| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Republican" |
| Date: |
19 Jun 2006 11:34:45 PM |
| Object: |
Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, (Michael) wrote:
In article <6knlg.49$JU.24@fe06.lga>, wrote:
But at the same time the people who believe in the scriptures have a
right to be protected as well. Rights are a two way street and if one
side is not to be trampled neither should the other. Why should a
Christians beliefs be any less tolerated then a non-Christian? Why
should marriage after 2000+ years be changed to meet the pleasures of
less then 3% of the population?
Now having said this I do not believe the homosexual community should
be carved out for discrimination either. There should, must, be
protections under the law for civil ceremonies which provide the same
rights as a marriage under religious terms.
Interesting position, why, in your opinion, must there be protections
under the law for civil ceremonies for homosexual unions? Do you also
suggest that there should be protections under the law for polygamy?
If the unique diversity of mariage being one man and one woman is to be
intlerantly destroyed and replaced with a re-imaged defination of the
term, doesn't a restriction in the new advocated position, a relationship
between any two people, discriminate against those who find issue with the
number two in the defination? Under the religious dogma of the gospel of
fairness, that doesn't seem vary fair, does it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mike, I believe that the whole idea of civil rights is being
misconstrued as "special rights" for certain groups, whether
they constitute a perceived majority or minority of American
citizens; as in this case, self-avowed practicing homosexuals
who are seeking certain -- yes, special -- rights for what is
being labeled in the media as "civil unions".
I'll digress to preaching. Recall "My Daddy's Roommate" that
was being forced by the Liberal Atheists into public schools?
It's ironic, since adulterous *roommates* pristinely describes
exactly what they are, nothing less, nothing more. Here's why...
Special rights that homosexuals seek include rights to the same
kind of legal treatment that any lawfully married, law-abiding
male adult and female adult are legally recognized as entitled
to, providing that said married couple qualifies for any such
rights--legally considered on a case-by-case basis, or course.
The prevailing consensus among our ruling, God-fearing, moral-
majority, traditional family-values oriented Republican party
is that homosexuals shouldn't be mistreated as "second-class"
citizens, merely on account their flagrant, and to many of us
repulsive, but in all cases adulterous and lustful lifestyle,
which is indisputably in egregious violation of at least two
(thus in effect, all twelve) of God's Universal Commandments.
Even so, there have been untold millions of legally married
heterosexual men and women who committed adultery, violating
the same commandments, albeit to at least a slightly lesser
degree than the abominable transgressions of homosexuals who
actively participate in their homosexual sexual perversions.
Therefore, the majority of us God-fearing Republicans agree
that, while homosexual sex partners should *NEVER* be legally
granted a marriage license under Federal laws which supersede
any State laws to the contrary, nonetheless we Republicans do
agree that neither should homosexual sex partners be in any
way legally "punished" for their perverse adulterous affairs.
Since homosexuals can't ever be legally recognized as being
married, then their adulterous affairs can never be subject
to laws which are commonly recognized in most divorce court
proceedings, where adulterous affairs are considered legal
grounds for divorce on behalf of the legally-married plain-
tiffs who file for divorce on said grounds. Homosexual sex
partners are simply living in sin, they are *NOT* married.
This is the fault of anti-Xian "common law" rules, which
should be abolished forthwith, as with abortion, atheism-
only in public schools, rewards for violent criminals, etc.
What rights homosexual sex partners are trying to be granted,
include "married" status in various insurance programs, such
as discounts for being married, etc. That is *not* what we
Republicans are agreeing to. Homosexual sex partners are NOT
legally married, nor can they ever be legally recognized to
the contrary. We shall NOT reward adulterers in a civilized,
God-fearing (predominantly Judeo-Xian) multicultural society.
We Republicans are ONLY saying that homosexual sex partners
shouldn't be legally punished for their abominably adulterous
affairs. That's ALL we are saying, to wit, that self-avowed
homosexual sex partners should NOT be treated as second-class
citizens where their basic,--humanitarian,--civil rights are
concerned. They should not be punished, neither rewarded, in
the legal sense, under applicable State or U.S. Federal laws.
Recall, it wasn't so long ago when Hitler's genocidal "NAZI"
regime brutally punished, tortured and mass-murdered myriads
of homosexuals, in the same way they systematically inflicted
unspeakably inhumane -- read *inhuman* -- atrocities against
millions of Jews and other groups of men, women and children
whom the NAZIs didn't want hanging around anywhere in Europe:
i.e. not living yet incarnate in the physical body regardless.
**Equal protection under the law** for all law-abiding American
citizens, of all races, creeds, and colors, is what Republicans
resoundingly agree to. We do *NOT* agree to "special rights" for
anyone, save for extreme cases, e.g., where people are seriously
disabled, being severely mentally and/or physically handicapped,
living in abject poverty of no apparent fault of their own, etc.
So, unless some practicing homosexual falls into that category,
they are entitled to no "special rights" whatsoever. They are
flagrantly guilty of adultery, and most remain unrepentant of
their abominable sins against God, against nature, against all
that is good and right about the whole human race, and they
remain unrepentant until the day they die (many die of AIDS).
As with practicing heterosexual adulterers, practing homosexual
adulterers should repent of their adultery, Go, and sin no more!
I.e., in order to honour their fathers and their mothers, that
their lives be long, healthy, and prosperous upon the beautiful
land which the Dominant one of heaven will be giving to them...
VOTE Republican!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM38786.0401967593@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRJbU3pljD7YrHM/nEQL0uACeKYELcYGVO+p2vQPd/jvDABiM9iMAn2Hh
40YbL+GhvQtZHIn7BIoH/cZa
=AfOy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "American Woman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
20 Jun 2006 04:31:25 PM |
|
|
Republican <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote :
Mike, I believe that the whole idea of civil rights is being
misconstrued as "special rights" for certain groups,
The "special rights" argument is such BS. Equal rights aren't "special
rights".
--
American Woman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
20 Jun 2006 08:26:31 PM |
|
|
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
Mike, I believe that the whole idea of civil rights is being
misconstrued as "special rights" for certain groups,
The "special rights" argument is such BS. Equal rights aren't "special
rights".
They are when one re-defines 'equal rights' to include choice-behaviour as
an entitled class.
It was bad enough when the State arrogated to itself some compelling state's
interest in a marriage sufficient to extend it's authority to religious
matters anyway. It was to exert authority over religious practitioners that
weren't already protected as Treaty Persons- Mormons mostly, over polygamy.
Then it got to worrying about child welfare, divorce authority, civil
marriage, common-law marriage and palimony.
All of it, truth be told, is about children as the issue of marriage between
fruitful people.
As it is, the State limits by all sorts of criteria; age, health, mental
capacity, consanguinity, and so on. The 'responsibility' to the State is a
safeguard for an expected issue of children in name of the commonweal.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "American Woman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 12:12:15 AM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote :
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
Mike, I believe that the whole idea of civil rights is being
misconstrued as "special rights" for certain groups,
The "special rights" argument is such BS. Equal rights aren't
"special rights".
They are when one re-defines 'equal rights' to include
choice-behaviour as an entitled class.
You could eliminate straight marriage based on that.
It was bad enough when the State arrogated to itself some compelling
state's interest in a marriage sufficient to extend it's authority to
religious matters anyway. It was to exert authority over religious
practitioners that weren't already protected as Treaty Persons-
Mormons mostly, over polygamy. Then it got to worrying about child
welfare, divorce authority, civil marriage, common-law marriage and
palimony. All of it, truth be told, is about children as the issue of
marriage between fruitful people.
Oh I guess people who don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry
then.
--
American Woman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:28:58 AM |
|
|
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
They are when one re-defines 'equal rights' to include
choice-behaviour as an entitled class.
You could eliminate straight marriage based on that.
Nope- the State's compelling interest to join in the marriage contract is
based on child-bearing/rearing, nothing to do with choices about
sex-for-fun.
Homosexuals are welcome to declare their commitment to one another in the
presence of witness- you can marry any number of people, an incorporeal
entity like 'Christ', your favorite roping pony- whatever.
Oh I guess people who don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry
then.
The legislation surrounding marriage is general to the common social
contract with the State that 'protects the family' and provides for 'child
welfare'. The contract is predicated on that- the exceptions, of non-fertile
one man/one woman couples who meet otherwise 'child-bearing' criteria
(consanguinity, disease free, etc.) aren't prohibited.
Would you allow marriage between gay brothers, one of whom has syphilis,
not-divorced from a previous marriage, 'emancipated' minors?
Gender difference is only one of the criteria for marriage- and yet a major
difference by which to exclude homosexuals from a contract favoring
child-bearing responsibilities.
or so it seems to me.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "American Woman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 09:56:22 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote :
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
They are when one re-defines 'equal rights' to include
choice-behaviour as an entitled class.
You could eliminate straight marriage based on that.
Nope- the State's compelling interest to join in the marriage
contract is based on child-bearing/rearing, nothing to do with
choices about sex-for-fun.
What the hell is compelling interest? Do you seriously think they should
have the power to do anything they want, on a claim of "compelling
interest"?
Uh let's see, maybe they'll have a "compelling interest" to gas all the
blacks and jews, to confiscate all the guns and knives or maybe to hook us
all up with electronic collars so they can know where we are at all times.
--
American Woman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:48:57 PM |
|
|
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
What the hell is compelling interest? Do you seriously think they should
have the power to do anything they want, on a claim of "compelling
interest"?
That's the legal standard for the State to 'enter' a controversy.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "American Libertarian Woman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 11:05:42 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote :
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
What the hell is compelling interest? Do you seriously think they
should have the power to do anything they want, on a claim of
"compelling interest"?
That's the legal standard for the State to 'enter' a controversy.
Chas
That would mean they could do damn well anything they want. Oh yeah,
people like you support that.
--
American Libertarian Woman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
22 Jun 2006 08:56:06 AM |
|
|
"American Libertarian Woman" <ALW@nospam.not> wrote
What the hell is compelling interest? Do you seriously think they
should have the power to do anything they want, on a claim of
"compelling interest"?
That's the legal standard for the State to 'enter' a controversy.
That would mean they could do damn well anything they want. Oh yeah,
people like you support that.
You asked a question about legal process, not about my personal views on the
subject.
One of the corollaries is that they have to 'prove' that compelling
interest, and the burden of proof is on them for the assertion of that
interest.
--
Chas
It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, practice and conditioning tools)
.
|
|
|
| User: "American Libertarian Woman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
22 Jun 2006 12:58:37 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote :
"American Libertarian Woman" <ALW@nospam.not> wrote
What the hell is compelling interest? Do you seriously think they
should have the power to do anything they want, on a claim of
"compelling interest"?
That's the legal standard for the State to 'enter' a controversy.
That would mean they could do damn well anything they want. Oh yeah,
people like you support that.
You asked a question about legal process, not about my personal views
on the subject.
One of the corollaries is that they have to 'prove' that compelling
interest, and the burden of proof is on them for the assertion of
that interest.
Well if that's all they have to prove, then freedom is doomed.
--
American Libertarian Woman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
22 Jun 2006 01:32:32 PM |
|
|
"American Libertarian Woman" <ALW@nospam.not> wrote
Well if that's all they have to prove, then freedom is doomed.
Of course-
the natural function of government is to extend government-
quelle surprise.
--
Chas
It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, practice and conditioning tools)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:52:36 PM |
|
|
In article <pYudnZmgaLC4jgfZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Chas
<chasclements@comcast.net> wrote:
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
What the hell is compelling interest? Do you seriously think they should
have the power to do anything they want, on a claim of "compelling
interest"?
That's the legal standard for the State to 'enter' a controversy.
American Woman is not exactly "on top of things" when it comes to the
law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
20 Jun 2006 11:17:17 PM |
|
|
Chas wrote:
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
Mike, I believe that the whole idea of civil rights is being
misconstrued as "special rights" for certain groups,
The "special rights" argument is such BS. Equal rights aren't "special
rights".
They are when one re-defines 'equal rights' to include choice-behaviour as
an entitled class.
It was bad enough when the State arrogated to itself some compelling state's
interest in a marriage sufficient to extend it's authority to religious
matters anyway. It was to exert authority over religious practitioners that
weren't already protected as Treaty Persons- Mormons mostly, over polygamy.
Then it got to worrying about child welfare, divorce authority, civil
marriage, common-law marriage and palimony.
All of it, truth be told, is about children as the issue of marriage between
fruitful people.
As it is, the State limits by all sorts of criteria; age, health, mental
capacity, consanguinity, and so on. The 'responsibility' to the State is a
safeguard for an expected issue of children in name of the commonweal.
Chas
There are several things wrong with your premises. First, marriage as
it stands is effectively an "behavior as an entitled class". If you
are heterosexual, you are an entitled to be able to get married to the
consenting adult of your choice. If you are homosexual, you are not
entitled to that right. Allowing homosexuals to marry the person on
their choice eliminates the entitlement.
Second, it is not about the children. Homosexuals are just as capable
to raise children to be productive members of society as heterosexuals.
