From: tirebiter 

Paul Duca  wrote in 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.
>
>
>
> Paul
>

Well, since she's probably a big hairy guy named Spike, I hope so.

--
a.a. #2273

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag