Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage

Religions > Atheism > Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 71 of 110

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: "Peacenik"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 01:15:17 AM

"EdwardGoodhairhands" <Edwards@FamousDemocratFrauds.com> wrote in message
news:cpyQb.109898$Rc4.778942@attbi_s54...

"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:enb5109stbctk8bg1aiie3ocd8p0me057o@4ax.com...

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:20:02 -0500, a stranger
called by some "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-spamblock-@hotmail.com>
came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism

Then why didn't the founding fathers make provisions for same sex

marriage,

since gays are born that way?

Why didn't they give women the vote and emancipate the slaves?
Because, at the time, it wasn't something they considered. It was
possible in their way of thinking.

Look, if you learn a little about ther gay rights movement you'll see
that it wasn't until 1969 that we rteally got going with the Stonewall
Riot in NYC. That's when it started. Before that, homosexuality was
"the love that dare not speak its name." Very underground, illegal in
most places. That is changing. The trend in the United States has
been a gradual increase in civil liberties through activism.

Yeah! You tell 'em!

Now there are 37 states which have passed SPECIFIC legislation which

outlaws

same-sex marriage!

In other words, there are 37 states that have codified hate and
discrimination into their laws. As humans become enlightened, these hateful
laws will be tossed into the trash-heap of history.
--
Peacenik
.

User: "Dennis Kemmerer"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 02:18:18 PM

"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:92KQb.112810$Rc4.836379@attbi_s54...

"EdwardGoodhairhands" <Edwards@FamousDemocratFrauds.com> wrote in message
news:cpyQb.109898$Rc4.778942@attbi_s54...

"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:enb5109stbctk8bg1aiie3ocd8p0me057o@4ax.com...

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:20:02 -0500, a stranger
called by some "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-spamblock-@hotmail.com>
came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism

Then why didn't the founding fathers make provisions for same sex

marriage,

since gays are born that way?

Yeah! You tell 'em!

Now there are 37 states which have passed SPECIFIC legislation which

outlaws

same-sex marriage!

[piggybacking]
So what? Sixteen states still had anti-miscegenation laws on their books
prior to them being overturned by the USSC in 1967.

In other words, there are 37 states that have codified hate and
discrimination into their laws. As humans become enlightened, these

hateful

laws will be tossed into the trash-heap of history.

User: "Lord Calvert"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 12:31:47 PM

Now there are 37 states which have passed SPECIFIC legislation which outlaws
same-sex marriage!

Just like there were 13 states which had passed SPECIFIC legislation which had
outlawed interracial marriage before the Supreme Court unanimously told them to
quit being anti-American Communist fucks and to start upholding the
Constitution.
Article VI, Section 2 says that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the
Land and that states cannot violate it. Those thirty-seven states are in for a
very rude suprise...just like the thirteen states which had illegally banned
interracial marriage got a rude surprise in 1967.
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry ...resides with the
individual and cannot be infringed by the State." - US Supreme Court, Loving v.
Virginia (1967)
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.

User: "Douglas Berry"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 10:37:05 PM

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:00:40 GMT, a stranger
called by some "EdwardGoodhairhands"
<Edwards@FamousDemocratFrauds.com> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism

"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:enb5109stbctk8bg1aiie3ocd8p0me057o@4ax.com...

Look, if you learn a little about the gay rights movement you'll see
that it wasn't until 1969 that we rteally got going with the Stonewall
Riot in NYC. That's when it started. Before that, homosexuality was
"the love that dare not speak its name." Very underground, illegal in
most places. That is changing. The trend in the United States has
been a gradual increase in civil liberties through activism.

Yeah! You tell 'em!

Now there are 37 states which have passed SPECIFIC legislation which outlaws
same-sex marriage!

Activism, accomplishing it's goals!

And it took acts of Congress and the SCOTUS to enforce the admendments
passed a hundred years ago.
The states cannot have laws that violate the Constitution, and they
will find this out very soon.
--
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: "Kate "
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 09:58:09 PM

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:48:56 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:20:02 -0500, a stranger
called by some "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-spamblock-@hotmail.com>
came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism

Then why didn't the founding fathers make provisions for same sex marriage,
since gays are born that way?

I'm sorry - but how incredibly dumb do you have to be to ask that
question?

Why didn't they give women the vote and emancipate the slaves?
Because, at the time, it wasn't something they considered. It was
possible in their way of thinking.

