| 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: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
22 Apr 2005 09:36:11 PM |
|
|
Fritz wrote:
Could you tell me please, why then, would it be in the interest
of the state, to relegate tax paying homosexual people to second
class citizenship, with out the equal protection or standing in the
eyes of the law?
To the contrary: We have a special right! We have the right to be in
committed relationships that *never* experience the tax penalties of
marriage. (And the Reich likes that just fine, oddly enough.)
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
23 Apr 2005 10:21:21 AM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Fritz wrote:
Could you tell me please, why then, would it be in the interest
of the state, to relegate tax paying homosexual people to second
class citizenship, with out the equal protection or standing in the
eyes of the law?
To the contrary: We have a special right! We have the right to be in
committed relationships that *never* experience the tax penalties of
marriage. (And the Reich likes that just fine, oddly enough.)
Well Lord knows, it isn't for lack of trying, we've been
here every day. Between this, and the dishes and the douches,
I don' know where it's all gonna end. I'm seriously thinking
about one of those "getting straight" programs.
Or maybe, I'll just have another glass of wine, and
take a nap, till it all blows over.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 09:58:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:17:39 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
No, it's the over 1,000 federal and state benefits that are granted
married couples that interest the GLBT community.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to is think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
What 'Constitutional edict"? Loving states quite clearly that
marriage is a basic human right. That's enough.
We allow people who obviously cannot reprodice to marry. Happens
every single day. So adding the roughly 5% of Americans who are gay
to the mix will not affect a single thing.
--
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: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 12:47:16 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:217a61tsrv4c6g0a6flmqo3ep9s4ar4upv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:17:39 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
[snip]
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to is
think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
What 'Constitutional edict"? Loving states quite clearly that
marriage is a basic human right. That's enough.
'Maverick' is mis-using the term 'compelling state interest.' It's a legal
requirement that, in this context, requires the opponents of same-sex
marriage to show why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.
He needs to stick to his penis-vagina-procreation rhetoric.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 10:03:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:17:39 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42ud2$bep$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qvT8e.4759086$Zm5.742605@news.easynews.com...
"Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113849500.744384.307570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice. Marriage
has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
We have covered that ad nauseum. That is a dishonest statement. Perhaps
you
have not read the nexus case. Here, for you edification, is the salient
paragraph. You will take note that it specifically points out that
"marriage
AND procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get married.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to is think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
Happily married couples reduce the strain on states. Individuals in a
loving relationship are Happier and much less prone to getting sick,
mentally and physically. There's is also a financial advantage to a
couple, since if one becomes unable to work, they don't automatically
become a strain on the state.
Hence, ANY marriage is a positive compelling state interest.
Your aguement backfired.
In addition, heterosexual elderly couples, infertile couples and couples
who
do not wish to have children already have the right to marry, and this
does
not threaten the survival of the species.
Furthermore, gay couples can and do raise children.
Hell, the world is OVERpopulated. There is no risk of the species dying
out...unless the conservatives achieve their dream of nuclear war.
You can reflect on the silliness of the rest of your post. Its absurdity
speaks for itself.
Your bigotry is just as silly, and your absurdity speaks for itself as
well.
(is this where you plonk me too since I said you're silly) (nevermind
that you called other people names all the time)
Is there even anyone left for you to read here? You've plonked at
least 40 people recently.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 11:24:18 AM |
|
|
RainLover wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:17:39 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42ud2$bep$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qvT8e.4759086$Zm5.742605@news.easynews.com...
"Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113849500.744384.307570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you
homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not
also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
Marriage
has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases,
and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
We have covered that ad nauseum. That is a dishonest statement.
Perhaps
you
have not read the nexus case. Here, for you edification, is the
salient
paragraph. You will take note that it specifically points out
that
"marriage
AND procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic
of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental
civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for
their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the
species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to
is think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
Happily married couples reduce the strain on states. Individuals in
a
loving relationship are Happier and much less prone to getting sick,
mentally and physically. There's is also a financial advantage to a
couple, since if one becomes unable to work, they don't automatically
become a strain on the state.
