So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

[Lacez]

Religionthebiglie wrote:

<quoted text>I had a little time on my hands today, so I did a little "stalking" into Patty's three "known" Id's. Instead of bits and pieces here and there, I comprised a not-so-short list of common words from her posts that I've never seen anywhere, or used by anyone, except in her uneducated ramblings.

Perminately

extream

distroy

anotherwords

despirate

dispicable

relavant

messanic

interceed

receed

preceed

compair

garantee

obcess

contridiction

warpted

testiment

alcohal

morom, moron, mornom (Mormon)

hugh (huge)

irrelvant

nieve

Flordia

devuldge

verses (versus)

artifical

declair

loose (lose)

sew (sow)

probley

victum

negitive

declair

determin

mis spell

ignor

hallarious

....and many more. The next list will be of phrases such as, "what a load of hooey", "you misguided person", and "I'm not Patty".

That last one is used "extreamly" often, though it should be spelled "im not Patty," for she never capitalizes or adds the apostrophe.

[Religionthebigli e]

Lacez wrote:

<quoted text>
That last one is used "extreamly" often, though it should be spelled "im not Patty," for she never capitalizes or adds the apostrophe.

Ha ha ha ha Good catch. I'll have to study the illiteracy textbook harder. Unlearning is tough.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
You have YET to prove that SSM is not the same.
We know you have opinions about coupling, breeding, anal sex, pedophilia, and all other sorts of distractions (red herrings), but you have NOT PROVEN anything.
You do have opinions, a.k.a. geriatric troll droppings.
Troll on, Kuntmare, Mangina Man.

This is what happens when a idiot troll tries to reason.

Heads up, Mongrel, I just did prove gay unions are not marriage.

You have no answer for it, except for ad homoan 'out there' responses.

Get back to me when you can equate gay unions with the fundamental essence of marriage.

Snicker.

[KiMare]

The fundamental question gays have no answer for;

Before you can equate any relationships, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a direct defective violation of the primary goal of evolution.

Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.

Interestingly, the argument for gay unions being called marriage has to reject faith and science to do so. Literally 'out there'!

Smile.

[MisterCharringto n]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
<quoted text>
This is what happens when a idiot troll tries to reason.
Heads up, Mongrel, I just did prove gay unions are not marriage.
You have no answer for it, except for ad homoan 'out there' responses.
Get back to me when you can equate gay unions with the fundamental essence of marriage.
Snicker.

so it`s completely pointless for post menopausal women or sterile men to marry an otherwise fertile partner...

guffaw

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
<quoted text>
This is what happens when a idiot troll tries to reason.
Heads up, Mongrel, I just did prove gay unions are not marriage.
You have no answer for it, except for ad homoan 'out there' responses.
Get back to me when you can equate gay unions with the fundamental essence of marriage.
Snicker.

MisterCharrington wrote:

<quoted text>
so it`s completely pointless for post menopausal women or sterile men to marry an otherwise fertile partner...
guffaw

Never been a problem in all of marriage history...

Duh.

However, you still must first answer the fundamental question of proving that a relationship actually equates to marriage.

Get back to me when you can equate gay unions with the fundamental essence of marriage.
Snicker.

[macumazahn]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
<quoted text>
This is what happens when a idiot troll tries to reason.
Heads up, Mongrel, I just did prove gay unions are not marriage.
You have no answer for it, except for ad homoan 'out there' responses.
Get back to me when you can equate gay unions with the fundamental essence of marriage.
Snicker.

"Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship."

Why? And what type of relationship do you think marriage is?

You keep C&Ping that "cross-cultural constraint" line - I don't think you have a clue what it means. You just found it in a Chick tract, and thought it sounded impressive, didn't you?

"Get back to me when you can equate gay unions with the fundamental essence of marriage."

Define "the essence of marriage", please. Be specific.

[Peace-Love-Happi ness]

Lacez wrote:

Kmart is on the same level as CHL now, I just scroll past without reading his posts. He never actually listens to everyone else, he just continues to spew the same disproven, uneducated opinions.

Agreed.

[Peace-Love-Happi ness]

Religionthebiglie wrote:

<quoted text>
There's another one. "Convience"

Don't forget "bogas."

