Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aiiiigggh!
Aiiiigggh!
#1
Several COE (Church of England not City of Eroes) Bishops stepped forward to hoist their robes and lay the long, fragrant cable of their meteorological wisdom upon the masses. Recent torrential rains and flooding in England and Whales have gotten this miserable flock of con-men and professional god botherers touching cloth as they rush to the pulpit to deliver their news.
Goddidit. Goddidit. Goddidit. Yes, that right. We are in the 21st fucking century and these weasels are still spouting off that their favorite omnipotent, omniscient, imaginary friend is responsible for flooding. Foremost amongst this pack of gormless whack-jobs is the Rt. Rev Graham Dow Bishop of Carlisle. Nice. Carlisle is getting reamed, as Graham is pocketing two fees; the office of Bishop and Village idiot. Yes, according to Dow, gay laws and gay rights have angered god. Oh yes they have.
What sort of small mind creates such a small and petty god? What sort of imagination creates an omnipotent, omniscient, god (who moves in mysterious ways) and then somehow claims to know the mind of that god and not just the mind, but the minutiae. This flood was due to god being testy about gay rights. That volcanic eruption was caused by onanism. That tsunami was due to someone eating shellfish, because god hates shrimp or pederasty it is hard to tell sometimes. Dont worry about a tidal wave due to rape the god of the old testament was keen on both.
Religion is made up; by primates. Mostly male primates.
Sadly Dow is not alone. You can hardly turn around without a religious goit mouthing off in an attack on rational enlightenment. From Phelps to Falwell (who, in his defense has been quiet of late) they vomit forth their drivel with an enthusiasm that is as misplaced as their minds.
Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo (President of the Pontifical Council for the Family) a top man at the Vatican has been shooting his mouth off about condoms, which he sees as being ineffective in halting aids. He has stated several doozies on the matter including Using a condom to stop AIDS is like trying to put out a fire with petrol. Forget the data. Forget the research. God says rubber johnnies are bad, so the Cardinal carries on even going so far as to drivel that the AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than Spermatozoon and can pass through condoms even if seminal fluid cannot. Anyone with an even passing knowledge of condom technology can point this out as what is, in the Navy commonly referred to as a lie.
What an utter, murderous, bastard.
Shayne
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#2
awww, come on, you're padding it, tell us how you _really_ feel.
; )Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#3
Okay I'm going off topic because I kinda want to know.
under the gay rights protections and all that, how do you
legally prove you qualify for it?
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#4
Quote:
how do you legally prove you qualify for it
a sticky wicket, indeed. At the Transformers movie, there was a preview for a new Adam Sandler movie, wherein a pair of single, heterosexual firefighters 'play gay' and marry each other so that in the case of one of them dying, the pension can still be used to support the children...Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#5
How does a heterosexual couple legally prove they qualify for similar rights?
-----------------
Epsilon
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#6
define 'similar rights'
It's my understanding that the 'gay rights' initiatives, at least in the limited scope of marriage rights, focus on providing for equal benefits, rights, and responsobilities for a homosexual partnership (marriage, civil union, whatever) as compared to a heterosexual partnership.
These can include differing tax schedules, inheritance law, medical rights/privledges, insurance classification, leave and salary classification, medical benefits classification.. Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#7
Quote:
It's my understanding that the 'gay rights' initiatives, at least in the limited scope of marriage rights, focus on providing for equal benefits, rights, and responsobilities for a homosexual partnership (marriage, civil union, whatever) as compared to a heterosexual partnership.
Yes.
And my question is: How does a heterosexual couple prove they qualify for these rights?
For example:
Person A and Person B are a couple living together. Person A makes $200,000 a year and has since before they moved in together. Person B makes less than $25,000 annually, but before they moved in together had a job that provided an income of $150,000 a year. Person B has a child (refered to as The Child) from a previous marriage. The couple has been living together for five years. Person A never formally adopted The Child.
At this time, Person A and Person B have decided to part company. What are the legal rights and obligations of Person A and Person B in this situation?
Why should they change if they are gay?
-----------------
Epsilon
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#8
you're thinking of 'common-law marriage', which would result in the hypothetical humanoids mentioned in your post to be considered by the law to be married after a certain amount of time (I believe it varies state-to-state, I don't know).
It is my belief that neither person A nor B has any legal obligations, given the facts stated and the things implied in your post.
It is also my belief that Person A would be required to pay a ruinous amount of alimony to Person B by the American court system.
It is my moral judgement that Person A should provide assistance to Person B in rejoining the workforce/getting back on their feet, and the court should not be involved with it. It is also my judgement that Person B is a fucking idiot.
Given that The Child is not a genetic product of Person B, and no formal adoption proceedings have occured, Person B would have no legal rights, privledges, or obligations. Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#9
You answered by rhetorical questions but not my actual one.
Quote:
Why should they change if they are gay?
---------------------
Epsilon
Reply
Re: Aiiiigggh!
#10
because you know the answer. Look inside you Neo, you know the truth.Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
The Answer
#11
"Look inside you Neo, you know the truth"
The Answer?
"What is the Matrix"
or
"Trinity... You're wearing a strap-on."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)