| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
23 Sep 2005 08:10:10 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com>
posting the following on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:24:02 -0400 iin
alt.atheism?
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:46:07 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> posted:
What's so funny about peace, love and MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com>
posting the following on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:00:38 -0400 iin
alt.atheism?
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:57:53 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> posted:
The DOI is a...well, a declaration of independence. It states the reasons
why they wanted to be independent of British rule. It's not a legal document
<snip>
More abject stupidity from Chrissy Dumbnik.
What makes a document a "legal" document, Chrissy?
The Constitution is the foundation of law in the United States. The
Declaration of Independence is not.
Is that simple enough for you?
It's certainly simple, but it has nothing to do with the question I
asked.
Care to roll the dice again?
A "legal document" is one, in this usage, that applies to the legal
system of the United States. The Constitution, as foundation of that
legal system, the US and State Codes, and the monstrous pile of court
decisions dating back two centuries (precedent is a vital part of our
system) are all legal documents.
The DoI doesn't count. Not only does it predate our system of laws,
but it contains no actual law itself. All it is a list of reasons why
the British colonies felt it necessary to sever ties with the Empire.
The question wasn't settled until the Treaty of Paris was signed in
1783. In that legal document, Britain formally renounced its claim on
the thirteen colonies that had risen up. But American legal history
doesn't begin until we have a Constitution.
Appeals to the Delcaration are mere appeals to emotion.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 06:47:15 AM |
|
|
Appeals to the Delcaration are mere appeals to emotion.
I wonder what is not emotional in this discussion. Actually, next
thing I am going to do is to support liberation of pedophiles, here we
already have American Man/Boy Love Association Very nice people, kind
and loving.
No reason not to allow a boy or girl to have a sex with adults, their
sexual identity already knows to hem and I am sure some of them will
like mature adult. I think that permitted age should lowered to at
least 16 years. Like in Germany ,16 years old is considered mature man
to drink alcohol, so guys let's put our effort not to oppose gay
marriage but actually join them and finally liberate pedophiles and
other perverts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 09:20:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Appeals to the Delcaration are mere appeals to emotion.
I wonder what is not emotional in this discussion.
I think that same-sex marriage confers several societal advantages, no
disadvantages, and has the added bonus of being in line with the "Equal
Protection" clause of the Constitution.
Is this emotional?
Actually, next
thing I am going to do is to support liberation of pedophiles, here we
already have American Man/Boy Love Association Very nice people, kind
and loving.
Well, you are certainly free to try to make that argument. What
evidence or reasoning are you going to offer in order to support it?
No reason not to allow a boy or girl to have a sex with adults,
Aside from that whole "presumed to be unable to give informed consent"
thing...
their sexual identity already knows to hem and I am sure some of them will
like mature adult.
That may be true. Indeed, it may be true that you can find people who
are below the age of maturity and who are capable of giving informed
consent.
How will you go about determining who can give informed consent and who
cannot?
I think that permitted age should lowered to at
least 16 years. Like in Germany ,16 years old is considered mature man
to drink alcohol,
You are free to support that argument, too.
so guys let's put our effort not to oppose gay
marriage but actually join them and finally liberate pedophiles and
other perverts
Non Sequitur. Gays and lesbians desire relationships with consenting
adults of their own gender. Pedophiles desire sexual contact with
children.
Yes, I've no doubt that, in your mind "homosexual" = "pervert", but
that problem exists in your skull, and not in the world.
You really *have* given up the pretense of rational argument. Well, at
least you're being more honest now.
I guess we win.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 11:42:04 AM |
|
|
already have American Man/Boy Love Association Very nice people, kind
and loving.
Well, you are certainly free to try to make that argument. What
evidence or reasoning are you going to offer in order to support it?
Same evidences that presented by you.
No harm to children, strictly emotional (we don't care about that)
Life enrichement.
Equality, opportunity to marry person of their choice.
How will you go about determining who can give informed consent and who
cannot?
Just ask the question, that is it, like you when you objectively
defining who is gay who is not.
Non Sequitur. Gays and lesbians desire relationships with consenting
adults of their own gender. Pedophiles desire sexual contact with
children
Come on man, this old concept, old definition, like interracial
marriages. And children has not been taken to M. Jackson's bed, they
were willing to do that, i.e. they are consenting. And I think if you
don't trust child you always can ask parents, so if parents agree then
why should not pedophile to live with a child together and express love
and caring to each other.
I guess we win.
No doubt you win, I have no evidence wrtten by corrupted psychiatrists.
So let's finally liberate pedophiles and let them marry children, to
enrich their greatness.
And by the way there is no harm at all, everything will be great.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 06:55:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
already have American Man/Boy Love Association Very nice people, kind
and loving.
Well, you are certainly free to try to make that argument. What
evidence or reasoning are you going to offer in order to support it?
Same evidences that presented by you.
Clearly, you misunderstand the evidence I've presented.
No harm to children, strictly emotional (we don't care about that)
How do you conclude that pedophilia does not harm children, emotionally
or otherwise? Where is your evidence?
Life enrichement.
Could you be more specific?
Equality, opportunity to marry person of their choice.
If we were talking about consenting adults, that would be different. We
aren't. We're talking about children who are presumed to not be able to
give informed consent. If you can construct an argument that supports
the assertion they can, please do so.
How will you go about determining who can give informed consent and who
cannot?
Just ask the question, that is it, like you when you objectively
defining who is gay who is not.
Leaving aside the irrelevancy of a "gay test", how do you ensure that
the individual being asked understands the nature and consequences of
the question? Is the ability to give informed consent something that
can be determined by asking the question?
Oh! Was your point earlier about the difficulty of determining who was
gay and who was not brought up by you because you don't want two allow
a same-sex couple to marry if they aren't, in fact, gay? I never did
quite understand why you thought it mattered if you could tell if an
individual was gay or not.
Non Sequitur. Gays and lesbians desire relationships with consenting
adults of their own gender. Pedophiles desire sexual contact with
children
Come on man, this old concept, old definition, like interracial
marriages. And children has not been taken to M. Jackson's bed, they
were willing to do that, i.e. they are consenting. And I think if you
don't trust child you always can ask parents, so if parents agree then
why should not pedophile to live with a child together and express love
and caring to each other.
Well, you haven't convinced me. I still think sex between adults and
pre-pubescent children is a bad idea. You haven't convinced me that you
can get the necessary informed consent.
I guess we win.
No doubt you win, I have no evidence wrtten by corrupted psychiatrists.
Ah, of course... if what they say doesn't support your position, why,
they simply *must* be corrupt! What other possibility could there be?
So let's finally liberate pedophiles and let them marry children, to
enrich their greatness.
And by the way there is no harm at all, everything will be great.
It truly amazes me that you see a parallel between the romantic /
sexual attraction between two consenting adults, and the sexual desire
of an adult for a pre-pubescent child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 07:44:53 PM |
|
|
It truly amazes me that you see a parallel between the romantic /
sexual attraction between two consenting adults, and the sexual desire
of an adult for a pre-pubescent child.
Until 1973 homosexuality was considered perversion, and then in DSM -
III (diagnostic and statistical manual) term was changed to paraphilia.
It has been done by vote, and due to pressure of homsexual
politicians. That fact gives me the right to consider pedophilia have
a same roots as homosexuality, i.e. unnatural sexual desire.
Oh! Was your point earlier about the difficulty of determining who was
gay and who was not brought up by you because you don't want two allow
a same-sex couple to marry if they aren't, in fact, gay?
If you can't objectively identify who is gay who is not then you have
no right that it special group that discriminated. Group has been
created at will artificially by political forces whith to put pressure
on constitution and on existng political system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 10:29:06 PM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127609093.671220.93570@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It truly amazes me that you see a parallel between the romantic /
sexual attraction between two consenting adults, and the sexual desire
of an adult for a pre-pubescent child.
Until 1973 homosexuality was considered perversion
And then they wised up and corrected this egregious error.
This has nothing to do with pedophilia, which is ALWAYS non-consensual, as
children do not have the legal right of consent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 11:05:39 PM |
|
|
And then they wised up and corrected this egregious error.
"The crucial issue in determining whether or not homosexuality per se
should be regarded as a mental disorder is not the etiology of the
condition, but its consequences and the definition of mental disorder
(APA, 1980). ."
It was not an error it was a politically motivated decision, from the
scientific prospective homosexuality is still disorder, same as
pedophilia, non-consensual is legal term, because consent can be given
by child or child's parents. Accordingly, legalizing gay-marriage,
pedophilia getting closer to legalization.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 11:36:07 PM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127621139.911016.164670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And then they wised up and corrected this egregious error.
"The crucial issue in determining whether or not homosexuality per se
should be regarded as a mental disorder is not the etiology of the
condition, but its consequences and the definition of mental disorder
(APA, 1980). ."
The above statement does not imply that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
It was not an error it was a politically motivated decision,
Oft-repeated lie by the right
from the
scientific prospective homosexuality is still disorder,
No, it is not.
same as
pedophilia, non-consensual is legal term, because consent can be given
by child or child's parents. Accordingly, legalizing gay-marriage,
pedophilia getting closer to legalization.
Impossible. Pedophilia causes harm. Homosexuality does not.
The topic here is homosexuality, not quantum mechanics, pedophilia, stamp
collecting, horse shoeing, spelunking or other totally unrelated fields.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 01:15:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
And then they wised up and corrected this egregious error.
"The crucial issue in determining whether or not homosexuality per se
should be regarded as a mental disorder is not the etiology of the
condition, but its consequences and the definition of mental disorder
(APA, 1980). ."
It was not an error it was a politically motivated decision,
Translation: "The APA was absolutely right when they classified
homosexuality as an illness, but the same body was wrong when they
changed their position."
from the scientific prospective homosexuality is still disorder,
Not according to the DSM-IV, it isn't. Which "scientific perspective"
are you talking about? So far, you've shown no signs of having the
least bit of scientific understanding of this, or any other subject.
same as pedophilia, non-consensual is legal term, because consent can
be given by child or child's parents.
No, it really can't, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
Accordingly, legalizing gay-marriage, pedophilia getting closer
to legalization.
The more you try to paint homosexuality as being equivalent to
pedophilia, the more you make yourself look the ignorant fool.
If you had simply been honest, and said "Gays are icky!" in your first
post, you would have saved yourself a lot of wasted typing.
Go ahead! Let your bigotry, prejudice and ignorance show... it isn't
anything we haven't seen before, and, at this point, you won't be
surprising anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 07:58:05 AM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127628918.938736.94070@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
And then they wised up and corrected this egregious error.
"The crucial issue in determining whether or not homosexuality per se
should be regarded as a mental disorder is not the etiology of the
condition, but its consequences and the definition of mental disorder
(APA, 1980). ."
It was not an error it was a politically motivated decision,
Translation: "The APA was absolutely right when they classified
homosexuality as an illness, but the same body was wrong when they
changed their position."
from the scientific prospective homosexuality is still disorder,
Not according to the DSM-IV, it isn't. Which "scientific perspective"
are you talking about? So far, you've shown no signs of having the
least bit of scientific understanding of this, or any other subject.
What a laffer!
same as pedophilia, non-consensual is legal term, because consent can
be given by child or child's parents.
No, it really can't, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
Accordingly, legalizing gay-marriage, pedophilia getting closer
to legalization.
The more you try to paint homosexuality as being equivalent to
pedophilia, the more you make yourself look the ignorant fool.
If you had simply been honest, and said "Gays are icky!" in your first
post, you would have saved yourself a lot of wasted typing.
Go ahead! Let your bigotry, prejudice and ignorance show... it isn't
anything we haven't seen before, and, at this point, you won't be
surprising anyone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 08:15:32 AM |
|
|
Not according to the DSM-IV, it isn't.
You are most igonorant person I have ever seen.
DSM-IV is not a science; it is just a manual, and the reason why gays
were removed from that category, because of political pressure, not
because someone conducted a research. Psychiatrist still confused
about that classification, but can't do anything because of political
pressure and fear to lose a job.
If you had simply been honest, and said "Gays are icky!" in your first
post, you would have saved yourself a lot of wasted typing.
No gays are not icky and I like gays. People like you are really icky,
because they believe in any kind of *****.
Which "scientific perspective"
are you talking about?
So you do not know what the science is, and you are trying to teach me
how to live my life. You are just a dumb person.
So far, you've shown no signs of having the
least bit of scientific understanding of this, or any other subject.
You on the other hand have shown, that you have been brainwashed to the
bottom of your cranium by political propaganda, and you will do
unhitching, even kill other people, if someone tells you that is great
and there is no harm.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 11:21:12 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 24 Sep 2005 21:05:39 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
And then they wised up and corrected this egregious error.
"The crucial issue in determining whether or not homosexuality per se
should be regarded as a mental disorder is not the etiology of the
condition, but its consequences and the definition of mental disorder
(APA, 1980). ."
It was not an error it was a politically motivated decision, from the
scientific prospective homosexuality is still disorder, same as
pedophilia, non-consensual is legal term, because consent can be given
by child or child's parents. Accordingly, legalizing gay-marriage,
pedophilia getting closer to legalization.
Man, you are making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.
The scientific view is that homosexuality is a normal, if minority
expression of human sexuality.
And consent cannot be given by a child, and a parent cannot consent to
allowing a crime. That's why it's illegal to provide minors with
alcohol.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
24 Sep 2005 11:42:29 PM |
|
|
And consent cannot be given by a child, and a parent cannot consent to
allowing a crime. That's why it's illegal to provide minors with
alcohol.
I think person could not be dumber then you, it is plain and simple,
pedophilia and homosexuality are the same kind of disorder, and
homosexuality was a disorder until 1973. Then it was removed under
pressure of gay activists (by vote) not by scientific evidences.
You views of pedophilia are outdated. Look at this article
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/files/asb.htm (see the country
code <nl>).
And in any case all marriage law were created without participation of
gay activists i.e. with presumption that marriage means man+woman,
accordingly nobody can change definition of marriage under any
circumstances. Unlike those laws that were specifically made to
establish racial segregation, marriage laws were guided by basic
definition of marriage that no one objected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 04:29:07 AM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127623349.902971.89280@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And consent cannot be given by a child, and a parent cannot consent to
allowing a crime. That's why it's illegal to provide minors with
alcohol.
I think person could not be dumber then you, it is plain and simple,
pedophilia and homosexuality are the same kind of disorder,
Homosexuality is NOT a disorder. It is normal and causes no harm.
Pedophilia IS a disorder. It is abnormal and causes harm.
Do NOT attempt to equate the two. If you do, you show your ignorance and
bigotry for the world to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 08:01:08 AM |
|
|
Pedophilia IS a disorder. It is abnormal and causes harm.
don't make me laugh, it is a harm
<For a period following receptive anal sex, the internal anal sphincter
is stretched and is unable to contract strongly, thereby failing to
completely seal the anal opening until the muscle regains its original
tone. Repetitive anal sex, especially with large penises or rectal
insertions of large objects may damage the internal anal sphincter,
thereby preventing complete sealing of the *****, and leading to fecal
mucus seepage (anal or fecal incontinence). Additionally, anal sex
exacerbates fecal seepage by stimulating colonic motility, which sends
feces from the colon down into the lower rectum>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 08:11:04 AM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127653268.825682.190330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pedophilia IS a disorder. It is abnormal and causes harm.
don't make me laugh
You're DEFENDING pedophilia? Somehow I'm not surprised.
<For a period following receptive anal sex, the internal anal sphincter
is stretched and is unable to contract strongly, thereby failing to
completely seal the anal opening until the muscle regains its original
tone. Repetitive anal sex, especially with large penises or rectal
insertions of large objects may damage the internal anal sphincter,
thereby preventing complete sealing of the *****, and leading to fecal
mucus seepage (anal or fecal incontinence). Additionally, anal sex
exacerbates fecal seepage by stimulating colonic motility, which sends
feces from the colon down into the lower rectum>
So, by your logic, heterosexuality also causes harm, since straights also
have anal sex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 08:29:11 AM |
|
|
So, by your logic, heterosexuality also causes harm, since straights also
have anal sex.
No heterosexuality does not cause a harm, you know what Gay Bowel
Syndrome is, there is no such thing as Straight Bowel Syndrom.
And again if sodomy between man and a woman happens is just a part of
the natural system of procreateion and reproduction, so straights are
irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 11:04:56 AM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127654951.786440.298290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
So, by your logic, heterosexuality also causes harm, since straights also
have anal sex.
No heterosexuality does not cause a harm, you know what Gay Bowel
Syndrome is, there is no such thing as Straight Bowel Syndrom.
And again if sodomy between man and a woman happens is just a part of
the natural system of procreateion and reproduction, so straights are
irrelevant.
You are grasping at straws. A sign of desperation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 11:21:39 AM |
|
|
You are grasping at straws. A sign of desperation.
So you are denying the fact that gay sex is harmful to the human body.
You have a right to have opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 12:04:56 PM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127665299.069259.107090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You are grasping at straws. A sign of desperation.
So you are denying the fact that gay sex is harmful to the human body.
You have a right to have opinion.
Your post claimed that ANAL sex, not gay sex, is harmful to the human body.
Millions more straights have anal sex than gays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 12:54:03 PM |
|
|
Millions more straights have anal sex than gays
Again those damages caused by anal sex betwen straights have not been
cause of conditions called Gay Bowel syndrome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 07:48:55 PM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127670843.093396.167520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Millions more straights have anal sex than gays
Again those damages caused by anal sex betwen straights have not been
cause of conditions called Gay Bowel syndrome.
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA!
You are pathetic!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 08:14:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Millions more straights have anal sex than gays
Again those damages caused by anal sex betwen straights have not been
cause of conditions called Gay Bowel syndrome.
You're right. In straight-sex, it's called "brachiproctic eroticism."
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 02:24:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You are grasping at straws. A sign of desperation.
So you are denying the fact that gay sex is harmful to the human body.
You have a right to have opinion.
What facts? You've provided none.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 12:02:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You are grasping at straws. A sign of desperation.
So you are denying the fact that gay sex is harmful to the human body.
You have a right to have opinion.
There's no such thing as "gay sex." Same-sex couples don't do anything
in bed that mixed-sex couples don't do. Some same-sex couples like anal
sex, and some don't. Some mixed-sex couples like anal sex, and some
don't.
I mean, really...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 12:52:09 PM |
|
|
There's no such thing as "gay sex
But there IS a such thing as gay bowel syndrom, and it is a strictly
related to gay sex. Gay sex is not a normal sex, and presumes damage
to the body, even though it is consensual damage, you cannot claim that
it is normal. As you know infliction of injury on another person is
illegal even though the person agree with that. That is why many
sectarian rites are out of law. That is by the way exactly why Dr. Jack
Kevorkian is in jail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 08:12:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
There's no such thing as "gay sex
But there IS a such thing as gay bowel syndrom, and it is a strictly
related to gay sex.
So-called "Gay Bowel Syndrome" is only something that happens during the
act of "fisting," and is found in less than 5% of homosexual couples.
Try again.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 08:18:56 PM |
|
|
So-called "Gay Bowel Syndrome" is only something that happens during the
act of "fisting," and is found in less than 5% of homosexual couples.
Try again.
Nice try, but it called fisting for political correctness, in fact it
is not fisting at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 10:33:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
So-called "Gay Bowel Syndrome" is only something that happens during the
act of "fisting," and is found in less than 5% of homosexual couples.
Try again.
Nice try, but it called fisting for political correctness, in fact it
is not fisting at all.
Oh? Then can you explain GBS with relevant cites?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
