From: "Patriot Games" 

"Paul Duca"  wrote in message
news:C229FD44.E8C3%p.duca{at}comcast.net...
> in article Q2RMh.14$un.7{at}trnddc03, Patriot Games at
> Crazy_Bastard{at}Yahoo.com
> wrote on 3/23/07 9:59 AM:
>> "Paul Duca"  wrote in message
>> news:C2289E3A.E14A%p.duca{at}comcast.net...
>>> in article ZUyMh.10382$8B1.5144{at}trnddc04, Patriot Games at
>>> Crazy_Bastard{at}Yahoo.com wrote on 3/22/07 1:19 PM:
>>>> "Free Lunch"  wrote in message
>>>> news:hhe303ho10923ag7ia800kiiqr79f430t6{at}4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:30:47 GMT, in alt.atheism
>>>>> "Patriot Games"
 wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> "thomas p." 
wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1174429846.481190.298540{at}e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On 20 Mar., 19:00, "Patriot Games"
 wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Free Lunch"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:59otv2dbqtdocspvvl9hnnu6jd9mk5a904{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:06:33 GMT, in alt.atheism
>>>>>>>>> "Patriot Games"
 wrote in
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> "raven1"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>
news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf007g2r6fdbkntk5jd{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700,
"Sound of Trumpet"
>>>>>>>>>>>
 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vatican Prelate: Catholics
will "do everything possible" to
>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>> Homosexual Civil Unions
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. The idea of gay
"civil unions" is ridiculous: gay
>>>>>>>>>>> *marriage*
>>>>>>>>>>> is the answer.
>>>>>>>>>> Fag "marriage" is
impossible.  Marriage is only for a man and a
>>>>>>>>>> woman.
>>>>>>>>> It's a social convention.
>>>>>>>> No, its not a "convention" its a
tradition, a heritage, invented by
>>>>>>>> men
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> women FOR men and woman.
>>>>>>> It makes no difference if it is called a
convention, a tradition or
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> heritage.  As you say, it was invented by men;
therefore men can
>>>>>>> change it, as they have changed other things
that existed for
>>>>>>> thousands of years.
>>>>>> And "men," not fags, have made it clear
that it won't be changed by
>>>>>> banning
>>>>>> Fag Marriage in 37 states.
>>>>>>>>> There's no reason to refuse to give the
>>>>>>>>> benefits and responsibilities of
marriage to gays.
>>>>>>>> I happen to agree (to the angst of all my
conservative friends)
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "benefits and responsibilities"
could be given to fags SO LONG AS
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> called "Marriage."
>>>>>>> There is no rational reason not to call it marriage.
>>>>>> Of course there is.  Marriage = Man + Woman.
>>>>> Really? So the plural marriages of the Bible didn't happen?
>>>> The topic is FAGS.  If you'd like to discuss POLYGAMY then
feel free to
>>>> swish your blasted ass over there and start a new Thread.
>>>>> Still, there's nothing that stops the legal definition
from allowing
>>>>> gays to marry. Nothing at all.
>>>> Other than it ALREADY being BANNED in MOST of America....
>>>>>> Fags can call it anything they want, they can even
invent a brand new
>>>>>> word,
>>>>>> but the M-word ("Marriage") is already
reserved for Men-Women.
>>>>> Please keep your religiously inspired bigotry from making it
>>>>> impossible
>>>>> for you to think.
>>>>>> Perhaps they call it Marriage in your Cocksucker Country?
>>>>>> Not here.
>>>>> Once again, a supposedly moral person makes it quite
clear that he is
>>>>> quite immoral and full of hate. You clearly have no
use for Jesus's
>>>>> teachings.
>>>> Stop whining, God still loves you.
>>> So...it's not like He kept Mrs. Games' tits from sagging.
>> Nope, He really didn't help with that at all.
>> He doesn't do a lot of things we mistakenly think He should.
>> Instead, a healthy lifestyle and a little nip-n-tuck took care of that.
>        What would you have done if you couldn't afford to do that...or
> trade her in on something young and firm?

I never had to consider that option so I have no idea....

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag