Religions > Atheism > Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Jabsco" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2003 03:02:24 PM |
| Object: |
Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.
What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance to old
beliefs are making way". Come on faggots, explain this... I don't
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds vote
otherwise? Why is there currently 38 states with anti-gay marriage laws,
all properly voted for by the public? I am having troubles understanding
why the only way faggots can appear to be accepted is by finding a
sympathetic judge to scratch out laws for them. Can't you get the
"accepting" public to vote for them for you? Why isn't it that the faggots
aren't putting these issues on the ballets rather than taking it to
sympathetic judges and congress men?
===
Ohio House passes anti-gay marriage bill
COLUMBUS -- Gay marriage would be banned and state employees could not
obtain health insurance and other benefits for unmarried partners under a
bill passed by the Ohio House on Wednesday.
The measure, approved by a 73-23 vote, would recognize marriage as a union
"between one man and one woman" and declare that extending benefits for
unmarried partners to state employees, whether of the same or opposite sex,
is against state policy.
Supporters of the measure point toward the possibility of other states
approving homosexual unions as the impetus for Ohio to set its own standards
for marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last month declared that state's
gay marriage ban unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to extend the legal
benefits of marriage to domestic partners.
But opponents called the bill discrimination.
House minority leader Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island, said committee
hearings on the bill were filled with "hate filled language and bigoted
comments" about homosexuals.
"I cannot allow myself to be aligned with that," he said. "I have respect
for my fellow members ... but I don't want them to be the morality police."
Redfern added that considering society's 50-percent divorce rate, it's hard
to argue that the issue is about upholding the sanctity of marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Dennis Smeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
16 Dec 2003 10:17:36 AM |
|
|
Randy Jabsco wrote:
I keep reading all this ridiculousness of the fags. They make whatever
excuses they can invent in order to justify a ***** up the *****.
As a "***** lover" and one who fights for human rights it is always
interesting to see the whining of the bigots to blind their eyes as to
what the bible really has always said, and invent justifications for
their bigotry in taking verses out of context, and inferring modern
interpretation on them.
Now look with you modern eyes on these verses. Adam with Steve.
John 13:
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples,
whom Jesus loved.
Philippians 1:
8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in
the bowels of Jesus Christ.
Philemon 1:
20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh
my bowels in the Lord.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied.
What's that say to ya?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 08:08:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:10:14 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:51:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Dennis Smeth wrote:
Jesus was of the lineage of David:
The same sex polyandrous marriage of David to Michal and Jonathan
Gay sex is not a marriage, and does not produce a "lineage."
Your bible calls it a marriage.
LOL. Miraculous conceptions again?
Oh, sorry, I thought you KNEW the bible. You only know the bigoted
parts.
What we have here is a failure to understand the concept.
It's good that you recognize your failings. That's the first step to
recovery.
[HInt: The "lineage of David" was not from rump riding.]
Where do they drag up these idiots?
Dunno. Where did you say you were from? Which trailer park refuse
heap?
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Smeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 07:31:41 PM |
|
|
Randy Jabsco wrote:
I'm surprised you believed his nonsense enough to even merit a response. No
source, nothing. Just fairy tales about how Jesus allowed gay marriages. A
Jew, who knew the Levitical law quite well. Okay, fairy tales... whatever.
The last post was a mistake I hit send not undo.
Jesus was on the lineage of David:
The same sex polyandrous marriage of David to Michal and Jonathan
NASB:
1 Samuel 18:
21 Saul thought, "I will give her to him that she may become
a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be
against him." Therefore Saul said to David, " For a second time
you may be my son-in-law today."
YLT
21 and Saul saith, `I give her to him, and she is to him
for a snare, and the hand of the Philistines is on him;'
and Saul saith unto David, `By the second thou dost become --
my son-in-law to-day.'
Darby
21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a
snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be
upon him. And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my
son-in-law a second time.
The Marriage contract of David and Jonathan
2 Samuel 21:
7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the
son of Saul, because of the LORD'S oath that was between them,
between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.
Psa 133:
1 A Song of degrees of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant
it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 04:15:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:10:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
You really don't comprehend the concept do you. Marriage, as an
institution, commonly deals with the support of the children, hence the
inclusion of property in marriage law. See the Pre-Christian Brehan Law
for more reading on the topic. Marriage is about families, children,
and their support by the parents and the society.
You really don't comprehend the concept, do you? Marriage, as an
institution, has always been an economic situation. For thousands of
years brides were PURCHASED by their husbands from their fathers -
they were chattel. Whether a man purchased a wife to have children,
or for any other reason, was totally irrelevant to the subject of
marriage. Only in the last 3,500 years or so has it become a
religious situation.
Destroying the basic concept of marriage is the only way that rump
riders can claim to participate.
Except that everyone posting against you here is straight, not
homosexual and refusing to accept it, like you. That you hate being
homosexual has nothing to do with whether gays should be allowed to
marry.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 06:18:54 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:10:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
You really don't comprehend the concept do you. Marriage, as an
institution, commonly deals with the support of the children, hence the
inclusion of property in marriage law. See the Pre-Christian Brehan Law
for more reading on the topic. Marriage is about families, children,
and their support by the parents and the society.
You really don't comprehend the concept, do you? Marriage, as an
institution, has always been an economic situation. For thousands of
years brides were PURCHASED by their husbands from their fathers -
they were chattel.
Bring us some cheese with your feminist whine next time.
Whether a man purchased a wife to have children,
or for any other reason, was totally irrelevant to the subject of
marriage. Only in the last 3,500 years or so has it become a
religious situation.
Revisionist history doesn't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
Destroying the basic concept of marriage is the only way that rump
riders can claim to participate.
Except that everyone posting against you here is straight, not
homosexual and refusing to accept it, like you.
On line, they all deny being rump riders. They are so ashamed.
That you hate being
homosexual has nothing to do with whether gays should be allowed to
marry.
1. Nobody has said anything about hating rump riders. Meanwhile the
rump riders have been spewing flames for days. Straight hate is so
abundant.
2. Rump riders are allowed to marry, but not to destroy the institution
of marriage.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 08:18:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:18:54 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:10:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
You really don't comprehend the concept do you. Marriage, as an
institution, commonly deals with the support of the children, hence the
inclusion of property in marriage law. See the Pre-Christian Brehan Law
for more reading on the topic. Marriage is about families, children,
and their support by the parents and the society.
You really don't comprehend the concept, do you? Marriage, as an
institution, has always been an economic situation. For thousands of
years brides were PURCHASED by their husbands from their fathers -
they were chattel.
Bring us some cheese with your feminist whine next time.
You really don;t comprehend, Boob.
Whether a man purchased a wife to have children,
or for any other reason, was totally irrelevant to the subject of
marriage. Only in the last 3,500 years or so has it become a
religious situation.
Revisionist history doesn't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
So stop trying to revise it. Your pitiful attempts make glass look
opaque.
Destroying the basic concept of marriage is the only way that rump
riders can claim to participate.
Except that everyone posting against you here is straight, not
homosexual and refusing to accept it, like you.
On line, they all deny being rump riders. They are so ashamed.
I'm ashamed of being het? I don't think so. Are you ashamed of being
the gay son of a gay man?
That you hate being
homosexual has nothing to do with whether gays should be allowed to
marry.
1. Nobody has said anything about hating rump riders.
I didn't say that you hate gays, I said you hate BEING gay.
Meanwhile the rump riders have been spewing flames for days. Straight hate is so
abundant.
It's not straight hate, it's ignorant cracker hate. But it's not even
hate - it's more like pity.
2. Rump riders are allowed to marry, but not to destroy the institution
of marriage.
Maybe some day you'll tell us how allowing gays to marry will affect
straights. You sound EXACTLY like those crackers (relatives of yours)
who claimed that allowing black men to marry white women would not
only destroy marriage but destroy the white race.
You're as certifiable as they were.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 08:24:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
I'm ashamed of being het? I don't think so. Are you ashamed of being
the gay son of a gay man?
Same old straight bashing. They must learn this stuff in rump rider school.
-- PLOINK! --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
15 Dec 2003 11:35:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:24:30 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
I'm ashamed of being het? I don't think so. Are you ashamed of being
the gay son of a gay man?
Same old straight bashing. They must learn this stuff in rump rider school.
Same old avoiding the issue.
-- PLOINK! --
I've been plonked by much better.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 11:08:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:58:35 GMT, Dennis Smeth <Smeth@nospam.com>
wrote:
Randy Jabsco wrote:
That's appears to be the *****/fag agenda. If you can't change the laws,
you change the definition. It appears that is where the fight is heading.
It is no longer about reproduction as in the past, but now we have an all
new 21st century enlightened definition!!!
More like an all new 19th century definition. It has only been in the
last one hundred years that marriage has been even remotely thought
of as between on man and one woman.
