Wonderings, ramblings, and chatter of a sometimes pissed, sometimes cheery chick
Published on April 12, 2004 By lone maiden In Politics
As we all know, there has been a lot of controversy lately over whether American states should gives gays and lesbians the right to marry, adopt, etc. George Dubya Bush strongly accepts the idea of there being a new law in the Constitution, one that states that the only marriage acceptable is between man and woman. Not a good idea, Mr. President. Now the gays and lesbians of the community refuse to vote for you.

Anyways, Mr. President says that it violates the "sacred covenant with God" (Galatians). Maybe for you, but not for me. It would be a commitment between me and my partner. Isn't there a strict law not to combine church with government anyways? The atheists, anarchists, agnostics wouldn't like that...

"It's a threat to marriage" Who's? Not mine, or yours for that matter.

"Homosexuality is unnatural" I don't think so.. Many scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom. Ever heard of lesbian seagulls?

Bottom line- To those religious people out there: why not hate the sin, not the sinner? I would have thought that a religious president such as Bush would have opened that moral up already. For didn't Jesus himself say it?

Comments (Page 6)
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 
on Apr 13, 2004
First off, the World Wide Web and the internet, though often used synonimously, are not the same thing. Jebidia, the book of Leviticus also tells me not to wear cloth of two different materials, which pretty much rules out nearly all modern clothing, since, and this really cracks me up, the tag is nearly always a different material than the rest of the shirt. Now my Rabbi friends assure me that this counts as "two different materials", so you're breaking Levitical Law.

Cheers
on Apr 13, 2004
And apparently you live in India Sir Peter, since Maxwell Industries produces Women's undergarments there.

Cheers
on Apr 13, 2004
and, I could live in China doesn't make me Chinese does it?


no, but I wonder why glorious England wouldn't have been a suitable place for his discovery... might have had something to do with the resources in the States...
on Apr 13, 2004
England is full of jealous peasants who begrudge a chap success that's why, I lived in New York for most of the 80's for this very reason.

You must understand that when i talk of England, I talk of upperclass England not the great unwashed that have dragged our once great nation into the gutter.The American people are more welcoming to high achievers as they are more ambitious than the working class British urchins
on Apr 13, 2004
The internet, originally "ARPANET" began as a US defense contract:

Link

The site talks more about how Gore didn't invent the internet than the development of the internet, but way back in 1967 the US military was interested in a "networking system".

Cheers
on Apr 13, 2004
You said i used the Internet (WWW) everyday thanks to Americans because they "invented everything i use", FACT the WWW was invented by an Englishman. I don't use a 1967 US military system to access the WWW do i?

As you conveniently ignored this last time i will say it again: I know whose orders you are following Jeblackstar. I know which clique you are part of - did your master not dare challenge me himself or are you just trying to impress him?
on Apr 13, 2004
It is quite funny how one could have gotten so uptight about grammar, the Internet, and which nationality is right.. I personally think that it doesn't matter how the Internet got started. I'm just happy its even here. All nations are the same; the only thing that divides us are the distance and ignorance level our country has.
on Apr 13, 2004
You said i used the Internet (WWW) everyday thanks to Americans because they "invented everything i use",


I didn't, someone else did. The internet was developed by Americans, the World Wide Web was developed by an Englishman. So the Americans are the innovators, the British just meddle with things.

As you conveniently ignored this last time i will say it again: I know whose orders you are following Jeblackstar. I know which clique you are part of - did your master not dare challenge me himself or are you just trying to impress him?


I am part of no clique, fraud, I am my own master, and I challenge you myself. Your "famous ancestors" do not exist, your headlines do not exist, there is no missing persons report for your first wife, nor obituaries for any of your family members. Your "company" is chaired and CEOed by two Indian men. You are a fraud.

Cheers
on Apr 13, 2004
My company is privately owned and is based in the Cayman Islands. If you would like to contact the relevant authorities there then my company details will be readily available to you. Maybe you should search for the thread entitled Billionaires Website, all of my doubters admitted that they could not PROVE i was a "fraud"

You have no knowledge of how International business works, you only seem to know what you read on the internet. You spend hours searching for records of me and then you become aggressive because my lawyers have done such a good job in protecting me. You have not offered any proof that i am a "fraud" and even if i was why is it so important to you? I have made a big impact on your life whether you admit it or not - now why don't you go and search on google for me just one more time.

This started out as light hearted banter on my part but you have insulted me whilst i am grieving for my late wife, I will never forget this. I suggest that you offer proof i am a fraud (and that does actually mean proof not your opinion) or retract your accusation I have never defrauded anyone in my life and find this slander on my good name most serious.

General Sir Peter James Henry Maxwell IV

on Apr 13, 2004
So, what's next......what if brothers wanted to marry, would you be okay with that? Or what if brother and sister wanted to marry? What if a man wants to legally have sex with a 4 year old girl, is that okay as well? It is not merely a religious issue, but a social and cultural tradition/belief that has stood throughout all of history. Why should we allow something that was considered a mental disease just a few decades ago to be endorsed and promulgated in our society? Yes, gay marriage does "hurt" marriage. It redefines it for entire generations to come and pulls away from a standard of behavior and living that has existed ALWAYS. The problem is that the Gay and Lesbian community wants to argue from a "fairness" standpoint, but don't like the other side of the coin when it is applied logically. Homosexuality is not right just because a few decide to start accepting it. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Charles Manson thinks he is right......Hitler thought he was right......would you side with them as well?
on Apr 13, 2004
Mike - I don't particularly like poofters but you can't equate two grown men or women being in a relationship with an adult having sex with a 4 year old girl, that is ridiculous old chap
on Apr 13, 2004
Dear Mike,

How excactly does it offend your marriage? Is your wife having an affair with another woman? Is that why you are so bitter?

My dear man, you cannot compare two people in love with a man having sex with a four-year-old. Frankly, I don't give a damn about gender; I believe in loving a person. I cannot stand and don't see why some people would be as close-minded as you, to reject a population that is growing rapidly in our society today.

Oh, and about the Adolf Hitler/ Manson comment? That was a pathetic attempt to try and compare me with them.

Sincerely,

Sine Summer
on Apr 13, 2004
Mike - I don't particularly like poofters but you can't equate two grown men or women being in a relationship with an adult having sex with a 4 year old girl, that is ridiculous old chap


But animals have sex with their young, which means it's all natural.
on Apr 13, 2004
Were you being sarcastic, Super Baby?
on Apr 13, 2004
Well, I've seen my dog try to hump her children a number of times, and they are no older than 14 (in dog years).
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7