Religions > Atheism > Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Jabsco" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2003 06:55:16 PM |
| Object: |
Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
Hey faggots, I'm still confused. Help me out here. Didn't you faggots say
that the tide has changed and that EVERYONE is accepting faggots now, and
that only a few minor bigots won't accept? Didn't you say the majority of
people are accepting ***** behavior? I don't understand this article, I am
very confused. Why is it that faggots can only be accepted by imposing
their will on other people and seeking out sypathetic judges to change laws
for them? How come they can't take their case to the 'majority public' in
the voting booths? Surely if EVERYONE is accepting faggots now, they should
EASILY get these laws passed on the ballots!! Why is it that 38 states now
have a consititutional ban on ***** marriages if the majority of the voters
want otherwise? Help me out here...
===
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/national/21GAY.html?ex=1073192400&en=a887ec494ccc1c01&ei=5004&partner=UNTD
Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an
amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also
found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a
potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the
Republicans in the 2004 election.
Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the
public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive
of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East
Coast.
Attitudes on the subject seem to be inextricably linked to how people view
marriage itself. For a majority of Americans - 53 percent - marriage is
largely a religious matter. Seventy-one percent of those people oppose gay
marriage. Similarly, 33 percent of Americans say marriage is largely a legal
matter and a majority of those people - 55 percent - say they support gay
marriage.
The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among
respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.
The nationwide poll found that 55 percent of Americans favored an amendment
to the constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a
woman, while 40 percent opposed the idea.
The findings come after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 last
month that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state's Constitution.
That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States
Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.
President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment
immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried
that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But
last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will
support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man
and a woman, codify that."
The statement signals the White House's increasing confidence that it can
exploit the matter in the presidential campaign, both to energize its
evangelical supporters and to discredit the eventual Democratic nominee.
Most of the Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage but favor civil
unions. Howard Dean, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic
nomination, signed a law when he was governor of Vermont allowing civil
unions, an action that Republicans have already used to portray him as too
liberal for mainstream America.
The court rulings generated extensive publicity and concern, not only about
same-sex marriage but also about having the courts set social agendas that
have not been approved by the legislative process.
"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it,"
said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition,
which strongly opposes gay marriage and is working actively for a
constitutional ban.
The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 in
telephone interviews with 1,057 people. It carries a margin of sampling
error of plus or minus three percentage points. Responses about gay rights
tend to be influenced somewhat by the wording of the questions.
This poll and other surveys show that as the courts have extended legal
rights to gays this year, Americans have become increasingly uncomfortable
with same-sex relations.
For decades, a majority of Americans have not approved of homosexual
relations. That had begun to change, until the Supreme Court ruling in June
and the Massachusetts ruling in November. A New York Times/CBS News poll
conducted in July found that 54 percent of respondents said homosexual
relations should be legal. Only 41 percent of the respondents in the latest
poll said they should be legal.
Richard Waters, 71, a retired elementary school teacher in Little Valley,
N.Y., and a Republican, said in a follow-up interview to the poll that he
strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
13 Jan 2004 11:09:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:05:20 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@25554clpl.net> wrote
in message <40044F7F.D89C95C3@25554clpl.net>:
....
Why do you come around here, pretending to be a human being,
and hurting, decent people's feelings?
You are not a decent person, Fritz.
You are a usenet apologist for NAMBLA.
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
14 Jan 2004 02:21:22 PM |
|
|
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:05:20 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@25554clpl.net> wrote
in message <40044F7F.D89C95C3@25554clpl.net>:
Why do you come around here, pretending to be a human being,
and hurting, decent people's feelings?
You are not a decent person, Fritz.
You are a usenet apologist for NAMBLA.
Bet you can't prove that.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
15 Jan 2004 07:15:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:21:22 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@25554clpl.net> wrote
in message <4005A4C1.BBFEC99B@25554clpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:05:20 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@25554clpl.net> wrote
in message <40044F7F.D89C95C3@25554clpl.net>:
Why do you come around here, pretending to be a human being,
and hurting, decent people's feelings?
