Kentucky Kim and cakes

[chrysostom]

Yes, some things most certainly are. My problem comes from people who seize on an impossible to solve issue at the expense of all others and then lord it over anyone who disagrees with them as though they have some kind of moral high ground.

with you that is really easy

sorry about that

 

[Granite]

with you that is really easy

sorry about that

You're acting and sounding dimmer than usual. If you have anything to contribute to the thread, great, if not I'll just save us both the trouble and put your poor man's haiku on ignore. Your call.:smokie:

 

[chrysostom]

You're acting and sounding dimmer than usual. If you have anything to contribute to the thread, great, if not I'll just save us both the trouble and put your poor man's haiku on ignore. Your call.:smokie:

oh please don't put me on ignore

 

[Rusha]

will that stop the killing of babies?

did all your years
of voting republican
stop the killing of babies?

 

[genuineoriginal]

And has the audacity to pretend her own example justifies her judgment of other people's marriages ...

She is not making judgment on other people's marriages, since all of recorded human history shows that marriage always refers to a male marrying a female, not a male pretending to marry a male.

 

[Granite]

She is not making judgment on other people's marriages, since all of recorded human history shows that marriage always refers to a male marrying a female, not a male pretending to marry a male.

Completely incorrect.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Completely incorrect.

Yes, a male who is pretending to be married with another male is completely incorrect.

You must have a male and a female to make a marriage.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Yes, a male who is pretending to be married with another male is completely incorrect.

You must have a male and a female to make a marriage.

Not anymore. :jazz:

 

[Granite]

Yes, a male who is pretending to be married with another male is completely incorrect.

You must have a male and a female to make a marriage.

No. You don't. And you're on the wrong side of history both past and present.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Not anymore. :jazz:

And not for much longer.

 

[Caledvwlch]

And not for much longer.

Do elaborate.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No. You don't. And you're on the wrong side of history both past and present.

What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah shows I am not on the wrong side of history on this matter.

 

[TracerBullet]

She is not making judgment on other people's marriages, since all of recorded human history shows that marriage always refers to a male marrying a female, not a male pretending to marry a male.

you haven't read much history (or anything for that matter) have you?

 

[genuineoriginal]

i am a moron, aren't i?

:duh:

 

[Nazaroo]

The benefits of the 'new view of marriage'

 

[Caledvwlch]

What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah shows I am not on the wrong side of history on this matter.

What does Sodom and Gomorrah have to do with history?

 

[Granite]

What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah shows I am not on the wrong side of history on this matter.

Ezekiel said the cities of the plain were destroyed because of their pride, avarice, and unwillingness to help the poor.

 

[PureX]

I feel bad for this woman because her religious beliefs are so narrow and judgmental of others that they're going to cause her to lose a good-paying job.

But that's her choice.

And the taxpayers who pay her salary can't be expected to make special exceptions and accommodations at their own expense for a woman who clearly will not make ANY exceptions of accommodations for them. Even when it's the law. So that's that. She has the right to refuse to do her job, and the people who pay her to do that job have the right to fire her for her refusal.

Done and done. Why are we even still talking about this?

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[Caledvwlch]

Naz, your choice of avatar somehow makes your lunacy almost comical.