| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Warnock" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2004 06:12:27 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:213f3d1c.0402141803.5a241233@posting.google.com...
Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<lscs205dg7d6u530jbcpoupkltsimq857p@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:36:53 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
I have no problem with civil contracts.
As even Kerry, Gore, and many other Liberal Democrats have
said as
well.
If "civil contracts" give people the exact same rights as
married
people, it would seem that you are simply trying protect the
word
"marriage". The term "sanctity of marriage" comes to mind.
Is this the case?
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I agree with you, Slate, that
ALL Americans should have the same rights. I see no reason why two
gay people can't form a contractual bond that is recognized by the
state in the same way that the heterosexual contract called marriage
is acknowledged. I think Osprey agrees as well, based on his quote
above.
I think that you may have hit on an important point in your statement
above. As you correctly point out, there is a definite religious
connotation to the word "marriage". That being the case, it seems to
me that the shoe is on the other foot. Rather than asking the gay
marriage opponent if he is trying to protect the word "marriage", we
should be asking why the homosexual community is trying to appropriate
this word. If they can get the same and equal rights as other
Americans through a civil union (or call it anything that you like),
then why do they need the resultant bond to be called a marriage? I
suspect that if they changed the name of the movement from the "gay
marriage" initiative to something else, that most of people who are
against it would have no further problem. Most of these people's
opposition is because the use of the term marriage (with it's
religious undertone) is an affront to their religious sensibilities.
Yet, for the most part, they agree that gay people should be afforded
the same rights as everyone else. Why does it seem that the gay
movement wants to ***** off these fine folks by commandeering their
term "marriage"? Whats in a word anyway? Certainly, the state
wouldn't compel churches, synagogues or mosques to perform the
marriage contract (which is vested in these organizations by the
state) for gays, if homosexuality is against the basic tenets of these
religions. This would obviously be against the First Amendment
freedom of religion.
I propose that we change the name of the civil rights movement in
question from "gay marriage" to "gay kramnod", where all gay people
who are kramnodded have the same rights & duties as all hetero people
who are married. Now when we ask, "who is in favor of gay kramnod?",
the resounding majority will vote in the affirmative. Laws will be
changed, gay people will get kramnodded and have equal rights, and
everyone goes home happy. The gay movement should have no problem
with this since the whole question revolves around protecting
individual rights under the law.
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you
with experience."
.
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
24 Feb 2004 02:02:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:12:27 +0200, "Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za>
wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:213f3d1c.0402141803.5a241233@posting.google.com...
Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<lscs205dg7d6u530jbcpoupkltsimq857p@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:36:53 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
I have no problem with civil contracts.
As even Kerry, Gore, and many other Liberal Democrats have
said as
well.
If "civil contracts" give people the exact same rights as
married
people, it would seem that you are simply trying protect the
word
"marriage". The term "sanctity of marriage" comes to mind.
Is this the case?
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I agree with you, Slate, that
ALL Americans should have the same rights. I see no reason why two
gay people can't form a contractual bond that is recognized by the
state in the same way that the heterosexual contract called marriage
is acknowledged. I think Osprey agrees as well, based on his quote
above.
I think that you may have hit on an important point in your statement
above. As you correctly point out, there is a definite religious
connotation to the word "marriage". That being the case, it seems to
me that the shoe is on the other foot. Rather than asking the gay
marriage opponent if he is trying to protect the word "marriage", we
should be asking why the homosexual community is trying to appropriate
this word. If they can get the same and equal rights as other
Americans through a civil union (or call it anything that you like),
then why do they need the resultant bond to be called a marriage? I
suspect that if they changed the name of the movement from the "gay
marriage" initiative to something else, that most of people who are
against it would have no further problem. Most of these people's
opposition is because the use of the term marriage (with it's
religious undertone) is an affront to their religious sensibilities.
Yet, for the most part, they agree that gay people should be afforded
the same rights as everyone else. Why does it seem that the gay
movement wants to ***** off these fine folks by commandeering their
term "marriage"? Whats in a word anyway? Certainly, the state
wouldn't compel churches, synagogues or mosques to perform the
marriage contract (which is vested in these organizations by the
state) for gays, if homosexuality is against the basic tenets of these
religions. This would obviously be against the First Amendment
freedom of religion.
I propose that we change the name of the civil rights movement in
question from "gay marriage" to "gay kramnod", where all gay people
who are kramnodded have the same rights & duties as all hetero people
who are married. Now when we ask, "who is in favor of gay kramnod?",
the resounding majority will vote in the affirmative. Laws will be
changed, gay people will get kramnodded and have equal rights, and
everyone goes home happy. The gay movement should have no problem
with this since the whole question revolves around protecting
individual rights under the law.
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Remember when blacks had been referred to as 'subhuman' for decades,
and they stepped up and demanded equal rights? Oh the temerity!
---
"A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 07:23:16 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:12:27 +0200, "Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za>
wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:213f3d1c.0402141803.5a241233@posting.google.com...
snip
I propose that we change the name of the civil rights movement in
question from "gay marriage" to "gay kramnod", where all gay people
who are kramnodded have the same rights & duties as all hetero people
who are married. Now when we ask, "who is in favor of gay kramnod?",
the resounding majority will vote in the affirmative. Laws will be
changed, gay people will get kramnodded and have equal rights, and
everyone goes home happy. The gay movement should have no problem
with this since the whole question revolves around protecting
individual rights under the law.
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Just like those damm Blacks. They had been property for centuries,
and then they started demanding equal rights! How dare they?
You are such a transparent bigot.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Warnock" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 01:49:10 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1c8p309b28qb14me9onj82e78dtu6rmell@4ax.com...
I propose that we change the name of the civil rights movement in
question from "gay marriage" to "gay kramnod", where all gay people
who are kramnodded have the same rights & duties as all hetero people
who are married. Now when we ask, "who is in favor of gay kramnod?",
the resounding majority will vote in the affirmative. Laws will be
changed, gay people will get kramnodded and have equal rights, and
everyone goes home happy. The gay movement should have no problem
with this since the whole question revolves around protecting
individual rights under the law.
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts
don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Just like those damm Blacks. They had been property for centuries,
and then they started demanding equal rights! How dare they?
You are such a transparent bigot.
****** I don't have problems with blacks, but getting my ***** full of *****
while butt-plugging, is OUT!
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 02:26:23 PM |
|
|
"Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za> wrote in
news:c1iuaq$rqj$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
****** I don't have problems with blacks, but getting my ***** full of
***** while butt-plugging, is OUT!
is somebody forcible forcing you to place your ***** in places you'd prefer
that it was not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
26 Feb 2004 03:15:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:49:10 +0200, "Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1c8p309b28qb14me9onj82e78dtu6rmell@4ax.com...
I propose that we change the name of the civil rights movement in
question from "gay marriage" to "gay kramnod", where all gay people
who are kramnodded have the same rights & duties as all hetero people
who are married. Now when we ask, "who is in favor of gay kramnod?",
the resounding majority will vote in the affirmative. Laws will be
changed, gay people will get kramnodded and have equal rights, and
everyone goes home happy. The gay movement should have no problem
with this since the whole question revolves around protecting
individual rights under the law.
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts
don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Just like those damm Blacks. They had been property for centuries,
and then they started demanding equal rights! How dare they?
You are such a transparent bigot.
****** I don't have problems with blacks, but getting my ***** full of *****
while butt-plugging, is OUT!
Of what relevance does that little outburst of adolescent vulgarity
have? Do you imagine someone is going to force you to do that? Do
you worry about such things a lot?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 07:22:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:49:10 +0200, "van der Merwe"
<warnnock@pop.co.za> wrote:
****** I don't have problems with blacks, but getting my ***** full of *****
while butt-plugging, is OUT!
You? A stoopid Afrikaander boer having no problem with blacks? Only
when you can order them around with your sjambok.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 04:19:52 PM |
|
|
Warnock wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1c8p309b28qb14me9onj82e78dtu6rmell@4ax.com...
I propose that we change the name of the civil rights movement in
question from "gay marriage" to "gay kramnod", where all gay people
who are kramnodded have the same rights & duties as all hetero people
who are married. Now when we ask, "who is in favor of gay kramnod?",
the resounding majority will vote in the affirmative. Laws will be
changed, gay people will get kramnodded and have equal rights, and
everyone goes home happy. The gay movement should have no problem
with this since the whole question revolves around protecting
individual rights under the law.
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts
don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Just like those damm Blacks. They had been property for centuries,
and then they started demanding equal rights! How dare they?
You are such a transparent bigot.
****** I don't have problems with blacks, but getting my ***** full of *****
while butt-plugging, is OUT!
Then don't do it! Are you under the impression that making it legal
makes it mandatory?
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
24 Feb 2004 06:00:23 PM |
|
|
Warnock wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:213f3d1c.0402141803.5a241233@posting.google.com...
Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<lscs205dg7d6u530jbcpoupkltsimq857p@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:36:53 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
I have no problem with civil contracts.
As even Kerry, Gore, and many other Liberal Democrats have
said as
well.
If "civil contracts" give people the exact same rights as
married
people, it would seem that you are simply trying protect the
word
"marriage". The term "sanctity of marriage" comes to mind.
Is this the case?
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I agree with you, Slate, that
ALL Americans should have the same rights. I see no reason why two
gay people can't form a contractual bond that is recognized by the
state in the same way that the heterosexual contract called marriage
is acknowledged. I think Osprey agrees as well, based on his quote
above.
I think that you may have hit on an important point in your statement
above. As you correctly point out, there is a definite religious
connotation to the word "marriage". That being the case, it seems to
me that the shoe is on the other foot. Rather than asking the gay
marriage opponent if he is trying to protect the word "marriage", we
should be asking why the homosexual community is trying to appropriate
this word. If they can get the same and equal rights as other
Americans through a civil union (or call it anything that you like),
then why do they need the resultant bond to be called a marriage? I
suspect that if they changed the name of the movement from the "gay
marriage" initiative to something else, that most of people who are
against it would have no further problem. Most of these people's
opposition is because the use of the term marriage (with it's
religious undertone) is an affront to their religious sensibilities.
Yet, for the most part, they agree that gay people should be afforded
the same rights as everyone else. Why does it seem that the gay
movement wants to ***** off these fine folks by commandeering their
term "marriage"? Whats in a word anyway? Certainly, the state
wouldn't compel churches, synagogues or mosques to perform the
marriage contract (which is vested in these organizations by the
state) for gays, if homosexuality is against the basic tenets of these
religions. This would obviously be against the First Amendment
freedom of religion.
I propose that we change the name of the civil rights movement in
question from "gay marriage" to "gay kramnod", where all gay people
who are kramnodded have the same rights & duties as all hetero people
who are married. Now when we ask, "who is in favor of gay kramnod?",
the resounding majority will vote in the affirmative. Laws will be
changed, gay people will get kramnodded and have equal rights, and
everyone goes home happy. The gay movement should have no problem
with this since the whole question revolves around protecting
individual rights under the law.
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Why should consenting adults not have equal rights? Be specific. Cite laws.
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you
with experience."
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 08:00:17 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1gols$1hu50e$3@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Warnock wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:213f3d1c.0402141803.5a241233@posting.google.com...
Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<lscs205dg7d6u530jbcpoupkltsimq857p@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:36:53 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
I have no problem with civil contracts.
As even Kerry, Gore, and many other Liberal Democrats have
said as
well.
If "civil contracts" give people the exact same rights as
married
people, it would seem that you are simply trying protect the
word
"marriage". The term "sanctity of marriage" comes to mind.
Is this the case?
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I agree with you, Slate, that
ALL Americans should have the same rights. I see no reason why two
gay people can't form a contractual bond that is recognized by the
state in the same way that the heterosexual contract called marriage
is acknowledged. I think Osprey agrees as well, based on his quote
above.
I think that you may have hit on an important point in your statement
above. As you correctly point out, there is a definite religious
connotation to the word "marriage". That being the case, it seems to
me that the shoe is on the other foot. Rather than asking the gay
marriage opponent if he is trying to protect the word "marriage", we
should be asking why the homosexual community is trying to appropriate
this word. If they can get the same and equal rights as other
Americans through a civil union (or call it anything that you like),
then why do they need the resultant bond to be called a marriage? I
suspect that if they changed the name of the movement from the "gay
marriage" initiative to something else, that most of people who are
against it would have no further problem. Most of these people's
opposition is because the use of the term marriage (with it's
religious undertone) is an affront to their religious sensibilities.
Yet, for the most part, they agree that gay people should be afforded
the same rights as everyone else. Why does it seem that the gay
movement wants to ***** off these fine folks by commandeering their
term "marriage"? Whats in a word anyway? Certainly, the state
wouldn't compel churches, synagogues or mosques to perform the
marriage contract (which is vested in these organizations by the
state) for gays, if homosexuality is against the basic tenets of these
religions. This would obviously be against the First Amendment
freedom of religion.
I propose that we change the name of the civil rights movement in
question from "gay marriage" to "gay kramnod", where all gay people
who are kramnodded have the same rights & duties as all hetero people
who are married. Now when we ask, "who is in favor of gay kramnod?",
the resounding majority will vote in the affirmative. Laws will be
changed, gay people will get kramnodded and have equal rights, and
everyone goes home happy. The gay movement should have no problem
with this since the whole question revolves around protecting
individual rights under the law.
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts
don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Why should consenting adults not have equal rights? Be specific. Cite
laws.
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life
into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat
you
with experience."
+Funny I went to the ocean yesterday and saw two walruses lifting their head
out of the water.The sam two I had seen the month before.
I named them Fred and Sally because you better believe one was male and one
was female.The reason they are to gether is to have little Freds and Sallys
to carry on the Gene pool...nuff said+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
26 Feb 2004 03:15:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:00:17 -0700, "The Church of The Painful Truth"
<Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1gols$1hu50e$3@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
snip
+Funny I went to the ocean yesterday and saw two walruses lifting their head
out of the water.The sam two I had seen the month before.
I named them Fred and Sally because you better believe one was male and one
was female.The reason they are to gether is to have little Freds and Sallys
to carry on the Gene pool...nuff said+
Did you have some point?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 09:02:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:00:17 -0700, "The Church of The Painful Truth"
<Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:
+Funny I went to the ocean yesterday and saw two walruses lifting their head
out of the water.The sam two I had seen the month before.
I named them Fred and Sally because you better believe one was male and one
was female.The reason they are to gether is to have little Freds and Sallys
to carry on the Gene pool...nuff said+
You are wrong, during mating season the males fight often to the
death to establish a harem. After breeding is over males and females
separate until next year. The two are either both males or both
females. this is perfectly normal. Only man has codified marriage
contracts. Originally as a sign of transfer of ownership, of the woman
who was chattel property. The church and state saw this custom as a
source of revenue. As for god if he exist, he seems to not care if
people marry or not.
Some animals do mate for life, however the other animals don`t
object if a few don`t mate. the institution of marriage is man made.
Same sex partnerships are common in the animal world, with the
opposite sex used only for breeding purposes.
Sex is a minor part in any long term relationship. And if it`s the
sole reason the partnership will be short. The reason for so many
divorces is people that marry for sex only.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
26 Feb 2004 07:03:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:00:17 -0700, "The Church of The Painful Truth"
<Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:
+Funny I went to the ocean yesterday and saw two walruses lifting their head
out of the water.The sam two I had seen the month before.
I named them Fred and Sally because you better believe one was male and one
was female.The reason they are to gether is to have little Freds and Sallys
to carry on the Gene pool...nuff said+
What an excellent idea! Why don't you jump in and assist Sally? When
Fred is away shopping for some fresh fish, mind you. Walrusses
(Walrussians?) can be pretty possessive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Warnock" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 01:46:13 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1gols$1hu50e$3@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts
don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Why should consenting adults not have equal rights? Be specific. Cite
laws.
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights - even 3 year old
children can fit a square into a square hole and a triangle into a triangle
hole. Men and women have complimentary sex organs, or haven't you noticed!!
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 02:25:31 PM |
|
|
"Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za> wrote in
news:c1iu52$rkm$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights
we're talking about gay marriage, not perversions, although you might prefer
to focus on perversions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Warnock" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
27 Feb 2004 10:57:24 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns949A9CE91A036keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights
we're talking about gay marriage, not perversions, although you might
prefer
to focus on perversions.
****** In the eyes of most public, fags are sex perverts - gay marriages
would therefore be pervert marriages! Your great president is currently
pushing through legislation to ban fag marriages.
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
27 Feb 2004 03:21:00 PM |
|
|
"Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za> wrote in
news:c1o98a$ntp$4@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns949A9CE91A036keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights
we're talking about gay marriage, not perversions, although you might
prefer to focus on perversions.
****** In the eyes of most public, fags are sex perverts
really? please cite the peer publications you extracted that opinion from.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
28 Feb 2004 11:15:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:57:24 +0200,
Warnock <warnnock@pop.co.za> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:
****** Why should sex perverts
be granted equal rights
we're talking about gay marriage,
not perversions, although you might
prefer to focus on perversions.
****** In the eyes of most public,
fags are sex perverts - gay marriages
would therefore be pervert marriages!
And in the eyes of most public (sic),
men who masturbate to porn are sex
perverts - 99% of heterosexual marriages
would therefore be pervert marriages!
Adultery is considered a perversion.
Do you support forced divorces of
marriages in which one partner cheats?
Get a real argument, Warnock. This tired
"community standards are the same as they
were at the turn of the century" argument
is getting OLD real fast.
[1] Your Bible demands that folks
who engage in pre-marital sex
be KILLED.
[2] Being killed is being denied
the right to marry.
[3] Ergo, your Bible demands that
anyone who engages in pre-marital
sex be denied the right to marry.
Get cracking on the "if you have sex
before marriage, you won't be allowed
to marry!" law, Warnock,
YOUR BIBLE DEMANDS IT!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
27 Feb 2004 06:53:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:57:24 +0200, "Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za>
wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns949A9CE91A036keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights
we're talking about gay marriage, not perversions, although you might
prefer
to focus on perversions.
****** In the eyes of most public, fags are sex perverts - gay marriages
would therefore be pervert marriages! Your great president is currently
pushing through legislation to ban fag marriages.
I see; you don't actually have any reasons for your position beyond
your personal bigotry Thank you for making that clear - again.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
27 Feb 2004 07:14:43 PM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:ubov30hhrnokka4asdigghle4pic846bq3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:57:24 +0200, "Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za>
wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns949A9CE91A036keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights
we're talking about gay marriage, not perversions, although you might
prefer to focus on perversions.
****** In the eyes of most public, fags are sex perverts - gay marriages
would therefore be pervert marriages! Your great president is currently
pushing through legislation to ban fag marriages.
I see; you don't actually have any reasons for your position beyond
your personal bigotry Thank you for making that clear - again.
goodness, warnock has been demonstrating personal bigotry since first
appearing in newsgroups.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
26 Feb 2004 06:56:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:46:13 +0200,
Warnock <warnnock@pop.co.za> wrote:
"--sexkitten--"
<ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
****** The problem with all of the
above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been
referred to as an 'abomination'
for centuries - stepping forward
and demanding equal rights! Sex
perverts don't have equal rights
and should be treated as such!
Why should consenting adults not
have equal rights? Be specific.
Cite laws.
****** Why should sex perverts be
granted equal rights
Wow! How unrelated to the question
can you get?
Answer the question: why should consenting
adults be denied "one of the fundamental
rights of man"? (according to the U.S.
Supreme Court decision LOVING VS.
VIRGINIA, 1967, which repealed laws
banning inter-racial marriage)
Don't say, "religion doesn't approve of
homosexual marriage". In LOVING VS.
VIRGINIA, the judge deciding the case
against the Lovings declared "Almighty
God never intended the races to mix."
The Bible has *already* been thrown out
of the definition of marriage as "a
fundamental right of man"!
Don't say, "homosexual couples can't
reproduce." The U.S. Supreme Court made
no distinction between heterosexuals who
can reproduce and *sterile* heterosexuals.
Unless you are also proposing defining
marriage as "a civil union between a
*fertile* Man and a *fertile* Woman."
And your own hilarious contention, "sexual
perverts should not be allowed to marry"?
So you support further changing the Amendment
to read "marriage is a civil union between a
*fertile* Man and a *fertile* Woman, both of
whom never engage in any sexual activities
which are considered 'sexual perversions'
by the general population."
So when can we expect you to call your
Congressional representatives and request
that any man or woman who has ever been
caught engaging in any form of "sexual
perversion" be DENIED the right to marry?
As I recall, *masturbation* has long been
considered by many religions (including
multiple factions of Christianity) to be a
SEXUAL PERVERSION. Anal Sex is another one.
In fact, *Pre-Marital Sex* is a *Biblical*
*Sexual Perversion*! When can we expect
your demand for a Constitutional Amendment
*denying* the right to marry to anyone who
has pre-marital sex? With the exception
of rapists, of course, who will be
*required to marry* their first rape victim,
but then the remaining rape victims can be
denied the right to marry.
Sheesh! You'd think that all these people
demanding that "sexual perverts" not be
allowed to marry, had never read a Bible!
The Bible has so many "sexual perversions"
that the Mosaic Law demands DEATH for. At
the very least you can deny them the right
to marry! (which is one of the things denied
when you stone someone to death, right?)
[snip!]
Men and women have complimentary
sex organs, or haven't you noticed!!
I've noticed that this isn't always the
case.
For example, some people are born with
*both sex organs*. Both a penis and
a vagina. Is this person a Man, or a
Woman?
Turns out we've been letting them live
as one gender identity and not the other
one, then allowing them to live as their
choice (though usually, their parent's
choice) for the rest of their lives.
If the U.S. Constitution is Amended to
*require* that marriage is a civil union
between a Man and a Woman, where do the
transgendered fit in? Will we genetically
test people to prove that they are the
gender they say they are, and then deny
them marriage if they are not biologically
a man or biologically a woman, or if they
are biologically *both*?
And what about the people who have sex
change operations? Thats an entirely new
can of worms (these people are called
"transsexual", rather than being lumped in
with "transgender").
If we count their sex change operation to
have changed them into the opposite gender,
then you have a biological MAN marrying...
....a biological MAN. One of them is
*legally* a WOMAN, and has the physical
appearance of a WOMAN, but originally
and biologically a MAN.
HOWEVER, if we say that a sex change operation
does not change the gender of the person, then
you still have a complication: a person who is
*legally* a WOMAN but biologically a MAN...
....can still marry a WOMAN. Thus you have,
*legally*, two WOMEN approaching the altar to
get married.
And thanks to the proposed Constitutional
Amendment defining marriage as a civil union
between a MAN and a WOMAN (despite its
snowballs chance in hell of passing muster),
there's not one damn thing anyone can do
about preventing someone who is *legally* a
WOMAN but *biologically* a MAN, from marrying
a WOMAN.
So in the end, none of the proposed legislation
does anything to "promote equal rights", nor
will it prevent two WOMEN, or two MEN for that
matter (*legally* WOMEN or *legally* MEN, of
course) from getting *legally* married in the
U.S.A.
All it does is write *religion* into Secular Law,
to satisfy a vocal minority of conservatives (most
Americans do not want a Constitutional Amendment
banning gay marriage) in order to
*write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution*.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
26 Feb 2004 03:15:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:46:13 +0200, "Warnock" <warnnock@pop.co.za>
wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1gols$1hu50e$3@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts
don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Why should consenting adults not have equal rights? Be specific. Cite
laws.
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights - even 3 year old
children can fit a square into a square hole and a triangle into a triangle
hole. Men and women have complimentary sex organs, or haven't you noticed!!
You have expressed your bigotry, but you failed to answer the
question.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 11:48:27 PM |
|
|
Warnock <warnnock@pop.co.za> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts
don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Why should consenting adults not have equal rights? Be specific. Cite
laws.
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights -
People like you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage- most oppose it |
25 Feb 2004 04:17:25 PM |
|
|
Warnock wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1gols$1hu50e$3@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
****** The problem with all of the above, is that we have an unequal
partner - a group that has been referred to as an 'abomination' for
centuries - stepping forward and demanding equal rights! Sex perverts
don't
have equal rights and should be treated as such!
Why should consenting adults not have equal rights? Be specific. Cite
laws.
****** Why should sex perverts be granted equal rights
Why should consenting adults not have equal rights? Be specific. Cite laws.
- even 3 year old
children can fit a square into a square hole and a triangle into a triangle
hole. Men and women have complimentary sex organs, or haven't you noticed!!
A penis can't fit anywhere but a vagina? Come on now, if that were true
there would be no homosexuality.
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