Why even bother - the man apparently can't think - what makes you
think he will even be able to understand the simplest answer?
Jeesh!
Ether this is a troll, or this country is in serious trouble.
Apparently the Mormons are working on an inbreeding program.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	26 Jan 2004 10:44:00 AM

On 24 Jan 2004 21:58:09 -0600,

(Kate ), Message ID:
<402b3ceb.390774156@news-west.newscene.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:48:56 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:20:02 -0500, a stranger
called by some "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-spamblock-@hotmail.com>
came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism

Then why didn't the founding fathers make provisions for same sex marriage,
since gays are born that way?

I'm sorry - but how incredibly dumb do you have to be to ask that
question?

Why didn't they give women the vote and emancipate the slaves?
Because, at the time, it wasn't something they considered. It was
possible in their way of thinking.

Why even bother - the man apparently can't think - what makes you
think he will even be able to understand the simplest answer?

Jeesh!

Ether this is a troll, or this country is in serious trouble.
Apparently the Mormons are working on an inbreeding program.

I'd go for both. The country *is* in serious trouble with the vast
dearth of education and the inability to think.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Craig Chilton"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 03:05:05 PM

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:20:02 -0500,
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Wyle Coyote" wrote:

[ ... ]

So your entire opposition is on religious grounds, and therefore
IRRELEVANT under US law. You can think whatever you want,
but this is not a theocratic country, for a very good reason. Think
Saudi Arabia or the Taliban when they ran Afghanistan. The
founders knew full well what they were doing when they separated
church and state.

Then why didn't the founding fathers make provisions for same-sex
marriage, since gays are born that way?

Probably for some of the same reasons that they didn't prohibit
*slavery*. As sensible as they were in most ways, they still were
tainted to some extent with bigotry, just as today's RRR cultists/
Anti-Choicers/ homophobes are. And look where *that* led, decades
later!
Mentally-impaired bigots will probably always be with us. It's just
a case of the fair-minded and sensible majority's ensuring that their
fetid and sociopathic agendas are properly SQUASHED, and are
**never** allowed to prevail, in any way.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
.

User: "Ward Stewart"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 04:36:05 PM

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:20:02 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61-spamblock-@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> wrote in message
news:cadQb.24858$zj7.10503@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
x-no-archive:yes

"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:BFcQb.89402$VV4.37606@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

"William David Thweatt" <thweatt@rice.edu> wrote in message
news:burhri$ksh$4@joe.rice.edu...

Gary DeWaay (dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net) wrote:
: "David Moffitt" <weaselkiller@ prodigy.net>, typed...

: > %%%% Heheheheeeee----- "We" reproduce. Homosexuals are just a choice

that

: > some make.

: Everybody on the right that sez this refuses to answer this question:
: If it indeed is a choice, does that mean you COULD switch sides

tonight

: and have a homosexual encounter?

: Please be the first to answer.

Good question. The answer is, of course, YES. It is possible. It is
also possible that I could choose to walk blindfold across I-45 during
rush hour. I could choose to open up a cylinder of carbon monoxide and
poison all the postdocs and grad students in the building. I could

choose

to vote for Howard Dean.

I choose NOT to do these things because I am neither stupid nor imoral.
One of the basic tenets of Christianity and Judaism is personal choice
(except in the case of some sects such as goofball Calvinists, but

that's

an entire theological thesis into which I will not go out of my sense of
mercy toward you, the reader).

Everything you do, you choose to do. Sometimes the choices are more
obvious than other times. Often choices must be made based on the

wisdom

of delayed gratification or self-sacrifice in the service of others. No
amount of hemming and hawing will ever change the fact that

homosexuality

is a label based on a chosen behavior pattern.

So your entire opposition is on religious grounds, and therefore

IRRELEVANT

under US law. You can think whatever you want, but this is not a

theocratic

country, for a very good reason. Think Saudi Arabia or the Taliban when

they

ran Afghanistan. The founders knew full well what they were doing when

they

separated church and state.

Then why didn't the founding fathers make provisions for same sex marriage,
since
gays are born that way?

They did, with the ninth and fourteenth amendments, they effectively
removed the matter from governmental scrutiny -- marriage is a private
arrangement, between the parties and registered by the government in
order to prevent fraudulent or bigamous coupling.
Such strictures MUST be backed up with a substantial and legitimate
stricture and not be arbitrarily discriminatory.
Catholics MUST be permitted to marry as THEY see fit.
Jews MUST be permitted to marry as THEY see fit.
Fundamentalists MUST be permitted to marry as THEY see fit.
Atheists MUST be permitted to marry as THEY see fit.
Felons MUST be permitted to marry as THEY see fit.
Citations from the great book of runes and riddles do NOT meet the
burden of proof for government strictures.
ward
------------------------------------------------
"In our democratic republic the default MUST BE
that the citizen is free to live his life in any
harmless way that he chooses."
Ward Stewart
-------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Newton Joseph"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 06:32:49 PM

Good question. The answer is, of course, YES. It is possible. It is
also possible that I could choose to walk blindfold across I-45 during
rush hour. I could choose to open up a cylinder of carbon monoxide and
poison all the postdocs and grad students in the building. I could

choose

to vote for Howard Dean.

This response is avoiding the question; we are ONLY referring to
homosexuality
Newton
.

User: "Newton Joseph"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 06:09:45 PM

ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
By
Newton Joseph ,Ph.D.
You Christians who are clucking amongst yourselves about the sin of
homosexuality are not very educated. I don't think there is one Christian
in a million who ever cracked a book on the subject. All you do is pass
your ignorance and prejudices about the subject onto others, and they in
turn will do the same.
Well friends, let me give you a brief history and some information on the
subject. First off, those who scream the loudest about homosexuality are
often the ones who have some kind of kinky sex. You talk about the
immorality of homosexuals, ignoring your own immorality by causing pain and
suffering; not only of the homosexual, but the pain of their parents. Take
homosexuality out of the realm of morals. It has nothing to do with
immorality. (Oh, I forgot those Christians who do not change their
missionary position). You are not the judge of how a man should achieve
orgasm. There is good evidence that many male children as early as 12 or 13
are aware that they are somehow different long before they ever give sex a
thought. They feel good in the company of little girls the same age and are
interested in the same things. There is good evidence that the brain of a
homosexual is different from one that is heterosexual. There is a window of
time when the brain of the fetus is developing in the womb. The amount of
testosterone that is manufactured in the brain determines if a clitoris or a
penis will form. At a critical time, up to one day after birth, if there is
not enough testosterone in the brain, the window will close forever and he
will have a female brain.
In the sexuality of a woman, her vagina is so constructed that it wants to
be penetrated and the sensation of being filled, just like a an erect penis
wants the feeling of being surrounded with the muscles in the woman's
vagina. The homosexual man has only his ***** to offer for penetration.
Homosexual men are engaging in natural sex with other homosexual men just as
a heterosexual male engages in natural heterosexual sex with a heterosexual
woman.
In my 20 years of practice as a psychotherapist, I have counseled many
homosexuals. There was only one young man, Larry, who was in his early
twenties and really felt good about his homosexuality. Dan, on the other
hand, hated himself for being homosexual. Dan was very intrigued by this
short essay and had a sense of relief. Many struggled with self-hate. I had
felt their pain and suffering. Generally, I like gay men. There was one I
did not like a full-blooded American Indian. He did not like me either and
after about three sessions he saw me in a very distorted way, which I assume
affects all of his relationships. There are homosexuals that transcend
every race, culture, nationality and epoch of time. If my explanation of
homosexuality still leaves you condemning homosexuals, as being immoral, as
a psychotherapist, I suggest you seek professional help. Take your mind off
homosexuals and get a life of your own.
.

User: "David Moffitt weaselkiller@ prodigy.net"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 09:05:57 PM

"Newton Joseph" <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dPDQb.12280$z03.6314@twister.socal.rr.com...

and

suffering; not only of the homosexual, but the pain of their parents.

Take

homosexuality out of the realm of morals. It has nothing to do with
immorality. (Oh, I forgot those Christians who do not change their
missionary position). You are not the judge of how a man should achieve
orgasm. There is good evidence that many male children as early as 12 or

are aware that they are somehow different long before they ever give sex a
thought. They feel good in the company of little girls the same age and

are

interested in the same things. There is good evidence that the brain of a
homosexual is different from one that is heterosexual. There is a window

time when the brain of the fetus is developing in the womb. The amount of
testosterone that is manufactured in the brain determines if a clitoris or

penis will form. At a critical time, up to one day after birth, if there

not enough testosterone in the brain, the window will close forever and he
will have a female brain.

