Religions > Bible > Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2004 02:01:24 PM |
| Object: |
Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
Too bad for the faggots that referendums banning same-sex marriage were
approved earlier this year in Louisiana and Missouri, both with more than
70 percent support. Too bad for you faggots that similar measures are on
the Nov. 2 ballot in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah, and
*all* are expected to overwhelmingly pass with the possible exception of
Oregon.
By the way, Kerry opposes same sex "marriage". I guess the faggots have no
one to vote for.
.
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
01 Oct 2004 02:19:15 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:8Qh7d.8063$Oe5.5354@news02.roc.ny...
Too bad for the faggots that referendums banning same-sex marriage were
approved earlier this year in Louisiana and Missouri, both with more than
70 percent support. Too bad for you faggots that similar measures are on
the Nov. 2 ballot in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah, and
*all* are expected to overwhelmingly pass with the possible exception of
Oregon.
Cool, the IQ in those states was on the decline anyways. lol.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gir" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 06:11:44 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote...
Too bad for the faggots that referendums banning same-sex marriage were
approved earlier this year in Louisiana and Missouri, both with more than
70 percent support. Too bad for you faggots that similar measures are on
the Nov. 2 ballot in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah, and
*all* are expected to overwhelmingly pass with the possible exception of
Oregon.
All I can say is that if the self-righteous bible-thumpers with the personal
Jebuses stuck up their asses don't like the idea of gay marriage, then they
don't have to do it. No one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing
them to marry someone of the same gender. If they want to press the issue,
I will respond by lobbying for the abolishment of ALL marriage, at least
as something legally-recognized by the government. Gays won't be able to
legally marry, and neither will self-righteous xian heterosexual couples.
Everyone would still retain the right to engage in ritual ceremonies to
express their devotion to their partners, but such rituals will have no
legal recognition. Issues of property, children, debts, etc. will be
handled by contract; in the absence of any signed contract property will
be split as determined by a judge. So go ahead, keep pressing for a gay
marriage ban and we'll respond by banning YOUR marriage!
In response to the proposed state bans, well it's interesting how you
conservative rightards are going to put the right ideological spin on
that one. Actually, the right's traditional vigorous defense of
"states' rights" was thrown out the window with the proposed federal
gay marriage ban amendment - y'all wanted the federal government to
trample on the states' right to decide this issue for themselves.
Now that the proposed federal amendment has failed, y'all are back to
your argument for state sovereignty. Although I'm usually libertarian
and a strong backer of states' rights, I think a federal constitutional
amendment should be passed immediately that would require the execution
of all persons with Jebus stuck up their *****. That would solve
America's problems quite nicely.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Provasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 12:43:40 AM |
|
|
I have sent a copy of your post to
abuse-news@frontiernet.net
since their terms of service prohibit hateful languange and derogatory
terms used against minority groups.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hearn" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
05 Oct 2004 08:26:02 AM |
|
|
In article <8Qh7d.8063$Oe5.5354@news02.roc.ny>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Too bad for the faggots that referendums banning same-sex marriage were
approved earlier this year in Louisiana and Missouri, both with more than
70 percent support. Too bad for you faggots that similar measures are on
the Nov. 2 ballot in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah, and
*all* are expected to overwhelmingly pass with the possible exception of
Oregon.
By the way, Kerry opposes same sex "marriage". I guess the faggots have no
one to vote for.
Why are you such a hateful person? If you lived your life closer to
the standards your God set out for you, you might be a lot happier
and less hateful.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex"marriage" |
01 Oct 2004 02:58:04 PM |
|
|
When the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia and declared that
antimiscegenation laws were unconstitutional, some 90% of the country opposed
interracial marriage. Popular disapproval has nothing whatsoever to do with
fundamental civil rights.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all power, legislative,
executive, and judicial in the same hands...
may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny."
- James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
01 Oct 2004 03:02:55 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:415DB6CC.C2E64B45@serv.net:
When the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia and declared that
antimiscegenation laws were unconstitutional, some 90% of the country
opposed interracial marriage. Popular disapproval has nothing whatsoever
to do with fundamental civil rights.
Same sex "marriage" isn't a civil right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
01 Oct 2004 04:27:35 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:415DB6CC.C2E64B45@serv.net:
When the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia and declared that
antimiscegenation laws were unconstitutional, some 90% of the country
opposed interracial marriage. Popular disapproval has nothing
whatsoever to do with fundamental civil rights.
Same sex "marriage" isn't a civil right.
The SCOTUS has ruled in at least three landmark cases that marriage is a
civil right. There was no qualifications as to the gender make-up of the
couple.
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
01 Oct 2004 09:06:20 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in
news:bZj7d.318$UP1.259@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:415DB6CC.C2E64B45@serv.net:
When the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia and declared that
antimiscegenation laws were unconstitutional, some 90% of the country
opposed interracial marriage. Popular disapproval has nothing
whatsoever to do with fundamental civil rights.
Same sex "marriage" isn't a civil right.
The SCOTUS has ruled in at least three landmark cases that marriage is a
civil right.
Every person has the same marriage rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Brautigan" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 12:47:22 AM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 12:25:46 AM |
|
|
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone
else can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 01:06:49 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <dems@losers.com> writes:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone
else can.
He said, "the person I love," not "some random person."
Not too many years ago, you couldn't always marry someone you loved
who was of the opposite sex. The person had to have the same skin
color as well. And the bigots would use the same argument you are
using to justify it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 01:03:21 AM |
|
|
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people of
mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not any sort
of discrimination.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "User" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 01:25:50 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people of
mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not any sort
of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in sexual
intercourse, reproduction is the typical result, regardless of what
race they are. That is not to say reproduction is the only
justification for heterosex. When a man and man engage in sexual
intercourse, disease is the most typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is going
to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it sanction them
all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hearn" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
06 Oct 2004 09:12:52 PM |
|
|
In article <hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com>, User <1@2.3>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people of
mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not any sort
of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in sexual
intercourse, reproduction is the typical result, regardless of what
race they are. That is not to say reproduction is the only
justification for heterosex. When a man and man engage in sexual
intercourse, disease is the most typical result.
Wrong. When anyone engages in unprotected sex, they risk contracting a
sexually transmitted disease. It has nothing to do with the gender of
the people involved in the sex act. People typically engage in sex for
reasons other than reproduction. People of the same gender can engage in
sex without risk of contracting AIDS, Syphilis, or other STD simply by
using contraception, likewise for people of the opposite sex.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is going
to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it sanction them
all?
The arguments you are using were used to defend the ban on interracial
sex. Your arguments failed then and they will eventually fail again
where same sex marriage is concerned. Racists such as you never come
up with sound justification for their racism, and your arguments are
proof enough of that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans opposesame-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 07:07:19 AM |
|
|
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people of
mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not any sort
of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in sexual
intercourse, reproduction is the typical result, regardless of what
race they are. That is not to say reproduction is the only
justification for heterosex. When a man and man engage in sexual
intercourse, disease is the most typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is going
to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it sanction them
all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the debate? Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up with a
concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can ***** and have kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on infertile
couples.
Matty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 09:22:40 AM |
|
|
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like
everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people of
mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not any sort
of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in sexual
intercourse, reproduction is the typical result, regardless of what
race they are. That is not to say reproduction is the only
justification for heterosex. When a man and man engage in sexual
intercourse, disease is the most typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is going
to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it sanction them
all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the debate?
Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up with a
concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can ***** and have kids"
isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on infertile
couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans opposesame-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 09:55:22 AM |
|
|
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article 3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like
everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people of
mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not any sort
of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in sexual
intercourse, reproduction is the typical result, regardless of what
race they are. That is not to say reproduction is the only
justification for heterosex. When a man and man engage in sexual
intercourse, disease is the most typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is going
to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it sanction them
all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the debate?
Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up with a
concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can ***** and have kids"
isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on infertile
couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children, "Why can't
two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE reason without needing
to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Matty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 12:04:40 PM |
|
|
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like
everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people of
mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not any sort
of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in sexual
intercourse, reproduction is the typical result, regardless of what
race they are. That is not to say reproduction is the only
justification for heterosex. When a man and man engage in sexual
intercourse, disease is the most typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is going
to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it sanction them
all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the debate?
Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up with a
concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can ***** and have kids"
isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on infertile
couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children, "Why can't
two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE reason without needing
to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ninure Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 07:07:24 PM |
|
|
In article <ZiA7d.13155$yp.9725@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
-"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
-news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
-> On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
-> 3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
-> "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
->
->>
->> "Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
->> news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
->>> On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
->>> hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
->>> "User" <1@2.3> wrote:
->>>
->>>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
->>>> Fischer) wrote:
->>>>
->>>>> Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
->>>>>> "James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
->>>>>> news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
->>>>>>> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
->>>>>>>
->>>>>>>> Every person has the same marriage rights.
->>>>>>>>
->>>>>>>
->>>>>>> Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I love
->>>>>>> that heterosexuals have.
->>>>>>
->>>>>> yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like
->>>>>> everyone
->>>>>> else can.
->>>>>
->>>>> You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people of
->>>>> mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not any sort
->>>>> of discrimination.
->>>>
->>>> You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in sexual
->>>> intercourse, reproduction is the typical result, regardless of what
->>>> race they are. That is not to say reproduction is the only
->>>> justification for heterosex. When a man and man engage in sexual
->>>> intercourse, disease is the most typical result.
->>>>
->>>> If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
->>>> marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is going
->>>> to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it sanction them
->>>> all?
->>>
->>> What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the debate?
->>> Nothing.
->>> The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up with a
->>> concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can ***** and have kids"
->>> isn't
->>> a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on infertile
->>> couples.
->>
->> Excuse?
->> The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
->
-> Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children, "Why can't
-> two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE reason without needing
-> to hark back to either:
->
-> 1) Pumping out children
-> 2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
-
-Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
In other words you can think of no rational reason to deny TWO non related
consenting ADULTS to order their lives any way this wish and reciebe equal
treatment under the law.
-That is a better question.
No, it is not.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
Take my polls
http://ninure.100megsfree5.com
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 11:24:18 AM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I
love that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like
everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people
of mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not
any sort of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in
sexual intercourse, reproduction is the typical result,
regardless of what race they are. That is not to say
reproduction is the only justification for heterosex. When a man
and man engage in sexual intercourse, disease is the most typical
result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is
going to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it
sanction them all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the debate?
Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up with
a concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can ***** and have
kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on
infertile couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children, "Why
can't two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE reason
without needing to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
What right do I have to prevent consenting adults from their right to free
association and to freely enter into a marriage contract?
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 01:23:56 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:SCA7d.873$UP1.344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I
love that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like
everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing people
of mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's will, and not
any sort of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in
sexual intercourse, reproduction is the typical result,
regardless of what race they are. That is not to say
reproduction is the only justification for heterosex. When a man
and man engage in sexual intercourse, disease is the most typical
result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next - group
marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the government is
going to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why shouldn't it
sanction them all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the debate?
Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up with
a concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can ***** and have
kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on
infertile couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children, "Why
can't two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE reason
without needing to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
What right do I have to prevent consenting adults from their right to free
association and to freely enter into a marriage contract?
You did not answer my question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 12:29:24 PM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:SCA7d.873$UP1.344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I
love that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just
like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing
people of mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's
will, and not any sort of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in
sexual intercourse, reproduction is the typical result,
regardless of what race they are. That is not to say
reproduction is the only justification for heterosex. When a
man and man engage in sexual intercourse, disease is the most
typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next -
group marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the
government is going to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why
shouldn't it sanction them all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the
debate? Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up
with a concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can *****
and have kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on
infertile couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children, "Why
can't two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE reason
without needing to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
What right do I have to prevent consenting adults from their right
to free association and to freely enter into a marriage contract?
You did not answer my question.
The answer to your question is inherent to the answer to my question. Civil
Rights are not dependent upon what I "want", or how I "feel". You seem to
fly by the seat of your emotions. Can you answer my question or not?
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 06:57:49 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:UzB7d.899$UP1.49@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:SCA7d.873$UP1.344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the person I
love that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just
like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing
people of mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's
will, and not any sort of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in
sexual intercourse, reproduction is the typical result,
regardless of what race they are. That is not to say
reproduction is the only justification for heterosex. When a
man and man engage in sexual intercourse, disease is the most
typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next -
group marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the
government is going to sanction one unnatural, immoral act, why
shouldn't it sanction them all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the
debate? Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up
with a concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can *****
and have kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on
infertile couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children, "Why
can't two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE reason
without needing to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
What right do I have to prevent consenting adults from their right
to free association and to freely enter into a marriage contract?
You did not answer my question.
The answer to your question is inherent to the answer to my question.
Civil
Rights are not dependent upon what I "want", or how I "feel". You seem to
fly by the seat of your emotions. Can you answer my question or not?
Why can't two people of the same sex marry?
Ok. You want the real answer?
It is impossible for two people of the same sex to marry one another because
neither partner in a same sex relationship possesses the necessary unique
physical coupling/marrying characteristic to enable real physical marriage
to the other partner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 06:03:15 PM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:UzB7d.899$UP1.49@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:SCA7d.873$UP1.344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the
person I love that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just
like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing
people of mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's
will, and not any sort of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in
sexual intercourse, reproduction is the typical result,
regardless of what race they are. That is not to say
reproduction is the only justification for heterosex. When a
man and man engage in sexual intercourse, disease is the most
typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next -
group marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the
government is going to sanction one unnatural, immoral act,
why shouldn't it sanction them all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the
debate? Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up
with a concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can *****
and have kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on
infertile couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children,
"Why can't two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE
reason without needing to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
What right do I have to prevent consenting adults from their right
to free association and to freely enter into a marriage contract?
You did not answer my question.
The answer to your question is inherent to the answer to my question.
Civil
Rights are not dependent upon what I "want", or how I "feel". You
seem to fly by the seat of your emotions. Can you answer my
question or not?
Why can't two people of the same sex marry?
Bigotry, religious malarky, stupidity...
Ok. You want the real answer?
It is impossible for two people of the same sex to marry one another
because neither partner in a same sex relationship possesses the
necessary unique physical coupling/marrying characteristic to enable
real physical marriage to the other partner.
Marriage is about more than the physical. The government has no business
enquiring about the physical in anyone's relationship anyway.
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 07:54:18 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:TsG7d.1286$M05.650@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:UzB7d.899$UP1.49@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:SCA7d.873$UP1.344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the
person I love that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just
like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing
people of mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's
will, and not any sort of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage in
sexual intercourse, reproduction is the typical result,
regardless of what race they are. That is not to say
reproduction is the only justification for heterosex. When a
man and man engage in sexual intercourse, disease is the most
typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next -
group marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the
government is going to sanction one unnatural, immoral act,
why shouldn't it sanction them all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the
debate? Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up
with a concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can *****
and have kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on
infertile couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children,
"Why can't two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE
reason without needing to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
What right do I have to prevent consenting adults from their right
to free association and to freely enter into a marriage contract?
You did not answer my question.
The answer to your question is inherent to the answer to my question.
Civil
Rights are not dependent upon what I "want", or how I "feel". You
seem to fly by the seat of your emotions. Can you answer my
question or not?
Why can't two people of the same sex marry?
Bigotry, religious malarky, stupidity...
Ok. You want the real answer?
It is impossible for two people of the same sex to marry one another
because neither partner in a same sex relationship possesses the
necessary unique physical coupling/marrying characteristic to enable
real physical marriage to the other partner.
Marriage is about more than the physical.
You choose to deny the physical?
Same-sex people are incapable of becoming, by definition, married.
Same-sex marrige is a lie at its most basic level.
The government has no business
enquiring about the physical in anyone's relationship anyway.
No one is asking about your physical business.
The government has the authority to define marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 07:05:34 PM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:TsG7d.1286$M05.650@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:UzB7d.899$UP1.49@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:SCA7d.873$UP1.344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the
person I love that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex,
just like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing
people of mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's
will, and not any sort of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage
in sexual intercourse, reproduction is the typical result,
regardless of what race they are. That is not to say
reproduction is the only justification for heterosex. When
a man and man engage in sexual intercourse, disease is the
most typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next -
group marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the
government is going to sanction one unnatural, immoral act,
why shouldn't it sanction them all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the
debate? Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up
with a concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can *****
and have kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on
infertile couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children,
"Why can't two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE
reason without needing to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
What right do I have to prevent consenting adults from their
right to free association and to freely enter into a marriage
contract?
You did not answer my question.
