Same-sex unions in 'News' - Dallas Morning News to publish FREE same sex unions announcements

The Dallas Morning News ^ | July 6, 2003 | By ALINE McKENZIE / The Dallas Morning News

[DAnconia55]

Unfortunately new registrations have been disabled temporarily due to excruciating circumstances.

Does it really say that? LOL...

What - did he get his **** caught in the door or something?

[thelastonestanding]

So what about solutions? Secession

[thelastonestanding]

Your concept of liberty bears a remarkable resemblance to totalitarianism. Scratch totalitarianism and put "your idea of a fundamentalist"

[TheBattman]

Big deal. You don't have a right not to be offended. This is not a right you have.

Oh- REALLY? Then why are Christians becoming more and more Christian values and symbols being pushed out of the public realm? Weather it be the 10 commandments, or a simple Cross displayed - these symbols are being removed because of fear that they might "offend" someone. If we don't have the right to "not be offended", then why the recent special considerations for non-Christians?

To be perfectly honest - all gratuitous displays of public affection - regardless of the nature of those doing it, is in bad taste and annoying at the least. The fact that homosexual couples in some cases prefer to flaunt their deviant sexuality by displaying behaviour in public that would be disgusting even if between heterosexual couples only acts as a slap in the face of anyone with a sense of morality.

I have another question for you....

Why are there laws against public indecency? If some freak decides to whip out his privates and wave them at you in the parking lot of the local mall - why would that be illegal? Answer - because such behaviour is extremely offensive. There may be some of that freak's friends who would not be offended, while others might just think it's funny. But the fact remains - it is illegal because it is offensive.

What about laws against nudity? Are these laws just random acts to keep legislators busy? No, they are to protect those who might otherwise be offended by such displays.

I subimit that anyone with a shred of morality left in their body who is not offended by such grotesque demonstrations, both in the "real world" as well as in the majority of "entertainment" venues - ie Television, then I suggest that they are either the appoligists for or are active participants in said behaivior.

I might also suggest that your leftist rantings might be better of on another unmentionable message board with the initials DU -

[F16Fighter]

"Later, we're going to come over to your house and stand out on the sidewalk and sodomize each other while your kids watch....What I don't like is Fundies....

I needed back up to deal with mental midgets who use hatred and sexual repression as a raison d'etre."

Gerbil Alert for the pot calling the kettle black.

Coward.

[Old Professer]

There are those here who enjoy debate, but not with those who "hit-and-run" and play "Devil's Advocate" just for fun.

Mating season is a year-round thing among the two-legged beasts and I suppose it has its place since even the most fecund are not prolific; but to order one's life around such a practice is so vulgar.

[ladyinred]

Why FREE pray tell, when the rest of society has to pay through the freaking nose for an announcement in one of these liberal rags? See, they can' t settle for equal rights, they have to have special rights.

[Old Professer]

Careful, newbie, we've got some folks here who could argue the rag off of a street whore.

[DAnconia55]

Oh- REALLY? Then why are Christians becoming more and more Christian values and symbols being pushed out of the public realm? Weather it be the 10 commandments, or a simple Cross displayed - these symbols are being removed because of fear that they might "offend" someone. If we don't have the right to "not be offended", then why the recent special considerations for non-Christians

Dunno. They don't have a right not to be offended either.

I might also suggest that your leftist rantings

Yeah, yeah - I'm the one crying to government here. Got it. I'm the one trying to make it illegal for gays to have sex, and I'm the one trying to stop a newspaper from doing what they want with their own paper.

LOL..

[DAnconia55]

It is what the people of the state wanted my majority, so it is the law, do you not see this is how it works and always has.

You are sadly misinformed.

[TC Builders]

No you are, that is how each state handles it's laws.

[TheBattman]

I didn't see anything in Sweetliberty's post to you about whining to the government to make it illegal for gays to have sex - must have been what was on your mind when you read it....

What I gathered from her post was that she is sick and tired of the public displays as well as the unavoidable preaching of this abhorent lifestyle on TV and the media.

I also noticed that you didn't bother to give your own answer to my questions regarding laws that protect our "right to not be offended".

I find it difficult to belive that Sweetliberty would disagree with my viewpoint on the subject -

Homesexual behavior and lifestyle is morally wrong. Regardless of the legalities and our own personal beliefs, we can never prevent homosexuals from practicing their disgusting lifesytle choice in the privacy of their own bedrooms. The recent SCOTUS decision prooves that.

BUT, I totally refuse to accept public displays of such behavior. I should not be subjected to this behavior, nor should children. I also despise the way that the mainstream media is trying to force homosexuality on society as a "normal" lifestyle.

Just as much as those who despise having Christian values "crammed" down their throats, I hate having homosexual behaviour crammed down my throat everywhere I turn. If the athiests and freaks of this country are being "protected" by the courts, then why isn't the reverse just as "fair"?

Not everyone enjoys seeing me kiss my wife in public, and 99.999% of people would choose to not see me grope or otherwise project my sexuality with my wife in public. Thus, I have a sense of decency and save all such behaviour for the privacy of our own home Is it too much to ask similar descression on the part of homosexuals?

[TheBattman]

Just as much as those who despise having Christian values "crammed" down their throats
I think that's the funniest thing I've seen on FR today!! Thanks!

You don't GET what's wrong with that sentence DO YOU?

Actually, I do understand what you found so humourous, but I believe I am a bit too mature to make an issue out of it on a public forum - but then again your viewpoint on the issue has proven that you have no maturity or morals....

Hope you and your boyfriend enjoyed it....probably brought back memories of last night...

[DAnconia55]

Actually, I do understand what you found so humourous

Somehow I really doubt it.

but I believe I am a bit too mature to make an issue out of it on a public forum -

And that too, considering..

Hope you and your boyfriend enjoyed it....probably brought back memories of last night...

[winker]

I've shredded a few rags my self and survived very nicely but thanks for your concern! My main concern is not having anyone answering their life style directly; they need to be properly churched by a good Pentacostal. I am willing and will comply!

[Redbob]

Just one more reason NOT to buy the Dallas Morning Spew.

Misfortunately, their evil spawn the Denton Retched-Chronicle is the newspaper up here in Denton County.
They pretend to be conservative, even run Ann Coulter to try to balance out Moly Ivins, Clarence Page,and that silly biddy from the Atlanta Constipation, Cynthia Something.

[VOA]

And that shows Senator Feingold to not be a decent person, in my opinion.

Feingold's turn as head of The Spanish-Come-To-America Inquisition is no suprise to me.
My time in graduate school was made hellish to a large degree because
those of us that had work to do had to "be nice" to a fellow lab member who was
gay, usually drunk/somewhat stoned, and not easy to get along with.
This person's antics were only encouraged because the head of the lab was
a liberal Catholic who basically gave protection/sanction to this person...
so he of course felt no compunction at harassing members of the group.
As much was humanly possible I remained in the "what would Jesus do?" mode...
loving the sinner as much as I disliked his conduct.

But over time, I learned that the agenda of these sorts of people isn't
tolerance...but shouted approval, if not recruitment.

As one of our talk-show hosts says "you can't seduce (make nice) with evil".


Some things just shouldn't NEED to be justified, so obvious are they to the majority of people.

Of course, Feingold and his posse are "pro-choice".
And the only choice is their choice.

I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a legion of tyrants burning in Hades smiled when
they saw how someone like Feingold could use his position to castigate
a person for making their own informed choice on a matter of moral opinion.

Pro-Choice, my rather large derriere!!!

[VOA]

And that shows Senator Feingold to not be a decent person, in my opinion.

Feingold's turn as head of The Spanish-Come-To-America Inquisition is no suprise to me.
My time in graduate school was made hellish to a large degree because
those of us that had work to do had to "be nice" to a fellow lab member who was
gay, usually drunk/somewhat stoned, and not easy to get along with.
This person's antics were only encouraged because the head of the lab was
a liberal Catholic who basically gave protection/sanction to this person...
so he of course felt no compunction at harassing members of the group.
As much was humanly possible I remained in the "what would Jesus do?" mode...
loving the sinner as much as I disliked his conduct.

But over time, I learned that the agenda of these sorts of people isn't
tolerance...but shouted approval, if not recruitment.

As one of our talk-show hosts says "you can't seduce (make nice) with evil".


Some things just shouldn't NEED to be justified, so obvious are they to the majority of people.

Of course, Feingold and his posse are "pro-choice".
And the only choice is their choice.

I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a legion of tyrants burning in Hades smiled when
they saw how someone like Feingold could use his position to castigate
a person for making their own informed choice on a matter of moral opinion.

Pro-Choice, my rather large derriere!!!

[stands2reason]

Then cite the passages in the Constitution that allow the Federal government to ban sexuality.

Noone's talking about FedGov. Show me in the constitution where states have no rights to make laws concerning sexual behavior.