Well there'd be plenty of work for people at dictionary.com to come up
with a better definition for "ugly". :)
> A scary thought no? Imagine how boring things would be.
> larry
> On 9/13/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You know, I'd been trying to think of a snappy come-back
>>
A scary thought no? Imagine how boring things would be.
larry
On 9/13/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, I'd been trying to think of a snappy come-back for this all
> day. :P
>
> > Well since they probably won't breed, it will improve the
> > species.
> > Eventually every
Heh... well I meant a comeback for the comment before Larry's -- i.e.
I was searching for the comeback larry provided. :)
> How about,
> If we all look like supermodels, fashion won't be a very
> *big* industry
> at all!
> --Ben "I'll have a snappy comeback on your desk Monday
> morning" Doom
>
How about,
If we all look like supermodels, fashion won't be a very *big* industry
at all!
--Ben "I'll have a snappy comeback on your desk Monday morning" Doom
S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
> You know, I'd been trying to think of a snappy come-back for this all
> day. :P
>
>
>>Well since they probably
You know, I'd been trying to think of a snappy come-back for this all
day. :P
> Well since they probably won't breed, it will improve the
> species.
> Eventually everyone will look like a supermodel adn our
> biggest
> industries will be makeup and fashion.
> larry
> On 9/12/05, Jaysen Van <[EMA
Yeah, that's the problem with a lot of extreme conservatives -- they
care too damn much and it makes things tough for the rest of us.
There's something to be said for not "being your brother's keeper".
> Personally I don't care, I really don't, who marries
> who as long as everyone involved is of
woo! Hah, hahahaha! Nice.
--Ben
Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Well since they probably won't breed, it will improve the species.
> Eventually everyone will look like a supermodel adn our biggest
> industries will be makeup and fashion.
You seem to be assuming it's always going to be 1-guy-several-women.
--Ben
Jaysen Van wrote:
>>>If Gays can get full marriage Rights and be accorded the Sacrament of
>>>Marriage, then why should having multiple wives still be against the
>>>law?
>>>That's discrimination on consenting adults, isn'
Well since they probably won't breed, it will improve the species.
Eventually everyone will look like a supermodel adn our biggest
industries will be makeup and fashion.
larry
On 9/12/05, Jaysen Van <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If Gays can get full marriage Rights and be accorded the Sacramen
> > If Gays can get full marriage Rights and be accorded the Sacrament of
> > Marriage, then why should having multiple wives still be against the
> > law?
> >
> > That's discrimination on consenting adults, isn't it?
> >
> >
It's discriminating against ugly guys. I mean what the heck. If g
Personally I don't care, I really don't, who marries who as long as everyone
involved is of age, capable of consent, and does in fact consent.
On 9/12/05, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but I think the consensus is to start another thread if we really
> want to get into it. Sus
Thanks Ben Wa :)
That's not a marriage...
THAT's a marriage!
> Yeah, but I think the consensus is to start another
> thread if we really want to get into it.
> Susan Isaac Dealey and I both think polygamous
> marriages should be legal.
> --Ben
> Vivec wrote:
>> So what about
Yeah, but I think the consensus is to start another thread if we really
want to get into it. Susan Isaac Dealey and I both think polygamous
marriages should be legal.
--Ben
Vivec wrote:
> So what about Polygamy?
>
> If Gays can get full marriage Rights and be accorded the Sacrament of
> Marriag
I think the culture largely accepts them already (I'd say 50/50 if not
more, although the vocal anti-gay minority is at times a very violent
and as a result it may seem as though there are more of them because
they make us deal with their violent attitudes)... I just happen to
think that our govern
I don't think I agree. Sometimes you need a law. If civil rights legislation
had not passed, I do not think that much would have changed in the South. As
it is, not everything that needs to change has, but at least some progress
has been made.
Dana
On 9/9/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:46 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Sen Danforth
Snip
> That's my point, society dictates marriage as a bond between man and
> women even back then.
Are you serious man? Society thought it w
Pardon me, but *machine gun sound* So sorry...
- George Carlin
> "What's so civil about war anyway?"
> - Guns N' Roses
> --- On Friday, September 09, 2005 12:04 PM, Ben Doom
> scribed: ---
>>
>> Well, they called that whole north-south argument over
>> secession civil. I don't know why this can
> Equality is not about titles unless using the title
> deprives you of something. If civil union license affords
> the same opportunity as a marriage license where is the
> deprivation? Why not ban the words men and women from
> restroom signs? That's segregation?
> Ok lets be equal. Let us not
So what about Polygamy?
If Gays can get full marriage Rights and be accorded the Sacrament of
Marriage, then why should having multiple wives still be against the
law?
That's discrimination on consenting adults, isn't it?
~|
Dis
Yes and in both cases the reason those things came about was because
they would be "equal". That's what everybody said. That's what white
people DEMANDED. That they "be equal", hence the term "separate but
equal", and of course the end result is that it gives white people an
easy way to continue to
I see people forced to sit in the back of the bus as a physically
inferior positioning. I picture black only water fountains and
bathrooms as rarely cleaned compared to their white counterparts
making it also a physically visible form of humiliation.
That's all I meant.
On 9/9/05, S. Isaac Deale
retract
-- How sleazily evasive of you, Sam.
Sorry...
Saying that "separate but equal" applies only to physical things and
therefore does not apply to marriage vs. civil-union is avoiding the
subject (not to mention patently invalid), because, if a water
fountain provides the same water, then the
Well, this goes back to a point I made a long time ago. While you can't
legislate culture, you can use legislation to influence it. The running
arguments about church and state, faith-based initiatives, etc. are
adaquate proof, eh? Legislating a difference, even in term, is
essentially condo
So you see it as all or nothing. I can respect that. I was thinking
more of wining one battle at a time. I don't think letting gays use
the term marriage will change culture, not yet at least. It's as if
you want to use the law to force cultural to accept them, only time
will.
On 9/9/05, S. Isaac
Now that I understand. If they can't be achieved with a civil union
then I agree its discrimination.
On 9/9/05, Ian Skinner wrote:
> But, if you then spent your entire life battling banks, insurance companies,
> hospitals, employers, neighbors, waiters, cats and dogs that say your
> marriage is
> Sam wrote:
> I hear why people feel its discrimination but it's just not sinking in.
Let's say your company had 3 titles:
Support Desk Associate
Developer
Senior Developer
And even though your work, skills, pay, and benefits matched your
Senior Developer colleagues, your title always remained
That's not called for.
On 9/9/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> How sleazily evasive of you, Sam.
>
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cf
I don't think he's trying to be (or is) sleazy. I think he genuinely
doesn't see value in the word. It's a valid stance, even if I think
it's stupid. :-)
--Ben
S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> How sleazily evasive of you, Sam.
>
>
>>I'm the Man now, col!
>
>
>>Separate is a physical limitati
Use of a separate term (civil union or otherwise) makes it much easier
for those on the anti-side to ensure that things are not equal as long
as they possibly can... Sure, you can choose to accept the alternate
term and fight for the term to be treated equally, but it will take a
LOT longer to acco
I don't need a word or piece of paper to know I'll love my wife forever.
Sam
But, if you then spent your entire life battling banks, insurance companies,
hospitals, employers, neighbors, waiters, cats and dogs that say your marriage
is not a "REAL" marriage with out feeling any effect. Then yo
I don't need a word or piece of paper to know I'll love my wife
forever. It's a stupid formality to me. The people that think there
love isn't true unless it's called a marriage learned that from
society, the same society that forbids them from using the term. If
they can get past that they will re
How sleazily evasive of you, Sam.
> I'm the Man now, col!
> Separate is a physical limitation. Separate classrooms,
> restrooms,
> water fountains and back of the bus to name a few. These
> are all
> physical limitations. What limitation is there on civil
> union except
> for it's social impa
I hear why people feel its discrimination but it's just not sinking in.
I don't see the word or document of marriage as a right, I see all
that comes with it a right but not the title or document itself. It's
strictly an emotional limitation.
Like I said I'm not against it, I just don't see it as
Nobodies being deprived of anything except the use of a word, everything else
is equal or should be.
But everything else is not equal. Access denied to partners by hospitals,
because they aren't "family." Access denied to insurance benefits, because
they are not "married." Access denied to i
Sam wrote:
> Separate is a physical limitation. Separate classrooms, restrooms,
> water fountains and back of the bus to name a few. These are all
> physical limitations. What limitation is there on civil union except
> for it's social impact? Nobodies being deprived of anything except the
> use of
I'm the Man now, col!
Separate is a physical limitation. Separate classrooms, restrooms,
water fountains and back of the bus to name a few. These are all
physical limitations. What limitation is there on civil union except
for it's social impact? Nobodies being deprived of anything except the
I guess my point was Bush isn't attacking gays for religious purposes, the gays
are pushing for change and the people aren't read for it. The President is just
supporting the people on this issue.
Sam
And that is one of the reasons I disagree with the current president. The
founding fathers s
> Sam wrote:
>>>People made the same argument about civil rights for
>>>Blacks in the 60's and woman's sufferage in the '20s.
>>>Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The American culture
>>>will never be "ready" for it -- they will get used
>>>to it.
>>>
>> You're comparing the use of the term marriage t
The man should look up the phrase Separate but Equal.
Its the same argument that the segregationists used against blacks.
Just the names are changed.
On 9/9/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Equality is not about titles unless using the title deprives you of
> > somethi
That I agree with and I don't have an answer.
I guess my point was Bush isn't attacking gays for religious purposes,
the gays are pushing for change and the people aren't read for it. The
President is just supporting the people on this issue.
On 9/9/05, Ian Skinner wrote:
> Ok lets be equal. Let
First, I don't think restrooms are part of any legal code and second using an
opposite sex restroom violates somebody else's right to privacy. I'm sure
there's also hundreds of other reason why that analogy doesn't work.
And actually, court cases have settled that either gender can use either
Equality is not about titles unless using the title deprives you of something.
If civil union license affords the same opportunity as a marriage license where
is the deprivation? Why not ban the words men and women from restroom signs?
That's segregation?
Ok lets be equal. Let us not call any
> Sam wrote:
> Equality is not about titles unless using the title deprives you of
> something. If civil union license affords the same opportunity as a
> marriage license where is the deprivation?
> Why not ban the words men and women from restroom signs? That's
> segregation?
>
When the state d
Equality is not about titles unless using the title deprives you of
something. If civil union license affords the same opportunity as a
marriage license where is the deprivation?
Why not ban the words men and women from restroom signs? That's segregation?
On 9/9/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> There's
Sam wrote:
>>People made the same argument about civil rights for Blacks in the 60's
>>and woman's sufferage in the '20s. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The
>>American culture will never be "ready" for it -- they will get used to it.
>>
> You're comparing the use of the term marriage to the inequa
> Sam wrote:
> You're comparing the use of the term marriage to the inequality of
> blacks. There's no comparison.
>
There's every comparison. In the first case an American citizen is
being denied equality due to an arbitrary characteristic, skin color.
In the second case an American citizen is
I realized that my note from pubmed probably won't get through to the
list, so here's the search query I used:
(pedophilia and physiology) NOT (phallometric OR phallometric OR
plethysmography OR klinefelter or XYY or (case report))
I wanted to avoid the discussions on how to measure sexual arousal
On 9/9/05, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
> > OK I can see why some people might think I'm a right-wing Religious nut-job.
> > Let me clarify, I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think our
> > culture is ready for it so let it go for a few more years, maybe
> > things will
On 9/9/05, Ben Doom wrote:
>
> People made the same argument about civil rights for Blacks in the 60's
> and woman's sufferage in the '20s. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The
> American culture will never be "ready" for it -- they will get used to it.
>
You're comparing the use of the term marr
"What's so civil about war anyway?"
- Guns N' Roses
--- On Friday, September 09, 2005 12:04 PM, Ben Doom scribed: ---
>
> Well, they called that whole north-south argument over secession
> civil. I don't know why this can't be
>
> --Ben
>
~
> Ben wrote:
> The American culture will never be "ready" for it -- they will get used to it.
>
That's a great summary of the whole thing!
I find it ironic that there are Gay people all around us every day.
Some (many?) are in committed relationships and even adopt kids. It's
all around us?
W
Well, they called that whole north-south argument over secession civil.
I don't know why this can't be
--Ben
Howie Hamlin wrote:
> There'd be nothing civil about that!
>
>
>
> "Not that there's anything wrong with that"
>
> - Jerry Seinfeld
>
> --- On Friday, September 09, 2005 11:44
There'd be nothing civil about that!
"Not that there's anything wrong with that"
- Jerry Seinfeld
--- On Friday, September 09, 2005 11:44 AM, Ben Doom scribed: ---
>
> Don't make me come down there and force you into a civil union with a
> gay man!
>
> --Ben
>
~~
Actually, that's probably an exaggeration of my smashing skills. But
still funny!
SStewart wrote:
> Hulk SMASH!
>
> I meant that I was angry when I wrote the email. I was speaking
> colloquially. And if anyone corrects my spelling on that, I'll kill 'em.
>
> --Ben "scrawny but green" Doom
>
Ben Doom wrote:
> many words as you want. Let's see how long it takes to set of MikeyD's
> too-many-line warning!
Looks like I didn't need any help!
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket
Don't make me come down there and force you into a civil union with a
gay man!
--Ben
Howie Hamlin wrote:
> I know what you meant...colloquially, it was still incorrect :)
>
> --- On Friday, September 09, 2005 11:23 AM, Ben Doom scribed: ---
>
>>Hulk SMASH!
>>
>>I meant that I was angry when I
Yes, but you're not supposed to know about that.
--Ben
S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
> Your friends are tranformed into giant brains, bent on catloging and
> then destroying the universe so they can know everything? :)
~|
Discover CFTi
Sam wrote:
> OK I can see why some people might think I'm a right-wing Religious nut-job.
> Let me clarify, I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think our
> culture is ready for it so let it go for a few more years, maybe
> things will change. Right now if civil union works use it. I'm totall
I know what you meant...colloquially, it was still incorrect :)
--- On Friday, September 09, 2005 11:23 AM, Ben Doom scribed: ---
>
> Hulk SMASH!
>
> I meant that I was angry when I wrote the email. I was speaking
> colloquially. And if anyone corrects my spelling on that, I'll kill
> 'em.
>
Maybe we should be calling you angry BD rather than angry MT,
larry
On 9/9/05, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hulk SMASH!
>
> I meant that I was angry when I wrote the email. I was speaking
> colloquially. And if anyone corrects my spelling on that, I'll kill 'em.
>
> --Ben "scrawny bu
Hulk SMASH!
I meant that I was angry when I wrote the email. I was speaking
colloquially. And if anyone corrects my spelling on that, I'll kill 'em.
--Ben "scrawny but green" Doom
Hulk SMASH!!
Ben DENT SLIGHTLY!!
:)
Scott A. Stewart,
Web Application Developer
Engineering Consulting Servi
Hulk SMASH!
I meant that I was angry when I wrote the email. I was speaking
colloquially. And if anyone corrects my spelling on that, I'll kill 'em.
--Ben "scrawny but green" Doom
Howie Hamlin wrote:
> You mean "angrily"
>
>
>
> --- On Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:17 PM, Ben Doom scribed
> Sam wrote:
> if it were condemned in the Bible, Gruss would insist we
> legalized it.
>
That was a shockingly well thought out, well written piece.
Except for the line quoted above. I'm not against a policy that
forwards anything condemned in the Bible; in fact, that has nothing to
do with it
> From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You mean "angrily"
>
Beat me to it. SON OF A! :-)
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support
efficiency by 100%
http://www.houseoffusion.com/bann
You mean "angrily"
--- On Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:17 PM, Ben Doom scribed: ---
>
> Ben Doom wrote:
>> friends, just because they're brains are wired differently. Hell, my
> ^^^
>
> See what happens when I write email angry?
>
> --Ben
>
>
>
~
OK I can see why some people might think I'm a right-wing Religious nut-job.
Let me clarify, I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think our
culture is ready for it so let it go for a few more years, maybe
things will change. Right now if civil union works use it. I'm totally
against states ba
the southwestern tribes call them two-spirits and they are considered so
important that UNM's Native American Studies program has an enture
three-credit class about them...
Getting back to something that is one of *my* hobby horses though, the
current ban on Plan B is pure mysogyny masquerading
Right by whom? Read up on the ancient greeks or the Romans, Persians
etc. In North America most native american tribes fully accepted
homosexuality, in the plains tribes they were accorded a special place
within the clan.
Culture has little to do with sexual orientation. It only channels it somewh
Moreover, do a search on pub med or scholar.google.com. You'll see
literally hundreds of studies that support the physiological basis for
homosexuality. The twin studies done show that there is a high degree
of heritability of homosexuality.
I went to pubmed and did a search using the following qu
> Ben Doom wrote:
>> friends, just because they're
>^^^
>> brains are wired differently.
>
> See what happens when I write email angry?
> --Ben
Your friends are tranformed into giant brains, bent on catloging and
then destroying the universe so they can know everything
>> Ben wrote:
>> Grah. This issue steams me pretty good. Sorry if I seem
>> belligerent.
> Inequality, discrimination, and civil rights violations
> should steam you. Stay mad.
as with censorship/free speech - and I agree... :)
s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new epoch : isn't it time for a
> Sam wrote:
> Sorry, I can't speak for them.
>
I'm not asking you to speak for them, I'm ask you to speak for you.
What's the agnostic ethical problem of Gay Marriage? Research it!
Comb Limbaugh's site. Ask Fox News.
You know what you'll find? No answer.
Because there is no ethical probl
> Ben wrote:
> Grah. This issue steams me pretty good. Sorry if I seem belligerent.
>
Inequality, discrimination, and civil rights violations should steam
you. Stay mad.
~|
Flash for programmers - Flash MX Pro
http://www.hous
Ben Doom wrote:
> friends, just because they're brains are wired differently. Hell, my
^^^
See what happens when I write email angry?
--Ben
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's cus
Sam wrote:
> Now why are you so hell bent on the term marriage? What's wrong with
> civil union if they can get all the same rights?
What's wrong with drinking fountains for black people, if they get the
same water? "Separate but equal" never has been.
My homosexual friends want to get *married
> Sorry, I can't speak for them. But I could guess some are
> offended by
> the thought of it and the images that come with explaining
> it to their
> kids. I'm stuck because the answers not on Limbaugh's
> site.
> Now why are you so hell bent on the term marriage? What's
> wrong with
> civil unio
Read up on Bonobos.
> It's cultural. People don't need a Bible to tell them that
> a man
> mounting a man ain't right :)
> You ever see to male dogs go at it? Cum to think of it my
> male cats
> are gay. They have at it all the time, both are fixed so
> it's all in
> fun.
> On 9/8/05, Gruss Gott
Please disregard this: I was in a hurry and got confused...
> Here's my list so far:
> Religious
> Morning after pill (no prescription)
> Embryonic Stem Cell funding
Since I'm not aware of any religions which say "thou shalt perform
stem cell research" or "thou shalt not require prescriptions fo
> religious morals != religious agenda
That argument is only true if you don't abuse your power to make
people legislate your religious opinions about things like gay
marriage.
> Try to Google this:
> "John Kerry" "on god's side"
> I'm convinced many on this list still believe Bush is
> helping
Sorry, I can't speak for them. But I could guess some are offended by
the thought of it and the images that come with explaining it to their
kids. I'm stuck because the answers not on Limbaugh's site.
Now why are you so hell bent on the term marriage? What's wrong with
civil union if they can get
> Sam wrote:
> Gay Marriage - he's not trying to ban civil unions
>
You're avoiding the question: what's the agnostic ethical problem with
Gay *marriage*?
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Tick
and cats
On 9/8/05, Ian Skinner wrote:
> You ever see to male dogs go at it?
>
> I don't know about dogs, but ducks, dolphins, monkeys and chimpanzees have
> been observed in homosexual activities.
>
~|
Find out how CFTicket ca
You ever see to male dogs go at it?
I don't know about dogs, but ducks, dolphins, monkeys and chimpanzees have been
observed in homosexual activities.
--
Ian Skinner
Web Programmer
BloodSource
www.BloodSource.org
Sacramento, CA
"C code. C code run. Run code run. Please!"
- Cynthia
so what does he have to do with syntax?
On 9/8/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Terry. He used to be DNC chairman.
>
> On 9/8/05, Dana wrote:
> > who's Mr McAuliffe?
> >
>
>
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusio
Terry McAuliffe - former head of the DNC (Howard Dean took over when he left)
--- On Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:51 PM, Dana scribed: ---
>
> who's Mr McAuliffe?
>
> On 9/8/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'll send Mr Mcauliffe an email.
>>
>> I thought when you stood with your tows
Terry. He used to be DNC chairman.
On 9/8/05, Dana wrote:
> who's Mr McAuliffe?
>
~|
Purchase Studio MX with Flash Pro from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized
Affiliate and support the CF community.
http://www.houseoffusio
who's Mr McAuliffe?
On 9/8/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll send Mr Mcauliffe an email.
>
> I thought when you stood with your tows touching the line ...
>
> On 9/8/05, Dana wrote:
> > pssst Sam. It's *toe* the line.
> > Dana
> >
>
>
~~
I'm going to have to start listening to him more often, seems we think alike.
On 9/8/05, SStewart wrote:
> No I mean you can't bother to form your own opinion, when it can be spoon fed
> to you by a voice from the radio... and you roll merrily right along with it
>
> I may not be right but you'r
It's cultural. People don't need a Bible to tell them that a man
mounting a man ain't right :)
You ever see to male dogs go at it? Cum to think of it my male cats
are gay. They have at it all the time, both are fixed so it's all in
fun.
On 9/8/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Either are fine with me.
I'll send Mr Mcauliffe an email.
I thought when you stood with your tows touching the line ...
On 9/8/05, Dana wrote:
> pssst Sam. It's *toe* the line.
> Dana
>
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Troubl
religious morals != religious agenda
Try to Google this:
"John Kerry" "on god's side"
I'm convinced many on this list still believe Bush is helping Israel
to prepare for the Armageddon.
Here's my list so far:
Religious
Morning after pill (no prescription)
Embryonic Stem Cell funding
Not Reli
Kid Rock. Second album.
On 9/8/05, SStewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Billy Joel?
>
> sas
>
> Scott A. Stewart,
> Web Application Developer
> 2005
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support
e
. and thus the Pipes were born"
the Scottish Rogues
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 04:23 pm
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Sen Danforth
Importance: Low
"I may be wrong, but you ain't right"
?
On
834-5527
>
> "Many thousands of years ago, a blue faced Pict stepped on a bloated sheep
> carcass... and thus the Pipes were born"
>
> the Scottish Rogues
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, Septem
> Sam wrote:
> Don't confuse civil unions with marriage.
>
Either are fine with me. There are plenty of churchs that will marry
gays. What's the non-religious problem with either?
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion
pssst Sam. It's *toe* the line.
Dana
On 9/8/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wow you folks are all read the same playbook and you all think I'm
> brainwashed :)
>
> http://www.terrymcauliffe.com/secretplaybook.html#rule4
>
> 4. A neo-con inundates you with facts.
> Use one of these ter
: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 04:12 pm
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Sen Danforth
Importance: Low
By that you mean we have clues?
Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong.
On 9/8/05, SStewart wrote:
> Except for a few things
>
By that you mean we have clues?
Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong.
On 9/8/05, SStewart wrote:
> Except for a few things
>
> 1) I have no idea who McAuliffe is
> 2) I've yet to see facts
> 3) There are a few "dittoheads" in my office, and you all spout the same
> thing a
Don't confuse civil unions with marriage.
On 9/8/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> For example, there is no ethical or civil rights reason why Gay people
> shouldn't be allowed to marry. In fact it could be argued it violates
> civil right to deny it. The sole reason against it is religious.
>
> Ste
I agree. That's two.
On 9/8/05, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Another issue, FDA approval of the Plan B contraceptive. Its being
> held up for political rather than scientific reasons.
>
> larry
>
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading Co
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
