Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on
4/9/04 10:06 AM: > Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in > news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net: > >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>> >>> Homosexuals can already get married. >> >> Just not to the person they want to. > > There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want. > >> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage? > > Homosexuals are already trying to do that. In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be implying they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone they are not attracted to. This is ridiculous. You seem to be wanting to diminish the institution of marriage, which, to me anyway, represents two people who love each other and are committed to each other. Now I would not want to necessarily deny someone the "right" to enter into such a sham marriage, but to encourage it, as you seem to do, simply makes no sense to me. The idea that two people of the same --- marrying would somehow weaken the institution of marriage is not supported. The idea that encouraging people to enter into marriages which are not based on love, at least in a modern society, clearly is diminishing the institution. Then again, the institution of marriage is pretty weak as it is... your apparent support of reducing its strength would probably not do much. |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
AM: > > > Snit wrote: >> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>> >>> Homosexuals can already get married. >> >> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of >> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern >> society, to a higher standard. > > Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies.... > so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there > is a religious ceremony involved.... > > And call it a "partner contract" or something like that... > for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this > discussion that is going on at this time.... There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious ceremony. Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it. I am married... |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
AM: > > > Snit wrote: >> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>> >>> Homosexuals can already get married. >> >> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of >> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern >> society, to a higher standard. > > Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies.... > so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there > is a religious ceremony involved.... > > And call it a "partner contract" or something like that... > for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this > discussion that is going on at this time.... There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious ceremony. Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it. I am married... |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
AM: > > > Snit wrote: >> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>> >>> Homosexuals can already get married. >> >> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of >> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern >> society, to a higher standard. > > Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies.... > so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there > is a religious ceremony involved.... > > And call it a "partner contract" or something like that... > for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this > discussion that is going on at this time.... There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious ceremony. Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it. I am married... |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
AM: > > > Snit wrote: >> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>> >>> Homosexuals can already get married. >> >> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of >> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern >> society, to a higher standard. > > Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies.... > so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there > is a religious ceremony involved.... > > And call it a "partner contract" or something like that... > for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this > discussion that is going on at this time.... There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious ceremony. Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it. I am married... |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C27F1.47E9F%snit@nospam-cableone.net: > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on > 4/9/04 10:06 AM: > >> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in >> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net: >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 >>> on 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >>> >>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>>> >>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among >>>>> us without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>>> >>>> Homosexuals can already get married. >>> >>> Just not to the person they want to. >> >> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want. >> >>> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage? >> >> Homosexuals are already trying to do that. > > In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be > implying they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone > they are not attracted to. This is ridiculous. You're right. Marrying someone that one is attracted to is not what marriage is all about. |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C27F1.47E9F%snit@nospam-cableone.net: > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on > 4/9/04 10:06 AM: > >> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in >> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net: >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 >>> on 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >>> >>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>>> >>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among >>>>> us without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>>> >>>> Homosexuals can already get married. >>> >>> Just not to the person they want to. >> >> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want. >> >>> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage? >> >> Homosexuals are already trying to do that. > > In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be > implying they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone > they are not attracted to. This is ridiculous. You're right. Marrying someone that one is attracted to is not what marriage is all about. |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C27F1.47E9F%snit@nospam-cableone.net: > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on > 4/9/04 10:06 AM: > >> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in >> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net: >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 >>> on 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >>> >>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>>> >>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among >>>>> us without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>>> >>>> Homosexuals can already get married. >>> >>> Just not to the person they want to. >> >> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want. >> >>> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage? >> >> Homosexuals are already trying to do that. > > In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be > implying they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone > they are not attracted to. This is ridiculous. You're right. Marrying someone that one is attracted to is not what marriage is all about. |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C27F1.47E9F%snit@nospam-cableone.net: > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on > 4/9/04 10:06 AM: > >> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in >> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net: >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 >>> on 4/9/04 9:12 AM: >>> >>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in >>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: >>>> >>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay >>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among >>>>> us without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but >>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like >>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal >>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it >>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for >>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." >>>> >>>> Homosexuals can already get married. >>> >>> Just not to the person they want to. >> >> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want. >> >>> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage? >> >> Homosexuals are already trying to do that. > > In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be > implying they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone > they are not attracted to. This is ridiculous. You're right. Marrying someone that one is attracted to is not what marriage is all about. |
Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
Snit wrote: > > "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07 > AM: > > > > > > > Snit wrote: > >> > >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on > >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM: > >> > >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in > >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om: > >>> > >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay > >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us > >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but > >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like > >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal > >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it > >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for > >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy." > >>> > >>> Homosexuals can already get married. > >> > >> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of > >> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern > >> society, to a higher standard. > > > > Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies.... > > so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there > > is a religious ceremony involved.... > > > > And call it a "partner contract" or something like that... > > for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this > > discussion that is going on at this time.... > > There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I > want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my > wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious > ceremony. > > Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it. > I am married... Society has changed the meaning/feel of words before...there is no reason that a "partner contract" could not in the future have the same meaning/feel of the word marriage.... I would be easy to change the present laws...all that would have to happen is anywhere in a law the word marriage is used substitute the words "partner contract".....this would give everyone the same legal rights..... It probably could be argued that the word marriage in laws, is against the law....seperation of church and state....as, like I said, the word marriage is originally a religious thing....and the precedence for the word marriage involving a religious ceremony is much longer the present meaning/feel of the word.....<grin>..... thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands