On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, (Michael) wrote:
In article <6knlg.49$JU.24@fe06.lga>, wrote:
But at the same time the people who believe in the scriptures have a
right to be protected as well. Rights are a two way street and if one
side is not to be trampled neither should the other. Why should a
Christians beliefs be any less tolerated then a non-Christian? Why
should marriage after 2000+ years be changed to meet the pleasures of
less then 3% of the population?
Now having said this I do not believe the homosexual community should
be carved out for discrimination either. There should, must, be
protections under the law for civil ceremonies which provide the same
rights as a marriage under religious terms.
Interesting position, why, in your opinion, must there be protections
under the law for civil ceremonies for homosexual unions? Do you also
suggest that there should be protections under the law for polygamy?
If the unique diversity of mariage being one man and one woman is to be
intlerantly destroyed and replaced with a re-imaged defination of the
term, doesn't a restriction in the new advocated position, a relationship
between any two people, discriminate against those who find issue with the
number two in the defination? Under the religious dogma of the gospel of
fairness, that doesn't seem vary fair, does it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mike, I believe that the whole idea of civil rights is being
misconstrued as "special rights" for certain groups, whether
they constitute a perceived majority or minority of American
citizens; as in this case, self-avowed practicing homosexuals
who are seeking certain -- yes, special -- rights for what is
being labeled in the media as "civil unions".
I'll digress to preaching. Recall "My Daddy's Roommate" that
was being forced by the Liberal Atheists into public schools?
It's ironic, since adulterous *roommates* pristinely describes
exactly what they are, nothing less, nothing more. Here's why...
Special rights that homosexuals seek include rights to the same
kind of legal treatment that any lawfully married, law-abiding
male adult and female adult are legally recognized as entitled
to, providing that said married couple qualifies for any such
rights--legally considered on a case-by-case basis, or course.
The prevailing consensus among our ruling, God-fearing, moral-
majority, traditional family-values oriented Republican party
is that homosexuals shouldn't be mistreated as "second-class"
citizens, merely on account their flagrant, and to many of us
repulsive, but in all cases adulterous and lustful lifestyle,
which is indisputably in egregious violation of at least two
(thus in effect, all twelve) of God's Universal Commandments.
Even so, there have been untold millions of legally married
heterosexual men and women who committed adultery, violating
the same commandments, albeit to at least a slightly lesser
degree than the abominable transgressions of homosexuals who
actively participate in their homosexual sexual perversions.
Therefore, the majority of us God-fearing Republicans agree
that, while homosexual sex partners should *NEVER* be legally
granted a marriage license under Federal laws which supersede
any State laws to the contrary, nonetheless we Republicans do
agree that neither should homosexual sex partners be in any
way legally "punished" for their perverse adulterous affairs.
Since homosexuals can't ever be legally recognized as being
married, then their adulterous affairs can never be subject
to laws which are commonly recognized in most divorce court
proceedings, where adulterous affairs are considered legal
grounds for divorce on behalf of the legally-married plain-
tiffs who file for divorce on said grounds. Homosexual sex
partners are simply living in sin, they are *NOT* married.
This is the fault of anti-Xian "common law" rules, which
should be abolished forthwith, as with abortion, atheism-
only in public schools, rewards for violent criminals, etc.
What rights homosexual sex partners are trying to be granted,
include "married" status in various insurance programs, such
as discounts for being married, etc. That is *not* what we
Republicans are agreeing to. Homosexual sex partners are NOT
legally married, nor can they ever be legally recognized to
the contrary. We shall NOT reward adulterers in a civilized,
God-fearing (predominantly Judeo-Xian) multicultural society.
We Republicans are ONLY saying that homosexual sex partners
shouldn't be legally punished for their abominably adulterous
affairs. That's ALL we are saying, to wit, that self-avowed
homosexual sex partners should NOT be treated as second-class
citizens where their basic,--humanitarian,--civil rights are
concerned. They should not be punished, neither rewarded, in
the legal sense, under applicable State or U.S. Federal laws.
Recall, it wasn't so long ago when Hitler's genocidal "NAZI"
regime brutally punished, tortured and mass-murdered myriads
of homosexuals, in the same way they systematically inflicted
unspeakably inhumane -- read *inhuman* -- atrocities against
millions of Jews and other groups of men, women and children
whom the NAZIs didn't want hanging around anywhere in Europe:
i.e. not living yet incarnate in the physical body regardless.
**Equal protection under the law** for all law-abiding American
citizens, of all races, creeds, and colors, is what Republicans
resoundingly agree to. We do *NOT* agree to "special rights" for
anyone, save for extreme cases, e.g., where people are seriously
disabled, being severely mentally and/or physically handicapped,
living in abject poverty of no apparent fault of their own, etc.
So, unless some practicing homosexual falls into that category,
they are entitled to no "special rights" whatsoever. They are
flagrantly guilty of adultery, and most remain unrepentant of
their abominable sins against God, against nature, against all
that is good and right about the whole human race, and they
remain unrepentant until the day they die (many die of AIDS).
As with practicing heterosexual adulterers, practing homosexual
adulterers should repent of their adultery, Go, and sin no more!
I.e., in order to honour their fathers and their mothers, that
their lives be long, healthy, and prosperous upon the beautiful
land which the Dominant one of heaven will be giving to them...
VOTE Republican!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM38786.0401967593@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRJbU3pljD7YrHM/nEQL0uACeKYELcYGVO+p2vQPd/jvDABiM9iMAn2Hh
40YbL+GhvQtZHIn7BIoH/cZa
=AfOy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
20 Jun 2006 10:31:27 AM |
|
|
"Republican" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:AXFESL0738888.0201157407@twistycreek.com...
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, (Michael) wrote:
In article <6knlg.49$JU.24@fe06.lga>, wrote:
But at the same time the people who believe in the scriptures have a
right to be protected as well. Rights are a two way street and if one
side is not to be trampled neither should the other. Why should a
Christians beliefs be any less tolerated then a non-Christian? Why
should marriage after 2000+ years be changed to meet the pleasures
snip ignorant lunatic screed <
When you zealous bible thumping fuckers manage to have a divorce rate of 0
(zero) %, then you can go on raving about the "sanctity of marriage". But
as long as the first time divorce rate hovers around 45% and trolls such as
Brittny Spears can get married on a Friday and then have it annulled the
following Monday, it kind of makes a sham out of your holy matrimony
ravings, doesn't it now.
You make reference to "living in sin"; why don't you do a Google and find
out how many hetero couples are living "in sin" before you shoot off your
ignorant mouth.
Here are some simple guidelines for your Jebus Freaks:
If you believe in gawd, keep it to yourself, I don't want to hear it..
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one and stop fucking with those who
do.
If you see offensive material on TV, there is an "OFF" button.
If guys want to do each other, or a sheep, for that matter, it really is
none of your goddamned business ... go read your bibble.
Don't worry about where I'm going when I die, I really don't need your
fucking input. Even if there is a "hereafter" (there is none), I'd rather be
at the other place with my friends than in a place packed with Jebus
fanatics.
PS: I am a registered Republican, about to become a Libertarian, simply
because I cannot tolerate you self-righteous hypocritical Mo-Fos any longer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
23 Jun 2006 01:49:14 PM |
|
|
Lotsa homosexual stuff from you min over quite a period of time. Trying
to tell us something? Is there a closet you want out of or what?
WH
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
