![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - February 27 2004 : 7:27:51 PM
|
Securemann, I respect your quoting of Scripture and acknowledge that both of these verses talk about sex between same-sex individuals as an "abomination." I won't get into a debate about Romans (written by the Apostle Paul, not spoken by Jesus Christ) but I will just offer this point about Leviticus. Leviticus is mainly a listing of laws, believed to be given by God to Moses to direct the organization of Israel's worship, daily life, government, military, etc.
The problem with taking too seriously any injunction of Leviticus as being binding on society today is that MANY of the laws given in the book would seem ridiculous or downright barbaric to us today. Examples:
"You are to detest all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales." (Lev. 10-11). Namely, shellfish. Many observant Jews do not eat shellfish, but if we followed the letter of the law, observant Christians would have to turn down lobster, clams and oysters.
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Lev. 19:27) Again, observed by very Orthodox Jews but not by many Christian men.
There are injunctions against getting tattoos, rules about how women must act during their "time of uncleanliness" (time of the month), injunctions against the crippled and the lame approaching the altar of God, and injunctions to kill those who engage in forbidden sex acts (including same sex relations) and prostitution.
I'm not knocking Leviticus or challenging your interpretation of it, just presenting the history of the book and what it was used for in the times of the early Israelites. When we get into talking about injunctions from such a book, there are some who would challenge the validity of Christians observing one injunction (against same sex union for instance) but ignoring all the others. There was no picking and choosing for the early Israelites, and as many of the laws in Leviticus are not even practiced by many Jews today, it would be hard to justify using them to determine Christian values. Just some arguments I've heard regarding Leviticus.
The injunction in Romans, meanwhile, becomes problematic to those who interpret the foundations of New Testament Christian belief to be based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ himself never spoke directly about the issue of same sex relations, although interestingly enough he did preach on divorce. Some interpret Paul's injunctions about sex to not be valid, as he is the same person who wrote the guidelines for women not to speak in church, to cover their hair, etc. etc.
Just offering some perspectives on Scripture I've gained over the years...NOT by any means questioning how individual Christians and Jews interpret them.
Christina |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
report to moderator  |
|
|
Oneida
Pathfinder
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
February 07 2004
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 7:34:06 PM
|
| Homosexuality is wrong period. God makes it clear in his word how he feels about the subject. End of debate. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 8:21:59 PM
|
| Christina,You are correct about the O.T laws.They were mostly dietary and disciplinary in scope and were abolished by Christ in the N.T.The MORAL aspect of the law was never abolished,for example:sodomy.As for St.Paul,he was personally chosen by Christ in the Book of Acts and he preached accordingly.Remember,Jesus was God from all eternity before he became man.He placed judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah and I doubt very much that he would have been for sodomy when he made his appearance as Man in the N.T.Not only sodomy,but also adultery,fornication,and all other deviant sexual acts. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 8:31:20 PM
|
| We need to distinguish between Moral Law and Disciplinary Law like head coverings eating meat on Fridays and rituals which involved cleaning,etc.The Moral aspect does not change like sexual behavior. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 9:37:11 PM
|
| If you don't care for St.Paul you can go to St.Jude 1:7.This definitely states why Sodom and Gomorrah was leveled.I think Jesus made it perfectly clear on what he thought about a bond as only being between a man and a woman in Matthew 19:4-7.I think if he had also condoned same sex bonds he would have included his thoughts about it in these verses. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 9:59:52 PM
|
My butt.
It was getting a bit sore up there on the fence.
Sarge needn't have worried, though. There was plenty of room.
And the view was excellent. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - February 28 2004 : 06:52:38 AM
|
Two brothers I grew up with & was/am best of friends with ... GAY.
A painting - a wedding gift - adorning my living room wall ... painted by a friend who is ... GAY.
An old buddy who roamed this very board [seems gone now] ... GAY.
One of the most sympathetic of my co-workers during our Sophia crisis ... GAY.
The list goes on ...
Point - Love the person; despise the act. Marriage just doesn't cut it and makes a mockery of the Sacrament. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 28 2004 : 08:28:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by richfed
... Marriage just doesn't cut it and makes a mockery of the Sacrament.
Rich, marriage is a sacrament only within the context of one's religion.
Are you suggesting that the marriage of two people wed in a civil ceremony is not valid? |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 28 2004 : 3:09:14 PM
|
quote:
Rich, marriage is a sacrament only within the context of one's religion.
Are you suggesting that the marriage of two people wed in a civil ceremony is not valid?
Scott,
You are right that marriage is a sacrement within one's religion, but that our system of government has its roots in the Christian Faith. Like it or not, it is a fact, and those beliefs are that "Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman, as I have stated in an earlier post the benefits of such a union are many for society as a whole. The same cannot be said for a similar union between members of the same sex.
That being said, and as I have said before, people do have a right not to be asaulted, denied employment, housing, voting rights and other rights guarenteed under the Constitution, regardless of who or what they sleep with. As Sachem Rich put it so correctly, you can love the person and despise the act.
There are three members of my police department who are gay, and they have the same view as I; that being "Yes" to civil unions (like a business contract in PA), "No" to marriage and "No" to federal involvment.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 28 2004 : 3:16:04 PM
|
| What's the difference between a civil union and a civil marriage? |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
susquesus
Mad Hermit of the North Woods
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 03 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 28 2004 : 3:48:52 PM
|
"Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" defines the following term thus:
marriage 1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: A happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. 4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage, homosexual marriage. 5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
civil marriage, a marriage performed by a government official, as distinguished from a member of the clergy
the term civil union is not found in the dictionary
union 1. the act of uniting two or more things. 2. the state of being united. 3. something formed by uniting two or more things; combination. 4. a number of persons, states, etc., joined or associated together for some common purpose: student union; credit union 8. the act of uniting or an instanace of being united in marriage or sexual intercourse: an ideal union; an illicit union. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
daire
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 01 2004 : 12:59:02 PM
|
quote:
As to the WMD rut you are in, well, I have debunked that myth here, many times before
That doesn't mean I've read every single post made on these boards. If I did, I'd never get anything else done.
As to the issue at hand, I don't have to prove a point for what is my opinion and belief, which is that it would be discrimation (case law or whatever else aside). Making an Amendment only gives a restriction to their right to pursue happiness.
No one is going to change anyone's mind. Freedom of choice (whether it is the faith you choose or who you lay with) is one of the things this country is about. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. With that I'm done with this issue.
Peace.
|
daire
_____________________________________
"I do not call myself subject to much at all."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
chasis_22
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
April 19 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 02 2004 : 11:36:58 AM
|
Ok I was considering "sitting on the fence" but I can't hold my own opinion back. Being raised in a Pentecostal family I was taught from early childhood that gay couples were sinners. As I grew up and became friends with a few gay guys I realized that they were happy and didn't care what anyone thought about their sexual preferences. Our society has shunned many gays causing most to remain "in the closet".
Myself being as straight as they come, I do not understand the attraction to someone of the same sex. It actually makes me cringe to see them kiss. Again this is probably due to my upbringing. As far as legalizing the marraige between same sex couples, I voted that I was unsure. I do not know nor do I really have an interest in what the government says about it. If two people are happy together than who are we to say no they cannot be recognized as married? Then again our government is based on the bible....our founding fathers tried to set up a life based on the church. Ugh! This is enough to make anyone go crazy. Part of me says why not but another says no.
I guess I will leave my opinion at this....our government over many years has made our country one that is free and powerful. We face many conflicts but always remain a country of united people. I put my faith in God and our Country that the final decision of the gay marraige issue will be resolved in a way that will be best for the prosperity of our people. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 02 2004 : 12:29:00 PM
|
Would a gay couple have the same legal rights if they were joined together in a civil union instead of a marriage? I am mainly thinking about tax laws, inheritance (if one of them should die), debts (if they should break up), etc...... 
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 02 2004 : 3:26:23 PM
|
Food for thought:
Whatever your position on gay marriage and that other issue-that-won't-go-away, abortion, I find the opinions on these issues that each political party takes to be very interesting. When it comes to these issues, both of our "grand old parties" take stands on them that tend to go against their traditional values. i.e. Republicans that lean toward conservatism particularly the conservative Christian right advocate for MORE government intervention in personal lives i.e. laws regarding sexuality, etc. when in its purest essence conservatism tends to rail against government intrusion into the personal. but without further ado, just an interesting column on this that came up in the Orlando Sentinel:
{Abortion, gay marriage show hypocrisy}<
(ARCHIVE ILLUSTRATION)<
By Peter A. Brown<
The Orlando Sentinel<
(KRT)<
A foolish consistency, observed one far smarter than I, is the hobgoblin of small minds.<
Without Ralph Waldo Emerson's seeming endorsement, the current hypocrisy from both ends of the political spectrum might make one wonder how many Americans with political opinions could claim even an average intellect.<
It is almost entertaining these days to watch true believers on either side of the ideological spectrum squirm to square their philosophy with their politics.<
Of course, the emerging change in how the two parties and their supporters view key issues stems from each side evaluating how its views play in public opinion, both nationally and on a regional basis.<
The ideological song and dance over the two most vexing lifestyle issues _ abortion and gay marriage _ are perhaps the most instructive, although by no means the only, examples.<
