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: "Brent Norman" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 04:45:01 PM |
|
|
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40000E61.9040701@hotmail.com>...
Bernard Hubbard wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFE1348.8050705@hotmail.com:
Amelia M. Samples wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com...
Ward Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:26:25 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:06:08 -0700, a
stranger called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came
forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
YOU need to learn a better way to argue than to dodge a question
relevant to your argument.
The same applies to you Boob. At least Amelia has posted in excess
of 10 answers to your question.
You may be brian dead, but that lie don't fly.
Who is Brian, and what does he have to do with this?
Don't you think that you are
holding up the debate by not accepting any answer she gives to your
infantile question?
She has not answered the question even once, all she does is rant, call
names, and dodge.
You have the unmitigated gaul to make a claim like that, when you have
been the poster boy of name-calling on this forum. Rather then
concentrate on facts and reality, you try to come up with clever
euphemisms to use in your rants, and dodge.
I don't see Amelia, or anyone else, calling you a taco
filler/headlight licker or anything like that, since we don't debase
relationships into sex like you do, but ah, look below:
<snip> ...your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly
licker) buddies?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 05:26:04 PM |
|
|
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ad4b4f.0401101445.c204758@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<40000E61.9040701@hotmail.com>...
Bernard Hubbard wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFE1348.8050705@hotmail.com:
Amelia M. Samples wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com...
Ward Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:26:25 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:06:08 -0700, a
stranger called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came
forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
YOU need to learn a better way to argue than to dodge a question
relevant to your argument.
The same applies to you Boob. At least Amelia has posted in excess
of 10 answers to your question.
You may be brian dead, but that lie don't fly.
Who is Brian, and what does he have to do with this?
Don't you think that you are
holding up the debate by not accepting any answer she gives to your
infantile question?
She has not answered the question even once, all she does is rant, call
names, and dodge.
You have the unmitigated gaul to make a claim like that, when you have
been the poster boy of name-calling on this forum. Rather then
concentrate on facts and reality, you try to come up with clever
euphemisms to use in your rants, and dodge.
I don't see Amelia, or anyone else, calling you a taco
filler/headlight licker or anything like that, since we don't debase
relationships into sex like you do, but ah, look below:
Hey, I like tacos and headlights...I'm offended by that! ;)
<snip> ...your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly
licker) buddies?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 05:19:03 PM |
|
|
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ad4b4f.0401101445.c204758@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<40000E61.9040701@hotmail.com>...
[snip]
She has not answered the question even once, all she does is rant, call
names, and dodge.
You have the unmitigated gaul to make a claim like that, when you have
been the poster boy of name-calling on this forum. Rather then
concentrate on facts and reality, you try to come up with clever
euphemisms to use in your rants, and dodge.
You give him _way_ too much credit. Boob's far from clever.
I don't see Amelia, or anyone else, calling you a taco
filler/headlight licker
LOL
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 06:52:21 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2004 18:37:19 +1100, in alt.politics.homosexuality Bernard
Hubbard <berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote:
| Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
| news:3FFE1348.8050705@hotmail.com:
[snip]
| > YOU need to learn a better way to argue than to dodge a question
| > relevant to your argument.
|
| The same applies to you Boob. At least Amelia has posted in excess
| of 10 answers to your question. Don't you think that you are
| holding up the debate by not accepting any answer she gives to your
| infantile question? You could allow the debate to proceed if you
| answer the question asked of you or at least explain why you refuse
| to accept any answer given to your infantile question.
He can't move to the next question. His religious leader hasn't
supplied him with the next set of answers/questions.
[snip]
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bernard Hubbard" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 01:02:48 AM |
|
|
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com:
Ward Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:26:25 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:06:08 -0700, a
stranger called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
So answer a question Fritz.
No, why don't *you* actually answer some questions for a
change.
1. Do any states in the United States require a fertility test
for marriage?
2. Does any state prohibit marriage when one or both partners
cannot physically engage in sexual intercourse for whatever
reason?
3. Do states allow marriages where the two partners will never
be able to consumate their marriage, such as between a prisoner
and and a person outside the prison?
4. Does any state require the declaration of intent to have
children as part of the requirements for marriage licenses?
5. Does any state mandate the ending of a marriage if the
couple fails to produce children, or if one becomes infertile
or unable to have sex?
How is destroying the age old institution of marriage going to
improve your relationship with your rump rider buddies?
You've yet to explain how extended marriage benefits to gays
will destoy marriage. Seems to me that if two guys marrying is
enough to destroy your marriage, it's pretty much a sham
marriage anyway.
Clearly, "Bob" is a sham person -- why would one suppose his
marriage to be any different?
ward
So 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?
What F key have you programed your stupid reply into? We are
heartily sick of your repeatative crap. It's not worth the toilet
paper needed to wipe it up. If you a sincere about your
questioning how about giving an insight into your ideas why *gay
marriage* will demolish the age old institution of marriage.
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 12:40:38 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Ward Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:26:25 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:06:08 -0700, a stranger
called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
So answer a question Fritz.
No, why don't *you* actually answer some questions for a change.
1. Do any states in the United States require a fertility test for
marriage?
2. Does any state prohibit marriage when one or both partners cannot
physically engage in sexual intercourse for whatever reason?
3. Do states allow marriages where the two partners will never be able
to consumate their marriage, such as between a prisoner and and a
person outside the prison?
4. Does any state require the declaration of intent to have children
as part of the requirements for marriage licenses?
5. Does any state mandate the ending of a marriage if the couple fails
to produce children, or if one becomes infertile or unable to have
sex?
How is destroying the age old institution of marriage going to improve
your relationship with your rump rider buddies?
You've yet to explain how extended marriage benefits to gays will
destoy marriage. Seems to me that if two guys marrying is enough to
destroy your marriage, it's pretty much a sham marriage anyway.
Clearly, "Bob" is a sham person -- why would one suppose his marriage
to be any different?
ward
So 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?
It looks like you got em, Bob. They can't answer your question.
I guess we'll all have to give it up, and go back to the age old
closet.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emi M Briet" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
08 Jan 2004 11:45:40 PM |
|
|
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make any
difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly licker)
buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer the question
of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to marry? Until you
answer that, your 'given' condition to the question is invalid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 12:06:21 AM |
|
|
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make any
difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly licker)
buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer the question
of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to marry? Until you
answer that, your 'given' condition to the question is invalid.
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?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 12:08:29 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE44DD.2000905@hotmail.com...
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make any
difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly licker)
buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer the question
of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to marry? Until you
answer that, your 'given' condition to the question is invalid.
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?
List the reasons that marriage will be "destroyed" and the causes of same:
------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 12:25:26 AM |
|
|
Roger wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE44DD.2000905@hotmail.com...
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make any
difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly licker)
buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer the question
of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to marry? Until you
answer that, your 'given' condition to the question is invalid.
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?
List the reasons that marriage will be "destroyed" and the causes of same:
------------------------------
They are YOUR reasons. You tell us. 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?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bernard Hubbard" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 01:50:02 AM |
|
|
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFE4956.9070807@hotmail.com:
Roger wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE44DD.2000905@hotmail.com...
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob
<boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make
any difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or
lolly licker) buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer
the question of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing
gays to marry? Until you answer that, your 'given' condition
to the question is invalid.
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?
List the reasons that marriage will be "destroyed" and the
causes of same: ------------------------------
They are YOUR reasons. You tell us. Answer the question.
If these are our reasons why should we supply your reasons for you
inane question? To have a debate we need to have a definition of
terms otherwise we argue in circles. Please supply an answer to
Amelia's question concerning the definition of destruction of
marriage.
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make any
difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly
licker) buddies?
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bernard Hubbard" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 01:46:18 AM |
|
|
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFE44DD.2000905@hotmail.com:
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob
<boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make
any difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or
lolly licker) buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer the
question of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to
marry? Until you answer that, your 'given' condition to the
question is invalid.
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?
Look folks, Booby's F1 key has become stuck. I suggest that we
take up a collection to get him a new keyboard.
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 01:49:16 AM |
|
|
"Bernard Hubbard" <berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CBF0C25FB2bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3FFE44DD.2000905@hotmail.com:
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob
<boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make
any difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or
lolly licker) buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer the
question of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to
marry? Until you answer that, your 'given' condition to the
question is invalid.
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?
Look folks, Booby's F1 key has become stuck. I suggest that we
take up a collection to get him a new keyboard.
I've got a nice new sealed set of keyboard, mouse, and mousepad. Bob, post
your address and I'll ship it right out to you. BTW, do you need an AT
adapter, or is PS/2 OK?
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 01:32:27 PM |
|
|
"Bernard Hubbard" <berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CBF0C25FB2bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67...
[snip]
Look folks, Booby's F1 key has become stuck. I suggest that we
take up a collection to get him a new keyboard.
How about we all just killfile him instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 02:24:50 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:btplsl$9srfd$2@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Bernard Hubbard" <berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CBF0C25FB2bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67...
[snip]
Look folks, Booby's F1 key has become stuck. I suggest that we
take up a collection to get him a new keyboard.
How about we all just killfile him instead.
nah - he's too fun to watch.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 03:35:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:46:18 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
<berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns946CBF0C25FB2bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
Look folks, Booby's F1 key has become stuck. I suggest that we
take up a collection to get him a new keyboard.
The money might be better used to buy him a clue.
--
Funny Sister Lurlean quote #7:
"Still a praying for SCUM like you"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 10:56:02 AM |
|
|
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.10.09.36.09.707683@postini.spamcon.org...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:46:18 +1100, Bernard Hubbard
<berndavey@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns946CBF0C25FB2bernard61hiprimus@203.134.67.67>:
Look folks, Booby's F1 key has become stuck. I suggest that we
take up a collection to get him a new keyboard.
The money might be better used to buy him a clue.
--
Funny Sister Lurlean quote #7:
"Still a praying for SCUM like you"
If someone else on the group kicks in for the shipping, I'll send him one
copy of the movie "Clue" with his keyboard. Or maybe one of those Junior
Detective Kits? You know, the ones that come with a plastic magnifying
glass, a fake mustache, a kid-sized deerstalker, and "How to imitate a
British accent so people will think you're cultured and intelligent"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emi M Briet" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 06:49:33 AM |
|
|
In article <3FFE44DD.2000905@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make any
difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly licker)
buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer the question
of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to marry? Until you
answer that, your 'given' condition to the question is invalid.
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?
Ah I see....unwilling. Sorry, but scientific method requires a provable
given. Unless you can prove that marriage will be 'destroyed', your
question is unanswerable. You may as well have asked me when the Easter
Bunny started to hop around the world on Easter, in which case you would
need to prove existance of said rabbit first.
You have yet to prove said 'given' of marriage being destroyed. You
tried, but used arguments (previously stated by Juan Horowitz) that were
already debunked earlier in the thread and therefore are no longer valid
arguments. Lack of other arguments shows an unwillingness to prove the
'given'...
Therefore, this discussion is over and you lose. Any further attempts
to restate the question will only serve to steel the image off you as a
toddler jumping up and down throwing a tantrum because he can't get an
answer to his unanswerable question. Repeating the question over and
over again will not magically prove your given and make an answer appear.
Trust me, we would answer your question if it had an answer.
You know....you could easily change the wording of your question to keep
the same meaning yet make it answerable...let's see if you can figure
out how....
--Emi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 08:01:19 AM |
|
|
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE44DD.2000905@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Emi M Briet wrote:
In article <3FFE0787.20003@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
How does destroying the age old institution of marriage make any
difference in your relationship with your rump rider (or lolly licker)
buddies?
Again, in order to answer your question, you need to answer the question
of why marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to marry? Until you
answer that, your 'given' condition to the question is invalid.
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?
Ah I see....unwilling. Sorry, but scientific method requires a provable
given. Unless you can prove that marriage will be 'destroyed', your
question is unanswerable. You may as well have asked me when the Easter
Bunny started to hop around the world on Easter, in which case you would
need to prove existance of said rabbit first.
You have yet to prove said 'given' of marriage being destroyed. You
tried, but used arguments (previously stated by Juan Horowitz) that were
already debunked earlier in the thread and therefore are no longer valid
arguments. Lack of other arguments shows an unwillingness to prove the
'given'...
Therefore, this discussion is over and you lose. Any further attempts
to restate the question will only serve to steel the image off you as a
toddler jumping up and down throwing a tantrum because he can't get an
answer to his unanswerable question. Repeating the question over and
over again will not magically prove your given and make an answer appear.
Trust me, we would answer your question if it had an answer.
You know....you could easily change the wording of your question to keep
the same meaning yet make it answerable...let's see if you can figure
out how....
--Emi
The usual dodge. Won't answer a simple question. No conversation there.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emi M Briet" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 11:05:14 AM |
|
|
In article <3FFEB42F.3010808@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The usual dodge. Won't answer a simple question. No conversation there.
Give me a question with no pre-assumptions and I will gladly answer
it....
Again, you can reword your question to get the answer you seek. I
already know how you can reword it without compromising your moral code.
I'm just waiting to see if you can figure it out.
Make sure those hamsters in your head work overtime, you sound like
you'll need it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 11:39:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:01:19 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> added
the following words of wisdom:
The usual dodge. Won't answer a simple question. No conversation there.
You are the one dodging. You have been told repeatedly that the
condition you are using as a given is in actuality not a given. You
refuse to acknowledge, even though you probably know it to be true
(thus your reason for not acknowledging it). Did you never take a
course in logic? If you did you weren't paying attention.
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
08 Jan 2004 08:41:08 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:44:39 -0700, a stranger
called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
So 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?
I don't agree that extending the benefits of marriage to homosexuals
will destroy that institution.
Currently, since I am already married, the querstion does not apply to
me. Unlike noted married heterosexuals Brtiney Spears (married for a
grand total of 55 hours) or Elizabeth Taylor (married a dozen times) I
consider my marriage to Kirsten to be for life.
For my gay friends who do wish to get married, it will mean access to
almost a thousand legal benefits, hundreds of which simply cannot be
had no matter how many lawyers you hire.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter J Ross" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
08 Jan 2004 09:34:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 01:44 GMT, Bob wrote in soc.men:
So 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?
I know how soc.men love to throw the names of logical fallacies
around, so perhaps Blob would like to Google "petitio principii", fail
to see how it applies to him, and then use a misspelled version in his
next reply.
--
PJR :-)
mhm #34x8 Smeeter #30 WSD #42
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
news:alt.fan.pjr - now with 10% extra nuts!
The official soc.men FAQ:
http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/faq.html
(Remove NOSPAM to reply)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
08 Jan 2004 10:00:27 PM |
|
|
"Peter J Ross" <gadfly@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
news:btl7h1.3vvp2tt.1@nntp.petitmorte.net...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 01:44 GMT, Bob wrote in soc.men:
So 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?
I know how soc.men love to throw the names of logical fallacies
around, so perhaps Blob would like to Google "petitio principii", fail
to see how it applies to him, and then use a misspelled version in his
next reply.
LOL(ly lickers)! - although I think you used too many big words for Bob.
--
PJR :-)
mhm #34x8 Smeeter #30 WSD #42
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
news:alt.fan.pjr - now with 10% extra nuts!
The official soc.men FAQ:
http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/faq.html
(Remove NOSPAM to reply)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
08 Jan 2004 10:10:21 PM |
|
|
Amelia M. Samples wrote:
"Peter J Ross" <gadfly@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
news:btl7h1.3vvp2tt.1@nntp.petitmorte.net...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 01:44 GMT, Bob wrote in soc.men:
So 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?
I know how soc.men love to throw the names of logical fallacies
around, so perhaps Blob would like to Google "petitio principii", fail
to see how it applies to him, and then use a misspelled version in his
next reply.
LOL(ly lickers)! - although I think you used too many big words for Bob.
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?
.
|
|
| | |
