Why are so many Republicans intolerant and hateful?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Last time i check the government does not ask your sexual preference when you get married. The government concerns itself with everything i listed when it comes to marriage, gender, age, relation, multiple-marriage partners, previous marriage relation - and all those standards are applied to all.

BTW it was a clarification, what the poster said was not true.

Our legal system does view as male and female as being different and has allowed laws to stand that reflect that, selective service being a good example.

When it comes to government intrusion, how would the government know if someone's sexual orenitation - unless it was specfically asking? Seems to me that people on the left side of the political spectrum pushes for the government to ask that question of people - that i find much more intrusive.

Because bigots like you are trying to make it the government's business.

Stay out of the private lives of two consenting adults.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

Actually your wrong.

They weren't mistakenly raided. The neighbor reported a that a robbery was going on and the police showed up at the home. Cops saw the guys committing soddom and arrested them - because it was illegal to do that in texas.

Just to be clear i think all soddom laws should be removed.

I"m not talking about beastiality, or child molesters - but at least polygemy has a history in our country - somethign that same-sex marriagge does not.

You made my point, actually. Our country DOES have a history of polygamy, yet it is still illegal in every state. If four adults consent to marriage to each other, arent they being denied their personal beliefs under the law? (I'm using the earlier contitution quote and rebuttal). So why not allow as many people as want to marry? Because, as I stated earlier, we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. This isnt a free willy nilly country.

How about a 16 year old who consents to marriage to a 37 year old? Why cant they marry then? Because the older person (male or female) is "molesting" the younger? The idea of molestation is one of taking advantage. If the younger person consents, where is the abuse? They are too young to make that decision you say? Our current laws dont think so. A minor over the age of ~12~ can get birth control, an abortion, and the morning after pill with no one's consent. No one's. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood (both of which I cringe at BTW) have stated in many studies a minor of the age of 14 or 15 is capable of adult decisions. So why not give them the same freedoms under the law? Because we have to draw the line somewhere.

The whole argument of consenting adults is lame. There are MANY MANY things consenting adults cannot do in this country. It's because we have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?

We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)

Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.

News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1

Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.

So much hate and intolerance...sorry to break it to ya but there are actually people who we elected who believe in God, the bible, and live by faith. If it's what the people want, it's what you get. If you want a government without religion move to China.

 

[Pens1566]

If we could only get rid of that pesky separation of church and state .......

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?

We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)

Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.

News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1

Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.

So much hate and intolerance...sorry to break it to ya but there are actually people who we elected who believe in God, the bible, and live by faith. If it's what the people want, it's what you get. If you want a government without religion move to China.

Uh, no. Doesn't work like that. I highly recommend you go do some reading, esp. of Jefferson's writings.

It's fine to have faith and be religious and such but this nation's laws CANNOT be based upon such beliefs or be respective of any one particular religion over another. See, there's thing called the US Constitution. Another good read.

If *you* want a government based upon religious beliefs then Iran (and the new Iraq) would be right up your alley.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

Actually your wrong.

They weren't mistakenly raided. The neighbor reported a that a robbery was going on and the police showed up at the home. Cops saw the guys committing soddom and arrested them - because it was illegal to do that in texas.

Just to be clear i think all soddom laws should be removed.

I"m not talking about beastiality, or child molesters - but at least polygemy has a history in our country - somethign that same-sex marriagge does not.

You made my point, actually. Our country DOES have a history of polygamy, yet it is still illegal in every state. If four adults consent to marriage to each other, arent they being denied their personal beliefs under the law? (I'm using the earlier contitution quote and rebuttal). So why not allow as many people as want to marry? Because, as I stated earlier, we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. This isnt a free willy nilly country.

How about a 16 year old who consents to marriage to a 37 year old? Why cant they marry then? Because the older person (male or female) is "molesting" the younger? The idea of molestation is one of taking advantage. If the younger person consents, where is the abuse? They are too young to make that decision you say? Our current laws dont think so. A minor over the age of ~12~ can get birth control, an abortion, and the morning after pill with no one's consent. No one's. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood (both of which I cringe at BTW) have stated in many studies a minor of the age of 14 or 15 is capable of adult decisions. So why not give them the same freedoms under the law? Because we have to draw the line somewhere.

