| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Amelia M. Samples" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2004 08:53:19 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why persecute gays? |
"DemsStillHaveNoFriends" <DeansLemmingBattalion@dnc.net> wrote in message
news:Mv2Mb.18194$Rc4.74739@attbi_s54...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CD018BE219ta2eenew@204.127.204.17...
I have a feeling the Pope would disagree....
Just how close a relationship DO you have to the Pope, Holman?
Are you a Roman Catholic who is in faithful communion with that church?
No?
Well then, since you are not, may I humbly suggest you are merely another
meaningly leftist assh*le, a mindless f*ck, a liberal Democrat LOSER? I
think is a fair and accurate assessment of someone of your particular
moral
and intellectual talents, is it not?
IOW, get lost, you meaningless Leftist Creep.
The pope is irrelevant. The catholic church is irrelevant. Jesus is
irrelevant. God is irrelevant. All are either participants in or figures of
a fantasy myth that has NO PLACE in the legal system. Separation of church
and state. The US is a country that has a secular legal system for one good
reason - the founders realized that religion and politics are not a healthy
combination. The original colonists left England so they could practice
their religion without the government getting involved. Freedom of religion
by definition means that one religion cannot be shown favor over any other
as far as the government is concerned, therefore the government must remain
silent on any matter involving religious dogma, teachings, or values. To do
otherwise is unconstitutional. Whether it be laws regarding gay unions, so
called sodomy, religious displays in public spaces, or anything similar, if
the government sticks its nose in those issues, they violate the
constitution. Vice versa, the government CANNOT prevent people from practice
of any religion on private or church property...whether it's Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Satanism, Voodoo, or anything else. Also, people like Fred
Phelps get to stand outside of the courthouses and protest any ruling or
debate that is favorable to gays...freedom of speech. I don't agree with a
word that SOB says, but he gets to say it. In fact, I plan on inviting him
and his sheep...er flock when my partner and I have our commitment ceremony.
I can use the laughs...but just because he/they can say it, that doesn't
mean that their arguments would hold water in a court.
.
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
10 Jan 2004 10:03:18 PM |
|
|
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:zU2Mb.70462$fq1.22754@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"DemsStillHaveNoFriends" <DeansLemmingBattalion@dnc.net> wrote in message
news:Mv2Mb.18194$Rc4.74739@attbi_s54...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CD018BE219ta2eenew@204.127.204.17...
I have a feeling the Pope would disagree....
Just how close a relationship DO you have to the Pope, Holman?
Are you a Roman Catholic who is in faithful communion with that church?
No?
Well then, since you are not, may I humbly suggest you are merely
another
meaningly leftist assh*le, a mindless f*ck, a liberal Democrat LOSER?
I
think is a fair and accurate assessment of someone of your particular
moral
and intellectual talents, is it not?
IOW, get lost, you meaningless Leftist Creep.
The pope is irrelevant. The catholic church is irrelevant. Jesus is
irrelevant. God is irrelevant. All are either participants in or figures
of
a fantasy myth that has NO PLACE in the legal system. Separation of church
and state. The US is a country that has a secular legal system for one
good
reason -
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
10 Jan 2004 10:15:31 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001i6oghbdfqe5@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:zU2Mb.70462$fq1.22754@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"DemsStillHaveNoFriends" <DeansLemmingBattalion@dnc.net> wrote in
message
news:Mv2Mb.18194$Rc4.74739@attbi_s54...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CD018BE219ta2eenew@204.127.204.17...
I have a feeling the Pope would disagree....
Just how close a relationship DO you have to the Pope, Holman?
Are you a Roman Catholic who is in faithful communion with that
church?
No?
Well then, since you are not, may I humbly suggest you are merely
another
meaningly leftist assh*le, a mindless f*ck, a liberal Democrat LOSER?
I
think is a fair and accurate assessment of someone of your particular
moral
and intellectual talents, is it not?
IOW, get lost, you meaningless Leftist Creep.
The pope is irrelevant. The catholic church is irrelevant. Jesus is
irrelevant. God is irrelevant. All are either participants in or figures
of
a fantasy myth that has NO PLACE in the legal system. Separation of
church
and state. The US is a country that has a secular legal system for one
good
reason -
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious concepts.
In the absence of religious arguments, there is no other reason to care what
2 consenting adults do to each other in privacy except "eeeww...I don't like
that...it's gross"...and religious people (who are supposed to be loving and
tolerant - after all, didn't Jesus go where the sinners were according to
the Bible?) bash gays and lesbians, so I feel completely comfortable bashing
them back. And your protestations aside, separation of church and state is
the law of the land, and courts contine to affirm it. The striking down of
the sodomy laws, the disbarring of Moore over his monument, the ruling of
the Ninth Circuit regarding the Pledge, several state and appellate courts
stating that there is no compelling legal reason to deny same-sex couples
civil union rights...fact is, we are winning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
10 Jan 2004 11:29:21 PM |
|
|
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:D54Mb.70479$fq1.2285@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001i6oghbdfqe5@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:zU2Mb.70462$fq1.22754@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"DemsStillHaveNoFriends" <DeansLemmingBattalion@dnc.net> wrote in
message
news:Mv2Mb.18194$Rc4.74739@attbi_s54...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CD018BE219ta2eenew@204.127.204.17...
I have a feeling the Pope would disagree....
Just how close a relationship DO you have to the Pope, Holman?
Are you a Roman Catholic who is in faithful communion with that
church?
No?
Well then, since you are not, may I humbly suggest you are merely
another
meaningly leftist assh*le, a mindless f*ck, a liberal Democrat
LOSER?
I
think is a fair and accurate assessment of someone of your
particular
moral
and intellectual talents, is it not?
IOW, get lost, you meaningless Leftist Creep.
The pope is irrelevant. The catholic church is irrelevant. Jesus is
irrelevant. God is irrelevant. All are either participants in or
figures
of
a fantasy myth that has NO PLACE in the legal system. Separation of
church
and state. The US is a country that has a secular legal system for one
good
reason -
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious concepts.
AIDS and STD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
12 Jan 2004 10:33:17 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <why> writes:
AIDS and STD
Infect straights as well as gays, and in any relative sense
infect far more straights than gays-- if you wander out of your myopic
vision of the United States. Besides, they're technological problems,
and when they have techonological solutions what will you use to bash
gays with then?
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
10 Jan 2004 11:26:59 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001n83k7nid4dc@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:D54Mb.70479$fq1.2285@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001i6oghbdfqe5@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:zU2Mb.70462$fq1.22754@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"DemsStillHaveNoFriends" <DeansLemmingBattalion@dnc.net> wrote in
message
news:Mv2Mb.18194$Rc4.74739@attbi_s54...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CD018BE219ta2eenew@204.127.204.17...
I have a feeling the Pope would disagree....
Just how close a relationship DO you have to the Pope, Holman?
Are you a Roman Catholic who is in faithful communion with that
church?
No?
Well then, since you are not, may I humbly suggest you are merely
another
meaningly leftist assh*le, a mindless f*ck, a liberal Democrat
LOSER?
I
think is a fair and accurate assessment of someone of your
particular
moral
and intellectual talents, is it not?
IOW, get lost, you meaningless Leftist Creep.
The pope is irrelevant. The catholic church is irrelevant. Jesus is
irrelevant. God is irrelevant. All are either participants in or
figures
of
a fantasy myth that has NO PLACE in the legal system. Separation of
church
and state. The US is a country that has a secular legal system for
one
good
reason -
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious
concepts.
AIDS and STD
What does that have to do with anything? STDs including AIDS are spread by
risky habits of people of any sexual orientation, not solely by gay sex.
Plenty of straight white people have AIDS, that's the only reason any
funding is being given to research dedicated to finding a cure. If it was
limited to the (according to the so called bastions of virtue) undesirables,
such as needle sharing IV drug users, homosexuals, and racial minorities, do
you really think one penny would be spent on finding a cure? And if you pull
out that horse crap that "God sent AIDS into the world to cleanse it...blah
blah...", there goes your concepts of a loving, compassionate God right out
the window and splat on the pavement.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton...Tpols Pong Fa Man Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 12:46:37 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001n83k7nid4dc@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:D54Mb.70479$fq1.2285@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious
concepts.
AIDS and STD
As clearly demonstrated there by dpr, proud pig ignorance, mindless hatred
and habitual stupidity are derived from religious concepts too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 04:21:02 PM |
|
|
Clayton...T'pol's Pong Fa Man ***** wrote:
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001n83k7nid4dc@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:D54Mb.70479$fq1.2285@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious
concepts.
AIDS and STD
As clearly demonstrated there by dpr, proud pig ignorance, mindless hatred
and habitual stupidity are derived from religious concepts too.
In many cases not so much derived as much as opportunistically
parasitizing religion, using religion as an excuse to be stupid.
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rhinehold" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
10 Jan 2004 11:49:30 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001n83k7nid4dc@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:D54Mb.70479$fq1.2285@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious
concepts.
AIDS and STD
Point? Are you trying to say that AIDS and STDs are only passed because of
sodomy actions?
Do you realize you're an idiot?
I guess that explains it, Al Capone was a sodomite!
Rhinehold - incredulous
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 04:18:50 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <why> wrote:
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:D54Mb.70479$fq1.2285@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001i6oghbdfqe5@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:zU2Mb.70462$fq1.22754@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"DemsStillHaveNoFriends" <DeansLemmingBattalion@dnc.net> wrote in
***********************
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious
concepts.
AIDS and STD
Which have nothing to do with our old laws that have long had
a homophobic tilt for centuries, long before AIDs, which also
can be caught by heterosexuals, in fact, AIDs in Africa is a largely
heterosexually transmitted disease.
Bans on homosexuality are based on the old testament.
Archaeology has now disposed of the idea that much of the OT i
s in any way history. There was no Egyptian captivity,
no exodus, no Moses and Jioshua carving their way to Canaan
ina vicious series of genocidal military campaigns.
Its faux history, none of that happened.
So, no Moses on the mount recieving the laws from the hand
of god.
Thus claims prohibitions on homosexuality are acceptable
because they are god's laws is false and unacceptable.
Claims we must keep this bigotry part of teh laws of our land
because they are old and hoary are as false as the idea
that we had to keep slavery in place, or keep women as
non-voting second class citizens because such ideas were
old, and honored hoary claims based on the lying bible.
Its time for right winger assholes tio grwo up.
Its time to take a Freedomist, exspansive, libertarian view
on societies backwards homophobic impulses.
Get your stinking, far right, religous extremist governmet off
everybody's backs.
Aids has nothing in the least to do with allowing homosexual marriage, any
more than gonnorhea should have to do with allowing women to vote.
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 04:36:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:29:21 -0900, "dpr" <why> posted to alt.atheism:
AIDS and STD
AIDS and STDs aren't created by homosexual sex, they're made endemic
by promiscuity.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "a#344" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 12:55:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:29:21 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious concepts.
AIDS and STD
EVERYONE gets STDs. Gay or straight.
Dod you know that lesbians have far fewer cases of aids than
hetrosexuals?
Non needle using lesbians are the lowest aids risk group in the
world. So by your defnitions straight sex better be outlawed first.
Try again.
"BTW if disease is your prime motivation, why not ban tobbacco? It
kills millions, but I suppose thats no fun. Jesus won't help you hate
smokers.,
Dana W
a#344
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Aldrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 02:34:44 AM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:D54Mb.70479$fq1.2285@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"dpr" <why> wrote in message news:1001i6oghbdfqe5@corp.supernews.com...
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message
news:zU2Mb.70462$fq1.22754@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"DemsStillHaveNoFriends" <DeansLemmingBattalion@dnc.net> wrote in
message
news:Mv2Mb.18194$Rc4.74739@attbi_s54...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CD018BE219ta2eenew@204.127.204.17...
I have a feeling the Pope would disagree....
Just how close a relationship DO you have to the Pope, Holman?
Are you a Roman Catholic who is in faithful communion with that
church?
No?
Well then, since you are not, may I humbly suggest you are merely
another
meaningly leftist assh*le, a mindless f*ck, a liberal Democrat
LOSER?
I
think is a fair and accurate assessment of someone of your
particular
moral
and intellectual talents, is it not?
IOW, get lost, you meaningless Leftist Creep.
The pope is irrelevant. The catholic church is irrelevant. Jesus is
irrelevant. God is irrelevant. All are either participants in or
figures
of
a fantasy myth that has NO PLACE in the legal system. Separation of
church
and state. The US is a country that has a secular legal system for one
good
reason -
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious concepts.
AIDS and STD
When tose laws were passed, AIDS and STD were not the motive behind the law, the
law was based and motivated by religious doctrine. One base of declaring law
unconstitutional is the base reasoning of the law.
Free clue, you can't justify a law which was passed on the bases of old doctrine
and then argue made up reasoning from the present.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "#1883" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 03:58:52 PM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious concepts.
AIDS and STD
You mean straight people can't get those?
Wayhay! I'm going whoring!
--
#1883
"Religion controls the weak, stupid and criminal-minded in ways that
threat of jail or community service cannot. If a vision of endless fire
and brimstone or torture at the clutches of horny dragon-beast with a
12-inch spiked ***** keeps even one person from putting a bullet in my
head, religion can't be all bad." - TMB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wyle Coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 04:42:32 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"#1883" <spm1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9GjMb.46119$n52.13561@fe17.usenetserver.com...
dpr wrote:
No - it is not off topic. Sodomy laws are derived from religious concepts.
AIDS and STD
You mean straight people can't get those?
Wayhay! I'm going whoring!
Hold on there Tiger!
U can still get pregnant!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 01:41:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:03:18 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
The pope is irrelevant. The catholic church is irrelevant. Jesus is
irrelevant. God is irrelevant. All are either participants in or figures
of
a fantasy myth that has NO PLACE in the legal system. Separation of church
and state. The US is a country that has a secular legal system for one
good
reason -
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
WAHWAHWAH.
As if you *never* XP OT posts.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -495 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "modlibdem" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 05:37:54 PM |
|
|
First: Gay marriage will increasingly play larger roles this
presidential election year! Many moderates are at least indifferent to
"same sex" relationships; many moderates (who are not gay) take
"mature viewpoints" that "same sex" relationships are "none of their
business!" Many moderates are dissapointed that we have leadership
that frowns on gays!
Second: Bush has not made any new friends. Many
"conservative-moderates" are upset at "the president!"
Speaking of "the president", one of many attack-ads would do well in
presenting what actually happend in the 2000 Election e.g., many
people in Florida (the one's most likely to vote Democrat) were
purged-off the voter rolls through a GOP-supported database company
that contracted with the state of Florida (the 'Jim Crow' in
cyberspace ploys)
In short, enough moderates, and conservative-moderates will elect the
GOP OUT OF OFFICE IN 2004!
Let's "cut out this crap" of these memes (bordering on a
self-fufilling prophecy), which are floating around; that the GOP will
be reelected!
See the links: America Coming Together advocacy group
www.AmericaComingTogether.com, www.moveon.org, www.stopbushin2004.com,
and www.michaelmoore.com
eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang) wrote in message news:<4000fde1.32423515@news.cox.net>...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:03:18 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
The pope is irrelevant. The catholic church is irrelevant. Jesus is
irrelevant. God is irrelevant. All are either participants in or figures
of
a fantasy myth that has NO PLACE in the legal system. Separation of church
and state. The US is a country that has a secular legal system for one
good
reason -
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
WAHWAHWAH.
As if you *never* XP OT posts.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -495 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "a#344" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 12:55:34 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:03:18 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
Way off topic, take your religious bashing elsewhere.
its posted in alt.atheism dimwit.
alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa,talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism
Read the headers THEN reply. Its on topic HERE.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 03:38:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:53:19 GMT, "Amelia M. Samples"
<milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote:
Freedom of religion
by definition means that one religion cannot be shown favor over any other
as far as the government is concerned, therefore the government must remain
silent on any matter involving religious dogma, teachings, or values. To do
otherwise is unconstitutional. Whether it be laws regarding gay unions, so
called sodomy, religious displays in public spaces, or anything similar, if
the government sticks its nose in those issues, they violate the
constitution.
I whole-heartedly agree!!! The government has no right to tell me that
I cannot have sex with my favorite barnyard animal while anally
enriching my kids with a baton.
If I want to staple a dogs head to my penis and urinate freely into my
own mouth and the government objects then they are violating the
Constitution!!!!
Cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 10:20:24 AM |
|
|
<mange@merde.com> wrote in message
news:su620011m4nl2qelbapdu7kicsms3875pt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:53:19 GMT, "Amelia M. Samples"
<milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote:
Freedom of religion
by definition means that one religion cannot be shown favor over any
other
as far as the government is concerned, therefore the government must
remain
silent on any matter involving religious dogma, teachings, or values. To
do
otherwise is unconstitutional. Whether it be laws regarding gay unions,
so
called sodomy, religious displays in public spaces, or anything similar,
if
the government sticks its nose in those issues, they violate the
constitution.
I whole-heartedly agree!!! The government has no right to tell me that
I cannot have sex with my favorite barnyard animal while anally
enriching my kids with a baton.
If I want to staple a dogs head to my penis and urinate freely into my
own mouth and the government objects then they are violating the
Constitution!!!!
Cheers
Apples and oranges, doofus. The barnyard animal, the dog, and the child are
legally not capable of consent (informed or otherwise) so there is no need
to invoke a deity or a religon based moral code to prohibit those acts. Now
if you want to jam staples in your penis and ***** in your mouth, be my
guest- just do it behind closed doors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wyle Coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 01:27:30 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message news:cJeMb.11165$LW.11120@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
<mange@merde.com> wrote in message
news:su620011m4nl2qelbapdu7kicsms3875pt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:53:19 GMT, "Amelia M. Samples"
<milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote:
Freedom of religion
by definition means that one religion cannot be shown favor over any
other
as far as the government is concerned, therefore the government must
remain
silent on any matter involving religious dogma, teachings, or values. To
do
otherwise is unconstitutional. Whether it be laws regarding gay unions,
so
called sodomy, religious displays in public spaces, or anything similar,
if
the government sticks its nose in those issues, they violate the
constitution.
I whole-heartedly agree!!! The government has no right to tell me that
I cannot have sex with my favorite barnyard animal while anally
enriching my kids with a baton.
If I want to staple a dogs head to my penis and urinate freely into my
own mouth and the government objects then they are violating the
Constitution!!!!
Cheers
Now
if you want to jam staples in your penis and ***** in your mouth, be my
guest- just do it behind closed doors.
"Behind closed doors"???
That's the next argument they have in store! Why must we do it behind closed
doors? It's not harming anyone! U don't have to look! What's decent and indecent?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 08:15:57 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:27:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
"Behind closed doors"???
That's the next argument they have in store! Why must we do it behind closed
doors? It's not harming anyone! U don't have to look! What's decent and indecent?
It's called "creating a public nuisance" (and in the case of the
pissing, violating a couple of public health statutes as well.)
As far as I'm concerned, as long as everone is a consenting adult, I
don't care what people do for fun. But the actual sexual part should
be kept private. I don't suck off my boyfriend in public buses. You
don't screw your girlfrind until she screams in the library. Deal?
Now, the simple fact of being married is different. Unless you look
closely at my left hand to see my ring, or ask me and my wife about
our status, you aren't going to know that I am married. Same with two
married homosexuals.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wyle Coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
12 Jan 2004 06:29:09 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:5k04001lhamvlhk7m774c1aak9edc30cu0@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:27:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
"Behind closed doors"???
That's the next argument they have in store! Why must we do it behind closed
doors? It's not harming anyone! U don't have to look! What's decent and indecent?
It's called "creating a public nuisance" (and in the case of the
pissing, violating a couple of public health statutes as well.)
As far as I'm concerned, as long as everone is a consenting adult, I
don't care what people do for fun. But the actual sexual part should
be kept private. I don't suck off my boyfriend in public buses. You
don't screw your girlfrind until she screams in the library. Deal?
Given that reasoning, then why can't people have sex in public?
Who's it affecting?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
13 Jan 2004 10:28:12 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:29:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
x-no-archive:yes
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:5k04001lhamvlhk7m774c1aak9edc30cu0@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:27:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
"Behind closed doors"???
That's the next argument they have in store! Why must we do it behind closed
doors? It's not harming anyone! U don't have to look! What's decent and indecent?
It's called "creating a public nuisance" (and in the case of the
pissing, violating a couple of public health statutes as well.)
As far as I'm concerned, as long as everone is a consenting adult, I
don't care what people do for fun. But the actual sexual part should
be kept private. I don't suck off my boyfriend in public buses. You
don't screw your girlfrind until she screams in the library. Deal?
Given that reasoning, then why can't people have sex in public?
Who's it affecting?
Anyone who doesn't want to see it.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wyle Coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
13 Jan 2004 12:53:09 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:p47800h57fet01buafkokm5aqdnk7n8876@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:29:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
x-no-archive:yes
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:5k04001lhamvlhk7m774c1aak9edc30cu0@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:27:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
"Behind closed doors"???
That's the next argument they have in store! Why must we do it behind closed
doors? It's not harming anyone! U don't have to look! What's decent and indecent?
It's called "creating a public nuisance" (and in the case of the
pissing, violating a couple of public health statutes as well.)
As far as I'm concerned, as long as everone is a consenting adult, I
don't care what people do for fun. But the actual sexual part should
be kept private. I don't suck off my boyfriend in public buses. You
don't screw your girlfrind until she screams in the library. Deal?
Given that reasoning, then why can't people have sex in public?
Who's it affecting?
Anyone who doesn't want to see it.
Don't look! Change the channel!
One can argue they don't want to see two men kissing or holding hands
in public as well. What are the disgusted viewing victims supposed to
do in these instances? Not look? Change the channel?
See where this is leading? You can understand marrying two men because
it effects no body, but you can't understand why two people can't have sex
in the streets.
Uh...for the same difficult to define reasons, that many refer to as GOD, OK!!!
can't understand
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
13 Jan 2004 04:58:00 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:53:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
Don't look! Change the channel!
One can argue they don't want to see two men kissing or holding hands
in public as well. What are the disgusted viewing victims supposed to
do in these instances? Not look? Change the channel?
I am fully capable of not looking at things I don't want to see. For
example, I don't watch much TV. It has an off button.
See where this is leading? You can understand marrying two men because
it effects no body, but you can't understand why two people can't have sex
in the streets.
Somebody marrying affects their lives. I've been married almost 13
years, and so far we haven't had the urge to fuick in the driveway. I
do know people who wouldn't mind screwing in the parks, but for most
of us, sex isn't a spectator sport.
Oh, if men holding hands freaks you out, I suggest you *never* leave
the United States. Or you'll be in for a nasty shock.
Now, do I object to casual displays of affection like holding hands or
kissing? No. Do I find two people practiacally mugging each other in
a park annoying? yes.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wyle Coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
13 Jan 2004 09:29:52 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:hot8001ij960cu0vkshdgq8fb5nojtsmdr@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:53:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
Don't look! Change the channel!
One can argue they don't want to see two men kissing or holding hands
in public as well. What are the disgusted viewing victims supposed to
do in these instances? Not look? Change the channel?
I am fully capable of not looking at things I don't want to see. For
example, I don't watch much TV. It has an off button.
See where this is leading? You can understand marrying two men because
it effects no body, but you can't understand why two people can't have sex
in the streets.
Somebody marrying affects their lives. I've been married almost 13
years, and so far we haven't had the urge to fuick in the driveway. I
do know people who wouldn't mind screwing in the parks, but for most
of us, sex isn't a spectator sport.
Speak for yourself. There are also many gays who would approve of sex
in the street. What would the courts use to prevent it when it becomes
an issue? And trust me it eventually will, if they legalize S.S. marriage.
Now, do I object to casual displays of affection like holding hands or
kissing? No. Do I find two people practiacally mugging each other in
a park annoying? yes.
Similarly as some find two guys kissing or holding hands annoying. As for
not leaving the USA to prevent seeing other guys holding hands in public, many
have different cultures. Men holding hands in let's say India doesn't mean the same
thing that it does in USA. When I'm in India I'm on their territory. USA is my
territory & I make the rules here!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
14 Jan 2004 10:30:56 AM |
|
|
"Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> wrote in message
news:QI2Nb.8633$zj7.4523@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
x-no-archive:yes
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:hot8001ij960cu0vkshdgq8fb5nojtsmdr@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:53:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
Don't look! Change the channel!
One can argue they don't want to see two men kissing or holding hands
in public as well. What are the disgusted viewing victims supposed to
do in these instances? Not look? Change the channel?
I am fully capable of not looking at things I don't want to see. For
example, I don't watch much TV. It has an off button.
See where this is leading? You can understand marrying two men because
it effects no body, but you can't understand why two people can't have
sex
in the streets.
Somebody marrying affects their lives. I've been married almost 13
years, and so far we haven't had the urge to fuick in the driveway. I
do know people who wouldn't mind screwing in the parks, but for most
of us, sex isn't a spectator sport.
Speak for yourself. There are also many gays who would approve of sex
in the street. What would the courts use to prevent it when it becomes
an issue? And trust me it eventually will, if they legalize S.S.
marriage.
Data on "sex in the street"?
Now, do I object to casual displays of affection like holding hands or
kissing? No. Do I find two people practiacally mugging each other in
a park annoying? yes.
Similarly as some find two guys kissing or holding hands annoying. As for
not leaving the USA to prevent seeing other guys holding hands in public,
many
have different cultures. Men holding hands in let's say India doesn't
mean the same
thing that it does in USA. When I'm in India I'm on their territory.
USA is my
territory & I make the rules here!
You might want to talk to a shrink about that superiority complex. Do you
hold any elected office?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
14 Jan 2004 11:54:56 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:29:52 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Wyle Coyote" <d@d.a> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
x-no-archive:yes
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:hot8001ij960cu0vkshdgq8fb5nojtsmdr@4ax.com...
Somebody marrying affects their lives. I've been married almost 13
years, and so far we haven't had the urge to fuick in the driveway. I
do know people who wouldn't mind screwing in the parks, but for most
of us, sex isn't a spectator sport.
Speak for yourself. There are also many gays who would approve of sex
in the street. What would the courts use to prevent it when it becomes
an issue? And trust me it eventually will, if they legalize S.S. marriage.
There are many straights who would approve of the same thing. I point
you to his news item:
http://www.seniorexplorer.com/public/archive/summaries/309/08_24_02_3.html
So it's not just the gays who screw in inappropriate places. Hell,
are you old enough to remember reading about Plato's Retreat back in
the 70s?
Now, do I object to casual displays of affection like holding hands or
kissing? No. Do I find two people practiacally mugging each other in
a park annoying? yes.
Similarly as some find two guys kissing or holding hands annoying. As for
not leaving the USA to prevent seeing other guys holding hands in public, many
have different cultures. Men holding hands in let's say India doesn't mean the same
thing that it does in USA. When I'm in India I'm on their territory. USA is my
territory & I make the rules here!
No, you don't. Copngress makes the rules, and those rules have to fit
into the Constitution, and under the Constitution, you can't exclude
rights from specific groups without a compelling legal reason.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 04:54:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:53:19 GMT, "Amelia M. Samples"
<milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote:
Freedom of religion
by definition means that one religion cannot be shown favor over any other
as far as the government is concerned, therefore the government must
remain silent on any matter involving religious dogma, teachings, or
values. To do otherwise is unconstitutional. Whether it be laws regarding
gay unions, so called sodomy, religious displays in public spaces, or
anything similar, if the government sticks its nose in those issues, they
violate the constitution.
I whole-heartedly agree!!! The government has no right to tell me that
I cannot have sex with my favorite barnyard animal while anally
enriching my kids with a baton.
You are obviously a right winger. A GOP voter.
And an idiot. Assaulting children is stil a no-no.
Even for brain damaged right wingers attempting a failed
reductio ad absurdum.
For obvioius reasons. Well, maybe not obvious to
damaged right wingers.
Or are you pertending to be stupid and hoping nobody else
will notice what is wrong with your truely stupid claims?
Which is itself a stupid tactic to take on usenet.
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "a#344" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 02:43:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:38:56 GMT, "mange@merde.com" <mange@merde.com>
I whole-heartedly agree!!! The government has no right to tell me that
I cannot have sex with my favorite barnyard animal
sorry, we were talking consenting adults.
Well, you just invalidated yourself nicely.
next............
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wyle Coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Why persecute gays? |
11 Jan 2004 01:09:22 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"Amelia M. Samples" <milla@georgebush.visi.com> wrote in message news:zU2Mb.70462$fq1.22754@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"DemsStillHaveNoFriends" <DeansLemmingBattalion@dnc.net> wrote in message
news:Mv2Mb.18194$Rc4.74739@attbi_s54...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946CD018BE219ta2eenew@204.127.204.17...
I have a feeling the Pope would disagree....
Just how close a relationship DO you have to the Pope, Holman?
Are you a Roman Catholic who is in faithful communion with that church?
No?
Well then, since you are not, may I humbly suggest you are merely another
meaningly leftist assh*le, a mindless f*ck, a liberal Democrat LOSER? I
think is a fair and accurate assessment of someone of your particular
moral
and intellectual talents, is it not?
IOW, get lost, you meaningless Leftist Creep.
The original colonists left England so they could practice
their religion without the government getting involved.
And now you are saying we follow European nations by legalizing same
sex marriage, as some of them have? Why'd the colonist leave in the first place?
Guess Mama was smarter than you thought...huh?
So...you need help packin, cause somebody's leavin!!!
Whether it be laws regarding gay unions, so
called sodomy, religious displays in public spaces, or anything similar, if
the government sticks its nose in those issues, they violate the
constitution.
There were anti-sodomy laws on the books, in every state, across the land.
They were on those books for a reason! Isn't that church mixing w/state???
So, now we are a more religious nation...is that what you are saying???
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Why Have So Few Gays Chosen To Marry?
Why gays make better astronauts
Why did God make gays if he didnt approve of them?
Re: If god Created the Universe and everything in it, Riddle me this Christians, Why did he Created Heroin, Cocaine, MariJuana, Gays, Opium, and Most Other Illegal Drugs???
Why are (the majority of) gays hostile to ex-gays?
Why do Homophobes like J Young Always End Up as Self-Loathing Gays?
Re: Why would 'gays' want children?
Why would 'gays' want children?
| No protecting of gays in the Federal workplace
Bush and gays
Re: Can 'gays' really change?
Re: Billboard About Ex-Gays Generates News, Hate Mail
J Young Christian Morality: WI Woman Brutally Attacked for Being Gay (Praise Jesus! Family Values! Kill Gays! Hate the Sin!)
Oops, Pa Pastor Sentenced for Fucking 15 YO Girl (Blame the Gays! Blame the Gays!)
Oops, WI Pastor Sentenced for Raping 14 YO Girl. Let's Blame Gays For This One
|
|
|
