| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 07:35:19 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
:|I am passing along what the Supreme Court said. Many people try to pass off
:|the "marriage is civil right" phrase without including the entire text. What
:|the court said is that "marriage AND procreation" combine to form a
:|fundamental right basic to the survival of the race. Simple logic proves
:|this. Can we survive without marriage? Sure we can. Can we survive without
:|procreation. Not for long. In the days that this decision was taken, society
:|frowned upon unwedded child bearing. Thus, when the Supreme Court decided a
:|number of cases on the basis that "procreation" was fundamental to our
:|survival, they included marriage as a matter of political correctness of the
:|times. When the homosexual community attempts to use a case that claims
:|"marriage is a civil right" as a basis for same sex marriage they are being
:|dishonest. Marriage is a contract between 3 separate entities. A husband, a
:|wife and a state. It is not a right. A person can give up a right, such as
:|"you have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right", without
:|government accompaniment. No one can give up a legal marriage without
:|government accompaniment. They have to get court approval to disolve the
:|marriage. Even if it was a common law marriage, if there is property or
:|children involved.
What formal training have you had in law?
Do you know the meaning of Issues, Facts, Holding, Held, Ruled, Ruling,
Dicta?
Let's look at some important things:
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
[Holding]
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on
the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78, reversed.
*****************************************************************************
SOME MORE INFO:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/214/
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/love.shtml
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/lov.shtml
Loving v. Virginia
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Loving%20v.%20Virginia
What Chief Justice Warren said
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate
all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. At
the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
the "most rigid scrutiny", and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be
shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state
objective, independent of the racial discrimination which was the object of
the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court
have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative
purpose...which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his
conduct is a criminal offense."
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
*********************************************************************************
The Marriage Cases
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1707576
f a law doesn't infringe on a fundamental rights or involve a "suspect
class", it can still be challenged as totally arbitrary and unreasonable.
As long as the government can advance a "rational basis" for a law, it
survives the test. The reason doesn't have to be based on evidence or
facts, it just has to make sense. In effect, the judge says, "Give me one
good reason why the government needs this law" and if a lawyer can make up
a good reason off the top of his head, then the law stands. Here Judge
Kramer's opinion rests on solid United States Supreme Court precedent. The
Supreme Court has thrown out a Colorado law which abolished local civil
rights laws protecting homosexuals (equal access to housing, employment,
etc.) using the "rational basis test". Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Also, the Supreme Court has recognized that sexual activity between
consenting adults is a protected exercise of "liberty", and struck down
Texas' sodomy laws. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). Technically,
Lawrence was a Due Process case, not an Equal Protection case, and the
Court stated that its holding did not extend to the issue of same-sex
marriage. Lawrence does foreclose, however, the easiest "rational basis"
argument the government could have made here: that sodomy is a crime and
prohibiting same-sex marriage helps fight crime.
Now that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, opponents of same-sex marriage
are struggling to find a rationale for their position which will stand up
in a court of law. "The Bible says so" is not a very effective legal
argument, especially in this case, where the Bible says no such thing. The
government, pointing out that California law already extends many of the
legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples, tried to make a case
that California was not discriminating against homosexuals, but asserted
that the government had an interest in reserving the term "marriage" for
couples who can procreate. Citing language in some 19th century California
cases, the government argued that it had a legitimate purpose in defining
"marriage" to include only couples who can procreate. Judge Kramer
dispensed with this argument by pointing out that opposite sex couples who
either cannot or do not want children are allowed to marry in California.
In California, the judge observed, "One does not have to be married in
order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married."
Moreover, Judge Kramer noted, the fact that same-sex couples enjoyed all
the benefits of marriage under California law, except the dignity of the
name of "marriage", suggests that there was no legitimate government
purpose for the law depriving them of that dignity. Tradition isn't enough,
when entire classes are being denied fundamental rights for no reason other
than tradition.
Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately stepped up to microphones to
call the decision "ludicrous", "mind-boggling", "activist", and "judicial
tyranny". Talking heads on the television announced in grave tones that the
decision "was certain to be appealed", suggesting there was something wrong
with it. In fact, while the decision will be appealed, it will be affirmed.
In light of controlling precedent from the United States Supreme Court and
similar California State Supreme Court rulings, it does not appear to me
that Judge Kramer (who is decribed to be a Catholic and Republican in his
personal life) had much choice in ruling the way he did, nor will the
California Supreme Court.
Judge Kramer's decision was expressly based on the Constitution of the
State of California. This has led some same-sex marriage opponents to
announce that they will seek to amend the state constitution. State
constitutions are easier to amend than the federal Constitution. Two bills
are pending before the California Legislature that would put a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot,
and if the passage of Proposition 22 (one of the laws defining marriage in
California as between a man and a woman) is any indication, such an
amendment could succeed. State constitutional amendments prohibiting
same-sex marriage passed last year in a dozen states.
Amendments to state constitutions will not help in the inevitable battle at
the federal level. The cases cited by Judge Kramer —United States Supreme
Court decisions based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution— show that his decision was compelled by the United States
Constitution. Thus, opponents of same-sex marriage will have to muster
better arguments to persuade the United States Supreme Court, or gather
together the super-majority (3/4) of state legislatures necessary to amend
the United States Constitution, if they expect to prevail in the end. A
dozen "red states" are not enough to amend the federal Constitution.
In the Supreme Court, the only plausible argument I can think of would be
something based on the New Federalism: the notion that some areas of law
are for the States to decide. Granted, this would sound a lot like the
"States Rights" arguments which were shot down in flames during the civil
rights movement. "States Rights" might be more acceptable to the Court now,
if it were limited to marriage and domestic relations laws, which in the
United States have always been the prerogative of state legislatures to
define and regulate, and which vary considerably from state to state. This
would require, however, some fancy legal footwork to distinguish Loving v.
Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas, and I don't give it a
snowball's chance in Hell. If the commentary on this case from the
Religious Right is any indication, they will certainly fail to persuade the
necessary supermajority of the American people. As Lincoln said, "You can
fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the
time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Sterilization, Eugenics, and Privacy
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_SkinnerOK.htm
Significance
In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the acts of marriage and
procreation were fundamental rights of all people, even though the
Constitution does not specifically list them as such. Thus, a private
sphere of conduct between individuals was being recognized.
*******************************************************************************************
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause,
though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the
foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which
involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to
sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating
effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are
inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no
redemption for the individual whom the law touches.
***********************************************************************************
Marriage and precreation does not mean procreation is required. It does
not mean even a potential for precreation is required.
It is absurb for you to imply or suggest otherwise. If they were so tests
would have to be made upon application fopr a marriage lic to ensure both
persons were capable of producing childern. They would have to swear they
wantd children and were going to try and have children.
Anyone who was infertile, or did not want to produce children would be,
based on your your position, denied the right to marry
How stupid your position is when actually looked at.
SUMMING UP
The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal
decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,
procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, family relationships,
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, child rearing and education, Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and contraception, see, e.g., Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, and have recognized the right of the
individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters
so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or
beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453. Roe's central
holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents.
Pp. 846-853.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PERSONAL DECISIONS RELATING TO MARRIAGE:
LOVING v VIRGINIA, PROCREATION: SKINNER v OKLAHOMA
Marriage is a fundamental right, precreation is a fundamenetal right.
However, unliKe what you are trying to sell, precreation is not a required
standard for marriage.
Check out Griswold v Connecticut.
************************************************************************
http://www.bpf.org/html/resources_and_links/statements/pdfs/samesexmarriage.pdf
Here are a few facts to consider:
• In 1967, when interracial marriage was legalized, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man [sic],
fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
• Civil marriage offers 1,049 federal protections and benefits. Hundreds
more are offered by every state. These include rights that cover medical
emergencies, taxes, financial issues, inheritance, burial decisions,
adoption, family law, employment benefits, immigration, Social Security,
housing, and veterans’ benefits.
• In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, and the first state-sanctioned same-sex
marriages began on May 17, 2004.
• Some cities and states offer domestic partnership benefits, Vermont
offers civil unions, and Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries.” However,
these forms of partnership fall short of civil marriage, offering only a
handful of state rights and responsibilities, which are not transferable to
another state, and no federal rights. • Same-gender couples already legally
marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. The U.S. does not recognize
these marriages within the U.S.
• If ratified, the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting
same-sex marriage would be the only constitutional amendment in history,
with the exception of Prohibition (which was repealed), to reduce civil
rights. Every other constitutional amendment has expanded civil rights.
• State-sanctioned marriage would not require any religious organization to
perform or recognize any marriage. No legislative enactment will change the
tenets of any religious faith. In the spirit of freedom, justice, civil
rights, and equal protection under the law for all human beings, the
Buddhist Peace Fellowship supports civil marriage for samegender couples
who choose to marry and to share fully and equally in the rights and
responsibilities of marriage. We oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment to
prohibit the basic civil right of marriage for same-gender couples.
*******************************************************************************
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833,851
(1992)
The following is how Justice Ling-Cohan follows up on the above point:
Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond
question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right toprivacy,
extend to protect marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long
recognized the fundamental importance of marriage. As early as 1888, in
Maynard v. Hill (125 US 190, 205, 211 [1888]), the Supreme Court stated
that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be
neither civilization nor progress.”
In 1923, the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923),
recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up
children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process
Clause. Nineteen years later, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US at 541 (1942),
it described marriage as “fundamental to the very existence and survival of
the race.” In 1967, the Loving Court recognized marriage as a fundamental
right under the Constitution, striking down the state’s antimiscegenation
statute: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men... Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to
our very existence and survival.” 388 US at 12 (quoting Skinner, supraat
541).
One decade later, in Zablocki v. Redhail, (434 US at 384 [1978]), the Court
reaffirmed its holding in Loving, stating that “[a]lthough Loving arose in
the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of
this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for
all individuals.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted that marriage is
a: “right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our
political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming
together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to a
degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life,
not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty,
not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a
purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Griswold v. Conn., 381 US at 486 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court has
“long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Bd of Ed v. LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974); see also Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (quoting Griswold, supra).
As stated by the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to
define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of
the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the
attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Lawrence v.Texas, 539 US 558, 574 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US at 851). The Court further
emphasized that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
As other States have also observed, the right to marry "is not a privilege
conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against
unwarranted State interference." Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,
440 Mass at 345, 798 NE2d at 970 (Greaney, J. concurring). "[I]t is a
fundamental right of free men." Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal 2d at 714, 198 P2d
at 19.
The second aspect of the fundamental right to marry, which is what this
action concerns, is the right to choose whom one marries. The right to
choose one's spouse "resides with the individual." See Loving, 388 US at 12
(freedom to marry embraces the choice to select a partner across racial
lines which cannot be infringed by State);Perez, 32 Cal 2d 711, supra
(same); Goodridge, 440 Mass 309, supra (freedom to marry person of same
sex). "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to
marry the person of one's choice..." Goodridge, 440 Mass at 227, 798 NE2d
at 958. See also Perez, 32 Cal 2d at 715, 198 P2d at 19 ("right to marry is
the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"); Brause v.
Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743*6 (Alaska Super)(deciding whom to
marry is a fundamental right, whether decision results in traditional or
nontraditional choice), superseded by Alaska Const Art 1, § 25 (effective
Jan. 3, 1999) (providing that a valid marriage "may exist only between one
man and one woman").
Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil
marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such
exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to
marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere
with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to
“rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by
sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate
only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388.
There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry:
Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York,
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather
Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the
state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose
one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S.
Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay
couples the right to marry.
.
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 09:39:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:13:23 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:tcck81t6g17rbhvqghkjplkbeqetve9hq9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:55:23 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3euln2F517riU1@individual.net...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:O%lie.320673$A81.314495@fe08.news.easynews.com...
What would make you think anyone is interested in meaningful
dialogue?
My
purpose is simply to point out that God said the homosexual act is an
abomination and those that engage in it will surely be killed. Thus,
AIDS
has come among us to destroy sinners.
I think God is gay.
You never see him with a girlfriend, do you?
Always hanging out with the guys too.
Jesus was gay as well.
All that 'love thy brother' stuff - it was just a front.
All that retribution on gays too, it's obvious isn't it?
Pent up latent homosexuality, that's what it is.
Maybe one day you will get the opportunity to discuss your theory face to
face with him.
And maybe onl;y 7 of his twelve boyfriends will be in attendance, the
other five being out with hangovers from the previous night's orgy,
because you didn't serve the good hooch.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
People like you are a gift from God. You make his existance that much more
believable because his word tells us there will be many like you.
So let me get this straight... In your way of thinking, people who
don't believe in YOUR God© are even more evidence that your God©
exists? Interesting line of "logic" you have there....
You are
just another example of his word coming true.
His Word© predicts that some people won't believe in Him©?? Oh my!
He© must be the True God© if He© can predict things like THAT!
Just as is AIDS and Tsounamis
and earthquakes and famines and all the worldly things we encounter. It is
those of us that understand these things that will find favor with God
TRANSLATION: No true believer in the Christian God have EVER died of
AIDS or natural disasters.
ROFLMAO
while
those like you will suffer the most and be killed by God.
So how come I am at such peace in my life? Why am I and my
like-minded friends content and happy, even though we all realize
that, in the end, we die.... and that that death is forever?
Deep down in your
heart you know you are worried about your life and what might become of you.
We ALL think about our lives and what we shall become in our lives.
Some of us worry about the afterlife, be it heaven, valhalla, or the
eternal nothingness, while others are satisfied with the idea that
death is the end and what we do during LIFE is what matters.
You can deny that til you are straight but you are only kidding yourself.
Homosexuals are as much sinners as you are, for surely YOU SIN in
accordence with your holy laws, do you not?
Let me ask you this:
Are you a SINNER when you enter your church without your head covered?
I ask because in MANY religions this makes you a sinner.... so are
you officially 'sinning' if you don't believe in that religion?
Now... what if people don't believe in YOUR religion? Do they break
your religious laws (sin) when they stay true to their own spiritual
paths?
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
19 May 2005 03:06:32 PM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
I think God is gay.
You never see him with a girlfriend, do you?
Always hanging out with the guys too.
Jesus was gay as well.
All that 'love thy brother' stuff - it was just a front.
All that retribution on gays too, it's obvious isn't it?
Pent up latent homosexuality, that's what it is.
Maybe one day you will get the opportunity to discuss your theory face to
face with him.
And maybe onl;y 7 of his twelve boyfriends will be in attendance, the
other five being out with hangovers from the previous night's orgy,
because you didn't serve the good hooch.
People like you are a gift from God. You make his existance that much more
believable because his word tells us there will be many like you. You are
just another example of his word coming true. Just as is AIDS and Tsounamis
and earthquakes and famines and all the worldly things we encounter. It is
those of us that understand these things that will find favor with God while
those like you will suffer the most and be killed by God. Deep down in your
heart you know you are worried about your life and what might become of you.
You can deny that til you are straight but you are only kidding yourself.
My, my, they treat you like a troll, don't they.
You'll have to start plonkin' everybody again.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 01:25:40 PM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in message
news:O%lie.320673$A81.314495@fe08.news.easynews.com...
What would make you think anyone is interested in meaningful dialogue? My
purpose is simply to point out that God said the homosexual act is an
abomination and those that engage in it will surely be killed. Thus, AIDS
has come among us to destroy sinners.
I think God is gay.
You never see him with a girlfriend, do you?
Always hanging out with the guys too.
Jesus was gay as well.
All that 'love thy brother' stuff - it was just a front.
All that retribution on gays too, it's obvious isn't it?
Pent up latent homosexuality, that's what it is.
He's also a communisitic hippy. Duke agrees. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 08:57:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:06:54 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
What would make you think anyone is interested in meaningful dialogue? My
purpose is simply to point out that God said the homosexual act is an
abomination and those that engage in it will surely be killed. Thus, AIDS
has come among us to destroy sinners. Of course, you playing a doctor on the
internet, you can prove that not the case, right?
Considering that the vast majority of AIDS sufferers world-wide are
heterosexual... I think the point has been made. HIV doesn't care if
you're straight, gay, or neuter.. just that you have an immune system
it can attack.
Ever hear of the Black Death? Killed somewhere between a third and
half of Europe's population in the 14th Century. Entire villages were
wiped out, cities depopulated, no one was safe. The priests claimed
it was God's judgement.
It wasn't. It was a disease called the Bubonic Plague, caused by a
bacteria named Yersinia pestis. The bacteria was carried by fleas who
lived on rats. Amusingly, one of the things that the religious
fanatics of the 14th century proposed to appease God was the killing
of all the cats (since they were the Devil's pet, y'know.) This
allowed the rats more freedom to breed, and speeded up the rate of
infection.
Today, we still get about a dozen cases of Bubonic Plague here in the
United States. It's easily treated with a quick visit to the
hospital. Modern medicine took out the "wrath of God." It will do
the same to AIDS.
--
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: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 09:14:03 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:4itj81t3i0bvkf6gbsgoaehfdq5ktpqtg9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:06:54 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
What would make you think anyone is interested in meaningful dialogue? My
purpose is simply to point out that God said the homosexual act is an
abomination and those that engage in it will surely be killed. Thus, AIDS
has come among us to destroy sinners. Of course, you playing a doctor on
the
internet, you can prove that not the case, right?
Considering that the vast majority of AIDS sufferers world-wide are
heterosexual... I think the point has been made. HIV doesn't care if
you're straight, gay, or neuter.. just that you have an immune system
it can attack.
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin? No, you can't. So, let's do away with your next
assertion that will probably be about God taking some innocent child. You
being an aethiest you probably have never read the bible so there is no way
you could know that God will take children away from parents that are
sinners. Taking a child from an evil world and bringing them into the
kingdom of heaven is not a punishment for the child but only the sinning
parents. God has an answer for everything.
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a God, I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not one,
what have I lost?
--
If our creator would have wanted us to embrace
same sex marriage, we would have all been born
the same gender.
The Lord is my Shepherd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 11:54:30 AM |
|
|
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in message
news:L_mie.233842$mx4.92879@fe02.news.easynews.com...
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a God, I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not
one,
what have I lost?
Everything, if you're worshipping the wrong God.
So tell me, how do you know you've picked the right one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 12:53:40 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eulu6F53232U1@individual.net...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:L_mie.233842$mx4.92879@fe02.news.easynews.com...
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a God,
I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not
one,
what have I lost?
Everything, if you're worshipping the wrong God.
So tell me, how do you know you've picked the right one?
Oh, that's the secret mystery of life and being a believer.
--
If our creator would have wanted us to embrace
same sex marriage, we would have all been born
the same gender.
The Lord is my Shepherd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 03:21:05 PM |
|
|
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in message
news:Dcqie.239384$mx4.186168@fe02.news.easynews.com...
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eulu6F53232U1@individual.net...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:L_mie.233842$mx4.92879@fe02.news.easynews.com...
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a God,
I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not
one,
what have I lost?
Everything, if you're worshipping the wrong God.
So tell me, how do you know you've picked the right one?
Oh, that's the secret mystery of life and being a believer.
Avoiding the question?
I see, you mean you don't know.
Is this the first time you've relised the logical fallacy of Pascal's Wager?
Why don't you share your big secret with us, or are you just pretending you
have one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 04:41:07 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ev21gF53ts2U1@individual.net...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message news:Dcqie.239384$mx4.186168@fe02.news.easynews.com...
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eulu6F53232U1@individual.net...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:L_mie.233842$mx4.92879@fe02.news.easynews.com...
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a
God,
I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not
one,
what have I lost?
Everything, if you're worshipping the wrong God.
So tell me, how do you know you've picked the right one?
Oh, that's the secret mystery of life and being a believer.
Avoiding the question?
I see, you mean you don't know.
Is this the first time you've relised the logical fallacy of Pascal's
Wager?
Why don't you share your big secret with us, or are you just pretending
you have one?
He's got a mouse in his pocket.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 09:45:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:21:05 +0100, "Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in message
news:Dcqie.239384$mx4.186168@fe02.news.easynews.com...
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eulu6F53232U1@individual.net...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:L_mie.233842$mx4.92879@fe02.news.easynews.com...
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a God,
I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not
one,
what have I lost?
Everything, if you're worshipping the wrong God.
So tell me, how do you know you've picked the right one?
Oh, that's the secret mystery of life and being a believer.
Avoiding the question?
I see, you mean you don't know.
Is this the first time you've relised the logical fallacy of Pascal's Wager?
Why don't you share your big secret with us, or are you just pretending you
have one?
It's just like the "secret evidence" that the Bush administration had
before their pre-emptive war... but in this case, the 'secret
evidence' vanishes upon death.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 01:32:28 PM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:t5lm81l54jdmnpqjo56rr2q3ta5qbqg33u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:21:05 +0100, "Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:Dcqie.239384$mx4.186168@fe02.news.easynews.com...
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eulu6F53232U1@individual.net...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:L_mie.233842$mx4.92879@fe02.news.easynews.com...
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a
God,
I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is
not
one,
what have I lost?
Everything, if you're worshipping the wrong God.
So tell me, how do you know you've picked the right one?
Oh, that's the secret mystery of life and being a believer.
Avoiding the question?
I see, you mean you don't know.
Is this the first time you've realised the logical fallacy of Pascal's
Wager?
Why don't you share your big secret with us, or are you just pretending
you
have one?
It's just like the "secret evidence" that the Bush administration had
before their pre-emptive war... but in this case, the 'secret
evidence' vanishes upon death.
James, Seattle
TLIMS hasn't even tried to answer this one.
Just another lightweight invisible sky pixie fan without a clue about what
he's saying.
Hang on a minute - I think I get it.
He leaves us with the idea that he's got a big secret about God and will
share it with us, then disappears and waits for us to chase him up to find
out what it was.
Nice technique, but unfortunately, failed this time.
Sorry, TLIMS, that might work on a few dumbasses but not on normal, sane,
rational people.
Have you noticed that is what the religiion pushers tend to do with their
marks?
I believe the Church of $cientology are experts at it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 01:43:04 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f1g1tF5hcn7U1@individual.net...
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:t5lm81l54jdmnpqjo56rr2q3ta5qbqg33u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:21:05 +0100, "Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:Dcqie.239384$mx4.186168@fe02.news.easynews.com...
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eulu6F53232U1@individual.net...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:L_mie.233842$mx4.92879@fe02.news.easynews.com...
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a
God,
I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is
not
one,
what have I lost?
Everything, if you're worshipping the wrong God.
So tell me, how do you know you've picked the right one?
Oh, that's the secret mystery of life and being a believer.
Avoiding the question?
I see, you mean you don't know.
Is this the first time you've realised the logical fallacy of Pascal's
Wager?
Why don't you share your big secret with us, or are you just pretending
you
have one?
It's just like the "secret evidence" that the Bush administration had
before their pre-emptive war... but in this case, the 'secret
evidence' vanishes upon death.
James, Seattle
TLIMS hasn't even tried to answer this one.
Just another lightweight invisible sky pixie fan without a clue about what
he's saying.
Hang on a minute - I think I get it.
He leaves us with the idea that he's got a big secret about God and will
share it with us, then disappears and waits for us to chase him up to find
out what it was.
Nice technique, but unfortunately, failed this time.
Sorry, TLIMS, that might work on a few dumbasses but not on normal, sane,
rational people.
Have you noticed that is what the religiion pushers tend to do with their
marks?
I believe the Church of $cientology are experts at it.
Wow, take a few days off to go fishing and you guys get lead around by the
nose by some religious type. He has y'all doing back flips trying to justify
your behavior. Psychologists will tell you that is not a good sign.
--
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people." ---10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States
Maverick
www.thelibertycommittee.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
19 May 2005 11:47:01 AM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
Oh, that's the secret mystery of life and being a believer.
Avoiding the question?
I see, you mean you don't know.
Is this the first time you've relised the logical fallacy of Pascal's Wager?
Why don't you share your big secret with us, or are you just pretending you
have one?
Careful, if you get too serious, you'll get plunked.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 03:11:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Considering that the vast majority of AIDS sufferers world-wide are
heterosexual... I think the point has been made. HIV doesn't care if
you're straight, gay, or neuter.. just that you have an immune system
it can attack.
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners.
Then he picked a *****-poor method. HIV is hard to catch, and takes
years to kill. A good flu epidemic would be far more effective.
Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin? No, you can't.
Can you prove they were? See, in the real world the person making the
claim has to provide proof. I can prove that HIV exists. There is
mountains of evidence to support the existence of the virus.
So, let's do away with your next
assertion that will probably be about God taking some innocent child. You
being an aethiest you probably have never read the bible
Wrong. I own the Bible, several different translations, in three
different languages. I've taken college courses on the Bible as
history and literature.
so there is no way
you could know that God will take children away from parents that are
sinners. Taking a child from an evil world and bringing them into the
kingdom of heaven is not a punishment for the child but only the sinning
parents. God has an answer for everything.
No, you people make excuses for anything.
Q: "If AIDS is a punishment for sin, what sin did an infant or person
who got it from a transfusion commit?"
A: "Goddidit!"
So, what sins did Ryan White commit? Or his parents? Be specific.
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a God, I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not one,
what have I lost?
Most of your forebrain.
What if the Norse were right? Know what worshipping a false god gets
you in that religion? Eternity in freezing darkness, all alone. Are
you willing to face that? The Fore' of New Guinea believe that those
who do not honor their ancestral spirits are torn apart by crocodiles
and eaten by ants, only to be reborn each day to suffer anew. Are you
ready to face that fate?
There are tens of thousands of religions on Earth. Your bet is that
yours is the only right one. Mine is that they are all silly
superstistions.
And I'm not getting a coffin. On my death my body will be donated to
Stanford University Medical School for use in a class. Even in death,
my life will have meaning. If for some reason, my remains are not
sutable for the school, I'm to be cremated and my ashes sprinkled over
the homefield of the San Francisco Giants.
--
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: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 05:03:35 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:2gjk819urr1sp73ge5usu66eh23r59bodu@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Considering that the vast majority of AIDS sufferers world-wide are
heterosexual... I think the point has been made. HIV doesn't care if
you're straight, gay, or neuter.. just that you have an immune system
it can attack.
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners.
Then he picked a *****-poor method. HIV is hard to catch, and takes
years to kill. A good flu epidemic would be far more effective.
Well, that's something you should take up with him, not me.
Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin? No, you can't.
Can you prove they were? See, in the real world the person making the
claim has to provide proof. I can prove that HIV exists. There is
mountains of evidence to support the existence of the virus.
I didn't make a claim. I said "maybe" to which you added more confirmation
that you homosexuals have the mental capacity of an amoeba and leave out the
words that you don't understand.
So, let's do away with your next
assertion that will probably be about God taking some innocent child. You
being an aethiest you probably have never read the bible
Wrong. I own the Bible, several different translations, in three
different languages. I've taken college courses on the Bible as
history and literature.
so there is no way
you could know that God will take children away from parents that are
sinners. Taking a child from an evil world and bringing them into the
kingdom of heaven is not a punishment for the child but only the sinning
parents. God has an answer for everything.
No, you people make excuses for anything.
Q: "If AIDS is a punishment for sin, what sin did an infant or person
who got it from a transfusion commit?"
A: "Goddidit!"
So, what sins did Ryan White commit? Or his parents? Be specific.
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a God, I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not
one,
what have I lost?
Most of your forebrain.
What if the Norse were right? Know what worshipping a false god gets
you in that religion? Eternity in freezing darkness, all alone. Are
you willing to face that? The Fore' of New Guinea believe that those
who do not honor their ancestral spirits are torn apart by crocodiles
and eaten by ants, only to be reborn each day to suffer anew. Are you
ready to face that fate?
There are tens of thousands of religions on Earth. Your bet is that
yours is the only right one. Mine is that they are all silly
superstistions.
And I'm not getting a coffin. On my death my body will be donated to
Stanford University Medical School for use in a class.
To teach homosexuality I suppose.
--
If our creator would have wanted us to embrace
same sex marriage, we would have all been born
the same gender.
The Lord is my Shepherd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 06:16:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 22:03:35 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:2gjk819urr1sp73ge5usu66eh23r59bodu@4ax.com...
