first as you sound like a pervert.
Are you planning to be amongst the first to volunteer to be a state
sanctioned peeping tom as a member of the "sex police"?
xxxx
I bet we catch you with a goat.
He wasn't designed to fit into another man's rectum.
A lot of men also feel they were designed to fit into a woman's
rectum... in fact, the vast majority of people who engage in anal sex
are HETEROSEXUALS!
xxxx
So what, as long as they don't have other sex partners it's
not remarkable.
Gay males participate in daisy chains.
Who pays the bill? Everybody.
I'm all in favor of banning same sex sodomy to reduce the
AIDS epidemic since the gays can't keep their peckers in
their pants.
29:-)
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
30 Mar 2005 05:16:37 AM |
|
|
SMITH29 wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Yet again, I will ask: Why?
xxxx
It is not traditional or is it acceptable for same sex marriage.
It was not traditional to allow blacks to marry, but yet, they do it
every day.
Man was designed to fit into a woman's vagina.
I dunno. Some of those pictures on the internet lead me to believe
otherwise. *shudder* Poor girl.
He wasn't designed to fit into another man's rectum.
Seems to fit pretty well, from what I hear from my friends. (Yes, I have
homosexual friends. I'm not a homosexual myself, mind you.)
It is a perversion and spreads disease.
Only if they don't clean each other off afterwards. I hear it's quite
exhilirating. ;-)
The one and only thing that a mixed gender
couple can do that a same sex couple can not do is procreate "naturally."
You have asserted that procreation is NOT a requirement for legal
marriage.
It is proveable that people can procreate without the benefits of legal
marriage. So if a mixed gender couple, one with a vastectomy and the
other
with a hysterectomy, can be legally married, why not allow legal marriage
between two men or two women? I mean to say, what LEGALLY BASED reason
can
you give?
xxxx
The LEGAL BASE IS: It's against the law because:
Marriage is the wholesome tradition of a man and a woman joining for
life to be a healthy unit that is of benefit to
the nation through tax collection, children, wholesome living and
providing example for others to emulate while fitting into society in a
way that promotes security for national economic growth and prosperity.
This union also promotes religion and the benefits of religion in the
American tradition of wholesome living.
This is what America is made up of in the vast majority of
the population.
Laws can be changed. It happened in Massachussetts. That's why I love
the Consititution. It protects Massachussetts from activist politicians
like Tom Delay and Bill Frist. The Founding Fathers were smart. They
knew activism would be a problem so, before any activist policy can
become national law, it has to be ratified by 2/3rds majority. You'll
never get this on homosexuality. Homosexual marriage is protected by
the 9th and 10th Amendments ("cannot disaparage or deny rights" and
"States Rights", respectively).
It's up to each individual state what they do with marriage. You're
right that its against the law...in some states. In others, there's no
law, or the law's been changed.
Gay people tend to be atheist in nature because the Bible does condemn
sodomy and AIDS has shown the population that sodomy is wrong and gays
have shown that they don't care about AIDS as they continue to propagate
the disease.
Incorrect. Oh, boy, are you incorrect. Every single one of my
homosexual friends are Christian...except for one. I think he's
Catholic, I'm not sure.
Anyway. AIDS is _NOT_ the "homosexual disease". Heterosexuals get it
all the time. To keep spreading falsehoods about this disease is both
stupid and sick. You're turning a blind eye to what's going on! Shut
up about AIDS until you know more about the topic!
(By the way, my aunt, a devout Christian and a heterosexual, died of
AIDS about three years ago. She got it from a car accident and she
needed a blood transfusion. She never even had a glimmer of
homosexuality in her eye, yet she got "The Homosexual Disease",
according to you. It's sickening that you'd say this and I demand you
apologize right here and now, on the grave of my aunt!)
I can go on forever and it won't change your mind but it's fun composing
and typing.
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
xxxx
Which has absolutely nothing related to same sex marriage.
Except that it does.
If you want to live with a black guy, more power to you.
Nope. Back then, it was against the law. Just like it's against the
law now.
In fact, if you want to live with people of all races you can do so at
the same time as having a girl friend too.
You can marry the girl friend and carry on but you can't marry a guy
because recognized by law marriage isn't for same sex.
Set your legal documentation accordingly.
Yep. Set YOUR legal documentation accordingly. It's legal in
Massachusetts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chad Gore" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Mar 2005 07:17:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
SMITH29 wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
J Young wrote:
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending.
Following your "logic", health care benefits of heterosexual marriage
should exist if and only if there are children. Correct?
xxxx
A part of marriage is procreation possibility which is not
mandatory.
Then why do you neo-cons insist that the whole point of marriage is
procreation? If procreation is merely a possibility, and if couples who can
not or will not procreate can be married, why not allow same sex couples to
marry? You can't have it both ways without coming across as a complete
bigot.
//////////////
A bond of marriage is between a man & women , to bare children if
possible. Why would a ***** and there prey (Mate), want to name
something that is hetrosexual in nature , as there bond ??????????
Please ,under one thousand word !!
You can't make America like Nazi Germany to prove
a dumb point.
