| 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: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 10:13:57 AM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6d0o2$16r$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <yelie.228819$mx4.219430@fe02.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6b3qh$30i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article<P38ie.282733$A81.76871@fe08.news.easynews.com> "The Lord
is My
Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6b1a8$ppi$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB7ie.445488$4J5.48517@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The
Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com>
"The
Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth
living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with
HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the
bible
you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
You
wouldn't understand that though, I bet. You probably think the
baby
is
being
punished, don't you? You probably think that taking a baby from
the
evils of
earth and bringing them into the kingdom of heaven is a bad
thing,
don't
you. The poor baby won't have a chance to get defiled by some
gay
perverted
pedophile.
Ah, I see.
You must applaud Timothy McVeigh then:
I applaud God's will any way it comes. The loss of those lives, in
case
you
missed it and I'm sure you did, brought about more good than they
probably
ever would had they lived.
Ah. Then if that apparent explosion was actually a shower of
blessings, do you pray daily that God grant us many more such
acts of grace?
I pray TWICE a day that God's will be done.
I find that puzzling. What is the reason for an insignificant
human instructing the ultimate Being in the Universe that
He should do whatever He wants to do?
That's a sure sign of the lack of mental capacity among you homosexuals. You
simply do not know how to comprehend what is being said. For instance, do
you really believe that praying is a form of "instruction"? Give me a break.
Here is the truth of the matter.
Homosexuals are at the forefront of a group of people that do not have the
mental capacity to discern what is a principle and what is a value. A
principle is in essence a natural law such as the law of gravity. Principles
do not change. Principles come from our common sense of right and wrong,
what we know to be true and good because we sense it in the very core of our
being. Homosexuals choose to ignore their common sense and rely on
conventional wisdom of others or things they have learned through
experimentation and observation. Values on the other hand reflect the
conventional wisdoms that are passed on from one generation to the next and
thus may change over time and be different among cultures. Homosexuals are
continuously attempting to define a new set of values that will give them
comfort in believing as they do.
--
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: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 10:28:00 AM |
|
|
In article <VSnie.236010$mx4.83130@fe02.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6d0o2$16r$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <yelie.228819$mx4.219430@fe02.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6b3qh$30i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
{...}
Ah, I see.
You must applaud Timothy McVeigh then:
I applaud God's will any way it comes. The loss of those lives, in
case you missed it and I'm sure you did, brought about more good than they
probably ever would had they lived.
Ah. Then if that apparent explosion was actually a shower of
blessings, do you pray daily that God grant us many more such
acts of grace?
I pray TWICE a day that God's will be done.
I find that puzzling. What is the reason for an insignificant
human instructing the ultimate Being in the Universe that
He should do whatever He wants to do?
That's a sure sign of the lack of mental capacity among you homosexuals. You
simply do not know how to comprehend what is being said. For instance, do
you really believe that praying is a form of "instruction"? Give me a break.
Has this superior intellect of yours, unimpaired by a predilection for
other boys, led you to uncover your unwarranted assumption yet?
Doesn't appear to me to be the case.
Interestingly enough, it also appears insufficient to come up with an
answer to my question, to wit: what is the point of your telling God --
twice a day, no less -- that He should do what He was going to do anyway?
Obviously you could not answer, hence the utterly irrelevant harrangue about
values vs. principles.
Here is the truth of the matter.
Homosexuals are at the forefront of a group of people that do not have the
mental capacity to discern what is a principle and what is a value. A
principle is in essence a natural law such as the law of gravity. Principles
do not change. Principles come from our common sense of right and wrong,
what we know to be true and good because we sense it in the very core of our
being. Homosexuals choose to ignore their common sense and rely on
conventional wisdom of others or things they have learned through
experimentation and observation. Values on the other hand reflect the
conventional wisdoms that are passed on from one generation to the next and
thus may change over time and be different among cultures. Homosexuals are
continuously attempting to define a new set of values that will give them
comfort in believing as they do.
All better now? Good.
Now, are to answer my question about prayer, or am I to get a lecture
on ... eschatology or immancence or the Council of Nicea?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 10:47:44 AM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6d2i0$c0i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <VSnie.236010$mx4.83130@fe02.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6d0o2$16r$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <yelie.228819$mx4.219430@fe02.news.easynews.com> "The Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6b3qh$30i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
{...}
Ah, I see.
You must applaud Timothy McVeigh then:
I applaud God's will any way it comes. The loss of those lives,
in
case you missed it and I'm sure you did, brought about more good
than they
probably ever would had they lived.
Ah. Then if that apparent explosion was actually a shower of
blessings, do you pray daily that God grant us many more such
acts of grace?
I pray TWICE a day that God's will be done.
I find that puzzling. What is the reason for an insignificant
human instructing the ultimate Being in the Universe that
He should do whatever He wants to do?
That's a sure sign of the lack of mental capacity among you homosexuals.
You
simply do not know how to comprehend what is being said. For instance,
do
you really believe that praying is a form of "instruction"? Give me a
break.
Has this superior intellect of yours, unimpaired by a predilection for
other boys, led you to uncover your unwarranted assumption yet?
Doesn't appear to me to be the case.
Interestingly enough, it also appears insufficient to come up with an
answer to my question, to wit: what is the point of your telling God --
twice a day, no less -- that He should do what He was going to do anyway?
Obviously you could not answer, hence the utterly irrelevant harrangue
about
values vs. principles.
Your stupidity is appalling. To think that anyone would believe that praying
is a manner of instructing is sheer ignorance. Ignorance of such a magnitude
as to not belong on my computer.
PLONK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 10:59:59 AM |
|
|
In article <Amoie.325295$A81.274665@fe08.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6d2i0$c0i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <VSnie.236010$mx4.83130@fe02.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6d0o2$16r$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <yelie.228819$mx4.219430@fe02.news.easynews.com> "The Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6b3qh$30i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
{...}
Ah, I see.
You must applaud Timothy McVeigh then:
I applaud God's will any way it comes. The loss of those lives,
in
case you missed it and I'm sure you did, brought about more good
than they
probably ever would had they lived.
Ah. Then if that apparent explosion was actually a shower of
blessings, do you pray daily that God grant us many more such
acts of grace?
I pray TWICE a day that God's will be done.
I find that puzzling. What is the reason for an insignificant
human instructing the ultimate Being in the Universe that
He should do whatever He wants to do?
That's a sure sign of the lack of mental capacity among you homosexuals.
You
simply do not know how to comprehend what is being said. For instance,
do
you really believe that praying is a form of "instruction"? Give me a
break.
Has this superior intellect of yours, unimpaired by a predilection for
other boys, led you to uncover your unwarranted assumption yet?
Doesn't appear to me to be the case.
Interestingly enough, it also appears insufficient to come up with an
answer to my question, to wit: what is the point of your telling God --
twice a day, no less -- that He should do what He was going to do anyway?
Obviously you could not answer, hence the utterly irrelevant harrangue
about
values vs. principles.
Your stupidity is appalling. To think that anyone would believe that praying
is a manner of instructing is sheer ignorance. Ignorance of such a magnitude
as to not belong on my computer.
And yet, you seem curiously unable to tell me what the actual point of
this sort of prayer IS, in spite of repeated cheerful requests that
you do so. Care to give it a try now?
Here, use this space ---->
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
19 May 2005 11:39:32 AM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
Has this superior intellect of yours, unimpaired by a predilection for
other boys, led you to uncover your unwarranted assumption yet?
Doesn't appear to me to be the case.
Interestingly enough, it also appears insufficient to come up with an
answer to my question, to wit: what is the point of your telling God --
twice a day, no less -- that He should do what He was going to do anyway?
Obviously you could not answer, hence the utterly irrelevant harrangue
about
values vs. principles.
Your stupidity is appalling. To think that anyone would believe that praying
is a manner of instructing is sheer ignorance. Ignorance of such a magnitude
as to not belong on my computer.
PLONK
You even sound like Maverick.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
19 May 2005 11:40:38 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <love@kissed.net> wrote in message
news:428CC144.83F31FAB@kissed.net...
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
Has this superior intellect of yours, unimpaired by a predilection for
other boys, led you to uncover your unwarranted assumption yet?
Doesn't appear to me to be the case.
Interestingly enough, it also appears insufficient to come up with an
answer to my question, to wit: what is the point of your telling God --
twice a day, no less -- that He should do what He was going to do
anyway?
Obviously you could not answer, hence the utterly irrelevant harrangue
about
values vs. principles.
Your stupidity is appalling. To think that anyone would believe that
praying
is a manner of instructing is sheer ignorance. Ignorance of such a
magnitude
as to not belong on my computer.
PLONK
You even sound like Maverick.
The proof will be when he replies to one of your posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs no x, please" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 07:37:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:13:57 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
That's a sure sign of the lack of mental capacity among you homosexuals.
Oh, I wouldn't know about that. I finished university. I trained
myself from nothing to system admin. By sitting behind a keyboard and
reading the fabulous manuals.
Most would consider that ample proof of mental capacity. But sheep
tend to differ in opinion.
You
simply do not know how to comprehend what is being said. For instance, do
you really believe that praying is a form of "instruction"? Give me a break.
In a way, it is. It is an instruction to grovel insincerities to
something that actually doesn't need it.
Here is the truth of the matter.
----------drumroll ---------
Homosexuals are at the forefront of a group of people that do not have the
mental capacity to discern what is a principle and what is a value.
While you, mentally a sheep, do?
A principle is in essence a natural law such as the law of gravity.
What a nice beginning! Entirely wrong at first base. A principle is
not in the slightest objective.
Principles do not change.
Out at second base. They do all the time. Allow me to ask if you wear
anything of mixed fibres.
Principles come from our common sense of right and wrong,
what we know to be true and good because we sense it in the very core of our
being.
Which, of course, is completely subjective.
Homosexuals choose to ignore their common sense and rely on
conventional wisdom of others or things they have learned through
experimentation and observation.
Really? I see you're merely keystrokes away from quibbling something
appropriate from the OT. To 'proof' your point.
Values on the other hand reflect the
conventional wisdoms that are passed on from one generation to the next and
thus may change over time and be different among cultures.
My, what a coincidence! So do principles!
Homosexuals are
continuously attempting to define a new set of values that will give them
comfort in believing as they do.
We have to, considering the attitude of mental sheep...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
19 May 2005 11:37:14 AM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
I find that puzzling. What is the reason for an insignificant
human instructing the ultimate Being in the Universe that
He should do whatever He wants to do?
That's a sure sign of the lack of mental capacity among you homosexuals. You
simply do not know how to comprehend what is being said. For instance, do
you really believe that praying is a form of "instruction"? Give me a break.
Here is the truth of the matter.
Homosexuals are at the forefront of a group of people that do not have the
mental capacity to discern what is a principle and what is a value. A
principle is in essence a natural law such as the law of gravity. Principles
do not change. Principles come from our common sense of right and wrong,
what we know to be true and good because we sense it in the very core of our
being. Homosexuals choose to ignore their common sense and rely on
conventional wisdom of others or things they have learned through
experimentation and observation. Values on the other hand reflect the
conventional wisdoms that are passed on from one generation to the next and
thus may change over time and be different among cultures. Homosexuals are
continuously attempting to define a new set of values that will give them
comfort in believing as they do.
You're as crazy as Maverick.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:28:43 PM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6b1a8$ppi$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB7ie.445488$4J5.48517@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the bible
you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents. You
wouldn't understand that though, I bet. You probably think the baby is
being
punished, don't you? You probably think that taking a baby from the
evils of
earth and bringing them into the kingdom of heaven is a bad thing, don't
you. The poor baby won't have a chance to get defiled by some gay
perverted
pedophile.
Ah, I see.
You must applaud Timothy McVeigh then:
I applaud God's will any way it comes. The loss of those lives, in case you
missed it and I'm sure you did, brought about more good than they probably
ever would had they lived. Look at all the good things that came out of that
tragedy. Bomb proof buildings. Better screening of child care facilities.
Parents that realize how fragile life can be. God always does things for a
reason. He put you here to find out how good your parents could be. I hope
you didn't let them down.
Do you have any idea how sick the above makes me? It makes me
physically ill. How people could applaud this animal is beyond me.
To believe that Timothy McVeigh is a Servant of God is truly the most
scariest thing I've seen in a while. Please, TLiMS, seek help before
you do something bad, thinking you're doing the "Lord's work".
I worry about you, TLiMS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch, YWN" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:01:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:42:52 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
Just ask Andrea Yates' husband.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:16:46 PM |
|
|
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:ch2i81156bd6ej9a9ip62s506v873uapfj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:42:52 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
Just ask Andrea Yates' husband.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
Yes, just ask him. Maybe he should not have been having that affair.
--
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: "Bonnie Bitch, YWN" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:21:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:16:46 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:ch2i81156bd6ej9a9ip62s506v873uapfj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:42:52 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
Just ask Andrea Yates' husband.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
Yes, just ask him. Maybe he should not have been having that affair.
No, that was Susan Smith's second husband.
Do try to keep your murderous ***** theists straight, ok, Benny?
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:39:31 PM |
|
|
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:6l3i819i9pphhijl3hh6liaa6hvjlu2k9f@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:16:46 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:ch2i81156bd6ej9a9ip62s506v873uapfj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:42:52 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
Just ask Andrea Yates' husband.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
Yes, just ask him. Maybe he should not have been having that affair.
No, that was Susan Smith's second husband.
Do try to keep your murderous ***** theists straight, ok, Benny?
I don't have to keep them straight. I live in Nassau Bay, Texas.
--
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: "Bonnie Bitch, YWN" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 05:45:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:39:31 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:6l3i819i9pphhijl3hh6liaa6hvjlu2k9f@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:16:46 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:ch2i81156bd6ej9a9ip62s506v873uapfj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:42:52 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
Just ask Andrea Yates' husband.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
Yes, just ask him. Maybe he should not have been having that affair.
No, that was Susan Smith's second husband.
Do try to keep your murderous ***** theists straight, ok, Benny?
I don't have to keep them straight. I live in Nassau Bay, Texas.
Ah, so you pay your mother with "favors" to do that for you.
Thanks for the admission.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
PS -- your green pills aren't just for breakfast anymore.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:30:36 PM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Bonnie *****, YWN" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:ch2i81156bd6ej9a9ip62s506v873uapfj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:42:52 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
Just ask Andrea Yates' husband.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
Yes, just ask him. Maybe he should not have been having that affair.
I see now. You applaud murderers. Please, TLiMS, seek help. You're
not doing your religion ANY good. In fact, you are going *AGAINST*
God's teachings. You know, that, right?
God has a special place in Hell for people like you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 03:53:21 PM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the bible you
would know that.
HIV is in the Bible?! What verse? This is a revelation!
He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
What verse?
You
wouldn't understand that though, I bet.
Yes, especially since you didn't provide a Bible passage.
You probably think the baby is being
punished, don't you?
He never said that. Sounds like you're attempting to build up a straw
man. And, from the looks of below, I'm right.
You probably think that taking a baby from the evils of
earth and bringing them into the kingdom of heaven is a bad thing, don't
you.
Yep. Straw man.
The poor baby won't have a chance to get defiled by some gay perverted
pedophile.
In the Roman Catholic Church... *nod*
Thankfully, normal homosexuals are not pedophiles. Only those defiled
by the word of God. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:06:07 PM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the bible you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
By torturing them with disease and disfigurement leading to death?
Oh, that's right: your god is love.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:23:40 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42890B3F.BB49BF04@serv.net...
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the bible
you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
By torturing them with disease and disfigurement leading to death?
Oh, that's right: your god is love.
Who said that? Have you ever read the bible. God is hellfire and brimstone
Buddy. Vengence is MINE says God. God punishes sinners. He does not love
them. He says very plainly that he will kill those that engage in homosexual
acts, those that murder, those that do all sorts of things. And you know
what? He just keeps right on doing what he said he would do. All you have to
do is open your eyes and look around. If you commit a sin, he just as soon
take your child because he thinks you are not worthy as a parent as he would
kick a woman out of a garden because she ate an apple. He has no constraints
placed on him about whether or not he should keep a child from agony in
order to go easy on its parents. He knows that the child will be rewarded in
heaven and that all its pain and sufferring will not even be remembered.
But, the parents will live with it all the rest of their days.
Anyone that thinks God loves sinners is a fool. Anyone that tries to use
"God is love" as something to throw in the face of believers is a fool. We
know better.
--
If our creator would have wanted us to embrace
same sex marriage, we would have all been born
the same gender.
The Lord is my Shepherd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:43:02 PM |
|
|
In article <wb8ie.187982$QY2.89308@fe01.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42890B3F.BB49BF04@serv.net...
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the bible
you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
By torturing them with disease and disfigurement leading to death?
Oh, that's right: your god is love.
Who said that? Have you ever read the bible. God is hellfire and brimstone
Buddy. Vengence is MINE says God. God punishes sinners. He does not love
them.
And He says that "sinners" includes everyone.
Thus, God loves no one.
Which particular horrid diesease do you figure He's saving up
for you?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 07:16:51 AM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6b456$3il$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <wb8ie.187982$QY2.89308@fe01.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42890B3F.BB49BF04@serv.net...
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The
Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the
bible
you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
By torturing them with disease and disfigurement leading to death?
Oh, that's right: your god is love.
Who said that? Have you ever read the bible. God is hellfire and
brimstone
Buddy. Vengence is MINE says God. God punishes sinners. He does not love
them.
And He says that "sinners" includes everyone.
Thus, God loves no one.
Which particular horrid diesease do you figure He's saving up
for you?
-- cary
So far, so good. I try to live up to his expectations. But you homosexuals
spit in his face and then try to make yourselves believe it's okay.
--
If our creator would have wanted us to embrace
same sex marriage, we would have all been born
the same gender.
The Lord is my Shepherd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 May 2005 09:59:40 AM |
|
|
In article <Tglie.213520$QY2.59039@fe01.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6b456$3il$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <wb8ie.187982$QY2.89308@fe01.news.easynews.com> "The Lord is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42890B3F.BB49BF04@serv.net...
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The
Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the
bible
you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
By torturing them with disease and disfigurement leading to death?
Oh, that's right: your god is love.
Who said that? Have you ever read the bible. God is hellfire and
brimstone
Buddy. Vengence is MINE says God. God punishes sinners. He does not love
them.
And He says that "sinners" includes everyone.
Thus, God loves no one.
Which particular horrid diesease do you figure He's saving up
for you?
-- cary
So far, so good. I try to live up to his expectations. But you homosexuals
spit in his face and then try to make yourselves believe it's okay.
Your point is being dragged down by an unwarranted assumption it
contains. See if you're clever enough to spot it.
In any event, I'm rather pleased to have finally met someone who
is without sin. A first. Good for you.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs no x, please" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
18 May 2005 07:37:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:16:51 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote:
So far, so good. I try to live up to his expectations.
Trying is not enough. The way to hell is paved with good intentions.
But you homosexuals
spit in his face and then try to make yourselves believe it's okay.
Allow me to ask you:
1- On which day do you celebrate the sabbath?
2- Do you observe ALL the commands given in the OT?
3- How many gods do you worship?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:53:55 PM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42890B3F.BB49BF04@serv.net...
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d6aqmv$rh9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <gB5ie.440863$4J5.373589@fe04!news.easynews.com> "The Lord
is
My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> writes:
{...}
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the bible
you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents.
By torturing them with disease and disfigurement leading to death?
Oh, that's right: your god is love.
Who said that? Have you ever read the bible. God is hellfire and brimstone
Buddy.
Many Christians would beg to differ with you, "Buddy".
Vengence is MINE says God. God punishes sinners. He does not love
them. He says very plainly that he will kill those that engage in homosexual
acts,
He does speak plainly against homosexual acts? In what passage?
those that murder, those that do all sorts of things. And you know
what? He just keeps right on doing what he said he would do. All you have to
do is open your eyes and look around. If you commit a sin, he just as soon
take your child because he thinks you are not worthy as a parent as he would
kick a woman out of a garden because she ate an apple. He has no constraints
placed on him about whether or not he should keep a child from agony in
order to go easy on its parents. He knows that the child will be rewarded in
heaven and that all its pain and sufferring will not even be remembered.
But, the parents will live with it all the rest of their days.
Sorry, but I don't think I want to worship the God that you put forth
above. Nice hate-filled rant, though. I'm sure Christians are pleased
with you.
Anyone that thinks God loves sinners is a fool. Anyone that tries to use
"God is love" as something to throw in the face of believers is a fool. We
know better.
Define "we"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 04:03:29 PM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
So THAT is what God is saying to the baby who is born with HIV.
I always wondered....
-- cary
That is what he is saying to their parents. If you ever read the bible you
would know that. He has taken many a child from sinning parents. You
wouldn't understand that though, I bet. You probably think the baby is being
punished, don't you? You probably think that taking a baby from the evils of
earth and bringing them into the kingdom of heaven is a bad thing, don't
you. The poor baby won't have a chance to get defiled by some gay perverted
pedophile.
In your case, it looks like he want to punish your parents.
Looks like they really fucked up, big time.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 01:50:32 PM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:7A4ie.18031$J12.6979@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"The Lord is My Shepherd" <thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in
message
news:YX1ie.271159$A81.57956@fe08.news.easynews.com...
"Boy Toy" <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote in message
news:i59h81p2aobuo18rjptc9seb2frgui8l4t@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:59:37 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in message
<YO0ie.439450$R24.294813@fe05!news.easynews.com>
The gay marriage matter is nothing more than an ego trip for a few
antagonist homosexual types. Most homosexuals couldn't care less. Once
gay
marriage goes away, the same fanatics will have some other matter they
will
use to stroke their egos. Their efforts are best ignored but as long
as
the
media can use them to sell time and space they will keep the fires
stroked.
Prudent people will carry on their lives without giving a second
thought
to
such foolishness.
Homosexual marriage has no significant effect on society.
EXACTLY!!!!!!! Neither should homosexuals. They engage in an abomination
and
the Shepherd will deal with them in his own way and in his own time.
For having 'no significant effect,' the subject sure seems to get you
kooky
bible bangers worked up.
Homosexuality is God's way of saying, you ain't worth living.
Where, in the Bible, does it say that? I've got my trusty, somewhat
dusty Bible here to look up the verses that I'm sure you're ready to give.
We bible
bangers just like to watch God's work take place.
And what is "God's work". Are you sure you have the right god?
It's always good to see
God's word come true. And, it does everytime one of you gets AIDS and dies.
And when a heterosexual gets AIDS and dies, what then?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 09:22:57 AM |
|
|
The Lord is My Shepherd wrote:
"Boy Toy" <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote in message
news:i59h81p2aobuo18rjptc9seb2frgui8l4t@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:59:37 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in message
<YO0ie.439450$R24.294813@fe05!news.easynews.com>
The gay marriage matter is nothing more than an ego trip for a few
antagonist homosexual types. Most homosexuals couldn't care less. Once
gay
marriage goes away, the same fanatics will have some other matter they
will
use to stroke their egos. Their efforts are best ignored but as long as
the
media can use them to sell time and space they will keep the fires
stroked.
Prudent people will carry on their lives without giving a second thought
to
such foolishness.
Homosexual marriage has no significant effect on society.
EXACTLY!!!!!!! Neither should homosexuals.
You're right. Homosexuals shouldn't have an effect on heterosexuals,
but, seemingly, many heterosexuals are so uncomfortable about
homosexuality that they, in turn, make homosexuality their business and
set forth ignorant, hate-filled rhetoric such as below...
They engage in an abomination and
the Shepherd will deal with them in his own way and in his own time.
....rants that have no basis in reality or fact.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 12:33:11 PM |
|
|
| |