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
David married Jonathan and Jesus is the lineage of David. Jesus
was shown as the best man at the same sex marriage of St. Serge to
St. Baachus. Jesus said a hermaphrodite could marry if they could
do so for life, and God makes hermaphrodites that can only marry
the same sex or be attracted to the same sex, because they have
both sexes. Marriage has always been between any two or more people
as property or for love.
The church had a "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century)
and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) married his companion John.
Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late
12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales
(Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Legal references to marriages of two males occur as early as the
4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. Montaigne saw it performed in Rome
in his lifetime. Venetian ambassadors to Rome in the 17th and 18th
centuries wrote of the same sex marriage practice. The heterosexual
marriage (as thought of today) derives principally from Roman
secular customs. It originally consisted of the ceremony at which
the husband took over the possession of the wife from her father,
because women and children were property of the father and the
girls were transferred as property to the husband. In 1215,
heterosexual marriage was officially declared a sacrament by the
Roman Catholic Church, and consent was recognized as a necessary
component of the union.
In contrast, the same-sex marriage service was from the beginning
performed in a church (not outside the church or at home as
heterosexual marriages as a property transfer contract), and was
always thought of as a sacrament. It always involved consent,
because men were equal and not property, and the same-sex service
pre-dates as a religious service any heterosexual one.
At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish
Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at
Mass by the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the
same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together",
as reported by a contemporary report.
Since the time of the same sex marriage with Jesus as the best man
of St. Serge to St. Bacchus and their subsequent martyrdom, it
became the archetype for the same-sex marriage, the prayers say
things like "... united like Serge and Bacchus." To say that
marriage has always been between one man to one woman flies in the
face of legal and liturgical documents that date back before
2000 years ago.
INtersting stuff. Could I ask the source?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Smeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 07:13:16 PM |
|
|
Jefferson Brady wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:58:35 GMT, Dennis Smeth <Smeth@nospam.com>
wrote:
Randy Jabsco wrote:
That's appears to be the *****/fag agenda. If you can't change the laws,
you change the definition. It appears that is where the fight is heading.
It is no longer about reproduction as in the past, but now we have an all
new 21st century enlightened definition!!!
More like an all new 19th century definition. It has only been in the
last one hundred years that marriage has been even remotely thought
of as between on man and one woman.
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
David married Jonathan and Jesus is the lineage of David. Jesus
was shown as the best man at the same sex marriage of St. Serge to
St. Baachus. Jesus said a hermaphrodite could marry if they could
do so for life, and God makes hermaphrodites that can only marry
the same sex or be attracted to the same sex, because they have
both sexes. Marriage has always been between any two or more people
as property or for love.
The church had a "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century)
and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) married his companion John.
Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late
12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales
(Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Legal references to marriages of two males occur as early as the
4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. Montaigne saw it performed in Rome
in his lifetime. Venetian ambassadors to Rome in the 17th and 18th
centuries wrote of the same sex marriage practice. The heterosexual
marriage (as thought of today) derives principally from Roman
secular customs. It originally consisted of the ceremony at which
the husband took over the possession of the wife from her father,
because women and children were property of the father and the
girls were transferred as property to the husband. In 1215,
heterosexual marriage was officially declared a sacrament by the
Roman Catholic Church, and consent was recognized as a necessary
component of the union.
In contrast, the same-sex marriage service was from the beginning
performed in a church (not outside the church or at home as
heterosexual marriages as a property transfer contract), and was
always thought of as a sacrament. It always involved consent,
because men were equal and not property, and the same-sex service
pre-dates as a religious service any heterosexual one.
At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish
Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at
Mass by the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the
same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together",
as reported by a contemporary report.
Since the time of the same sex marriage with Jesus as the best man
of St. Serge to St. Bacchus and their subsequent martyrdom, it
became the archetype for the same-sex marriage, the prayers say
things like "... united like Serge and Bacchus." To say that
marriage has always been between one man to one woman flies in the
face of legal and liturgical documents that date back before
2000 years ago.
INtersting stuff. Could I ask the source?
A lot of it came from below the rest from other research.
http://users.aol.com/stewdship/boswell.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 09:34:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:51:10 GMT, Dennis Smeth <Smeth@nospam.com> wrote:
Earl Camembert wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will) there
will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between a man and
a woman.
And at such point and time who does a XXY hermaphrodite marry?
That would depend on whether they were classed as male or female.
But they are very very rare, so you need not concern yourself.
And what happens the the 9th and 14th Amendment that protect
marriage in the first place, and the equal protection of the fetus?
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes that people like
George W. is the president and might be again. Go back into your closet and
***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause trouble it will be much
worse for us all.
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 05:10:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:34:01 +1100, Barry OGrady
<god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
That would depend on whether they were classed as male or female.
But they are very very rare, so you need not concern yourself.
Good answer. And, since abortions are relatively rare (number of
abortions compared to number of conceptions), no one need worry about
abortions.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 02:41:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:26:13 GMT, "Earl Camembert" <tope@forme.org>
wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will) there
will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between a man and
a woman.
Except amongst the frantic fringe there is little support for any such
amendment -- there will be a long, divisive and ugly-spirited effort
but I have not the least doubt that it will fail!
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes that people like
George W. is the president and might be again.
Perhaps you might expand on this rather extraordinary proposition --
then again, perhaps you are just babbling incoherently.
Go back into your closet and
***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause trouble it will be much
worse for us all.
How am I causing trouble? I simply wish to be recognized as a citizen
of our republic -- there was little scruple over my sexuality when I
was drafted into the Korean war.
ward
---------------------------------------------------
"Americans have discovered that the river Euphrates
runs through Baghdad and the river Hubris runs through
the White House."
---------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 04:34:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:41:12 GMT, Ward Stewart
<wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:26:13 GMT, "Earl Camembert" <tope@forme.org>
wrote:
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes that people like
George W. is the president and might be again.
Perhaps you might expand on this rather extraordinary proposition --
then again, perhaps you are just babbling incoherently.
He's saying that Bush's election (not that Bush was elected) was due
to the backlash against homosexuals, lesbians (there's a bit of
redundancy for you) and Negroes.
How am I causing trouble? I simply wish to be recognized as a citizen
of our republic -- there was little scruple over my sexuality when I
was drafted into the Korean war.
These bigots don't mind if you die for them, but they don't want to
give you any rights. Just look at Shrub for a prime example of their
stupidity.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Smeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 07:51:47 PM |
|
|
Ward Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:26:13 GMT, "Earl Camembert" <tope@forme.org>
wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will) there
will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between a man and
a woman.
Except amongst the frantic fringe there is little support for any such
amendment -- there will be a long, divisive and ugly-spirited effort
but I have not the least doubt that it will fail!
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes that people like
George W. is the president and might be again.
Perhaps you might expand on this rather extraordinary proposition --
then again, perhaps you are just babbling incoherently.
Go back into your closet and
***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause trouble it will be much
worse for us all.
How am I causing trouble? I simply wish to be recognized as a citizen
of our republic -- there was little scruple over my sexuality when I
was drafted into the Korean war.
Yet now at a time they so desperately need Arab translators they
are dragging them out of taxi cabs, they kick out the gay translators,
which says that who they go home to at night was more important to
Georgia Bush than the USA. But what can one expect, he wants
to destroy the Constitution to impose his bigotry upon it.
The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct attack upon 9th and
14th Amendments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 08:58:32 PM |
|
|
Dennis Smeth wrote:
Ward Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:26:13 GMT, "Earl Camembert" <tope@forme.org>
wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will) there
will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between a man and
a woman.
Except amongst the frantic fringe there is little support for any such
amendment -- there will be a long, divisive and ugly-spirited effort
but I have not the least doubt that it will fail!
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes that people like
George W. is the president and might be again.
Perhaps you might expand on this rather extraordinary proposition --
then again, perhaps you are just babbling incoherently.
Go back into your closet and
***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause trouble it will be much
worse for us all.
How am I causing trouble? I simply wish to be recognized as a citizen
of our republic -- there was little scruple over my sexuality when I
was drafted into the Korean war.
Yet now at a time they so desperately need Arab translators they
are dragging them out of taxi cabs, they kick out the gay translators,
which says that who they go home to at night was more important to
Georgia Bush than the USA. But what can one expect, he wants
to destroy the Constitution to impose his bigotry upon it.
1. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was from Clinton. Your "blame Bush"
crap doesn't fly Mac.
2. The straight MEN in the army have a right no to be harassed by
fag-***** rump riders in their outfits. Deal with it.
The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct attack upon 9th and
14th Amendments.
Sigh. Another sign that someone doesn't understand the concept.
The purpose of EVERY amendment is to revise the original and/or previous
amendments. It follows the provisions of the document. It's not an
"attack" on anything.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Smeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 09:18:39 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Dennis Smeth wrote:
Ward Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:26:13 GMT, "Earl Camembert" <tope@forme.org>
wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will) there
will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between a man and
a woman.
Except amongst the frantic fringe there is little support for any such
amendment -- there will be a long, divisive and ugly-spirited effort
but I have not the least doubt that it will fail!
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes that people like
George W. is the president and might be again.
Perhaps you might expand on this rather extraordinary proposition --
then again, perhaps you are just babbling incoherently.
Go back into your closet and
***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause trouble it will be much
worse for us all.
How am I causing trouble? I simply wish to be recognized as a citizen
of our republic -- there was little scruple over my sexuality when I
was drafted into the Korean war.
Yet now at a time they so desperately need Arab translators they
are dragging them out of taxi cabs, they kick out the gay translators,
which says that who they go home to at night was more important to
Georgia Bush than the USA. But what can one expect, he wants
to destroy the Constitution to impose his bigotry upon it.
1. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was from Clinton. Your "blame Bush"
crap doesn't fly Mac.
Since it is a presidential order Bush can, but in that "All Inclusive Party"
has not, undone what the bigot Cunton did.
http://www.logcabinwa.com/archive/200010251159.shtml
2. The straight MEN in the army have a right no to be harassed by
fag-***** rump riders in their outfits. Deal with it.
Gee what he-men, Oooo the most powerful military on earth
is scared of a few homosexual ogling them. Hell all Saddam
had to do was send a few secret weapons to the front line a
few gays and have them yell over here big boys with their
pants down and there would not have been a transport
fast enough to get these pussies home, screaming like little
girls all the way home. If these pussies have a problem with
homosexuality they have no business in the modern day
military, where their ailed forces have open homosexuals
in their military. Deal with it B I G O T !
The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct attack upon 9th and
14th Amendments.
Sigh. Another sign that someone doesn't understand the concept.
Sigh a retard who thinks he can think.
The purpose of EVERY amendment is to revise the original and/or previous
amendments. It follows the provisions of the document. It's not an
"attack" on anything.
All other Amendments (other than the repealed 18th prohibition
Amendment) were to expand or clarify rights, this Marriage Ban
Amendment, is to contract and take away human rights. To take
away these rights of equal protection it must destroy the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and to deny humans
have fundamental rights under the 9th Amendment.
Why do I feel like I just told a kindergartner about quantum physics.
Bob a loo says Lucy I'm Homo got some splaning to do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 04:38:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:58:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
2. The straight MEN in the army have a right no to be harassed by
fag-***** rump riders in their outfits. Deal with it.
The straight women have a right to not be harassed by men. Looks like
we need an all-female armed force. Either that or your argument is
moronic.
Have you ever been in the military? Were you harassed by gay men?
Idiot.
The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct attack upon 9th and
14th Amendments.
Sigh. Another sign that someone doesn't understand the concept.
The purpose of EVERY amendment is to revise the original and/or previous
amendments. It follows the provisions of the document. It's not an
"attack" on anything.
If you eliminate equal treatment under the law, you eliminate the U.
S. You accuse us of wanting to eliminate marriage? I accuse you of
treason.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 06:57:27 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2dpptvgkmqrblqovsspnfbbktb5mf3ajse@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:58:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
2. The straight MEN in the army have a right no to be harassed by
fag-***** rump riders in their outfits. Deal with it.
[piggybacking]
Damn, there's that 'rump rider' thing again. I'm telling you, Boob
masturbates every time he types is.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
15 Dec 2003 11:16:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:57:27 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> posted in alt.atheism:
Damn, there's that 'rump rider' thing again. I'm telling you, Boob
masturbates every time he types is.
He's just jealous of guys who can actually do it. Beats me why - I
can't see doing another guy. But I wouldn't think of keeping Boob
from doing it.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 06:25:28 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:58:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
The purpose of EVERY amendment is to revise the original and/or previous
amendments. It follows the provisions of the document. It's not an
"attack" on anything.
If you eliminate equal treatment under the law, you eliminate the U.
S. You accuse us of wanting to eliminate marriage? I accuse you of
treason.
You would. Bob suggests following the US Constitution, and Klein is so
ignorant he calls that "treason." ROFLMAO!!!! The rump riders are so
pathetic.
