From: Paul Duca 

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

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag