On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:01:51 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of
one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens
to be the mayor of my home town?

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/


No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the
associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play"
scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm


Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care
about a pedophile that not only used his government office for
cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for
'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get
lost because West is a conservative Republican?

Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has
nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away
from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in
the local news to events which are also occurring here.


Gee, so a couple gays getting married in San Francisco should be about
as unimportant as the mayor of Spokane, huh?


I was simply
not aware for what you were referring.


Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican
does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out
on them.


That's it? That's all you have to say about the subject? No diatribe
about how it diminishes the credibility of your own mayor? No sermon
on how his sexual perversions are a moral abomination? Instead you
refer to his homosexuality and pedophilia as "human flaws" when you
have consistently referred to such behavior in much stronger language?

Hey, it's not like I'm suprised -- it's ok to call Kerry a criminal
when there has been no trial; but Bush, who was tried and convicted of
a DUI, is guilty of nothing more than a "civil infraction". And all
the while it was -you- that said that anyone who breaks the law is a
criminal. So instead of condemning people in your own camp with your
own standards, you simply use softer words. How nice.

Liberal pedophile: guilty of a moral sin.
Conservative pedophile: victim of a human flaw.

You're a trip, Dave.


snip
All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and
computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been
much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun.


Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that
tech school you claimed to have attended?

Give me one good reason why I should tell you.


Because if you don't then your claim has no credibility, and I will be
reiterating that fact for as long as you post in this group.


Who does the majority party represent if not the majority?

Is this a loaded question?


Not at all. Bush and the Republicans ignored the voices of the vast
majority of Americans when they tried to meddle in the Shiavo case. If
they were not acting on behalf of the majority of Americans then what
was their motive? IOW, who does the majority party represent if not
the majority?


Where does the Constitution require, or
even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the
government?

Where does the Constitution require or even suggest that religious
influences should NOT play any role in the government?


You claimed that the Constitution included words that defined this
country to be a Christian state. Where does it say anything of the
sort?


How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights?

It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights".


That's absolutely correct, Dave.


It's matter of
tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the
Constitution.


The
government has no right to do such.


The government cannot prevent people from practicing their religion as
they see fit, even if their religion includes a definition of marriage
that's different than your's.


The only thing the government can
or should do is offer a civil union option, to provide gay couples the
same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples when
dealing with secular issues.


You can call it a "civil union" if you want. They can call it a
"marriage" if -they- want. That's -their- right. It's not -your- right
to prevent them from exercising -their- rights.


You, a big advocate for separation of church and state, should
understand where the line is drawn here. If you advocate that church
doctrine should not be infused into the workings of the government,
then the converse is also true. Otherwise you are practicing
hypocrisy.


I agree, the government should not impose upon any religion. How does
gay marriage impose government upon religion?

I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage
is not exclusive to religion. It may have been formally defined under
religion, but I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. Regardless, the
concept of marriage is not only secular but universal. And as I have
pointed out several times before, the Christian definition of marriage
is, at best, poorly defined.


I have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with
gay marriages.


You don't want homosexuals to be able to walk down the same street
that you do. You are a bigot.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----