Re: Big stink in Green Bay
  By: Ross Cassell to Daniel Prather on Sat Jan 05 2008 10:22 pm

 > The very thought of them existing makes you shiver in fear.

No it doesn't.  It does make me wonder how anyone could be so gullible.

 > You wouldnt have made such a big production out of it if you werent
 > obsessed.

If I was obsessed, I wouldn't talk about anything else.  I talk about all sorts
of things, and this just happened to be one of the threads I happened on.
Judging by the number of posts, one could say you'd be obsessed as well.

 > Not specifically an exclusive issue of the religious.

There's absolutely no basis for refusing same sex marriages except with regard
to religion and the homophobia it tends to evoke.  If you have evidence that
one relationship is better than another, please present it.

 > Do you agree with some state laws that when a pregnant women gets murdered
 > that sometimes the accusd gets charged with 2 counts of murder?

No, I don't.

 > Is this an all exclusive religious mantra?

No, this example (regarding illegal substances) was an example of the federal
government interfering with our rights, not religion.

 > Why is a ban on horse racing ok and not other types?

It's the other way around.  They banned everything but online gambling for
horse racing.  I have no idea why horse racing stands out, but, has actually
gotten them in trouble with the WTO and Antigua.  I don't think the government
has any place banning gambling of any kind.

 > Why is online gambling such a necessity?

It's not a necessity, but, people should be free to do what they want with
their own money, and that includes gambling it away.  I support very, very
little regulation when it comes to the Internet.

 > I think you have christianity on the brain.

No, that's just been the topic at hand.

 > Are big govts at any level acceptable?

Perhaps.  It depends on how much control the people (not corporations) are able
to exert on it, and how involved they're able to be.  As it stands now, it's
very unlikely that any average citizen can hold any political office in state
or federal government.

 > Then we would never have needed a court system, listen to yourself.

You're mischaractarizing my statements.  Whatever.

 > No I see people like you as bad as the christians you denounce.

If you say so.

 > As long as you get in their face, they shall get in yours.

Except I don't get in their face until they've gotten in mine.  I'd much rather
them leave me alone.

 > I think votes is the ultimate objective to obtaining office, money is just
 > a tool to achieve that end.

I agree.

 > If homosexuality has been pervasive throughout civilization, why is there a
 > problem now?

Because most religions denounce it.  Rather than consider that religious texts
were penned by men, it's assumed they're written by deities and thus
infallible.  So when it bitches about something, especially where it allows a
religious group to propagate hatred toward people they dislike, they latch on
to it.  Interestingly enough, homosexuality is mentioned only once or twice in
the entire Bible.

Homosexuality exists throughout nature and has been a part of human
civilization for as long as we can tell.

 > How do you know it is in the sky, is this part of your misguided
 > stereotyping?

Because most religious texts refers to the sky, up, heaven, etc., as the realm
of deities.  But, they could live in space, or in the center of the earth, or
another dimension, or anywhere else.  It's a figure of speech to go with a
figment of people's imaginations.

 > As far as I know, the only men in the sky are onboard the International
 > Space Station?

They're not invisible.

 > Yes, lets have the religious bullshit in marriage and the homo shit in
 > civil unions.

Again, separate but equal.

 > Good!
 > They can get a civil union license.

Separate but equal, yet again.  It's never equal.

 > Let them all live in Vermont and New Hampshire with the other nutz.

Nutz?  I see.  I guess I already knew that about you, though.

 > Sorry but their sexual status already places them in a separate class, by
 > very definition alone. Unless you want sexual preference removed from a
 > protected status in the eyes of the law, especially laws regarding
 > employment and discrimination.

Only a handful of states protect against discrimination because of sexual
preference.  Interestingly enough, religion is protected federally.

 > In fact sexual preference is more of a separate class now than race is.

Unfortunately, it is.  Sad, isn't it?

 > You cannot equate homesexuality to heterosexuality, one cant procreate.

Not all heterosexuals can procreate, and on top of that, not all of them choose
to.  Should they be denied coverage too, because they're not breeding for the
good of the union?

 > Therefore separate but equal is the best you are going to get.

It's bullshit and you know it, but, lots easier to let it support your views
when the government sanctions the discrimination.

-- Daniel
--- SBBSecho 2.12-FreeBSD