I can't understand where you stand on this issue with your comment below.
I've always been of the opinion of whatever 2 consenting adults want to do,
as long as they aren't injuring somebody, is fine.
<snip>
Author: Monique Boea
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=m:5:13340:120193
But you ARE free to do as you please. I could care less what you do in your
bedroom.
</snip>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:18 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
>
> You're assuming that the "child" is very young and non-consenting.
>
> In that case, of course it has a victim.
>
>
> If the father is with his 22 year old daughter then it's ok?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:29 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
>
>
> How can it possibly be "for the same reasons" ? Incest has a victim
> and a predator. Do you think this is true of homosexuality?
>
> Dana
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Monique Boea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:15:51 -0400
> Subject: RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I look at both issues the same way - wrong.
>
> So the attitude that you have against incest is the same attitude I have
> regarding homosexuality for the same reasons.
>
> (I have to leave to take the little guy to a Braves game, so don't think I
> am not answering your emails..I just need to leave)
>
> Have a good eve...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:13 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
>
> You're looking at it backwards. Why would any group support incest,
> given the known harm that it causes and the almost universal revulsion
> it inspires? All morality and compassion aside, it would be an utterly
> stupid move from the point of view of public relations.
>
> And more to *my* point, how would gay marriage lead to such a thing?
>
> Dana
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Monique Boea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:29:11 -0400
> Subject: RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It is unlawful for a man to sleep with his daughter.
>
> Why would it be surprising that one day a group may want to change
> this law?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:58 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
>
> Monique
>
> You keep saying this. I see no reason why gay marriage would make it
> ok to have sex with children, nor have you supported this assertion.
>
> Dana
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:48:53 -0400, Monique Boea
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > where does it stop then?
> >
> >
> > We are going to become a law-less society, so everyone can be
> happy.
> >
> >
> > If that's where we're going then so be it.
> >
> >
> > I'll still be a conservative, Christian, republican.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:59 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
> >
> > Monique Boea wrote:
> > >
> > > But if a group of people can change laws (and PLEASE don't
> compare this
> > > to the black human rights issue) then what is to stop other groups
> from
> > > changing the laws to further change marriage, age limits, sex limits,
> > > crime, etc. Like a man wanting to marry his daughter. Do we further
> > > change the laws to accommodate him? Or a woman who wants to
> sleep with
> a
> > > 14 year old.
> >
> > How do you think we got the current laws?
> >
> > That's right, we got the current laws because groups of people could
> > convince sufficient people to change the existing law to their views.
> That
> > is a continuous proces and has served over hundreds of years to
> produce
> the
> > laws that are currently in place.
> > Are you seriously suggesting we stop changing law, send the entire
> > legislative body home and live with the current laws forever?
> >
> > Jochem
> > _____________________________________
> >
> _____________________________________
> _____________________________________
> _____
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
