On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:20:38 -0800 (PST), Osprey
Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:04?pm, "Smiler" <Smi... at (no spam) joe.king.com> wrote:
Osprey wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:16 pm, "thomas p." <gudl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Osprey wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:18 am, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:38 pm, "pandora" <pand... at (no spam) peak.org> wrote:
"Osprey" <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:bcaaa4ba-5836-4560-9119-df33c55bca1e at (no spam) p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Uncle Vic <addr... at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote:

One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many
times do the people have to say "No"?

Until they can finally grasp the point that it is indecent to
believe you should be able to deny basic rights to others
without a reasonable foundation.

What is your reasonable foundation in trying to force others
to accept something they clearly don't want to accept?

*** Just don't attend any gay marriages. I'm sure they'll
appreciate it. And no one is forcing anything on you. Just
ignore it. It won't hurt you at all.

I never said hit hurt me at all. I don't care what you do. Like
I've always said before, if you want to hump a tree I've got a
whole entire woods behind me. Hump away. You will leave the
trees in my backyard alone.

Asshole doesn't care about justice or liberty. He just wants to
force people to live as he says (but not as he does, of course).

And of course Fischer goes to lying again.

Oh good, you are not against allowing same-sex marriage then.

What our legislators do with our laws, I will respect.
As I've said before, I believe in God's word. And according to
what my understanding is, it's not an acceptable behavior in God's
eyes.

And your supposed god's word also says that it's not acceptable for
you to eat pork.

Hmm, aren't you the one who claimed I had cornered the market in
stupid?
I think you were, so you don't mind if I just excuse you do you?
After all, you're not truly interested in discussing anything with
me, after all you made up your mind and assumed I am supposed to be
so stupid.

So you can run along now.

It's just a coincidence that you support an opinion which is held by
more than a few of the readers of your brain-damaged imagination,
Faux Cop.

Osprey wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:00 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 8:06 PM, * Osprey wrote:

On Nov 6, 7:00 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 5:39 PM, * Osprey wrote:

On Nov 6, 4:50 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 4:43 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:36 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 4:24 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:11 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 1:46 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:23 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 1:09 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 12:42 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:31 am, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 10:25 AM, * Osprey wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:04 am, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/6/09 12:44 AM, * Osprey wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:21 pm, Uncle Vic
addr... at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, Osprey
Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
As I've said before, I believe in God's word. And
according to what my understanding is, it's not
an acceptable behavior in God's eyes.
But you have to admit, not all US citizens believe
this.
That's true. But the question that was asked of
someone in this thread was how does supporting SSM
harm them. And that is what I am addressing. For
people who believe that homosexuality is a sin in
God's eyes, to turn around and then support gay
marriage would be a conflict in their beliefs.
That then is a problem with them
No it's not. It's no more of a problem with them than
you having your own opinions.
If they are comfortable with their opinion, there is
no problem.
It becomes a problem, when YOU have a problem with it.
And even then, it's not a problem with them..it's a
problem with you.
Yes, it IS a problem ....
Only with you.
In truth, the problem lies with ...
you.
So
You have a problem.
not only can't you answer the question but your
bigotry
As soon as you address your bigotry, Paranoid IAAH.
I asked you to demonstrate that and you utterly
failed, Bigoted Bipolar Bob.
Paranoid IAAH, I'm not going to ask your silly questions that
are based at you making up more assumptions.
I've explained my position very well and I'm very comfortable
with my opinoin. If you wish to remain paranoid and play
silly games, you go play with yourself.
Accusations without support are your usual game,
Bipolar Bob.
No Paranoid Adam, those are your games.
You just can't deal with the truth.
If there was any truth in what you said
And there is.
Then SHOW IT.

You just deny it. You are a very unreasonable person.

The usual excuse of someone who presents no evidence.

Prove me wrong then. Show me you can be a reasonable person who can
discuss an issue without making up accussations and calling names.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
C. Hitchens







In regards to your rhetorical question, I never said SSM
harmed me.
I asked what harm it would do, Bipolar Bob.
That would be up to the individual to answer, Paranoid IAAH.
What harm does it do to you if someone believes that the
sexual acts committed by homosexuals are a sin?
None at all.
Then why do you tell people to leave their religious viewpoints
out of it?
Why do you think you have the right to tell other people what
matters and what doesn't?
Religion has NO PLACE in lawmaking,
Religion has a LOT in lawmaking. In fact, most of our laws from
the beginning of time come from religious morals.
Wrong.

Nope, I am dead right on this.

