Archive for Wednesday, April 5, 2006

Vote anniversary

April 5, 2006


To the editor:

April 5 is the first anniversary of the passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Kansas, although a majority in Douglas County voted against it. We lost that battle, but the struggle against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation continues every day in many ways. The popular film "Brokeback Mountain" vividly showed the senseless pain caused by homophobia. Polls show more acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people every year. Saturday's gay pride parade in downtown Lawrence was a large, joyous event. Someday discrimination will get voted down statewide, not just in Douglas County.

Maggie Childs,



xenophonschild 12 years, 1 month ago

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, period. Homophobia cannot be held accountable for reality - nature did not design us for same-sex relationships; they are unnatural.

bankboy119 12 years, 1 month ago

If the choice comes down to it's between consenting adults why could they outlaw polygamy? If Susie can have 2 mommies, why not 2 mommies and a daddy? Or 8 daddies and 3 mommies? You get the picture. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

KayCee 12 years, 1 month ago

What is 'hohophobia'? Most use it in a completly inappropreate meaning. Fear or hatred? What 'B.S.'! Those charged with it are just damn tired of haveing the matter thrown in their face.

I'll continue to vote against any such thing. No matter how much some push for their ideas, there is no 'same-sex marriage'. Xeno defined what marriage is.

craigers 12 years, 1 month ago

I was surprised with xeno's post as well. I understand pride in who you are and for being unique/different but homosexuality isn't normal. It isn't natural at all. And don't bring up that they are committed and love one another because I am talking about functions of their sexual organs.

Bradley Kemp 12 years, 1 month ago


Even if it were true that homosexual relationships were unnatural (it isn't), you'd still have some work to do in order to establish that they shouldn't be recognized under law in the same way that heterosexual relationships are. You'd have to establish that what is unnatural is also undesirable.

Have a go at that.

BrianR 12 years, 1 month ago

Many of these exact sentiments were uttered about interracial couples not so long ago. I can feel the hate today.

mom_of_three 12 years, 1 month ago

I thought all men were created equal, yet we are going to deny certain men and women the rights the rest of married couples take for granted. Forget the marriage word, how about allowing civil unions, which the law also forbade?
What are people so afraid of, by allowing civil unions between two people?

Passing the law was so wrong.
That's my opionion, and I am sticking to it.

Kelly Powell 12 years, 1 month ago

This is just semantic masturbation....If the concept of "civil union" replaced the word marriage it could of happened....i think both sides of the issue are being to pig headed....if you could get all or at least the most important legal benefits of marriage why not settle for that and work on the marriage concept after everyone sees it was no big deal.

Linda Endicott 12 years, 1 month ago

Nature didn't design us for cars and iPods, either, but lots of people have them, even though they aren't "natural".

People who physically abuse aren't "natural", either, IMHO, but we allow them to marry anyway.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. And I still can't see what all the homophobes are so damned afraid of. Allowing gays to marry in no way affects those who are already married.

It's not like heterosexuals have made such a shining example of marriage.

craigers 12 years, 1 month ago

Don't bring up interracial marriages because that isn't even remotely close. I'm not afraid of homosexuals but marriage is between a man and a woman.
I am a little slow about the acronyms so what does IMHO mean?

Richard Heckler 12 years, 1 month ago

It is nothing new:

It is generally accepted that the lives of historical figures such as Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello and Christopher Marlowe included or were centred upon love and sexual relationships with people of their own gender. Terms such as gay or bisexual have been applied to them, but many regard this as risking the anachronistic introduction of a modern social construction of sexuality foreign to their times. [citation needed] Variations from modern standards of beauty, social roles, sexual positions, and age disparities are of such magnitude so as to render meaningless any projection of modern roles onto historical personages.

I'm with rednekbuddha, mom of three and crazyks.

lunacydetector 12 years, 1 month ago

i don't believe in gay marriage. it is wrong because it is against nature.

it's a pity that children are allowed to be adopted by homosexuals as well. imagine the stress a foster child or any adopted child endures, not only dealing with not being with their birth parents, or they came from an abusive household, or their parents may have died - but now they must deal with the stress of being raised by a couple of gays. allowing gays to adopt children is an act of selfishness by the adults.

nope, keep your "lifestyle" out of my institution of marriage. fortunately, the VAST majority of voters think as I.

Jamesaust 12 years, 1 month ago

"Polls show more acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people every year."

I guess that depends on how you look at the polls.

First, there is a general increase in acceptance, which is pretty much inevitable for a subject that doesn't have any polling (and almost no contemplation) a decade or so ago. Still, there is a very slow year-by-year increase overall.

Second, there has been a noticeable increase in acceptance over the last few years but only from the short-term reversal of the long-term trend that followed the brief flurry of news during and immediately after the Massachusetts action. In other words, the long-term trendline continues.

Third, recent polling shows in particular a lessening of strong resistance when opponents are free to characterize their degree of opposition. While the percentage of opponents has declined only slightly, the percentage of opponents who describe themselves as strongly or very strongly oppossed (versus moderately oppossed) has declined quite a bit in just the passage of a few years.

Fourth, the long-term trend is evident in acceptance in a significant majority of persons under 30. Even a majority of 31-40 year olds seem to approve an either/or marriage or civil union policy. (I don't buy the B. O'Reilly argument that young people are just liberal and they'll 'grow out of it.')

Speakout 12 years, 1 month ago

My opinion is that this topic is moot and dead. Forget it! Lets move on to something important.

lunacydetector 12 years, 1 month ago

if marriage is based solely on love then what if koko the gorilla fell in love with a man? koko can talk through sign language after all. if koko says she loves her trainer and her trainer (a human) loves koko, why couldn't they get married?

then there is karen and kevin a brother - sister couple who love eachother in a way most would find unacceptable - but who are we to say it is unacceptable?

then there is tom, dick and harry who love eachother very much. if the law would allow tom to marry dick, what would become of poor harry?

i don't think 70% is an accurate divorce rate for heterosexual couples. isn't it around 50%? pretty sad, but i'm sure it is much lower than the breakups of gay couples.

the problem with the high divorce rate nowadays is -getting a divorce is too easy. it is a selfish act. unless there is physical abuse or infidelity, why should anyone get divorced? in today's society, it's all about self fulfillment and instant gratification.

wonderhorse 12 years, 1 month ago


This is lunacy's pat speech when the issue of gay marriage comes up. For some reason, s/he cannot understand what a contract is about, and who/what can agree to one.

Bradley Kemp 12 years, 1 month ago

"if marriage is based solely on love then what if koko the gorilla fell in love with a man? koko can talk through sign language after all. if koko says she loves her trainer and her trainer (a human) loves koko, why couldn't they get married?"

Marriage isn't based solely on love. It's a contractual relationship. To enter contracts, one must be able to give consent. Gorillas -- even talking ones -- can't give consent. Adult human beings can. Even gay ones.

All these slippery-slope arguments are bogus. Because if there is a slippery slope, it doesn't begin with same-sex marriage. It begins with marriage.

If John Smith and Joanne Johnson, two unrelated, consenting adults of different sexes, are allowed to marry, then might that not lead Jim Jones and Mike Davis, two other unrelated, consenting adults, to seek to be allowed marry?

And if Jim Jones and Mike Davis are allowed to marry, then what about Koko and her trainer? And then what about siblings Karen and Kevin? And then what about Tom, Dick, and Harry?

Kodiac 12 years, 1 month ago

Not to rock anyone's boat but I am pretty sure there are heterosexual species of organisms that will engage in homosexual behavoirs from time to time even though their main method of propagation is hetersexual. So I am wondering, what does it mean when someone says "it is wrong because it is against nature".

Kodiac 12 years, 1 month ago

"heterosexual species of organisms"....other than humans I mean...

Kodiac 12 years, 1 month ago

Ah here we have Arminius who is Kevin Groenhagen. I am sure we will soon be hearing how all of this is Bill Clinton's fault and whatever idiotic website that Kevin has created to prove it.....

wonderhorse 12 years, 1 month ago

"The letter writer errs in writing "gay marriage." The ban is on "same-sex marriage." This means that a heterosexual man is also prohibited from marrying another man. Therefore, the ban is applied equally to homosexual and heterosexual men."

Yes, you are correct. The question is, why?

wonderhorse 12 years, 1 month ago

"Isn't this what the far left, progessive, secular crowd really, really wants --deep down--to rid any and all traditional American values and flush them down the toilet."

Don't know. I'm repub all the way and somehow I don't feel that gay marriage contracts will do anything at all to marriage between a man and woman. The only ones who can damage that contract are the man and woman, themselves. Sorry about the bad grammar.

bankboy119 12 years, 1 month ago

Well even if you don't agree with the thing about the gorilla, nobody who is pro same-sex marriage has argued against my 7:51 post. That post already covers why the "consenting adult" argument is bogus. If it comes down to who can sign contracts and who can consent, then, technically, we could all sign a contract and be married to each other. We're all consenting adults right?

If you do not have firm boundaries, like on marriage is between a man and a woman, then you could not argue against polygamy or incestral marriages. Homosexuality, primarily in men, destroys the body, but they are consenting adults. Incestral children have a much much much higher risk of being born with defects, but their parents are consenting adults, who is to say that they cannot do that? Polygamy just adds a 3rd wheel...or an 18th I guess? But they are all consenting adults, what's the problem?

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 1 month ago

It is a biological reality that a woman's egg being fertilized by a man's sperm is the only way to continue the species. What this has to do with marriage is not as clear as the "natural law" proponents state.

If marriage were solely about procreation, then the infertile should not be allowed to marry. Also, those who marry but do not reproduce should have their marriages nullified.

There are two distinct components to a marriage, one recognized by religion and the other by the government. The government grants privileges to those who are married. Any religious organization should be allowed to oppose any sort of marriage they choose. They can refuse to marry a couple under their auspices. However, the state should not discriminate (unequally provide privileges) based upon a religiously-inspired definition of marriage.

The polygamy argument is a red herring. They are completely separate issues. The specter of polygamy is purposefully conflated with marriage rights to frighten and confuse. Simply put, polygamy has been against the law in the US for at least 150 years and with good reason. Homosexual marriage has not been illegal until recently.

Any religion should have the right to deny marriage in their church, but the state cannot so discriminate. The alternative is for marriage privileges granted by the state to be revoked and the state be neutral toward marriage.

Kodiac 12 years, 1 month ago


Totally off the subject but....

The only reason why I go out of my way to indicate who Arminius because Arminius will talk about himself in the third person and refer to websites he has created or letters he has written under his real name (KG). Not sure why he does this but to me it is deceptive. It is one thing to be annonymous and make comments about other people's ideas and letters but to be annonymous and then turn around and pretend to be making comments about other people when really all he is doing is talking about himself is a another ballgame. Like rednek says all we are doing is "semantic masturbation". Kevin is the ultimate public masturbater, stroking his ego and spouting his unseminal lies all over everyone.

Ok back to the natural world.....

Kodiac 12 years, 1 month ago

Oh come on Kevin,

The names Kevin Groehagen and Arminius are linked to the same website that for some reason I just can't remember what it is. Can you explain why that is?

craigers 12 years, 1 month ago

The point being that if the homosexual act was so natural that everybody claims it is then they would be able to procreate. The fact that some heterosexuals are sterile is a moot point. If this behavior is normal then they would be able to keep the population going. Homosexual behavior is not natural nor healthy.

bankboy119 12 years, 1 month ago

Actually nightmare you're wrong again. The argument for polygamy is not being used as a scare tactic. As you were writing that, the polygamy activists were continuing to file briefs with the courts based on the same argument that same-sex marriage uses, it's between consenting adults.

There's one example that I just pulled from Google, the first one I found actually. I know there are more.

bankboy119 12 years, 1 month ago


Your butt gets ripped open and there is also tearing. By shoving something up there you can damage other organs. Did you not take health class in school? That wasn't the part about homosexuality, that was about anal sex.

I'm sure this will be removed within about 30 seconds.

bankboy119 12 years, 1 month ago

No, the point was that it is destructive to the body. I was not saying it was a point to not allow them to marry, for that you should refer to my previous posts. When it causes damage to organs it is destructive. Pretty simple.

Linda Endicott 12 years, 1 month ago

Oh, yes, heterosexuals are just sooo moral and upstanding and pure as the driven snow. That's why they go online and try to find children to have sex with.

badger 12 years, 1 month ago

Well, then, bankboy, what about lesbians? No anal tearing there. Lesbian sex involves absolutely nothing that isn't part of heterosexual sex (at least, heterosexual sex worth having). Also, not all sex between men is anal. There are other options that are quite popular, I'm told.

Marriage, by legal definitions, is a set of rights and privileges available to people who enter into a binding legal contract. I think that anyone who wants to enter into that contract should be able to, provided that he or she is of legal age and sound mind, and neither party exercises undue influence over the other.

The most effective argument against incest is based in the last part, by the way. Because familial relationships generally have a heirarchical nature, there's usually a power balance and a strong likelihood that the dominant sibling began the relationship as a form of control, abuse, or molestation. Not always the case, but it's the case often enough that the rules can be based on it without stretching too far.

As for polyamoury? I have no real problem with poly groups being allowed those same rights and privileges. It's a legal headache, but if people want to commit to one another and bind their lives to one another in a loving relationship, well, then, I can't see how it really hurts anyone to allow them to codify their existing commitment with a legal recognition.

And, frankly, Britney Spears has done more, singlehandedly, to flush morality, traditional values, respect for marriage, and common decency down the toilet than the entire gay population of the US could do in ten years. Woman's a menace. Let's outlaw her.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 1 month ago

What is the justification for outlawing polygamy? It cannot be a religious one, because polygamy is rampant in the bible and many "heroes" of the old testament were polygamists (David, Solomon, etc.). Why is it that many "christians" on this site are opposed to polygamy, when polygamy is all over the bible and there is nothing in the bible against it?

Too many idiots for "idiot" to be a differentiating term, so I will ask this question of spanky, rightstinker, craigers, and armi-man.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 1 month ago

Aha! Badger answered the question. Polygamy should be against the law for many of the same reasons that incest is against the law. Heirarchical relationship dynamics. In a family there are such relationships and among groups there are such relationships (e.g. the 3rd wheel). In such relationships, someone is going to be hurt/exploited/repressed.

This is not true in all such relationships, but as badger said, it happens often enough to warrant prohibition.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 1 month ago

Another question for the Four Horsemen (although they haven't answered my first question yet):

What is the definition of "man" and "woman", as in "marriage is between one man and one woman"?

Bradley Kemp 12 years, 1 month ago

"How depressed will a 10 year old be when the kids make fun of him/her for having two "daddies"?"

Not at all -- if the 10-year-old and his contemporaries and his parents live in a society that doesn't discriminate against homosexuals.

A 10-year-old who is himself homosexual is far likelier to be depressed living in the society some in this discussion seem to want -- one where ordinary human variation is seen to be either virtuous or abominable.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 1 month ago

"...a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina...and they can procreate..."

What about a woman born without a uterus or a man born without functioning testes (unable to procreate). There are genetic syndromes, which have quite a high prevalence in human populations, that result in men and women with mixed sexual organs who are sterile.

Should these people be denied marriage?

Bradley Kemp 12 years, 1 month ago

"And souki, where will this idyllic homosexual community you speak of exist?"

It's only hypothetical. But there is great cultural and historical variability in terms of attitudes towards homosexuality. Not all cultures are or have been as inimical toward it as our own.

craigers 12 years, 1 month ago

yourworstnightmare, unfortunately you know just enough about the bible to try and dismantle people with it. Yes there were polygamists in the bible, nobody said they weren't or that there weren't any in there. The bible is full of people that screwed up in life. That is why it is all about the redemptive story of Christ. And you have to look further into the bible to find that "A man should cling to his wife". Along with many other references to marriage it is tied to singular. There should only be one man and one woman. Marriage is a symbol of what the church (body of Christ, the bride of Christ) and God's relationship should be. You shall have no other gods before me. The body of believers which is the body of Christ is whom He is coming back for and it is termed as the bride of Christ. He only has one bride and we have only one groom in the spirit world. We are to be true only to Christ and Christ is true to us.
Sorry, I can't be more detailed but I don't have time to be long winded about it. Can somebody tell me what IMHO means?

wonderhorse 12 years, 1 month ago

"It's only hypothetical. But there is great cultural and historical variability in terms of attitudes towards homosexuality. Not all cultures are or have been as inimical toward it as our own."

The Theban Sacred Band in Greece. Some of the best warriors in history.

badger 12 years, 1 month ago

ywn, you seriously misinterpreted me:

"Polygamy should be against the law for many of the same reasons that incest is against the law. Heirarchical relationship dynamics. In a family there are such relationships and among groups there are such relationships (e.g. the 3rd wheel). In such relationships, someone is going to be hurt/exploited/repressed."

I have a lot of friends who are poly, who would take a great deal of offense at your characterization. Many people have perfectly healthy polyamorous relationships in which there is no third wheel, and no one feels hurt, exploited, or repressed. They are consenting adults who choose to build loving and sexual relationships with more than one person. I suggest you become more familiar with the poly community and learn more about those relationship structures. It's really pretty amazing to see.

Incest has no comparison to that. In a familial relationship, there's an established heirarchy of power and control that cannot avoid becoming part of the romantic relationship. Older siblings are socially expected to both protect and dominate the younger ones, as are parents.

In an incestuous relationship, it's highly unlikely that the preexisting imbalance of power will not affect the dynamic of the relationship.

Add that to the biological dangers (a same-sex relationship may not produce children and so be 'unnatural', but an incestuous relationship stands a higher chance of producing children with severe disabilities and birth defects), and there is a fair amount of logical reason to outlaw incestuous relationships.

Same-sex relationships and polyamorous relationships offer neither the inherent risk of manipulation and exploitation nor the increased risk of children with severe birth defects that comes with incest, and so they merit no comparison.

Kelly Powell 12 years, 1 month ago

You know, the christians did not invent marriage.....We are not discussing whether or not your religion says it is ok.....We are talking about two people(or more) signing into a binding contract. As for the whole incest thing.....If if was so dammed prevailent why are we not seeing goggles of hemophylliac mongoloids with third arms sticking out of their heads wandering around everywhere? Let's tone down on the scare tactics people.

Jamesaust 12 years, 1 month ago

Goodness, I wander back on this page and find:

lunacy comparing gays to gorillas (that's gay human beings to - presumptively - non-gay animals: obviously a useful comparison),

arminius doing his best imitation of racist miscegenation marriage policies (by changing race to gender and then turning the argument inside-out),

craigers trying to square some Pat Robertson perversion of Christianity, including a vague reference to man 'clinging to his wife' (while I note avoiding 3 verses later a blanket condemnation as sin remarriage - by non-gays, of course - of divorcees: a matter most certainly NOT banned in Kansas).

I would say that when this subject arises, many people seem to rant like backalley schizophrenics - but then that would be an insult to the schizophrenics.

Look, if you're going to convince anyone, you're going to need to place side-by-side the most deserving same-gender couple and the least deserving opposite-gender couple, and then explain why the first does not deserve community support while the second does. A bunch of blather about polygamy (anyone for polyandry?) and the need for Taliban rule in America doesn't convince a soul.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 1 month ago


Agreed there is the inbreeding issue as well with incest. Although some parts of Wisconsin, West Virginia, and other areas have very high inbreeding coefficients in the absence of obvious incest. Also agreed that polygamous relationships can be productive. However, it is often the case that polygamy leads to abuse, especially institutionalized polygamy such as is practiced by some mormons in the west and by muslims in asia. Polygamy also tends to go hand-in-hand with incest. Seems like every few years a teenage girl in Utah runs away from a polygamous, abusive relationship with her uncle.

On the whole, a two-person relationship, whether that be same-sex or hetero, is best for the individuals involved and their children.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 1 month ago

"Of course there are exceptions to every rule, obviously, they should be exterminated (just kidding). "

Nice. Seems to me like a bit of "kidding on the square".

"they are still a man and a woman by physical standards."

What standards. Male gonads and female genitalia. Man or woman?

Two X chromosomes and male genitalia. Man or woman?

A Y chromosome and female genitalia. Man or woman?

A male who has had surgery to obtain female genitalia. Man or woman?

The point is obvious. It is impossible to define what a "man" and a "woman" are. Well, I suppose it could be defined, but the results would be draconian.

I would rather like to see the debate in the Kansas legislature to define "man" and "woman", a definition glaringly absent from the reprehensible "Defense of Marriage" act passed last year.

Jamesaust 12 years, 1 month ago

Arminius - I did not say that you were a racist. If I wanted to say so then I would have said so. I said your arguments were lifted directly from those made only a few decades ago by racists.

You said that no discrimination existed in excluding gays from marriage rights as they are free to marry those of the opposite gender, just as everyone else is.

The legal defense against charges of discrimination by those defending laws forbidding opposite races from marrying (a policy I note in passing that was supported by a higher percentage of the public in the 1950s than the Kansas constitutional amendment passed by a year ago) was: there is no discrimination as every race is discriminated against identically as no race may marry any other.

You just substituted gender for race and turned the "logic" upside-down.

For the record, despite some rather odd behavior, I cannot recall any racist remark that I've noticed you to make, nor for that matter anything much worse than a certain smug insensitivity toward gays.

Of course, that's not a crime - if it were, half of Kansas would be in prison. After all, it has only been something like 3 years since the bigots in this state were allowed to make gays ipso facto felons (no due process necessary).

craigers 12 years, 1 month ago

Defender, if that is all you are going to pull out of my post and say that is the problem then you don't get what we all do on here. We post our beliefs and feelings. Ywm asked a question and I tried to give an answer with not enough time to full explain everything. On Jamesaust comes on the board and compares me to Pat Robertson which isn't all bad, and tries to inform me how lacking I was since I didn't bring up the sin of remarriage. The sin of remarriage is for those that divorce and remarry because of choice. For those that have been cheated on (adultery) it is permissible to divorce and be remarried as well as those whose spouse has died. And earlier in the post I said that the bible is full of people that messed up and that is why it is all about a redemptive story. James, no the divorcee law was not proposed so we didn't vote on it, but the homosexual marriage was. That is the reason we are talking about it not the other. When you vote on one proposal do you start talking about all the other problems you should be voting on? No, you vote on what is on the agenda. Your case against divorcees will not change my beliefs on homosexuals.

And Defender, I guess if your lifestyle choices make you against the bible then yes you wouldn't like what i have to say about homosexuals. I don't have anything against them, just like I don't have anything against adulterers and other people that commit sexual sins. They are all wrong in the bible and that is what shapes my moral beliefs. We will not agree on this matter but that is why we all share our beliefs here so that we can at least understand where everybody is coming from.

Jamesaust 12 years, 1 month ago

LOL Arminius, the only implication is the one you need to claim offense and play victim. Sometimes you seem to be little more than an accumulation of grudges, whether real or imagined.

I haven't clarified anything - I expanded the original since you either can't or won't read. Stop trafficking in the lingo of extremists if you want to avoid your overly sensitive imaginary implications. If you want to talk about dialectical materialism and the vanguard of the proletariat, don't be surprised if someone points out the Marxist basis for your argument (only to have you then come back complaining that someone has fingered you as a commie).

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 1 month ago


"I guess if your lifestyle choices make you against the bible then yes you wouldn't like what i have to say about homosexuals. I don't have anything against them, just like I don't have anything against adulterers and other people that commit sexual sins. They are all wrong in the bible and that is what shapes my moral beliefs."

Your religious beliefs put you directly at odds with the Constitution of the United States.

craigers 12 years, 1 month ago

How is that yourworstnightmare? I mean each one of us and our founding fathers had our beliefs shaped by something. Just because I declared mine and it was the bible I'm at odds with the Constitution. And just so you know it states that the government can't mandate a state church or any of the sort. It doesn't state that Christians shouldn't impact government. Sorry, your comment is way off.

wonderhorse 12 years, 1 month ago

" I mean each one of us and our founding fathers had our beliefs shaped by something."

I agree. Thomas Jefferson had an extra-marital relationship with one of his slaves. I wonder what shaped his beliefs?

craigers 12 years, 1 month ago

Are you serious Defender? That is what a free society does is make laws depending on what they think is right. That is why we are divided on this. Like it or not people will use their religion to base their beliefs and choices on what laws, people, among many other things to vote for or not to vote for. As I stated above that we weren't going to agree on this but instead you stooped to calling my beliefs reprehensible and disgusting. I never said that I thought people that like playing in the mud were disgusting and reprehensible. And the reason I hold the beliefs I do are because of the bible and what God has showed in the bible what to accept and not to accept. You might find it idiotic and quite frankly I don't care. Your disdain for anybody that associates themselves with the bible is disgusting in my mind and you are showing your own hatred that you choose to have. So keep on blathering on a public forum and tell people that voice their opinions not to, because that makes sense.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.