- I have to say Mike, I think Conservatives should feel differently about the subject - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 20:00:19 11/04/09
(9)
- In Reply to: RE: Another huge defeat for conservatives last night was when, posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 11:05:13
In all seriousness, if Conservatives want smaller government, which translates to the least amount of interference by government, than I think that homosexuals should either be allowed to legally marry in accordance with state law, or that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Between the two, I personally feel that government should get out of the marriage business. If two individuals want to be involved in a private ceremony that they call a marriage ceremony, so be it. It's a free country, and people should be allowed to make any declaration they want to another being provided that when the other being is human, said human must be an adult and agrees to it.
If you or I feel that the original intent of marriage is being mocked and desecrated, we are entitled to our opinions. Marriage already is by many who can legally engage in it. I would never be a member of a church that would endorse such a ceremony, and that is exactly where our religious freedom comes in and protects us from the government interfering with our theological and moral beliefe and forcing us to accept sin.
- RE: I have to say Mike, I think Conservatives should feel differently about the subject - Michael Samra 20:30:55 11/04/09
(8)
- In Reply to: RE: I have to say Mike, I think Conservatives should feel differently about the subject posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 20:00:19
Pat
That might be one way to look at it but the other way to look at it is,the reason America stayed so strong all these years was their religious bond and moral conviction. Eventually,when you practice and endorse willful immorality,its eventually going to take its toll and thats proven thru the centuries.Look at the fall of Rome,and France succumbing to Germany in two weeks.My father was going to college at the American university in Paris in the 1940s and he said Son,its easy to see why Hitler took France in 2 weeks because there was so much drinking, and gambling, and loose sex, and prostitution that many people just didn't care. When thats happens,this is when a nation falls,militarily and economically.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- The reason why Hitler took France in two weeks was because of drinking, gambling and sex? - j_thunders 12:02:01 11/05/09
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: I have to say Mike, I think Conservatives should feel differently about the subject posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 20:30:55
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Seriously?
- I love the way you twist everything around - Michael Samra 17:04:12 11/05/09
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: The reason why Hitler took France in two weeks was because of drinking, gambling and sex? posted by j_thunders on November 05, 2009 at 12:02:01
I was merely saying the moral of the people of France was extremely low and most were engaging in self indulgence. When you are just out to have a good time and commit every sin in the book and just plain don't give a shit,of course another country could take you down at a rapid pace..I just stated some of what was going on at the time in France and if you don't believe it,you better start reading some of the history of France and what was going on. My dad was there going to school and he was amazed at the attitudes people had towards everything. Its like,oh the sky is falling!! OH well,NO BIG DEAL,,,,WE can catch it tomorrow.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- I wish that someday you would realize that self-indulgence can also include pulling facts out of the air - jdaniel@jps.net 18:47:30 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: I love the way you twist everything around posted by Michael Samra on November 05, 2009 at 17:04:12
without any interest in what really happened. It is just as lazy as unprotected sex that produces a child out of wedlock.
- seems Las Vegas could be in big trouble - tunenut 18:01:40 11/05/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: I love the way you twist everything around posted by Michael Samra on November 05, 2009 at 17:04:12
foreign invaders must know that the hedonists there are ripe for the picking. I expect they'll be taken down pretty quick.
- Yes,very good point! - Michael Samra 18:13:00 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: seems Las Vegas could be in big trouble posted by tunenut on November 05, 2009 at 18:01:40
Any city that is just plagued with a good time and no responsibility,I would say they are bucking for trouble.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- Yes,very good point! - Michael Samra 18:13:00 11/05/09
(0)
- I wish that someday you would realize that self-indulgence can also include pulling facts out of the air - jdaniel@jps.net 18:47:30 11/05/09
(0)
- I love the way you twist everything around - Michael Samra 17:04:12 11/05/09
(3)
- Mr. Samra, I have to always disagree, but there's a fascinating new book coming out about the Colonies, esp. - jdaniel@jps.net 22:10:41 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: I have to say Mike, I think Conservatives should feel differently about the subject posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 20:30:55
Jamestown, and moral they weren't. Read about Ben Franklin's life.
- I think you're on to something here - jedrider 21:48:20 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: I have to say Mike, I think Conservatives should feel differently about the subject posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 20:30:55
> > >
there was so much drinking, and gambling, and loose sex, and prostitution
Bush 2nd = recovering alcoholic
Wall Street = gamblers, all of them
Myself = I like to think of being able to take advantage of 'loose sex'
Anyone want to confess about prostitution?
No wonder our day has passed as a great nation!
- "Look at the fall of Rome" - Chris from Lafayette 21:22:45 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: I have to say Mike, I think Conservatives should feel differently about the subject posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 20:30:55
When the Western Empire fell in 476, Christianity had been the state religion of the Empire for over 130 years. Some historians have concluded that Rome fell BECAUSE Christianity prevailed (or at least that was a significant factor), as ever scarcer state resources were funneled to support an ever growing church heirarchy.
It might even be argued that the growth and expansion of the Roman Empire occured earlier, in the pre-Christian period - at precisely those times when the immorality of the populace was at its most pronounced.
- The reason why Hitler took France in two weeks was because of drinking, gambling and sex? - j_thunders 12:02:01 11/05/09
(4)
- RE: I have to say Mike, I think Conservatives should feel differently about the subject - Michael Samra 20:30:55 11/04/09
(8)
- Sorry Mr. Samra, even with your sarcasm at our expense, you're still nothing more than a foreigner with a - jdaniel@jps.net 17:59:18 11/04/09
(7)
- In Reply to: RE: Another huge defeat for conservatives last night was when, posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 11:05:13
funny name. Conservative America will never let you be one of them, no matter how hard you try. I could hide my orientation, yet because of my light skin and blue eyes, I would easily get work before you could in some circles. Welcome to the world you covet.
Edits: 11/04/09 11/04/09
- RE: Sorry Mr. Samra, even with your sarcasm at our expense, you're still nothing more than a foreigner with a - Michael Samra 18:48:11 11/04/09
(6)
- In Reply to: RE: Sorry Mr. Samra, even with your sarcasm at our expense, you're still nothing more than a foreigner with a posted by jdaniel@jps.net on November 04, 2009 at 17:59:18
Sorry dude but I was born and raised in Michigan and my eyes are greenish and I actually wish I had a little darker skin so again as usual for you,,,WRONGGGGG!!!!!!!!
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
Edits: 11/05/09
- But of course your eyes are greenish! - b.l.zeebub 03:15:43 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Sorry Mr. Samra, even with your sarcasm at our expense, you're still nothing more than a foreigner with a posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 18:48:11
It's the colour of envy.
- Still, green represents at least one impure gene; everything you do (such as this post) to curry favor with - jdaniel@jps.net 18:55:02 11/04/09
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: Sorry Mr. Samra, even with your sarcasm at our expense, you're still nothing more than a foreigner with a posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 18:48:11
the "beautiful" people means nothing in the end. And though you hide your impurities today, here's no guarantee that the "real you" won't appear down your bloodline in in the future; your off-spring being subtly "passed-over" because, well...the majority knows better.
Ironically because of my features, I reap the profits of your bigotry, a bigotry you promote after being tricked (by authentic Americans) into thinking that they'll let you become one of them, or that there's a Heaven waiting--if you do their dirty work--whilst in the mean time they clink champagne glasses and laugh.
Why seek Wealth (A wealth that the beautiful people would have to share), when said beautiful people can distract you; can convince you that your disappointments and shortcomings in life aren't faults from within, (which would allow for self-reflection and subsequent success), but rather from the "faults" of others?
I've not seen someone "played" so completely since Osama attacked the World Trade Centers and Bush went into Iraq, just as Osama wanted.
Edits: 11/04/09 11/04/09
- RE: Still, green represents at least one impure gene; everything you do (such as this post) to curry favor wit - Michael Samra 19:40:52 11/04/09
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: Still, green represents at least one impure gene; everything you do (such as this post) to curry favor with posted by jdaniel@jps.net on November 04, 2009 at 18:55:02
What about your features and my bigotry? Are you saying that because I'm against gay marriage,like MOST of America has proven time and time again with the rejection in these elections,that makes me a bigot? If thats the case,and you really feel this way,I would pack my shit and move to another country because it is obvious,that the majority of people feel the same way I do.The gay marriage amendment has been SOUNDLY REJECTED by the voters in every state that had it on the balot,including liberal California,and you still continue to believe that most people are in favor of gay marriage. Do you think you may be in a slight state of denial,or do you think we are a nation full of bigots that are all wrong..LOL???
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- Sigh: Yes. It's not about Majorities. Once upon a time, the California Legislature passed a law forbidding - jdaniel@jps.net 20:12:03 11/04/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Still, green represents at least one impure gene; everything you do (such as this post) to curry favor wit posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 19:40:52
the Lebanese, (and other Black people or whatever) from living in certain neighborhoods in which only the beautiful people could live. Then, in a subsequent special election...
a majority of Californians reversed that law.
How would you feel about the majority then?
- RE: Sigh: Yes. It's not about Majorities. Once upon a time, the California Legislature passed a law forbiddi - Michael Samra 20:35:33 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Sigh: Yes. It's not about Majorities. Once upon a time, the California Legislature passed a law forbidding posted by jdaniel@jps.net on November 04, 2009 at 20:12:03
How would you feel about the majority then?
Every culture has faced discrimination at one time or another but fortunately, I have never have faced any discrimination and I'm sure its because I look white or maybe people think Im a nice guy,I don't know but at any rate,thats how it is.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- RE: Sigh: Yes. It's not about Majorities. Once upon a time, the California Legislature passed a law forbiddi - Michael Samra 20:35:33 11/04/09
(0)
- Sigh: Yes. It's not about Majorities. Once upon a time, the California Legislature passed a law forbidding - jdaniel@jps.net 20:12:03 11/04/09
(1)
- RE: Still, green represents at least one impure gene; everything you do (such as this post) to curry favor wit - Michael Samra 19:40:52 11/04/09
(2)
- Puke-ish more likely. LOL nt - bjh 18:53:06 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Sorry Mr. Samra, even with your sarcasm at our expense, you're still nothing more than a foreigner with a posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 18:48:11
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
- But of course your eyes are greenish! - b.l.zeebub 03:15:43 11/05/09
(0)
- RE: Sorry Mr. Samra, even with your sarcasm at our expense, you're still nothing more than a foreigner with a - Michael Samra 18:48:11 11/04/09
(6)
- \\\This is a severe blow to us conservatives because we so much wanted gay marriage to be made legal. ///.... - three_sox 14:30:44 11/04/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Another huge defeat for conservatives last night was when, posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 11:05:13
...You’ve never been married have you Mic? :o)
Smile
Sox
- with the collapsed economy & stupid wars how desperate does the right wing have to be to make that an "issue"? - dave c 14:35:13 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: \\\This is a severe blow to us conservatives because we so much wanted gay marriage to be made legal. ///.... posted by three_sox on November 04, 2009 at 14:30:44
I am sure they are about to tell us.... GO!
Of course it might not be simple desperation.
It might be that the extreme wing is attempting to solidify around a theocratic fundamentalism.
After all some of the lobbyists they use are of that persuasion.
Or are those words just too long for them?
;-)))
Edits: 11/04/09
- with the collapsed economy & stupid wars how desperate does the right wing have to be to make that an "issue"? - dave c 14:35:13 11/04/09
(0)
- A narrow win for the bigots...(nt) - mkuller 11:52:33 11/04/09
(46)
- In Reply to: RE: Another huge defeat for conservatives last night was when, posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 11:05:13
(nt)
- Yea..Those faith based bigots who don't want to undermine - Michael Samra 17:02:39 11/04/09
(45)
- In Reply to: RE: A narrow win for the bigots...(nt) posted by mkuller on November 04, 2009 at 11:52:33
God's meaning of traditional marriage!! What are we gonna do about those NO GOOD Sorry Bastardos?
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- Fundamentalists of any religion are dangerous to freedom...(nt) - mkuller 19:35:54 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Yea..Those faith based bigots who don't want to undermine posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 17:02:39
(nt)
- Tell me, - j_thunders 19:24:41 11/04/09
(34)
- In Reply to: RE: Yea..Those faith based bigots who don't want to undermine posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 17:02:39
how does allowing two persons of the same sex to wed "undermine" traditional marriage?
- because marriage was instituted by God - Michael Samra 19:51:27 11/04/09
(31)
- In Reply to: RE: Tell me, posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 19:24:41
as most our laws were from the bible..Where do think laws like don't steal and don't kill or don't harm others come from? They come from Holy scripture. It undermines marriage because God said its wrong for a man to lie with another man..Here is the scripture that plainly says it.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- Hey Mic ..... - three_sox 03:24:06 11/05/09
(6)
- In Reply to: RE: because marriage was instituted by God posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 19:51:27
I am married but I don’t believe in any type of god. I got married in a court house and all it means to mean is a legal status between my wife & I.
Do you view my marriage as any less valid compared to those married in a church?
In my view I couldn’t care less if people get married or just live in sin. I don’t care what type of sex they have or if they have any sex at all.
I certainly couldn’t care less if folks of the same sex cohabitate together or have sex together or get married. Why the hell would I care what another couple do?
I can only imagine folks that get bent out of shape about what ”other” folks do with their own lives, as it relates to marriage, to be either extremely insecure or bigoted beyond belief.
Lastly, are children born to an unmarried mother any less of a human being than those born to a married mother?
Smile
Sox
- RE: Hey Mic ..... - Michael Samra 04:34:19 11/05/09
(5)
- In Reply to: RE: Hey Mic ..... posted by three_sox on November 05, 2009 at 03:24:06
Lastly, are children born to an unmarried mother any less of a human being than those born to a married mother?
Not at all. Thats an innocent child that has no control over what his or her parents do.
Soxie,I don't think you and I will agree with on this because we both have different ideas on the origination of marriage and what it means.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- Kool ... - three_sox 04:46:54 11/05/09
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: Hey Mic ..... posted by Michael Samra on November 05, 2009 at 04:34:19
...We agree a child is a child is a child regardless of if the parents are married or otherwise.
Mic we probably don’t agree on much but that is not a problem is it?
I’d still like you to answer my question; "Do you view my marriage as any less valid compared to those married in a church?"
Mic I know marriage means different things to different people and it is for that very reason I believe we shouldn’t impose our own interpretations of marriage on others :o)
Smile
Sox
- RE: Kool ... - Michael Samra 06:10:25 11/05/09
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: Kool ... posted by three_sox on November 05, 2009 at 04:46:54
Soxie
I don't view your marriage any less valid being it wasn't necessarily faith based however,its still between a man and woman so regardless of how it was implemented,it is still seen a legit marriage. Let me ask you this. What was the point of you getting married? To people that don't believe in god,I would think marriage was nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper. You can still do anything and everything that a married couple can,so what was the purpose getting married? I think its great that you did,but being you claim to be agnostic,what was the point?
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- \\\I would think marriage was nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.///.. - three_sox 00:50:59 11/06/09
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: Kool ... posted by Michael Samra on November 05, 2009 at 06:10:25
... It isn't meaningless to me.
In my country a marriage certificate is an important legal document and any type of religious ceremony has no legal standing whatsoever without a legal marriage certificate.
My wife & I were both committed to each other before we were married. We knew both sets of parents wanted us to be married. We knew there were legal, social & economic benefits for us to be married.
We did consider our future children and concluded it would be best if we were married.
I am proud of our marriage certificate and nowhere on it, or any other marriage certificate in this country, is anything written about god(s)
I view my marriage certificate as a legal document and nothing else.
I have a marriage certificate Mic, do you? :o)
Smile
Sox
- RE: \\\I would think marriage was nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.///.. - Michael Samra 17:53:36 11/06/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: \\\I would think marriage was nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.///.. posted by three_sox on November 06, 2009 at 00:50:59
No
I don't have a marriage certificate. I was too concerned with getting my daughter raised properly and I wasn't going to worry about me until she was raised and secured to the best of my ability.
Now I can look into a permanent companion for myself and hopefully marry.
I know one thing,I will never marry a drinker,or a woman that gambles,or one that is high maintenance.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- \\\I know one thing,I will never marry a drinker,or a woman that gambles,or one that is high maintenance.///.. - three_sox 19:09:55 11/06/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: \\\I would think marriage was nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.///.. posted by Michael Samra on November 06, 2009 at 17:53:36
...Phew!!!!!!!!!!!! Well I feel safe that you won’t run off with the darling Mrs Sox because she drinks, gambles (living with me has got to be a gamble in anyone’s book) and is high maintenance :o)
The only criteria I had when I was single was to fall in love. Nothing else seemed to matter :o)
Smile
Sox
- \\\I know one thing,I will never marry a drinker,or a woman that gambles,or one that is high maintenance.///.. - three_sox 19:09:55 11/06/09
(0)
- RE: \\\I would think marriage was nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.///.. - Michael Samra 17:53:36 11/06/09
(1)
- \\\I would think marriage was nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.///.. - three_sox 00:50:59 11/06/09
(2)
- RE: Kool ... - Michael Samra 06:10:25 11/05/09
(3)
- Kool ... - three_sox 04:46:54 11/05/09
(4)
- RE: Hey Mic ..... - Michael Samra 04:34:19 11/05/09
(5)
- Two counts of bullshit. - j_thunders 19:57:16 11/04/09
(23)
- In Reply to: RE: because marriage was instituted by God posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 19:51:27
The institution of marriage pre-dates any notion of God that you might be adhering to, and "most" or even a large portion of our laws are not from the Bible.
What a terribly uninformed sack you are.
You get points off for nonresponsiveness, too. The question was, how does allowing persons of the same sex undermine the institution of marriage.
Try again.
Edits: 11/04/09
- He gets a pass since it's a bullshit question in the first place - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 20:34:59 11/04/09
(22)
- In Reply to: RE: Two counts of bullshit. posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 19:57:16
You say marriage has existed long before the belief in One God and His laws.
OK.
So, first establish which marriage standard you want Mike to refer to, and explain why you think that standard is more important than all other standards. If you can't select an established marriage standard that you feel is better than any other, than you would be compelled to immediately reject why Mike feels that homosexual marriage is wrong or immoral.
On the other hand, since Mike is allowed to establish or adopt for himself his own standards for marriage, he is allowed and it is perfectly acceptable for him to decide what is acceptable, what is not acceptable and his reasons by which he makes such judgements. Since Mike already explained to you why homosexual marriage is wrong based on his adopted standards, you have received your answer and you are in no position to succesfully argue against his decision. Homosexual marriage is an abomination according to his moral code and his Christian faith, and unless you have theological evidence that proves his interpretation of God's law incorrect, you can't say Mike is wrong logically, legally or theologically for holding the opinion he does.
- And still! Nobody will explain how allowing gays to marry undermines the institution of marriage! - j_thunders 21:15:34 11/04/09
(21)
- In Reply to: RE: He gets a pass since it's a bullshit question in the first place posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 20:34:59
Thanks for trying for Mike, though.
- RE: And still! Nobody will explain how allowing gays to marry undermines the institution of marriage! - Michael Samra 22:46:46 11/04/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: And still! Nobody will explain how allowing gays to marry undermines the institution of marriage! posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 21:15:34
You know,I really feel sorry for so many on here that mock the reality and existence of God.I think thats where a lot of unhappiness and anger comes from in the demeanor of a liberal's thinking. Many of you use the rationale,if there is a god,why do bad things happen to people? Most liberals spend most of their lives,pissing and moaning and denying the existence of a supreme being, in favor of some scientific fallacy whatever it may be. Most liberals are angry,and it manifests itself in your unchristian beliefs like,God didn't create the institution of marriage?? Says whom? You? I am sincerely waiting for one of you moon bats to utter the logic, ITS A FU_KING RIGHT CONSPIRACY that the gay marriage act didn't go thru DAMMITTT!! LOL LOL LOL...Keep it up guys,I get a kick out of you.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- "The reality and exitence of God." - j_thunders 11:12:28 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: And still! Nobody will explain how allowing gays to marry undermines the institution of marriage! posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 22:46:46
The very same argument anti-abolitionists used to use in defending the institution of slavery.
- "The reality and exitence of God." - j_thunders 11:12:28 11/05/09
(0)
- Still ignoring Mike's answer. He told you why. - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 21:19:46 11/04/09
(18)
- In Reply to: RE: And still! Nobody will explain how allowing gays to marry undermines the institution of marriage! posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 21:15:34
Can you supply a marriage reference? I would be happy to explain why homosexual marriage undermines heterosexual marriage if you would just point out your reference standard for marriage.
Let me know when you're ready.
- RE: Still ignoring Mike's answer. He told you why. - astralnavigator 06:31:10 11/05/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Still ignoring Mike's answer. He told you why. posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 21:19:46
Hmmm...I wonder if your husband agrees with your views?
- Sounds like a homo-erotic fantasy you keep obsessing over - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 11:05:01 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Still ignoring Mike's answer. He told you why. posted by astralnavigator on November 05, 2009 at 06:31:10
- Sounds like a homo-erotic fantasy you keep obsessing over - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 11:05:01 11/05/09
(0)
- More bullshit. - j_thunders 21:29:05 11/04/09
(15)
- In Reply to: RE: Still ignoring Mike's answer. He told you why. posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 21:19:46
Mike explained nothing. He pointed to a passage of the Bible that forbids homosexuality. That has nothing to do with the sanctity of a traditional marriage.
The question is, how is traditional marriage harmed by allowing gays to marry? It is not at all harmed when two people engage in the actions that are forbidden in that Bible passage. I know logic isn't your string suit and that I am not dealing with logical people, nor logical conclusions -- it's all a lot of religious hokum -- but answer the question. It's a simple one: how is the sanctity of marriage in this country undermined by allowing gays to marry? Marriage, as we understand that term to mean now in this country.
That has nothing to with special definitions of marriage, or any other bullshit barrier that you want to arbitrarily inject to the analysis.
Just answer the question.
Edits: 11/04/09
- who dies of sexually transmitted diseases and why do some idiots still think it is gay men? - dave c 00:52:16 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: More bullshit. posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 21:29:05
If people are going to argue that AIDS is divine retribution and wonder at the numbers of gay MEN who have died of it, it makes me immediately ask what the god given punishment for gay women is, and, much more seriously, to wonder at what sort of lunatic, by inference, considers that the countless millions who have died of syphilis, gonorrhoea and other STDs down the centuries... millenia... have been punished for sins unstated, let alone what they think the reasons are for women especially those in poorer countries to die in labour.
Some people still claim that AIDS is to do with sex... whereas it is actually as likely to be caught by other methods rather than "gay" sex, in fact, even sexually transmitted it is not at all to do with homosexuality anywhere near as much as which sexual practices are undertaken.
In Africa it is overwhelmingly a disease of heterosexuals.
Perhaps when American fundamentalists state such things, they should ponder whether AMERICA is being punished for the insanity of its politics... but of course all this is just so much bullshit.
The ignorance is matched only by the inhumanity of anyone holding such views.
The attitudes displayed can only be described as hateful of humanity. ALL humanity.
Perhaps those posts are the most abhorrent ever posted here.
Edits: 11/05/09 11/05/09
- Its harms traditional marriage because its takes a sacred institution - Michael Samra 22:56:48 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: More bullshit. posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 21:29:05
created by god and this is in the Hebrew,Koran,and the Christian bible,and you are making a repulsive joke out of it.If God doesn't look kindly to homosexuality,what makes you think he is going to look kindly to men marrying each other? Somethings you have to reason with a common sense.
When God says men who lie men are doomed to death,I sure wouldn't question that but then again.I'm not you. Do you have any idea how many prominent men have died of HIV transmitted in various ways?
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- You're telling me - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 21:37:53 11/04/09
(12)
- In Reply to: RE: More bullshit. posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 21:29:05
"Mike explained nothing."
Sure he did. He gave you his reasons and wait, look-
"He pointed to a passage of the Bible that forbids homosexuality."
But homosexual marriage would be OK? Wow!
"That has nothing to do with the sanctity of a traditional marriage."
Define "Traditional Marriage".
"The question is, how is traditional marriage harmed by allowing gays to marry?"
Define "Traditional Marriage".
"how is the sanctity of marriage in this country undermined by allowing gays to marry?"
Define "Traditional Marriage". Also, explain what you mean by the "sanctity of marriage". Sanctity explicitly implies holiness. What is it that gives marriage as a concept its holiness?
If you can't define what you mean by "Traditional Marriage", just say so. If you wan't define what you mean by "Traditional Marriage", I think that wraps up your attempt at proving Mike wrong.
- No more serious than you were before. - j_thunders 21:40:42 11/04/09
(11)
- In Reply to: RE: You're telling me posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 21:37:53
Just the ridiculous circular roundy round that passes for logic in your circle.
Maybe someone serious will come along and answer the question.
Edits: 11/04/09
- It could be answered now if someone serious came along and asked it - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 21:46:07 11/04/09
(10)
- In Reply to: RE: No more serious than you were before. posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 21:40:42
There are a number of different ceremonies practiced in front of JOP's. Not everyone says the same things or takes the same vowels. Can you at least indicate which standardized ceremony you refer to? I'm not aware of one specific example. I'll trust your choice.
- Silly nonsense. - j_thunders 21:51:32 11/04/09
(9)
- In Reply to: RE: It could be answered now if someone serious came along and asked it posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 21:46:07
Explain how homosexual acts undermine the sanctity of marriage under any definition.
- That's a different question - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 21:54:01 11/04/09
(8)
- In Reply to: RE: Silly nonsense. posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 21:51:32
Homosexual acts and homosexual marriage are two different issues. Make up your mind which one you want to argue.
- Pat,This precisely why they are called FLAMING LIBERALS!! - Michael Samra 04:39:14 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: That's a different question posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 21:54:01
Is this any surprise the way they undermine GOD and his sovereignty? It makes me think they are already doomed to a life of despair and thats why they preach this anything goes philosophy. They think they know everything that is wrong in the world,but don't have the first clue how to fix the problem..We will see them in 2010 tho.
If the power supply waveform isn't pretty,neither is the sound in most cases.
- He cited a Bible passage that concerned homosexual acts. - j_thunders 21:57:01 11/04/09
(6)
- In Reply to: RE: That's a different question posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 21:54:01
Keep up, please.
You are starting to lag behind.
- Yes he did. Can you site your definition of "traditional, sanctified marriage"? - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 22:00:24 11/04/09
(5)
- In Reply to: RE: He cited a Bible passage that concerned homosexual acts. posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 21:57:01
This is really simple stuff. Just define it and I'll give you an answer you'll have a field day with, I promise you.
- Now you are making a spectacle of yourself. - j_thunders 22:04:46 11/04/09
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: Yes he did. Can you site your definition of "traditional, sanctified marriage"? posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 22:00:24
Any, all and every definition of marriage that you can come up with.
And at this point, it's two questions.
How is any marriage between a man and a woman undermined by letting gays marry, too?
How do homosexual acts undermine the sanctity of any marriage?
- I want you to tell me how you define Traditional Marriage so I can answer your question - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 06:32:25 11/05/09
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: Now you are making a spectacle of yourself. posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 22:04:46
I was married in a traditional Christian Church where the act of homosexuality or engaging in homosexuality is deemed forbidden by God, and that standard is upheld by most Christian churches, but as you know not all. Further, the church in which I and my wife were married does not recognize same sex marriage. A person or persons willfully ignoring, intentionally misinterpreting or openly defying God's laws as they pertain to marriage are violating the sanctity of marriage. Marriage itself does not possess sanctity. Marriage is not sanctified by the man and woman involved in it. It cannot be sanctified by a government simply by virtue of its authority. It is an act of committment sanctified by God who makes it holy with His presense and His blessings, "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."
There is this also:
"Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?""
""What did Moses command you?" he replied."
"They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.""
""It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
A Christian believes that Jesus is the Son of God, is God and is part of the Triune God-Head. When Jesus speaks, he speaks with the authority of God because He is God. Jesus is telling us what the basic purpose of marriage is based on His plan and design. Men and women were created for each other in a way that men or women alone were NOT created for each other. The wisdom of the Lord's intent and design are manifest in the flesh insofar as how men and women compliment each other from a sexual standpoint and from a reproductive standpoint.
Homosexual marriage isn't the only way to violate God's marriage laws or the institution He created. A heterosexual who is married or not married can also violate and undermine the sanctity of marriage in any number of ways. And, those sins are no less grievous in the eyes of God.
At this point you can see why I asked what you meant by traditional marriage. A Jew or a Muslim may have a very different idea than I do. An atheist certainly would. If by traditional marriage, you mean some set of standards set up by the state that are gender neutral, than I would say that sort of marriage is not undermined because men have created a standard that is different than God's standard. The sanctity of such a marriage cannot be violated because sanctity does not exist in such a situation. Again, this is why I asked you repeatedly what you meant by traditional marriage and what you meant by the sanctity of marriage.
- I see. - j_thunders 07:01:24 11/05/09
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: I want you to tell me how you define Traditional Marriage so I can answer your question posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 05, 2009 at 06:32:25
What a mess.
So to you personally, for personal religious reasons, it violates the sanctity of marriage, and getting back to the the main issues first presented in this thread, what you are really interested in is foisting your personal religious views upon those of us who recognize that what third parties do, and how they choose to define marriage for themselves, cannot possibly ever affect one way or another how you personally choose to define marriage, or more to the point, your marriage.
Fair enough?
And you still haven't identified with any clear evidence how your personal definition of marriage (or your marriage) could possibly be harmed by allowing gays to marry, but at this point, I'll let that go.
Edits: 11/05/09
- I'm not so sure - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 09:20:41 11/05/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: I see. posted by j_thunders on November 05, 2009 at 07:01:24
"So to you personally, for personal religious reasons, it violates the sanctity of marriage,"
The "Sanctity" of marriage infers that it's a holy union. What makes something holy? The answer is God. So, how is desecrating what God blessed and made holy a personal matter? My advice would be to stop using the phrase "sanctity", so that God can be left out of the matter entirely. In other words, don't infer spirtuality of any sort and just keep it secular. If homosexuals want the state to recognize their union, then put it to the vote and let the people decide. If it bothers you that people may allow their beliefs in God and His standards to influence how they vote on this matter, I'd say that's the breaks. You're an attorney and you understand that people have civil rights. That includes religious freedoms.
"and getting back to the the main issues first presented in this thread, what you are really interested in is foisting your personal religious views upon those of us who recognize that what third parties do"
Not at all. If I am allowed to vote on this matter or asked to vote on this matter, I will vote how I wish as is my right and duty. There are laws passed everyday that are convenient for some and not for others. If by chance the majority of Americans feel that same sex marriage is OK, then that's the way it goes.
"and how they choose to define marriage for themselves"
If you think that marriage can be defined in any manner imaginable to all citizens, then you open a Pandora's Box. I know you guys don't like slippery slope theories, but this sure has all the earmarks of a domino effect that would be detrimental to secular society.
"cannot possibly ever affect one way or another how you personally choose to define marriage, or more to the point, your marriage."
It's true that it would have no effect on my marriage, but I don't see the validity in this argument whatsoever. There are many very good and very bad things that happen every day to lots of people that don't affect me directly. That's hardly a good standard for deciding whether something is detrimental to society as a whole.
- And still the argument is based on unproven, conclusory nothing. - j_thunders 10:04:28 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: I'm not so sure posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 05, 2009 at 09:20:41
First, I'll ignore the illegitimacy of your argument that individual personal religious beliefs are an acceptable basis to formulate policy in a country that is based on secular law.
Second, your union is Holy. That's your personal belief and, incidentally, something that I have no problem with. My problem is that you appear to admit that what third parties do, and how they choose to regard marriage, can not possibly have an effect on your union (or the Holiness thereof), but then you turn around and twice conclude, without providing any evidence whatsoever, that allowing gays to marry is something is detrimental to society as a whole. You simply dismiss that the contradiction in your final paragraph ( i.e. , doesn't affect me, but it's bad) could ever possibly be a problem for your argument (hint: it's the whole point to this entire argument), conclude that the point against which you are arguing is invalid, and then you never say why that is so. It just is.
Logically, it's a mess. As a legitimate argument, it's a mess. That it does not answer the very simple question(s) that I am asking here, makes it even more of a mess.
So let's try this again: How does allowing two persons of the same sex to wed undermine the institution of marriage? And since you brought it up, how is allowing two persons of the same sex to marry detrimental to society as a whole?
- And still the argument is based on unproven, conclusory nothing. - j_thunders 10:04:28 11/05/09
(0)
- I'm not so sure - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 09:20:41 11/05/09
(1)
- I see. - j_thunders 07:01:24 11/05/09
(2)
- I want you to tell me how you define Traditional Marriage so I can answer your question - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 06:32:25 11/05/09
(3)
- Now you are making a spectacle of yourself. - j_thunders 22:04:46 11/04/09
(4)
- Yes he did. Can you site your definition of "traditional, sanctified marriage"? - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 22:00:24 11/04/09
(5)
- Pat,This precisely why they are called FLAMING LIBERALS!! - Michael Samra 04:39:14 11/05/09
(0)
- That's a different question - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 21:54:01 11/04/09
(8)
- Silly nonsense. - j_thunders 21:51:32 11/04/09
(9)
- It could be answered now if someone serious came along and asked it - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 21:46:07 11/04/09
(10)
- No more serious than you were before. - j_thunders 21:40:42 11/04/09
(11)
- who dies of sexually transmitted diseases and why do some idiots still think it is gay men? - dave c 00:52:16 11/05/09
(0)
- RE: Still ignoring Mike's answer. He told you why. - astralnavigator 06:31:10 11/05/09
(1)
- RE: And still! Nobody will explain how allowing gays to marry undermines the institution of marriage! - Michael Samra 22:46:46 11/04/09
(1)
- And still! Nobody will explain how allowing gays to marry undermines the institution of marriage! - j_thunders 21:15:34 11/04/09
(21)
- He gets a pass since it's a bullshit question in the first place - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 20:34:59 11/04/09
(22)
- Hey Mic ..... - three_sox 03:24:06 11/05/09
(6)
- The theory is that marriage between a man and a woman is more exalted because... - jdaniel@jps.net 19:37:04 11/04/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Tell me, posted by j_thunders on November 04, 2009 at 19:24:41
1), The "plumbing" is reciprocal, and
2) they can create a child.The hypocrisy (and why the argument falls apart once the onslaught of fear-mongering commercials by Mormons of all people dies down:
1) A vast vast majority of men and women don't use the plumbing correctly, and
2) No one enjoys sex **specifically** for the purposes of creating a child--it's recreational or at best an expression of love far removed from simply "breeding."This is why the Catholic church decided to forbid all artificial birth control: unlike some of the people on here, the Church realized that their argument was, well...screwed unless they declared that **all** sanctioned sex had to be for the purposes of procreation, not recreation.
Moreover, surrounding the Bible editors' warnings about homosexuality are myriad other Laws which today are dismissed as "archaic" and "just too hard." Jesus--in a moment of clarity, realizing just how retarded His followers were going to be--spent his last days imploring his Apostles to understand that salvation is tied to the much more difficult task of helping others.
Who wants to get "dirty"helping the poor when one can simply voice sentiments which can cause young homosexuals to commit suicide or be killed? In fact, we now know that the Jesus' famous line about "he who casts the first stone," was excised from Luke and inserted much later into manuscript of John: the Early Church--much like ultra-Conservatives--found tyranny easier than rationalizing and/or helping the poor.
Edits: 11/04/09
- I want to hear him tell it. - j_thunders 19:39:17 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: The theory is that marriage between a man and a woman is more exalted because... posted by jdaniel@jps.net on November 04, 2009 at 19:37:04
Without letting him know that it was a trick question!
- I want to hear him tell it. - j_thunders 19:39:17 11/04/09
(0)
- because marriage was instituted by God - Michael Samra 19:51:27 11/04/09
(31)
- So what are ya doing about your deity's "meaning" of keeping the Sabbath holy? This is why we laugh. nt - jdaniel@jps.net 17:55:59 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Yea..Those faith based bigots who don't want to undermine posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 17:02:39
.
- You know as well as I do. . . - Chris from Lafayette 17:27:00 11/04/09
(7)
- In Reply to: RE: Yea..Those faith based bigots who don't want to undermine posted by Michael Samra on November 04, 2009 at 17:02:39
. . . that this whole dispute is really about certain religions wanting to OWN the term, "marriage" - even though the term was around before these religions existed.
- "the term was around before these religions existed" - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 18:31:37 11/04/09
(6)
- In Reply to: RE: You know as well as I do. . . posted by Chris from Lafayette on November 04, 2009 at 17:27:00
"Gay Marriage" was around before Judaism? The issue is gay marriage, and in every case across the nation the people have voted and stated their case. To suggest it's just the religious who are against gay marriage is short-sighted at best. I know many straight agnostics and atheists whjo are against it. I know gay people who are against it.
- RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" - Chris from Lafayette 20:19:43 11/04/09
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 18:31:37
"Gay Marriage" was around before Judaism?
I can't say for sure. (I would guess it probably was.) But it was certainly around before Christianity and Islam. In the Greek and Roman worlds, marriage was generally a more informal institution than it later became under the pious asceticism of the late (post-Constantine Christianized) Roman Empire.
The issue is gay marriage, and in every case across the nation the people have voted and stated their case.
True enough. But I think you know in your heart that it's only a matter of time before the intolerance of religious bigots gives way to basic fairness. Remember that religious arguments were also used to justify the institution of slavery.
To suggest it's just the religious who are against gay marriage is short-sighted at best. I know many straight agnostics and atheists who are against it.
As Dick Cheney would say, so what? We all know where the major funding is coming from to oppose gay marriage rights: the Mormons, the Catholics, and various species of fundamentalists.
I know gay people who are against it
I'm so happy for you - all anecdotal however.
- RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 21:12:19 11/04/09
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" posted by Chris from Lafayette on November 04, 2009 at 20:19:43
"I can't say for sure. (I would guess it probably was.) But it was certainly around before Christianity and Islam. In the Greek and Roman worlds, marriage was generally a more informal institution than it later became under the pious asceticism of the late (post-Constantine Christianized) Roman Empire."
Where ever Judaism and Christianity flourished, homosexual marriage was never an issue of serious discussion. Also, while your points regarding the ancient civilizations of Rome and Greece may be valid, there are other civilizations and cultures that did not see marriage so casually. More important, we are not Romans or Greeks. The time is the present and we are Americans. The references to ancient civilizations are practically irrelevant.
"True enough. But I think you know in your heart that it's only a matter of time before the intolerance of religious bigots gives way to basic fairness."
This is an intellectually dishonest claim. You have not spoken or interviewed every American who voted against gay marriage, so you can't possibly know what motivated each of them to make the decision they have. All you have are your opinions, your boogeymen, your actors and your story. You create roles and you make people fit them. In my heart, I think that gay marriage will become legal in the USA, but not because of fairness or some great awakening to basic human rights. It's an issue because gay activists seek legitimization of their sexual choices and lifestyles. They want their relationships to be seen as equal and as natural as heterosexual relationships. So, they will have their way by continuing to coerce heterosexuals by any means they can, politically or otherwise.
I believe that things have to get very bad morally before the Kingdom Come, and homosexual marriage is but one piece of the pie.
"Remember that religious arguments were also used to justify the institution of slavery."
Religious arguments were used to justify abolition. Just because someone takes a quote from the Bible out of context doesn't make the Bible a bad reference. This is a poor argument on your part.
"As Dick Cheney would say, so what? We all know where the major funding is coming from to oppose gay marriage rights: the Mormons, the Catholics, and various species of fundamentalists.
I don't feel the issue really requires funding. People have their minds made up and no commercial for or against is going to change their minds. Tell me, where is most of the funding promoting gay marriage coming from?
"I'm so happy for you - all anecdotal however."
Thank you. I see your comments don't include scientific evidence as well.
- Unbelievable post - Chris from Lafayette 12:13:29 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 21:12:19
You can't even remember from one post to the next what the flow of the subject is. You're so imprisoned in your rigid magical thinking that you have to perform (il)logical contortions to argue your points. To wit:
Where ever Judaism and Christianity flourished, homosexual marriage was never an issue of serious discussion. Also, while your points regarding the ancient civilizations of Rome and Greece may be valid, there are other civilizations and cultures that did not see marriage so casually. More important, we are not Romans or Greeks. The time is the present and we are Americans. The references to ancient civilizations are practically irrelevant.
My comments were made in response to your question as to whether homosexual marriage was around before Judaism. Therefore, the references to ancient civilizations are in fact very relevant. I can't help it if you forgot your own question.
This is an intellectually dishonest claim. You have not spoken or interviewed every American who voted against gay marriage, so you can't possibly know what motivated each of them to make the decision they have. All you have are your opinions, your boogeymen, your actors and your story. You create roles and you make people fit them. In my heart, I think that gay marriage will become legal in the USA, but not because of fairness or some great awakening to basic human rights. It's an issue because gay activists seek legitimization of their sexual choices and lifestyles. They want their relationships to be seen as equal and as natural as heterosexual relationships. So, they will have their way by continuing to coerce heterosexuals by any means they can, politically or otherwise.
How right you are - I'm always feeling coerced by homosexuals - NOT! The only people feeling coerced are apparently folks like you - who wet their pants when their holy book isn't the law of the land.
I believe that things have to get very bad morally before the Kingdom Come, and homosexual marriage is but one piece of the pie.
Ah, yes! So inspiring: the true believers will be saved while the majority of the world will burn for eternity in hellfire and brimstone. What a wonderful belief!
Religious arguments were used to justify abolition. Just because someone takes a quote from the Bible out of context doesn't make the Bible a bad reference. This is a poor argument on your part.
How do we know you're not quoting the Bible out of context right now in your emotional tirade against gay marriage? You know, some mainline Christian religions have changed their stance on gay marriage. Who is to say you're right and they're wrong?
I don't feel the issue really requires funding. People have their minds made up and no commercial for or against is going to change their minds. Tell me, where is most of the funding promoting gay marriage coming from?
How nice that you don't feel that the issue requires funding (and weren't you complaining about MY comments lacking scientific evidence? - and your evidence consists of your feelings? - LOL!). Frankly, I don't know where most of the funding promoting gay marriage is coming from. One thing I DO know is that when Prop 8 in CA (where I live) was on the ballot, the Mormons funded TV commercial after TV commercial, while there was not a single commercial showing the opposing viewpoint (at least that I saw). And this was a very close election - I wonder if the advertising dollars that the Mormons poured in to the state may have influenced the outcome? Scientific evidence indeed!
- RE: and the references to ancient RELIGIONS are practically irrelevant to many of us....nt - LongPlay 23:14:18 11/04/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 21:12:19
d
- Not true, you are a very small minority across the globe - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 11:38:48 11/05/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: and the references to ancient RELIGIONS are practically irrelevant to many of us....nt posted by LongPlay on November 04, 2009 at 23:14:18
The rest of the world finds it relevant, which means that perhaps your opinion on religion is not. That is if you want to continue to play the numbers game.
- Not true, you are a very small minority across the globe - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 11:38:48 11/05/09
(0)
- Unbelievable post - Chris from Lafayette 12:13:29 11/05/09
(0)
- RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 21:12:19 11/04/09
(3)
- It seems your obsession with all things "gay" has snuck up and grabbed you by the... - dave c 18:39:24 11/04/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on November 04, 2009 at 18:31:37
... credibility.
He says "marriage", you see a quote of "gay marriage".
Hallucination of private obsession?
You tell us, dear boy...
- RE: "the term was around before these religions existed" - Chris from Lafayette 20:19:43 11/04/09
(4)
- "the term was around before these religions existed" - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 18:31:37 11/04/09
(6)
- Fundamentalists of any religion are dangerous to freedom...(nt) - mkuller 19:35:54 11/04/09
(0)
- Yea..Those faith based bigots who don't want to undermine - Michael Samra 17:02:39 11/04/09
(45)
Post a Followup:
