| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Hope this gives apoplexy...
....to the many haters he
On Sunday, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Utah officials' emergency request to stop same-sex couples from marrying. The state had filed an emergency motion for temporary stay on Friday, following a Thursday federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on gay marriage. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby said the state's constitution failed to show that same-sex marriages would impede opposite-sex marriages in any way. "In the absence of such evidence, the State's unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State's refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens," Shelby wrote. Immediately following the ruling, same-sex couples fled to the county clerk's office to receive marriage licenses. But Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) denounced the decision, threatening to take action to appeal it. "I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," Herbert said of the Thursday ruling. "I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah." The 10th Circuit Appeals Court denied the governor's emergency request "without prejudice." "Because the motion before us does not meet the requirements of the Federal or local appellate rules governing a request for a stay, we deny the motion," the court held. -- I can see it now...thousands of married heterosexual couples in Utah dumping their spouses so they can marry their same-sex boyfriends or girlfriends. Gays ringing the doorbells in Salt Lake City and breaking up heterosexual marriages. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/22/2013 10:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On Sunday, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Utah officials' emergency request to stop same-sex couples from marrying. Funny. You seem to be the only one displaying symptoms thereof. Apoplexy, that is. -- Americans deserve better. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:05:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...to the many haters he On Sunday, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Utah officials' emergency request to stop same-sex couples from marrying. The state had filed an emergency motion for temporary stay on Friday, following a Thursday federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on gay marriage. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby said the state's constitution failed to show that same-sex marriages would impede opposite-sex marriages in any way. "In the absence of such evidence, the State's unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State's refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens," Shelby wrote. Immediately following the ruling, same-sex couples fled to the county clerk's office to receive marriage licenses. But Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) denounced the decision, threatening to take action to appeal it. "I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," Herbert said of the Thursday ruling. "I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah." The 10th Circuit Appeals Court denied the governor's emergency request "without prejudice." "Because the motion before us does not meet the requirements of the Federal or local appellate rules governing a request for a stay, we deny the motion," the court held. I cannot understand why anyone would deny 'marriage' requests from any two beings. The Glibitz have every right to pretend their ceremony is a 'marriage', and receive all the advantages under the law that to which they're entitles. If the chosen partner is a goat, the goat should be deductible. Amen. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:12:06 -0500, Hank© wrote:
On 12/22/2013 10:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On Sunday, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Utah officials' emergency request to stop same-sex couples from marrying. Funny. You seem to be the only one displaying symptoms thereof. Apoplexy, that is. Ayup. He apparently thinks folks here give a ****. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
|
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/23/2013 10:12 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:05:06 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 08:35:45 -0500, John H. wrote: I cannot understand why anyone would deny 'marriage' requests from any two beings. Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return. But, I understand your point. A 'B' should be able to deduct at least one of each gender. But, should there be a limit placed on the 'Z's'. What if ....you know....goats, sheep, cows, orangutans..??? Hey, for the Glibitz, it's not a choice, right? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! You seem to have taken a serious interest in this "goat" thing... Is there something you are not telling us? |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
|
Hope this gives apoplexy...
|
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Sunday, December 22, 2013 9:05:05 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Hope this gives apoplexy... ...to the many haters he Why do you wish harm on others, Harry? No sense of tolerance? |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/23/13, 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:04:19 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:10:12 -0500, John H. wrote: And how come you keep editing my posts? Editing? Yeah, cutting out the good parts! John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I try to reduce the clutter by only quoting the parts I an responding to. I assume everyone already read the original post. Herring wants everyone to see how clever he...isn't. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/2013 12:26 AM, Califbill wrote:
John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. Really, not to pick nits.... but they are un-reconstructed Mormons:) |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
KC wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:26 AM, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. Really, not to pick nits.... but they are un-reconstructed Mormons:) I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Monday, December 23, 2013 5:56:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, December 22, 2013 9:05:05 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote: Hope this gives apoplexy... ...to the many haters he Why do you wish harm on others, Harry? No sense of tolerance? Cause he's a ****ING ASSHOLE |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Monday, December 23, 2013 9:15:16 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Herring wants everyone to see how clever he...isn't. And we all see how perfect...you ARENT |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/2013 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? Good morning. User-Agent: NewsTap/4.0.1 (iPad) -- Americans deserve better. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I used it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say, Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:26:06 -0600, Califbill wrote:
John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. I wonder if they can claim them all as 'spouses'. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
In article , says...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! Old habits, Harry editing the content of posts, dies hard if they die at all. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/2013 8:55 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:26:06 -0600, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. I wonder if they can claim them all as 'spouses'. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! You know as well as I do that there has to be limits. Any more than ten would be decadent and subject to a luxury tax. IMO -- Americans deserve better. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:19:08 -0500, Hank© wrote:
On 12/24/2013 8:55 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:26:06 -0600, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. I wonder if they can claim them all as 'spouses'. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! You know as well as I do that there has to be limits. Any more than ten would be decadent and subject to a luxury tax. IMO Would the same rules apply to sheep, goats, etc? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:19:08 -0500, Hank© wrote: On 12/24/2013 8:55 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:26:06 -0600, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. I wonder if they can claim them all as 'spouses'. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! You know as well as I do that there has to be limits. Any more than ten would be decadent and subject to a luxury tax. IMO Or qualify you for a mental disability. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/2013 9:44 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:19:08 -0500, Hank© wrote: On 12/24/2013 8:55 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:26:06 -0600, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. I wonder if they can claim them all as 'spouses'. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! You know as well as I do that there has to be limits. Any more than ten would be decadent and subject to a luxury tax. IMO Would the same rules apply to sheep, goats, etc? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! You know sheep and goats, like Harry, don't pay taxes. -- Americans deserve better. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
In article , says...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:55:43 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:26:06 -0600, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. I wonder if they can claim them all as 'spouses'. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! As long as you list a spouse, you can use the "married" column in the tax table. (better rate than single in some circumstances) Everyone else is just a dependent defined as "any other person(other than your spouse) who lived with you all year as a member of your household" -1040 instruction book In fact, it would actually be better for you if you did not list a spouse if you have dependents since you could use the "single head of household" column. (much better rate) That is one reason why I question all of this gay marriage thing in the first place As a tax payer I welcome them choosing to pay higher taxes tho. If the gays want to pay the marriage penalty let them. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:26:06 -0600, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:26:47 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:34 -0500, John H. wrote: Why limit it to two? Are you discriminating against the "B"s? Because one person should not be able to deduct more than one spouse on her income tax return You can deduct all of your dependents now, gay straight or whatever. True, but there is only one box for 'Spouse'. And how come you keep editing my posts? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! How about unreconstructed Mormon? More than one spouse. I wonder if they can claim them all as 'spouses'. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! You can claim all the spouses as dependents. But there is only married and single as the spouse choice. Problem would be do you fill in spouse info with First Wife info? |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I used it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say, Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good. I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac. Thunderbird fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with software. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/2013 3:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I used it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say, Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good. I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac. Thunderbird fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with software. I read somewhere that Thunderbird was not supported on the newer Apple operating systems but have not tried it yet. The OS version I have is OSX 10.8.5 There's an update to 10.9 something available but I haven't upgraded to it yet. I read about some horror stories about it on a couple of the Apple support forums, so until I feel more comfortable with the iMac, I think I'll leave things as they are for now. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/13, 3:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I used it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say, Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good. I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac. Thunderbird fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with software. I am running the latest Apple OS on my iMac and Thunderbird runs fine on it. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/13, 3:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 3:03 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I used it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say, Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good. I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac. Thunderbird fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with software. I read somewhere that Thunderbird was not supported on the newer Apple operating systems but have not tried it yet. The OS version I have is OSX 10.8.5 There's an update to 10.9 something available but I haven't upgraded to it yet. I read about some horror stories about it on a couple of the Apple support forums, so until I feel more comfortable with the iMac, I think I'll leave things as they are for now. I'm running 10.9.1. on my iMac and current model Macbook Air and also the latest version of T'Bird. No problems. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/24/2013 4:40 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 3:03 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I used it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say, Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good. I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac. Thunderbird fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with software. I am running the latest Apple OS on my iMac and Thunderbird runs fine on it. hmmmm... Once I become more comfortable with the iMac, I'll give it a try. One step at a time. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/24/2013 3:03 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a pain to go back. What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad? An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I used it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say, Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good. I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac. Thunderbird fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with software. I read somewhere that Thunderbird was not supported on the newer Apple operating systems but have not tried it yet. The OS version I have is OSX 10.8.5 There's an update to 10.9 something available but I haven't upgraded to it yet. I read about some horror stories about it on a couple of the Apple support forums, so until I feel more comfortable with the iMac, I think I'll leave things as they are for now. Mine is 10.9 and they remove a transport mechanism that Thunderbird used from what I read. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/22/2013 9:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
...to the many haters he -- I can see it now...thousands of married heterosexual couples in Utah dumping their spouses so they can marry their same-sex boyfriends or girlfriends. Gays ringing the doorbells in Salt Lake City and breaking up heterosexual marriages. You have quite an imagination! |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 11:09:37 -0600, amdx wrote:
On 12/22/2013 9:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: ...to the many haters he -- I can see it now...thousands of married heterosexual couples in Utah dumping their spouses so they can marry their same-sex boyfriends or girlfriends. Gays ringing the doorbells in Salt Lake City and breaking up heterosexual marriages. You have quite an imagination! I expect he's somewhat ****ed that he got married well before Maryland passed the gay marriage law. -- Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year! John H |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/25/13, 12:09 PM, amdx wrote:
On 12/22/2013 9:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: ...to the many haters he -- I can see it now...thousands of married heterosexual couples in Utah dumping their spouses so they can marry their same-sex boyfriends or girlfriends. Gays ringing the doorbells in Salt Lake City and breaking up heterosexual marriages. You have quite an imagination! Well, I do, but...most of us who are unconcerned about gay marriage like to poke a little fun at those who are against, and many times their stated reason is that legal gay marriage will somehow ruin "straight marriage." *How* that would be accomplished is unknown, so, for fun, we imagine straights dumping their spouses so they can enter into a gay marriage. But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you could have both a straight and a gay partner. Hey, it gets boring to only poke fun at the other mindless right-wing group...the teabaggers. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
|
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On 12/26/13, 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you could have both a straight and a gay partner. Hence the "B" in the acronym It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory. I also saw a lady interviewed on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and then women, for a while. She'd go back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory. They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they missed. I saw an article in the paper tonight. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/ I'm still waiting for a right-wing hatemonger to explain to us all how, precisely, gay marriage will "destroy" heterosexual marriage, since that seems to be pretty much the only remaining claim. Your boy "Poco Loco" Herring seems to be perseverating on gays, so perhaps you can convince him to tell us what he bases his objections on. I'm aware that some of the religious bigots object to gays on "biblical grounds," but that seems vacuous, since there are so many concepts and rules in that book that the bigots ignore. One of the bigots here brought up the "marriage is for procreating" bull****, something I've not heard in years. What's left in reasons to object? -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:16:18 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you could have both a straight and a gay partner. Hence the "B" in the acronym It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory. I also saw a lady interviewed on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and then women, for a while. She'd go back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory. They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they missed. I saw an article in the paper tonight. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/ I see the 'Q', but couldn't find what it was supposed to represent. I found this story interesting: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/12/fla-teen-convicted-of-having-sex-with-underage-girlfriend-released-from-jail/ "The case garnered attention as Hunt’s lawyers claimed that authorities wouldn’t have gone after her if the situation had involved a male and a female instead of two teenage girls." I guess the lawyer is saying if a man had sex with the 14 year-old, that would have been OK. I'm wondering when the push will come to add 'P' (for pedophilia) to the list of letters. Hope you're having a great day! |
Hope this gives apoplexy...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 09:28:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/26/13, 11:16 PM, wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you could have both a straight and a gay partner. Hence the "B" in the acronym It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory. I also saw a lady interviewed on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and then women, for a while. She'd go back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory. They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they missed. I saw an article in the paper tonight. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/ I'm still waiting for a right-wing hatemonger to explain to us all how, precisely, gay marriage will "destroy" heterosexual marriage, since that seems to be pretty much the only remaining claim. Your boy "Poco Loco" Herring seems to be perseverating on gays, so perhaps you can convince him to tell us what he bases his objections on. I'm aware that some of the religious bigots object to gays on "biblical grounds," but that seems vacuous, since there are so many concepts and rules in that book that the bigots ignore. One of the bigots here brought up the "marriage is for procreating" bull****, something I've not heard in years. What's left in reasons to object? I have no objections whatsoever to any of the Glibitzers marrying any of the other Glibitzers. Hell, I think it's pretty much a joke. Do they 'need' the word 'marriage' to make themselves feel 'whole'? Just stop cramming the behavior down my throat in every TV show as though it's 'the norm' in the country. Hope you're having a great day! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com