| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2004 08:05:22 PM |
| Object: |
June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
All they really care about is bashing queers, replacing the US Constitution
with the Bible, and turning everyone into a conservative bible-thumping
fundamentalist christian.
Ugh. Hate-filled Christians make my skin crawl . . .
========================================
The Spreading of Same-Sex 'Weddings' Continues...
GLAD, the national homosexual group, filed suit in Massachusetts last week
on behalf of 16 homosexual activists who live outside of Massachusetts and
want to "wed" there. In addition, 13 Massachusetts town clerks filed a
similar suit hoping to open the door for homosexual activists around the
country and the world to legally "marry" in their state. If they are
successful in their suits, large numbers of gays and lesbians could come to
Massachusetts to get married. Those couples could then demand legal
recognition in their home states, setting off challenges to marriage laws
across the country. This is already being planned in states such as
Maryland, Virginia, and Alabama. In all, homosexuals from 46 states have
been "married" in Massachusetts only to return to their home states. People
across America should need no more proof that Massachusetts is not some
"local experiment" on marriage but is indeed a planned attack to radically
redefine marriage and family, ultimately out of existence. I repeat, at
least 46 states will be facing pending law suits, backed by national
homosexual groups such as GLAD. People need to take action, both nationally
and locally, to make your voice heard. This was successfully done in Montana
where they collected almost double the necessary number of signatures to
insure a state Constitutional amendment gets on the November ballot. Similar
measures are being done in other states - and nationally a U.S.
Constitutional Amendment is needed to make sure state efforts are not wasted
and overturned by activist federal judges.
Additional Resources
Take a Stand for Marriage - Call Your Senators!
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=AL04E03&f=WU04F15&t=e
Abstinence: A Lesson from Africa
First Lady Janet Museveni of Uganda was in D.C. last week for the Medical
Institute for Sexual Health's annual conference. Ironically, while the
United States is exporting billions of dollars to assist countries stricken
by HIV/AIDS, the solution for our own HIV/AIDS epidemic can be found in
countries like Uganda, the only country to have lowered its HIV/AIDS
infection rate by 66 percent. Using the "ABC" approach, Uganda has
encouraged healthy, monogamous sexual relationships: Abstain, Be faithful,
use a Condom. Although it allows for limited condom use, for example in the
case of a married couple where one spouse is infected with HIV/AIDS, the
Ugandan approach overwhelmingly endorses abstinence and monogamy. Medical
research now confirms that this is the only significantly effective way to
curb the spread of the disease. It's sad that we should have to spend so
much to learn the obvious, but hopefully this lesson from our Ugandan
friends will take hold in the United States before it costs any more in
human lives.
Additional Resources
Abstinence Until Marriage: The Best Message for Teens
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=IS03B1&f=WU04F15&t=e
U.S. Senate Affirms Fathers
Last month we commended Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) for his excellent work
in getting a Senate resolution passed on Mother's Day. This month, Senator
Brownback did the same with a Father's Day resolution (SR 379) that was
passed just in time for Father's Day. The resolution affirms the unique and
essential role of fathers which compliments the irreplaceable role of
mothers. Children need them both: a mother and father who love each other
within the bonds of matrimony. Many thanks to Sen. Brownback for supporting
the families that make America what it should be. To read the Father's Day
resolution, click the link below.
Additional Resources
A Resolution Protecting, Promoting, and Celebrating Fatherhood
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=BS04F04&f=WU04F15&t=e
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 10:02:38 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mBLBc.7652$zS7.2128@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes
a
difference.
All they really care about is bashing queers, replacing the US
Constitution
with the Bible, and turning everyone into a conservative bible-thumping
fundamentalist christian.
Ugh. Hate-filled Christians make my skin crawl . . .
========================================
As is common with Reich wing fanatics - the title they give themselves has
nothing to do with their acutal actions.
They are nothing more than a fanatical right wing, ultraconservative,
republican/christian cult!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
22 Jun 2004 02:25:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
All they really care about is bashing queers, replacing the US Constitution
with the Bible, and turning everyone into a conservative bible-thumping
fundamentalist christian.
here is the funny part, the whole "success" in Uganda isn't just the use
of abstinance. Its like the idea of saying "air bags save lives" when
actual fact what did save the life was actually the safety belt, the air
bag was a just aback up thing.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 09:55:49 PM |
|
|
Great Lord <tock@sbcglobal.net>, braving the raging storm, scaled the
mighty crag called alt.atheism on Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:05:22 GMT and
screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
GLAD, the national homosexual group
First word, and an error. It's GLAAD.
http://www.glaad.org/
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 08:19:39 PM |
|
|
In article <mBLBc.7652$zS7.2128@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
Hmm, I hate that I'm defending them, but we all have the issues that we
think are important.
How being gay, or being married would in anyway affect Bob, Hairy, or
anyone else's family is still up for debate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 08:49:52 PM |
|
|
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-FC2CB4.21195921062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <mBLBc.7652$zS7.2128@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay
marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY
makes a
difference.
Hmm, I hate that I'm defending them, but we all have the issues that we
think are important.
I have no problem with them expressing their ideas, BUT for an organization
named
"Family Research Council"
it sure doesn't seem to do much research (I've never seen any results of any
of their research published). It does, however, seem to be quite involved
with political issues, which is, again, fine by me, BUT my guess is these
folks have a tax exempt status which other political organizations don't
have (or me either).
IMHO, the Family Research Council is just a bigoted political
organization dedicated to persecuting queers. Sure, they have as much
right to exist as the KKK, but no way should they be tax-exempt.
-Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 09:06:26 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4fMBc.7863$UY6.1502@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
[snip]
IMHO, the Family Research Council is just a bigoted political
organization dedicated to persecuting queers.
It's a fundamentalist christian religious organization.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 09:18:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:06:26 -0700, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4fMBc.7863$UY6.1502@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
[snip]
IMHO, the Family Research Council is just a bigoted political
organization dedicated to persecuting queers.
It's a fundamentalist christian religious organization.
[snip]
Then the members must be very threatened, though I don't know why. I
am a heterosexual and married, and marriages of same sex couples don't
bother me or my marriage in the least! (I am not saying this just to
be "politically correct" but saying it because I don't see the
threat!!!!!!!!!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Kicking Asses and Taking Names" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
22 Jun 2004 01:59:10 AM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:1k5fd0h1kl75tl9q0kt5033qoq669pc3db@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:06:26 -0700, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4fMBc.7863$UY6.1502@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
[snip]
IMHO, the Family Research Council is just a bigoted political
organization dedicated to persecuting queers.
It's a fundamentalist christian religious organization.
[snip]
Then the members must be very threatened, though I don't know why. I
am a heterosexual and married, and marriages of same sex couples don't
bother me or my marriage in the least! (I am not saying this just to
be "politically correct" but saying it because I don't see the
threat!!!!!!!!!)
Don't you see...there is only a certain amount of marriage to go around...so
if the evil little homosexuals use it all up...which they will because all
homosexual will want to get married over and over again to hundreds of other
homosexuals and dogs and shopping baskets and clothes lines and such in
their satanic homosexual churches...then there won't be any marriage left
and none of the good little Christians will be able to get married and since
they aren't allowed to have that terrible sinful "intercourse" thing until
after they are married, then the human race will die out!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 09:31:37 PM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:1k5fd0h1kl75tl9q0kt5033qoq669pc3db@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:06:26 -0700, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4fMBc.7863$UY6.1502@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
[snip]
IMHO, the Family Research Council is just a bigoted political
organization dedicated to persecuting queers.
It's a fundamentalist christian religious organization.
[snip]
Then the members must be very threatened, though I don't know why. I
am a heterosexual and married, and marriages of same sex couples don't
bother me or my marriage in the least! (I am not saying this just to
be "politically correct" but saying it because I don't see the
threat!!!!!!!!!)
There _is_ no threat, except in their gullible little imaginations. These
idiots read the garbage in their tracts and get all lathered up. Keeps the
coffers full, just like any other cult.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 08:58:21 PM |
|
|
In article <4fMBc.7863$UY6.1502@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-FC2CB4.21195921062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <mBLBc.7652$zS7.2128@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay
marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY
makes a
difference.
Hmm, I hate that I'm defending them, but we all have the issues that we
think are important.
I have no problem with them expressing their ideas, BUT for an organization
named
"Family Research Council"
it sure doesn't seem to do much research (I've never seen any results of any
of their research published). It does, however, seem to be quite involved
with political issues, which is, again, fine by me, BUT my guess is these
folks have a tax exempt status which other political organizations don't
have (or me either).
IMHO, the Family Research Council is just a bigoted political
organization dedicated to persecuting queers. Sure, they have as much
right to exist as the KKK, but no way should they be tax-exempt.
-Tock
It's the typical army of god crowd with a prettier website.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
22 Jun 2004 02:29:23 AM |
|
|
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <mBLBc.7652$zS7.2128@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
Hmm, I hate that I'm defending them, but we all have the issues that we
think are important.
But these are way more important? how is 5% of the population going to
affect the out come of the next generation? what are they going to say,
"the next generation is as thick as two short planks, but at least
they're hate filled bigots! praise the lard!"
How about properly funding universities so taht students don't have
student load that is the equivilant of a mortgage on a house, how about
free health care, a social welfare system that is a hand up rather than
a hand out, those are issues that affect everyone, they're the important
ones.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
22 Jun 2004 04:04:13 PM |
|
|
In article <2jq5eoF144givU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
But these are way more important? how is 5% of the population going to
affect the out come of the next generation? what are they going to say,
"the next generation is as thick as two short planks, but at least
they're hate filled bigots! praise the lard!"
Your argument presumes that everyone is the same, or that we all want
the same things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
22 Jun 2004 10:37:28 PM |
|
|
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jq5eoF144givU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
But these are way more important? how is 5% of the population going to
affect the out come of the next generation? what are they going to say,
"the next generation is as thick as two short planks, but at least
they're hate filled bigots! praise the lard!"
Your argument presumes that everyone is the same, or that we all want
the same things.
Most parents are after the same things; good education, health and a job
for the child when they finish school. The ability for their child to
climb the ladder of opportunity. That is what the vast majority of
parents want and how 5% of the population marrying each other is going
ot affect that vision of theres, god only knows because I can't work out
how it will be affected.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
22 Jun 2004 11:54:41 PM |
|
|
In article <2jsc7pF14h5ljU3@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jq5eoF144givU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
But these are way more important? how is 5% of the population going to
affect the out come of the next generation? what are they going to say,
"the next generation is as thick as two short planks, but at least
they're hate filled bigots! praise the lard!"
Your argument presumes that everyone is the same, or that we all want
the same things.
Most parents are after the same things; good education, health and a job
for the child when they finish school. The ability for their child to
climb the ladder of opportunity. That is what the vast majority of
parents want and how 5% of the population marrying each other is going
ot affect that vision of theres, god only knows because I can't work out
how it will be affected.
Hey Matty,
Perhaps they are looking for similar things. However, many see different
routes to achieving those goals. Let's not forget that not everyone is a
parent or wants to be.
For example, why should I pay for someone else's children's education
through taxes? it's their choice to have children and to want them to be
educated chilldren -- shouldn't they pay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 06:06:34 AM |
|
|
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jsc7pF14h5ljU3@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jq5eoF144givU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
But these are way more important? how is 5% of the population going to
affect the out come of the next generation? what are they going to say,
"the next generation is as thick as two short planks, but at least
they're hate filled bigots! praise the lard!"
Your argument presumes that everyone is the same, or that we all want
the same things.
Most parents are after the same things; good education, health and a job
for the child when they finish school. The ability for their child to
climb the ladder of opportunity. That is what the vast majority of
parents want and how 5% of the population marrying each other is going
ot affect that vision of theres, god only knows because I can't work out
how it will be affected.
Hey Matty,
Perhaps they are looking for similar things. However, many see different
routes to achieving those goals. Let's not forget that not everyone is a
parent or wants to be.
For example, why should I pay for someone else's children's education
through taxes? it's their choice to have children and to want them to be
educated chilldren -- shouldn't they pay?
That is a different issue altogether, as a member of society, we all
play out part in paying for each other, the right wing nuts of the world
may hate it, but I would rather live in a society with slightly higher
taxes, but knowing that there isn't going to be the mass amounts of
social problems that exist in the dog-eat-dog society which the United
States has dragged itself down to.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 06:22:51 AM |
|
|
In article <2jt6hsF13cbr6U5@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jsc7pF14h5ljU3@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jq5eoF144givU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
But these are way more important? how is 5% of the population going to
affect the out come of the next generation? what are they going to say,
"the next generation is as thick as two short planks, but at least
they're hate filled bigots! praise the lard!"
Your argument presumes that everyone is the same, or that we all want
the same things.
Most parents are after the same things; good education, health and a job
for the child when they finish school. The ability for their child to
climb the ladder of opportunity. That is what the vast majority of
parents want and how 5% of the population marrying each other is going
ot affect that vision of theres, god only knows because I can't work out
how it will be affected.
Hey Matty,
Perhaps they are looking for similar things. However, many see different
routes to achieving those goals. Let's not forget that not everyone is a
parent or wants to be.
For example, why should I pay for someone else's children's education
through taxes? it's their choice to have children and to want them to be
educated chilldren -- shouldn't they pay?
That is a different issue altogether, as a member of society, we all
play out part in paying for each other,
Hey Matty
I consider it interrelated. For prolife, imposing pregnancy on women
ensure that they will be financially dependent on the state to survive
and to provide a basic measure of existence for their children. It
ensure that women will be less and less likely to achieve any degree of
financial success or education to accomplish any life goals.
The creation of social programs for social problems allows prolife to
continue their agenda. By creating an adoption system, we allow prolife
to goad women into continuing pregnancies they don't want and ensuring
more involvement and resources of government.
For each pregnancy that a prolifer wants to stop, I would prefer a
guarantor status that they will foot the bill. The tactic of
embarrassing, shaming and humiliating women into contuning pregnancy
costs a fortune for the rest of us.
the right wing nuts of the world
may hate it,
I think it's possible to be moderate and look at the situation from a
number of perspectives.
but I would rather live in a society with slightly higher
taxes, but knowing that there isn't going to be the mass amounts of
social problems that exist in the dog-eat-dog society which the United
States has dragged itself down to.
The US does seem to be an extreme case, but then there are also some
generalizations as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 06:46:57 AM |
|
|
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jt6hsF13cbr6U5@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
but I would rather live in a society with slightly higher
taxes, but knowing that there isn't going to be the mass amounts of
social problems that exist in the dog-eat-dog society which the United
States has dragged itself down to.
The US does seem to be an extreme case, but then there are also some
generalizations as well.
True, but it seems that there is a contradiction, there is the praise
for the American "freemarket" by Americans but when the "freemarket"
realise that there is cheaper labour off shore, there is a complete 180
and demand for protectionism. Sorry, you can't have it both ways,
praising the freemarket whilst subsidising farmers is the biggest
example of hipocracy I've seen, and it gets worse at each WTO meet up.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 04:52:49 PM |
|
|
In article <2jt8tnF15bfl2U1@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jt6hsF13cbr6U5@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
but I would rather live in a society with slightly higher
taxes, but knowing that there isn't going to be the mass amounts of
social problems that exist in the dog-eat-dog society which the United
States has dragged itself down to.
The US does seem to be an extreme case, but then there are also some
generalizations as well.
True, but it seems that there is a contradiction, there is the praise
for the American "freemarket" by Americans but when the "freemarket"
realise that there is cheaper labour off shore, there is a complete 180
and demand for protectionism. Sorry, you can't have it both ways,
praising the freemarket whilst subsidising farmers is the biggest
example of hipocracy I've seen, and it gets worse at each WTO meet up.
To begin with, I live in Canada.
You took my point in a different direction -- sorry for not being
clearer. My objection is assuming that others should be responsible for
the individual choices that people and couples make.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 06:58:48 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:22:51 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> posted thusly:
I consider it interrelated. For prolife, imposing pregnancy on women
ensure that they will be financially dependent on the state to survive
and to provide a basic measure of existence for their children. It
ensure that women will be less and less likely to achieve any degree of
financial success or education to accomplish any life goals.
You act like someone came along, tied her down, shoved
a tube in her and forced sperm into her body. She made
the decision to have sex, knowing the consequences. No
one forced pregnancy on her.
The creation of social programs for social problems allows prolife to
continue their agenda.
And what is wrong with an agenda that is pro life? By
definition, since you oppose it, you are pro death.
By creating an adoption system, we allow prolife
to goad women into continuing pregnancies they don't want and ensuring
more involvement and resources of government.
Now it is wrong to want the child to live and be
adopted?
For each pregnancy that a prolifer wants to stop, I would prefer a
guarantor status that they will foot the bill. The tactic of
embarrassing, shaming and humiliating women into contuning pregnancy
costs a fortune for the rest of us.
Right. She has sex, gets pregnant and because she has
to face up to it, someone else should pay the bill.
Yea, that makes sense. NOT!
the right wing nuts of the world
may hate it,
I think it's possible to be moderate and look at the situation from a
number of perspectives.
No you don't and you just proved that.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
WARNING: Exposure to the Son may prevent burning!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 07:38:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:58:48 -0400 in alt.atheism, Pastor Dave
(Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:22:51 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> posted thusly:
I consider it interrelated. For prolife, imposing pregnancy on women
ensure that they will be financially dependent on the state to survive
and to provide a basic measure of existence for their children. It
ensure that women will be less and less likely to achieve any degree of
financial success or education to accomplish any life goals.
You act like someone came along, tied her down, shoved
a tube in her and forced sperm into her body. She made
the decision to have sex, knowing the consequences. No
one forced pregnancy on her.
The creation of social programs for social problems allows prolife to
continue their agenda.
And what is wrong with an agenda that is pro life? By
definition, since you oppose it, you are pro death.
By creating an adoption system, we allow prolife
to goad women into continuing pregnancies they don't want and ensuring
more involvement and resources of government.
Now it is wrong to want the child to live and be
adopted?
For each pregnancy that a prolifer wants to stop, I would prefer a
guarantor status that they will foot the bill. The tactic of
embarrassing, shaming and humiliating women into contuning pregnancy
costs a fortune for the rest of us.
Right. She has sex, gets pregnant and because she has
to face up to it, someone else should pay the bill.
Yea, that makes sense. NOT!
Tangential issue.
Suppose an "unmarried mother to be" is carrying an unborn that suffers
from some kind of disease or genetic defect that can be cured, but it
would cost, say, half a million dollars to do so. If no medical
intervention is made, then the unborn will die in utero, or, shortly
after birth.
She has no chance of paying that, or ever being able to pay it. It's
an impossible sum for most people, particularly when you're expected
to pull it out of you wallet on demand.
Do you think the state, or some other kind of body (if so, what kind
of body), should without exception step in and pay the money in order
to preserve the life of the unborn?
Would, for example, you be prepared to pay marginally higher taxes in
order to make that possible?
I'd be interested to know what you think about that kind of case,
should, which I doubt, you find yourself able to address it.
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 05:04:17 PM |
|
|
In article <vurid01tlt6kr11c5b7dgd5juns1usbk3d@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:22:51 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> posted thusly:
I consider it interrelated. For prolife, imposing pregnancy on women
ensure that they will be financially dependent on the state to survive
and to provide a basic measure of existence for their children. It
ensure that women will be less and less likely to achieve any degree of
financial success or education to accomplish any life goals.
You act like someone came along, tied her down, shoved
a tube in her and forced sperm into her body. She made
the decision to have sex, knowing the consequences. No
one forced pregnancy on her.
How does that opinion change my point above?
The creation of social programs for social problems allows prolife to
continue their agenda.
And what is wrong with an agenda that is pro life? By
definition, since you oppose it, you are pro death.
Actually, I'm anti-poverty. Forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancy
only perpetuates the problem.
By creating an adoption system, we allow prolife
to goad women into continuing pregnancies they don't want and ensuring
more involvement and resources of government.
Now it is wrong to want the child to live and be
adopted?
Who said anything about right or wrong?
I merely made an observation on the ramifications of adoption.
For each pregnancy that a prolifer wants to stop, I would prefer a
guarantor status that they will foot the bill. The tactic of
embarrassing, shaming and humiliating women into contuning pregnancy
costs a fortune for the rest of us.
Right. She has sex, gets pregnant and because she has
to face up to it, someone else should pay the bill.
Yea, that makes sense. NOT!
$300 is far cheaper than 200,00 is social services and programs.
the right wing nuts of the world
may hate it,
I think it's possible to be moderate and look at the situation from a
number of perspectives.
No you don't and you just proved that.
Really? And where did you get the idea that adoption was okay. People
giving away their children? Is that what you promote?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 08:02:50 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:58:48 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
The creation of social programs for social problems allows prolife to
continue their agenda.
And what is wrong with an agenda that is pro life? By
definition, since you oppose it, you are pro death.
A zygote or a fetus are NOT alive, so they can't die.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 06:53:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:37:28 +1000, Matty
<kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> posted thusly:
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jq5eoF144givU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
But these are way more important? how is 5% of the population going to
affect the out come of the next generation? what are they going to say,
"the next generation is as thick as two short planks, but at least
they're hate filled bigots! praise the lard!"
Your argument presumes that everyone is the same, or that we all want
the same things.
Most parents are after the same things; good education, health and a job
for the child when they finish school. The ability for their child to
climb the ladder of opportunity. That is what the vast majority of
parents want and how 5% of the population marrying each other is going
ot affect that vision of theres, god only knows because I can't work out
how it will be affected.
With all that's going on with this subject, you can't
see how 5% affects the population?
Homosexuals pushing for hate crime status, for any
crime against them.
Homosexuals trying to make gay marriage legal
Homosexuals are trying to get the same status as
male/female couples when it comes to adoption.
Kids are being taught in schools that having two
parents of the same sex is normal.
Custody battles are being fought in courts, over a
child who can only possibly be the natural child of one
of the homosexuals.
Kids are being taught in schools that homosexual acts
are "normal" and should be accepted.
We've got more teens experimenting with both sexes now,
because they're taught that it's "normal".
Etc., etc., etc., etc..
And you can't see how 5% can affect the population?
Even within the scope of education, it affects the
population and it already has. you marry them and then
see what happens. Some of the above items will have to
be laws and schools will have no choice but to teach
that a homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexual
couple and the teaching about homosexuality being
"normal" will be required learning and adoption laws,
etc., all will have to follow suit. THAT is how "5%
can affect the population".
There is more taught in schools, than "the three R's".
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"When we descend to details we can prove that no one
species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a
single species has changed): nor can we prove that
the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why
some species have changed and others have not.
The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult
to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
23 Jun 2004 08:14:48 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:53:37 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:37:28 +1000, Matty
<kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> posted thusly:
Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
In article <2jq5eoF144givU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
But these are way more important? how is 5% of the population going to
affect the out come of the next generation? what are they going to say,
"the next generation is as thick as two short planks, but at least
they're hate filled bigots! praise the lard!"
Your argument presumes that everyone is the same, or that we all want
the same things.
Most parents are after the same things; good education, health and a job
for the child when they finish school. The ability for their child to
climb the ladder of opportunity. That is what the vast majority of
parents want and how 5% of the population marrying each other is going
ot affect that vision of theres, god only knows because I can't work out
how it will be affected.
With all that's going on with this subject, you can't
see how 5% affects the population?
Homosexuals pushing for hate crime status, for any
crime against them.
Any crime that occurs against a person based solely on a group that person
belongs to should be a hate crime. That would include beating up someone
soley for being a christian or firebombing a church.
Homosexuals trying to make gay marriage legal
You can't use your religious laws as an argument against same-sex marriages in
a SECULAR society, and other than religious objections, there really aren't
any reasons they shouldn't get married.
Homosexuals are trying to get the same status as
male/female couples when it comes to adoption.
You'd rather have a child spend 18 years in a failed foster care system than
be raised by a loving couple. And you call yourself a "christian".
Kids are being taught in schools that having two
parents of the same sex is normal.
In some families it IS normal. It's better to have TWO loving parents
awaiting a child when he/she gets home from school than one overworked single
mother who's still at work.
Custody battles are being fought in courts, over a
child who can only possibly be the natural child of one
of the homosexuals.
What's your point? It's the EXACT same situation when one of the original
parents remarries someone of the opposite sex and fights for custody.
Kids are being taught in schools that homosexual acts
are "normal" and should be accepted.
"Accepted" is not the same thing as "practiced". Kids are also taught that
Blacks and Jews and American Indians and all the other minorities are "normal"
and should be accepted.
It's called teaching TOLERANCE, something you don't seem to be familiar with.
We've got more teens experimenting with both sexes now,
because they're taught that it's "normal".
Were in the hell do you get your "facts"? focus on the family?
Etc., etc., etc., etc..
And you can't see how 5% can affect the population?
Even within the scope of education, it affects the
population and it already has. you marry them and then
see what happens. Some of the above items will have to
be laws and schools will have no choice but to teach
that a homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexual
couple and the teaching about homosexuality being
"normal" will be required learning and adoption laws,
etc., all will have to follow suit. THAT is how "5%
can affect the population".
Oh, you mean like a very few caused a groundswell back in the early 1960's
that Blacks should be treated equally?
There were you kind back then, and they LOST. Bigots always shrivel up under
a rock when exposed to the light of truth long enough.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 08:48:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:19:39 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <mBLBc.7652$zS7.2128@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
Hmm, I hate that I'm defending them, but we all have the issues that we
think are important.
How being gay, or being married would in anyway affect Bob, Hairy, or
anyone else's family is still up for debate.
I know who you are. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 08:54:37 PM |
|
|
In article <bu3fd0t6juslt6umos65lcfjv7ocu352lt@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:19:39 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <mBLBc.7652$zS7.2128@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
Hmm, I hate that I'm defending them, but we all have the issues that we
think are important.
How being gay, or being married would in anyway affect Bob, Hairy, or
anyone else's family is still up for debate.
I know who you are. ;-)
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, he might not!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wolf" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 08:33:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:05:22 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
All they really care about is bashing queers, replacing the US Constitution
with the Bible, and turning everyone into a conservative bible-thumping
fundamentalist christian.
Ugh. Hate-filled Christians make my skin crawl . . .
Really. And how do hate filled liberals affect your skin???
Liberalism today is the politics of hate. Just look at anything put
out by John Kerry, moveon.org or democratunderground. You people are
seething with hate - but you dont recognize it because - in your view
- everyone that doesnt agree with you is wrong. ***** you *****.
You're just another lying little liberal piece of *****.
Regards,
snipped...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
21 Jun 2004 10:33:16 PM |
|
|
Charlie Wolf wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:05:22 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
All they really care about is bashing queers, replacing the US Constitution
with the Bible, and turning everyone into a conservative bible-thumping
fundamentalist christian.
Ugh. Hate-filled Christians make my skin crawl . . .
Really. And how do hate filled liberals affect your skin???
Liberalism today is the politics of hate. Just look at anything put
out by John Kerry, moveon.org or democratunderground. You people are
seething with hate - but you dont recognize it because - in your view
- everyone that doesnt agree with you is wrong. ***** you *****.
You're just another lying little liberal piece of *****.
Regards,
snipped...
Well, other than conservatives, who went first with the spewing of bile
and venom, who do "liberals" hate? The liberals haven't blacklisted
anyone, unlike you guys during the McCarthy era. Liberals never backed
the Klan, unlike the Council of Conservative Citizens. Look at your own
posting. Sometimes kneejerk liberal types annoy the ***** out of me, I
must admit, but frothing reactionaries with no reasoned arguments such
as yourself ***** me off more, more often.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: June 21 2004 Rantings from the Family Research Council |
22 Jun 2004 09:06:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:33:10 GMT, Charlie Wolf <cwolf@cpo.usn.ret> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:05:22 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here's the latest . . .
Strange how since marriage-minded gays make up less than 1% of the US
population, these folks spend 2/3rds of their time fighting gay marriage,
and the rest on liberal-bashing. Never do get around to problems
affecting most families, like divorce, poverty, inadequate schools,
addictions, child abandonment, orphans, and other stuff that REALLY makes a
difference.
All they really care about is bashing queers, replacing the US Constitution
with the Bible, and turning everyone into a conservative bible-thumping
fundamentalist christian.
Ugh. Hate-filled Christians make my skin crawl . . .
Really. And how do hate filled liberals affect your skin???
Liberalism today is the politics of hate. Just look at anything put
out by John Kerry, moveon.org or democratunderground. You people are
seething with hate -
I just looked around 'moveon.org'. I didn't read everything, obviously, but I
scanned what I could looking for the seething hate that you mentioned. I saw
plenty against Bush, but it's a political web site... I didn't see any
seething hate. Could you please give me an example on www.moveon.org that is
the seething hate you're speaking of?
Thanks.
but you dont recognize it because - in your view
- everyone that doesnt agree with you is wrong. ***** you *****.
You're just another lying little liberal piece of *****.
And you? People who disagree with you might still be correct, or are they
also 'wrong'?
The only seething hate I see here is your post.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
