Thrown out of an FBO...

Jay Honeck wrote:

Damn, I won't be able to call you a pillock now :-)

Heh heh. Don't worry, there plenty of other epithets you can sling at
me...

Once I told my 16 year old son this new word, that's all I've been
hearing. I suspect by now it has swept through his high school like a
wave, and will soon be chanted at the next home football game...

Pil-LOCK! Pil-LOCK! Pil-LOCK!

Ah, the delights of knowing English is spoken there :-)

I wasn't referring specifically to the actions of gay couples -- I was
referring to the fact that we can (as a society) "discriminate" against
people's *actions* as opposed to their appearance. This
"discrimination" is called the "law."

.... and there once were laws against the =action= of blacks sitting in
the front of the bus. Laws are made by people. They are mutable. Many
laws are Bad Laws, and should be changed.

Anyway, just what "actions of gay couples" are you referring to?

Now, if you do your nose picking (and eating) in the privacy of your
own home...

So far I'm with you, but you are about to use faith based reasoning
again. Having blue eyes and picking your nose in public are not
mutually exclusive.

Suppose.... blue eyed people pick their nose too but with their left
hand. Should they be denied entrance to the restaurant? Only if they
do it in public. Suppose brown eyed people pick their nose in private,
but with their right hand, should they be allowed into the restaurant?
Of course they should.

What is happening however is that people realized that blue eyed people
pick their nose with the left hand (that's ok) and brown eyed people
pick their nose with their right hand. So it is against the law for
brown eyed people to go to the restaurant.

But when you announce to the non-nose-picking world that snot-eaters
should be given equal rights with blue-eyed restaurant patrons...

This is the wall of societal norms that homosexual couples face.

Actually, the wall that they face is the presumption in people's minds
that gays are trying to legalize public gay fornication. Your "silly
example" shows that this is your perception, but that just isn't the way
it is. They just want the same legal rights (and no more) as straight
people.

What are the Bad Things you are afraid of?
Nothing. Where's the argument? Back to flying!

Then why do you so =strenuously= object to letting gay people get
married? If there is no harm, why not let them and move on?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

And all, with the exceptions of Budhism and Jainism, have some of the most
barbaric "ways of life" ever devised by any living creature. Especially in
their most strict orthodox manner.

mike



"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
...
"mike regish" wrote in message
...
It's a poor example of one. Budhism is more a way of life. Religion
claims to be, but is not.

mike



As are all religions when practiced in their most strict orthodox manner.

Jay B

There are no athiests ramming jets into sky scrapers in the name of athiesm.
There are muslims.

There are no athiest missionaries preaching against condom use in
sub-Saharan Africa resulting in millions of preventable deaths each year.
There ARE Christian missionaries doing just that.

There are no athiests saying Katrina destroyed New Orleans because there was
a lesbian there. There ARE Christian evangelists who say that.

I don't "practice" anything. I have NO religion. And I see the damage done
by yours.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

I don't practice any religion. I AM an athiest. Name one war that was
fought in in the name of athiesm. Not by athiests, but in the name of
athiesm.

Atheism is your religion. And a dangerous one it is.

Matt

"mike regish" wrote in news:hf-
:

And all, with the exceptions of Budhism and Jainism, have some of the most
barbaric "ways of life" ever devised by any living creature. Especially in
their most strict orthodox manner.

Hmm...

Didn't the Japanese Samurai's subscribe to Buddhism?

I guess there are indeed fanatics in ALL religions...

There were individual Samurai that practiced Budhism. They weren't part and
parcel of each other.

mike

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"mike regish" wrote in news:hf-
:

And all, with the exceptions of Budhism and Jainism, have some of the
most
barbaric "ways of life" ever devised by any living creature. Especially
in
their most strict orthodox manner.

Hmm...

Didn't the Japanese Samurai's subscribe to Buddhism?

I guess there are indeed fanatics in ALL religions...

Exactly.

mike

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

I guess there are indeed fanatics in ALL religions...

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:42:16 GMT, "Crash Lander" wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.


This is an irrelevant point. Say for example, I'm in hospital from massive
injuries from a car accident or something. The hospital says I'm only
allowed immediate family to visit. My best mate of 30 years, whom I love
like a brother, isn't allowed to visit. This would irk him too, but he
doesn't cry discrimination or equal rights about it.
Oz/Crash Lander


Whenever I see see a read with repeated dialog between less than a half
dozen people, I really wish the participants would try using Instant
messenger, rather than watsing usenet bnswidth ona local dialog.

The thread leading into this message is a case in point!

mike regish wrote:
There are no athiests ramming jets into sky scrapers in the name of athiesm.
There are muslims.

There are no athiest missionaries preaching against condom use in
sub-Saharan Africa resulting in millions of preventable deaths each year.
There ARE Christian missionaries doing just that.

There are no athiests saying Katrina destroyed New Orleans because there was
a lesbian there. There ARE Christian evangelists who say that.

I don't "practice" anything. I have NO religion. And I see the damage done
by yours.

If yours were practiced universally, all mankind would spend eternity in
Hell, which is much worse in both numbers and magnitude than anything
you mentioned above. That is what I call real damage and it occurs from
your religion.

Matt

Psycho.

Do you REALLY believe that crap? And if you do, and I think you do, then you
know what a powerful tool it is with which to control men and convince them
that the vilest most cruel acts are justified.

Check this crap out and tell me you would even want to be associated with a
god who would encourage this.
http://www.dim.com/~randl/tinq.htm

Maybe W went here for some tips.

You are truly sick.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:
There are no athiests ramming jets into sky scrapers in the name of
athiesm. There are muslims.

There are no athiest missionaries preaching against condom use in
sub-Saharan Africa resulting in millions of preventable deaths each year.
There ARE Christian missionaries doing just that.

There are no athiests saying Katrina destroyed New Orleans because there
was a lesbian there. There ARE Christian evangelists who say that.

I don't "practice" anything. I have NO religion. And I see the damage
done by yours.

If yours were practiced universally, all mankind would spend eternity in
Hell, which is much worse in both numbers and magnitude than anything you
mentioned above. That is what I call real damage and it occurs from your
religion.

Matt