Originally Posted By quincytoo Mr. X....It appears that the lessons for learning not to lie are clearly not as important as the lessons for "twisting words around to suit their own Morman agendas" are... When that horrible Tsunami struck a few years ago, I had a Morman *friend* who stated it was God's way of cleaning out those awful heathens, I remember being shocked and asking her where she had heard that and she said her Pastor had said it in church. It was right then and there I dropped her as a friend and now when I hear or read one of these idiots spewing off whatever I just laugh. I pity people like my ex-friend and their one sided twisted farce of a religion. Can you imagine living in such a narrow minded world??......EWWWWWW!!!!
Originally Posted By mele And from another article (?) <<In the meantime, same-sex marriage opponents may try to enact residency requirements for marriage so that gays and lesbians from across the country could not travel to Iowa to wed.>> Fantastic. They just can't let it go. Why not let people come and get married there? Wouldn't it bring income to the state? They keep trying to tell us that they aren't hateful but their actions show otherwise. Just can't stop themselves. And markymouse, I ASSURE you, there are lesbian Mormons. And to utahjosh, pull your magic undies out of your rear. It was just a joke.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Well, enjoy your liberal-love fest here. I won't be posting in WE for a while. It's hard not to fight back and defend my honor, religion, and beliefs, but I find my words fall on hard, deaf ears. See ya. Oh, and God lives. Jesus Christ is your savior. I know that, no matter what you say. Nothing you can ever say will change my knowledge of that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Gays would be more than happy to leave you alone if you would let them alone.> No, they won't. Instead they want to force everyone to sanction their relationships, and agree that they're as important to society as heterosexual relationships are, when they are not. If they were, they advocates for recognizing gay marriage would make their case to the people, and work through the democratic process. Instead they run to activist judges who overturn duly enacted laws for flimsy reasons. And then gay marriage advocates are surprised when they're is a backlash, and take out their anger and frustration on any who oppose them.
Originally Posted By quincytoo >>>No, they won't. Instead they want to force everyone to sanction their relationships, and agree that they're as important to society as heterosexual relationships are, when they are not. <<< That has to be one of the most red-neck lamest retorts I have ever heard. Maybe you protest a little too much.... Yea dude, they are just as important to society.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That has to be one of the most red-neck lamest retorts I have ever heard.> You're very kind, but I think the post immediately following mine sets a new world record for lameness.
Originally Posted By quincytoo HAHAHAHA You make me laugh Thanks Dougie....but now go crawl back under that rock
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Instead they want to force everyone to sanction their relationships, and agree that they're as important to society as heterosexual relationships are, when they are not. >> I'm curious, how are these relationships less important? What determines the importance of a relationship?
Originally Posted By Mr X Procreation, apparently (where that puts infertile couples, not to mention couples unwilling to procreate, is obviously a matter the detractors would rather not delve into). NOT to mention the fact that in this day and age procreation is not particularly desirable for a grossly overpopulated planet full of orphans in need of foster care. I have yet to hear a right wing explanation that makes sense of any of that (nor do I expect to).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No, they won't. Instead they want to force everyone to sanction their relationships, and agree that they're as important to society as heterosexual relationships are, when they are not. If they were, they advocates for recognizing gay marriage would make their case to the people, and work through the democratic process. Instead they run to activist judges who overturn duly enacted laws for flimsy reasons. And then gay marriage advocates are surprised when they're is a backlash, and take out their anger and frustration on any who oppose them." This is where my boy Doug tells us that childless marriages do not benefit society, further insulting childless couples everywhere.
Originally Posted By dshyates And of course everyone knows that the gays don't contribute anything to society.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Douglas, I am convinced that you truly are a masochist. Don't bother responding. I can pick one of your limited number of canned responses myself.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Instead they want to force everyone to sanction their relationships, and agree that they're as important to society as heterosexual relationships are, when they are not." Just look at this sentence. The more I read it, the angrier I become. I find it appalling. I find it hateful, discriminatory, homophobic, ignorant and misanthropic. It should only be treated with contempt, disgust and a complete lack of respect. It's straight out of a Klan meeting.
Originally Posted By markymouse "If they were, they advocates for recognizing gay marriage would make their case to the people, and work through the democratic process. Instead they run to activist judges" By this reasoning, if blacks were equal to whites, they should have been able to convince the people of that through the democratic process, rather than running to activist judges to overturn democratically passed Jim Crow laws. Boggles the mind.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Instead they run to activist judges" Another phrase that boggles the mind. Our boy Doug wrote the piece that contains this nugget as a way of mocking the entire subject- but he does whine about "activist judges" every chance he gets. This particular passage of course is ignorant of the fact they can't just "run to "activist judges" (And what is an activist judge? Any judge our boy disagrees with) without having either a bad law passed or a proper plaintiff arise. You can't decide one day to file a suit to make a new law.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm curious, how are these relationships less important?> A society without heterosexual relationships would cease to exist in a generation. A society without homosexual relationships would continue on.