Then he picked a *****-poor method. HIV is hard to catch, and takes
years to kill. A good flu epidemic would be far more effective.
Well, that's something you should take up with him, not me.
I don't talk to imaginary beings. I leave that to small children and
the insane.
Can you prove they were? See, in the real world the person making the
claim has to provide proof. I can prove that HIV exists. There is
mountains of evidence to support the existence of the virus.
I didn't make a claim. I said "maybe" to which you added more confirmation
that you homosexuals have the mental capacity of an amoeba and leave out the
words that you don't understand.
Boy, clean out your eyes. I'm not gay. Not interested in same-sex
relationships. Sorry to disappoint you.
Wrong. I own the Bible, several different translations, in three
different languages. I've taken college courses on the Bible as
history and literature.
No reply.
So, what sins did Ryan White commit? Or his parents? Be specific.
No reply
What if the Norse were right? Know what worshipping a false god gets
you in that religion? Eternity in freezing darkness, all alone. Are
you willing to face that? The Fore' of New Guinea believe that those
who do not honor their ancestral spirits are torn apart by crocodiles
and eaten by ants, only to be reborn each day to suffer anew. Are you
ready to face that fate?
No reply?
And I'm not getting a coffin. On my death my body will be donated to
Stanford University Medical School for use in a class.
To teach homosexuality I suppose.
No, basic anatomy.. something the religious freaks opposed for
centuries.
--
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: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 09:49:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:11:53 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
I applaud your bravado though. But, if you're wrong and there is a God, I
sure wouldn't want to be in your coffin. If I'm wrong and there is not one,
what have I lost?
Most of your forebrain.
What if the Norse were right? Know what worshipping a false god gets
you in that religion? Eternity in freezing darkness, all alone. Are
you willing to face that? The Fore' of New Guinea believe that those
who do not honor their ancestral spirits are torn apart by crocodiles
and eaten by ants, only to be reborn each day to suffer anew. Are you
ready to face that fate?
There are tens of thousands of religions on Earth. Your bet is that
yours is the only right one. Mine is that they are all silly
superstistions.
And I'm not getting a coffin. On my death my body will be donated to
Stanford University Medical School for use in a class. Even in death,
my life will have meaning. If for some reason, my remains are not
sutable for the school, I'm to be cremated and my ashes sprinkled over
the homefield of the San Francisco Giants.
So THAT explains why that field looks so damn good..... dead fans!
james, seattle (but NOT a seahawk fan)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch, YWN" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 11:15:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 11:25:39 AM |
|
|
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:q06k815me75dges0erqi59q86e0ppm4upo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
Perhaps this lord is my shepard jerkoff can explain what sins Ryan White
committed to be infected with and die from AIDS. Or babies that are born
with it.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 12:52:26 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3euk82F52runU1@individual.net...
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:q06k815me75dges0erqi59q86e0ppm4upo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by
AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
Perhaps this lord is my shepard jerkoff can explain what sins Ryan White
committed to be infected with and die from AIDS. Or babies that are born
with it.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
Awww. You wouldn't believe me. Just read the bible. Especially the part
about "sins of the Father" and it will be made very clear to you.
--
If our creator would have wanted us to embrace
same sex marriage, we would have all been born
the same gender.
The Lord is my Shepherd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bard Kesnit" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 04:58:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:52:26 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3euk82F52runU1@individual.net...
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:q06k815me75dges0erqi59q86e0ppm4upo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by
AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
Perhaps this lord is my shepard jerkoff can explain what sins Ryan White
committed to be infected with and die from AIDS. Or babies that are born
with it.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
Awww. You wouldn't believe me. Just read the bible. Especially the part
about "sins of the Father" and it will be made very clear to you.
How can you worship a God who would punish innocent children?
Bard Kesnit
----------------------------
"Lifebonding is a rare and sacred thing, and should be treated with
reverence."
- Unnamed priest "Magic's Price"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 02:38:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:58:46 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Bard
Kesnit <vtcheme@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
| On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:52:26 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
| <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
| >news:3euk82F52runU1@individual.net...
| >>
| >> "Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
| >> news:q06k815me75dges0erqi59q86e0ppm4upo@4ax.com...
| >> > On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
| >> > <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
| >> >
| >> > >So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
| >> > >sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by
| >AIDS
| >> > >did not commit a sin?
| >> >
| >> > Easy enough.
| >> > Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
| >> > that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
| >> > that your punk-***** god exists.
| >>
| >> Perhaps this lord is my shepard jerkoff can explain what sins Ryan White
| >> committed to be infected with and die from AIDS. Or babies that are born
| >> with it.
| >> --
| >> ------
| >> Robyn
| >> Resident Witchypoo
| >> #1557
| >> Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
| >
| >
| >Awww. You wouldn't believe me. Just read the bible. Especially the part
| >about "sins of the Father" and it will be made very clear to you.
|
| How can you worship a God who would punish innocent children?