You are not a decent person, Fritz.
You are a usenet apologist for NAMBLA.
Bet you can't prove that.
Why should I have to prove it, when you already have done so?
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
16 Jan 2004 11:46:04 AM |
|
|
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:21:22 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@25554clpl.net> wrote
in message <4005A4C1.BBFEC99B@25554clpl.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:05:20 -0500, Fritz <fsmith@25554clpl.net> wrote
in message <40044F7F.D89C95C3@25554clpl.net>:
Why do you come around here, pretending to be a human being,
and hurting, decent people's feelings?
You are not a decent person, Fritz.
You are a usenet apologist for NAMBLA.
Bet you can't prove that.
Why should I have to prove it, when you already have done so?
Really? Where? How? When?
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
10 Jan 2004 08:36:42 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2004 19:21:49 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
<berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
<Xns946CC511E8027bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFF9A60.8080403@hotmail.com:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:38:53 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote in message <3FFE4C7D.9040307@hotmail.com>:
Roger wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE48EE.7040204@hotmail.com...
...
Answer the question.
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make
any difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or
lolly licker) buddies?
None. Knew it.
Answer the question.
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make
any difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or
lolly licker) buddies?
The question HAS been answered, Bob.
More than once.
MANY times.
Time to move on.
In case you missed the answer, the answer is that if the age
old institution of marriage was destroyed, it wouldn't make any
difference whatsoever to any relationship that any pair of
lolly-licking rump-riders or carpet-munching tit-lickers have.
So if your answer is true, why are the rump riders and lolly
licker so actively working to destroy marriage?
Something in what you say doesn't add up.
Same as if you were to *strengthen* the age old institution of
marriage.
Indeed. The feminists have been deliberatly chipping away at the
institution of marriage for 150 years. Undoing some of that
damage ought to be a priority.
Lolly-licking rump-riders or carpet-munching tit-lickers just
wouldn't notice any damn thing.
So why then do they work so hard at it?
Just whose definative argument is that? As far as I am aware Gays
are not working to destroy marriage, rather they are working to get
marriage rights for themselves. That doesn't destroy marriage it
reinforces it
I don't see how that "reinforces" it. It doesn't destroy it, but it
doesn't reinforce it either. You are talking *****.
and makes it available to any 2 non related
consenting adults.
Why stipulate non-related, in the case of 2 faggots? Since there's no
risk of inbreeding, why can't a father and son, or two brothers, both
faggots, get married?
But I guess that you want discrimination for
discriminations sake.
Oh christ.
Listen, if you only came here to whine, go and whine somewhere else.
There's nothing worse than a whining *****.
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bernard Hubbard" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
16 Jan 2004 12:24:55 AM |
|
|
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote in
news:40070e13.49679607@news.dodo.com.au:
On 10 Jan 2004 19:21:49 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
<berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
<Xns946CC511E8027bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFF9A60.8080403@hotmail.com:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:38:53 -0700, Bob
<boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<3FFE4C7D.9040307@hotmail.com>:
Roger wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE48EE.7040204@hotmail.com...
...
Answer the question.
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage
make any difference in your relationship with your rump
rider (or lolly licker) buddies?
None. Knew it.
Answer the question.
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make
any difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or
lolly licker) buddies?
The question HAS been answered, Bob.
More than once.
MANY times.
Time to move on.
In case you missed the answer, the answer is that if the age
old institution of marriage was destroyed, it wouldn't make
any difference whatsoever to any relationship that any pair
of lolly-licking rump-riders or carpet-munching tit-lickers
have.
So if your answer is true, why are the rump riders and lolly
licker so actively working to destroy marriage?
Something in what you say doesn't add up.
Same as if you were to *strengthen* the age old institution
of marriage.
Indeed. The feminists have been deliberatly chipping away at
the institution of marriage for 150 years. Undoing some of
that damage ought to be a priority.
Lolly-licking rump-riders or carpet-munching tit-lickers just
wouldn't notice any damn thing.
So why then do they work so hard at it?
Just whose definative argument is that? As far as I am aware
Gays are not working to destroy marriage, rather they are
working to get marriage rights for themselves. That doesn't
destroy marriage it reinforces it
I don't see how that "reinforces" it. It doesn't destroy it, but
it doesn't reinforce it either. You are talking *****.
and makes it available to any 2 non related
consenting adults.
Why stipulate non-related, in the case of 2 faggots? Since
there's no risk of inbreeding, why can't a father and son, or
two brothers, both faggots, get married?
If I had said that 2 related gays could marry you would be
screaming *INCEST* now wouldn't you? So anything I said would be
dammed by you. Anyhow, fathers and sons, and 2 male siblings do
not need to marry to form a relationship as they are alraedy
kinsmen. And the original idea of marriage was to establish
kinship.
But I guess that you want discrimination for
discriminations sake.
Oh christ.
What has He to do with the price of fish?
Listen, if you only came here to whine, go and whine somewhere
else.
My, you have to be a real newbie if you consider me to only whine.
You have evidently not read my posts over the last 4 years.
There's nothing worse than a whining *****.
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
16 Jan 2004 06:51:16 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2004 17:24:55 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
<berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
<Xns9472B14E884E8bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
Raymond_Luxury_Y@tcht.com (Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote in
news:40070e13.49679607@news.dodo.com.au:
On 10 Jan 2004 19:21:49 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
<berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
<Xns946CC511E8027bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFF9A60.8080403@hotmail.com:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:38:53 -0700, Bob
<boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<3FFE4C7D.9040307@hotmail.com>:
Roger wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE48EE.7040204@hotmail.com...
...
Answer the question.
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage
make any difference in your relationship with your rump
rider (or lolly licker) buddies?
None. Knew it.
Answer the question.
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make
any difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or
lolly licker) buddies?
The question HAS been answered, Bob.
More than once.
MANY times.
Time to move on.
In case you missed the answer, the answer is that if the age
old institution of marriage was destroyed, it wouldn't make
any difference whatsoever to any relationship that any pair
of lolly-licking rump-riders or carpet-munching tit-lickers
have.
So if your answer is true, why are the rump riders and lolly
licker so actively working to destroy marriage?
Something in what you say doesn't add up.
Same as if you were to *strengthen* the age old institution
of marriage.
Indeed. The feminists have been deliberatly chipping away at
the institution of marriage for 150 years. Undoing some of
that damage ought to be a priority.
Lolly-licking rump-riders or carpet-munching tit-lickers just
wouldn't notice any damn thing.
So why then do they work so hard at it?
Just whose definative argument is that? As far as I am aware
Gays are not working to destroy marriage, rather they are
working to get marriage rights for themselves. That doesn't
destroy marriage it reinforces it
I don't see how that "reinforces" it. It doesn't destroy it, but
it doesn't reinforce it either. You are talking *****.
and makes it available to any 2 non related
consenting adults.
Why stipulate non-related, in the case of 2 faggots? Since
there's no risk of inbreeding, why can't a father and son, or
two brothers, both faggots, get married?
If I had said that 2 related gays could marry you would be
screaming *INCEST* now wouldn't you?
How would you know what I'd say? And stop whining.
So anything I said would be
dammed by you.
Just stop whining, and don't let that bother you.
Just tell me what logical reason there would be to ban same-sex
sibling marriages, if same-sex marriages became legal?
Anyhow, fathers and sons, and 2 male siblings do
not need to marry to form a relationship as they are alraedy
kinsmen. And the original idea of marriage was to establish
kinship.
What if two brothers or two sisters wanted to get married anyway? Do
you think there's any logical reason to prohibit it?
Are you too whiney and scared to answer a simple question?
But I guess that you want discrimination for
discriminations sake.
Oh christ.
What has He to do with the price of fish?
Listen, if you only came here to whine, go and whine somewhere
else.
My, you have to be a real newbie if you consider me to only whine.
I know a whiner when I see one.
You have evidently not read my posts over the last 4 years.
I'm glad of that. I don't think I could tolerate 4 years of your
whining.
There's nothing worse than a whining *****.
Amen to that.
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Iser" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
17 Jan 2004 08:20:50 AM |
|
|
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote in message news:<4008dcfc.6295589@news.dodo.com.au>...
[snip]
--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
Throaty to me in Message-ID 4013b0ae.44975053@news.dodo.com.au:
"Thanks for all the laughs, John. I hope you enjoy being trolled as
much as I enjoy trolling you."
Not only is he a troll, he's a self-confessed troll.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
10 Jan 2004 07:22:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:36:42 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
Raymond_Luxury_Y@tcht.com (Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
| On 10 Jan 2004 19:21:49 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
| <berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
| <Xns946CC511E8027bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
[snip]
| >and makes it available to any 2 non related
| >consenting adults.
|
| Why stipulate non-related, in the case of 2 faggots? Since there's no
| risk of inbreeding, why can't a father and son, or two brothers, both
| faggots, get married?
Can 2 related heterosexual people marry now?
Gays are asking to be included in the laws as they currently stand. No
rewriting of any laws is required only the removal of any gender
references on the marriage certificates and application forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
11 Jan 2004 03:57:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:22:42 GMT, Jeff North
<jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
<6291005bpspel9qe15tgl66ab536o4p4s5@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:36:42 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
Raymond_Luxury_Y@tcht.com (Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
| On 10 Jan 2004 19:21:49 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
| <berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
| <Xns946CC511E8027bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
[snip]
| >and makes it available to any 2 non related
| >consenting adults.
|
| Why stipulate non-related, in the case of 2 faggots? Since there's no
| risk of inbreeding, why can't a father and son, or two brothers, both
| faggots, get married?
Can 2 related heterosexual people marry now?
Legally, you mean? Well, it's quite common for followers of some sects
of Islam to marry their first cousins.
Would you say that such a marriage is invalid?
Bob obviously wouldn't, since it fits his criteria of man<-->woman.
Would you?
Gays are asking to be included in the laws as they currently stand. No
rewriting of any laws is required only the removal of any gender
references on the marriage certificates and application forms.
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
11 Jan 2004 04:14:46 AM |
|
|
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" <Raymond_Luxury_Y@tcht.com> wrote
Legally, you mean? Well, it's quite common for followers
of some sects of Islam to marry their first cousins.
Plenty of states here, in the United States, offer legal marriage
for first cousins, and nay sayers have yet to produce a single
example of the remaining states dissolving a marriage between
first cousins.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Bohlman" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
11 Jan 2004 04:45:40 AM |
|
|
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote in
news:40011bff.20772794@news.dodo.com.au:
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
The simple answer here is that the prohibitions on consanguinous marriage
are based mostly on soc, rather than sci, considerations (that must be
painful to full-fledged geeks). Contrary to popular belief, there actually
isn't a noticeable difference in the rate of "birth defects" in children
born of consanguinous partners, at least not until you're talking about
several generations of inbreeding.
At least in the US (where there are stronger taboos on, say, first-cousin
marriage, then elsewhere in the West), much of the motivation for "anti-
incest" laws was a strong aversion toward anything that might promote the
development of a hereditary aristocracy. For several decades following the
US gaining independence, there was a quite realistic concern among
Americans that European royal families not be able to establish themselves
in the US. And aristocratic families historically resorted to
consanguinous marriage in order to maintain control over property.
In fact, it's likely that incest taboos in general were based on the fact
that, since marriage was for most of its history a relationship between
extended families rather than individuals, a family that married only
internally wasn't "playing well with others" (again, something that geeks
hardly value); family-internal marriage would have tended to promote strife
more than harmony. A number of commentators have noted that taboos, pretty
much by definition, apply to behaviors that large numbers of people would
want to engage in in the absence of social sanctions, rather than behaviors
that most people would be averse to (e.g. there's no need for a society to
have strong taboos against eating *****, because most people would never
*want* to eat *****). In the case of consanguinous marriage, the taboo was
probably an attempt to counteract a tendency toward isolationism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
11 Jan 2004 04:29:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:57:44 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:22:42 GMT, Jeff North
<jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
<6291005bpspel9qe15tgl66ab536o4p4s5@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:36:42 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
| On 10 Jan 2004 19:21:49 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
| <berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
| <Xns946CC511E8027bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
[snip]
| >and makes it available to any 2 non related
| >consenting adults.
|
| Why stipulate non-related, in the case of 2 faggots? Since there's no
| risk of inbreeding, why can't a father and son, or two brothers, both
| faggots, get married?
Can 2 related heterosexual people marry now?
Legally, you mean? Well, it's quite common for followers of some sects
of Islam to marry their first cousins.
Would you say that such a marriage is invalid?
Bob obviously wouldn't, since it fits his criteria of man<-->woman.
Would you?
Gays are asking to be included in the laws as they currently stand. No
rewriting of any laws is required only the removal of any gender
references on the marriage certificates and application forms.
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
This is the "slippery slope" again - -this time it is slicked up with
bull-*****!
IF you think that this is an honest speculation, go to court, petition
your legislators for redress, go before the public and press your
case.
If it is just an effort on your part to traduce decent folks of whose
lives you do not approve -- FOAD!
ward
--------------------------
Ward and George
48 years together
and yet
Strangers before the law.
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
11 Jan 2004 07:03:42 PM |
|
|
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:peq300tgsdh67qmqe5o20nm0sj7qpsl7u5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:57:44 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
This is the "slippery slope" again
Right on cue.
These morons truly don't get it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
12 Jan 2004 06:18:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:03:42 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<btstn1$ao3ep$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:peq300tgsdh67qmqe5o20nm0sj7qpsl7u5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:57:44 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
This is the "slippery slope" again
Right on cue.
These morons truly don't get it.
Why can't you people answer a reasonable question without becoming
rude and offensive?
Still, offensive rudeness aside, at least you did answer the question.
You confirmed that you see no valid reason to retain the taboo against
sibling marriage in cases where both partners are of the same sex.
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
12 Jan 2004 06:48:59 PM |
|
|
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" <> wrote in message
news:4008399e.6102439@news.dodo.com.au...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:03:42 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<btstn1$ao3ep$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:peq300tgsdh67qmqe5o20nm0sj7qpsl7u5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:57:44 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
This is the "slippery slope" again
Right on cue.
These morons truly don't get it.
Why can't you people
'You people?'
answer a reasonable question without becoming
rude and offensive?
It's a stupid question.
Still, offensive rudeness aside, at least you did answer the question.
You confirmed that you see no valid reason to retain the taboo against
sibling marriage in cases where both partners are of the same sex.
I said no such thing.
Incestuous same-sex marriages would be prohibited for exactly the same
reasons that incestuous opposite-sex marriages are prohibited.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
12 Jan 2004 08:30:04 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> writes:
You confirmed that you see no valid reason to retain the taboo against
sibling marriage in cases where both partners are of the same sex.
I said no such thing.
Incestuous same-sex marriages would be prohibited for exactly the same
reasons that incestuous opposite-sex marriages are prohibited.
One of the reasons for prohibiting incestuous opposite-sex marriages
is that the children produced have higher incidents of diseases such
as hemophilia due to the similar genetic makeup of the parents.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
13 Jan 2004 11:09:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:48:59 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<btvfg1$bqnl7$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" < > wrote in message
news:4008399e.6102439@news.dodo.com.au...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:03:42 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<btstn1$ao3ep$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:peq300tgsdh67qmqe5o20nm0sj7qpsl7u5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:57:44 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
This is the "slippery slope" again
Right on cue.
These morons truly don't get it.
Why can't you people
'You people?'