So you're claiming that religion existed before
social groups, are you?

No, that's not what I said.  There you go again, trying to twist
things around.

That is what you implied, even if you didn't use those exact words.

Thou Shalt Not kill.
Which is a law that comes from a lot further back
than you even know, Bipolar Bob.

Prove it, Paranoid Adam.

Social groups existed well before religion,
Bipolar Bob.

Paranoid Adam,

Prove that "Thou shalt not kill" came from a lot further back than I
even know.

That is what you said.

Did the Israelites think that killing, robbery and lying was OK before the
decalogue was supposedly given to them?

which is what
I *actually* said. Denying rights to homosexuals
based on religion *is* harm.
But I'm not at all surprised that you had to go
with your usual strategy of creative omission.
"yawn"
Admitted by you, then.

No, but it's a lie by you though.

Bipolar Bob

Paranoid Adam.

thinks that denying fundamental rights
to minorities isn't a harm in any wise,

There you go lying again.

It was an obvious lie when he accused you of 'thinking'.

But then, I'm not a member of a
minority being oppressed and denied rights by a
hyper-religious sect that can't mind their own
business. I also don't have to deal with cowards
like you
Aww, Paranoid Adam thinks I am a coward. Oh my, now what?
"Knows". Not "thinks".
Oh..
o.k.
snicker
And?

And what? I think your silliness is funny.

You're still undoubtedly and indisputably a
coward, Bipolar Bob.

"yawn"

Is this truly the best you can do Paranoid Adam?

You've been reduced to trying (badly) what worked
so well on you, back on me.

It's as well as I need to do, Bipolar Bob. This is
what you always do when you're overmastered. You
might as well be wearing a blinking neon sign that
says "I just got my ass kicked."

Physically, intellectually, and morally. You're
the trifecta of wretched pusillanimity.

that think such groups should be allowed
to continue to oppress minorities.
And now Paranoid Adam just resorts to lying and leaving.
So denying rights to a minority isn't oppression now?
And again Paranoid Adam is trying to change the subject and
continue on lying about my position.
Well hey, you're the one continually offering
defence for bigotry.

Wrong again, you do not see me defending bigotry.
I don't defend yours, why would I defend anyone elses?

You were excusing oppression of a minority on
religious grounds, Bipolar Bob.

Paranoid Adam, no I wasn't excusing any such thing.

You were, liar.

The Chief Instigator wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:20:38 -0800 (PST), Osprey
Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:04?pm, "Smiler" <Smi... at (no spam) joe.king.com> wrote:
Osprey wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:16 pm, "thomas p." <gudl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Osprey wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:18 am, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:38 pm, "pandora" <pand... at (no spam) peak.org> wrote:
"Osprey" <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:bcaaa4ba-5836-4560-9119-df33c55bca1e at (no spam) p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Uncle Vic <addr... at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote:

One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many
times do the people have to say "No"?

Until they can finally grasp the point that it is indecent to
believe you should be able to deny basic rights to others
without a reasonable foundation.

What is your reasonable foundation in trying to force others
to accept something they clearly don't want to accept?

*** Just don't attend any gay marriages. I'm sure they'll
appreciate it. And no one is forcing anything on you. Just
ignore it. It won't hurt you at all.

I never said hit hurt me at all. I don't care what you do. Like
I've always said before, if you want to hump a tree I've got a
whole entire woods behind me. Hump away. You will leave the
trees in my backyard alone.

Asshole doesn't care about justice or liberty. He just wants to
force people to live as he says (but not as he does, of course).

And of course Fischer goes to lying again.

Oh good, you are not against allowing same-sex marriage then.

What our legislators do with our laws, I will respect.
As I've said before, I believe in God's word. And according to
what my understanding is, it's not an acceptable behavior in God's
eyes.

And your supposed god's word also says that it's not acceptable for
you to eat pork.

Hmm, aren't you the one who claimed I had cornered the market in
stupid?
I think you were, so you don't mind if I just excuse you do you?
After all, you're not truly interested in discussing anything with
me, after all you made up your mind and assumed I am supposed to be
so stupid.

So you can run along now.

It's just a coincidence that you support an opinion which is held by
more than a few of the readers of your brain-damaged imagination,
Faux Cop.

Notice how he avoids questions that he's unable to answer.

On Nov 5, 11:18 am, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

*** Just don't attend any gay marriages.  I'm sure they'll
appreciate it. And no one is forcing anything on you.  Just
ignore it.  It won't hurt you at all.

I never said hit hurt me at all. I don't care what you do. Like
I've always said before, if you want to hump a tree I've got a
whole entire woods behind me. Hump away.  You will leave the trees
in my backyard alone.

Asshole doesn't care about justice or liberty.  He just wants to
force people to live as he says (but not as he does, of course).

And of course Fischer goes to lying again.

The Chief Instigator wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:20:38 -0800 (PST), Osprey
Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Hmm, aren't you the one who claimed I had cornered the market in
stupid? I think you were, so you don't mind if I just excuse you
do you? After all, you're not truly interested in discussing
anything with me, after all you made up your mind and assumed I am
supposed to be so stupid.

So you can run along now.

It's just a coincidence that you support an opinion which is held
by more than a few of the readers of your brain-damaged
imagination, Faux Cop.

Notice how he avoids questions that he's unable to answer.

In article <gPrJm.29409$tF5.19496 at (no spam) newsfe25.ams2>,
"Smiler" <Smiler at (no spam) joe.king.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:20:38 -0800 (PST), Osprey
Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Hmm, aren't you the one who claimed I had cornered the market in
stupid? I think you were, so you don't mind if I just excuse you
do you? After all, you're not truly interested in discussing
anything with me, after all you made up your mind and assumed I am
supposed to be so stupid.

So you can run along now.

It's just a coincidence that you support an opinion which is held
by more than a few of the readers of your brain-damaged
imagination, Faux Cop.

Notice how he avoids questions that he's unable to answer.

it you want to see something even more amusing, ask him to support any
random claim that you see him post.

No, it's just that sometimes there are people (like me) who don't
deserve much respect or attention.

Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
have to say "No"?

smartass, said:

Osprey <Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in
news:a6b84405-0987-43ec-9f56-54dd6586deef at (no spam) j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

No, it's just that a jerk off who calls himself 'smart ass" doesn't
deserve much respect or attention.

Fixed your post for you. No need to thank me,

In article <2009111220010575249-blackwaterevangelist at (no spam) testlandorg>,
BE-VA <blackwater-evangelist at (no spam) testland.org> wrote:

On 2009-11-12 19:35:24 -0500, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan at (no spam) gmail.com> said:

In article
e21a43b7-65ff-4e6c-accf-7618d8b9b3d7 at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Osprey <Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.


so, by default and your non-vote, you would support the status quo: a
ban on gay marriage.

Most people do


you offer no credible evidence to support that assertion.

and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.

two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.

what a surprise.

No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
would no adverse effect on mankind.

i suspect the tiny minority you refer to are commonly thought of as
religious extremists .... the kind of disturbed personalities that wears
a flag in their label while opposing all that the flag stands for.

In article <2009111220010575249-blackwaterevangelist at (no spam) testlandorg>,
BE-VA <blackwater-evangelist at (no spam) testland.org> wrote:

On 2009-11-12 19:35:24 -0500, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan at (no spam) gmail.com> said:

In article
e21a43b7-65ff-4e6c-accf-7618d8b9b3d7 at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Osprey <Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.


so, by default and your non-vote, you would support the status quo: a
ban on gay marriage.

Most people do


you offer no credible evidence to support that assertion.

and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.

two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.

what a surprise.

No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
would no adverse effect on mankind.

i suspect the tiny minority you refer to are commonly thought of as
religious extremists .... the kind of disturbed personalities that wears
a flag in their label while opposing all that the flag stands for.

Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.

On Nov 4, 6:01 am, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

Hopefully, this will be the end of this farce. How many times do the people
have to say "No"?


Time is not on your side J

In article
e21a43b7-65ff-4e6c-accf-7618d8b9b3d7 at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Osprey <Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.


so, by default and your non-vote, you would support the status quo: a
ban on gay marriage.

what a surprise.

"You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say
that Heishman is the pussiest of them all."

Matt Pillsbury <m... at (no spam) seesig.com
Message-ID: m2oeso5wmc.fsf at (no spam) seesig.c

On 2009-11-12 19:35:24 -0500, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan at (no spam) gmail.com> said:

In article
e21a43b7-65ff-4e6c-accf-7618d8b9b3d7 at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Osprey <Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.


so, by default and your non-vote, you would support the status quo: a
ban on gay marriage.

Most people do

and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.

what a surprise.

No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
would no adverse effect on mankind.

"You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say
that Heishman is the pussiest of them all."

In what context are you using the word pussies & pussiest, hmmmmmm?

Matt Pillsbury <m... at (no spam) seesig.com
Message-ID: m2oeso5wmc.fsf at (no spam) seesig.c