>
> Circumcision?
toque or helmet?
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusio
What are you trying to argue here? This is one of the few issues where I
think we are pretty much all in agreement.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> Again what is normal? It really depends on where you are it seems.
>
>
--
When the Jazzman's testifyin'
A faithless man bel
> LL wrote:
> Again what is normal? It really depends on where you are it seems.
>
Circumcision?
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net
>> gMoney wrote:
>> I'm telling you, I really think it's the 'ick' factor.
>> ORa group that they secretly have more in common with
>> then they'd like to admit, lets not forget about this contingent.
>>
>
>I think you're exactly right. Plus I'd add I think there are a group
>of people just p
> Larry wrote:
> What is normal?
That's my point.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f
Archive:
http://www
>I don't see what the problem is with two consenting adults entering into an
>agreement of responsibility for each other (IE: medical benefits, joint
>accounts, joint taxes, etc.)
>
>The scenario that I keep seeing is two elderly folks who live together, one
>would be allowed to make medical deci
>> gMoney wrote:
>> I'm telling you, I really think it's the 'ick' factor.
>> ORa group that they secretly have more in common with
>> then they'd like to admit, lets not forget about this contingent.
>>
>
>I think you're exactly right. Plus I'd add I think there are a group
>of people just p
Ironically enough the early Church sanctioned same sex marriages. It was
considered normal until about 1100 or 1200 AD.
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html
So you could consider that the religious arguments are somewhat sp
al Message-
From: G Money [mailto:gm0n3...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:58 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Anybody Here Against Gay Marriage?
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Since the whole purpose of forbidding marriage between siblings and
> cousins
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Since the whole purpose of forbidding marriage between siblings and
> cousins is the probability of a defective child, why would it matter
> if gay cousins formed a civil union?
Aye caramba! You'd flip the debate in the other direction...now y
Since the whole purpose of forbidding marriage between siblings and
cousins is the probability of a defective child, why would it matter
if gay cousins formed a civil union?
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>
>> That said, my own take on gay marriage is fairly simple. Take th
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, G Money wrote:
> I think we all pretty much agree that this would be the ideal solution...but
> it would be awfully hard to get done in practice. For better or worse
> (surely worse), "marriage" and religion are possibly intertwined beyond
> separation.
I don't th
I think we all pretty much agree that this would be the ideal solution...but
it would be awfully hard to get done in practice. For better or worse
(surely worse), "marriage" and religion are possibly intertwined beyond
separation.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I could
I could not agree with you more on this one, Larry.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> >I'm telling you, I really think it's the 'ick' factor. Yes, many people
> cite
> >their religion...but I bet their religion opposes all sorts of crap that
> >they conveniently ignore. Why
>I'm telling you, I really think it's the 'ick' factor. Yes, many people cite
>their religion...but I bet their religion opposes all sorts of crap that
>they conveniently ignore. Why so hard core on this particular issue?
>
>It's a convenient excuse to oppose a group of people who gives them the
>
> gMoney wrote:
> I'm telling you, I really think it's the 'ick' factor.
> ORa group that they secretly have more in common with
> then they'd like to admit, lets not forget about this contingent.
>
I think you're exactly right. Plus I'd add I think there are a group
of people just plain see
I'm telling you, I really think it's the 'ick' factor. Yes, many people cite
their religion...but I bet their religion opposes all sorts of crap that
they conveniently ignore. Why so hard core on this particular issue?
It's a convenient excuse to oppose a group of people who gives them the
heebie
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Larry Lyons <> wrote:
>
> >Wow, do they do some kind of humor removal at birth as part of the
> Canadian
> >Health Care System?
> >
> >Was there any else who did not notice the tongue firmly in cheek, even
> >without the second paragraph saying IT WAS VERY TONGUE-I
>Wow, do they do some kind of humor removal at birth as part of the Canadian
>Health Care System?
>
>Was there any else who did not notice the tongue firmly in cheek, even
>without the second paragraph saying IT WAS VERY TONGUE-IN-CHEEK?
I know it was, but religious fanatics are using the exact s
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Justin Scott
wrote:
> Since the middle ages, marriage in most Christian
> realms was seen as a religious matter (never mind that marriage as an
> institution pre-dates any of the current major religions).
Except for the Holy Church of the Rainbow. Which is fine.
hey now.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
> Wow, do they do some kind of humor removal at birth as part of the Canadian
> Health Care System?
>
> Was there any else who did not notice the tongue firmly in cheek, even
> without the second paragraph saying IT WAS VERY TON
hehe "gay puppet masters"
you couldn't make this stuff up.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Justin wrote:
>> I believe that many of the people who are against gay "marriage" are against
>> it in religious terms.
>
> I don't think you quite captured it ...
>
> "There is a r
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Ray Cha > wrote:
>
> If you let man-on-man and woman-on-woman marriage happen, then where do we
> stop? man-on-sheep, woman-on-horse?
> C'mon this is simple to argue, really. You don't get that?
>
I draw the line at donkey-on-dragon. I mean, did you see those kid
> Justin wrote:
> I believe that many of the people who are against gay "marriage" are against
> it in religious terms.
I don't think you quite captured it ...
"There is a rising tide of pink fascism in this country, and it comes
as a result of the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has
sig
> Should be, legally incorporated civil union,
> and religiously married.
I believe that many of the people who are against gay "marriage" are against
it in religious terms. Since the middle ages, marriage in most Christian
realms was seen as a religious matter (never mind that marriage as an
in
Wow, do they do some kind of humor removal at birth as part of the Canadian
Health Care System?
Was there any else who did not notice the tongue firmly in cheek, even
without the second paragraph saying IT WAS VERY TONGUE-IN-CHEEK?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> >If y
>If you let man-on-man and woman-on-woman marriage happen, then where do we
>stop? man-on-sheep, woman-on-horse?
>C'mon this is simple to argue, really. You don't get that?
funny you know that was the same arguments used when there were efforts to
overturn the laws forbidding interracial marria
>I'm listening to a gay marriage debate and I don't get the rationale
>of being against it.
>
>If you are, can you explain how if Joe and Jim get married that
>affects your marriage?
>
>I just don't get that.
>
>Why would we discriminate?
Yes, why should straights be the only ones who are miserab
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Charlie Griefer
wrote:
> So there are two facets to this. One is the legal definition of a married
> couple versus two people living together and sharing a life.
Really, the two are legally married, and religiously married.
Should be, legally incorporated civil
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> > Which then leads us to CamChi's point: why have ANY marriage
>
> I am confused as to what government has to do with a religious
> concoction anywho. Maybe I am missing a history le
Actually, from a government point of view, a marriage is more like a
partnership or llc, conveying certain shared ownership, shared liabilities,
and tax and other considerations.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> >
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> Which then leads us to CamChi's point: why have ANY marriage
I am confused as to what government has to do with a religious
concoction anywho. Maybe I am missing a history lesson here, but
isn't marriage a construct of the church?
I guess The
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>
> Why would we discriminate?
>
> Because people are fucktards.
--
Scott Stroz
---
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson
htt
> cRay wrote:
>
> If you let man-on-man and woman-on-woman marriage happen, then where do we
> stop? man-on-sheep, woman-on-horse?
> C'mon this is simple to argue, really. You don't get that?
>
Course the retort to that is if we're going to discriminate against
sexual preference why not religion
If you let man-on-man and woman-on-woman marriage happen, then where do we
stop? man-on-sheep, woman-on-horse?
C'mon this is simple to argue, really. You don't get that?
(For the google monster and any chance of getting hired anywhere in my post
DMC afterlife, this was VERY tongue-in-cheek. The
+1
-Original Message-
From: Cameron Childress [mailto:camer...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:02 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Anybody Here Against Gay Marriage?
Can I be against *all* marriage?
-Cameron
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
I am not an advocate, and truthfully two guys getting married geeves me out
a little bit.
But so do the marriages on the show "red neck wedding", and no one is
stopping them.
I would love to hear a cogent argument against, as I have not thought of any
I could sustain myself. I cannot get around
Can I be against *all* marriage?
-Cameron
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> I'm listening to a gay marriage debate and I don't get the rationale
> of being against it.
>
> If you are, can you explain how if Joe and Jim get married that
> affects your marriage?
>
> I just don't
38 matches
Mail list logo
