Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
DionYorker wrote:I guess is alright to take a man once you dont believe in God. Crime up, murders real high, you can't even by bread without getting shot....but Faggets rights is what the governments seeking.
DionYorker wrote:I guess is alright to take a man once you dont believe in God. Crime up, murders real high, you can't even by bread without getting shot....but Faggets rights is what the governments seeking.
The Constitution, she said, must minimise this power [governing party's majority power]and ensure civil society has a greater voice in the Parliament.
I guess is alright to take a man once you dont believe in God. Crime up, murders real high, you can't even by bread without getting shot....but Faggets rights is what the governments seeking.
DionYorker wrote:I guess is alright to take a man once you dont believe in God. Crime up, murders real high, you can't even by bread without getting shot....but Faggets rights is what the governments seeking.
crossdrilled wrote:DionYorker wrote:I guess is alright to take a man once you dont believe in God. Crime up, murders real high, you can't even by bread without getting shot....but Faggets rights is what the governments seeking.
No gunman/ bandit ever declare that they is a "Fagget" (In quotes... not something I would ever write). Would be a safer world if there were more of them (Homosexuals).
crossdrilled wrote: There is nothing wrong with homosexuality except the social stigma attached to it.
noshownogo wrote:Personally I don't care who you beatout at night. Gays neither scare me, nor make me concerned for our society. We have bigger issues at hand.
Habit7 wrote:The OP or anyone else compromises their argument when they engage in name calling and ridicule.
The reason for consultation is to obtain the best consensus and most of our citizens are religious and even those who claim to be non-religious do not necessarily deny the existence of a god.
The objective in the constitution is to ground our rights in a divine entity greater than us. It is not in view to set up a state religion.
Habit7 wrote:The OP or anyone else compromises their argument when they engage in name calling and ridicule.
The reason for consultation is to obtain the best consensus and most of our citizens are religious and even those who claim to be non-religious do not necessarily deny the existence of a god.
The objective in the constitution is to ground our rights in a divine entity greater than us. It is not in view to set up a state religion.
Rallyfignis wrote:OP just done the talk and come out the closet, I'm sure you'll feel a lot better...
And remember - Jesus loves you.
The rest of us think you're an A$$hole though...
crazybalhead wrote:Road racer, I am heartened to here that you saved yourself for the blessed union of marriage and that you have and never will masturbate. Also, much respect on your ability to have sex with your equally chaste wife only when it is necessary to procreate. Good job!
roadracer7 wrote:God created man to take ah man?
then where will the woman fit in?
then there wouldn't be any procreation,eh,wouldn't it?
roadracer7 wrote:sorry, i forgot you'all don't believe in a Supreme Creator