|
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/10/2012 10:52 PM, BAR wrote:
In article om, says... On 12/9/2012 7:56 PM, 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. Krause's financial problems have been mitigated by his wife's securing a fairly good job with the Bricklayers union in Washington DC. She has a pretty rough commute into the big city, but that's not his worry. In fact, he's happy to have her out of his hair (what little of it there is) for large chunks of time. With his wife gone so much of the day Harry can watch his collection of "movies" that he keeps on his home storage server. Most people have them on tape or DVD. I wonder where Harry got his. Already knows he's a thief, you know he stole them... |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:44:33 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m, says... On 12/10/2012 9:15 AM, ESAD wrote: 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. He may be a bit bigoted. We all are. But what makes him a small minded, racist asshole? What makes him small minded is his constant far right wing bull**** and his stance that everything right is good and everything left is bad. What makes him a racist is his racism. He's made disparaging remarks here about Mexicans in his neighborhood, he's repeated Mexican jokes here as well. If the Mexicans on the corner trashed their yard, and I say, "The Mexicans on the corner trashed their yard," is that 'racist'? If so, then I'm guilty as charged, 'cause they trashed their f'ing yard! But, they have cleaned it up in the past year. So, that's a good thing. Cite the 'Mexican jokes', if you please! |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:40 -0500, 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. Gosh, more examples of men and women. You folks need some examples of men and goats to *really* make your point! |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/11/12 8:34 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:44:33 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 12/10/2012 9:15 AM, ESAD wrote: 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. He may be a bit bigoted. We all are. But what makes him a small minded, racist asshole? What makes him small minded is his constant far right wing bull**** and his stance that everything right is good and everything left is bad. What makes him a racist is his racism. He's made disparaging remarks here about Mexicans in his neighborhood, he's repeated Mexican jokes here as well. If the Mexicans on the corner trashed their yard, and I say, "The Mexicans on the corner trashed their yard," is that 'racist'? If so, then I'm guilty as charged, 'cause they trashed their f'ing yard! But, they have cleaned it up in the past year. So, that's a good thing. Cite the 'Mexican jokes', if you please! Yeah, it is racist. Why would you say "the Mexicans on the corner."? Why not just say "the people on the corner"? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/11/12 8:37 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:40 -0500, 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. Gosh, more examples of men and women. You folks need some examples of men and goats to *really* make your point! What's the matter with you? You seem to have some real hangups about human interpersonal relationships that in reality have nothing to do with you. Why are you so offended by gay marriage? It's not as if you are a religious guy, following the teachings of jesus, because you aren't. No one is pressuring you to "turn gay," (as if that is possible), and I doubt gays are harassing you at the shopping malls. Why can't you just go to the wedding and wish your relative well in her new life? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article 2041499723376809105.460406bmckeenospam-
, says... 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. Seems to be both sides of the aisle are preaching hate and intolerance. You just like your intolerance. A lot of truth to that! I just can't figure out why the extremes on both sides can't grasp the concept that their party is part of the problem. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... 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. What are those reasons? And are you saying that two persons can't get married in a private ceremony??? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:43:49 -0500, ESAD wrote:
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. It must be nice being a 'perfect' deadbeat. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... 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. Well, everyone here knows who the bigots are. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com