There is _no reason whatsoever_ to even _bother_ with debating fine
points of the
Bible on this matter.
Or this matter for that matter.
What is matter? Never mind.
What is mind? Never matter.
Who is gay? Who is married?
You know what I say?
None of your fucking business.
Thanks,
John
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian Siano wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, Dan, but scripture is not clear on this subject. Just as
the Bible has been manipulated to justify slavery, colonization of
less developed peoples, and opression of women, scripture is still
being
Quoting Samuel Nicolary [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To say that the bible is not the basis of our legal system is a bit naive.
I think it played a big role in the lives and morality of all the
lawmakers that have contributed to it. I don't think I need to elaborate
on that one.
It is not as clear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Samuel Nicolary [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To say that the bible is not the basis of our legal system is a bit naive.
I think it played a big role in the lives and morality of all the
lawmakers that have contributed to it. I don't think I need to elaborate
on that
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian Siano wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Samuel Nicolary [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To say that the bible is not the basis of our legal system is a bit naive.
I think it played a big role in the lives and morality of all the
lawmakers that have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian Siano [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent by: cc: University City List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [UC] gay
]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [UC] gay marriage
.purple.com
Samuel Nicolary wrote:
I guess my point is that because laws are not required to be in accordance
with the bible does not mean we should forget that most lawmakers
throughout history have been christian or at least have pretended to be
and that christianity has a huge impact on legislature both
...We can instantiate any amount
of laws on the subject but that isn't going to make society and its
various organizations accept it - that is not the role of government
anyway, right?
It is true that enacting a law cannot make people be more accepting of
the issue, and that government cannot
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian Siano wrote:
Samuel Nicolary wrote:
I guess my point is that because laws are not required to be in accordance
with the bible does not mean we should forget that most lawmakers
throughout history have been christian or at least have pretended to be
and that
Why even argue this? The Moron (yeah, the _moron_ born again freak that is
leading our country) Bush, is about to amend the constitution against gay
marriage.
How can you all debate this and support this guy? (I'm saying _you all_,
not just the quoted individuals in this thread)
--On Friday, February 20, 2004 2:10 PM -0500 Samuel Nicolary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Andrew Diller wrote:
Why even argue this? The Moron (yeah, the _moron_ born again freak that
is leading our country) Bush, is about to amend the constitution
against gay marriage.
I
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Andrew Diller wrote:
Why even argue this? The Moron (yeah, the _moron_ born again freak that is
leading our country) Bush, is about to amend the constitution against gay
marriage.
I didn't realize that the president branch of our government could ammend
the constitution
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian Siano wrote:
Samuel Nicolary wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian Siano wrote:
Samuel Nicolary wrote:
I guess my point is that because laws are not required to be in accordance
with the bible does not mean we should forget that most lawmakers
My sedimants, exactly, Sam. How can anyone determine we are voting for
Bush because we are discussing the gay marriage issue???
I hate to say it, but I don't see one bastard worth voting for in this
upcoming election that would make my day. Not one.
But you I can tell you now, and you can
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] gay marriage
Why even argue this? The Moron (yeah, the _moron_ born again freak that is
leading our country) Bush, is about to amend the constitution against gay
marriage.
How can you all debate this and support this guy? (I'm saying _you
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Andrew Diller wrote:
--On Friday, February 20, 2004 2:10 PM -0500 Samuel Nicolary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Andrew Diller wrote:
Why even argue this? The Moron (yeah, the _moron_ born again freak that
is leading our country) Bush, is
Thought people may get a kick out of this. Kinda fits in with the topic of
conversation...
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/fiore/
-Paul
_
Paul Grossman
IT Support Specialist
School of Medicine Information Services
University of Pennsylvania
423 Guardian Drive/
Me too
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Cass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Feb 20, 2004 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [UC] gay marriage
I'm starting to miss the mean dog not on a leash discussions.
Jonathan A. Cass
Silverman, Bernheim Vogel
Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 910
Samuel Nicolary wrote:
To say that the bible is not the basis of our legal system is a bit naive.
I think it played a big role in the lives and morality of all the
lawmakers that have contributed to it. I don't think I need to elaborate
on that one.
I guess my point is that because laws
Mr. Zardus et al. . .
As an openly gay man in a committed relationship I was especially offended
by the what is the world coming to? alarmist rant that has appeared on the
list in regard to gay marriage. The gay marriage question is perhaps one of
the last remaining civil rights issues to be
es to civil rights - religion can hardly be arationale for the vote for or against gay marriage. If one is against it -please argue it out of the context of any personal religious convictions.M. M. HarveyGregory Oliveri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ??William Zardus?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTE
Title: Message
Actually, there are practicing Catholics who are
gay.
Practicing
Catholics, yes. But are theyactively sexualgay people?
Sande Knight tel. 215-246-2424
fax
215-405-3178 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended
A wonderful
reflection on the personal meanings of culture and history (Miriam's
Kitchen)
As I said, one woman's search for roots. I agree with you about patness
(is that a word?); I know people who have tried to keep kosher.
Sure, the Church is good at restructuring history. But so is
FX Winkler wrote:
Until it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is not 'a
choice,' then the issue of gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
The question is whether the state should endorse a particular social and
legal arrangement between two
Thank you, Charles Buchholtz, for this really logical and persuasive
response. I think that these are very exciting times: it suddenly seems possible
that gay marriage may actually become a reality within my lifetime! Though we
bicker on the listserv, in University City we are actually quite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
accepting. Some writers have sort of made light of the issue of gay
marriage/religious dogma on this list today, perhaps forgetting that everyone doesn't enjoy
the same freedom to live how they want to live, that we do here.
On the off-chance that Melanie was
I'm sorry, Dan, but scripture is not clear on this subject. Just as the Bible has been manipulated to justify slavery, colonization of less developed peoples, and opression of women, scripture is still being manipulated to oppress gays and lesbians.
Manipulation number one: Sodomy is about
Yes. As everyone really knows, religious condemnation of homosexuality
CAN be interpreted in such a way that being gay (or otherwise engaging
in sodomy) is not necessarily a ticket to Hell.
I think the only serious takeaway from this thread is that anyone's
religion-based views on homosexuality
29 matches
Mail list logo