Oh the fuckwit has already answered that question....
gawd isn't punishing the innocent children but the parents of the
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch, YWN" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 11:49:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:25:39 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:q06k815me75dges0erqi59q86e0ppm4upo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
Perhaps this lord is my shepard jerkoff can explain what sins Ryan White
committed to be infected with and die from AIDS. Or babies that are born
with it.
Perhaps he'll accept that the green pills aren't just for breakfast
anymore, too.
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 01:18:25 PM |
|
|
Bonnie *****, YWN wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
The problem with plonking, it seems, is that it doesn't stop others from
responding to the plonkee and, in turn, me seeing what the plonkee has
to say. :-)
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Gesundheit!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch, AKD" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 01:26:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:18:25 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Bonnie *****, YWN wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
The problem with plonking, it seems, is that it doesn't stop others from
responding to the plonkee and, in turn, me seeing what the plonkee has
to say. :-)
Yeah, I get that on another group I read.
I do two things to counter that:
1. After plonking the offensive assloaf, I look at the thread. If
there's a bunch of posts in a row from the same person, I'm fairly
certain that they're engaged in some verbal sparring with the
aforementioned offensive assloaf. Then I can choose to either ignore
the posts completely, or open the post scroll to the bottom, and see
that poster's witty and devastating comeback, without having to read
the aforementioned offensive assloaf's screed.
2. I don't *****, *****, OR MOAN about having to see what any of the
aforementioned offending assloaves have written, no matter how many
emoticons I want to STICK at the end of my BITCHING, PISSING, and
MOANING.
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Gesundheit!
Danke schšn.
Aber hab' nicht geniezt.
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 02:01:32 PM |
|
|
Bonnie *****, AKD wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:18:25 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Bonnie *****, YWN wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
The problem with plonking, it seems, is that it doesn't stop others from
responding to the plonkee and, in turn, me seeing what the plonkee has
to say. :-)
Yeah, I get that on another group I read.
I do two things to counter that:
1. After plonking the offensive assloaf, I look at the thread. If
there's a bunch of posts in a row from the same person, I'm fairly
certain that they're engaged in some verbal sparring with the
aforementioned offensive assloaf. Then I can choose to either ignore
the posts completely, or open the post scroll to the bottom, and see
that poster's witty and devastating comeback, without having to read
the aforementioned offensive assloaf's screed.
2. I don't *****, *****, OR MOAN about having to see what any of the
aforementioned offending assloaves have written, no matter how many
emoticons I want to STICK at the end of my BITCHING, PISSING, and
MOANING.
Sorry, but I wasn't bitching, pissing, or moaning. I was making a joke.
Hence the emoticon.
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Gesundheit!
Danke schön.
Aber hab' nicht geniezt.
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Do you have proof as to Tlahuizcalpantecuhtili's existence? *smile*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 01:13:53 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 19:01:32 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Bonnie *****, AKD wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:18:25 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Bonnie *****, YWN wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:03 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So, maybe God saw how well it worked that he decided to use it on ALL
sinners. Now, can you prove to me that those that have been taken by AIDS
did not commit a sin?
Easy enough.
Your god is a minor smear of a skid mark in the great big toilet bowl
that is your life, provided you have some tangible, testable proof
that your punk-***** god exists.
The problem with plonking, it seems, is that it doesn't stop others from
responding to the plonkee and, in turn, me seeing what the plonkee has
to say. :-)
Yeah, I get that on another group I read.
I do two things to counter that:
1. After plonking the offensive assloaf, I look at the thread. If
there's a bunch of posts in a row from the same person, I'm fairly
certain that they're engaged in some verbal sparring with the
aforementioned offensive assloaf. Then I can choose to either ignore
the posts completely, or open the post scroll to the bottom, and see
that poster's witty and devastating comeback, without having to read
the aforementioned offensive assloaf's screed.
2. I don't *****, *****, OR MOAN about having to see what any of the
aforementioned offending assloaves have written, no matter how many
emoticons I want to STICK at the end of my BITCHING, PISSING, and
MOANING.
Sorry, but I wasn't bitching, pissing, or moaning. I was making a joke.
Hence the emoticon.
Did I say you were bitching, pissing, or moaning? :))
No, I did not. :)
Very telling that you took it that way, though. :)
However, since we're on the subject -- :)
Read it again. I very seriously and strongly recommend the above
advice about skimming. <big ole grin, double heart, huge hug, stop
humping my leg>
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Gesundheit!
Danke schšn.
Aber hab' nicht geniezt.
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Do you have proof as to Tlahuizcalpantecuhtili's existence? *smile*
Oh, yeah, scads of it.
-- I live near three active volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest.
-- The nickname for the Pacific NW is "Tlahuizcalpantecuht | | | | | | | |