The answer to your question is inherent to the answer to my
question. Civil
Rights are not dependent upon what I "want", or how I "feel". You
seem to fly by the seat of your emotions. Can you answer my
question or not?
Why can't two people of the same sex marry?
Bigotry, religious malarky, stupidity...
Ok. You want the real answer?
It is impossible for two people of the same sex to marry one another
because neither partner in a same sex relationship possesses the
necessary unique physical coupling/marrying characteristic to enable
real physical marriage to the other partner.
Marriage is about more than the physical.
You choose to deny the physical?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Saying that marriage is about
MORE than the physical does not deny the physical.
Same-sex people are incapable of becoming, by definition, married.
Then the definition must change.
Same-sex marrige is a lie at its most basic level.
Only in the minds of bigots.
The government has no business
enquiring about the physical in anyone's relationship anyway.
No one is asking about your physical business.
Yes, everytime a same gender couple is denied marriage, lady justice must
remove her blinders to peer down their pants. Of course the government is
asking about people's physical business.
The government has the authority to define marriage.
Within consitutional guidelines.
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 08:10:20 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:inH7d.1152$UP1.266@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:TsG7d.1286$M05.650@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:UzB7d.899$UP1.49@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:SCA7d.873$UP1.344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84FE7A.28E3%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 3/10/04 12:22 AM, in article
3Xx7d.12368$yp.7148@bignews1.bellsouth.net,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:BD84D717.28BB%kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au...
On 2/10/04 4:25 PM, in article
hvhsl0tdaap1092nkc8qu1fcs7hco236q7@4ax.com,
"User" <1@2.3> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:03:21 GMT,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Dana <dems@losers.com> wrote:
"James Brautigan" <desertguy@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Khr7d.13512$8p1.8778@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Every person has the same marriage rights.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have the same right to marry the
person I love that heterosexuals have.
yes you do. You can marry someone of the opposite sex,
just like everyone
else can.
You're just like those racists who insisted that allowing
people of mixed races to marry was immoral, against God's
will, and not any sort of discrimination.
You are not making any sense. When a man and woman engage
in sexual intercourse, reproduction is the typical result,
regardless of what race they are. That is not to say
reproduction is the only justification for heterosex. When
a man and man engage in sexual intercourse, disease is the
most typical result.
If homosexual marriage is established, what will come next -
group marriage? marriage involving beastiality? If the
government is going to sanction one unnatural, immoral act,
why shouldn't it sanction them all?
What has bestiality, incest or polygamy have to do with the
debate? Nothing.
The issue is same sex marriage, get back on topic and come up
with a concrete reason, and sorry, "these two people can *****
and have kids" isn't
a valid excuse or otherwise there would be a marriage ban on
infertile couples.
Excuse?
The homosexual agenda is the agenda that is making excuses.
Sorry, doesn't address the question. The question is children,
"Why can't two members of the same sex get married?". Give ONE
reason without needing to hark back to either:
1) Pumping out children
2) Tradition - That's what we've always done
Why would you want two people of the same sex marrying?
That is a better question.
What right do I have to prevent consenting adults from their
right to free association and to freely enter into a marriage
contract?
You did not answer my question.
The answer to your question is inherent to the answer to my
question. Civil
Rights are not dependent upon what I "want", or how I "feel". You
seem to fly by the seat of your emotions. Can you answer my
question or not?
Why can't two people of the same sex marry?
Bigotry, religious malarky, stupidity...
Ok. You want the real answer?
It is impossible for two people of the same sex to marry one another
because neither partner in a same sex relationship possesses the
necessary unique physical coupling/marrying characteristic to enable
real physical marriage to the other partner.
Marriage is about more than the physical.
You choose to deny the physical?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Saying that marriage is
about
MORE than the physical does not deny the physical.
Same-sex people are incapable of becoming, by definition, married.
Then the definition must change.
The defintion will not change, even if GOD DAMNED gay attorneys or GOD
DAMNABLE bisexual attorneys change it.
Same-sex marrige is a lie at its most basic level.
Only in the minds of bigots.
In the mind of people who hate GOD DAMNABLY rebellious, disrespectful,
stubborn people like you.
The government has no business
enquiring about the physical in anyone's relationship anyway.
No one is asking about your physical business.
Yes, everytime a same gender couple is denied marriage, lady justice must
remove her blinders to peer down their pants. Of course the government is
asking about people's physical business.
Lady justice knows the difference and can see it.
LOL!!!!!!!!
You're the blind leading the blind.
Anyone can see the difference.
Male mates/marries to female.
There is no other way to marry.
And, there will not be another way to marry in truth.
Same-sex marrige is a lie.
The government has the authority to define marriage.
Within consitutional guidelines.
And, it can do that and it can do it according to the truth of the matter.
And, that truth is not what you or any GOD DAMNABLY unjust attorney or judge
decides.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 07:21:42 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Same-sex people are incapable of becoming, by definition, married.
Then the definition must change.
The defintion will not change, even if GOD DAMNED gay attorneys or GOD
DAMNABLE bisexual attorneys change it.
You can argue about the definition all you like, but in fact same-sex
couples are legally married in various parts of the world.
Same-sex marrige is a lie at its most basic level.
Only in the minds of bigots.
In the mind of people who hate GOD DAMNABLY rebellious, disrespectful,
stubborn people like you.
You know, in 50 years, if you live that much longer and if someone
shows you what you said today, you will be deeply embarrassed for
having written such bigoted nonsense. Time is not on your side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 08:31:55 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3sm8wk5z1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Same-sex people are incapable of becoming, by definition, married.
Then the definition must change.
The defintion will not change, even if GOD DAMNED gay attorneys or GOD
DAMNABLE bisexual attorneys change it.
You can argue about the definition all you like, but in fact same-sex
couples are legally married in various parts of the world.
Good places to damn then, huh?
Same-sex marrige is a lie at its most basic level.
Only in the minds of bigots.
In the mind of people who hate GOD DAMNABLY rebellious, disrespectful,
stubborn people like you.
You know, in 50 years, if you live that much longer and if someone
shows you what you said today, you will be deeply embarrassed for
having written such bigoted nonsense. Time is not on your side.
Never will I be embarrassed by what I wrote.
I will remember it and be glad I typed it.
Time is on my side.
I am very much unafraid of the condemnation that is coming upon this nation
if same-sex marriages are legalized.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Despite FMA failure, vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" |
02 Oct 2004 07:37:13 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3sm8wk5z1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Same-sex people are incapable of becoming, by definition, married.
Then the definition must change.
The defintion will not change, even if GOD DAMNED gay attorneys or GOD
DAMNABLE bisexual attorneys change it.
You can argue about the definition all you like, but in fact same-sex
couples are legally married in various parts of the world.
Good places to damn then, huh?
You can "damn" them all you like. Everyone there will still have a
good time.
You know, in 50 years, if you live that much longer and if someone
shows you what you said today, you will be deeply embarrassed for
having written such bigoted nonsense. Time is not on your side.
Never will I be embarrassed by what I wrote. I will remember it and
be glad I typed it. Time is on my side. I am very much unafraid of
the condemnation that is coming upon this nation if same-sex
marriages are legalized.
Are you being treated for your delusions?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Despite his ravings, Raymond has not given us any reason to leave our churches.
Where vast opportunity exists
43% of Americans oppose Israel.
Poll: Majority of American Support Gay Civil Union (Why Do Creationists Hate Americans So Much?) (Re: Majority of Americans oppose gay marriage (Why Do Atheists and Communists Hate America So Much?))
Majority of Americans Oppose Most Abortions, CBS News Poll Show
I Dare You GOP Fucker Oppose THIS Abortion! (GOP, The Party of Rapists and Traitors)
Re: CHALLENGE to All Who **OPPOSE** Same-Sex Marriage
Re: I OPPOSE RADICAL ISLAM & RADICAL US OIL NAZI TERROR EQUALLY
| Prayer for all those that oppose me!
Re: Please, Tell Me Why You Hate America, Americans, Jesus, and God so much you worship Bush and Satan
Re: African Americans team up with the KKK in Winder,Ga over the Ten Commandments dispute.
The Israeli Terrorism Americans are NEVER shown
Re: Why Real Americans and Real Christians Do Not Support Bush
The 145,000,000 Americans who make DOG MEAT of the Homophobes' Agenda!
The 145,000,000 Americans who make DOG MEAT of the Homophobes' Agenda!
|
|
|