None of these are achieved by a marriage license. If two people love
each other and spend the rest of their days together, those are some of
the benefits.
Hence, ANY marriage is a positive compelling state interest.
Your aguement backfired.
Society doesn't have problem with gays getting married. They can do it
now and they can be happy as clams and no one can stop them.
In addition, heterosexual elderly couples, infertile couples and
couples
who
do not wish to have children already have the right to marry, and
this
does
not threaten the survival of the species.
Furthermore, gay couples can and do raise children.
Hell, the world is OVERpopulated. There is no risk of the species
dying
out...unless the conservatives achieve their dream of nuclear war.
You can reflect on the silliness of the rest of your post. Its
absurdity
speaks for itself.
Your bigotry is just as silly, and your absurdity speaks for itself
as
well.
(is this where you plonk me too since I said you're silly)
(nevermind
that you called other people names all the time)
Is there even anyone left for you to read here? You've plonked at
least 40 people recently.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 01:01:37 PM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113927858.918709.314490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
RainLover wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:17:39 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42ud2$bep$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qvT8e.4759086$Zm5.742605@news.easynews.com...
"Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113849500.744384.307570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you
homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not
also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
Marriage
has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases,
and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
We have covered that ad nauseum. That is a dishonest statement.
Perhaps
you
have not read the nexus case. Here, for you edification, is the
salient
paragraph. You will take note that it specifically points out
that
"marriage
AND procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic
of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental
civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for
their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the
species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to
is think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
Happily married couples reduce the strain on states. Individuals in
a
loving relationship are Happier and much less prone to getting sick,
mentally and physically. There's is also a financial advantage to a
couple, since if one becomes unable to work, they don't automatically
become a strain on the state.
None of these are achieved by a marriage license. If two people love
each other and spend the rest of their days together, those are some of
the benefits.
Hence, ANY marriage is a positive compelling state interest.
Your aguement backfired.
Society doesn't have problem with gays getting married. They can do it
now and they can be happy as clams and no one can stop them.
In addition, heterosexual elderly couples, infertile couples and
couples
who
do not wish to have children already have the right to marry, and
this
does
not threaten the survival of the species.
Furthermore, gay couples can and do raise children.
Hell, the world is OVERpopulated. There is no risk of the species
dying
out...unless the conservatives achieve their dream of nuclear war.
You can reflect on the silliness of the rest of your post. Its
absurdity
speaks for itself.
Your bigotry is just as silly, and your absurdity speaks for itself
as
well.
(is this where you plonk me too since I said you're silly)
(nevermind
that you called other people names all the time)
Is there even anyone left for you to read here? You've plonked at
least 40 people recently.
James, Seattle
The people I plonk get plonked because they direct their belligerant
comments at me instead of the points being made. There are those, such as
Jenn and others, that know how to discuss an issue from a position of
integrity. You could learn from those kinds of people if you wanted. I do
not care to waste time on name callers and foul mouths.
--
"In questions of power, then, let no more
be said of confidence in man but bind him
down with the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
21 Apr 2005 11:37:04 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
The people I plonk get plonked because they direct their belligerant
comments at me instead of the points being made. There are those, such as
Jenn and others, that know how to discuss an issue from a position of
integrity. You could learn from those kinds of people if you wanted. I do
not care to waste time on name callers and foul mouths.
Lies are not acceptable.
PLONK!
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:37:04 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <IFeel@YourPain.net> wrote in message
news:4267D6AE.37F430E7@YourPain.net...
Maverick wrote:
The people I plonk get plonked because they direct their belligerant
comments at me instead of the points being made. There are those, such as
Jenn and others, that know how to discuss an issue from a position of
integrity. You could learn from those kinds of people if you wanted. I do
not care to waste time on name callers and foul mouths.
Lies are not acceptable.
Practice what you preach.
PLONK!
