We are seeing a major debate in Canada regarding the institution of
marriage,

On 2009-11-06 06:59:45 -0500, Johannes von Ebersdorf
ebersdorf at (no spam) gmail.com> said:

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:56:20 -0000, "Mark" <me at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:



"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x at (no spam) m.com> wrote in
message news:gqr3f5tq8p9tkmd68f8gf4l3dl2p7hnrle at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:32:15 -0000,
"Mark" <me at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:


MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the

.... vast majority find queers disgusting and loathsome. There are
laws to prevent siblings marrying each other, and there are laws
to prevent fathers marrying their daughters. Similarly, there are
laws to prevent queers marrying each other as well. The vast
majority of normal people don't want to give their moral and
legal support to queers who demand it from them and class all
those who are against doing it as homophobes, bigots, or some
other derogatory name. No, America, like Britain, refuses to
accept same sex marriage, and it's a great day because of that.

Nonsense.

Not at all; the voting figures speak for themselves. Queers argue
that because same-sex marriage doesn't affect anyone else, there
should be no opposition to it. But what queers fail to understand
is that their moral and legal demands do affect others, of course,
and the vast majority who could be bothered to vote has voted
against them and their demands. They demand tolerance but
give none in return to those who oppose them. They call them
hateful bigots and homophobes instead of actually tolerating
them the way they demand to be tolerated. Marriage is for men
and women, not queers.

...men and men, and women and women.

No. Every state that was given the chance to vote voted against
them.

The USA is infamous for its backwoods ignorance, and Maine seems to be
a typical example.

Nobody's basic human rights should be put up for a vote of the
ignorant masses of rednecks and morons.


CANADA'S GREAT MISTAKE

Gay Definition of Marriage is ?Not the Equal of Heterosexual Marriage
?Facts Show Sexual Fidelity Not a Part of Gay Unions
W. Moran?May 2003

Editor's [MassNews] Note: Canada is in the throws of cultural upheaval,
the likes of which we have only begun to experience here in
Massachusetts. In Canada you can be charged with a hate crime for
expressing a negative opinion of homosexuality. A bill to increase the
restrictions on free speech in Canada has recently moved to the House
of Commons without a debate or a vote. (Sound familiar?) Liberals have
used procedural tactics to continue the bill on its path to becoming
the law without including the necessary safeguards for religious
expression.

The writer has been unable to find a news outlet in Canada
that would print this article.

On 2009-11-06 06:59:45 -0500, Johannes von Ebersdorf
ebersdorf at (no spam) gmail.com> said:


The USA is infamous for its backwoods ignorance, and Maine seems to be
a typical example.

Nobody's basic human rights should be put up for a vote of the
ignorant masses of rednecks and morons.

We quite famous for telling euro-trash ass hole like you to FUCK OFF
too. We won't make the same mistake that the rednecks and morons north
of us made you can bet you bippy on that ass-wipe.

CANADA'S GREAT MISTAKE

Gay Definition of Marriage is ?Not the Equal of Heterosexual Marriage
?Facts Show Sexual Fidelity Not a Part of Gay Unions
W. Moran?May 2003

Editor's [MassNews] Note: Canada is in the throws of cultural upheaval,
the likes of which we have only begun to experience here in
Massachusetts. In Canada you can be charged with a hate crime for
expressing a negative opinion of homosexuality.

A bill to increase the
restrictions on free speech in Canada has recently moved to the House
of Commons without a debate or a vote. (Sound familiar?) Liberals have
used procedural tactics to continue the bill on its path to becoming
the law without including the necessary safeguards for religious
expression. The writer has been unable to find a news outlet in Canada
that would print this article.

Pastor Dave <ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com> wrote:
Marriage is a religious concept

Actually, it's a legal concept and that's true even in
the Bible,

Then there can be no religious argument against it and
the Bible is of no relevance whatever.

right down to the agreement made and
the dowry.

And how many wives you can have.

Ray Fischer wrote:
Pastor Dave  <ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com> wrote:
Marriage is a religious concept

Actually, it's a legal concept and that's true even in
the Bible,

Then there can be no religious argument against it and
the Bible is of no relevance whatever.

right down to the agreement made and
the dowry.

And how many wives you can have.

Is that a problem for you Ray?  

After all, why can't 50 female
consenting adults get married to a consenting man?

william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Pastor Dave <ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com> wrote:
Marriage is a religious concept

Actually, it's a legal concept and that's true even in
the Bible,

Then there can be no religious argument against it and
the Bible is of no relevance whatever.

right down to the agreement made and
the dowry.

And how many wives you can have.

Is that a problem for you Ray? After all, why can't 50 female
consenting adults get married to a consenting man?

Why do you care?

Unless you're a bigot who is trying to control people.

That would be you.
.

william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Pastor Dave <ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com> wrote:
Marriage is a religious concept

Actually, it's a legal concept and that's true even in
the Bible,

Then there can be no religious argument against it and
the Bible is of no relevance whatever.

right down to the agreement made and
the dowry.

And how many wives you can have.

Is that a problem for you Ray? After all, why can't 50 female
consenting adults get married to a consenting man?

Why do you care?

Unless you're a bigot who is trying to control people.

That would be you.
.

Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.

If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.

Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.

"Separate but equal"

This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.

The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.

They're both versions of your argument.

No they're not.

Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.

If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.

Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.

"Separate but equal"

This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.

The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.

They're both versions of your argument.

No they're not.

Marriage between two of the same sex is a new issue.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.

Which is a stupid lie.

Why am I not surprised you don't see that?

"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) Spammer
No. Marriage is marriage. It is the EXCLUSION of millions of people
from it, in an attempt to make it some sort of SPECIAL right for elitist
heterosexuals that the bigots want to preserve (and at which they will
ultimately fail).
-
Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage is a religious concept

Actually, it's a legal concept and that's true even in
the Bible,

right down to the agreement made and
the dowry.

william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:


Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.

If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.

Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.

"Separate but equal"

This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.

The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.

They're both versions of your argument.

No they're not.

Why not?

Marriage between two of the same sex is a new issue.

How is that relevant?

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.

Which is a stupid lie.

Why am I not surprised you don't see that?

Freedom to obey your rules is not freedom, nazi boy.
.

On Nov 7, 5:33 pm, william mosco <wm5... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Pastor Dave  <ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com> wrote:
Marriage is a religious concept

Actually, it's a legal concept and that's true even in
the Bible,

Then there can be no religious argument against it and
the Bible is of no relevance whatever.

right down to the agreement made and
the dowry.

And how many wives you can have.

Is that a problem for you Ray?  

He doesn't indicate that it's a problem.

After all, why can't 50 female
consenting adults get married to a consenting man?

Gee, can't think of a reason. Do YOU have one?

On Nov 7, 5:33 pm, william mosco <wm5... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Pastor Dave  <ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com> wrote:
Marriage is a religious concept

Actually, it's a legal concept and that's true even in
the Bible,

Then there can be no religious argument against it and
the Bible is of no relevance whatever.

right down to the agreement made and
the dowry.

And how many wives you can have.

Is that a problem for you Ray?  

He doesn't indicate that it's a problem.

After all, why can't 50 female
consenting adults get married to a consenting man?

Gee, can't think of a reason. Do YOU have one?

Pat Magroyne wrote:
On Nov 7, 5:33 pm, william mosco <wm5... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Pastor Dave  <ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com> wrote:
Marriage is a religious concept

Actually, it's a legal concept and that's true even in
the Bible,

Then there can be no religious argument against it and
the Bible is of no relevance whatever.

right down to the agreement made and
the dowry.

And how many wives you can have.

Is that a problem for you Ray?  

He doesn't indicate that it's a problem.

That's what the question mark is for.  But in reality, I'm not as
stupid as you.

After all, why can't 50 female
consenting adults get married to a consenting man?

Gee, can't think of a reason.  Do YOU have one?

No. I have no problem with it, do you?