On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> And we all know how the blacks just *LOVE* having the gay cause compared
> to theirs!

Some of them do. Some of them don't. It matters rather little what they
think of it (as though "they" think of it with one mind); they're much
further along in their struggle for equal rights before the law and equal
treatment by society, so as a whole the black community has no horse in
this race.

> I can't help but notice how many of the "middle of the roaders" here
> prove their "open-mindedness" by saying, in effect "Many of my friends
> are gay".

Yeah, that's an old standard. Been going on for years. Replace "gay" with
"black", "jewish", "catholic", "democrats", etc.

> I remember not too many years ago when any person, regardles of their
> genuineness or motivation, stating that "Many of my friends are black"
> were automatically ridiculed and branded by liberals as an outsider
> trying to appear as one of them. Today, making such a statement about
> gays will guarantee your being welcome with open arms.

Er...by whom, exactly? Not by me, as a general rule.

DS

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> And we all know how the blacks just *LOVE* having the gay cause compared
> to theirs!

Some of them do. Some of them don't. It matters rather little what they
think of it (as though "they" think of it with one mind); they're much
further along in their struggle for equal rights before the law and equal
treatment by society, so as a whole the black community has no horse in
this race.

> I can't help but notice how many of the "middle of the roaders" here
> prove their "open-mindedness" by saying, in effect "Many of my friends
> are gay".

Yeah, that's an old standard. Been going on for years. Replace "gay" with
"black", "jewish", "catholic", "democrats", etc.

> I remember not too many years ago when any person, regardles of their
> genuineness or motivation, stating that "Many of my friends are black"
> were automatically ridiculed and branded by liberals as an outsider
> trying to appear as one of them. Today, making such a statement about
> gays will guarantee your being welcome with open arms.

Er...by whom, exactly? Not by me, as a general rule.

DS

Randolph wrote:
> The government has a long history of protecting us from doing stupid
> things, like driving without seat belts, riding a motorcycle without a
> helmet, smoking crack etc. The ban on gay marriage is just one of those
> things, I see this ban as an unfair privilege for gays. Why should the
> government protect them from marriage when heteros have no such
> protection?

LOL! Actually, this very theme was addressed in an episode of the West
Wing I saw recently. Very funny. Honestly, if this is such a devisive
issue, it may be best to leave marriage out of the hands of the State...

Randolph wrote:
> The government has a long history of protecting us from doing stupid
> things, like driving without seat belts, riding a motorcycle without a
> helmet, smoking crack etc. The ban on gay marriage is just one of those
> things, I see this ban as an unfair privilege for gays. Why should the
> government protect them from marriage when heteros have no such
> protection?

LOL! Actually, this very theme was addressed in an episode of the West
Wing I saw recently. Very funny. Honestly, if this is such a devisive
issue, it may be best to leave marriage out of the hands of the State...

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>the difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely
>>>assume the title for political expedience.
>
>
>>ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!
>
>
> Why's that, Bill? Afraid you might accidentally learn something?

Oh yes, Daniel. I fear knowledge and learning. Thinking hurts so much.
Oh **PLEASE** don't say anything to make me think. After all - I've
never considered these issues before.

Funny how *only* *you* can simultaneously understand what it is to be
gay and Christian/christian.

Ted was right about one thing: This issue is quite a dilemma for the
dems, especially with how it is obvious that scorched earth tactics are
going to be used by the "gay activists" regarding it over the next four
years. Yep - quite a political dilemma. You've got half the party
believing that, in order to be politically viable, they need to be more
centrist, and the other half going for an all-or-nothing extreme.
(Kerry's problem was that he tried to pretend to be both - an impossible
job for anybody, poor guy. Like the poster says, he was so confused, he
didn't know which way to point his pecker.)

They'll probably have Michael Moore in a seat of prominence again at
their next convention and still not be able to agree on what the heck
happened.

I love how liberals want "every vote counted" except when the vote
doesn't go their way even when every aspect is stretched in their favor.
P-Didn't's rock-the-vote youth hit the snooze alarm one too many times
on Tuesday morning, and the weather was too bad for the welfare crowd to
get out in Ohio.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>the difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely
>>>assume the title for political expedience.
>
>
>>ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!
>
>
> Why's that, Bill? Afraid you might accidentally learn something?

Oh yes, Daniel. I fear knowledge and learning. Thinking hurts so much.
Oh **PLEASE** don't say anything to make me think. After all - I've
never considered these issues before.

Funny how *only* *you* can simultaneously understand what it is to be
gay and Christian/christian.

Ted was right about one thing: This issue is quite a dilemma for the
dems, especially with how it is obvious that scorched earth tactics are
going to be used by the "gay activists" regarding it over the next four
years. Yep - quite a political dilemma. You've got half the party
believing that, in order to be politically viable, they need to be more
centrist, and the other half going for an all-or-nothing extreme.
(Kerry's problem was that he tried to pretend to be both - an impossible
job for anybody, poor guy. Like the poster says, he was so confused, he
didn't know which way to point his pecker.)

They'll probably have Michael Moore in a seat of prominence again at
their next convention and still not be able to agree on what the heck
happened.

I love how liberals want "every vote counted" except when the vote
doesn't go their way even when every aspect is stretched in their favor.
P-Didn't's rock-the-vote youth hit the snooze alarm one too many times
on Tuesday morning, and the weather was too bad for the welfare crowd to
get out in Ohio.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

PEOPLE PLEASE, UNLESS YOU HAVE A HONDA, KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF HERE! DON'T
TRY FIGHTING IGNORANCE WITH IGNORANCE. REMEMBER THAT EVERYTIME THE US HAS
ISSUES, OUR CANADIAN DOLLAR GOES UP. I THINK THE SAME WITH THE AMOUNT OF
AMERICANS THAT DECIDED TO MIGRATE HERE.




"Peter" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>>
>>> Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.
>>
>> And this proves...what, now?
>>
>> DS
>
> That gays can be just as illogical as straights of course.
>
> Peter
>

PEOPLE PLEASE, UNLESS YOU HAVE A HONDA, KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF HERE! DON'T
TRY FIGHTING IGNORANCE WITH IGNORANCE. REMEMBER THAT EVERYTIME THE US HAS
ISSUES, OUR CANADIAN DOLLAR GOES UP. I THINK THE SAME WITH THE AMOUNT OF
AMERICANS THAT DECIDED TO MIGRATE HERE.




"Peter" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>>
>>> Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.
>>
>> And this proves...what, now?
>>
>> DS
>
> That gays can be just as illogical as straights of course.
>
> Peter
>

Abeness wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> That hardly means they hate homosexuals. Many states have helmet laws
>> also. I don't however go around saying that such states HATE
>> motorcycles. This is a pretty big stretch...
>
>
> I don't wish to argue the semantics of "hate": that isn't the point. You
> clearly aren't gay, or you wouldn't be comparing helmet laws that
> protect folks to a ban on gay marriage that prevents people from
> entering into the same social contracts with the same obligations and
> protections afforded heterosexuals by the institution of marriage. I
> don't happen to be gay, but I do recognize the injustice of imposing
> one's religious ideals on the American people. And the fact is that
> large numbers of those folks do hate gays: just observe the rhetoric and
> it's hard to miss.

I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree are
worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, but I
don't hate homosexuals.


Matt

Abeness wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> That hardly means they hate homosexuals. Many states have helmet laws
>> also. I don't however go around saying that such states HATE
>> motorcycles. This is a pretty big stretch...
>
>
> I don't wish to argue the semantics of "hate": that isn't the point. You
> clearly aren't gay, or you wouldn't be comparing helmet laws that
> protect folks to a ban on gay marriage that prevents people from
> entering into the same social contracts with the same obligations and
> protections afforded heterosexuals by the institution of marriage. I
> don't happen to be gay, but I do recognize the injustice of imposing
> one's religious ideals on the American people. And the fact is that
> large numbers of those folks do hate gays: just observe the rhetoric and
> it's hard to miss.

I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree are
worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, but I
don't hate homosexuals.


Matt