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

Why do you care?

Because it's fun to reveal your hypocrisy.

Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco  <wm5... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco  <wm5... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco  <wm5... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbage... 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?

Because the government never forbade marriage across religious lines.

A religion may have, but inter-religious marriages have been going on
for centuries.

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

How is that relevant?

They're asking for a "redefinition",

not to be forbade of something
that was once common practice.

I bet you'll be unable to wrap your brain around that.  

That's why
your logic fails.

It's nothing compared to civil rights.  

Gays are not
forced to sit in the back of a bus, or forbidden to eat in certain
places.

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?

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

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:
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?

Because the government never forbade marriage across religious lines.

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

How is that relevant?

They're asking for a "redefinition",

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.

Ray Fischer wrote:
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?

Because it's fun to reveal your hypocrisy.

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

That would be you.

Run away from hypocrisy bigot.

Mark wrote:


"Jimbo" <ckdbigtoe at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e056bb4-320a-470a-b751-f550061a96bc at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 2:57 pm, "Mark" <m... at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x... at (no spam) m.com
wrote in
messagenews:gjj3f5di5bhrm6dmi6pk91p1segnvsmgvf at (no spam) 4ax.com...



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.

Explain it then. Since you're so smart, explain, exactly, in detail,
how two blokes down the block getting married will affect my 27 year
marriage to my wife.

Go on tough guy, explain it. No one else has, so let us see you,
explain what you claim.

"Mark" <me at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Ub-dnfq_Q6tPeWzXnZ2dnUVZ8kqdnZ2d at (no spam) bt.com...


"Jimbo" <ckdbigtoe at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e056bb4-320a-470a-b751-f550061a96bc at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 2:57 pm, "Mark" <m... at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x... at (no spam) m.com> wrote
in
messagenews:gjj3f5di5bhrm6dmi6pk91p1segnvsmgvf at (no spam) 4ax.com...



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.

Are not queers men and women too?

On Nov 4, 4:56 pm, "Mark" <m... at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x... at (no spam) m.com> wrote in
messagenews:gqr3f5tq8p9tkmd68f8gf4l3dl2p7hnrle at (no spam) 4ax.com...





On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:32:15 -0000,
"Mark" <m... 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.

Civil rights are not the purview of mob rule. Eventually, there will
be same sex marriage across the country.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:32:15 -0000,
"Mark" <me at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:


Marriage is for men and women, ...

HEADS-UP to the REST of the World

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
"Mark" <me at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
"Mark" <me at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:

Marriage is for men and women, ...

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

The TRIVIALITY of gender composition is NO reason to be
HATEFUL to people.

And in ALL of THESE places (in the SIG, below) people
KNOW that.

Is snipping everything that counters your nonsense away
your best response?

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

You don't like it, but that's just tough. Get used to it.

Calling those who voted against it...

Jimbo <ckdbigtoe at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Civil rights are not the purview of mob rule. Eventually, there will
be same sex marriage across the country.

No, there won't be.