Gay Marriage
#31
03-09-2004, 12:41 PM
No 6,
First of all, a quick glance of your reference shows that your statistics are inherently biased. The studies you select aim to show homosexuality in a bad light.
Secondly, marriage has nothing to do with health. If suddenly it was found that "bird flu" could only be spread by co-ed sexual relations, do you really think they'd ban marriage?
Next, I do not believe your statistics that homosexual people have an average lifespan of mid-40's. This is rediculous.
Furthermore, your reference to homosexual relations statistics is comparing apples to oranges. A large amount of heterosexual people have multiple sexual relations -- usually just not when they're married. Since homosexuals cannot (for the sake or argument) be married in this country, we have NO statistics for that. What do your numbers prove?
Then, you state the costs of diseases. AIDS costs more, sure. That's because AIDS slowly eats away at your body, whereas with many others you're dead in an instant, or it's so quick that a constant flow of money is not needed. Cancer? A few years. AIDS now-a-days? Decades.
Lastly, the gay marriages being performed across the county may be "illegal" based on the current laws, but if the current laws are determined to be unconstitutional, who do you think is "right?" Of course, this will never GET to the Supreme Court until something like this happens, and it becomes pivotal to resolve the issue by determining its constitutiality.
So... ha!
First of all, a quick glance of your reference shows that your statistics are inherently biased. The studies you select aim to show homosexuality in a bad light.
Secondly, marriage has nothing to do with health. If suddenly it was found that "bird flu" could only be spread by co-ed sexual relations, do you really think they'd ban marriage?
Next, I do not believe your statistics that homosexual people have an average lifespan of mid-40's. This is rediculous.
Furthermore, your reference to homosexual relations statistics is comparing apples to oranges. A large amount of heterosexual people have multiple sexual relations -- usually just not when they're married. Since homosexuals cannot (for the sake or argument) be married in this country, we have NO statistics for that. What do your numbers prove?
Then, you state the costs of diseases. AIDS costs more, sure. That's because AIDS slowly eats away at your body, whereas with many others you're dead in an instant, or it's so quick that a constant flow of money is not needed. Cancer? A few years. AIDS now-a-days? Decades.
Lastly, the gay marriages being performed across the county may be "illegal" based on the current laws, but if the current laws are determined to be unconstitutional, who do you think is "right?" Of course, this will never GET to the Supreme Court until something like this happens, and it becomes pivotal to resolve the issue by determining its constitutiality.
So... ha!
#32
03-09-2004, 01:49 PM
1. Studies done in countries where 'gay marriage' is legal are valid in showing what will happen here if it's legalized. Euro studies show that contrary to the stories about monogamous homosexuals, the reality is otherwise.
2. While unmarried hetero and homosexuals do engage in sex (gasp hehe), study after study shows that the practice of male homosexuality contributes to many diseases (and female homosexuality to a lesser extent). This is not exactly rocket science if you consider what is being put where (let's just say there's a good reason there are signs in restaurant bathrooms reminding food workers to wash before returning to work). You may elect not to believe the resulting data and call it ridiculous or inherently biased but that's not my fault.
3. AIDS costs more per death not only because it lasts a long time (although heart troubles last people even longer), but because an absolute pile of money is being spent on AIDS research while (compared to other health issues) the number of AIDS patients is small.
4. When you say the agenda of the homosexual lobby is to force the issue out of the elected legislatures and have appointed judges dictate law from the bench, you are exactly correct. The goal is to have homosexual marriage one place after which the faith and credit clause of the Constitution would force every other state to recognize marriages done in that place.
Like everything else in American politics, there are checks and balances to even rogue courts. The final word is not actually nine robed justices with lifetime appointments. The check to a court acting contrarily to the will of the people as expressed by their choice of representation is a Constitutional amendment. It's the final trump card, which is why amendments are so very hard to get passed.
So, in a nutshell, if there does in fact end up being a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriages, it'll be because the homosexual lobby tried (pun intended) an end-run around the law.
BTW can you explain why that's an OK thing to do but Judge Morse's keeping the 10 Commandments up wasn't? Are homosexuals more equal than Christians or Jews?
2. While unmarried hetero and homosexuals do engage in sex (gasp hehe), study after study shows that the practice of male homosexuality contributes to many diseases (and female homosexuality to a lesser extent). This is not exactly rocket science if you consider what is being put where (let's just say there's a good reason there are signs in restaurant bathrooms reminding food workers to wash before returning to work). You may elect not to believe the resulting data and call it ridiculous or inherently biased but that's not my fault.
3. AIDS costs more per death not only because it lasts a long time (although heart troubles last people even longer), but because an absolute pile of money is being spent on AIDS research while (compared to other health issues) the number of AIDS patients is small.
4. When you say the agenda of the homosexual lobby is to force the issue out of the elected legislatures and have appointed judges dictate law from the bench, you are exactly correct. The goal is to have homosexual marriage one place after which the faith and credit clause of the Constitution would force every other state to recognize marriages done in that place.
Like everything else in American politics, there are checks and balances to even rogue courts. The final word is not actually nine robed justices with lifetime appointments. The check to a court acting contrarily to the will of the people as expressed by their choice of representation is a Constitutional amendment. It's the final trump card, which is why amendments are so very hard to get passed.
So, in a nutshell, if there does in fact end up being a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriages, it'll be because the homosexual lobby tried (pun intended) an end-run around the law.
BTW can you explain why that's an OK thing to do but Judge Morse's keeping the 10 Commandments up wasn't? Are homosexuals more equal than Christians or Jews?
#33
03-09-2004, 02:55 PM
well, on that last note...same thing as caucation males...we have less rights than any other group. reverse racism and sexism is more of a problem, and its not being adressed. (oh, and on the OT, NT thing...i was refering to the OT as the origination of marriage...)
#34
03-09-2004, 03:00 PM
6,
The issue over the ten commandments is a secular vs. religious battle. The difference with homosexuals is that the issue is an idea rather than something tangible, so it is essentially impossible to enforce under separation of church and state.
The issue over the ten commandments is a secular vs. religious battle. The difference with homosexuals is that the issue is an idea rather than something tangible, so it is essentially impossible to enforce under separation of church and state.
#35
03-19-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by No.6@Mar 9th 2004 @ 3:07 PM
1. If a judge can get disbarred for violating the law by posting the 10 Commandments, why do justices in MA and mayors in CA get away with violating the law of the United States (Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton, defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman) as well as identical law in CA?
2. A recent Dutch study found that homosexual relationships last on average 1.5 years, and the partners had on average 8 sexual partners outside of the main partnership even while the relationship was going on (Maria Xiridou et al, “The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, 17 2003: 1029-38).
A 1991 study of homosexual men revealed that their average number of lifetime partners was 308. ((H. Meyer-Balburg et al, “Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 28, No. 1: 3-27)
Those of you who are married presently, do you believe your marriage involves having sex with 5-6 other unrelated people per year? Not likely. So when people speak of homosexual 'marriage' they don't mean that they intend that homosexuals intend to conform to the existing definition of marriage, but that they intend to redefine it to mean something else.
When a word is redefined, its prior meaning is destroyed, or lost. How many people have something nice happen to them and tell their colleagues that they're feeling particularly gay today? Similarly with marriage; if the meaning of "one man, one woman, monogamous, until death do us part" is not what 'marriage' means any more, then there is no word for it. What point is there then to having homosexual 'marriage'?
3. If the point then is merely to obtain health benefits, then let's suppose we drop the issue of 'marriage' so as to stop worrying about the institution of marriage per se and call it 'civil union' such that insurance and other benefits would accrue. Either way, the issue then becomes a social issue.
For homosexual males with a partner, the average lifespan was 45. For homosexual males without a partner, the average lifespan was 46. (Deaths examined between 1999 and 2001. Homosexual Partnerships and Homosexual Longevity: A Replication. Psychological Reports - 2002, 91, 671-678).
According to the Centers For Disease Control, 65% of all reported AIDS cases among U.S. males since 1981 have been men engaged in homosexual behavior. (CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, May 1998)
According to the CDC (1996), Federal money spent per death for Cancer was $3,776.00, for heart disease it was $1,056.00, and for AIDS/HIV it was $39,172.00.
According to the 1986 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), homosexuals account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of the cases of Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and Gonorrhea.
The risk of **** cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive. Condoms offer only limited protection. (Between the Lines, "**** Cancer and You," Sept. 29, 2000.)
Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.( Centers for Disease Control, "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men," September 10, 1999)
What all that adds up to is IF we say yes, let's recognize the partnership/civil union/marriage/whatever then we are insisting that society pay for the diseases, the treatments, the early deaths.
Now if I was a smoker insurance companies would just charge me more; or charge my employer more. Some companies do not hire smokers; and they are within their rights to do so. However there's already law after law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference.
The hospitals pass the cost to insurance, the insurance passes the cost to the company, and the company passes the cost to you the employee or the consumer. That means YOU pay for diseases that are preventable by abstaining.
Smoking reduces your lifespan by 5-8 years and so cities ban smoking, lawyers sue tobacco companies and society scowls at the dirty smoker. Obesity lowers lifespan about the same and fat people are glared at. What would people do if smoking reduced your lifespan by 30 years? Everyone would clamor for an immediate prohibition on the deadly stuff. But that's what happens to homosexuals, and yet the practice is celebrated, we have TV shows all about it.
There are your reasons against homosexual 'marriage.' It's already prohibited by law, it isn't 'marriage' at all, and even if you throw all that out it's a deadly practice, which activists are asking us all to pay for.
1. If a judge can get disbarred for violating the law by posting the 10 Commandments, why do justices in MA and mayors in CA get away with violating the law of the United States (Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton, defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman) as well as identical law in CA?
2. A recent Dutch study found that homosexual relationships last on average 1.5 years, and the partners had on average 8 sexual partners outside of the main partnership even while the relationship was going on (Maria Xiridou et al, “The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, 17 2003: 1029-38).
A 1991 study of homosexual men revealed that their average number of lifetime partners was 308. ((H. Meyer-Balburg et al, “Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 28, No. 1: 3-27)
Those of you who are married presently, do you believe your marriage involves having sex with 5-6 other unrelated people per year? Not likely. So when people speak of homosexual 'marriage' they don't mean that they intend that homosexuals intend to conform to the existing definition of marriage, but that they intend to redefine it to mean something else.
When a word is redefined, its prior meaning is destroyed, or lost. How many people have something nice happen to them and tell their colleagues that they're feeling particularly gay today? Similarly with marriage; if the meaning of "one man, one woman, monogamous, until death do us part" is not what 'marriage' means any more, then there is no word for it. What point is there then to having homosexual 'marriage'?
3. If the point then is merely to obtain health benefits, then let's suppose we drop the issue of 'marriage' so as to stop worrying about the institution of marriage per se and call it 'civil union' such that insurance and other benefits would accrue. Either way, the issue then becomes a social issue.
For homosexual males with a partner, the average lifespan was 45. For homosexual males without a partner, the average lifespan was 46. (Deaths examined between 1999 and 2001. Homosexual Partnerships and Homosexual Longevity: A Replication. Psychological Reports - 2002, 91, 671-678).
According to the Centers For Disease Control, 65% of all reported AIDS cases among U.S. males since 1981 have been men engaged in homosexual behavior. (CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, May 1998)
According to the CDC (1996), Federal money spent per death for Cancer was $3,776.00, for heart disease it was $1,056.00, and for AIDS/HIV it was $39,172.00.
According to the 1986 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), homosexuals account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of the cases of Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and Gonorrhea.
The risk of **** cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive. Condoms offer only limited protection. (Between the Lines, "**** Cancer and You," Sept. 29, 2000.)
Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.( Centers for Disease Control, "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men," September 10, 1999)
What all that adds up to is IF we say yes, let's recognize the partnership/civil union/marriage/whatever then we are insisting that society pay for the diseases, the treatments, the early deaths.
Now if I was a smoker insurance companies would just charge me more; or charge my employer more. Some companies do not hire smokers; and they are within their rights to do so. However there's already law after law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference.
The hospitals pass the cost to insurance, the insurance passes the cost to the company, and the company passes the cost to you the employee or the consumer. That means YOU pay for diseases that are preventable by abstaining.
Smoking reduces your lifespan by 5-8 years and so cities ban smoking, lawyers sue tobacco companies and society scowls at the dirty smoker. Obesity lowers lifespan about the same and fat people are glared at. What would people do if smoking reduced your lifespan by 30 years? Everyone would clamor for an immediate prohibition on the deadly stuff. But that's what happens to homosexuals, and yet the practice is celebrated, we have TV shows all about it.
There are your reasons against homosexual 'marriage.' It's already prohibited by law, it isn't 'marriage' at all, and even if you throw all that out it's a deadly practice, which activists are asking us all to pay for.
2. 'average homosexual relationships' - since 'relationship' is a blanket term, this number can be pulled from anywhere. Eighteen months is the average length, supposedly, but since a homosexual does not have an option of getting married, this can go in favor of whatever the study wants to come of it. Point cannot be argued here.
Avg number of lifetime partners = 308
Again, you're pulling numbers from anti-gay propaganda, designed to innudate people who obsess over statistics because 'numbers don't lie!'. Well, being gay, I've had 2 male partners. How many have you had, I'll bet it's more than 2 in your whole lifetime, huh? NOW I'M BETTER, HAHA! *rolls eyes*
So, when people speak of homosexual 'marriage' - they're actually speaking of consecrating a loving relationship between *only two people* in the eyes of our government for rights and privledges afforded to anyone else. Don't put words in people's mouths.
3. Finally, some sense! But yes, we should do that for everyone if we're going to. Civil unions are no more equal unless they are the same law. (See - civil rights movement, women's rights movement, et al). So, let's make the word marriage only used by the backward, pagan founded religions that so many like to follow, and leave the government to have a term all it's own for people in the real world.
Ooh, more statistics! Here's one for you - 50% of all HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES end in divorce! That means anyone who divorces, and remarries, all those people involved with that one person (according to the Bible) are going to hell! Wow, sure hope you've never dated or been involved with someone divorced.
"****" cancer risk - actually, the best way to avoid prostate cancer is to have it regularly massaged. If you're a heterosexual male who never touches his behind, you have a much higher risk than I'll ever have in regards to that.
"Men who engage in sodomy" - stop there! That's 3/4's of the heterosexual population, if not more, I'm sorry to inform you. Sodomy is defined as non-reproductive sex, including oral sex (getting blow jobs or giving), and of course **** sex (women have asses too!)
So, sorry to shoot down all your BS points, about how it does this and that. I've been with my partner for 4 years now. I haven't once cheated on him, nor him on me. I'd love for you to find me a heterosexual couple who could say the same, because there are very few. Obviously, as it's pointed out quite often, your hatred and fear of this subject only adds to your guilt of being homophobic and yet wanting what they have.
It's ok, you can continue to hate yourself and me, because I don't care. I'm gay, I'm not going away, and I'm not going to stop fighting for equal rights.
-m.
#37
03-23-2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by rflagg@Mar 19th 2004 @ 2:22 PM
Wait, I did all that response, and No. 6 doesn't even own a hybrid?
Stop wasting my time, idiot.
-m.
Wait, I did all that response, and No. 6 doesn't even own a hybrid?
Stop wasting my time, idiot.
-m.
1. The comparison between the CA mayor and the 10 Commandments judge is valid because in both cases the officials went against their own pledges to uphold the law (in the latter case because Moore refused to remove the plaque after the ruling came in). So: if it's OK to break the law in pursuit of "equal rights" for homosexuals it must be OK to break the law in pursuit of other perceived rights, whether those happen to be liberal as in the case of the homosexual lobby or conservative as in the case of the 10 Cs. Anyway this part of the debate has been obsoleted by events as the SF mayor has acceded to the court's demand that he stop violating CA law.
2. Health data: Twice now on this forum alone the data I've presented has been dismissed as "ridiculous" or "biased" but nobody offers other data other than their own anecdotal evidence (and in your case an ad hominem to boot). I sincerely doubt the Dutch (where 'gay marriage' is legal) are secretly in the pay of Jerry Falwell. If you have other data, show it. Not "I do this" (which nobody can verify and nobody wants to) or "everyone I know is" but some actual studies on behavior and longevity. The data I have indicates that rflagg, if his statement is true, is the exception. It's a very odd thing that on any given message board every homosexual asserts themselves to be involved for some number of years in a monogamous relationship but all the available data says that homosexuals are on average quite promiscuous.
3. Let's, however, assume that there are two monogamous homosexuals who wish to become married. If the definition of marriage is flexible enough to permit this, exactly what is the defense used when the polygamists show up for their day in court? Does society say well, it was ok when these two ladies were here yesterday, but buddy you want to marry three women and THAT'S JUST SICK? What about when two brothers show up, or brother and sister, father and (adult) daughter? No, we have no basis to contest their wishes, since we'd already admitted that marriage is whatever we want it to be on any given day. The upshot is no matter where you may say is enough, there's someone out there who wants to redefine things even farther, until the whole idea is lost. Or, we say ok, it has to mean something, which means that a line is drawn and we say this IS marriage and this is NOT marriage. As stated before, this was already done under Clinton and in CA under Davis, both of whom signed legislation defining marriage as one man, one woman. Maybe if you don't like it you should stop voting for Democrats
4. It's very amusing when un-Christians start lecturing Christians on who goes to hell and what Scripture means. One, in Christian belief everyone's guilty of sin (and hey, guess what, buggery is not close to the deadliest sin) so we're all in that boat; your "HA HA" criticism missed the mark (plus, you were factually wrong in your assertions). Two, it's very easy to pick at someone else's beliefs but I have yet to meet a anti-Christian critic who can defend his own philosophy, much less present it. When a critic shows up with a complete, documented statement on their beliefs covering all aspects of life, and then allows me to take bits out of context and fire off critiques of their life, then they can do the same to Christians.
5. Yes, you're here, you're queer, and you're in everyone's face about it. Congratulations, you managed to stir up the fly-over country who is sick of hearing gay gay gay gay gay on every sitcom and cable show and news broadcast and they're pushing back. Nobody wants to hear about your *** any more.
6. I didn't see a question on the registration form asking if I'd yet bought a Prius or Insight as a requirement for posting. I in fact came here trying to get more information for a future purchase. Shame that this and the Insight board are politically next-door neighbors to the Democratunderground madness, that's always a nice disincentive for at least half the populace. But hey, is it more environmentally friendly to drive one fairly-efficient conventional car for 14 years or to order a new hybrid every three years, incurring the environmental costs of the steel production, factory work, and land &/or sea shipping five times over?
#38
03-23-2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by rflagg@Mar 19th 2004 @ 2:22 PM
Wait, I did all that response, and No. 6 doesn't even own a hybrid?
Stop wasting my time, idiot.
-m.
Wait, I did all that response, and No. 6 doesn't even own a hybrid?
Stop wasting my time, idiot.
-m.
1. The comparison between the CA mayor and the 10 Commandments judge is valid because in both cases the officials went against their own pledges to uphold the law (in the latter case because Moore refused to remove the plaque after the ruling came in). So: if it's OK to break the law in pursuit of "equal rights" for homosexuals it must be OK to break the law in pursuit of other perceived rights, whether those happen to be liberal as in the case of the homosexual lobby or conservative as in the case of the 10 Cs. Anyway this part of the debate has been obsoleted by events as the SF mayor has acceded to the court's demand that he stop violating CA law.
2. Health data: Twice now on this forum alone the data I've presented has been dismissed as "ridiculous" or "biased" but nobody offers other data other than their own anecdotal evidence (and in your case an ad hominem to boot). I sincerely doubt the Dutch (where 'gay marriage' is legal) are secretly in the pay of Jerry Falwell. If you have other data, show it. Not "I do this" (which nobody can verify and nobody wants to) or "everyone I know is" but some actual studies on behavior and longevity. The data I have indicates that rflagg, if his statement is true, is the exception. It's a very odd thing that on any given message board every homosexual asserts themselves to be involved for some number of years in a monogamous relationship but all the available data says that homosexuals are on average quite promiscuous.
