On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:47:44 GMT, "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness,
Chas. E. Hussein Pemberton"
wrote:
>Hail Eris! On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:51:43 +0000, Bibon sang, "If I were a
>Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, bloody,
>bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 18:40:26 -0800 (PST), Tuge Hits wrote:
>>>On Nov 2, 9:03 pm, Bibon wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:12:36 -0700 (PDT), Cupid Stunt wrote:
>>>> >On Oct 30, 6:10 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> >> On Oct 30, 4:15 pm, Cupid Stunt wrote:
>>>> >> > On Oct 30, 4:38 pm, "Non scrivetemi" wrote:
>>>> >> > > Cupid Stunt wrote:
>>>> >> > > > On Oct 30, 12:30 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> >> > > > > INDY wrote:
>>>> >> > > > > > On Oct 29, 3:02 pm, "Non scrivetemi" wrote:
>>>> >> > > > > > > Tuge Hits wrote:
>>>> >> > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 1:20 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > "Juicy shaved pussy that SQUIRTS"?????!!!!
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > > > > > > WTF are you yapping about, Faggot?
>>>>
>>>> >> >http://bp1.blogger.com/_MtJuVnsW_9s/R02uIU7lqhI/AAAAAAAAAAM/CANHKv12
>>>> >> > > > n...
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > > > > > THAT'S what I'm talking about! Your vile personal
>>>> >> > > > > > > > ad!
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > > > > > YUCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > > > > Try harder. A screen shot of a unverifiable post, when
>>>> >> there was
>>>> >> > > > > > > corroborating posting information at the link on the
>>>> >> > > > > > > same picture is worthless.
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > > > I'm curious. Could someone please explain to me how two
>>>> >> > > > > > ...
>>>> >> people
>>>> >> > > > > > being married threatens the marriage of two
>>>> >> > > > > > hetero.uals?
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > > In the case of homo.uals, it's being used as a cheap tool
>>>> >> > > > > to gain a legislated advantage on the basis of their mental
>>>> >> illness.
>>>>
>>>> >> > > > Again... you didn't answer the question.
>>>>
>>>> >> > > What part of the answer didn't you grasp? You can't think
>>>> >> > > beyond mere words?
>>>>
>>>> >> > You were asked how the union of two members of the same .,
>>>> >> > affects marriages between a man and a woman.
>>>>
>>>> >> > You have not answered this question.
>>>>
>>>> >> > So kindly do so, or STFU. :-)
>>>>
>>>> >You were asked how the union of two members of the same ., affects
>>>> > marriages between a man and a woman.
>>>>
>>>> > You have not answered this question.
>>>>
>>>> >So kindly do so, or STFU. :-)
>>>>
>>>> It's a simple matter; the state has no compelling interest in
>>>> promoting homo.uality. Homo.uality contribute NOTHING to the
>>>> scheme of mankind. Homo.uality could cease to exist in the next
>>>> instant and the world and mankind would not be affected in anyway.
>>>> That it, homo.uality, serves no useful purpose is more than reason
>>>> enough to deny it the benefits of a institution designed for those who
>>>> do contribute to the continued existence of mankind. See how that
>>>> works, boy?
>>>
>>>Yet again, I must bring to your attention the fact that the question was
>>>not answered.
>>>
>>>To remind you:
>>>
>>>HOW DOES THE MARRIAGE OF TWO MEMBERS OF THE SAME . THREATEN OR IN ANY
>>>WAY NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE MARRIAGES OF OPPOSITE-. COUPLES?
>>
>> I suggest that you review the history of SSM in the Scandinavian
>> countries. It has been a catastrophic failure and has caused significant
>> declines in the socio-economic conditions of those countries that permit
>> SSM as well as the moral turpitude that has resulted from it.
>
>PPYPOSTFU, shitheel. Canada's had it for over three years, to no ill
>effect.
Except for your loss of Freedom of Speech and the making of laws that
say that you can be incarcerated for speaking out against the crimes
committed by homo.uals. Yeah that's not much to give up to make sure
that the queers get the ring in your nose. |
