| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kathy" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2004 09:37:51 AM |
| Object: |
New definition for second marriage |
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 12:27:33 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:04:13 -0700, Carol T wrote:
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff) wrote in message news:<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com>...
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
What you gain on this earth you will leave on this earth as a shadow
of yourself in the children of tomorrow.
Please do the world a favour Carol, don't breed. The world doesn't need
more polution of the gene pool.
[snip drooling idiocy]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
08 Jul 2004 04:51:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:08:18 -0700 in episode
<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff):
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message
news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
And why does *that one need money all the time?
Always with the begging that Yahweh...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
09 Jul 2004 09:15:26 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.08.21.51.09.397756@lid_email.no>...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:08:18 -0700 in episode
<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff):
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message
news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
And why does *that one need money all the time?
Always with the begging that Yahweh...
Reminds me of my niece's christening when they came around with the
basket TWICE. My husband was like "What the f?!" Needless to say, we
"politely" ignored them.
BTW, Newsranger kicked the bucket. I dislike using google.
Suggestions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
09 Jul 2004 06:43:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:15:26 -0700 in episode
<9a0e6d0.0407090615.4d5050c7@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff):
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.07.08.21.51.09.397756@lid_email.no>...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:08:18 -0700 in episode
<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff):
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message
news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
And why does *that one need money all the time?
Always with the begging that Yahweh...
Reminds me of my niece's christening when they came around with the basket
TWICE. My husband was like "What the f?!" Needless to say, we "politely"
ignored them.
BTW, Newsranger kicked the bucket. I dislike using google. Suggestions?
Is that your Usenet provider? There's a couple I know are decent:
Supernews - http://www.supernews.com/
I used to have them (though through my upstream provider). Was happy with
them.
Giganews - http://www.giganews.com/
They're the one my upstream folks moved to. Seems to have a longer
retention than Supernews (476,006 messages in alt.atheism... urk!). Also
seems a bit faster (multiple connections I think).
Both of those are paid. I don't know their rates for an individual account.
Now, go read your email and I'll tell you a secret. <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 12:25:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:15:26 -0700, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.08.21.51.09.397756@lid_email.no>...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:08:18 -0700 in episode
<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff):
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message
news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
And why does *that one need money all the time?
Always with the begging that Yahweh...
Reminds me of my niece's christening when they came around with the
basket TWICE. My husband was like "What the f?!" Needless to say, we
"politely" ignored them.
BTW, Newsranger kicked the bucket. I dislike using google.
Suggestions?
Teranews.com They're honest. There is a one-time $3 charge on your
credit card, no spam results, and, iirc, the free account (the $3 fee is
charged, iirc, by their bank to check and make sure it is a valid card).
The reason for the CC is use as a age verification mechanism as the
newsgroups are unrestricted, which includes binaries. IIRC total
upload/download in a 24 hour period is 50 megs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 09:09:52 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.07.16.05.25.24.439089@localhost.localdomain>, stoney
says...
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:15:26 -0700, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.08.21.51.09.397756@lid_email.no>...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:08:18 -0700 in episode
<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff):
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message
news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
And why does *that one need money all the time?
Always with the begging that Yahweh...
Reminds me of my niece's christening when they came around with the
basket TWICE. My husband was like "What the f?!" Needless to say, we
"politely" ignored them.
BTW, Newsranger kicked the bucket. I dislike using google.
Suggestions?
Teranews.com They're honest. There is a one-time $3 charge on your
credit card, no spam results, and, iirc, the free account (the $3 fee is
charged, iirc, by their bank to check and make sure it is a valid card).
The reason for the CC is use as a age verification mechanism as the
newsgroups are unrestricted, which includes binaries. IIRC total
upload/download in a 24 hour period is 50 megs.
Thanks for the info. As you can see, Newsranger actually came back, but they're
going to be gone for good as of August 31st.
--------------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 05:32:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:09:52 +0000, Robibnikoff wrote:
In article <pan.2004.07.16.05.25.24.439089@localhost.localdomain>, stoney
says...
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:15:26 -0700, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.08.21.51.09.397756@lid_email.no>...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:08:18 -0700 in episode
<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff):
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message
news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
And why does *that one need money all the time?
Always with the begging that Yahweh...
Reminds me of my niece's christening when they came around with the
basket TWICE. My husband was like "What the f?!" Needless to say, we
"politely" ignored them.
BTW, Newsranger kicked the bucket. I dislike using google.
Suggestions?
Teranews.com They're honest. There is a one-time $3 charge on your
credit card, no spam results, and, iirc, the free account (the $3 fee is
charged, iirc, by their bank to check and make sure it is a valid card).
The reason for the CC is use as a age verification mechanism as the
newsgroups are unrestricted, which includes binaries. IIRC total
upload/download in a 24 hour period is 50 megs.
Thanks for the info. As you can see, Newsranger actually came back, but they're
going to be gone for good as of August 31st.
You're more than welcome, Robyn. NR going bankrupt?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
08 Jul 2004 07:39:52 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:08:18 -0700 in episode
<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff):
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message
news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
And why does *that one need money all the time?
Always with the begging that Yahweh...
Naw, Yahweh can't beg, since it doesn't exist!
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
alt.atheism
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 12:11:36 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:08:18 -0700, Robibnikoff wrote:
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
Omni-insecurity and cowardice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
08 Jul 2004 04:50:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:26:14 -0700 in episode
<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T):
I told her that God already knows what she would do and that maybe she
wouldn't keep her promise
So this god guy wants to be sure he gets his cut eh?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 12:28:50 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:50:44 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:26:14 -0700 in episode
<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T):
I told her that God already knows what she would do and that maybe she
wouldn't keep her promise
So this god guy wants to be sure he gets his cut eh?
Well, the imaginary faerie *is* advertised as the "GodFather."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
19 Jul 2004 07:18:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:26:14 -0700, Carol T wrote:
Michael Moore <m.moore@NOSPAMutoronto.ca> wrote in message news:<dwpFc.91275$Ax1.1291881@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Hmmm. Let him express his love by sending some lottery
winnings my way. I'll be waiting.<<<<<<<<<<<<
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Fictional characters can't do 'jack *****,' Carol.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
03 Jul 2004 08:04:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 23:14:24 -0400, Michael Moore <m.moore@NOSPAMutoronto.ca> wrote:
duke wrote:
Why do you hate God so? All he wants is to share his love with you. What makes you so
resentful of that?
Hmmm. Let him express his love by sending some lottery
winnings my way. I'll be waiting.
Not his style.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
03 Jul 2004 03:37:58 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:blbde0delbo9bpc1ot0smi8llc3gh6guj3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 23:14:24 -0400, Michael Moore
<m.moore@NOSPAMutoronto.ca> wrote:
duke wrote:
Why do you hate God so? All he wants is to share his love with you.
What makes you so
resentful of that?
Hmmm. Let him express his love by sending some lottery
winnings my way. I'll be waiting.
Not his style.
No, 'Gods' idea of love is slaughter on a massive scale.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
04 Jul 2004 06:22:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:37:58 +0100, "Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Hmmm. Let him express his love by sending some lottery
winnings my way. I'll be waiting.
Not his style.
No, 'Gods' idea of love is slaughter on a massive scale.
God didn't do that.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
04 Jul 2004 09:12:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:22:07 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:37:58 +0100, "Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Hmmm. Let him express his love by sending some lottery
winnings my way. I'll be waiting.
Not his style.
No, 'Gods' idea of love is slaughter on a massive scale.
God didn't do that.
So the flood story is false and he did not cause the entire population
of the world, with the exception of Noah's family, to be killed.
Thanks for admitting to the falseness of yet another bible story.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
05 Jul 2004 08:10:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:12:18 -0400, AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote:
No, 'Gods' idea of love is slaughter on a massive scale.
God didn't do that.
So the flood story is false and he did not cause the entire population
of the world, with the exception of Noah's family, to be killed.
Thanks for admitting to the falseness of yet another bible story.
No one knows if it is literally true or not.
But that's not the point. The real lesson being made is that God will not evil take over
the world, for the story of the flood is one of mankind being the source of all evil in
the world and God ending the problem.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
05 Jul 2004 09:46:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 08:10:40 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:12:18 -0400, AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote:
No, 'Gods' idea of love is slaughter on a massive scale.
God didn't do that.
So the flood story is false and he did not cause the entire population
of the world, with the exception of Noah's family, to be killed.
Thanks for admitting to the falseness of yet another bible story.
No one knows if it is literally true or not.
So the story is false, thanks for admitting that.
But that's not the point. The real lesson being made is that God will not evil take over
the world, for the story of the flood is one of mankind being the source of all evil in
the world and God ending the problem.
So, you admit that 'gods' idea of love is slaughter on a massive
scale. After all, according to you and your beliefs we all were
'created' by this god thingy.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 07:56:39 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
I've done more than 20 weddings in the last two years. Not a single one of them said anything
about "til death do us part." Most couples wrote their own vows and didn't say anything about
"for better or for worse", either.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 03:09:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:56:39 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
I've done more than 20 weddings in the last two years. Not a single one of them said anything
about "til death do us part." Most couples wrote their own vows and didn't say anything about
"for better or for worse", either.
And unless you are a properly ordained minister, you're not marrying them either. You're
only getting them to sign a civil license. Not a lot of glue there.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
06 Jul 2004 08:09:04 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:56:39 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
I've done more than 20 weddings in the last two years. Not a single one of them said anything
about "til death do us part." Most couples wrote their own vows and didn't say anything about
"for better or for worse", either.
And unless you are a properly ordained minister,
No such thing under US law.
you're not marrying them either.
The laws of Washington and the United States say otherwise.
You're only getting them to sign a civil license.
Which, by legal definition, is all there is and ever has been with marriage.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
06 Jul 2004 10:25:20 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:56:39 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
I've done more than 20 weddings in the last two years. Not a single one of them said anything
about "til death do us part." Most couples wrote their own vows and didn't say anything about
"for better or for worse", either.
And unless you are a properly ordained minister, you're not marrying them either.
My brother, who is not a minister of any sort (he's actually a member
of the OTO) has performed two marriages in California; the first being
for my sister. All he had to do was register with the county as the
offciant.
Oh, and I'm an ordained minister. Universal Life Church. According
to the state, I can perform weddings!
You're only getting them to sign a civil license.
Which is all we really care about, moron. My wedding was performed by
a family friend who used a Native American-influenced ceremony. Just
as legal as if we had a full wedding mass.
--
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: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
06 Jul 2004 10:30:47 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:56:39 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
I've done more than 20 weddings in the last two years. Not a single one of them said anything
about "til death do us part." Most couples wrote their own vows and didn't say anything about
"for better or for worse", either.
And unless you are a properly ordained minister, you're not marrying them either.
My brother, who is not a minister of any sort (he's actually a member
of the OTO) has performed two marriages in California; the first being
for my sister. All he had to do was register with the county as the
offciant.
In my state, Washington, even that is unconstitutional. The state court ruled some years ago that
keeping a list of "official" clergy was a violation of the separation of Church and State.
Oh, and I'm an ordained minister. Universal Life Church. According
to the state, I can perform weddings!
Me too, although I'm working towards becoming credentialed through the Humanist Society.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc VanHeyningen" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 03:29:39 PM |
|
|
Thus said "kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The man whose wife commits adultery can get out; unfaithfulness by the
woman is the one reason why divorce is OK (Matthew 19:9) according to
Jebus.
As for the woman who is beaten, raped and abused by her husband, well, I
guess she's just out of luck. Marital rape and domestic violence have
been generally accepted for most of the times and places that
Christianity has existed, after all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Lowe" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 01:50:03 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
I don't think that was the point, I think it was to turn the table on
republicans and illustrate why their oppinions are so backward and
bigoted :)
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 01:13:07 PM |
|
|
"Dan Lowe" <dan@deletethisbinlaid.com> wrote in message
news:v1ZEc.2607$K%2.526@newsfe2-win...
kathryn wrote:
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and
vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
I don't think that was the point, I think it was to turn the table on
republicans and illustrate why their oppinions are so backward and
bigoted :)
Dan
Ahh would of helped i read the first few sentences ;).
Conservatives are killjoys aren't they.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MrPepper11" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 11:11:43 PM |
|
|
"kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<cc1k7j$so0$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
"Dan Lowe" <dan@deletethisbinlaid.com> wrote in message
news:v1ZEc.2607$K%2.526@newsfe2-win...
kathryn wrote:
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
...
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
I don't think that was the point, I think it was to turn the table on
republicans and illustrate why their oppinions are so backward and
bigoted :)
Dan
Ahh would of helped i read the first few sentences ;).
Conservatives are killjoys aren't they.
No, they are NOT:
Sex pros get ready for party
BY JOSE MARTINEZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, June 28th, 2004
With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer,
high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old
party.
Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet
the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison
Square Garden.
"We have girls from London, Seattle, California, all coming in for
that week," said a madam at a Manhattan escort service. "It's the week
everyone wants to work."
"It's going to be big," agreed one operator at a midtown escort
service...
At the 1996 Republican convention in San Diego, an escort service in
search of delegate dollars changed its name to GOP: Good Old-Fashioned
Pleasure...
Clubs have started booking private parties for delegates anxious to
ogle topless beauties after a day of watching fully clothed
politicians boast about family values.
"We have our show down to a science," said Lonnie Hanover, a spokesman
for Scores, the upscale topless club. "We'll be full every night with
what we think are the best-looking girls in the industry."
Hanover said Scores - which recently opened a branch just blocks from
the Garden - has lined up several big-name entertainers for the
convention. "But we don't reveal them," he said.
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Lowe" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 02:24:04 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
Conservatives are killjoys aren't they.
Yea, at least here in the UK they're not /as bad/ as the American
republicans!
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 02:04:12 PM |
|
|
"Dan Lowe" <dan@deletethisbinlaid.com> wrote in message
news:oxZEc.190$xd6.131@newsfe3-gui...
kathryn wrote:
Conservatives are killjoys aren't they.
Yea, at least here in the UK they're not /as bad/ as the American
republicans!
Dan
Probably cause it's more associated with christianity than capitalism in
America
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solomon Kozanski" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:46:15 AM |
|
|
"kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cc1n7c$nkd$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Dan Lowe" <dan@deletethisbinlaid.com> wrote in message
news:oxZEc.190$xd6.131@newsfe3-gui...
kathryn wrote:
Conservatives are killjoys aren't they.
Yea, at least here in the UK they're not /as bad/ as the American
republicans!
Dan
Probably cause it's more associated with christianity than capitalism in
America
considering that both are such putrid plagues upon this earth, what is the
difference?
--
Keep Jesus OUT of Government and IN Hell where he belongs!
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