3. Let's, however, assume that there are two monogamous homosexuals who wish to become married. If the definition of marriage is flexible enough to permit this, exactly what is the defense used when the polygamists show up for their day in court? Does society say well, it was ok when these two ladies were here yesterday, but buddy you want to marry three women and THAT'S JUST SICK? What about when two brothers show up, or brother and sister, father and (adult) daughter? No, we have no basis to contest their wishes, since we'd already admitted that marriage is whatever we want it to be on any given day. The upshot is no matter where you may say is enough, there's someone out there who wants to redefine things even farther, until the whole idea is lost. Or, we say ok, it has to mean something, which means that a line is drawn and we say this IS marriage and this is NOT marriage. As stated before, this was already done under Clinton and in CA under Davis, both of whom signed legislation defining marriage as one man, one woman. Maybe if you don't like it you should stop voting for Democrats
4. It's very amusing when un-Christians start lecturing Christians on who goes to hell and what Scripture means. One, in Christian belief everyone's guilty of sin (and hey, guess what, buggery is not close to the deadliest sin) so we're all in that boat; your "HA HA" criticism missed the mark (plus, you were factually wrong in your assertions). Two, it's very easy to pick at someone else's beliefs but I have yet to meet a anti-Christian critic who can defend his own philosophy, much less present it. When a critic shows up with a complete, documented statement on their beliefs covering all aspects of life, and then allows me to take bits out of context and fire off critiques of their life, then they can do the same to Christians.
5. Yes, you're here, you're queer, and you're in everyone's face about it. Congratulations, you managed to stir up the fly-over country who is sick of hearing gay gay gay gay gay on every sitcom and cable show and news broadcast and they're pushing back. Nobody wants to hear about your *** any more.
6. I didn't see a question on the registration form asking if I'd yet bought a Prius or Insight as a requirement for posting. I in fact came here trying to get more information for a future purchase. Shame that this and the Insight board are politically next-door neighbors to the Democratunderground madness, that's always a nice disincentive for at least half the populace. But hey, is it more environmentally friendly to drive one fairly-efficient conventional car for 14 years or to order a new hybrid every three years, incurring the environmental costs of the steel production, factory work, and land &/or sea shipping five times over?
Are you free?
OK I'll try not to do wasting his or her time idiot so much. ell me more about your Undefined. Me? Thanks for telling me:
Undefined said I simply [you]must[you] live up to the stereotype. hat do you have that is Undefined?
What is your real name?Interesting deduction. That is a hypothetical question. hat does "this" refer to?Two what?When was this exactly?Interesting gossip:
Undefined said Undefined sincerely doubt the Dutch where 'gay marriage' is legal are secretly in the pay of Jerry Falwell. But I don't have it. h I get it. Is that a fact. ll of them?Three what?I think there might be a few exception. hadn't thought of that. can't tell if
society say well it was ok when these two ladies were here yesterday but buddy you want to marry three women and THAT'S JUST SICK. hen two brothers show up or brother and sister father and adult daughter ? I haven't heard enough about when two brothers show up or brother and sister father and adult daughter to have an opinion. re you serious? Do you mean you and me have?I have never heard about The upshot is no matter where you may say is enough there's someone out there who wants to redefine things even farther until the whole idea is lost. y "we" do you mean you and me?Do you mean your name is stated before this was already done under Clinton and in CA under Davis both of whom signed legislation defining marriage as one man one woman ?Perhaps. I think I do. deeper algorithm is needed to respond to that correctly. Very rare indeed. s Bertrand Russel said, it must have taken ages for people to realize that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are both instances of the number "two. Is this a riddle?FiveUgh. "it" being It's very amusing when un-Christians start lecturing Christians on who goes to hell and what Scripture means?Thank you, thank you very much. I would like to thank everyone who helped. . hat is a rather sweeping generalization about people. hat's your sign?
Thanks for the information:
Undefined said Undefined didn't see a question on the registration form asking if you'd yet bought a Prius or Insight as a requirement for posting. That is interesting:
Undefined said Undefined in fact came here trying to get more information for a future purchase. I think there might be a few exception. hat is your credit card number? :unsure:
#40
03-23-2004, 12:11 PM
I think I'm going to have to put an end to this discussion. In addition, I will consider adding some new guidelines to the forum so as to keep controversial topics tame. This is meant to be a website for all ages, and while such discussions are important, I do not feel that controversial words and arguments ought to be available in such heated quantities at GreenHybrid.
If you would like to continue further conversations on such topics, please be advised that offensive language or discriminatory remarks will not be tollerated. Please do not force me to activate word censorship. Thank you for your understanding.
If you would like to continue further conversations on such topics, please be advised that offensive language or discriminatory remarks will not be tollerated. Please do not force me to activate word censorship. Thank you for your understanding.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
