Political Crossfire Forums

[ikari]

Mormonsstone wrote: In this modern society where Homosexuality is largely accepted in society, many people feel that it is their god-given right to exist And I must say I agree: Everyone put on this earth has a reason, everyone put on this earth has a God-given right to exist.

The Christian religion (along with almost every other religion as well), is one of the few institutions left in the country willing to speak out against homosexuality, despite the constant bombardment by a largely Liberal American society. This arises the question by many atheists and gays: why? The religion of love seems to hate these people although they are humans just like us!

Before I continue, I must adress that the fact that Christians HATE Homosexuality is an absloute farce. By no means are homosexuals shunned in the Christian church. While homosexuality is considered a sin, so is every other human activity on the planet these days. Homosexuals are forgiven in our religion, just like any other sin.

But, while modern homosexuals are accepted (and accepted as we aren't trying to kill them or exclude them from the church), the Christian church does not wish to see Homosexuality expand as to influence the younger generations. As an example...when a gay couple grows up and adopts a child, that child will not only be exposed to ridicule from having "Two Daddies" or "Two Mommies", but that child, especially if they are born straight (because I believe gays are born that way) will have to witness their homosexual parents and may be traumatizing to a child whom is straight oriented. Allowing Gay Marriage in the Church's eyes will lead to a proliferation of homosexual culture. In the church's eyes, this will lead to a decay of western society. It is written in the Bible that the cities of Soddom and Gimmorah were destroyed for reasons like perveted sex (which the bible deems homosexual sex as) and other so-called "perverted" issues. Whether or not you choose to believe or follow the Church's stance is your own choice, but this is the church's reason for the way it thinks, and people who follow it tend to think similarly. So next time you think about calling christians biggots for this belief, you have to realize that it's their religion that makes them think this. Why do you say it's ok that muslims blow themselves up because "their religion says too and its not their fault?" Why does it apply to them and not us? While there are many areas of religious dogma that are utterly rediculous and sound proposeterous, you can never eliminate religion from people's lives, so we need to learn to compromise, and Social Contracts granted by the government that grant the equilavent of marriage rights seems to be the only logical solution. Religion has no problem allowing gays to do as they wish, as long as a religious term is not used. We are a forgiving religion, but we also have our own rules, and the government, along with the people of the country, need to respect our rules, just as you'd respect any other opinion.

This is fine, but this is exactly why you can't do any thing about it. Your entire argument is built on a religious argument, and that's fine. But marriage, as it is now, is a legal contract and in the land of man's law; gods have no place. No one says you have to like it or accept it; you may talk out against it all you want. However, when you use the government to enforce your religious views we have a problem. If you want the real solution, it's simple. Completely remove the government from the problem and leave marriage to the chuches. But so long as there is the marriage license, government is involved. So long as government is involved, we may not be making our decisions solely on religious arguments.

[Dookiestix]

Ameriman wrote: George W Bush wrote: Mormonsstone wrote:
(because I believe gays are born that way)

This is the crux of your dilemma isnt it?

How can you, as a Christian, disapprove of the way someone is born?

Isnt that an activity of God? To let life have this SINFUL aspect?

or, are gays an abomination to you? work of the devil?

I'll close by saying Christans hardly have room to preach. History has shown how intolerant faith is. But, Christianty has its historical pick of the worlds most vicious people. From witch burners to pedophiles.

It's at this point that I take exception...

There are "witch burners" (wife stoners, Apostate killers, rape victim executions) and pedophiles in Islam too....why single out Christianity as if it is somehow worse? What do you have against Christianity to make such an off handed and obviously biased statement?
I think Christianity is being somewhat "singled out" here because it is in the title of the thread. Therefore, one should stay on topic.

