In article ,
says...

On 12/10/12 9:02 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:07:55 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.

If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole, then I reckon you're right, Kevin.



There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole.

If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole.


Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay Marriage
back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the ceremony
though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to
spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral
dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good
friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I
didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner and
a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins...

Yup. Well, I love my niece, play golf with her, watched her graduate from the Naval Academy, cheered
when she became a Naval Aviator, and have had her and her 'spouse' for dinner several times.

But, I won't participate in a 'marriage' between gays. Just don't believe in it. Call it something
else, and I might go. Maybe - 'unionage', 'conjugage', 'amalgation', or make up another word. I
guess I'm just a 'bigoted asshole', along with being, according to H&K, a racist asshole.


"Participate"? You mean, attend the ceremony? No one is asking you to
marry a gay. You're a small-minded, bigoted, racist asshole.

It figures you wouldn't know what happens at a religious ceremony. There
is a reason that marriages are performed in public.

In article ,
says...

On 12/10/12 10:03 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:53:07 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.

If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole, then I reckon you're right, Kevin.



There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole.

If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole.


Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay Marriage
back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the ceremony
though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to
spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral
dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good
friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I
didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner and
a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins...

Where is it written that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Dictionary.com

mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband
and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

And, of course, you can probably find secondary and tertiary meanings that include gays, dogs,
goats, etc.



If you weren't such a small-minded, bigoted asshole, you'd realize there
are dozens and dozens of definitions for the coupling of marriage, and
that they are not necessarily secondary meanings.

What is your definition for and benefit of marriage? Is it to get a tax
advantage or is it someone to co-mingle your finances so that your
"spouse 2" can pay off your tax bills?

There are, for example, communal marriages, a system prevailing amongst
some primitive peoples, by which within a small community all the men
are regarded as married to all the women, and vice versa; sometimes
called group marriage.

I'll bet that you want a communal marriage so you can **** the wifes and
husbands of everyone else.

There's Scotch marriage: a marriage according to the Scots law, effected
by a mutual declaration before witnesses, without other formality;
chiefly applied to the runaway marriages (formerly frequent) of couples
who crossed from England into Scotland in order to escape the
restrictions imposed by English law on the marriage of minors without
the consent of their guardians.

Now you understand why people attend marriages, to be witnesses to the
act.

In article m,
says...

On 12/10/2012 10:14 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/10/12 10:03 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:53:07 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"

wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...


GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't
write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and
probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference
between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes
reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More
importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious
beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing
religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that
had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is
'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes
atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I
can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on
others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious
freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the
profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry
multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even
have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in
front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church
or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to
marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay
for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that
happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of
wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or
whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend.
They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony'
is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes,
do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children
and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us,
except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the
week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.

If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole,
then I reckon you're right, Kevin.



There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole.

If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole.


Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay
Marriage
back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the
ceremony
though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to
spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral
dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good
friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I
didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner
and
a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins...

Where is it written that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Dictionary.com

mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their
decision to live as husband
and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms:
separation.

And, of course, you can probably find secondary and tertiary meanings
that include gays, dogs,
goats, etc.



If you weren't such a small-minded, bigoted asshole, you'd realize there
are dozens and dozens of definitions for the coupling of marriage, and
that they are not necessarily secondary meanings.

There are, for example, communal marriages, a system prevailing amongst
some primitive peoples, by which within a small community all the men
are regarded as married to all the women, and vice versa; sometimes
called group marriage.


There's Scotch marriage: a marriage according to the Scots law, effected
by a mutual declaration before witnesses, without other formality;
chiefly applied to the runaway marriages (formerly frequent) of couples
who crossed from England into Scotland in order to escape the
restrictions imposed by English law on the marriage of minors without
the consent of their guardians.




What definition of marriage does your union with Karen fit?

Convenience for Harry, ball and chain for Karen.

In article ,
says...

On 12/10/12 1:41 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/10/2012 1:11 PM, Califbill wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message ...

On 12/9/2012 1:27 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/8/12 4:03 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:56 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1278725896376618279.354367bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/7/12 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1635163131376547539.158933bmckeenospam-
,
says...

thumper wrote:
On 12/6/2012 1:30 PM, Califbill wrote:

Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The
door to
door
missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can
just
close the
door in their face.

They are using the courts to enforce the constitution.

Debatable. The constitution does not say there will not be
religion.
Basically it states there will not be "state religion" ala
Church of
England. God is even referenced in the Declaration of
Independence.
Religious people also have a right to use public property. It is
also
owned by them. This a government of, by, and for the people.
Even
atheists can have a display on public property.

Ever hear of separation of church and state?


----------------------------
yup. Where does it state that in the Constitution?


In the first amendment and in interpretations by the supreme court,
neither of which you've probably read for comprehension.

The supremes have made conflicting interpretations over the years.
The
first states there will not be State Religion. Even congress has
priests.

Do you really think it would be a good thing to have The Church run
our
country without checks and balances? That's stupid.


------------------------

Where did I say that? The constitution states that the government
will
be hands off religion. Not that there will be no religion.


You never did say that. But because he is an atheist with no moral
core,
he will keep saying it. Doesn't matter to him what is right and wrong,
as long as he gets his govt check...


You two are really rocket scientists. Really. Ka-boom.


-----------------------

In a way I am. Designed and supplied equipment for Rockwell and the
Space Shuttle.


And I was "King Tut" when it came to Chevy PFinjection electrical
diagnostics


------------------------
huh? I designed disk drive controllers for Digital Equipment Corp.
computers. And Rockwell used a a VAX780 with my controller as the
interface to a disk drive farm.


Great, not knocking your stuff, you got a lot further than I... But in
my field, I was tops and could do a lot more than harry ever thought of
doing... that's all I was saying.


If you were a top of the line auto mechanic, you could have earned a six
figure salary and you'd still be earning it. If you had half a brain,
you could have been the service manager at a big dealership and been
earning a lot more.

Auto mechanics and plumbers to guys you can't live without.

On 12/10/2012 7:42 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/10/12 9:02 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:07:55 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.

If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole, then I reckon you're right, Kevin.



There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole.

If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole.


Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay Marriage
back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the ceremony
though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to
spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral
dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good
friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I
didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner and
a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins...

Yup. Well, I love my niece, play golf with her, watched her graduate from the Naval Academy, cheered
when she became a Naval Aviator, and have had her and her 'spouse' for dinner several times.

But, I won't participate in a 'marriage' between gays. Just don't believe in it. Call it something
else, and I might go. Maybe - 'unionage', 'conjugage', 'amalgation', or make up another word. I
guess I'm just a 'bigoted asshole', along with being, according to H&K, a racist asshole.

Nope, it's a decision you have to make. Others in my family didn't
choose to go... That was up to them.




"Participate"? You mean, attend the ceremony? No one is asking you to
marry a gay. You're a small-minded, bigoted, racist asshole.

It figures you wouldn't know what happens at a religious ceremony. There
is a reason that marriages are performed in public.

ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:


I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their
country of origin.

Actually you always preach hate at people who come from a country or
state
you seem to dislike.



I have little tolerance for most of today's right-wing extremist
politicians and the people who elect them. Many of these right-wing
extremist politicians have shown they don't like women, they don't
like gays, they don't like blacks, they don't like latinos, they don't
like science and yet they are in positions of power and attempt to
push their backwards beliefs on the rest of us. I don't "hate" them,
as you claim, but I have no respect for these politicians or the
people who elect them. I'm glad to see Jim DeMint toddle himself out
of the U.S. Senate, though I suspect the governor of that state will
name an interim U.S. Senator who is just as much a backwards asshole
as DeMint.

I have little tolerance for tax cheats.

BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 12/9/12 7:33 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 18:53:56 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.
====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".
Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.
Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.
You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.
I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.
You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.
If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole, then I reckon you're right, Kevin.


There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole.
If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole.
That's a true statement.

You're probably only taxing to your family and a bigoted asshole to
everyone else. Drag any Latinos in chains behind your truck yet?
The IRS didn't have to come to his door with an $80K+ tax bill.


If everyone added that sentence to their posts, Harry would STFU for good.

In article ,
says...

"JustWait" wrote in message ...

On 12/9/2012 1:27 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/8/12 4:03 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:56 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1278725896376618279.354367bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/7/12 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1635163131376547539.158933bmckeenospam-
,
says...

thumper wrote:
On 12/6/2012 1:30 PM, Califbill wrote:

Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The
door to
door
missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just
close the
door in their face.

They are using the courts to enforce the constitution.

Debatable. The constitution does not say there will not be
religion.
Basically it states there will not be "state religion" ala
Church of
England. God is even referenced in the Declaration of
Independence.
Religious people also have a right to use public property. It is
also
owned by them. This a government of, by, and for the people. Even
atheists can have a display on public property.

Ever hear of separation of church and state?


----------------------------
yup. Where does it state that in the Constitution?


In the first amendment and in interpretations by the supreme court,
neither of which you've probably read for comprehension.

The supremes have made conflicting interpretations over the years. The
first states there will not be State Religion. Even congress has
priests.

Do you really think it would be a good thing to have The Church run our
country without checks and balances? That's stupid.


------------------------

Where did I say that? The constitution states that the government will
be hands off religion. Not that there will be no religion.


You never did say that. But because he is an atheist with no moral core,
he will keep saying it. Doesn't matter to him what is right and wrong,
as long as he gets his govt check...


You two are really rocket scientists. Really. Ka-boom.


-----------------------

In a way I am. Designed and supplied equipment for Rockwell and the
Space Shuttle.