The whole argument of consenting adults is lame. There are MANY MANY things consenting adults cannot do in this country. It's because we have to draw the line somewhere.

So you draw a line, go right ahead.

me, I'll draw a line somewhere else..you see the problem?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

Actually your wrong.

They weren't mistakenly raided. The neighbor reported a that a robbery was going on and the police showed up at the home. Cops saw the guys committing soddom and arrested them - because it was illegal to do that in texas.

Just to be clear i think all soddom laws should be removed.

I"m not talking about beastiality, or child molesters - but at least polygemy has a history in our country - somethign that same-sex marriagge does not.

You made my point, actually. Our country DOES have a history of polygamy, yet it is still illegal in every state. If four adults consent to marriage to each other, arent they being denied their personal beliefs under the law? (I'm using the earlier contitution quote and rebuttal). So why not allow as many people as want to marry? Because, as I stated earlier, we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. This isnt a free willy nilly country.

How about a 16 year old who consents to marriage to a 37 year old? Why cant they marry then? Because the older person (male or female) is "molesting" the younger? The idea of molestation is one of taking advantage. If the younger person consents, where is the abuse? They are too young to make that decision you say? Our current laws dont think so. A minor over the age of ~12~ can get birth control, an abortion, and the morning after pill with no one's consent. No one's. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood (both of which I cringe at BTW) have stated in many studies a minor of the age of 14 or 15 is capable of adult decisions. So why not give them the same freedoms under the law? Because we have to draw the line somewhere.

The whole argument of consenting adults is lame. There are MANY MANY things consenting adults cannot do in this country. It's because we have to draw the line somewhere.

So you draw a line, go right ahead.

me, I'll draw a line somewhere else..you see the problem?

Nope no problem here There are laws I agree with, and some I dont. Same with you. There are probably issues that are important to me that you couldnt care less about. And vice versa. That's America

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?

We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)

Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.

News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1

Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.

So much hate and intolerance...sorry to break it to ya but there are actually people who we elected who believe in God, the bible, and live by faith. If it's what the people want, it's what you get. If you want a government without religion move to China.

Uh, no. Doesn't work like that. I highly recommend you go do some reading, esp. of Jefferson's writings.

It's fine to have faith and be religious and such but this nation's laws CANNOT be based upon such beliefs or be respective of any one particular religion over another. See, there's thing called the US Constitution. Another good read.

If *you* want a government based upon religious beliefs then Iran (and the new Iraq) would be right up your alley.

Uh, ok. I never said I wanted laws based on any faith, much less my own. Our government is represented by reps from many faiths. As I like it. But we derailed the thread...

 

[Pens1566]

Back on topic: last I heard, Video MD extraordinaire Frist was still yapping about bringing the ammendment banning gay marriage to a vote in the senate. How is this not an example of their intolerance? I mean really, an ammendment to the constitution that is based on taking rights away based on sexual orientation?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Back on topic: last I heard, Video MD extraordinaire Frist was still yapping about bringing the ammendment banning gay marriage to a vote in the senate. How is this not an example of their intolerance? I mean really, an ammendment to the constitution that is based on taking rights away based on sexual orientation?

Or to put it another way... Create a definition of what a marriage is so we can end all the lawsuit hoopla.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Last time i check the government does not ask your sexual preference when you get married. The government concerns itself with everything i listed when it comes to marriage, gender, age, relation, multiple-marriage partners, previous marriage relation - and all those standards are applied to all.

BTW it was a clarification, what the poster said was not true.

Our legal system does view as male and female as being different and has allowed laws to stand that reflect that, selective service being a good example.

When it comes to government intrusion, how would the government know if someone's sexual orenitation - unless it was specfically asking? Seems to me that people on the left side of the political spectrum pushes for the government to ask that question of people - that i find much more intrusive.

Because bigots like you are trying to make it the government's business.

Stay out of the private lives of two consenting adults.

Can you referain from name calling? it is rude.

Let me repharse since you are confusing me with some one on the left - I dont' want government asking what people sexual orenination is.

I dont' care about the "private lives of two consenting adults" in fact i've stated soddom laws should be removed.

Marriage is in part asking the state to reconzie a relationship, not exactly a private matter. I just oppose changing marriage to allow same-sex couples.

Just the same way i would oppose as allowing polygemy
..............or blood relationship marriages
..............attempting to marry someone who is married
...............underage marriage

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Last time i check the government does not ask your sexual preference when you get married. The government concerns itself with everything i listed when it comes to marriage, gender, age, relation, multiple-marriage partners, previous marriage relation - and all those standards are applied to all.

BTW it was a clarification, what the poster said was not true.

Our legal system does view as male and female as being different and has allowed laws to stand that reflect that, selective service being a good example.

When it comes to government intrusion, how would the government know if someone's sexual orenitation - unless it was specfically asking? Seems to me that people on the left side of the political spectrum pushes for the government to ask that question of people - that i find much more intrusive.

Because bigots like you are trying to make it the government's business.

Stay out of the private lives of two consenting adults.

Can you referain from name calling? it is rude.

Let me repharse since you are confusing me with some one on the left - I dont' want government asking what people sexual orenination is.

I dont' care about the "private lives of two consenting adults" in fact i've stated soddom laws should be removed.

Marriage is in part asking the state to reconzie a relationship, not exactly a private matter. I just oppose changing marriage to allow same-sex couples.

Just the same way i would oppose as allowing polygemy
..............or blood relationship marriages
..............attempting to marry someone who is married
...............underage marriage

And here is hoping you and people like blackangst1 don't get your way

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?

We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)

Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.

News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1

Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.

why, yes I do you potty mouthed bigot
and its my govt too, so keep your gay horse in its stall.
And by the way, Have a wonderful day.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Marriage is in part asking the state to reconzie a relationship, not exactly a private matter. I just oppose changing marriage to allow same-sex couples.

When people talk about the "sanctity of marriage" it's because marriage is often a religious ceremony. Why does the state have to be involved in marriage at all? Why can't we have civil unions for all couples to give the legal benefits like income tax status, and let people marry how they want in the privacy of their own churches?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Marriage is in part asking the state to reconzie a relationship, not exactly a private matter. I just oppose changing marriage to allow same-sex couples.

When people talk about the "sanctity of marriage" it's because marriage is often a religious ceremony. Why does the state have to be involved in marriage at all? Why can't we have civil unions for all couples to give the legal benefits like income tax status, and let people marry how they want in the privacy of their own churches?

Well, we are not talking about the sanctity of marriage. It needs to be a governmental thing, because they need to know who you support, who you live with, who you are married to, etc.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?

We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)

Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.

News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1

Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.

why, yes I do you potty mouthed bigot
and its my govt too, so keep your gay horse in its stall.
And by the way, Have a wonderful day.

Mature, and the whole point of this thread. Thanks for helping out.
/thread

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Marriage is in part asking the state to reconzie a relationship, not exactly a private matter. I just oppose changing marriage to allow same-sex couples.

When people talk about the "sanctity of marriage" it's because marriage is often a religious ceremony. Why does the state have to be involved in marriage at all? Why can't we have civil unions for all couples to give the legal benefits like income tax status, and let people marry how they want in the privacy of their own churches?

Well, we are not talking about the sanctity of marriage. It needs to be a governmental thing, because they need to know who you support, who you live with, who you are married to, etc.

Umm... that's what I said civil unions are for.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Conservatives are fearful of change even when it has become long past obvious that change will be for the better.

Nah. Some of us just realize that homosexuality is a form of insanity (along the same lines as pedophila) acceptable by the general public.

I fail to see how allowing crazy people to adopt or get married can possibly be beneficial to society.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Marriage is in part asking the state to reconzie a relationship, not exactly a private matter. I just oppose changing marriage to allow same-sex couples.

When people talk about the "sanctity of marriage" it's because marriage is often a religious ceremony. Why does the state have to be involved in marriage at all? Why can't we have civil unions for all couples to give the legal benefits like income tax status, and let people marry how they want in the privacy of their own churches?

Well, we are not talking about the sanctity of marriage. It needs to be a governmental thing, because they need to know who you support, who you live with, who you are married to, etc.

Umm... that's what I said civil unions are for.

Oh, I see. But why stop at that? Why should the gov. recognize any union between 2 people?

Anyways, civil unions may be a good alternative. Does this mean that you do not support the government recognizing marriage?

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Marriage is in part asking the state to reconzie a relationship, not exactly a private matter. I just oppose changing marriage to allow same-sex couples.

When people talk about the "sanctity of marriage" it's because marriage is often a religious ceremony. Why does the state have to be involved in marriage at all? Why can't we have civil unions for all couples to give the legal benefits like income tax status, and let people marry how they want in the privacy of their own churches?

Well, we are not talking about the sanctity of marriage. It needs to be a governmental thing, because they need to know who you support, who you live with, who you are married to, etc.

Umm... that's what I said civil unions are for.

Oh, I see. But why stop at that? Why should the gov. recognize any union between 2 people?

Anyways, civil unions may be a good alternative. Does this mean that you do not support the government recognizing marriage?

Marriage is both a religious ceremony and has practical legal benefits like income tax status, health insurance, etc. What I'm saying is, if gay marriage bothers people so much because marriage is a sacred religious ceremony why do we need government to recognize a religious ceremony? Call it a civil union and give them all legal benefits. Make marriage a private ceremony, religious if you'd like.

You may ask what if people get married in a church but don't get a civil union? The same thing could happen now. When a couple gets married in a church they still have to file some paperwork with the government to make it official.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Conservatives are fearful of change even when it has become long past obvious that change will be for the better.

Nah. Some of us just realize that homosexuality is a form of insanity (along the same lines as pedophila) acceptable by the general public.

I fail to see how allowing crazy people to adopt or get married can possibly be beneficial to society.

This is just getting stupid now. Can we lock this thread already?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?

We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)

Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.

News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1

Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.

why, yes I do you potty mouthed bigot
and its my govt too, so keep your gay horse in its stall.
And by the way, Have a wonderful day.

Mature, and the whole point of this thread. Thanks for helping out.
/thread

no problem, usually i let religious biggots like conjur slide off like water off a ducks back, but not today. Glad to lend a hand.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Conservatives are fearful of change even when it has become long past obvious that change will be for the better.

Nah. Some of us just realize that homosexuality is a form of insanity (along the same lines as pedophila) acceptable by the general public.

I fail to see how allowing crazy people to adopt or get married can possibly be beneficial to society.

Anal Sex had better be on your list of insanity then too

Were you and your wife given an MMPI before they granted you a marriage license or allowed her to give birth?

I know Republicans and US Christians do not own mirrors

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?

We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)

Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.

News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1

Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.

It isn't the toothless bible thumpers that the gay community should be most concerned about but those who claim to respect and represent them while apologizing for a much greater threat to their lifestyle and individual rights which the apologists are helping bring about.

"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America, a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people..."
HILLARY RODMAN CLINTON, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1996, p.3
"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the country." NEWSDAY, March 7, 1989, p.4
"There are more Muslims in North America then Jews Now." Dan Rathers, CBSNEWS

In Islam, contrary to Western beliefs, the rights of the community are considered more important than the rights of the individual. Women are seen primarily as caretakers of the home, and religion strongly influences schools, government and courts

Here is an article which also appeared in the Gay Times, October 1995

Muslim fundamentalists are a growing threat to gay human rights in Britain.

And here is an openly gay politician who was killed by a so called leftist but several months later the truth comes out.

Pim_Fortuyn

Months later, Volkert van der Graaf confessed in court to Holland's first modern age political assassination, possibly the first since the lynching of the De Witt brothers in The Hague in 1672 (excluding WW II events). Van der Graaf claimed that he shot Pim Fortuyn "to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution."

So while many gay and alternative lifestyle groups battle what they perceive to be a threat to their lifestyle and individual rights in the courts what will they do when a far less tolerant present day religion takes the fight directly to them?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Conservatives are fearful of change even when it has become long past obvious that change will be for the better.

Nah. Some of us just realize that homosexuality is a form of insanity (along the same lines as pedophila) acceptable by the general public.

I fail to see how allowing crazy people to adopt or get married can possibly be beneficial to society.

This is just getting stupid now. Can we lock this thread already?

Indeed...why do discussions about gay marriage always turn out so...gay? It's like we all suddenly lose the ability to have a reasonable discussion about anything. Of course some people, like nutxo, probably never had it in the first place. But still...