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 12:56:13 PM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113927858.918709.314490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
RainLover wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:17:39 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42ud2$bep$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qvT8e.4759086$Zm5.742605@news.easynews.com...
"Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113849500.744384.307570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you
homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not
also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
Marriage
has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases,
and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
We have covered that ad nauseum. That is a dishonest statement.
Perhaps
you
have not read the nexus case. Here, for you edification, is the
salient
paragraph. You will take note that it specifically points out
that
"marriage
AND procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic
of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental
civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for
their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Oh, but it does matter if the homosexual community is going to use Loving as
the basis for their position because Loving refers to Skinner and Skinner
very clearly defines that fundamental right the homosexuals wish they could
twist into a favorable message for their cause.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the
species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to
is think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
Happily married couples reduce the strain on states. Individuals in
a
loving relationship are Happier and much less prone to getting sick,
mentally and physically. There's is also a financial advantage to a
couple, since if one becomes unable to work, they don't automatically
become a strain on the state.
None of these are achieved by a marriage license. If two people love
each other and spend the rest of their days together, those are some of
the benefits.
Hence, ANY marriage is a positive compelling state interest.
Your aguement backfired.
Society doesn't have problem with gays getting married. They can do it
now and they can be happy as clams and no one can stop them.
In addition, heterosexual elderly couples, infertile couples and
couples
who
do not wish to have children already have the right to marry, and
this
does
not threaten the survival of the species.
Furthermore, gay couples can and do raise children.
Hell, the world is OVERpopulated. There is no risk of the species
dying
out...unless the conservatives achieve their dream of nuclear war.
You can reflect on the silliness of the rest of your post. Its
absurdity
speaks for itself.
Your bigotry is just as silly, and your absurdity speaks for itself
as
well.
(is this where you plonk me too since I said you're silly)
(nevermind
that you called other people names all the time)
Is there even anyone left for you to read here? You've plonked at
least 40 people recently.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
21 Apr 2005 11:34:38 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Oh, but it does matter if the homosexual community is going to use Loving as
the basis for their position because Loving refers to Skinner and Skinner
very clearly defines that fundamental right the homosexuals wish they could
twist into a favorable message for their cause.
Insulting remarks are not acceptable.
PLONK!
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:36:33 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <IFeel@YourPain.net> wrote in message
news:4267D61C.1A2197D7@YourPain.net...
Maverick wrote:
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Oh, but it does matter if the homosexual community is going to use Loving
as
the basis for their position because Loving refers to Skinner and Skinner
very clearly defines that fundamental right the homosexuals wish they
could
twist into a favorable message for their cause.
Insulting remarks are not acceptable.
Practice what you preach.
PLONK!
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
21 Apr 2005 04:14:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:34:38 -0400, Fritz <IFeel@YourPain.net> wrote:
Maverick wrote:
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Oh, but it does matter if the homosexual community is going to use Loving as
the basis for their position because Loving refers to Skinner and Skinner
very clearly defines that fundamental right the homosexuals wish they could
twist into a favorable message for their cause.
Insulting remarks are not acceptable.
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
21 Apr 2005 04:17:08 PM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tr5g61h0vqc93cn6c3rllg4hittq1ejt1h@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:34:38 -0400, Fritz <IFeel@YourPain.net> wrote:
Maverick wrote:
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Oh, but it does matter if the homosexual community is going to use
Loving as
the basis for their position because Loving refers to Skinner and
Skinner
very clearly defines that fundamental right the homosexuals wish they
could
twist into a favorable message for their cause.
Insulting remarks are not acceptable.
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me with
some snide remark. He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
--
"In questions of power, then, let no more
be said of confidence in man but bind him
down with the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
22 Apr 2005 09:06:48 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tr5g61h0vqc93cn6c3rllg4hittq1ejt1h@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:34:38 -0400, Fritz <IFeel@YourPain.net> wrote:
Maverick wrote:
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Oh, but it does matter if the homosexual community is going to use
Loving as
the basis for their position because Loving refers to Skinner and
Skinner
very clearly defines that fundamental right the homosexuals wish they
could
twist into a favorable message for their cause.
