| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Apr 2006 10:43:19 PM |
| Object: |
Push for national gay-marriage ban |
How much more needs to be done to get the crazed LLL (Looney Liberal
Lemmings) to understand; Americans do not want same-sex marriage. Whatever
arguments can be made in favor of creating this right do not supercede the
fact that Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion. Imposing the will of a
few against the wishes of the masses amounts to no more than totalitarian
government; and afterall, isn't that what you 'liberals' so firmly oppose?
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/9139
WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- Roman Catholic leaders and evangelical
Protestants, joined by other religious groups, are pushing to amend the U.S.
Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
As a kickoff, the group signed a petition in support of an amendment, The
New York Times reported. Those who added their names included seven Catholic
cardinals, a number of archbishops, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis and at least
one official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
One Catholic group -- the Knights of Columbus -- plans to distribute 10
million postcards at Catholic churches for congregants to send to their
congressional representatives.
"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater
this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the lay
Catholic group.
In 2004, proposed amendments to state constitutions on homosexual marriage
helped bring out conservative voters and may have contributed to President
George W. Bush's victory over Sen.. John Kerry.
But some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue
has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed,
compared to 63 percent in 2004.
--
----------
J Young
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
26 Apr 2006 07:15:19 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On 25 Apr 2006 14:01:08 -0700, "Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com>
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
If by "reproduction" you mean simply "having sex", then you are right on
the money.
It involves children too. ;)
You mean like the one my lesbian friend just had? Artificial
insemination is a wondrous thing.
That doesn't offend me in the least. Should it? :)
No, but it should shame you or at least get your brain cells going.
People do not necessarily get married specifically to have children.
Infertile people get married, older people get married. People in love
get married with or without thinking of kids. Aside from which, the fact
that some people consider marriage a joyless breeding rite in no way
affects those who don't, and is a nonissue.
Merried or married-- I hate homophony words. Get wed is a better usage.
And your "lesbian" is merely given to many male chauvanist bi-homos,
the ultimate act of heterosexual spite. The only thing shameful about
it is your contempt of heterosexual wedding contracts. There is
absolutely no reason for you to support male homosexual marriages.
Nor is there any reason to oppose them.
There is absolutely no reason for a male to trust a male homo, so it is
completely evident no cares about their "right to adopt."
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
26 Apr 2006 07:41:45 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 25 Apr 2006 14:01:08 -0700, "Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com>
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
If by "reproduction" you mean simply "having sex", then you are right on
the money.
It involves children too. ;)
You mean like the one my lesbian friend just had? Artificial
insemination is a wondrous thing.
That doesn't offend me in the least. Should it? :)
No, but it should shame you or at least get your brain cells going.
People do not necessarily get married specifically to have children.
Infertile people get married, older people get married. People in love
get married with or without thinking of kids. Aside from which, the fact
that some people consider marriage a joyless breeding rite in no way
affects those who don't, and is a nonissue.
Merried or married-- I hate homophony words. Get wed is a better usage.
And your "lesbian" is merely given to many male chauvanist bi-homos,
the ultimate act of heterosexual spite. The only thing shameful about
it is your contempt of heterosexual wedding contracts. There is
absolutely no reason for you to support male homosexual marriages.
Nor is there any reason to oppose them.
There is absolutely no reason for a male to trust a male homo,
Kinda like there's no reason for a woman (or girl) to trust a male hetero?
so it is
completely evident no cares about their "right to adopt."
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
I'M THE DECIDER
(Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when ***** shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...
Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong
I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
26 Apr 2006 08:14:30 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
26 Apr 2006 02:31:03 PM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
Your point was 1)that marriage was for procreation and 2) gays couldn't
procreate, therefore 3) gays shouldn't marry, so I pointed out the flaw
(one of many) in your reasoning. And you still haven't answered my
question: should older or infertile couples marry since they can't
procreate?
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
I'M THE DECIDER
(Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when ***** shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...
Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong
I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 05:51:35 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
Your point was 1)that marriage was for procreation and 2) gays couldn't
procreate, therefore 3) gays shouldn't marry, so I pointed out the flaw
(one of many) in your reasoning. And you still haven't answered my
question: should older or infertile couples marry since they can't
procreate?
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 08:52:49 AM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
Your point was 1)that marriage was for procreation and 2) gays couldn't
procreate, therefore 3) gays shouldn't marry, so I pointed out the flaw
(one of many) in your reasoning. And you still haven't answered my
question: should older or infertile couples marry since they can't
procreate?
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
Obviously you didn't understand its purpose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 10:36:25 AM |
|
|
"Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com> writes:
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
Your point was 1)that marriage was for procreation and 2) gays couldn't
procreate, therefore 3) gays shouldn't marry, so I pointed out the flaw
(one of many) in your reasoning. And you still haven't answered my
question: should older or infertile couples marry since they can't
procreate?
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
Obviously you didn't understand its purpose.
Obviously, you've more than a little trouble dealing with reality.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Peoria 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Opponent/time TBD (Game 1)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 09:10:25 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
Your point was 1)that marriage was for procreation and 2) gays couldn't
procreate, therefore 3) gays shouldn't marry, so I pointed out the flaw
(one of many) in your reasoning. And you still haven't answered my
question: should older or infertile couples marry since they can't
procreate?
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
Obviously you didn't understand its purpose.
....and you still haven't answered my question: should older or infertile
couples marry since they can't procreate?
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
I'M THE DECIDER
(Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when ***** shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...
Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong
I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 05:05:19 PM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
<snip>
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
No its not... the point of the dowry is to compensate the family for
loosing some of their property - a daughter.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 05:48:17 PM |
|
|
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Fooj wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
<snip>
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
No its not... the point of the dowry is to compensate the family for
loosing some of their property - a daughter.
<snip>
Unlikely, since a dowry was paid by the brides family. It was more of
a bribe to the groom's family.
Mark Sebree
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 11:29:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:05:19 -0400, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com>
Fooj wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
<snip>
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
No its not... the point of the dowry is to compensate the family for
loosing some of their property - a daughter.
But isn't a dowry what the daughter's family pays the groom's family
to take her?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick J." |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 04:47:11 PM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
Your point was 1)that marriage was for procreation and 2) gays couldn't
procreate, therefore 3) gays shouldn't marry, so I pointed out the flaw
(one of many) in your reasoning. And you still haven't answered my
question: should older or infertile couples marry since they can't
procreate?
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
Obviously you didn't understand its purpose.
Dowry doesn't apply to marriage anymore. Get your head out of the
Stone Age.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 06:20:15 PM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2006 14:47:11 -0700, "Nick J." <NICK0094@hotmail.com> wrote:
Fooj wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
Your point was 1)that marriage was for procreation and 2) gays couldn't
procreate, therefore 3) gays shouldn't marry, so I pointed out the flaw
(one of many) in your reasoning. And you still haven't answered my
question: should older or infertile couples marry since they can't
procreate?
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
Obviously you didn't understand its purpose.
Dowry doesn't apply to marriage anymore. Get your head out of the
Stone Age.
He'll need to get it out of his ***** first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 08:07:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:20:15 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 14:47:11 -0700, "Nick J." <NICK0094@hotmail.com> wrote:
Fooj wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOadnUjHocg1V9LZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Quite a few people do, actually. Your opinion does not a law make.
Nor does yours. What is your point really, since you didn't have one
about artificial insemination?
Your point was 1)that marriage was for procreation and 2) gays couldn't
procreate, therefore 3) gays shouldn't marry, so I pointed out the flaw
(one of many) in your reasoning. And you still haven't answered my
question: should older or infertile couples marry since they can't
procreate?
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
and if it's an older couple who will pay the dowry for the woman eh?
The point of an expensive dowry is to mitigate young male lust.
Obviously you didn't understand its purpose.
Dowry doesn't apply to marriage anymore. Get your head out of the
Stone Age.
He'll need to get it out of his ***** first.
John Baker knows about such things. He never could get his head out of
his ***** and had to have a window implanted in his abdomen. He still
has a shitty outlook on life, but his personal appearance is somewhat
better...well 'more entertaining' would be the proper description.
Right, John?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
26 Apr 2006 08:42:10 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 25 Apr 2006 14:01:08 -0700, "Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com>
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
If by "reproduction" you mean simply "having sex", then you are right on
the money.
It involves children too. ;)
You mean like the one my lesbian friend just had? Artificial
insemination is a wondrous thing.
That doesn't offend me in the least. Should it? :)
No, but it should shame you or at least get your brain cells going.
People do not necessarily get married specifically to have children.
Infertile people get married, older people get married. People in love
get married with or without thinking of kids. Aside from which, the fact
that some people consider marriage a joyless breeding rite in no way
affects those who don't, and is a nonissue.
Merried or married-- I hate homophony words. Get wed is a better usage.
And your "lesbian" is merely given to many male chauvanist bi-homos,
the ultimate act of heterosexual spite. The only thing shameful about
it is your contempt of heterosexual wedding contracts. There is
absolutely no reason for you to support male homosexual marriages.
Nor is there any reason to oppose them.
There is absolutely no reason for a male to trust a male homo, so it is
completely evident no cares about their "right to adopt."
I am a straight male and I trust "male homos" as much as I trust "male
heteros".
Tell me. How many "male homos" are you exposed to on a daily basis?
How many of them hit on you?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 08:42:08 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
So, you can't reproduce unless you get married?
But, please, cite evidence that leads you to assume that they get
married "to reproduce" and not, in fact "because they're in love."
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 08:47:30 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
So, you can't reproduce unless you get married?
But, please, cite evidence that leads you to assume that they get
married "to reproduce" and not, in fact "because they're in love."
The average birth rate within the US is decreasing. Why do they bother
with the statistic if this weren't so?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 08:58:47 AM |
|
|
"Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145972850.807016.248030@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other
heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
So, you can't reproduce unless you get married?
But, please, cite evidence that leads you to assume that they get
married "to reproduce" and not, in fact "because they're in love."
The average birth rate within the US is decreasing. Why do they bother
with the statistic if this weren't so?
Wouldn't that be evidence that people don't get married to simply reproduce?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 09:05:51 AM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145972850.807016.248030@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other
heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
So, you can't reproduce unless you get married?
But, please, cite evidence that leads you to assume that they get
married "to reproduce" and not, in fact "because they're in love."
The average birth rate within the US is decreasing. Why do they bother
with the statistic if this weren't so?
Wouldn't that be evidence that people don't get married to simply reproduce?
I didn't say people were always that ethical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 09:48:47 AM |
|
|
"Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145973951.449541.228340@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kathryn wrote:
"Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145972850.807016.248030@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other
heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
So, you can't reproduce unless you get married?
But, please, cite evidence that leads you to assume that they get
married "to reproduce" and not, in fact "because they're in love."
The average birth rate within the US is decreasing. Why do they bother
with the statistic if this weren't so?
Wouldn't that be evidence that people don't get married to simply
reproduce?
I didn't say people were always that ethical.
What do ethics have to do with it?
It's only ethical to get married to reproduce?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 08:48:30 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
So, you can't reproduce unless you get married?
But, please, cite evidence that leads you to assume that they get
married "to reproduce" and not, in fact "because they're in love."
The average birth rate within the US is decreasing. Why do they bother
with the statistic if this weren't so?
That is not evidence. Try again.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 09:03:25 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
So, you can't reproduce unless you get married?
But, please, cite evidence that leads you to assume that they get
married "to reproduce" and not, in fact "because they're in love."
The average birth rate within the US is decreasing. Why do they bother
with the statistic if this weren't so?
That is not evidence. Try again.
I can't help it, if you are so stupid then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 09:07:41 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
That's not it. Try again.
Most people get married for that purpose whether you like it or not.
So, you can't reproduce unless you get married?
But, please, cite evidence that leads you to assume that they get
married "to reproduce" and not, in fact "because they're in love."
The average birth rate within the US is decreasing. Why do they bother
with the statistic if this weren't so?
That is not evidence. Try again.
I can't help it, if you are so stupid then.
Please try to keep focused. Ad hominem is a useless diversion.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 09:53:17 PM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
Reproduction does *not* require marriage... try again!
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 09:56:20 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Fooj wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
For the same reasons that heterosexuals get married.
To reproduce?
Nope. Try reading my post again. I gave a link to a lot of court
cases that explained the discrimination that homosexual couples face
because they cannot get married, and I gave a list of reason that I
have seen in court cases.
I know couples that have no interest in having any children, and their
marriage is still valid. I have a great-uncle that got remarried at 85
(first wife of over 50 years passed away a few years previously.) Do
you really think that he got married to reproduce? I even know couples
where the woman is sterile and physically incapable of having children.
All of their marriages are just as valid as a 20 year old man and woman
that gets married and plans to raise a large family. Therefore,
reproduction is not a sole or even primary reason why couples get
married, and there is nothing that requires married couples to
reproduce. Couples that do not or cannot reproduce are not forbidden
from marrying nor are their marriages annulled.
Therefore, in light of the available evidence, your answer is wrong.
Try again.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 08:04:24 PM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
Why is same-sex marriage even necessary?
Why is marriage necessary?
Perpetuation of the species? That doesn't require marriage.
Promotion of morality? That doesn't require marriage.
Protection of religious belief? <guffaw> America is quite Christian, yet
the Bible -- indeed the most respected Apostle -- says that marriage is
a cheap second, a fall back position to those of insufficient faith.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "michael james" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 06:36:48 AM |
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
How much more needs to be done to get the crazed LLL (Looney Liberal
Lemmings) to understand; Americans do not want same-sex marriage. Whatever
arguments can be made in favor of creating this right do not supercede the
fact that Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion. Imposing the will of a
few against the wishes of the masses amounts to no more than totalitarian
government; and afterall, isn't that what you 'liberals' so firmly oppose?
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/9139
WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- Roman Catholic leaders and evangelical
Protestants, joined by other religious groups, are pushing to amend the U.S.
Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
As a kickoff, the group signed a petition in support of an amendment, The
New York Times reported. Those who added their names included seven Catholic
cardinals, a number of archbishops, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis and at least
one official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
One Catholic group -- the Knights of Columbus -- plans to distribute 10
million postcards at Catholic churches for congregants to send to their
congressional representatives.
"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater
this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the lay
Catholic group.
In 2004, proposed amendments to state constitutions on homosexual marriage
helped bring out conservative voters and may have contributed to President
George W. Bush's victory over Sen.. John Kerry.
But some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue
has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed,
compared to 63 percent in 2004.
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
If gays started their own religion and one of its tenets was the
sacredness of samesex unions,
then any ban on samesex unions would be an act of religious
oppression...which theorectically is against American ideals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 07:37:53 AM |
|
|
"michael james" <michaeljames@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:444E09D0.8080403@videotron.ca...
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
How much more needs to be done to get the crazed LLL (Looney Liberal
Lemmings) to understand; Americans do not want same-sex marriage.
Whatever
arguments can be made in favor of creating this right do not supercede
the
fact that Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion. Imposing the will
of a
few against the wishes of the masses amounts to no more than totalitarian
government; and afterall, isn't that what you 'liberals' so firmly
oppose?
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/9139
WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- Roman Catholic leaders and evangelical
Protestants, joined by other religious groups, are pushing to amend the
U.S.
Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
As a kickoff, the group signed a petition in support of an amendment, The
New York Times reported. Those who added their names included seven
Catholic
cardinals, a number of archbishops, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis and at
least
one official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
One Catholic group -- the Knights of Columbus -- plans to distribute 10
million postcards at Catholic churches for congregants to send to their
congressional representatives.
"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly
greater
this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the lay
Catholic group.
In 2004, proposed amendments to state constitutions on homosexual
marriage
helped bring out conservative voters and may have contributed to
President
George W. Bush's victory over Sen.. John Kerry.
But some political observers say that the public attitude toward the
issue
has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed,
compared to 63 percent in 2004.
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
If gays started their own religion and one of its tenets was the
sacredness of samesex unions,
then any ban on samesex unions would be an act of religious
oppression...which theorectically is against American ideals.
So, why don't they try that instead of bitching at every other religion and
coercing people into accepting their ways that do not approve of their
homosexuality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "newsguy" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 07:51:02 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"michael james" <michaeljames@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:444E09D0.8080403@videotron.ca...
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
If gays started their own religion and one of its tenets was the
sacredness of samesex unions,
then any ban on samesex unions would be an act of religious
oppression...which theorectically is against American ideals.
So, why don't they try that instead of bitching at every other religion and
coercing people into accepting their ways that do not approve of their
homosexuality?
What would be better is if the christians and especially the Pope
would stop lying that there is a sin of homosexuality and that
marriage is only between a man and a woman in the bible.
It is a physical impossibility that the Bible says one word
about homosexuality or mentions an act of homosexuality,
because they had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality
at the time the bible was written.
For a full history of the concept of homosexuality see:
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
The homosexual agenda
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/homosexualagenda/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
25 Apr 2006 08:16:29 AM |
|
|
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145969462.315898.240540@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"michael james" <michaeljames@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:444E09D0.8080403@videotron.ca...
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
Please explain what business it is of yours, or any other
heterosexual,
if homosexuals want to get married.
If gays started their own religion and one of its tenets was the
sacredness of samesex unions,
then any ban on samesex unions would be an act of religious
oppression...which theorectically is against American ideals.
So, why don't they try that instead of bitching at every other religion
and
coercing people into accepting their ways that do not approve of their
homosexuality?
What would be better is if the christians and especially the Pope
would stop lying that there is a sin of homosexuality and that
marriage is only between a man and a woman in the bible.
Not, it wouldn't.
It would be better if you would take your condemanble lies and start your
own gay sect and stop rebelling against the leaders of the denominations
that you disagree with.
You are judged as being in violation of the Church's tenets and its leaders'
instruction.
It is a physical impossibility that the Bible says one word
about homosexuality or mentions an act of homosexuality,
Your ignorance of what the Bible contains is noted.
because they had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality
at the time the bible was written.
Your lies are unbecoming.
For a full history of the concept of homosexuality see:
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
The homosexual agenda
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/homosexualagenda/index.html
None of those are protected religious exercise documents.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