[Peace-Love-Happi ness]

Religionthebiglie wrote:

<quoted text>
There's another one. "Convience"

Oo oo...don't forget:
mowron, moeron
GWAD
niave

I could do this all day.:-D

[Peace-Love-Happi ness]

KiMare wrote:

The fundamental question gays have no answer for;
Before you can equate any relationships, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective violation of the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
Interestingly, the argument for gay unions being called marriage has to reject faith and science to do so. Literally 'out there'!
Smile.

Marriage is a union of two individuals who are romantically connected to form a family unit. Children are not required and do not have to be created by the two individuals if they are included.

If you can't understand why ss marriages ARE marriages, you don't have any place in defining them or denying their equality. It just means you are ignorant to their validity and, therefore, have no place determining their value and worth.

You might as well deny evolution, that's how intelligent you sound about this topic. <insert eye roll here>

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:

This is what happens when a idiot troll tries to reason.
Heads up, Mongrel, I just did prove gay unions are not marriage.

Snicker.

No, you didn't prove it. You merely THINK that you proved it because you stated your opinion.

Geriatric troll droppings, Mangina Man.

[Jane Dodo]

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you didn't prove it. You merely THINK that you proved it because you stated your opinion.
Geriatric troll droppings, Mangina Man.

Really! KiMerde is drunk with power. I think he runs on methane.

[United in faith]

Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:

<quoted text>
A question about whether you are familiar with something is not her boasting about it. MOERON.

it was when it was constructed to fit a specific post as it did.

you do love to defend Hl all the time, don't you?

hummm

[United in faith]

Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't give the impression that you think, period.

didn't you just complain to me not long ago about replying to your posts when they were not posted to me? and here you are doing what you complain about all the time, replying to a post that was not posted to you.

just so i know what is the number that completes your 'quota' of insults per day against me?

[United in faith]

MisterCharrington wrote:

<quoted text>
yes there is a vaccination for smallpox which is how it has been CURED, no person is routinely vaccinated against smallpox because it has been CURED. It is not naturally occuring in the wild it has been declared "eradicated" by the WHO and IN CASE IT ARRIVES AGAIN samples are available for the production of vaccine.
You said that people routinely got shingles many years after a chickenpox infection during a conversation about smallpox. What does that have to do with smallpox?

the point was that the viruses still exist.
matters not that you are vaccinated against the illness, that is what keeps you from getting it........ the viruses themselves are still existant in the world.
whether in the wild or in a lab.
they still are existant. and small pox is only one of FEW that have been contained or erraticated from the wild.
there are MANY MANY incurable diseases out there.

here is a good example ... many get flu shots every year.
and the Dr will tell you, this is not a solid 100% guarantee that you won't still get the flu.

anotherwords, it is not a cure just a prevention of lower your chances of getting it.

[United in faith]

Happy Lesbo wrote:

<quoted text>
.. Patricia has dispensed with learning, reached god-like status ..

If i were god you wouldn't be here.

[United in faith]

Passing Through wrote:

<quoted text>
HL didn't post to you, Patricia. Unless you hacked the Topix ID of Religionthebiglie and are also posting under that ID as well.
<quoted text>
Only bigots like you think people can be "turned" gay, Patricia. Nor would any amount of effort ever "turn" you into a decent human being, either.

according to their leader back in the 70s who said,
"we will sodomize your children in the locker rooms......etc etc etc.........." according to that old gay philosophy years back that claimed anyone who opposed homosexuality MUST be a closet gay.
LOL

and only BIGOTS like yourself think you can demean scripture, the Son of God and Christians with your intolerant remarks.

[United in faith]

Passing Through wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither have you ever gone away, Patricia.

thats your faulty opinion.

i hope unlike pattycake i have not mislead you to think i give a hoot what you think about me.

[United in faith]

Passing Through wrote:

<quoted text>
The word abomination frequents the minds of anyone who encounters you too, Patricia, since that's what God calls lying lips like yours.

wow, big surprise, you call ANYONE who opposes what you hold dear,
"immorality" as a liar.

again, i don't care what you think of me.
you are just some lame lost poster on topix who likes to argue and insult others.