Liberals, who instinctively see the federal government as their friend and national solutions to problems as their preferred forum for action, have vigorously grabbed the mantle of states' rights on the question of whether homosexual marriage should be allowed.<
That's because they know gay marriage will be banned if a federal constitutional amendment were passed that would overrule state decisions, be they legislative or judicial, that legitimized same-sex unions.<
Liberals would prefer for gay marriage to be available in the limited number of states where there is sufficient public support.<
For the first time they are chanting the mantra of states' rights after a lifetime of thinking that yokels outside the Beltway can't be trusted. They've switched their stance because they see this as the best deal available for gay voters, who are mostly in their political camp.<
Yet most of these same folks still cling to the notion of federal supremacy on the abortion issue.<
That is, they will fight to the political death to uphold the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that prevents states from banning and, in many cases, limiting a woman's right to end a pregnancy with abortion.<
That's because, on the abortion issue, they have the numbers to keep the national rules in place, and the abortion-rights lobby is a cornerstone of the Democratic Party. Democrats generally consider the ``right to choose'' only slightly less important than the right to breathe.<
Conservatives and Republicans, however, are on the same ideological quicksand, partly because of their ties to Christian conservatives, the GOP's largest core constituency.<
They decry Roe v. Wade, and many vow to overturn it, either through a constitutional amendment or a rejiggering of the Supreme Court, so states wanting to ban abortion may be able to do so.<
No matter that they are unwilling to allow states to take the same approach on gay marriage.<
They, too, can count and would be happy to allow only the minority of states where a majority of voters agrees with them to prevent abortions.<
Instead, they want a constitutional amendment so a state such as Massachusetts, where ga |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 03 2004 : 01:05:07 AM
|
quote:
daire states: That doesn't mean I've read every single post made on these boards. If I did, I'd never get anything else done.
All you would have had to do was look for any of the folders which cover Iraq, and there are not that many of them...
quote:
Kaylynn44 asks: Would a gay couple have the same legal rights if they were joined together in a civil union instead of a marriage? I am mainly thinking about tax laws, inheritance (if one of them should die), debts (if they should break up), etc......
A good question, and I have some thoughts on this. First; tax laws, debts, inheritence and so on would be governed by the same laws that cover incorporation of business entities. As to any tax benefit for "Marriage", once again it goes back to my original statement concerning the benefits to society as a whole, in.re. the benefits of a man and woman commiting themselves to a marriage (procreation, stabilizing influence in the community, etc.)
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 03 2004 : 11:15:16 PM
|
So childless married men and women shouldn't be entitled to tax benefits?
And a gay married couple wouldn't be a stabilizing influence in the community?
|
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 04 2004 : 12:50:05 AM
|
quote:
So childless married men and women shouldn't be entitled to tax benefits?
And a gay married couple wouldn't be a stabilizing influence in the community?
Well Scott, as I have said initially, these things should be decided on the local level. I do not think that the federal government should get involved. Then if local law does not meet with the approval of one side or the other, one could then lobby for a change in the law or move to a locale with a more agreeable arangement. I believe that this is the only feesible solution.
As to my own opinions concerning your questions, the answer to both is "no".
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - March 11 2004 : 1:52:10 PM
|
I've been wondering ... and these are honest thoughts that come to mind. [I didn't even vote.]
If Tom could marry Bob, why can't Bob and Tom also marry Peter? Whatever it is Tom and Bob feel for each other they both claim these same feelings for Peter. Isn't it discrimination to put poor Peter out of the nuptial ceremony? And, in the interest of happiness and equality for all, shouldn't Peter be allowed to also bring into the marriage his female sex partner Sally, for whom Peter feels the same depth of 'love' as he does for Tom and Bob? Or is this prohibition against Sally merely gender discrimination since she's not one of the guys? Is it really a thinly veiled bias against bisexual persons? ... And Sally happens to have a long time partner named Alice. Surely Alice can't be banned from the nuptials solely on the basis of her 'straight' lesbianism, right? I mean, marriage has nothing to do with sexual unions - or at least that's what I've heard - and everything to do with love - or at least that's what I've heard. Alice loves Sally but does not feel those same deep feelings toward Peter, Bob, or Tom and shouldn't be forced to lay with them just because they're all married, don't you all agree? After all, it's not the state's business who sleeps with whom so long as there is love in the 'family.' Since marriage is now loosely redefined as a union between people who love each other, how does the state actually prove or document there is love before issuing a love license? Heterosexual couples are required to have a blood test, maybe homosexual couples could get a love test? And are heterosexual couples at risk of having their marriages forcefully nullified on the grounds of lovelessness - and possibly also on the grounds that they have discriminated against others based on sexual orientation? Aren't heterosexual marriages the epitome of bias & discrimination against homosexuals - exclusive, cruel, opinionated, insensitive, judgmental, and religiously driven fanatacism? Does this marital exclusion practice on the parts of heterosexual persons constitute Hate Crimes??? Is it illegal? Should heterosexual persons, in light of their gender based agenda, be required to sign statements in support of homosexual unions, thereby avoiding any injury or offense that may otherwise be perceived, before being granted the 'right' to marry?
And what's that antiquated little legal thing about a marriage unconsummated being null & void? How does a homosexual couple actually couple in the sense of consummation? I realize there's been enormous advances in the fields of science & medical technology but I don't think we've yet figured out how to trump natural law. I also realize I'm a fairly unenlightened person [a retro-traditionalist, in fact] and am probably a bit blinded by long dead mores, but I do believe our physiological attributes prevent the possibility of anything other than a male/female sexual intercourse occurring [other sexual acts are not intercourse - we have President Clinton's word on that & male/female genitalia to reference]. Could homosexual persons, once granted the 'right' to marry, obtain divorces or nullifications more readily than heterosexual persons by citing unconsummated union? Or, should homosexual unions never be dissolved since consummation was a foregone and, therefore, ceded impossibility? Or is the question of consummation not applicable at all since it underscores the real, historic, and common good purpose of marriage, which is procreation? Nothing more, nothing less. Since homosexuals can not possibly procreate, why is this marital pronouncement sought?
Let's say Alice grows unhappy in this marriage. Let's say Alice wants a divorce. Does Sally or Peter or Bob or Tom have contestable rights? Assume they do not. Alice gets her divorce - and now, since she realizes she loves her dog more than anyone else, could she marry her beloved dog? If so, does it matter if the dog is |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 11 2004 : 4:45:29 PM
|
quote:
To quote St. Thomas Aquinas; "Against fact there is no argument."
I couldn't have said it better myself...
quote:
Question; Does homophobia really mean intolerant of homosexuality? Or fear of one's sameness, or image - like a shadow or a mirror? Need to watch these definitions.]
Right again, Lainey. As I have said earlier in this thread the word "Homophobia" is not a real word at all. It was the invention of both the homosexual lobby with the support of other secular humanists about ten years ago. Unfortunately they use the same tactics as others on the 'Left' do, that is if you repeat a lie enough it becomes your truth. Also, as I have said before, I can tolerate a person's behavior without embracing it or seeing it as legitimate.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
42ndNCO
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 12 2004 : 05:51:06 AM
|
Follow the money. This isn't about a right or the government being involved in the institution, etc.
The community lobbying for gay marriage is attempting to acquire benefits for these partnerships. That's it.
I think anytime we consider amending our constitution, it had better be for an issue larger, more fundamentally core than who is eligible for health benefits.
Naive, you say? Perhaps. Too simple a take? Maybe, but keeping it that way avoids making my head hurt.
|
Humbly &c.,
Ensign mcmillan
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - March 15 2004 : 1:11:50 PM
|
AMEN to this post!!! Regardless of feelings for or against gay marriage, homosexuality, etc. etc. I firmly believe this is NOT something that justifies messing around with the constitution. Hands off this precious document!!!
quote:
Originally posted by 42ndNCO
Follow the money. This isn't about a right or the government being involved in the institution, etc.
The community lobbying for gay marriage is attempting to acquire benefits for these partnerships. That's it.
I think anytime we consider amending our constitution, it had better be for an issue larger, more fundamentally core than who is eligible for health benefits.
Naive, you say? Perhaps. Too simple a take? Maybe, but keeping it that way avoids making my head hurt.
|
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 15 2004 : 5:40:44 PM
|
Anthony,
I like to think that I am an open-minded person, but letters like yours kind of make me wonder if I should be??? I do agree that two women or two men have the right to love each other and have a happy fulfilling life, but the picture that you painted was one of supposedly loving the man that you are with, but having affairs???
That part I don't understand. I have been married for 28 years and have never wanted anyone except for my husband. That is what marriage is all about, finding that one person that you want to spend the rest of your life with, and that doesn't mean sleeping around with every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes your way while you are with the person that you are supposed to love. I don't think that you can brag about having such a great marriage. If it was really that great, then you or your partner wouldn't need all of these other men.
Now, I will be the first to say that I don't know the bible very well, but it's not that I don't beleive it to be true. Why do you have such a cynical view of the bible. Yes, some people believe every word in the bible. It is something called, "FAITH" I don't think that you should put them down for that.
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - March 15 2004 : 6:47:50 PM
|
| Egad, Anth ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 15 2004 : 6:57:21 PM
|
Anthony,
After several attempts to translate what you wrote, I was finally able to understand what you were trying to convey. It is interesting that you speak of tolerance for your lifestyle choice in one breath (a subject which this thread is not even about), and at the same time slamming those who follow Christianity.
Perhaps you should consider changing your tagline from:
"The World is Full of ALL Sorts of Differrent people with many Lifestyles...Its OK to Embrace All in Life is it NOT?"
To:
"Agree with me, or you are a right-wing homophobe bigot!!!!!"
Something to think about, Anthony...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.51 seconds |
 |
|
Gay Marriages?