And I was "King Tut" when it came to Chevy PFinjection electrical
diagnostics


------------------------
huh? I designed disk drive controllers for Digital Equipment Corp.
computers. And Rockwell used a a VAX780 with my controller as the interface
to a disk drive farm.

Why did I need a freaking MicroVAX II to run my 68000 and 68020
emulators?

On 12/10/2012 7:47 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/10/12 10:03 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:53:07 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.

If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole, then I reckon you're right, Kevin.



There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole.

If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole.


Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay Marriage
back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the ceremony
though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to
spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral
dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good
friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I
didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner and
a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins...

Where is it written that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Dictionary.com

mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband
and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

And, of course, you can probably find secondary and tertiary meanings that include gays, dogs,
goats, etc.



If you weren't such a small-minded, bigoted asshole, you'd realize there
are dozens and dozens of definitions for the coupling of marriage, and
that they are not necessarily secondary meanings.

What is your definition for and benefit of marriage? Is it to get a tax
advantage or is it someone to co-mingle your finances so that your
"spouse 2" can pay off your tax bills?

There are, for example, communal marriages, a system prevailing amongst
some primitive peoples, by which within a small community all the men
are regarded as married to all the women, and vice versa; sometimes
called group marriage.

I'll bet that you want a communal marriage so you can **** the wifes and
husbands of everyone else.

There's Scotch marriage: a marriage according to the Scots law, effected
by a mutual declaration before witnesses, without other formality;
chiefly applied to the runaway marriages (formerly frequent) of couples
who crossed from England into Scotland in order to escape the
restrictions imposed by English law on the marriage of minors without
the consent of their guardians.

Now you understand why people attend marriages, to be witnesses to the
act.





Well, like I said... in my case I made it clear to Sheldon (RIP Buddy)
that I didn't agree with it but it wasn't really my call anyway so I was
not gonna' judge. That being said, all I had to do is decide if I was
gonna' support my neighbor and friend or not when he called me and asked
a favor. Who knows, maybe I was the token "townie", s'ok with me, didn't
cost me much. He was a good guy, and as he showed me, just another
flawed christian like me so yeah, I went to the wedding. And for the
record, it was kinda' silly and I probably told him that later too

On 12/10/12 8:36 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/10/2012 7:47 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/10/12 10:03 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:53:07 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"

wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...


GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't
write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time
and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the
author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference
between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs.
Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More
importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious
beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing
religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution
that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is
'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes
atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then
I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on
others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious
freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the
profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry
multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even
have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in
front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No
church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want
to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay
for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that
happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number
of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or
whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her
girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the
'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes,
do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not
children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of
us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the
week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.

If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole,
then I reckon you're right, Kevin.



There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole.

If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole.


Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay
Marriage
back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the
ceremony
though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to
spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral
dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good
friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he
knew I
didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a
sinner and
a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins...

Where is it written that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Dictionary.com

mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish
their decision to live as husband
and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms:
separation.

And, of course, you can probably find secondary and tertiary
meanings that include gays, dogs,
goats, etc.



If you weren't such a small-minded, bigoted asshole, you'd realize there
are dozens and dozens of definitions for the coupling of marriage, and
that they are not necessarily secondary meanings.

What is your definition for and benefit of marriage? Is it to get a tax
advantage or is it someone to co-mingle your finances so that your
"spouse 2" can pay off your tax bills?

There are, for example, communal marriages, a system prevailing amongst
some primitive peoples, by which within a small community all the men
are regarded as married to all the women, and vice versa; sometimes
called group marriage.

I'll bet that you want a communal marriage so you can **** the wifes and
husbands of everyone else.

There's Scotch marriage: a marriage according to the Scots law, effected
by a mutual declaration before witnesses, without other formality;
chiefly applied to the runaway marriages (formerly frequent) of couples
who crossed from England into Scotland in order to escape the
restrictions imposed by English law on the marriage of minors without
the consent of their guardians.

Now you understand why people attend marriages, to be witnesses to the
act.





Well, like I said... in my case I made it clear to Sheldon (RIP Buddy)
that I didn't agree with it but it wasn't really my call anyway so I was
not gonna' judge. That being said, all I had to do is decide if I was
gonna' support my neighbor and friend or not when he called me and asked
a favor. Who knows, maybe I was the token "townie", s'ok with me, didn't
cost me much. He was a good guy, and as he showed me, just another
flawed christian like me so yeah, I went to the wedding. And for the
record, it was kinda' silly and I probably told him that later too


Gee whiz. I don't agree with Christianity and never have, but I've never
even considered turning down an invite to a wedding because I didn't
think much of the religious practices of the participants. I've been to
a lot of Christian funerals, too, and even a few christenings.

Weddings and christenings are good times to share with friends, no
matter their religious beliefs, and funerals are to say goodbye to
friends, no matter their religious beliefs.