In the sexuality of a woman, her vagina is so constructed that it wants to
be penetrated and the sensation of being filled, just like a an erect

penis

wants the feeling of being surrounded with the muscles in the woman's
vagina. The homosexual man has only his ***** to offer for penetration.
Homosexual men are engaging in natural sex with other homosexual men just

a heterosexual male engages in natural heterosexual sex with a

heterosexual

woman.

%%%% You just "blew" it right there. The vagina was designed for the sole
purpose of accomidating the male penis in the sexual act for pleasure and
procreation. The ***** was designed for taking a *****.

In my 20 years of practice as a psychotherapist, I have counseled many
homosexuals. There was only one young man, Larry, who was in his early
twenties and really felt good about his homosexuality. Dan, on the other
hand, hated himself for being homosexual. Dan was very intrigued by this
short essay and had a sense of relief. Many struggled with self-hate. I

had

felt their pain and suffering. Generally, I like gay men. There was one I
did not like a full-blooded American Indian. He did not like me either

and

after about three sessions he saw me in a very distorted way, which I

assume

affects all of his relationships. There are homosexuals that transcend
every race, culture, nationality and epoch of time. If my explanation of
homosexuality still leaves you condemning homosexuals, as being immoral,

a psychotherapist, I suggest you seek professional help. Take your mind

off

homosexuals and get a life of your own.

%%%% Does anyone want to place a bet that this man is not a self justifying
homosexual?

User: "No One"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 01:26:30 AM

"David Moffitt" <weaselkiller@ prodigy.net> writes:
<snip of long exchange between some other folks>

%%%% You just "blew" it right there. The vagina was designed for the sole
purpose of accomidating the male penis in the sexual act for pleasure and
procreation.

Did anyone ever tell you the facts of life, David? The vagina was
"designed" to handle the stress and general wear and tear when a
baby comes out of it. It serves too main functions - to let sperm
in and let the baby out. The baby is the big deal.

The ***** was designed for taking a *****.

You could just as easily say that the male penis was "designed" for
taking a leak. It actually has two functions, as does the vagina.
In fact, if the vagina and penis have two functions, why shouldn't the
*****? That's why "God" created homosexuals - "God" likes elegance,
which is why we have Maxwell's Equations and quantum mechanics, so
"He" would naturally give the ***** two functions as well to preserve
symmetry. :-)
Note:
"God" is in quotes to avoid offending the sensibilities of
those on the atheist group.
.

User: "David Moffitt weaselkiller@ prodigy.net"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 07:37:29 AM

"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m31xpolcam.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...

"David Moffitt" <weaselkiller@ prodigy.net> writes:

<snip of long exchange between some other folks>

%%%% You just "blew" it right there. The vagina was designed for the

sole

purpose of accomidating the male penis in the sexual act for pleasure

and

procreation.

The ***** was designed for taking a *****.

You could just as easily say that the male penis was "designed" for
taking a leak. It actually has two functions, as does the vagina.

In fact, if the vagina and penis have two functions, why shouldn't the
*****? That's why "God" created homosexuals - "God" likes elegance,
which is why we have Maxwell's Equations and quantum mechanics, so
"He" would naturally give the ***** two functions as well to preserve
symmetry. :-)

Note:
"God" is in quotes to avoid offending the sensibilities of
those on the atheist group.

User: "Jack Rudd"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	26 Jan 2004 04:44:58 AM

"David Moffitt" <weaselkiller@ prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<tEPQb.28533$OU1.5249@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>...
That's right, he didn't say anything. Which is about the same level of
content as his usual contributions to a.p.h.
--
Jack Rudd
.

User: "David Moffitt weaselkiller@ prodigy.net"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 07:40:05 AM

"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m31xpolcam.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...

"David Moffitt" <weaselkiller@ prodigy.net> writes:

<snip of long exchange between some other folks>

%%%% You just "blew" it right there. The vagina was designed for the

sole

purpose of accomidating the male penis in the sexual act for pleasure

and

procreation.

The ***** was designed for taking a *****.

You could just as easily say that the male penis was "designed" for
taking a leak. It actually has two functions, as does the vagina.

In fact, if the vagina and penis have two functions, why shouldn't the
*****? That's why "God" created homosexuals - "God" likes elegance,
which is why we have Maxwell's Equations and quantum mechanics, so
"He" would naturally give the ***** two functions as well to preserve
symmetry. :-)

%%%% As you pointed out one of the penis and vagina's duel purposes was
procreation. What part does the ***** serve in procreation?

Note:
"God" is in quotes to avoid offending the sensibilities of
those on the atheist group.

User: "Peacenik"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 01:09:53 AM

"David Moffitt" <weaselkiller@ prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:poGQb.12074$NL5.10539@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

%%%% You just "blew" it right there. The vagina was designed for the sole
purpose of accomidating the male penis in the sexual act for pleasure and
procreation.

Nope. It also accepts tongues, fingers, dildoes and vibrators for the
purposes of pleasure.

The ***** was designed for taking a *****.

And it's the right size for accommodating a hard *****. And for those into
rimming (a popular pastime among right-wingerss fawning over their
Republican masters), the ***** readily accepts a tongue, too.
--
Peacenik
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 09:49:21 PM

David Moffitt wrote:

%%%% Does anyone want to place a bet that this man is not a self
justifying homosexual?

See, the problem is that you think calling him a "*****" is an insult.
Most of us atheists are much more libertarian with regard to personal
freedom. Calling me a "*****" is no more insulting than calling me
left-handed. I expect Newton Joseph feels the same.
I happen to be either gay or left-handed. Why would it matter to society
which? Why would it matter to you?
--
Enkidu
AA 2165
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/who.php?w=enkidu.jpg
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
-----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than
they already have.
Ren� Descartes, Discours de la M�thode. 1637.
.

User: "David Moffitt weaselkiller@ prodigy.net"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 10:33:27 PM

"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:U0HQb.60198$zs4.46880@fed1read01...

David Moffitt wrote:

%%%% Does anyone want to place a bet that this man is not a self
justifying homosexual?

%%%% You must have a self loathing complex going. I didn't call either of
you a *****. Was I wrong that he is a homosexual? (what you refer to as a
*****)
Kentucky Declaration of Rights - Art. I, Sec. 2 Absolute, arbitrary power
over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a
republic, not even in the largest majority.

--
Enkidu
AA 2165
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/who.php?w=enkidu.jpg
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
-----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than
they already have.

Ren� Descartes, Discours de la M�thode. 1637.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	24 Jan 2004 11:05:18 PM

David Moffitt wrote:

"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:U0HQb.60198$zs4.46880@fed1read01...

David Moffitt wrote:

%%%% Does anyone want to place a bet that this man is not a self
justifying homosexual?

%%%% You must have a self loathing complex going. I didn't call
either of you a *****. Was I wrong that he is a homosexual? (what
you refer to as a *****)

"Does anyone want to place a bet that this man is not a self justifying
homosexual?" is an ad hom attack against the man, an attempt top smear him
with the homosexual label when you can't attack his ideas.
What a sad little speciman of humanity you are.
--
Enkidu
AA 2165
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/who.php?w=enkidu.jpg
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
-----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than
they already have.
Ren� Descartes, Discours de la M�thode. 1637.
.

User: "David Moffitt weaselkiller@ prodigy.net"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 07:33:16 AM

"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:38IQb.60497$zs4.3107@fed1read01...

David Moffitt wrote:

"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:U0HQb.60198$zs4.46880@fed1read01...

David Moffitt wrote:

%%%% Does anyone want to place a bet that this man is not a self
justifying homosexual?

%%%% You must have a self loathing complex going. I didn't call
either of you a *****. Was I wrong that he is a homosexual? (what
you refer to as a *****)

%%%% So I can put you down as agreeing he was a homosexual and promoting his
lifestyle.

User: "Brent Norman"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 03:10:18 PM

"David Moffitt" <weaselkiller@ prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<wAPQb.28531$xV1.19651@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>...

"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:38IQb.60497$zs4.3107@fed1read01...

David Moffitt wrote:

"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:U0HQb.60198$zs4.46880@fed1read01...

David Moffitt wrote:

%%%% Does anyone want to place a bet that this man is not a self
justifying homosexual?

%%%% You must have a self loathing complex going. I didn't call
either of you a *****. Was I wrong that he is a homosexual? (what
you refer to as a *****)

%%%% So I can put you down as agreeing he was a homosexual and promoting his
lifestyle.

Promote? What is he, a pitch-man? What is his 'lifestyle'?
.

User: "Newton Joseph"
Title: Re: "Wyle Coyote" on homosexuality	25 Jan 2004 06:40:30 PM

I have a theory about those who decry homosexuality. If they are vocal
enough no one will ever suspect them of being homosexual
Newton
.