Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message news:<4c9985cd7b0ca8b99e455da4d7dbb0fe@news.terane ws.com>...
> Xomicron wrote:
> > http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36826
> >
> > Same---- adoption ban upheld
> > Federal court curbs Texas sodomy ruling, decries judicial activism
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Posted: January 29, 2004
> > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> >
> > A federal appeals court yesterday upheld Florida's ban on same----
> > adoptions, ruling the landmark Texas sodomy case does not establish a
> > right for homosexuals to parent displaced children.
> >
> > The Florida legislature properly judged it is not in the best
> > interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who
> > engage in voluntary homosexual activity, the Eleventh Circuit Court
> > of Appeals in Atlanta said.
>
> I assume the linuxfags will be moving out of Florida.

nope, they'll torch the ------- court and government.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message news:<4c9985cd7b0ca8b99e455da4d7dbb0fe@news.terane ws.com>...
> Xomicron wrote:
> > http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36826
> >
> > Same---- adoption ban upheld
> > Federal court curbs Texas sodomy ruling, decries judicial activism
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Posted: January 29, 2004
> > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> >
> > A federal appeals court yesterday upheld Florida's ban on same----
> > adoptions, ruling the landmark Texas sodomy case does not establish a
> > right for homosexuals to parent displaced children.
> >
> > The Florida legislature properly judged it is not in the best
> > interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who
> > engage in voluntary homosexual activity, the Eleventh Circuit Court
> > of Appeals in Atlanta said.
>
> I assume the linuxfags will be moving out of Florida.

nope, they'll torch the ------- court and government.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message news:<4c9985cd7b0ca8b99e455da4d7dbb0fe@news.terane ws.com>...
> Xomicron wrote:
> > http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36826
> >
> > Same---- adoption ban upheld
> > Federal court curbs Texas sodomy ruling, decries judicial activism
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Posted: January 29, 2004
> > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> >
> > A federal appeals court yesterday upheld Florida's ban on same----
> > adoptions, ruling the landmark Texas sodomy case does not establish a
> > right for homosexuals to parent displaced children.
> >
> > The Florida legislature properly judged it is not in the best
> > interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who
> > engage in voluntary homosexual activity, the Eleventh Circuit Court
> > of Appeals in Atlanta said.
>
> I assume the linuxfags will be moving out of Florida.

nope, they'll torch the ------- court and government.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

d2004xx wrote:
>
> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message news:<4c9985cd7b0ca8b99e455da4d7dbb0fe@news.terane ws.com>...
> > Xomicron wrote:
> > > http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36826
> > >
> > > Same---- adoption ban upheld
> > > Federal court curbs Texas sodomy ruling, decries judicial activism
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Posted: January 29, 2004
> > > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> > >
> > > A federal appeals court yesterday upheld Florida's ban on same----
> > > adoptions, ruling the landmark Texas sodomy case does not establish a
> > > right for homosexuals to parent displaced children.
> > >
> > > The Florida legislature properly judged it is not in the best
> > > interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who
> > > engage in voluntary homosexual activity, the Eleventh Circuit Court
> > > of Appeals in Atlanta said.
> >
> > I assume the linuxfags will be moving out of Florida.
>
> nope, they'll torch the ------- court and government.

It is better for a child to have no parents at all...???

Somehow that doesn't make sense to me....

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

d2004xx wrote:
>
> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message news:<4c9985cd7b0ca8b99e455da4d7dbb0fe@news.terane ws.com>...
> > Xomicron wrote:
> > > http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36826
> > >
> > > Same---- adoption ban upheld
> > > Federal court curbs Texas sodomy ruling, decries judicial activism
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Posted: January 29, 2004
> > > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> > >
> > > A federal appeals court yesterday upheld Florida's ban on same----
> > > adoptions, ruling the landmark Texas sodomy case does not establish a
> > > right for homosexuals to parent displaced children.
> > >
> > > The Florida legislature properly judged it is not in the best
> > > interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who
> > > engage in voluntary homosexual activity, the Eleventh Circuit Court
> > > of Appeals in Atlanta said.
> >
> > I assume the linuxfags will be moving out of Florida.
>
> nope, they'll torch the ------- court and government.

It is better for a child to have no parents at all...???

Somehow that doesn't make sense to me....

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

d2004xx wrote:
>
> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message news:<4c9985cd7b0ca8b99e455da4d7dbb0fe@news.terane ws.com>...
> > Xomicron wrote:
> > > http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36826
> > >
> > > Same---- adoption ban upheld
> > > Federal court curbs Texas sodomy ruling, decries judicial activism
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Posted: January 29, 2004
> > > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> > >
> > > A federal appeals court yesterday upheld Florida's ban on same----
> > > adoptions, ruling the landmark Texas sodomy case does not establish a
> > > right for homosexuals to parent displaced children.
> > >
> > > The Florida legislature properly judged it is not in the best
> > > interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who
> > > engage in voluntary homosexual activity, the Eleventh Circuit Court
> > > of Appeals in Atlanta said.
> >
> > I assume the linuxfags will be moving out of Florida.
>
> nope, they'll torch the ------- court and government.

It is better for a child to have no parents at all...???

Somehow that doesn't make sense to me....

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

d2004xx wrote:
>
> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message news:<4c9985cd7b0ca8b99e455da4d7dbb0fe@news.terane ws.com>...
> > Xomicron wrote:
> > > http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36826
> > >
> > > Same---- adoption ban upheld
> > > Federal court curbs Texas sodomy ruling, decries judicial activism
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Posted: January 29, 2004
> > > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> > >
> > > A federal appeals court yesterday upheld Florida's ban on same----
> > > adoptions, ruling the landmark Texas sodomy case does not establish a
> > > right for homosexuals to parent displaced children.
> > >
> > > The Florida legislature properly judged it is not in the best
> > > interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who
> > > engage in voluntary homosexual activity, the Eleventh Circuit Court
> > > of Appeals in Atlanta said.
> >
> > I assume the linuxfags will be moving out of Florida.
>
> nope, they'll torch the ------- court and government.

It is better for a child to have no parents at all...???

Somehow that doesn't make sense to me....

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

In article <BC9C27F1.47E9F%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on
> 4/9/04 10:06 AM:
>
> > Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> > news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
> >
> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >>
> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>>
> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>>
> >>> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >>
> >> Just not to the person they want to.
> >
> > There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
> >
> >> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
> >
> > Homosexuals are already trying to do that.
>
> In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be implying
> they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone they are not
> attracted to. This is ridiculous. You seem to be wanting to diminish the
> institution of marriage, which, to me anyway, represents two people who love
> each other and are committed to each other. Now I would not want to
> necessarily deny someone the "right" to enter into such a sham marriage, but
> to encourage it, as you seem to do, simply makes no sense to me.
>
> The idea that two people of the same --- marrying would somehow weaken the
> institution of marriage is not supported. The idea that encouraging people
> to enter into marriages which are not based on love, at least in a modern
> society, clearly is diminishing the institution.
>
> Then again, the institution of marriage is pretty weak as it is... your
> apparent support of reducing its strength would probably not do much.

Don't even try to point out contradictions in a fundy's thinking. You'll
get nowhere. It is a basic requirement of radical religious
fundamentalism to be able to hold mutually contradictory thoughts at the
same time. For instance, I've heard people give me the following pair of
arguments against enforcing civil rights for gay people:

* It would cost too much to defend the rights of all those gay people.
* There are so few gay people that it doesn't matter anyway if we
discriminate against them.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

In article <BC9C27F1.47E9F%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on
> 4/9/04 10:06 AM:
>
> > Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> > news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
> >
> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >>
> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>>
> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>>
> >>> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >>
> >> Just not to the person they want to.
> >
> > There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
> >
> >> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
> >
> > Homosexuals are already trying to do that.
>
> In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be implying
> they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone they are not
> attracted to. This is ridiculous. You seem to be wanting to diminish the
> institution of marriage, which, to me anyway, represents two people who love
> each other and are committed to each other. Now I would not want to
> necessarily deny someone the "right" to enter into such a sham marriage, but
> to encourage it, as you seem to do, simply makes no sense to me.
>
> The idea that two people of the same --- marrying would somehow weaken the
> institution of marriage is not supported. The idea that encouraging people
> to enter into marriages which are not based on love, at least in a modern
> society, clearly is diminishing the institution.
>
> Then again, the institution of marriage is pretty weak as it is... your
> apparent support of reducing its strength would probably not do much.

Don't even try to point out contradictions in a fundy's thinking. You'll
get nowhere. It is a basic requirement of radical religious
fundamentalism to be able to hold mutually contradictory thoughts at the
same time. For instance, I've heard people give me the following pair of
arguments against enforcing civil rights for gay people:

* It would cost too much to defend the rights of all those gay people.
* There are so few gay people that it doesn't matter anyway if we
discriminate against them.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

In article <BC9C27F1.47E9F%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on
> 4/9/04 10:06 AM:
>
> > Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> > news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
> >
> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >>
> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>>
> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>>
> >>> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >>
> >> Just not to the person they want to.
> >
> > There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
> >
> >> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
> >
> > Homosexuals are already trying to do that.
>
> In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be implying
> they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone they are not
> attracted to. This is ridiculous. You seem to be wanting to diminish the
> institution of marriage, which, to me anyway, represents two people who love
> each other and are committed to each other. Now I would not want to
> necessarily deny someone the "right" to enter into such a sham marriage, but
> to encourage it, as you seem to do, simply makes no sense to me.
>
> The idea that two people of the same --- marrying would somehow weaken the
> institution of marriage is not supported. The idea that encouraging people
> to enter into marriages which are not based on love, at least in a modern
> society, clearly is diminishing the institution.
>
> Then again, the institution of marriage is pretty weak as it is... your
> apparent support of reducing its strength would probably not do much.

Don't even try to point out contradictions in a fundy's thinking. You'll
get nowhere. It is a basic requirement of radical religious
fundamentalism to be able to hold mutually contradictory thoughts at the
same time. For instance, I've heard people give me the following pair of
arguments against enforcing civil rights for gay people:

* It would cost too much to defend the rights of all those gay people.
* There are so few gay people that it doesn't matter anyway if we
discriminate against them.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html