posted on July 9, 2004 11:37:44 AM newHe wants us to choose Him: but you must accept all of Him.
So we are mere playthings created by god.
It isn't cruelty: you make your choices, and live with them.
No it isn't cruelity, it is however pure non-sense. Here is a god that knows the beginning and end and knew you even before you were born, yet somehow doesn't know what "choices" you're going to make.
Just like if you own a home:
So blindly accepting the contradictions about the christian is like buying a home and having a mortgage. LMAO !!!!
To continue the homeowners analogy, if someone said to you, "I will forever pay your bills, the only thing you have to do is listen to me and do what I want you to do because it is best for you." You have the choice to accept or reject the offer: to accept it means you will try to live within the rules (laws) that are made. To reject it means you will continue to try to do things on your own accord.
Your gods treats you like we would treat a pet. What a wonderful relationship !!! Your dog thinks you are a god !!!!!
If you accept it, and you fail to live up to the rules (laws), your provider comes up to you and says, "Look, I know you are trying. Let me send someone to help you keep within you budget, and to follow the rules I have set down. Whenever you are in trouble, call on him, and he can help you. You may not always like what it is he tells you to do, but it will always be for your best."
Oh yes, god talked to Hitler, Charles Manson, George Bush, Jim Jones, all those child molesting priests, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, yes they all talk(ed) to god on a regular basis.
See, God is not cruel:
Yeah, treating you like a pet of a game piece is not cruel.
He provides a way, through Jesus Christ.
He has never provided anything, but his followers have provided a huge dose of ignorance and gulibility.
But it is an all or nothing venture: you have to accept everything, or nothing. If you pick and choose, all you are really doing in the end is cheating yourself. God gives us a free gift, one that we can choose or reject. It is up to us on what we do.
Yes you must accept all the impossible contradictions, the dulling of your intellect, and become a sheep to follow men who use religion to control you, take your money, rape your children, and pay for them to live like kings. All of this because you are willing to be talked out of your own birthrite by used car salesmen.
posted on July 9, 2004 11:39:51 AM new
CC: I just do not try to force them down other people's throats like you do
I am not forcing anything down your throat (no pun intended). I am strongly presenting my views just like you are doing. I know there are people that take things as either right or wrong. with them there are no in-betweens.
If you truly believe you will be judged, then why do you continue in a sin that you know to be wrong?
Because I know I feel I have done nothing wrong except love the person I share my relationship with. Is it wrong to love someone? I think not.
Face it: sin feels good while you do it, but it has horrific consequences. And by your own admission, when you die and Christ judges you, will you be found lacking? Will He send you away from Him, or will He accept you? If you continue along the path you have chosen, I tend to think you will be cast out.
Again this is your interpretation of strict bible interpretation. How do you know HE won't reject you at judgment day for your sin? Is your sin any less or greater than mine. A sin is a sin is it not?
But you cannot pick and choose what you want to follow: you must follow all of it, or none of it. There is no in-between
Who says. This is the problem with conservatives. It is either this way or that way. Either right or wrong, either black or white. The bible says polygamy is OK but you don't see that being commonly practiced today. The bible says an "eye for an eye" but when was the last time you heard of judge telling someone that should have their eye knocked out...
There in a "in-between" you just fail to accept it.
I was in Catholic school for twelve years - 8 years grammar and 4 years high school. I was taught the Christian values. I know what is right and wrong according to the Church. I have a hard time accepting what the Church preaches when its people do not even follow the ways of the Lord. The Church needs to clean up its own mess before preaching that homosexuality is wrong. In my eyes priests that molest children is more wrong than two consenting adults that love each other. But it is easier for the Church to preach what is wrong about others than try to fix what is going on in their own lifestyle.
CC, here is a bible quote for you
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and the sexually immoral
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 9, 2004 01:54 PM ]
posted on July 9, 2004 11:47:31 AM new
EAG- so do you care to respond why Cheney is the best VP ever in the history of the United States??? You did claim this, yet it has been 5 days and I have yet to get a response regarding your claim. All I want is for you to back it up with some reasoning. Come on now... you can do it. I won't rest until you tell me, so you might as well let us know why Cheney is the best VP ever.
posted on July 9, 2004 12:07:49 PM new
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty....you just gotta learn ...you back a neocon against the wall with a bunch of those horrifying things called FACTS and they just up and disappear!
Do you know how many times linda has said Kerry is a communist sympathizer because he spoke out against the Vietnam war. And when I point out that bush never went at all she just disappears....she has never answered one of those posts but she still keeps insisting that bush is a better American 'cause he stayed drunk while Kerry(that COMMUNIST) actually went there and fought!
posted on July 9, 2004 01:28:40 PM newDisappear this
QUEERLY BELOVED
1.4 million petitions
to flood U.S. Senate
'Unless we protect and defend marriage in law, our nation will face grim social consequences'
Posted: July 8, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern
Three organizations will team up tomorrow to deliver 1.4 million petitions supporting traditional marriage to the U.S. Senate.
According the a statement from the Center for Reclaiming America, representatives from that group, the American Family Association and the American Center for Law and Justice will hand over the petitions to a group of senators on Capitol Hill tomorrow morning.
The Senate is expected to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would upholding marriage between one man and one woman, the week of July 12.
"We are expecting a filibuster from the anti-marriage forces," said Dr. Gary Cass, the newly named executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America. "This will be a difficult fight. Only an overwhelming grass-roots response can save marriage as we know it. These 1.4 million petitions are solid evidence that Americans care about the defense of marriage."
To visually display the petition-signers' opposition to same-sex "marriage," the boxes of petitions will be stacked on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol before being delivered.
"Marriage is the essential building block of our society, and it is under grave attack now," said Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder and president of the Center for Reclaiming America. "It is unconscionable that so many in the U.S. Senate are unwilling, at a time when men are already marrying men in Massachusetts, to come to the defense of marriage.
"Marriage is the bedrock of any culture; it is what cements the social order. Unless we protect and defend marriage in law, our nation will face grim social consequences as marriage weakens and dies – a pattern already observed in the aftermath of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia."
The constitutional marriage amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the Senate and House, and then be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 9, 2004 01:31:44 PM newhomosexuals don’t want marriage, at least not marriage as understood for most of the past two millennia. They want what “marriage has become” as a result of cultural changes and bad policy choices.
De-Lovely Couples
Chuck Colson (archive)
In De-Lovely, the new film about songwriter Cole Porter’s life, Porter tells his wife, Linda, about his homosexuality. Linda, who is the inspiration behind his genius, tells him that his music comes from his talent not from his destructive behavior. But she does beg Porter to give up his scandalous behavior so as “not to put us at jeopardy,” a promise Porter isn’t prepared to make.
The prospect of a marriage where children, permanence, and fidelity are in doubt is supposed to make us pity Linda Porter, even if she was complicit in her own plight. After all, who would opt for such an arrangement? Well, according to one scholar, many Americans have. And understanding how and why this is the case is crucial to understanding the push for same-sex “marriages.”
According to Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, homosexuals don’t want marriage, at least not marriage as understood for most of the past two millennia. They want what “marriage has become” as a result of cultural changes and bad policy choices.
Historically speaking, marriage was an institution “defined by religious doctrine, moral tradition, home-centered commitments to child rearing, and gender complementarity . . . ” Today, it is a “highly individualistic and egalitarian institution.” Marriage no longer “[implies] commitment to home, to Church, to childbearing, to traditional gender duties, or even (permanently) to spouse,” so writes Christensen.
Traditionally, the “husband-wife bond” was defined by “mutual sacrifice and cooperative labor.” But that has been replaced by “dual-careerist vistas of self-fulfillment and consumer satisfaction.”
According to Christensen, no one should be surprised that homosexuals want “the strange new thing marriage has become.” After all, “contemporary marriage . . . certifies a certain legitimacy in the mainstream of American culture.” In addition, it “delivers tax, insurance, life-style, and governmental benefits.”
And, best of all, from the homosexual’s perspective, it does all of these things “without imposing any of the obligations of traditional marriage.” If childbearing, sexual fidelity, and permanence are no longer central to our culture’s understanding of marriage, but the benefits are the same, why not agitate for marriage?
