While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:39:21 GMT,
(GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest
Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) screamed out:
There is no denial of equal rights by saying homosexuals
cannot marry.
Yes, there most certainly IS. If there weren't, we wouldn't be
seing a collection of hateful loons running around flapping their
arms and screeching for a Bigotry Amendment with which to
pollute and poison the Constitution.
You must be looking in the mirror. I'm not the one who
constantly uses name calling and shouting in my
messages regarding this issue, which only shows us that
you have no argument to make. It seems that you're the
one "flapping your arms and screeching bigotry".
One does not put on a Jets uniform and demand to be
able to play with the team, just because one wants to
and then claim a denial of equal rights. There is a
definition as to what a Jet is.
And there is NO legal definition of marriage in the Constitution
that would EXCLUDE gays from marrying their same-sex partners.
And the morons who SEEK to exclude them are loathsome bigots
who are without excuse.
Marriage has always been one man and one woman and
homosexuals claiming marriage has never been normative
in any society in history and those that did cater to
this lifestyle are long in ruins. Those who upheld the
traditional family prospered until they did not uphold
the traditional family. The family unit is the fabric
of society. Now that we see the family declining, look
what's been happening to the moral fabric of this
country. Those are facts, whether you like it or not.
One who is white does not demand a government loan on
the basis of being a minority and then claim that they are being
denied their equal rights when they are denied. There is a
definition of what a minority is.
Yeah. ANY group of people who do not constitute the
MAJORITY of people in the given category.
Wrong. Minorities are listed by legal definition.
There are areas where white people are the minority and
yet, they do not receive minority benefits.
In the same way, there is a definition of what a marriage is.
It is one man and one woman. Homosexuals do not qualify,
by definition.
In YOUR **bigoted** opinion. What utter bullcrap!! See my
first paragraph, above.
It's not an opinion. It's a fact. A fact you may not
like, but a fact none-the-less. If it weren't a fact,
then we would not have gays suing to marry, so the fact
that you're here shouting about this subject, proves
your statement in error and you contradict yourself.
Besides this, the agenda of the homosexual movement...
Did you regard the FIRST Civil Rights Movement, 40+ years
ago, to be an "agenda?" Sheeesh!!! What total LOSERS you
and your hateful & bigoted ilk are!
Trying to equate gay marriage with the civil rights
movement is a slap in the face to the black people.
And it's funny you should mention it. The fact is,
that the spokesman for the largest coalition of
supporters for the Federal Marriage Amendment, is
Walter Fauntroy, a civil rights leader who marched with
Martin Luther King Jr. in the 60's. So your argument
is deflated once again.
...is not to have marriage, but to abolish it...
What a blatant LIE, **pseudo**-pastor.
It's not a lie. It's a fact and the people can
research it for themselves.
CHALLENGE: Tell us just ONE way that ANY heterosexual
couple's marriage would be harmed in ANY way if a same-sex
couple somewhere got married. Just ONE. (Or be man enough
to ADMIT your abject stupidity!)
Whether ot not you harm an individual marriage is
irrelevant. It is the society that is the concern.
Shooting the guy down the street doesn't harm my house.
Yet it is a concern for the society and having a
murderer running around, whether he kills me or not, is
not something to support. Rather, it needs to be
stopped, so that argument is bogus as well.
...and once marriage is granted for them, then the flood
gates open...
Ah. Wording taken directly from Falwell's hate-propaganda.
No, it's a fact that can be and is demonstrated in Utah
right now. It is also demonstrated to the extreme, in
the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been legal for
a while. Based on those cases, people there and here,
are suing to be able to have multiple partners of both
sexes, which is not called "polygamy", but rather, the
new word is, "polyamorous" and they wish to call it a
marriage. People in the Netherlands are now suing to
marry animals, based on this same case. Once it is
legalized, it takes the power of the court away, to say
what is and isn't a valid marriage, since marriage
then, will have no definition, as it does now, which is
one man and one woman. So the claim that I am
parroting Falwell is deflated as well. I don't even
watch the man.
Just SOAK up that hate-jargon like a GOOD little mindless RRR
cult lemming!! (LOL!!!! You cultic nitwits are a total joke!! And
are FAST gaining stature as America's National Laughingstock.)
And there it is. You know you don't have an argument,
so all you do is call people names and spit out hatred.
Then you claim it is those in support of traditional
marriage who hate. Let it be noted that your words of
hate are recorded here, for all to see.
...and we have people suing to marry more than one partner
and to marry their pets, etc..
Yeah. JUST as we saw happen after interracial marriage
became universally legal in the USA, in 1967, right? Many people
as loony as you are were shrieking that the sky was falling THEN,
too.
Dodging the point doesn't help your case. I stated a
fact. Now you are equating marrying animals to folks
of different colors marrying. You prove here for all
to see, that you are a supporter of people marrying
animals, by using the example that you did. You now
put that on par with color, trying to make it also, a
civil rights issue. Contrary to your opinion, civil
rights does not equal doing whatever you want to do.
Sound fantastic and hard to believe?
Actually, I couldn't care less. UNLIKE you, I'm NOT a mindless
and ludicrous BUSYBODY.
We know you could not care less. Morality is not your
strong suit, neither is fair play.
People in Utah are already suing, based on the Lawrence
case, which the court decided in favor of, that homosexual
marriage in Constitutional.
Good! I hope they WIN!
Thank you for proving that you also, have an agenda,
which is not just homosexual marriage, but rather, a
broader scope of trying to destroy marriage altogether.
Now tell us what a good Christian you are. Oh and
don't forget to tell how Jesus said to love everybody.
Look to the Netherlands, where homosexual marriage is
legal and you'll find lawsuits based on those cases, in which
people are actually suing to marry animals and in groups and
relatives. These are the facts. Look it up for yourselves.
Big deal. Obviously you have us egalitarians confused with
people who would GIVE a rat's ***** for your bigotries.
You are an idiot.
So when someone like you says no harm would be done,
you're lying and we both know it.
Wrong. All of the LYING in here has been done by YOU, and
same-sex marriage is 100% harmless.
And who will end up suffering the most? The children, who
cannot even count on what a family is.
Every child will recognize that which constitutes HIS/HER
family, and that is ALL that counts. Thus, NO suffering. On
ANYONE'S part.
No,
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee:
neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out
of my lips was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