Yes, you people. Choose from the following list whichever term you
think best describes yourself -
Turd Burglar
Rump Rider
Bottom inspector
Bottom sniffer
Filthy *****
Aids-infected child-abusing pervert
All of the above
None of the above - please specify __________________________
answer a reasonable question without becoming
rude and offensive?
It's a stupid question.
Still, offensive rudeness aside, at least you did answer the question.
You confirmed that you see no valid reason to retain the taboo against
sibling marriage in cases where both partners are of the same sex.
I said no such thing.
OK then, what IS the reason?
Incestuous same-sex marriages would be prohibited for exactly the same
reasons that incestuous opposite-sex marriages are prohibited.
What, to prevent the birth of genetically deformed babies?
Wow, no wonder you are such a confused fuckhead.
Didn't your mommy and daddy ever tell you that you can't make babies
by forcing your penis up the tradesman's entrance of your "boyfriend"?
Yeah, perhaps your mommy and daddy were/are just as fucked up as you
are.
I repeat, there is no reason to maintain the taboo against sibling
marriage when both siblings are faggots or both siblings are lesbians.
Same goes for father-son or mother-daughter marriages.
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
14 Jan 2004 12:13:37 AM |
|
|
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" <> wrote in message
news:4006bb46.18412414@news.dodo.com.au...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:48:59 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<btvfg1$bqnl7$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" < > wrote in message
news:4008399e.6102439@news.dodo.com.au...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:03:42 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<btstn1$ao3ep$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:peq300tgsdh67qmqe5o20nm0sj7qpsl7u5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:57:44 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no
risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
This is the "slippery slope" again
Right on cue.
These morons truly don't get it.
Why can't you people
'You people?'
Yes, you people. Choose from the following list whichever term you
think best describes yourself -
Turd Burglar
Rump Rider
Bottom inspector
Bottom sniffer
Filthy *****
Aids-infected child-abusing pervert
All of the above
None of the above - please specify __________________________
Does typing those epithets make your little weewee hard?
Go ***** yourself, *****.
[plonk]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
14 Jan 2004 04:16:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:13:37 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<bu2mnh$csq65$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" < > wrote in message
news:4006bb46.18412414@news.dodo.com.au...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:48:59 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<btvfg1$bqnl7$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" < > wrote in message
news:4008399e.6102439@news.dodo.com.au...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:03:42 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<btstn1$ao3ep$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:peq300tgsdh67qmqe5o20nm0sj7qpsl7u5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:57:44 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but I'm asking if in the case of same-sex marriages, whether
there's any reason to retain the prohibition against siblings
marrying, since there's no possibility of pregnancy, and hence no
risk
of a genetically damaged offspring?
This is the "slippery slope" again
Right on cue.
These morons truly don't get it.
Why can't you people
'You people?'
Yes, you people. Choose from the following list whichever term you
think best describes yourself -
Turd Burglar
Rump Rider
Bottom inspector
Bottom sniffer
Filthy *****
Aids-infected child-abusing pervert
All of the above
None of the above - please specify __________________________
Does typing those epithets make your little weewee hard?
Yeah, just as I suspected, another NAMBLA ***** that can't stop
fantasizing about really small weewees...
Go ***** yourself, *****.
Once again a pervert ***** displays ignorance about normal sexuality.
[plonk]
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "curtsybear" |
|
| Title: Re: Look, I hate faggots too, but hey people, let's be reasonable. |
14 Jan 2004 09:24:05 AM |
|
|
In alt.politics.homosexuality Throatwarbler Mangrove <Raymond_Luxury_Y@tcht.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:13:37 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
<bu2mnh$csq65$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" <Raymond_Luxury_Y@tcht.com> wrote in message
news:4006bb46.18412414@news.dodo.com.au...
Yes, you people. Choose from the following list whichever term you
think best describes yourself -
<snip Manwarbler's happy list>
Does typing those epithets make your little weewee hard?
Yeah, just as I suspected, another NAMBLA ***** that can't stop
fantasizing about really small weewees... | | | | | | | | | | | |