Christensen says that it would be a mockery to issue marriage license to couples who, by definition, “can never have children,” “will not resist the temptations to extramarital affairs, and will not preserve their union for a lifetime.”
But, as he reminds us, this mockery of wedlock started “decades ago.” It started when hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples started “buying basset hounds rather than bassinets; started indulging in extramarital affairs; and started fulfilling divorce attorneys’ dreams of avarice.” The result was marriages that more closely resembled the one depicted in De-Lovely than the traditional model.
This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t fight the attempt to extend the marriage franchise to same-sex couples. It’s still a mockery of a sacred institution. But it does mean that our efforts should be part of what Christensen calls a “broader effort to restore moral and religious integrity to marriage as a heterosexual institution.”
Until that happens, marriage, regardless of who gets a marriage license, will remain an institution in jeopardy.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 9, 2004 01:33:36 PM new
IF,"Marriage is the bedrock of any culture; it is what cements the social order"
then we're really in trouble with our bedrock, our sheetrock, our rebar and our cement because there is a 51% DIVORCE RATE IN THIS COUNTRY and THAT happened BEFORE marrying gays was legal!
posted on July 9, 2004 01:37:45 PM newThis will be a difficult fight. Only an overwhelming grass-roots response can save marriage as we know it. These 1.4 million petitions are solid evidence that Americans care about the defense of marriage.
The pro-gay marriage forces will challenge those signature. Signatures from Lady, Lucky and Fido will not count....
....A grass-roots reponse can save marriage. More hippy stuff from the 60's. So that is what those anti-gay marriage folks have been smoking when they signed the petition....
To visually display the petition-signers' opposition to same-sex "marriage," the boxes of petitions will be stacked on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol before being delivered.
Not if Bush thinks his war records will be found within the petition. The entire petition will be destroyed quicker than you can say "I do"
The constitutional marriage amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the Senate and House, and then be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
And they will not get the 2/3 majority. The senate already knows this.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 9, 2004 01:45:15 PM new
Bear:They want what “marriage has become” as a result of cultural changes and bad policy choices.
Once again the straight community agrees they are the ones that have screwed up the sanctity of marriage and are now trying to blame the gay community for their mistakes.
Today, it is a “highly individualistic and egalitarian institution.” Marriage no longer “[implies] commitment to home, to Church, to childbearing, to traditional gender duties, or even (permanently) to spouse
This was happening in the straight community for the past 20 years and now because the gay community wants to have equal treatment it suddenly has destroyed the marriage institution.
After all, “contemporary marriage . . . certifies a certain legitimacy in the mainstream of American culture.” In addition, it “delivers tax, insurance, life-style, and governmental benefits.”
Christensen says that it would be a mockery to issue marriage license to couples who, by definition, “can never have children,” “will not resist the temptations to extramarital affairs, and will not preserve their union for a lifetime.”
Are they going to prevent straight couples who have no intention of having kids get married? What about all the straight couples who don't marry for love but for the benefits of marriage?
But, as he reminds us, this mockery of wedlock started “decades ago.” It started when hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples started “buying basset hounds rather than bassinets; started indulging in extramarital affairs; and started fulfilling divorce attorneys’ dreams of avarice.” The result was marriages that more closely resembled the one depicted in De-Lovely than the traditional model.
Once again he points out the problem with marriage is do to the straight community.
Thanks Bear for making my argument easier to defend. Keep up the good work.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 9, 2004 01:47:28 PM new
So Bear - if I understand your article correctly, childrearing is a repsonsibility of marriage and to marry but not have children is to make a mockery of it?
Who makes up these rules? To follow this logic isn't marrying an infertile person is mocking marriage as well? Maybe you should further ammend your definition to fertile members of the opposite sex.
.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 9, 2004 02:12:25 PM new
Logansdad, I've read this whole thread and think you're just the best. After reading some of responses here, it must give you an added sense of satisfaction knowing you're on the right road.
posted on July 9, 2004 02:14:39 PM new
The issue of Kerry being anti-gay marriage and what it means to Democrats is quite amusing. T
This is similar to saying all Democrats are Pro-Choice, or that all Republicans are against Stem Cell Research. It just doesn't float.
There are different levels of politicking going on within the Democratic Party. You will find many middle american blue collar workers are against gay marriage and may or may not support a Constitutional Amendment. You will find the more liberal left against such an Amendment and feel gays should be able to marry. You will also find others that don't want a Constitional Amendment for something that is based within religious beliefs. There are so many angles to take on this. To think that Democrats or Liberal are all for one thing is asinine. I am not a Democrat. I am a Green, and I support gay marriage, though I'm as hetero as you can get. I believe that we should all have equal rights, and that includes people of the same sex getting married. It is bigoted to think otherwise. Religion should have nothing to do with a marriage within the confines of government. If a government issues licenses for marriage, there should be absolutely no discrimination between hetero and homosexuals. The other option is to ban marriage all together.
Ironically, I don't necessarily agree with John Kerry about this issue, along with the fact he supports the right of benefits for gay couples. If he supports the right to health insurance for domestic partners, then this should also include men and women who live together who are not married. It is a two way street and I can see both ways.
posted on July 9, 2004 02:19:51 PM new
Logansdad, I've read this whole thread and think you're just the best. After reading some of responses here, it must give you an added sense of satisfaction knowing you're on the right road.
Kraft, I am not trying to make this a right or wrong issue. I am just merely pointing out the faulty reasons behind some of the arguements behind the viewpoints of the conservatives on this board.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 9, 2004 02:22:11 PM newchildrearing is a repsonsibility of marriage
Child rearing: to raise or care for the upbringing of a child[/b]
I guess only straight couples now how to raise a child properly. So much for all those single parent families and all those children being raised by grandparents. Maybe we need to take the children away from these people since they are not doing it correctly.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 9, 2004 04:43:03 PM new
Bear: The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage
Bear, would you be in support of a constitutional amendment banning divorce. Doesn't divorce destroy the sanctity of marriage? Isn't divorce supposed to be against the Church's beliefs.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 9, 2004 07:15:11 PM new
Bear, I'd really like to hear your logical response to logansdad's question above. Doesn't divorce do more to damage the sanctity of marriage that a few gays who want to get hitched? Judging from the numbers, I'd say there are a whole lot more divorced folks in this country than there are gays who want to marry. Tell you what, let's do a bit of research and find out how many same sex marriage licenses have been applied for nationwide compared to the number of divorce petitions filed in the same time period.
Your petition is silly. Just plain silly.
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on July 9, 2004 09:27:51 PM new
Twelve: That includes homosexuality... it is not acceptable at all in the Bible... homosexuals that claim to love Jesus are of the worst blasphemers...
Jesus loves all sinners wether it be gays, prostitutes, murders, thieves, or child molesters. He just doesn't like the act itself.
You on the other hand judge people on who they are as a person as well as the act. I suggest you study your religious believes again.
Oh and Twelve, in the gay pride parade here in Chicago there was a group called "Catholics in favor of gay marriage". I know that is difficult for you to process, but there are gay Catholic who still believe in God.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 9, 2004 09:30 PM ]
posted on July 9, 2004 10:56:34 PM new
Well lets see what the libs best friend & HERO had to say about gay marriare:
"I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages." So said Bill Clinton in 1996 when he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004749
__________________________
You libs can't say it is just a conservative issue. YOUR president agrees, he is anti gay marriage.
--------------------------
The majority of religious scholars and clergy have believed (and supported with various passages from their holy texts) that homosexuality is a violation of natural law.
Apostle Paul wrote: homosexual behavior is perhaps the clearest example of how flouting sexual distinctions is ultimately a rejection of the Creator, who made such distinctions."
Romans 1:26-27
Romans 1:26-27. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Ban on gay marriages is not a matter of civil rights. They still can marry an opposite sex partner.
The Founding Fathers did not provide for gay marriages.
By allowing gay marriages it is making the assertion that heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same.
How will same sex marriages benefit society?
Homosexuality is overwhelmingly learned, adaptive behavior, not a condition of birth. (True congenital homosexuality or sexual disorder might be best characterized as a birth defect.) Attempts to identify a “gay gene” have been fruitless. If homosexuality was not learned, adaptive behavior, one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all the incarcerated men and women who engage in homosexuality behind bars are actually latent homosexuals who merely required the necessary condition to discover their true nature. Common sense dictates that it is the unnatural conditions of imprisonment without access to opposite-sex partners that leads to homosexuality in jail. It results from the biological need for sexual gratification where there is no normal outlet. Does homosexuality in people arise from something toxic in the social and/or cultural environment?
The institution of marriage and the biological family are not merely arbitrary social constructs tyrannically imposed on the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority; they are civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction. If homosexuality were a normal, biological condition it could not have survived two billion years of natural selection. For those who have difficulty with the word “normal,” a good working definition is “what functions according to design.”
If homosexuality results from environmental conditions, children raised by homosexual parents will be more likely to turn out gay than children raised by normal parents. Should the collective will of the people in a democracy have a say in the nurturing of homosexuality in children?
Homosexuality was indeed, widely practiced and considered more or less acceptable behavior in the pre-Christian, Greco-Roman world. But homosexual relationships were never considered equivalent, and never considered an alternative to marriage and the biological family.
http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2003/MC_SJC_gay_marriage.htm
Homosexual marriages do not promote biological propagation of the species (sacred obligation of marriage is to procreate)
If bigamy is illegal why should gay marriages be legal?
---------------------------
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 9, 2004 11:11:50 PM new
If the petition is just plain silly prof. Why have so many responded is such a positive way that there are over 1.2 million signatures on the petition.
Dad, You can twist that statement as you wish. My response is that only death can destroy the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 9, 2004 11:25:16 PM newSignatures from Lady, Lucky and Fido will not count....
Must be your latest conquests, right Dad? Switched to bestiality have you!
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 10, 2004 04:47:19 AM new
Wow, if death is the only thing that can destroy marriage, I guess the straight community has found a way to control overcrowding. When you want to a get a divorce just kill your spouse. You conservatives and bible thumpers just don't want to admit you are the reason the sanctity of marriage is being destroyed. You have choosen to put the blame on another group of people instead of taking responsibility of your own actions, how convienient.
Why have so many responded is such a positive way that there are over 1.2 million signatures on the petition.
The 2000 census showed there were over 281 million people living in the US, your petition signed by 1.2 million people amounts to peanuts.
The Gay pride parade here in Chicago had over 400,000 people in attendance. It is the second largest gay pride parade in the country. Considering June was gay pride month and parades were held in many cities, I am sure there would be more than 1.2 Million that signed a petition in support of gay marriages.
Bear, is another statistics to ponder if you still believe 1.2 million people is such a large number:
[The 2000] U.S. Census discovered same-sex couple households are present in 96 percent of counties nationwide, totaling 1.2 million individuals.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 10, 2004 04:56 AM ]
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 10, 2004 05:15 AM ]
posted on July 10, 2004 05:09:06 AM new
and there is davethemooch talking to the mirror again...
How about addressing the subject instead of consistently talking about yourself...
logansdad, you're like a trapped rat in a corner... you really don't have anything new to add... same old lame ass excuses...
It must be somewhat hurtful to see that America does not accept your chosen lifestyle...
This marriage thing will permeate the courts for years to come and some will die over it... those are things you can bank on...
The homosexuals must of thought with all that is going on in the world, the US wouldn't notice this abomination taking place in the states... well we have and it is one of the top topics for this election...
also the backlash against homosexuals will rise as this continues... so welcome to the real world...
As I have said before... people won't even convict of the murder of a transgender... people don't like homosexuals.
You made a choice, but it seems you are the ones afraid to live with it and must shove it down everyone's throat...
If people really accepted the homosexual lifestyle, there would no debating this issue... you and your kind refuse to see that...
posted on July 10, 2004 06:06:04 AM new
Linda showed up with another slam against Kerry but that's no big deal but then I replied .....Read the subsequent posts
It went like clockwork. I mention Bush and war record and Linda disappears and twelve shows up.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:38:13 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda, sorry it won't work...that crap happens EVERY time candidates are vying for their parties endorsement....it's standard procedure.
If that and the hair-do thing are your best shots, you're desperate(like all Republicans).
Kerry went to Vietnam....George stayed home hiding in a bottle to aid the enemy......now you'll disappear for awhile...and you won't be missed.
Will twelvepole be back now and start slinging the insults?
Twelvepole
posted on July 10, 2004 05:19:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL you a scared little man aren't you crowfarm...
One thing I like is Edwards statement about Kerry telling the American public the truth everyday he is in office... Yeah right...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Twelvepole
posted on July 10, 2004 05:23:08 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you refuse to answer my question about your education crowfarm?
We all know you're under an assumed ID... so does that make it ok to insult and lie?
Is that the seceret I am missing I need to change ids to do those things?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
crowfarm
posted on July 10, 2004 05:56:20 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I sure can call 'em, can't I?
Just bring up Bush's UN-military record and Linda disappears and Twelvepole shows up!
So I assume, twelvepole, that twelvepole is your real name??????
Uh, twelvepole...ALL these ID's are assumed....you have been in here FAR TOO long if you think one ID is "REAL" and another is "fake".
Your question about my education was sarcastic....the answer isn't imortant to you or anyone else.
posted on July 10, 2004 06:29:02 AM newIf the petition is just plain silly prof. Why have so many responded is such a positive way that there are over 1.2 million signatures on the petition.
How many of those 1.2 mil are repeats? ebayauctionguy says he signed it again just in case....for all anybody can verify you may have signed it 1.1 million times
My response is that only death can destroy the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage.
Is this all you've got by way of an answer to logansdad's question about the effects of divorce on the sanctity of marriage? If so, you have effectively negated your own argument. If only death can affect the sanctity of hetero marriage, then there's certainly no worry from a few homos.
The petition is silly.
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
[ edited by profe51 on Jul 10, 2004 06:30 AM ]
posted on July 10, 2004 07:28:41 AM new
Twelve: logansdad, you're like a trapped rat in a corner... you really don't have anything new to add... same old lame ass excuses
Oh really twelve, you and bear have been saying the same old lines since March. You can not come up with a new argument to support why gay marriages are wrong if it bit you in the rear. You have continued to spew the same hatred for gays since March.
This marriage thing will permeate the courts for years to come and some will die over it... those are things you can bank on...
Good, I hope it does. Gays have been around since Ancient Egypt. We are not going away, we are not moving to another country, and we will continue to fight for what we deserve. If this drags out another 30 years at least the next generation of gay people will be able to marry without having to face this discrimination and hatred.
Besides you nor the government can take away the love I have for my partner. Whether I have a piece of paper legalizing my marriage or not, in my eyes I am still married to my partner.
Since you are so knowledgeable about marriage how long have you been married?
also the backlash against homosexuals will rise as this continues... so welcome to the real world...
Even more of a reason to fight and stand up to bigots like you.
As I have said before... people won't even convict of the murder of a transgender... people don't like homosexuals
No, but they do convict people that tie a gay boy to a fence and pistol whip him until he is almost dead. They do convict businessmen, who cheat and steal from their company and deceive the government. What is your point if you even have one?
You made a choice, but it seems you are the ones afraid to live with it and must shove it down everyone's throat...
Don't choke as you swallow it...Did you ever stop to realize it is you who are trying to shove straight marriage down people's throats. Look how good straight marriage is...it has been around for 2000 years, but in the past 30 years we have managed to make a mockery of it, but yet we will continue to defend it because nobody else should be able to get married except us privileged people.
The choice I made is to continue defending what I believe I have a right to...whether you call it a privilege or not.
If people really accepted the homosexual lifestyle, there would no debating this issue... you and your kind refuse to see that
Oh yes, it is the straight white male that can't accept homosexuality. Do you see it as a threat to your manhood or are you just trying to keep the gay population down because you have no other group of people you can discrminate against. Keep the gay people down, they are a threat to our way of life. They will rise up and destroy the Earth as we now it today. Keep living in the 60's, twelve. Are you still watching "Leave it to Beaver" or "All in the Family"
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 10, 2004 08:09:05 AM new
LOL you are a moron crowfarm if you still think lindak and I are the same person...
You're right about one thing, I have been on here long enough to know that morons like you come and go but good people like lindak still keep on posting.
But I see you had to off topic this thread, because lets face it no one gives a rats ass what you write.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