For you rump riders who have no clue about the Constitution, here is
Article V.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,
shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the
several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that
no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 08:20:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:25:28 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:58:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
The purpose of EVERY amendment is to revise the original and/or previous
amendments. It follows the provisions of the document. It's not an
"attack" on anything.
If you eliminate equal treatment under the law, you eliminate the U.
S. You accuse us of wanting to eliminate marriage? I accuse you of
treason.
You would.
Someone had to.
Bob suggests following the US Constitution
No, he demands that we violate it. The Constitution (USSC findings
become part of the law) says that the government has no business
deciding who can get married, as long as the two people are legally
competent.
For you rump riders who have no clue about the Constitution, here is
Article V.
Idiot.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,
shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the
several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that
no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate.
Not a word about marriage.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 10:08:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:58:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
The purpose of EVERY amendment is to revise the original and/or previous
amendments. It follows the provisions of the document. It's not an
"attack" on anything.
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing you have said yet. Did you
make it past the third grade bob? Other then the 21st amendment NONE
of them revise previous amendments. Do you enjoy flaunting your
ignorance?
Bob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 09:38:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:26:13 GMT, "Earl Camembert" <tope@forme.org>
wrote:
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will) there
will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between a man and
a woman. It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes that people like
George W. is the president and might be again. Go back into your closet and
***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause trouble it will be much
worse for us all.
Not quite. Benito Bush was _elected_ (he didn't have a majority vote)
because of straight (?) white (?) elderly (?) Floridans don't know the
difference between up and down.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 05:06:58 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between
a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes
that people like George W. is the president and might be again. Go back
into your closet and ***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause
trouble it will be much worse for us all.
I thought it was because of chad in Florida.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 05:10:34 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between
a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
A eunuch can't be a a parent, hence no consummation of marriage.
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes
that people like George W. is the president and might be again. Go back
into your closet and ***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause
trouble it will be much worse for us all.
I thought it was because of chad in Florida.
Another area of soft thinking.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 06:16:28 PM |
|
|
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FDA4AEA.3010302@hotmail.com>...
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between
a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
A eunuch can't be a a parent, hence no consummation of marriage.
No, when they're already married. Say a man marries a woman, but the
man then undergoes a sex change and the couple choses not to divorce
(which is a not uncommon scenario).
"Consummation" means they had sex; it says nothing about children.
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, consummation means nothing
vis a vis legal marriage in the United States. For example, those
infamous "green card" marriages are completely legal.
However, the RCC will give you an annulment if your marriage was never
consummated. (That annulment has no legal meaning and it is not a
legal divorce.)
-Hypatia Kosh
--
Let tyrants shake their iron rod
And slav'ry clank her galling chains
We fear them not; we trust in God
New England's God forever reigns.
Chester, William Billings circa 1777
1783: Massachusetts SJC Outlaws Slavery
2003: Massachusetts SJC Legalizes Gay Marriage
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:10:39 PM |
|
|
On 13 Dec 2003 16:16:28 -0800, (Hypatia Kosh) posted
in alt.atheism:
"Consummation" means they had sex; it says nothing about children.
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, consummation means nothing
vis a vis legal marriage in the United States. For example, those
infamous "green card" marriages are completely legal.
However, the RCC will give you an annulment if your marriage was never
consummated. (That annulment has no legal meaning and it is not a
legal divorce.)
So will the secular law if there was any fraud involved - like the
husband saying that he wanted children when he knew that he was
incapable of fathering any.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Smeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 05:39:25 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between
a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
A eunuch can't be a a parent, hence no consummation of marriage.
Once again we see conservatives are born liars.
Mat 19:
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their
mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made
eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it. (Marriage)
In other words even hermaphrodites (eunuchs which were so born)
with both sexes can marry. A same sex relation.
Cor 7:
9:But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to
marry than to burn.
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes
that people like George W. is the president and might be again. Go back
into your closet and ***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause
trouble it will be much worse for us all.
I thought it was because of chad in Florida.
Another area of soft thinking.
If it were not for soft, near term, knee jerk reactionary, hysterical
thinking, conservatives would have no thoughts at all
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 07:44:08 PM |
|
|
Hey, I'm really liking this Bob guy. He has a clear way of thinking.
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDA4AEA.3010302@hotmail.com...
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between
a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
A eunuch can't be a a parent, hence no consummation of marriage.
It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes
that people like George W. is the president and might be again. Go back
into your closet and ***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause
trouble it will be much worse for us all.
I thought it was because of chad in Florida.
Another area of soft thinking.
Bob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