Hmm.. a neo-con proving Godwin's Law. How completely unsurprising.
Can't you get it through your thick head that marriage is
for man and woman and it's staying that way too.
Yet again, I will ask: Why? The one and only thing that a mixed gender
couple can do that a same sex couple can not do is procreate "naturally."
You have asserted that procreation is NOT a requirement for legal marriage.
It is proveable that people can procreate without the benefits of legal
marriage. So if a mixed gender couple, one with a vastectomy and the other
with a hysterectomy, can be legally married, why not allow legal marriage
between two men or two women? I mean to say, what LEGALLY BASED reason can
you give?
Yer ***** right it's staying that way!!!
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench , but that is going to change
!! You will recieve the mark as promised in the bible !! Have a nice
day !! Ha" ha" Ha"..............
AIDS is spreading among blacks at an alarming rate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Mar 2005 10:32:30 PM |
|
|
"Chad Gore" <DWharding@commonsense.nett> wrote
Why would a ***** and there prey (Mate), want to name
something that is hetrosexual in nature , as there bond ??????????
Please ,under one thousand word !!
Why would anyone care?
Please, lavish us with details.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Mar 2005 10:30:30 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vZKdncpZcrB1tNffRVn-vg@comcast.com...
"Chad Gore" <DWharding@commonsense.nett> wrote
Why would a ***** and there prey (Mate), want to name
something that is hetrosexual in nature , as there bond ??????????
Please ,under one thousand word !!
Why would anyone care?
Please, lavish us with details.
Yeah, that'll happen.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Mar 2005 07:45:36 PM |
|
|
Chad Gore wrote:
A bond of marriage is between a man & women , to bare children if
possible. Why would a ***** and there prey (Mate), want to name
something that is hetrosexual in nature , as there bond ??????????
Please ,under one thousand word !!
Because.
(Don't strain yourself counting.)
--
Quoted in the New Scientist [1995]:
A Doctor at Yale has observed that all the fingers have names, but that only the big toe has a name. He thus proposes names for all 5 toes: porcellus fori, porcellus domi, porcellus carnivorus, porcellus non voratus, porcellus plorans domum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Mar 2005 08:43:54 PM |
|
|
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:4xn2e.257$Fh4.228@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Chad Gore wrote:
A bond of marriage is between a man & women , to bare children if
possible. Why would a ***** and there prey (Mate), want to name
something that is hetrosexual in nature , as there bond ??????????
Please ,under one thousand word !!
Because.
(Don't strain yourself counting.)
He's got to be trolling - no one could *really* be *that* stupid * still
type.
Susan
--
Quoted in the New Scientist [1995]:
A Doctor at Yale has observed that all the fingers have names, but that
only the big toe has a name. He thus proposes names for all 5 toes:
porcellus fori, porcellus domi, porcellus carnivorus, porcellus non
voratus, porcellus plorans domum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Mar 2005 08:51:26 PM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Kno2e.27808$191.14619@trnddc02...
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:4xn2e.257$Fh4.228@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Chad Gore wrote:
A bond of marriage is between a man & women , to bare children if
possible. Why would a ***** and there prey (Mate), want to name
something that is hetrosexual in nature , as there bond ??????????
Please ,under one thousand word !!
Because.
(Don't strain yourself counting.)
He's got to be trolling - no one could *really* be *that* stupid * still type.
Trust me -- he's really like that. The most extraordinary thing about him is
the depth of his shallowness.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Mar 2005 09:14:27 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:uLWdnbxgWZp3j9ffRVn-pA@cablespeedwa.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
He's got to be trolling - no one could *really* be *that* stupid * still
type.
Trust me -- he's really like that. The most extraordinary thing about him
is the depth of his shallowness.
Far more extrordinary is how many Americans behave just like he does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Erickson" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 05:44:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:14:27 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<usenet@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:uLWdnbxgWZp3j9ffRVn-pA@cablespeedwa.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
He's got to be trolling - no one could *really* be *that* stupid * still
type.
Trust me -- he's really like that. The most extraordinary thing about him
is the depth of his shallowness.
Far more extrordinary is how many Americans behave just like he does.
It isn't just americans, guy.
Slobbering Skeleton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
30 Mar 2005 10:09:04 AM |
|
|
Chad Gore wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
SMITH29 wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
J Young wrote:
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending.
Following your "logic", health care benefits of heterosexual marriage
should exist if and only if there are children. Correct?
xxxx
A part of marriage is procreation possibility which is not
mandatory.
Then why do you neo-cons insist that the whole point of marriage is
procreation? If procreation is merely a possibility, and if couples who can
not or will not procreate can be married, why not allow same sex couples to
marry? You can't have it both ways without coming across as a complete
bigot.
//////////////
A bond of marriage is between a man & women ,
You are arguing in circles: marriage is defined as being between a man and a
woman; therefore marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
And, I'm curious as to why you used man -- singular -- and women -- plural. Are
you defining marriage as existing only in the sense of polygamy?
to bare children
In Washington State, at least, baring children will likely get you arrested as a
sex offender.
if possible.
So you would support a law requiring proof of fertility to get a marriage
license?
Why would a ***** and there prey (Mate), want to name
something that is hetrosexual in nature , as there bond ??????????
You might want to reread your third grade grammar books.
Please ,under one thousand word !!
You are making far less sense than usual. What happened, your prescriptions run
out again?
You can't make America like Nazi Germany to prove
a dumb point.
Hmm.. a neo-con proving Godwin's Law. How completely unsurprising.
Can't you get it through your thick head that marriage is
for man and woman and it's staying that way too.
Yet again, I will ask: Why? The one and only thing that a mixed gender
couple can do that a same sex couple can not do is procreate "naturally."
You have asserted that procreation is NOT a requirement for legal marriage.
It is proveable that people can procreate without the benefits of legal
marriage. So if a mixed gender couple, one with a vastectomy and the other
with a hysterectomy, can be legally married, why not allow legal marriage
between two men or two women? I mean to say, what LEGALLY BASED reason can
you give?
Yer ***** right it's staying that way!!!
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench ,
Oh? Pray tell, which of the nine justices who joined this unanimous decision was
the "*****"?
but that is going to change
!! You will recieve the mark as promised in the bible !! Have a nice
day !! Ha" ha" Ha"..............
AIDS is spreading among blacks at an alarming rate.
By heterosexual means. Your point is...?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 01:19:25 PM |
|
|
Chad Gore wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench ,
I prefer my Faggots on a plate........
http://www.hellward.dsl.pipex.com/faggotsandpeas.jpg
Tasty !
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 01:25:07 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:wMidne--7cGh0NHfRVnytg@pipex.net...
Chad Gore wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench ,
I prefer my Faggots on a plate........
http://www.hellward.dsl.pipex.com/faggotsandpeas.jpg
Tasty !
What are those - Some kind of meatball?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 02:26:28 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:wMidne--7cGh0NHfRVnytg@pipex.net...
Chad Gore wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench ,
I prefer my Faggots on a plate........
http://www.hellward.dsl.pipex.com/faggotsandpeas.jpg
Tasty !
What are those - Some kind of meatball?
Yup, a traditional Welsh dish....
http://www.hub-uk.com/tallyrecip01/recipe0010.htm
Bloody delicious !
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 02:36:08 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:CLidnUphpIlvwdHfRVnysA@pipex.net...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:wMidne--7cGh0NHfRVnytg@pipex.net...
Chad Gore wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench ,
I prefer my Faggots on a plate........
http://www.hellward.dsl.pipex.com/faggotsandpeas.jpg
Tasty !
What are those - Some kind of meatball?
Yup, a traditional Welsh dish....
http://www.hub-uk.com/tallyrecip01/recipe0010.htm
Bloody delicious !
Pig's liver?!?!?!? BLARGH!
Sorry, but eeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww! :)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 08:43:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:36:08 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:CLidnUphpIlvwdHfRVnysA@pipex.net...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:wMidne--7cGh0NHfRVnytg@pipex.net...
Chad Gore wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench ,
I prefer my Faggots on a plate........
http://www.hellward.dsl.pipex.com/faggotsandpeas.jpg
Tasty !
What are those - Some kind of meatball?
Yup, a traditional Welsh dish....
http://www.hub-uk.com/tallyrecip01/recipe0010.htm
Bloody delicious !
Pig's liver?!?!?!? BLARGH!
Sorry, but eeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww! :)
Get thee to the Holy Haggis! :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 03:06:59 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:CLidnUphpIlvwdHfRVnysA@pipex.net...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:wMidne--7cGh0NHfRVnytg@pipex.net...
Chad Gore wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench ,
I prefer my Faggots on a plate........
http://www.hellward.dsl.pipex.com/faggotsandpeas.jpg
Tasty !
What are those - Some kind of meatball?
Yup, a traditional Welsh dish....
http://www.hub-uk.com/tallyrecip01/recipe0010.htm
Bloody delicious !
Pig's liver?!?!?!? BLARGH!
Sorry, but eeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww! :)
LOL !
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 03:13:13 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:2JCdnfHjm5zs-9HfRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:CLidnUphpIlvwdHfRVnysA@pipex.net...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:wMidne--7cGh0NHfRVnytg@pipex.net...
Chad Gore wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:29:50 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
You know, 8 out of 10 Americans said the exact same thing about
legal
prohibitions against interracial marriage, up until the United
States
Supreme Court ruled on Loving v Virginia in 1969.
/////////////
Thats because a ***** was on the bench ,
I prefer my Faggots on a plate........
http://www.hellward.dsl.pipex.com/faggotsandpeas.jpg
Tasty !
What are those - Some kind of meatball?
Yup, a traditional Welsh dish....
http://www.hub-uk.com/tallyrecip01/recipe0010.htm
Bloody delicious !
Pig's liver?!?!?!? BLARGH!
Sorry, but eeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww! :)
LOL !
Heehee! I love chicken liver pate, but if pig liver tastes anything like
calf liver, blech :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