Insulting remarks are not acceptable.
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me with
some snide remark.
My, aren't we full of ourselves.
Truth is, I change my email address to help cut down on
the spamers that cruise the news groups. It really has nothing
to do with you.
He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
So you do notice, how nice.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
And you're counting, wonderful.
By the way, where is this truth about homosexuals you
lot mentioned? Don't worry, I can take it.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
22 Apr 2005 09:05:22 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:426904F8.D42A6A36@bcpl.net...
Maverick wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tr5g61h0vqc93cn6c3rllg4hittq1ejt1h@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:34:38 -0400, Fritz <IFeel@YourPain.net> wrote:
Maverick wrote:
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens
with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Oh, but it does matter if the homosexual community is going to use
Loving as
the basis for their position because Loving refers to Skinner and
Skinner
very clearly defines that fundamental right the homosexuals wish they
could
twist into a favorable message for their cause.
Insulting remarks are not acceptable.
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me
with
some snide remark.
My, aren't we full of ourselves.
Another LIEberal with nothing but childish insults and denial of facts, no
surprise there.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
21 Apr 2005 09:23:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:17:08 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tr5g61h0vqc93cn6c3rllg4hittq1ejt1h@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:34:38 -0400, Fritz <IFeel@YourPain.net> wrote:
Maverick wrote:
BINGO! "procreation" has NOTHING to do with marriage, it happens with
or with out it, hense, it doesn't matter if a married couple
procreate
or not, so..... it doesn't matter if two same-sex people get
married.
Oh, but it does matter if the homosexual community is going to use
Loving as
the basis for their position because Loving refers to Skinner and
Skinner
very clearly defines that fundamental right the homosexuals wish they
could
twist into a favorable message for their cause.
Insulting remarks are not acceptable.
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me with
some snide remark. He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
He doesn't appear to be terribly original in his thinking. Poor lad.
Life can be hell for some.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
22 Apr 2005 09:08:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me with
some snide remark. He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
He doesn't appear to be terribly original in his thinking. Poor lad.
Life can be hell for some.
How original of you.
A born again nazi spouting hate.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 09:09:29 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:4269056D.FEE3BFAA@bcpl.net...
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me
with
some snide remark. He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I
see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker
in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
He doesn't appear to be terribly original in his thinking. Poor lad.
Life can be hell for some.
How original of you.
A born again nazi spouting hate.
Another LIEberal with nothing but childish insults and denial of facts, no
surprise there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
22 Apr 2005 05:57:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:08:45 -0400, Fritz <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me with
some snide remark. He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
He doesn't appear to be terribly original in his thinking. Poor lad.
Life can be hell for some.
How original of you.
A born again nazi spouting hate.
"Born again nazi spouting hate" You see, boy, you are a predictable
as is the clap among homos.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
22 Apr 2005 06:23:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:08:45 -0400, Fritz <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote:
wrote:
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me with
some snide remark. He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
He doesn't appear to be terribly original in his thinking. Poor lad.
Life can be hell for some.
How original of you.
A born again nazi spouting hate.
"Born again nazi spouting hate" You see, boy, you are a predictable
as is the clap among homos.
Gonorrhea, an STD, isn't limited to homosexuals, bubby. It's caused by
a bacteria that affects the mucous membranes. Bacteria are
indiscriminate. You, however, aren't. That makes bacteria better then you.
*GUFFAW*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
23 Apr 2005 09:54:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:08:45 -0400, Fritz <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote:
wrote:
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me with
some snide remark. He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
He doesn't appear to be terribly original in his thinking. Poor lad.
Life can be hell for some.
How original of you.
A born again nazi spouting hate.
"Born again nazi spouting hate" You see, boy, you are a predictable
as is the clap among homos.
You aren't though. It's really amazing how many different ways
you can think up to convey your stupid, hateful, bigotry.
Good job.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
23 Apr 2005 03:49:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:54:42 -0400, Fritz <*****@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:08:45 -0400, Fritz <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
Homosexuals always seem to find the truth about homosexuality to be
insulting.
PLONK!
So they stick their heads up their ***** to avoid it.
Fritz tries to change his moniker every other day so he can answer me with
some snide remark. He doesn't realize that I'm on Direcway and when you
plonk someone it blocks their id, not their moniker. So, the only time I see
anything from him is if it happens to appear on someone else's post.
When a plonked poster tries the re-post, Direcway puts their new moniker in
your killfile automatically. I think there are about 13 for Fritz.
He doesn't appear to be terribly original in his thinking. Poor lad.
Life can be hell for some.
How original of you.
A born again nazi spouting hate.
"Born again nazi spouting hate" You see, boy, you are a predictable
as is the clap among homos.
You aren't though. It's really amazing how many different ways
you can think up to convey your stupid, hateful, bigotry.
"...stupid, hateful, bigotry" = Anything critical of homosexuality.
Good job.
You adherence to the Homo-Dogma of "Lie, Deny and Suppress the Truth?"
Yes you do that very well.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 10:34:49 PM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
You will take note that it specifically points out that "marriage AND
procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
This assumes the race deserves to survive. As Agent Smith noted, most
species achieve an equilibrium within their environment. Curiously, one
does not. Care to guess which that might be? Survival must be earned.
Through self control, via altruism, by sacrifice. Not only does Mother
Nature abhor a vacuum, she has distinct problems with whiners.
"Marriage is being destroyed by homosexuals." Or is it being destroyed
by divorce?
Social Security isn't being destroyed by a lack of births, but by a
deluge of them.
Marital fidelity isn't an oxymoron due to the scarcity of potential
partners; It is caused by a dearth of them.
Wah. Wah. Wah.
Grow up, child.
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 08:01:23 AM |
|
|
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:t%_8e.5798$0V2.1792@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
You will take note that it specifically points out that "marriage AND
procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
This assumes the race deserves to survive.
I'm not interested when you go silly. PLONK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 08:03:45 AM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Di79e.366745$za2.58774@news.easynews.com...
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:t%_8e.5798$0V2.1792@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
You will take note that it specifically points out that "marriage AND
procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
This assumes the race deserves to survive.
I'm not interested when you go silly. PLONK
She thinks she is being cute when she makes her asinine remarks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 12:20:53 PM |
|
|
Sir Marksman wrote:
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Di79e.366745$za2.58774@news.easynews.com...
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:t%_8e.5798$0V2.1792@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
You will take note that it specifically points out that "marriage AND
procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
This assumes the race deserves to survive.
I'm not interested when you go silly. PLONK
She thinks she is being cute when she makes her asinine remarks.
So you think "she's" upstaging you.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 12:50:22 PM |
|
|
"Fritz" <I@care.net> wrote in message news:42653DF4.9D5EB319@care.net...
Sir Marksman wrote:
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Di79e.366745$za2.58774@news.easynews.com...
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:t%_8e.5798$0V2.1792@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
You will take note that it specifically points out that "marriage AND
procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
This assumes the race deserves to survive.
I'm not interested when you go silly. PLONK
She thinks she is being cute when she makes her asinine remarks.
So you think "she's" upstaging you.
Asinine statement, but look who it is coming from..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
21 Apr 2005 08:43:37 PM |
|
|
Fritz wrote:
Sir Marksman wrote:
She thinks she is being cute when she makes her asinine remarks.
So you think "she's" upstaging you.
In order to be upstaged, one has to *have* a stage. And we all know that
he doesn't 'cause stages are things only homosexuals have.
;-)
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 05:21:15 AM |
|
|
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:dFY9e.8625$0d6.3523@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Fritz wrote:
Sir Marksman wrote:
She thinks she is being cute when she makes her asinine remarks.
So you think "she's" upstaging you.
In order to be upstaged, one has to *have* a stage. And we all know that
he doesn't 'cause stages are things only homosexuals have.
Another worthless cutesy reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
</ | | |