And I agree with George W Bush (god, that sounds wierd), in that there is plenty of intolerance in the Christian faith when it comes to homosexuality. There is also a strong condescending tone that comes from the pulpit by those who are seen by millions around the world. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell espouse their "Christian" beliefs to their flock in the hopes of firing up the masses before election day. And let's be clear here; Christianity has played a VERY strong role in our government and the Bush administration, and fake Christians like Bush and DeLay have used the faith to manipulate the masses and stir up their base. When Pat Robertson blames homosexuality for 9/11, then all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. And the lack of a blanket condemnation of these neo Christian zealots from the Christian community as a whole is telling unto itself.

Are there those on this forum who honestly believe that the presumed "sins" of homosexuality are part of the reasons for 9/11?

Honestly?

I thought so...

[Tracker]

Mormonsstone wrote: In this modern society where Homosexuality is largely accepted in society, many people feel that it is their god-given right to exist And I must say I agree: Everyone put on this earth has a reason, everyone put on this earth has a God-given right to exist.

The Christian religion (along with almost every other religion as well), is one of the few institutions left in the country willing to speak out against homosexuality, despite the constant bombardment by a largely Liberal American society. This arises the question by many atheists and gays: why? The religion of love seems to hate these people although they are humans just like us!

Before I continue, I must adress that the fact that Christians HATE Homosexuality is an absloute farce. By no means are homosexuals shunned in the Christian church. While homosexuality is considered a sin, so is every other human activity on the planet these days. Homosexuals are forgiven in our religion, just like any other sin.

But, while modern homosexuals are accepted (and accepted as we aren't trying to kill them or exclude them from the church), the Christian church does not wish to see Homosexuality expand as to influence the younger generations. As an example...when a gay couple grows up and adopts a child, that child will not only be exposed to ridicule from having "Two Daddies" or "Two Mommies", but that child, especially if they are born straight (because I believe gays are born that way) will have to witness their homosexual parents and may be traumatizing to a child whom is straight oriented. Allowing Gay Marriage in the Church's eyes will lead to a proliferation of homosexual culture. In the church's eyes, this will lead to a decay of western society. It is written in the Bible that the cities of Soddom and Gimmorah were destroyed for reasons like perveted sex (which the bible deems homosexual sex as) and other so-called "perverted" issues. Whether or not you choose to believe or follow the Church's stance is your own choice, but this is the church's reason for the way it thinks, and people who follow it tend to think similarly. So next time you think about calling christians biggots for this belief, you have to realize that it's their religion that makes them think this. Why do you say it's ok that muslims blow themselves up because "their religion says too and its not their fault?" Why does it apply to them and not us? While there are many areas of religious dogma that are utterly rediculous and sound proposeterous, you can never eliminate religion from people's lives, so we need to learn to compromise, and Social Contracts granted by the government that grant the equilavent of marriage rights seems to be the only logical solution. Religion has no problem allowing gays to do as they wish, as long as a religious term is not used. We are a forgiving religion, but we also have our own rules, and the government, along with the people of the country, need to respect our rules, just as you'd respect any other opinion.

('you' is figurative)

All words are 'religious terms.' Even your use of 'atheist' is just an concocted hateful religious term against 'not your kind of people' whom do not goose-step in lock-step with your hatred for not thinking, acting, talking, saying, doing exactly as you.

I recommend, personally, to stop perversley analyzing crotches in CrotchWorship; it's nothing more than the perverse fixation of one's own inner-fantasies voodoo-projected on others. "Hmmm ... what they doing with their crotches?" (drool). And it's gross. And that mind-set is THRUST into the faces of the PUBLIC AT LARGE.

I also recommend monogomy, but some people aren't. (OnEdit: However, using) the philosophy of CONDITIONED-love to hate others after perversley sniffing their crotch, I'd throw them in dungeons, cast them out, rail against them in public, CrotchWorship, in so-called 'positive-goodness,' labelling all whom do not goose-step in lock-step with my perverse crotch sniffing as 'negatives' to hammer (them) ruthlessly to my self-made 'positive-cross-sign' in FigurativeCarpentry. And it's GROSS. (so, I AM NONE OF THAT).

I also recommend celibacy male or female or otherwise, until a monogomous relationship is found. But that's my personal philosophy. I do not judge others because they may or may not agree, nor ask them to drop their pants so I can study their crotch history in perverse fascination of ANATOMICAL DIFFERENCES DISCRIMINATION.

Any religion that claims 'we accept' from one side of it's mouth while from the other claiming 'we do not accept' -- based on anatomical differences and crotches -- is HatefulReligiousSupremacy, concocting excuses to hammer others nonstop in FigurativeCarpentry, nailed with the points of hypocritical forked-tongues. That is why I always say, "Heaven does not discriminate -- YOU DO."

The tale of two cities you mention, is the example of HowNotToBe, because it concocts excuses to HOLOCAUST by HatefulReligiousSupremacists. It's a very simple lesson in NegativePositive-ism, the formula for death/hate/deathworship/holocaust, that needs ZERO analyzation.

============
OnEdit: clarifications/corrections/typos FIXED above in parens "(_)"; except the phrase, " 'you' is figurative' which was already in parens.

Ignore misspellings/typos/sentence-structure as these are concocted excuses by so-called 'positives' to hate 'negatives,' ignoring messages to voodoo-project supremacist hate against messengers in FigurativeCarpentry.

[Dookiestix]

ikari wrote: Mormonsstone wrote: In this modern society where Homosexuality is largely accepted in society, many people feel that it is their god-given right to exist And I must say I agree: Everyone put on this earth has a reason, everyone put on this earth has a God-given right to exist.

The Christian religion (along with almost every other religion as well), is one of the few institutions left in the country willing to speak out against homosexuality, despite the constant bombardment by a largely Liberal American society. This arises the question by many atheists and gays: why? The religion of love seems to hate these people although they are humans just like us!

Before I continue, I must adress that the fact that Christians HATE Homosexuality is an absloute farce. By no means are homosexuals shunned in the Christian church. While homosexuality is considered a sin, so is every other human activity on the planet these days. Homosexuals are forgiven in our religion, just like any other sin.

But, while modern homosexuals are accepted (and accepted as we aren't trying to kill them or exclude them from the church), the Christian church does not wish to see Homosexuality expand as to influence the younger generations. As an example...when a gay couple grows up and adopts a child, that child will not only be exposed to ridicule from having "Two Daddies" or "Two Mommies", but that child, especially if they are born straight (because I believe gays are born that way) will have to witness their homosexual parents and may be traumatizing to a child whom is straight oriented. Allowing Gay Marriage in the Church's eyes will lead to a proliferation of homosexual culture. In the church's eyes, this will lead to a decay of western society. It is written in the Bible that the cities of Soddom and Gimmorah were destroyed for reasons like perveted sex (which the bible deems homosexual sex as) and other so-called "perverted" issues. Whether or not you choose to believe or follow the Church's stance is your own choice, but this is the church's reason for the way it thinks, and people who follow it tend to think similarly. So next time you think about calling christians biggots for this belief, you have to realize that it's their religion that makes them think this. Why do you say it's ok that muslims blow themselves up because "their religion says too and its not their fault?" Why does it apply to them and not us? While there are many areas of religious dogma that are utterly rediculous and sound proposeterous, you can never eliminate religion from people's lives, so we need to learn to compromise, and Social Contracts granted by the government that grant the equilavent of marriage rights seems to be the only logical solution. Religion has no problem allowing gays to do as they wish, as long as a religious term is not used. We are a forgiving religion, but we also have our own rules, and the government, along with the people of the country, need to respect our rules, just as you'd respect any other opinion.

This is fine, but this is exactly why you can't do any thing about it. Your entire argument is built on a religious argument, and that's fine. But marriage, as it is now, is a legal contract and in the land of man's law; gods have no place. No one says you have to like it or accept it; you may talk out against it all you want. However, when you use the government to enforce your religious views we have a problem. If you want the real solution, it's simple. Completely remove the government from the problem and leave marriage to the chuches. But so long as there is the marriage license, government is involved. So long as government is involved, we may not be making our decisions solely on religious arguments.
Here's a great idea; go to a Church which is actually accepting of your homosexuality and faith, and where you can get legally married. Be part of a dynamic congregation that shows no bigotry or prejudice, and allow the government to legally sanction your marriage. As it is, the problem isn't so much government getting in the way of religion; religion has gotten to cozy with government, ESPECIALLY the neoChristians who represent the dwindling Republican base of voters, and who have had unyielding influence in the Bush white house since the USSC placed him there.

Because Christianity has been more entrenched in government then ever before, corporations have become beholding to the pocketbooks of the Republican religious elite. The United Church of Christ had an ad which stated that they are accepting of ALL sexual pursuasions, and inviting anyone of faith to be part of their church. The reasons for CBS and NBC to ban the ad was a cop-out:

Quote: "Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."
Now, if this isn't corporate religion dictating their beliefs on national television, I don't know what is. And when one refers to the "rules" of Christianity (whatever the hell that really means), look no further than that fundmentalist corporate influence and manipulation by fake Christians like DeLay and Bush who are referees in this fight for what true Christian beliefs should be.

Is a devote Christian homosexual who loves God and Jesus not playing by the "rules?" I'd say it's the fake Christians which make up the Republican Party and who pander to their Christian fundamentalist minority who aren't playing by the "rules." Instead, they are war mongering hypocrites who have no clue about the true teachings of Jesus.

Those "rules" are merely self-prescribed, and unyielding in times of social change, IMHO...

[bob.appleyard]

Mormonsstone wrote: Quote: Christianity doesn’t "own" marriage.

Tell me then, where do you think it originated? Just out of thin air? This country used to be all-christian, that's when marriage and marriage packages came about.

Marriage easily predates Christianity, it's an institution which is common to many cultures. It wasn't until the 12th Century that it even became a sacrament, requiring a priest to conduct; before that, all that was required was public recognition and the assent of all parties involved.

The Church did regulate it a little, by specifying the required degrees of separation. Initially 8, but Gregory VII lowered that to 4 (I think) because it was impossible to keep track of that kind of information (no census records), and it was open to abuse: when the current wife got boring, or when a better one came along, the husband "discovered" that wifey 1 was within the prohibited degrees of separation, leading to an annullment.

[Ellron]

bob.appleyard wrote: Mormonsstone wrote: Quote: Christianity doesn’t "own" marriage.

Tell me then, where do you think it originated? Just out of thin air? This country used to be all-christian, that's when marriage and marriage packages came about.

Marriage easily predates Christianity, it's an institution which is common to many cultures. It wasn't until the 12th Century that it even became a sacrament, requiring a priest to conduct; before that, all that was required was public recognition and the assent of all parties involved.

The Church did regulate it a little, by specifying the required degrees of separation. Initially 8, but Gregory VII lowered that to 4 (I think) because it was impossible to keep track of that kind of information (no census records), and it was open to abuse: when the current wife got boring, or when a better one came along, the husband "discovered" that wifey 1 was within the prohibited degrees of separation, leading to an annullment.

OWNED!!

[shoeless]

Mormonsstone wrote: I never said that. I simply noted that the church cannot be told by the government or anyone else that they must be allowed to marry gays if they do not wish it.

This is the ridiculous straw man that right-wingers always set up, so they can knock down when it is shown that they have no valid arguement on this issue.

No one ever said any church anywhere would ever be forced to marry anyone. If I and my fiance go to a synagogue and ask the Rabbi to marry us, he will ask if we are Jewish. When we tell him no, he will refuse to marry us, and tell us to find a church of our own faith to marry us. The government will take no action in such a case.

Likewise, a minister of my own church may refuse to marry us if he feels that the marriage is not a good idea for whatever reason. Again, the government will not force him to do so.

The same applies to gay marriage. A gay couple would have to find a church, synagogue, ect. which would be willing to perform the service, as the government will not force any to do so.

So stop bring up that stupid old straw man to knock down.

[Dookiestix]

shoeless wrote: Mormonsstone wrote: I never said that. I simply noted that the church cannot be told by the government or anyone else that they must be allowed to marry gays if they do not wish it.

This is the ridiculous straw man that right-wingers always set up, so they can knock down when it is shown that they have no valid arguement on this issue.

No one ever said any church anywhere would ever be forced to marry anyone. If I and my fiance go to a synagogue and ask the Rabbi to marry us, he will ask if we are Jewish. When we tell him no, he will refuse to marry us, and tell us to find a church of our own faith to marry us. The government will take no action in such a case.

Likewise, a minister of my own church may refuse to marry us if he feels that the marriage is not a good idea for whatever reason. Again, the government will not force him to do so.

The same applies to gay marriage. A gay couple would have to find a church, synagogue, ect. which would be willing to perform the service, as the government will not force any to do so.

So stop bring up that stupid old straw man to knock down.
Thanx for reinforcing my point. It's all about going to the Church of your choice, rather than forcing your personal morals and beliefs down the throats of others by using your interpretation of your religion for your own self-serving purposes. The "Church" is a relative term, but coming from some on the right, it is the absolutism of their personal convictions which drives them to offer up blanket condemnations when it comes to gay marriage. The government cannot force anyone to marry, but they can recognize those who wish to marry, be they straight or gay.

It is the individual church itself which dictates a certain prescribed set of morals and ethics, not the U.S. government.

[shoeless]

Dookiestix wrote: The government cannot force anyone to marry, but they can recognize those who wish to marry, be they straight or gay.

It is the individual church itself which dictates a certain prescribed set of morals and ethics, not the U.S. government.

Exactly. Don't you love how these regressive right-wingers flip reality on it's head. They try to make it sound as if they are protecting the rights of the church by keeping the government from forcing the church to marry gays, even though no has suggested doing any such thing.

In reality, they are infringing on the right of the church to marry whomever they wish.

Once again, as on most issues, you have to ask yourself, are the right-wingers playing dumb in order to obfuscate the issue, or are they genuine?

[Vakten]

Being atheist does not automatically make you pro-gay btw to the original poster.

In my opinion, gay people asking for marriage rights are as wrong as hetero people getting marriage rights.

Marriage is a religious institution, and the government should not recognize marriage at all.

Basically put...gay people are asking for something that even strait people should not have in the eyes of government.

What if you choose to be single? Why do married people get benefits that are not open to single people to get? (there are over 2000 benefits the government gives to married people. I'll find that link later.)

So in my eyes, two wrongs do not make it right.

I cannot support the gay movement until the gay movement asks for the correct thing...and that is the removal of marriage as a government institution.

[cool_chick]

Ameriman wrote: George W Bush wrote: Mormonsstone wrote:
(because I believe gays are born that way)

This is the crux of your dilemma isnt it?

How can you, as a Christian, disapprove of the way someone is born?

Isnt that an activity of God? To let life have this SINFUL aspect?

or, are gays an abomination to you? work of the devil?

I'll close by saying Christans hardly have room to preach. History has shown how intolerant faith is. But, Christianty has its historical pick of the worlds most vicious people. From witch burners to pedophiles.

It's at this point that I take exception...

There are "witch burners" (wife stoners, Apostate killers, rape victim executions) and pedophiles in Islam too....why single out Christianity as if it is somehow worse? What do you have against Christianity to make such an off handed and obviously biased statement?

I dunno, why don't we talk about people living off their government in Africa? Why don't we talk about the live monkey brains that are served for dinner in some countries? Because it doesn't affect us. If we're talking about gay marriage, why would we be talking about gay marriage in Zimbabwe? Who cares? We're talking about gay marriage in the context of America, no? Do you see masses of Buddists trying to change the constitution in America? Why on earth would we talk about Buddists or Muslims in this context? Answer: it's not relevant to the conversation.

[Nico]

moved

[cap'n queasy]

Should be moved it to the society forum. This discussion is not about religion.

It is about society.

[Ameriman]

cool_chick wrote: Ameriman wrote: George W Bush wrote: Mormonsstone wrote:
(because I believe gays are born that way)

This is the crux of your dilemma isnt it?

How can you, as a Christian, disapprove of the way someone is born?

Isnt that an activity of God? To let life have this SINFUL aspect?

or, are gays an abomination to you? work of the devil?

I'll close by saying Christans hardly have room to preach. History has shown how intolerant faith is. But, Christianty has its historical pick of the worlds most vicious people. From witch burners to pedophiles.

It's at this point that I take exception...

There are "witch burners" (wife stoners, Apostate killers, rape victim executions) and pedophiles in Islam too....why single out Christianity as if it is somehow worse? What do you have against Christianity to make such an off handed and obviously biased statement?

I dunno, why don't we talk about people living off their government in Africa? Why don't we talk about the live monkey brains that are served for dinner in some countries? Because it doesn't affect us. If we're talking about gay marriage, why would we be talking about gay marriage in Zimbabwe? Who cares? We're talking about gay marriage in the context of America, no? Do you see masses of Buddists trying to change the constitution in America? Why on earth would we talk about Buddists or Muslims in this context? Answer: it's not relevant to the conversation.

Leave no chance to stick your nose into a thread without reading the thread eh?

I was responding to:

Quote: I'll close by saying Christans hardly have room to preach. History has shown how intolerant faith is. But, Christianty has its historical pick of the worlds most vicious people. From witch burners to pedophiles."

What exactly does that have to do with Gay Marriage?

Where was America mentioned? As a matter of fact...he stated "Christianity has it's historical pick of the WORLDS most vicious people.

So, if you feel it is necessary to jump into the conversation to try and make someone look as if you've bested them I suggest you read the conversation. It will save you from the embarrasment you are now feeling.

[cool_chick]

LMAO

Ameriman=woe is me.

I feel no "embarrassment," I have no reason to be embarrassed. However, I feel an immense amount of laughter brewing at your perpetuatal "victim" stance.

Get a grip. If you're confident in yourself and your faith and not so damn insecure, you would not need do to the "woe is me" victim crap.

May I suggest a "managing your emotions" course to point you in the right direction?

[Ameriman]

cool_chick wrote: LMAO

Ameriman=woe is me.

I feel no "embarrassment," I have no reason to be embarrassed. However, I feel an immense amount of laughter brewing at your perpetuatal "victim" stance.

Get a grip. If you're confident in yourself and your faith and not so damn insecure, you would not need do to the "woe is me" victim crap.

May I suggest a "managing your emotions" course to point you in the right direction?

What are you smoking and why are you trolling? Woe is me?

Look, contribute something tangible and get on topic or...shhhhhhhh.....

[SgtCrom]

Are any of you guys married?

Variant, excellent posts.

M-Stone, all I can say is that nobody is forcing you to watch "Will & Grace" or rent "Brokeback Mountain". I don't see what the fuss is all about.

Marriage is obviously a legal institution as well as a religious one. There are reasons for this which would be crystal clear to anyone who's ever had to manage a household or look out for anyone besides themselves.

As regards the children of gay couples: allowing gays to legally marry isn't going to change that. Gay couples are already adopting kids or having their own with donated sperm. Go David Crosby!

But here's the most important point: It's THEIR kid, not yours. If the child was adopted, having a couple of loving parents who are gay would still have to be a step up from the orphanage. If the child is biological, then at least one of the mothers GAVE BIRTH to the child. Not your business, dude. Not any church's business either, really.

[Tracker]

Ameriman wrote: cool_chick wrote: LMAO

Ameriman=woe is me.

I feel no "embarrassment," I have no reason to be embarrassed. However, I feel an immense amount of laughter brewing at your perpetuatal "victim" stance.

Get a grip. If you're confident in yourself and your faith and not so damn insecure, you would not need do to the "woe is me" victim crap.

May I suggest a "managing your emotions" course to point you in the right direction?

What are you smoking and why are you trolling? Woe is me?

Look, contribute something tangible and get on topic or...shhhhhhhh.....

Well, Cool_Chick's post is easily understandable. It requires dot_connection skills, instead of literalist tunneling, and 'Ameriman,' you have them.

But I'm defending or accusing anyone here. The ad hom is annoying.

Mormonstone wrote: ]We are a forgiving religion, but we also have our own rules, and the government, along with the people of the country, need to respect our rules, just as you'd respect any other opinion.

That's what Ossama just said! HatefulReligiousSupremacy, by any name, sect, denomination, cult, religion, version, flavor, SAME THING.

That's what the DEFENSIVE ACTION (GlobalWarOnTerror) is all about. Because those words are TERRORIZING THREATS AGAINST THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT.

[Tracker]

Vatken and Dookiestix wrote very interesting thoughts.

The 'institution of marriage' is a religious practice FORCED against ThePeople's governments. The same religious practices that HATE all whom do not goose-step in lock-step with their perverse CrotchWorship, and discriminate through exactly that.

Like this: "We're married under our god, and you aren't so you're subhuman! Reform, or be crucified in FigurativeCarpentry, hammered ruthlessly as 'negatives' to our 'positive-cross-signs' in so-called 'positive-godly-goodness!"

And that's where President Bush's term "Evil-doer" comes from EXACTLY, because it's HatefulReligiousSupremacy, and there is no place for it in government or society at all unless you are a Terrorist crusading for Death/DeathWorship/FinalBattles/Global-extinction events.

I wrote several articles on 'unions.' The current statistics on marriage are horrid. Who would want that? I think Vatken and Dookie have valid points regarding the challenge of religious marriage as a government-sanctioned event. My position has always been quite clear: unconditional-love is about uniting, not dividing by discriminating against 'not your kind of people' after sniffing their crotches in perversions of domination-issues.

There are varying degrees of unions, between friends, co-workers, companies, states, families, lovers, and even groups of people that live apart but love and care for each other. You perverts just want to grant SEX LICENSES in the molestive practice of CrotchWorship, so you can sniff crotches and know exactly who does what with their so-called 'privates.'

[Tracker]

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini
Hero!

This man, at risk to himself, even though it hurts, has just saved the lives of many.

What are so-called 'positive-godly-people' doing in return? FigurativeCarpentry, hating him as a 'negative' to ruthlessly hammer him to their so-called 'positive-cross-signs,' the merciless CrossOfShame, in so-called 'positive-goodness,' exercising their nonstop ADDICTION TO HATE.

And that's why I wrote the EquationOfLife, to HEAL it, to heal the hate, to HEAL THE WORLD.

Quote: A powerful Vatican cardinal who nearly became pope last year has taken the radical position of saying it might be okay to use a condom -- but only with your spouse, and only if your spouse has AIDS, and only if you haven't caught the disease yet.

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini's comments are seen by Vatican experts as being crazily liberal, because the official Holy See rule is that condoms can never be used.
http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/04/condoms_for_cat.php

Meanwhile, the 'official proclomated PROscription' is DEATH and HATE for the kids born into misery and grief NEEDLESSLY, and the adults whom use their crotches without being perversley examined and hated for having them -- not to mention the cascade of debt forced upon all others because of it.

=================
OnEdit: fixed BBCode
OnEdit: fixed pic link -- sorry, Cardinal Martini, my copy-buffer captured the wrong one and I was careless. I support your efforts, sir.