Just want your opinion.
Personally I think it would
2006-11-28 03:27:54 · 13 answers · asked by austrianlegend 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
why would it be bad?
God destroted Sodom for its many immoral sins. Wouldnt it be the same?
2006-11-28 03:38:37 · update #1
Its not just the gays. Its their (ROTC program and others) military stance and complete anti-gov stance and yes their gays. Its one thing to be gay and another to literally have a parade (disgusting too) showing it. Dressed in drag(its very pornographic) for kids to see. So sick of the whole TOLERANT BS.
Soooo...we should be TOLERANT of pedophiles then?
2006-11-28 03:41:55 · update #2
No, then the people who live there would have to find somewhere else to live...............
2006-11-28 03:32:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Such an upstanding moral person you are. You want SF destroyed chiefly because of the gays, that was clear in your "additional details." You abhor tolerance of any kind it seems and SF is nothing to you but a city full of Sodomites. Four out of five people are straight in SF, but I guess they can just be a sacrifice to salve your outrage. Your solution? Destroy it. Wow, very Christian of you I must say. Come on, 'fess up, you're James Dobson aren't you? Maybe Fred Phelps, he's particularly prone to verbal violence against anyone he perceives as less than righteous. Why aren't you protesting that moral bastion called Mardi Gras? Those straight women can't wait to show their goodies for cheap beads and straight people are humping away in public in doorways. Or how about our thousands of upstanding college kids who jump completely off the moralistic diving board on Spring Breaks? After all, you ARE a fair and balanced Christian person right? Why aren't they receiving your ire with the same vehemence? I know, it's okay,cherry picking is one of the Christian Right's specialties, we're all used to it by now.
BTW? Pedophiles have nothing to do with sexual orientation. The vast majority of pedophiles are straight white males. Thought you could use a fact to correct your assumption.
2006-11-28 12:00:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who can afford to buy property in that summer refrigerator anyway? Do the several generation heirs deserve big bucks if they find a sucker capable of the rip-off? That town was lost in the 1960s nobody who is progressive would live there anyway they would choose outside the fog-belt for that area! Not a good place to get stranded! I think its already a dying city the niners are leaving ha-ha! Yes i have lived there and would not recommend it! California has greatness but unless you are wealthy its not a place to seek out to live mainly cause of property values that are unreasonable and not justified etc.
2006-11-28 12:13:26 · answer #3 · answered by bulabate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I do not. I understand that you are saying this because of your belief that it is a "city of sin". But in this city of sin, also resides children and Christians as well. It is not a good thing when any part of the world, regardless if it is in a highly poplulated area or in the middle of the forest, is struck by any disaster. You have a strange outlook on life, I must say.
2006-11-28 11:43:56 · answer #4 · answered by rosey 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you saying that just because of the gay population?!?!?! Then you probably have never been there. It is a fabulous place for tourism. It's the one place I can go away from home and have some "culture". I live about an hour drive away. There is always something to do. Their museums and attractions are very entertaining and informative.
2006-11-28 11:37:20 · answer #5 · answered by GirlUdontKnow 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Geez, who exactly do you hate in SF ?
If this is about gays, how does it affect you to the point of wishing a catastrophe on an entire state?!
2006-11-28 11:32:43 · answer #6 · answered by T S 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
WHY do you think it would be "good", in any way? Loss of life due to natural disasters - any life - is a tragedy, not a goal. Isn't it possible to find a way to be more tolerant without endorsing violence?
Personally I think it is.
2006-11-28 11:32:34 · answer #7 · answered by happy heathen 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
it might be for making new discoveries but otherwise it would be deadly. i dont think that people in San Fransisco would like either
2006-11-28 11:36:07 · answer #8 · answered by Mississippi State ROCKS! 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Lets lose Sydney ,London ,Rome ,New York ,Washington and while we are at it any place you feel might conflict with your morality you sick bastard .
2006-11-28 11:40:31 · answer #9 · answered by -----JAFO---- 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
like most residents of California, i hope the big quake hits
San Fran soon, then it burns, and the ashes slide into the sea
2006-11-28 11:34:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I havent been in san francisco yet, but whats up with you are you drinking?
2006-11-28 11:31:11 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