| 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: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 08:41:19 AM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:sf20j1db3gclegti7uqg5qiaovj040aoee@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:40:26 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgoq9g$6ne$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:QALXe.12093$Ix4.693@okepread03...
And by the way, judges can't make law.
Correct. But they can strike down laws that violate the Constitution.
The
Constitution guaranteed equal rights for all.
No, they can't. They can make recommendations to the legislators. At
least
that's the way, it's was supposed to be, before the Constitution died.
What nation do YOU live in?
Currently, the USSA.
Courts have always struck down illegal
laws. The Judicial Branch is an EQUAL part of the checks and balances
of the USA. You seem to think all any court can do when shown an
unconstitutional law is meekly go to the legislators and ASK, "Please
Sirs, remove this law," and the legislators have the choice to say no.
You are WRONG. The judicial branch is, and should be, as STRONG as
any other branch of our government.
You don't know what "checks and balances" mean. You are simply wrong *if*
you are talking about the US Constitution. If you are talking about the
referred to constitution in the USSA then you are still wrong. In the USSA
constitution, the one that's popular today, the judges are nothing more than
all powerful puppet dictators operating at the pleasure of the political
entities who own them.
It's currently the neocons who
would like to either Gut the power of the court or stack the deck so
they can do whatever they want without that pesky 3rd branch getting
in the way of their agenda.
...."and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
It's a black comedy filled with Tragic irony. The liberal lawyer mills
turning out the products of their own destruction. Intent on destroying the
Constitution they insure their own enslavement, all the while shouting
freedom.
Put a fork in it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 08:32:54 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
No, we have several court decisions defining marriage as a civil
right. We have the 14th Amendment stating that rights cannot be
abriged without due process (meaning if you want to deny a couple the
right to marry you have to go into court and show why they should not
be married.) Gay marriage is inevitable.
No. Not anyone and everyone has a "right" to get married. I can't marry
my daughter. I can't even marry another grown woman, because I am
already married. I can't marry a sheep. Just saying "marriage" is not
sufficient, unless and until you define your terms.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 10:29:02 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Tue, 20 Sep 2005
01:32:54 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
No, we have several court decisions defining marriage as a civil
right. We have the 14th Amendment stating that rights cannot be
abriged without due process (meaning if you want to deny a couple the
right to marry you have to go into court and show why they should not
be married.) Gay marriage is inevitable.
No. Not anyone and everyone has a "right" to get married. I can't marry
my daughter. I can't even marry another grown woman, because I am
already married. I can't marry a sheep. Just saying "marriage" is not
sufficient, unless and until you define your terms.
Marriage: Legal union between two consenting adults.
That's it. and since you've mentioned your daughter is 7, she
couldn't get married anyway. That consenting adult thing.
Since y'all are obsessed, I'll address the incest issue. The
prohibition on incest has solid medical backing.. inbreeding with
close family members increases the chance of ansty recessive genes
coming to the fore. Look at the Hapsburg dynasty.. the last few
members to actually hold power were congenital morons with massive
health problems.
So we have a compelling reason to stop close relatives from living in
situations which you yourself state tends to lead to children.
There is no such compulsion for homosexuals. Since, as you are quick
to point out, they're not going to breed without assistance from
outside source their families will exhibit *more* genetic diversity
than seen in a traditional family.
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 11:05:22 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:10:27 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 09:50:11 -0700, wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
When "Whites Only" lunch counters were found to be discriminatory, did
we call for the abolition of lunch counters? No. That would be silly.
Don't fool people, you did not abolish lunch counters and you did not
change them either, concept of counter has not been changed.
The concept that "Lunch Counters should be segregated" changed. Don't
be obtuse.
The solution to the problem of discriminatory lunch counters was not to
get rid of lunch counters, but rather to change the, if you will,
institution of lunch counters such that they went from segregated to
de-segregated, even when the majority of the populace disagreed with
that change.
Please note the parallels.
That is exactly why race discrimination was stopped. That is exactly
why interracial marriage was embraced. Because you did not have to
change definitions of marriage or lunch counters when making them
available to public.
Stop hiding behind a dictionary. Even if you were right, and the
definition you cling to so fervently were correct, what stops us from
changing it now?
In case of gay-marriage you have to not only
change definition of the marriage but also change a structure of the
marriage.
Structure before: two adults enter into a legally binding, committed
relationship.
Structure after: two adults enter into a legally binding, committed
relationship.
Other countries recognize same-sex marriage... why can't we? Why
shouldn't we?
Other countries recognize plural marriage; why should we?
Which countries recognize plural marriage?
Are you implying that plural marriage NEVER existed in human
history? Even the Bible refers to plural marriage.
Do you have any evidence or reasoned argument to support the position
that our country should not recognize same-sex marriage?
Why should it? It does not recognize plural marriage either. In
fact, it passed laws to stamp out the practice.
In other words you admit that the state has the right to define
marriage. Good boy.
Bad visual of Thomas tossing him a doggie treat. :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 02:02:30 AM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2005 13:32:59 -0700, wrote:
snip
People who were married before will continue to be married.
Nothing will be destroyed.
That is only your opinion, not supported by the facts,
Of course it is supported by the facts. Allowing same-sex marriage
does absolutely nothing about pre-existing marriages.
when I say you
destroying marriage that means you tear down definition and structure,
Same-sex marriage does not tear down anything.
I explained earlier, marriage is an contract between wife and husband,
That is how the law has defined it. Laws can be changed, and they
have been.
when couple wants to marry, man wants to be a husband and woman wants
to be a wife, it is very simple.
That does not apply to every couple wanting to marry.
That is exactly the main reason why
people want to marry,
Not everybody.
because everything else achievable without the
marriage, kids, love, whatever. And government provide us an instrument
called marriage - i.e. documented assurance that men will be a
husband and women a wife. Now by changing definition of marriage you
change everything. You offer me to be a sexless Party A or Party B.
That is totally different venture, and it might require changing my
attitude about marriage. Why should I marry if it is not marriage,
take all benefit you want but give me something then that would fit my
understanding of marriage, I think I have right, that supported by
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16
You think you have a universal right to exclude other people from
marriage? The Catholic Church thinks that divorced people should not
remarry. Are its rights being violated because divorced people do
remarry? Do Catholics refuse to marry because they don't like
divorced people remarrying? Your entire objection comes down to your
dislike of homosexuality and nothing else.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 06:07:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:17:35 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On 16 Sep 2005 10:03:10 -0700, wrote:
Michael, I respect your view, I only wanted to point out that your view
has no scientific ground. Race and homosexuality are different things,
race is a physical attribute of human being, and homosexuality is a
behavioral attribute. That is a fundamental difference.
So.. is Left-handedness a physical or behavioral attribute in your
scientific mind?
When did you decide to be left handed? Were you exposed, knowingly or
unknowingly, to left-handed people who may have influenced that
decision.
If you pray to Jesus hard enough, he'll make you right handed, you
know.
James, Seattle
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 02:14:08 PM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2005 07:09:11 -0700, wrote:
When I was talikng about correction, I did not mean that we have to
correct anything. My point was that we cannot compare discrimination
based on race and discrimination based on sexual preference.
I think this is the sticking point. YOU have no desire for other men,
so you feel anyone who DOES simply 'prefers' them. Do left-handed
people PREFER using their left hands? Why do you see a difference?
Why can't you understand that homosexuality is NOT a "preference"?
Why wouldn't you even allow the possibility that they are born that
way? Why won't you look within *yourself* and try to figure out what
forces you to look at homosexuals the way you do?
Rememeber
comparison of Apples and Oranges. Race cannot be corrected to conform
to the rules of society, but sexual preference can, and yo confirmed
that saying
What about the 'sexual preference' to NEVER procreate? Why should
these people be allowed to marry? What separates a M/F couple from a
M/M couple at that point? And don't fall back on your narrow
"definition" of marriage because not so long ago, "interracial" and
"for Love" didn't fall into the defination of marriage either.
"A gay man could remain celibate his whole life, and still be gay.
that means it is not obvious, so at least it is questionable. And
again I agree that Homosexuality is not new, but what is NEW is that
those people that have uncommon sexual preference, want to destroy
traditional institution of marriage because it is descriminatory,
Exactly WHAT part of marriage would be destroyed if my loving
next-door neighbors who have been together 27 years got married?
although for centuries it has never been known as unfair or
discriminatory. Please get the point, Blacks was fighting for thier
equality against bad discriminatory laws, Gays fight against good law,
It's a 'good law' because it supports your narrowmindedness and
bigotries. I'm sure there were millions of Southerners who thought
ANTI interracial marriage laws were "good laws" as well.
i.e. against legitimate institution, that has existed for centuries and
has been apporoved by all people
No. It has NOT been as it now is "for centuries"...
FOR CENTURIES, blacks couldn't marry whites...
FOR CENTURIES, women needed a dowry...
FOR CENTURIES women couldn't leave abusive husbands
FOR CENTURIES husbands could Beat their wifes legally
Christians should be more concerned about their own divorces
(ADULTERY) and Mix-marriages (religiously mixed, that is) these are
two ways to guarantee their places in HELL according to their god.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:07:59 AM |
|
|
RainLover wrote:
Exactly WHAT part of marriage would be destroyed if my loving
next-door neighbors who have been together 27 years got married?
The definition, the meaning, of marriage.
The way we produce children.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 01:57:15 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zbXWe.59333$4i6.57320@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
RainLover wrote:
Exactly WHAT part of marriage would be destroyed if my loving
next-door neighbors who have been together 27 years got married?
The definition, the meaning, of marriage.
You mean YOUR opinion of it, of course.
The way we produce children.
Hate to break it to you, but marriage isn't a requirement in order to have
kids. Guess that's something you'd like to force on people, huh?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:34:37 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but marriage isn't a requirement in order to have
kids. Guess that's something you'd like to force on people, huh?
Yes.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:58:25 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xC2Xe.86247$xl6.30389@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but marriage isn't a requirement in order to
have kids. Guess that's something you'd like to force on people, huh?
Yes.
Lovely. I can't tell you how grateful I am that someone like you isn't in
charge - and never will be.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:58:40 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
00:34:37 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Robibnikoff wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but marriage isn't a requirement in order to have
kids. Guess that's something you'd like to force on people, huh?
Yes.
So, what's your plan? Forced birth control? Executions of
homosexuals? Please, let us peek in at your fascist world-wank!
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 11:54:16 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:58:40 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
00:34:37 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Robibnikoff wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but marriage isn't a requirement in order to have
kids. Guess that's something you'd like to force on people, huh?
Yes.
So, what's your plan? Forced birth control? Executions of
homosexuals? Please, let us peek in at your fascist world-wank!
Sounds like Gary would give Torquemada(sp) competition.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:45:13 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
RainLover wrote:
Exactly WHAT part of marriage would be destroyed if my loving
next-door neighbors who have been together 27 years got married?
The definition, the meaning, of marriage.
Same sex couples are getting married. Right now. Today.
My marriage is quite intact, thank you very much. It's meaning hasn't
changed.
The way we produce children.
Have babies stopped being born? This is the first I've heard of it.
Someone tell the press!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 12:48:56 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
16:07:59 GMT iin alt.atheism?
RainLover wrote:
Exactly WHAT part of marriage would be destroyed if my loving
next-door neighbors who have been together 27 years got married?
The definition, the meaning, of marriage.
The way we produce children.
Garry, I'm sorry your parents never explained this to you, but
children are produced by sexual intercourse, not by marriage.
--
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: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:33:59 PM |
|
|
Douglas Bery wrote:
Garry, I'm sorry your parents never explained this to you, but
children are produced by sexual intercourse, not by marriage.
Oh - I see - so then there is no need for marriage? What were they thinking?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:57:24 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:XB2Xe.86246$xl6.27111@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Douglas Bery wrote:
Garry, I'm sorry your parents never explained this to you, but
children are produced by sexual intercourse, not by marriage.
Oh - I see - so then there is no need for marriage? What were they
thinking?
Hate to break it to you, but marriage isn't just about having kids. Lots of
people get married who never plan to have children. I guess, in your world,
they don't deserve to be married, eh?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:41:19 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
news:XB2Xe.86246$xl6.27111@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
Douglas Bery wrote:
Garry, I'm sorry your parents never explained this to you, but
children are produced by sexual intercourse, not by marriage.
Oh - I see - so then there is no need for marriage? What were they
thinking?
Well, you were thinking something wrong. Marriage is a social convention,
nothing more. It is one way among many humans have used to organize into
family or clans.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.
-- Milton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:48:07 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
00:33:59 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Bery wrote:
Garry, I'm sorry your parents never explained this to you, but
children are produced by sexual intercourse, not by marriage.
Oh - I see - so then there is no need for marriage? What were they thinking?
Nope. No need at all. A good friend was raised by his parents, who
never married. Said friend is currently a First Sergeant in the US
Army serving his third tour in Iraq.
The reason they didn't marry? Well, it was illegal for a black man to
marry a white woman in 1965 Virginia...
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 11:53:09 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:48:07 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
00:33:59 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Bery wrote:
Garry, I'm sorry your parents never explained this to you, but
children are produced by sexual intercourse, not by marriage.
Oh - I see - so then there is no need for marriage? What were they thinking?
Nope. No need at all. A good friend was raised by his parents, who
never married. Said friend is currently a First Sergeant in the US
Army serving his third tour in Iraq.
The reason they didn't marry? Well, it was illegal for a black man to
marry a white woman in 1965 Virginia...
{wince} Christian bigotry strike. The bigotry and rhetoric remains
the same only the target designation changes.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 04:24:15 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
{wince} Christian bigotry strike. The bigotry and rhetoric remains
the same only the target designation changes.
Stoney, you can relax a little - you have already been identified as
Politically Correct. Stop worrying about it.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 09:03:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:24:15 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
stoney wrote:
{wince} Christian bigotry strike. The bigotry and rhetoric remains
the same only the target designation changes.
Stoney, you can relax a little - you have already been identified as
Politically Correct. Stop worrying about it.
Using that term does not have any magic effect. You still lack a
valid argument for your position.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 05:35:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:24:15 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
stoney wrote:
{wince} Christian bigotry strike. The bigotry and rhetoric remains
the same only the target designation changes.
Stoney, you can relax a little - you have already been identified as
Politically Correct. Stop worrying about it.
Gary, you've already been identified as a lying sack of Christian dog
*****. Stop worrying about it and rejoyce at your future roasting in
hell for eternity.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 06:40:15 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
Gary, you've already been identified as a lying sack of Christian dog
*****. Stop worrying about it and rejoyce at your future roasting in
hell for eternity.
Thanks. So much for freedom of speech. Is this the verdict of the PC Purge?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 02:28:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:40:15 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
stoney wrote:
Gary, you've already been identified as a lying sack of Christian dog
*****. Stop worrying about it and rejoyce at your future roasting in
hell for eternity.
Thanks. So much for freedom of speech. Is this the verdict of the PC Purge?
Gary Eickmeier
Who denied you your freedom of speech. What happened was that you
posted a personal insult and you were answered. Your indignation pose
is less than impressive.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:35:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:28:06 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:40:15 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
stoney wrote:
Gary, you've already been identified as a lying sack of Christian dog
*****. Stop worrying about it and rejoyce at your future roasting in
hell for eternity.
Thanks. So much for freedom of speech. Is this the verdict of the PC Purge?
Gary Eickmeier
Who denied you your freedom of speech. What happened was that you
posted a personal insult and you were answered. Your indignation pose
is less than impressive.
Its his Christian Morality® and Christian Courage® which is seen via
the absence of both. Damned mouth-breathing cretin.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:53:00 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
Who denied you your freedom of speech. What happened was that you
posted a personal insult and you were answered. Your indignation pose
is less than impressive.
Stoney has already called me all of the proper PC names to put me on the
wrong side of Political Correctness, wished me dead, and then
established that I am a lying sack of Christian dogshit. He pops in here
and there with nothing much to say except to try and establish himself
on the "right" side of opinion.
This is how any tyrranical movement starts. First, they deny you free
speech. Then they try to steer your thought to the "correct" version. We
have all witnessed them trying to change our very language so that words
lose their meaning. If this doesn't work, a pogrom is launched to purge
society of such "cretins."
If you think it's not a tyrrany, I have seen the fear in someone's eyes
when he thinks he may have said something on the "wrong side" of PC in a
room full of people. Try identifying a black man taking a TV from a
store as a looter. Try using profiling for airport security.
Any opinion expressed about race, homosexuality, gender, or disability
identifies you as a "bigot" and any judgement expressed is a
"prejudice." The flags are now all in place, the sheep ready to follow,
and free thought all but killed.
I don't think much of Stoney or his tactics.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
23 Sep 2005 10:43:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:53:00 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Who denied you your freedom of speech. What happened was that you
posted a personal insult and you were answered. Your indignation pose
is less than impressive.
Stoney has already called me all of the proper PC names to put me on the
wrong side of Political Correctness, wished me dead, and then
established that I am a lying sack of Christian dogshit. He pops in here
and there with nothing much to say except to try and establish himself
on the "right" side of opinion.
This is how any tyrranical movement starts. First, they deny you free
speech.
Who has denied you free speech? You seem to be still posting.
Then they try to steer your thought to the "correct" version. We
have all witnessed them trying to change our very language so that words
lose their meaning. If this doesn't work, a pogrom is launched to purge
society of such "cretins."
Where is this going on?
If you think it's not a tyrrany, I have seen the fear in someone's eyes
when he thinks he may have said something on the "wrong side" of PC in a
room full of people.
Were they going to lynch him?
Try identifying a black man taking a TV from a
store as a looter.
Oh? Black looters are not arrested for looting?
Try using profiling for airport security.
It is being used.
Any opinion expressed about race, homosexuality, gender, or disability
identifies you as a "bigot" and any judgement expressed is a
"prejudice." The flags are now all in place, the sheep ready to follow,
and free thought all but killed.
I don't think much of Stoney or his tactics.
Gary Eickmeier
He told you what he thought of you, and you asked for it with your
snide comments.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
06 Oct 2005 11:21:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:40:15 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
stoney wrote:
Gary, you've already been identified as a lying sack of Christian dog
*****. Stop worrying about it and rejoyce at your future roasting in
hell for eternity.
Thanks. So much for freedom of speech. Is this the verdict of the PC Purge?
Cowardly and dishonest sack of dogshit. Poor ***** cries when his
abuse of others is thrown back in his face.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:33:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:40:15 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Putting back in the sequence the cowardly and dishonest sack of
Christian dogshit snipped.
stoney wrote:
{wince} Christian bigotry strike. The bigotry and rhetoric remains
the same only the target designation changes.
Stoney, you can relax a little - you have already been identified as
Politically Correct. Stop worrying about it.
Gary, you've already been identified as a lying sack of Christian dog
*****. Stop worrying about it and rejoyce at your future roasting in
hell for eternity.
stoney wrote:
Gary, you've already been identified as a lying sack of Christian dog
*****. Stop worrying about it and rejoyce at your future roasting in
hell for eternity.
Thanks. So much for freedom of speech. Is this the verdict of the PC Purge?
You really are a cowardly sack of lying Christian dogshit, but that
was apparent long ago. [/***** on ya]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
