You're one of the few virulent Party-line conservatives I know who doesn't outwardly and flagrantly appear to hate fags. I've been trying to get a few of your comrades to explain to me just WHY their whole political philosphy seems to revolve around keeping the Queers down, but they won't give me an answer.

You understand these people and their thinking. So with the understanding that I've never heard you utter a bigoted word against fags, could you explain to me the obsession? I really don't understand how they can build a whole philosophy around faggot-hating, and what would move them to THINK about it that much?

Thanks!
Ed

You're one of the few virulent Party-line conservatives I know who doesn't outwardly and flagrantly appear to hate fags. I've been trying to get a few of your comrades to explain to me just WHY their whole political philosphy seems to revolve around keeping the Queers down, but they won't give me an answer.

You understand these people and their thinking. So with the understanding that I've never heard you utter a bigoted word against fags, could you explain to me the obsession? I really don't understand how they can build a whole philosophy around faggot-hating, and what would move them to THINK about it that much?

Thanks!
Ed
Just postulating a theory here, but Steam says he's not religious--or at least doesn't go to church these days. Isn't most of the anti-gay agenda church-driven? Steam just isn't getting the proper brainwashing to hate them.

that New York Religious group wants some sort of 'marking' for Gay people. If yer ever out west gotta come by my Gayborhood, really a fun place to live.

That's part of it and the other part is not all of us are the caricatures you like to create in your heads. At least that's the reason you don't hear 'faggot-hating' from me.

I don't think it is as prevalent as OES would have us all believe. Most people, republican or democrat, are tolerant of alternative lifestyles, even if they don't agree with it or understand it. Sort of a fact of life - some people are 'different'. I accept that these 'different' people do care for and love each other. What Ed doesn't seem to grasp is the idea that the people he is referring to, the vocal 'faghaters', don't like having that lifestyle shoved in their collective faces. They don't understand why these 'different' people now desire to be involved with an institution they so aggressively derided not so long ago. So you, or I should say Ed, is only hearing the most vocal opponents, the 'faghaters'. Similarly the 'faghaters' only hear the most vocal proponents from these 'different lifestyle' people.

When a longstanding 'institution' such as marriage is being threatened, in the view of the 'faghaters', so that it changes the meaning or value of it for them (the faghaters opinion), then you get dissention from them. It's really quite a simple idea. Really.

I don't hate 'ffags'. I know they are people too. I don't even hate democrats :D

When a longstanding 'institution' such as marriage is being threatened, in the view of the 'faghaters', so that it changes the meaning or value of it for them (the faghaters opinion), then you get dissention from them. It's really quite a simple idea. Really.


I just want to know how their own marriages are being threatened by gays marrying. A church can decide whether or not they want to condone gay marriage--I have no problem with that--but let them get married and share the benefits and pitfalls of marriage. The more I hear about gay marriage threatening straight marriage the more I think that the problem is with them and not the gays. I might not agree that a Catholic family should have 15 kids, but I'm not going to push for legislation to stop them from doing so. And the fact that they have 15 kids doesn't mean that I'm going to now have to have that many. Can't the bigots and haters just deal with the fact that gay people exist and have relationships just like the ones they do?

40 to 50 years ago, racial bigots cloaked themselves in the Christian bible while they preached the supposed evils of integration and civil rights, also often citing the aggrivation of having minorities supposedly flaunting their equality in public.

It was a stupid, pedantic argument then, just as it is now. The religious fervor fuled by sheer hatred never ceases to amaze me, whether it's the American religious right of Pat Robertson, the KKK, al Qeada, Aum Shinrikyo, etc. Hating and/or killing in the name of God?!...

Likewise, last time I read it, the US Constitution says nothing about marriage. I still (and will probably forever) fail to see why/how federal, state or local governments should intercede in order to define marriage. Arguments about taxation revenues are flimsy at best.

In my experience, most homophobes don't know very many homosexuals, if any at all. They--the former--have little or no understanding that they--the latter--are simply being true to themselves. Homosexuality is neither a choice nor is it a defect. It simply is, and perhaps it's time for the homophobes to realize that.

But they won't.

as I'm in advertising and marketing. every year I get in debates with my gay friends over the PR disaster that is Pride Week. Once again like 'regular' religious folk, the extremists get the all the coverage and sends out a negative stereotype to the nation. I asked them last year, do it like a PR campaign, state objectives, see what media coverage there is and see if it helps you achieve your objectives.
So last year
OBJECTIVE
More mainstream acceptance and the forwarding of Gay Marriage Issue

so then we looked at the coverage, Dykes on Bikes, Leather Boys and Queens in Pink Thongs walking on stilts with huge Maribou Headresses.

then I asked them, does this help you gain acceptance from regular folk?
so what I said was 'your marketing is working against your goals'. I said, 'save the flamboyance for Mardi Gras or some secret parade. Pride week should focus on mainstream gay couples and mainstream gay folks whom are less offensive to America's Middle'. I know we're here, we're here get used to it is the battle cry but it is hurting you in the long run.
The same goes for Christianity. Regular Christians are getting lumped in with their vocal loony fringe. This will only hurt them in the long run and they'd be smart to start distancing themselves from these folks. Islam suffers from the same issue as clearly shown by the numerous 'lump them all together' by our righties on this board.
A classic example in this country right now is the alliance between the Catholics and the Evangelicals over the abortion issue. catholics don't realize as soon as these issues are settled theya re next on the chopping block.

I am not justifying it, but the rationalization probably is along these lines in a very simplified manner - you are a member of some organization, group, academic or otherwise, that took certain credentials to ensure membership. That same group, for many years came under attack from another group for various reasons that you did not accept. Now, suddenly, the group that was attacking you and your institution, want in because they now see the benefits of membership - everyone is now allowed in with no minimum requirements. You may find that the value of the membership is diminished.

Further complicate the matter with the teachings of religion and you can see where it brings us. I know that you libs like to believe that you have beliefs and rights that should be represented in our government. However, maybe you forget there are others that believe that as well. They believe 'their' rights should be protected and represented. One of those groups is the religious right.

Scott, homosexuality is also not tolerated in the Jewish religion either. "Jewish law and tradition unequivocally prohibit homosexual behavior, and some expressions of homosexuality are considered so detrimental to the individual and society that they are included by the Torah among the basic moral prohibitions incumbent upon all humanity." Taken from the site listed below.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0601/jewish.gay.html

When a longstanding 'institution' such as marriage is being threatened, in the view of the 'faghaters', so that it changes the meaning or value of it for them (the faghaters opinion), then you get dissention from them. It's really quite a simple idea. Really.


hasn't the rising numbers of divorce, the increasing levels of adultery, incest, child abuse, spousal abuse already threatened the "institution" of marriage? why aren't these religious leaders targeting men who abandon their wives, beat them, abuse their kids, for harming the "institution" of marriage.

why is it just the fags? why does the concept of two men, or two women, quietly getting married in some private ceremony somewhere threaten the "institute" of marriage for someone 2000 miles away, someone who doesn't care about these people, doesn't know know these people, and never will. how is that "having it thrown in their faces'?

will two fags getting married somehow invalidate every marriage to date amongst men and women. are their marriages so weak, so lacking in committment to each other, that they'll fall apart simply because two fags got married?

why is it just the fags?
because they are "icky" ;)

"Jewish law and tradition unequivocally prohibit homosexual behavior, and some expressions of homosexuality are considered so detrimental to the individual and society that they are included by the Torah among the basic moral prohibitions incumbent upon all humanity."
You're making a blanket statement? All forms of Judaism believe this?

None of the Fighting Three approve of it, the radical elements of each even suggesting that homosexuality is a capital crime.

I simply don't accept those ancient interpretations that are stated to be God's words, the same words too often used to incite other forms of hatred and violence.

No, but neither do all Christians believe this either. I merely pointed out that it is not just the Christian right that believe homosexuality is evil. As it is written in the Bible, it is also written in the Torah. You should know this stuff before making your argument.

No, but neither do all Christians believe this either. I merely pointed out that it is not just the Christian right that believe homosexuality is evil. As it is written in the Bible, it is also written in the Torah. You should know this stuff before making your argument.
Not aware I was making an argument. I believe I was asking a question. Should we review the text?

Well you claim they aren't 'targeting' them. If you were to attend a religious service, I think you would find they are all on the same hit list too. I don't think religious teachings specifically target 'fags' - homosexuals is a much more friendly term. Fags sounds so derisive.

hasn't the rising numbers of divorce, the increasing levels of adultery, incest, child abuse, spousal abuse already threatened the "institution" of marriage? why aren't these religious leaders targeting men who abandon their wives, beat them, abuse their kids, for harming the "institution" of marriage.

why is it just the fags? why does the concept of two men, or two women, quietly getting married in some private ceremony somewhere threaten the "institute" of marriage for someone 2000 miles away, someone who doesn't care about these people, doesn't know know these people, and never will. how is that "having it thrown in their faces'?

will two fags getting married somehow invalidate every marriage to date amongst men and women. are their marriages so weak, so lacking in committment to each other, that they'll fall apart simply because two fags got married?

I don't care if gay couples get married. IMO, we should just make civil unions legal and if a church wants to recognize the union and conduct a religious ceremony, good on them. What bugs me is when the activist gays want a type of minority status because of their lifestyle. Will companies be required to employ a certain percentage of gay employees? What would be the motivation for a company to hire a gay person that is married if the company did not recognize the civil union(ie union conducted in another state). I think that the pandora's box that will be opened if civil unions become law is the issue of employee and survivor benefits. What if the company doesn't recognize the "spouse" as a dependant and provide benefits, insurance etc?

Well, where ever were you going with it? I guess I don't take things here out of their normal context. Did I not read your characterization of the religious right here at one time or another? Besides you did bring up the subject of marriage and homosexuality for a reason, didn't you? I just assumed it was to head it in some direction. If you were just looking for information from a right-leaning voter, to use in some campaign for a client, that info will cost you :D

I'm gonna print up some little push cards to hand out whenever some bigoted Christer starts quoting the Bible as justification for discrimination against Queers. "You say everything in the Bible is literally true? OK, so you agree with this?" Then hand 'em the push card.

Hell, they probably DO agree. But I'd feel better pointing out some really, seriously disgusting 'truths' in their book.



<DD>"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Nation&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Family&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Property&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1). And you may take them as an inheritance (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Inheritance&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Brethren&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1), the children of Israel (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Israel&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1), you shall not rule over one another with rigor." (Leviticus (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Leviticus&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) 25:44-46) </DD>

Well, where ever were you going with it? I guess I don't take things here out of their normal context. Did I not read your characterization of the religious right here at one time or another? Besides you did bring up the subject of marriage and homosexuality for a reason, didn't you? I just assumed it was to head it in some direction. If you were just looking for information from a right-leaning voter, to use in some campaign for a client, that info will cost you :DYeah, but it's a constant struggle to keep you on track and on point in a debate. You manage to infer, impute, assume, put words in the mouth of, and restate oppopnent's positions misleadingly with such astonishing facility that I feel obliged to point out QUICKLY that I wasn't making a point, just asking a question.

I DID make a separate point a minute ago though. It just occurred to me though. It's not where I started out to arrive at.

I don't have no clients no more. I sold the bidness and I'm retired, remember? I'm living on a fixed income, hoping Social Security survives till I can collect. :eek:

Ed...Ed...don't you know that they can pick and choose the parts that agree with their conclusions?

Yeah, but it's a constant struggle to keep you on track and on point in a debate. You manage to infer, impute, assume, put words in the mouth of, and restate oppopnent's positions misleadingly with such astonishing facility that I feel obliged to point out QUICKLY that I wasn't making a point, just asking a question.

. :eek:

Don't I know it...he's got me saying Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in despite the fact that I wrote Brookings. Pick and choose move and rework...constant struggle.;)

Don't I know it...he's got me saying Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in despite the fact that I wrote Brookings. Pick and choose move and rework...constant struggle.;)
He had me saying something last week that Lenin himself wouldn't say. Don't take it personal. He just has a big old Libbie Bogeyman in his head, and his feverish imagination has filled it with all sorts of nonsense that no libbie believes except in Steam's mind. So he's not arguing with you, or me, or anyone else here on the board really -- he's arguing with his imaginary Bogeyman. :D

slippery, sometimes ya can't tell the head from the tail and just when ya think ya got a hold of him he slithers down another hole.
seems useless to debate, he'll start an arguement and if you try to get him to hold to his points you can't.

Hell, they probably DO agree. But I'd feel better pointing out some really, seriously disgusting 'truths' in their book.



<DD>"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Nation&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Family&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Property&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1). And you may take them as an inheritance (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Inheritance&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Brethren&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1), the children of Israel (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Israel&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1), you shall not rule over one another with rigor." (Leviticus (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Leviticus&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) 25:44-46) </DD>


Ah, my favorite Bible [whatever they call it]: Leviticus

I think the fundies would be ok with Mexicans, but might run into some qualms with Canadians

Another beauty from Leviticus:

Eating Shellfish is an abomination
Homosexuality is an abomination

Therefore eating shellfish is equivilant to homosexuality in the eyes of the LORD

I could think of worse things.....

No, but neither do all Christians believe this either. I merely pointed out that it is not just the Christian right that believe homosexuality is evil. As it is written in the Bible, it is also written in the Torah. You should know this stuff before making your argument.

The Bible also states that if you get divorced and then remarry, then you are an adulterer. I don't hear too much hew and cry about that little tidbit. So we can skip that one but not the anti-gay one? I say that you shouldn't cherry pick ...

Another beauty from Leviticus:

Eating Shellfish is an abomination
Homosexuality is an abomination

Therefore eating shellfish is equivilant to homosexuality in the eyes of the LORD

he musta been watching Spartacus "Some men like oysters, some like snails, I like oysters and snails"

no laying with a menstrual woman
kill your kid if they are out of line

there are so many abominations in Leviticus they drop it's pathetic.
and then the literalists have a real hard time with that 7 headed anti christ

Ed, you bin readin' this funny web site agin'?

http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000294.html

You see that is the Old Testament. Most modern Christians follow the New Testament. Really, the only group who follows the teachings from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) are the jews and maybe a few fringe Christian groups.

There are lots of differences from the Old to the New Testament. You should check it out some time. I believe there is a different 'God' in the New. ;)

Ed, you bin readin' this funny web site agin'?

http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000294.html

You see that is the Old Testament. Most modern Christians follow the New Testament. Really, the only group who follows the teachings from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) are the jews and maybe a few fringe Christian groups.

There are lots of differences from the Old to the New Testament. You should check it out some time. I believe there is a different 'God' in the New. ;)
Should we just throw away the Old Testament then? That would make the Creationist argument moot.

Certainly not all forms of Judaism believe inthe condemntion of homosexuality. Judaism, on the whole has grown, evolved & adapted to meet a changing world. Not all 'versions' but most main stream denominations. Adapt or die, no choice. This in no wy negates or ignores the core teachings. But then that is the piviot point. Just what is the core & why is one reading anymore correct than another. Questions with questions, answers that are questions. A hallmark of Judaism.

my mother: "you should have been a doctor, a plastic surgeon."

Sigh.

We have no afterlife, only cool darkness and the eternal freedom from our moms.

Ed, you bin readin' this funny web site agin'?

http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000294.html

You see that is the Old Testament. Most modern Christians follow the New Testament. Really, the only group who follows the teachings from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) are the jews and maybe a few fringe Christian groups.

There are lots of differences from the Old to the New Testament. You should check it out some time. I believe there is a different 'God' in the New. ;)

Well then dammit I am one confused pagan...what the hell do we have two bibles for anyway? Is this like Star Wars? Episode I, II? And if we don't follow the first one...who wrote that one anyway Zeus, Vishnu? I am at a loss. Here I was about to run out grab myself a canuck and a mexican and put them to work at making my house cleaner...dammit!

Plus I think that "new" bible is all about helping the poor...and THAT does not strike me as today's modern christian conservative. ;)

Maybe they are just making it up....

Why do you make claims you cannot support? As a Roman Catholic and a person who will eventually be divorced, I will not be allowed to receive the sacraments in church - not that I attend services. I will also not be allowed to re-marry in the church. My only course would be an annulment. Divorce is not taken lightly in the Roman Catholic church. It is certainly treated differently than in the Anglican Church and it's offshoots. Remember Henry IIIX?

Well then dammit I am one confused pagan...what the hell do we have two bibles for anyway? Is this like Star Wars? Episode I, II? And if we don't follow the first one...who wrote that one anyway Zeus, Vishnu? I am at a loss. Here I was about to run out grab myself a canuck and a mexican and put them to work at making my house cleaner...dammit!

Plus I think that "new" bible is all about helping the poor...and THAT does not strike me as today's modern christian conservative. ;)

Maybe they are just making it up....
more good ones from the "pick and choose" Word of God:

Christian women: be silent

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

Woman must marry rapist

If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her ... He must marry the girl ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)


Virgin women are war booty

"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he [Moses] asked them.... "Now ... kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
-- Numbers 31:1-18 (NIV)

How to mark your property

... thou shalt take an [awl], and thrust it through his ear..., and he shall be thy servant for ever.
-- Deuteronomy 15:17 (AV)

No comment

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
-- Ezekiel 23:20 (NIV)

The Prince of Peace

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)

Remember Henry IIIX?

Who the hell was that? Was he related to Henry the XIII? Cause that bastard really wanted a divorce. ;)

Just as not all forms of Christianity or all Christians believe in the condemnation of it either. An equally tired stereotype. Actually the only group among the Jews who don't follow the strict teachings of the Torah and Hebrew Bible are Reformed Jews, which represent the smallest group, but have their greatest representation here in the US.

No. I guess we both mean Henry VIII. Yeah I guess my dyslexia kicked in again ;)

No. I guess we both mean Henry VIII. Yeah I guess my dyslexia kicked in again ;)

And I am having more and more trouble with my Vs and Xs.

It sounds like you're trying to say that gays used to hate marriage but now they want in. Did I miss something?

When/how/where does this come from?

Please explain.

BT

No alluding. I pretty much stated it as such. Can you remember back to the sexual revolution in this country and then even into the 80s? Marriage was viewed as being as passé, especially by the gay community. The hedonistic lifestyle didn't allow for a rigid institution such as marriage.

by saying 2 gods in the bible he has proven that they worship Jesus as God which is in direct conflict with the first commandment. Idolators!!!!!! yE SHALL BURN FOR SUCH.

SORRY just one God, both books, but ya better quit worshippin the dead guy on a stick and focus on Yahweh.

While the Reformed denomination can be summarized as an American movement, it's also the most rapidly "growing" segment of Judaism, particularly in Europe. I'm not convinced that you can claim it to be the smallest without referencing sources beyond you one website. Remember, Steam, Judaism is a diverse religion with lots of denominations beyond the simplistic Christo-centric view. How about American Conservatives--the denomination, not the bane of AJS' existence? Where do they stand in terms of "strict teachings?"

Which strict teachings? That's another vague characterization. Are we talking angry and vengeful God of the old testament times, or the newer interpretations taught in temples? Kosher laws--abandoned only by the "small" number of reformed Jews? Again, hardly. I've been both Conservative and Reformed. I've never been part of a kosher congregation. Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Again, semantics suggest a lot, perhaps more than you intended. I attended a Jesuit high school, and I never once heard the priests address a "Hebrew Bible." Yet again, you've come across more than a little superficial and simplistic in your assertation(s).

(Admittedly, the internet and this forum provide poor subsitute for real conversation, but when announcing judgement on particular groups, it pays to be accurate.)

Just as not all forms of Christianity or all Christians believe in the condemnation of it either. An equally tired stereotype. Actually the only group among the Jews who don't follow the strict teachings of the Torah and Hebrew Bible are Reformed Jews, which represent the smallest group, but have their greatest representation here in the US.

To pile on; You ever heard of Reconstructionist Judaism. ( an American original movement out of which Havaurah's were concieved) And then there are the Humanistic Judaism congregations not to mention the Messianic congregations. The latter whom are hardly Jews, outside of their familial decent, since they accept Jesus....

Non of these are 'strict followers'...

you are showing variety (grey areas) to a guy who only knows black or white.
NeoCons are strictly binary either on or off.

There are lots of differences from the Old to the New Testament. You should check it out some time. I believe there is a different 'God' in the New. ;)

yeah, the peaceful, loving god.

that wrathful, vengeance and retribution god that the right-wing fundies use to denounce the gays and the immoral is strictly the old testament god, the book you say no one follows.

Yes there are factions of Judaism just as there are factions of Christianity. However, the official or accepted position of Conservative Judaism on homosexuality is non-acceptance. You cited non-representative sects of main stream Judaism.

There are about 6 million Jews in the US. 42% of Jews in the United States are Reform and 40% are Conservative. The balance is comprised of generally more religious sects with a much smaller amount being liberal. So there is roughly an equal amount of Jews who tolerate homosexuality as a lifestyle as there are those who reject it on religious principle.

If you don't trust my numbers look them up for yourself. All I am trying to portray is the idea that the Christian right is not the only group who does not accept homosexual marriages, which is what the common belief is here. However that may be understandable given the fact that Jews represent a very small portion of the population.

related story for the libbies who want to generalize.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-14-christian-right-cover_x.htm

I just want to know how their own marriages are being threatened by gays marrying. A church can decide whether or not they want to condone gay marriage--I have no problem with that--but let them get married and share the benefits and pitfalls of marriage. The more I hear about gay marriage threatening straight marriage the more I think that the problem is with them and not the gays. I might not agree that a Catholic family should have 15 kids, but I'm not going to push for legislation to stop them from doing so. And the fact that they have 15 kids doesn't mean that I'm going to now have to have that many. Can't the bigots and haters just deal with the fact that gay people exist and have relationships just like the ones they do?

The Church will never sanction anal sex. It wants to keep it in the closet. Hell, they don't even sanction hetero sex for their priests.

With all the press about the sexual abuse of alter boys, I wonder if we'll see a rise in sheep and goat farming amongst the archdiocese?

A weak argument at best. All gays thought that marriage was passe? Wow. I'd expect more from you than sweeping generalizations. As it was the main thrust of your argument that now gays want to join in, so-to-speak, I assumed that you could do better with you supporting argument.

You're slipping, dude.

BT