Re: Lesbians, condoms go wild in attack on Christian church

"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:cd17e8671bc90c48eeb20877b2ab6402@mixmaster.it ...
> In article <491a7be8$0$7578$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>
> "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I support gay rights and gar marriage but I think this is going a bit to
>> far
>> even for me. People should have the right to worship in church without
>> being
>> offended just like gay people shoul dhave the right to march in the
>> street
>> for gay rights.
>
> All the more reason to deny privileges to unreasonable people.
>
> Faggots have worn out their welcome in America.
>
They are Americans and deserve to be treated as equally as any other
American cizizen. You might want to set up a Orwellian religious
dictatorship in America but like the Muslim johadists you will fail.

In article
<491cc0fd$0$7554$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:

> They are Americans and deserve to be treated as equally as any other
> American cizizen. You might want to set up a Orwellian religious
> dictatorship in America but like the Muslim johadists you will fail.

They are sexual deviants who should not have their perverted lifestyle
normalized by the courts.

"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:151120082205592870%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article
> <491cc0fd$0$7554$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
> Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They are Americans and deserve to be treated as equally as any other
>> American cizizen. You might want to set up a Orwellian religious
>> dictatorship in America but like the Muslim johadists you will fail.
>
> They are sexual deviants who should not have their perverted lifestyle
> normalized by the courts.

Then you are just as bad as the Islamic jihadists. You are anti American and
a traitor, go shoot yourself you terrorist scum. You will never be able to
turn America into the opressive police state you want it to become jihadist.

At 15 Nov 2008 22:05:59 -0800 Mr. Strat wrote:

> They are sexual deviants who should not have their perverted lifestyle
> normalized by the courts.


Two quick points: first you're wrong, and second, WTF is this ridiculous
discussion doing in alt.cellular-t-mobile?

In article
<491fba2d$0$7538$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Then you are just as bad as the Islamic jihadists. You are anti American and
> a traitor, go shoot yourself you terrorist scum. You will never be able to
> turn America into the opressive police state you want it to become jihadist.

So you are in favor of sanctioning sexual perversion?

On Nov 17, 2:31*am, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article
> <491fba2d$0$7538$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
>
> Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then you are just as bad as the Islamic jihadists. You are anti American and
> > a traitor, go shoot yourself you terrorist scum. You will never be ableto
> > turn America into the opressive police state you want it to become jihadist.
>
> So you are in favor of sanctioning sexual perversion?

So you are in favour of stoning gay people like the islamofacists do?

In article
<a664a04f-b8a1-467e-9255-be51ac04a0f6@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Seon Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:

> So you are in favour of stoning gay people like the islamofacists do?

Who said anything about stoning? I just said that sexual perversion
should not be put on the same level as heterosexuality. Jerkin' that
knee kinda quick there...

"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:211120080516477757%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article
> <a664a04f-b8a1-467e-9255-be51ac04a0f6@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Seon Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So you are in favour of stoning gay people like the islamofacists do?
>
> Who said anything about stoning? I just said that sexual perversion
> should not be put on the same level as heterosexuality. Jerkin' that
> knee kinda quick there...

Ok so what do you propose society does with Homosexuals?
This should be good.

In article
<4927362f$0$7522$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok so what do you propose society does with Homosexuals?
> This should be good.

Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned.

"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:211120082157415983%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article
> <4927362f$0$7522$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
> Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok so what do you propose society does with Homosexuals?
>> This should be good.
>
> Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned.

In other words outlaw Homosexuality? So what do you think should happen when
they get caught?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:14:25 +0100, Seon Ferguson wrote
(in article <4928844d$0$7519$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>):

>
> "Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:211120082157415983%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> In article
>> <4927362f$0$7522$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
>> Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok so what do you propose society does with Homosexuals?
>>> This should be good.
>>
>> Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned.
>
> In other words outlaw Homosexuality? So what do you think should happen when
> they get caught?
>

Hang both by their balls.

On Nov 21, 8:16*am, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a664a04f-b8a1-467e-9255-be51ac04a...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Seon Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So you are in favour of stoning gay people like the islamofacists do?
>
> Who said anything about stoning? I just said that sexual perversion
> should not be put on the same level as heterosexuality.

Ummmm.... you've never done anything that might be considered
"perverted"?

Hmmm?

Yeah.

QED

On Nov 22, 12:57*am, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4927362f$0$7522$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
>
> Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok so what do you propose society does with Homosexuals?
> > This should be good.
>
> Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned.

The "perversion" is fully legal in all of the United States. Over and
done with. See Lawrence v. Texas, United States Supreme Court.

In article
<4928844d$0$7519$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:

> In other words outlaw Homosexuality? So what do you think should happen when
> they get caught?

Did I say to outlaw it? That's not very feasible.

"De oppositie" <deoppositie@Binnenhof.2ekamer> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C54E4E3901086EFFB01AD9AF@news.individu al.net...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:14:25 +0100, Seon Ferguson wrote
> (in article
> <4928844d$0$7519$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>):
>
>>
>> "Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>> news:211120082157415983%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>>> In article
>>> <4927362f$0$7522$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
>>> Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok so what do you propose society does with Homosexuals?
>>>> This should be good.
>>>
>>> Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned.
>>
>> In other words outlaw Homosexuality? So what do you think should happen
>> when
>> they get caught?
>>
>
> Hang both by their balls.
>
>
Then you are just as bad as the islamofacists. you are a traitor and hate
America.

"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:221120081942438153%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article
> <4928844d$0$7519$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
> Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In other words outlaw Homosexuality? So what do you think should happen
>> when
>> they get caught?
>
> Did I say to outlaw it? That's not very feasible.

You don't want "their perversion be sanctioned" so what does that mean, not
legalise homosexuality?

On Nov 22, 10:42 pm, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4928844d$0$7519$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
>
> Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In other words outlaw Homosexuality? So what do you think should happen when
> > they get caught?
>
> Did I say to outlaw it? That's not very feasible.

You said, "Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned."

Now, what you refer to as "perversion", we take to mean their
homosexuality, or, more to the point, their homosexual sexual
behavior.

Free Clue: The "perversion" has already been "sanctioned". By the
U.S. Supreme Court. Lawrence v. Texas. So no discussion here. Done
deal.

If you're suggesting that their "perversion" is NOT about their
homosexual sexual behavior, which has already been "sanctioned"
nationwide, and is instead about their wishing legal recognition of
their MARRIAGES, then what you are REALLY saying is that the act of
MARRYING is a perversion... and I'm QUITE sure THAT isn't what you
meant.

An attempt to back-pedal here will be fun for us to watch. Have at it!

In article
<4928ece7$0$18664$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't want "their perversion be sanctioned" so what does that mean, not
> legalise homosexuality?

Let 'em protest all they want. They already have all the rights that
you and I have under the Constitution. But they won't be happy until
they can fuck their buddies in the ass at high noon in the middle of
town.

In article
<ba10364c-2de8-49bd-a39a-732fa827a39d@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You said, "Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned."
>
> Now, what you refer to as "perversion", we take to mean their
> homosexuality, or, more to the point, their homosexual sexual
> behavior.
>
> Free Clue: The "perversion" has already been "sanctioned". By the
> U.S. Supreme Court. Lawrence v. Texas. So no discussion here. Done
> deal.
>
> If you're suggesting that their "perversion" is NOT about their
> homosexual sexual behavior, which has already been "sanctioned"
> nationwide, and is instead about their wishing legal recognition of
> their MARRIAGES, then what you are REALLY saying is that the act of
> MARRYING is a perversion... and I'm QUITE sure THAT isn't what you
> meant.
>
> An attempt to back-pedal here will be fun for us to watch. Have at it!

You're very good at twisting words. Lemme guess...a Democrat.

Homosexuality should not be elevated to the same moral plane as
heterosexuality.

On Nov 23, 10:03*am, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ba10364c-2de8-49bd-a39a-732fa827a...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You said, "Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned."
>
> > Now, what you refer to as "perversion", we take to mean their
> > homosexuality, or, more to the point, their homosexual sexual
> > behavior.
>
> > Free Clue: *The "perversion" has already been "sanctioned". *By the
> > U.S. Supreme Court. *Lawrence v. Texas. *So no discussion here. *Done
> > deal.
>
> > If you're suggesting that their "perversion" is NOT about their
> > homosexual sexual behavior, which has already been "sanctioned"
> > nationwide, and is instead about their wishing legal recognition of
> > their MARRIAGES, then what you are REALLY saying is that the act of
> > MARRYING is a perversion... and I'm QUITE sure THAT isn't what you
> > meant.
>
> > An attempt to back-pedal here will be fun for us to watch. *Have at it!
>
> You're very good at twisting words.

Unfortunately for you, I didn't twist words. Your illogical argument
had holes in it. I simply pointed those holes out to you.

> Lemme guess...a Democrat.

Your genius is astounding. Now we'll await how being a Democrat
precludes one from presenting a logical argument. This, too, shall
provide us with much amusement.

> Homosexuality should not be elevated to the same moral plane as
> heterosexuality.

Just stating it doesn't make it so.

You don't appear to have any REASONS, but here again you use that
wonderful word "should".

On Nov 24, 2:02*am, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4928ece7$0$18664$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Seon
>
> Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You don't want "their perversion be sanctioned" so what does that mean,not
> > legalise homosexuality?
>
> Let 'em protest all they want. They already have all the rights that
> you and I have under the Constitution. But they won't be happy until
> they can fuck their buddies in the ass at high noon in the middle of
> town.

Well if that's true then public sex shouldn't be legalised. I have no
problem with 2 gay's holding hands or kissing but I'd be just as
disgusted at seeing public gay sex as I would be if a straight couple
went at it. I apply the same standards to everyone. I guess that's
where I draw the line. But if it's in their own home then what right
do we have to stop it?

Emerson Wainwright wrote:

> The "perversion" is fully legal in all of the United States. Over and
> done with. See Lawrence v. Texas, United States Supreme Court.

The pervision is that it is not allowed to have sex at home when you
are not married or sex in a car is strongly prohibited. Law in some
states.

Cheers Dirk