However, in almost every case in recent years where the welfare of
children was a prime consideration, i.e. adoption and foster care
cases, arguments based on the unsuitability of homosexuals to be
parents were basically tossed out because there was no facts to support
it, and plenty of facts against it. Agencies that know what they are
talking about, such as the Child Welfare League, support getting rid of
bans against homosexuals adopting children or fostering them.
Also, marriage is not necessarily about having children. Couples that
have no interest in having children can get married. Sterile couples
can get married. Couples that are WAY past their child bearing years
can get married. The limits on who can get married tend to deal with
whether one of the people is too young, too closely related, or not
mentally capable to give informed consent to the marriage. That is
about it.
basically, when examined, every point of your argument falls apart.
There is no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry the
consenting, unrelated adult of his or her choice in the same manner
that heterosexuals can.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:18:12 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote
.....First, marriage as
it stands is effectively an "behavior as an entitled class".
Yes; those consenting adults who enter into a contract with the State to
discharge certain responsibilities and are given certain percs.
...If you
are heterosexual, you are an entitled to be able to get married to the
consenting adult of your choice.
Who is free of certain diseases, of only certain degrees of consanguinity,
free of former marriage contracts that are recognized by the State,......
There are all sorts of conditions necessary to enter into the contract.
If you are homosexual, you are not
entitled to that right. Allowing homosexuals to marry the person on
their choice eliminates the entitlement.
You're welcome to 'marry'; all sorts of people will officiate such a
ceremony for you.
You're welcome to draw up a contract that the State will recognize in their
courts.
You're excluded from the present contract that the State enforces. That
contract defies all sorts of stare decisis in contract law already- and some
of the practices/precedents are biased/loaded in favor of the State's
interests- generally, the welfare of children, preservation of the family
and so on.
Second, it is not about the children.
That's entirely what it's about-
in fact, read the provisions in the Colorado Constitution and the
legislative declartations attendent the marriage laws.
Homosexuals are just as capable
to raise children to be productive members of society as heterosexuals.
got a cite on that, or is it simply an opinion?
They said that about 'single mothers' too, and are changing their minds in
light of accumulated evidence to the contrary.
However, in almost every case in recent years where the welfare of
children was a prime consideration, i.e. adoption and foster care
cases, arguments based on the unsuitability of homosexuals to be
parents were basically tossed out because there was no facts to support
it, and plenty of facts against it.
Well, in all fairness, saying negative things about homosexuals is starting
to border on 'hate crime' because of their special preferences.
Agencies that know what they are
talking about, such as the Child Welfare League, support getting rid of
bans against homosexuals adopting children or fostering them.
They're looking for a larger pool of people to take unwanted children out of
orphanages/state sponsored homes.
Looking to a group that contains so many ephebephiles is probably
counterproductive to children's welfare.
Also, marriage is not necessarily about having children.
The State's interest in the contract is primarily about 'children's welfare'
and 'preserving the Family'- that's stated clearly in some state's
constitutions and certainly the legislative intent of both sanctions and
protections.
......The limits on who can get married tend to deal with
whether one of the people is too young, too closely related, or not
mentally capable to give informed consent to the marriage. That is
about it.
Yup-
conditions that affect child-bearing, by and large.
The exceptions prove the validity of the generality.
There is no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry the
consenting, unrelated adult of his or her choice in the same manner
that heterosexuals can.
You can- have any sort of ceremony/declaration you care to in front of
whomever you choose to witness your banns.
What you can't do is make a contract with the State that moves you into that
special contractual status reserved, in general, for Families. Certain
'biases' are allowed that are counter to other sorts of contracts that the
State recognizes that are simply inappropriate for a contract that doesn't
bear the same sorts of responsibilities.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 11:11:18 AM |
|
|
Chas wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote
.....First, marriage as
it stands is effectively an "behavior as an entitled class".
Yes; those consenting adults who enter into a contract with the State to
discharge certain responsibilities and are given certain percs.
None of which is a requirement to have children. Which means that
there is nothing there that would prevent homosexuals from getting
married.
...If you
are heterosexual, you are an entitled to be able to get married to the
consenting adult of your choice.
Who is free of certain diseases, of only certain degrees of consanguinity,
free of former marriage contracts that are recognized by the State,......
There are all sorts of conditions necessary to enter into the contract.
None of which would prevent homosexuals from getting married.
If you are homosexual, you are not
entitled to that right. Allowing homosexuals to marry the person on
their choice eliminates the entitlement.
You're welcome to 'marry'; all sorts of people will officiate such a
ceremony for you.
There is no reason to put "marry" in quotes. There is nothing that
legally prevents me from getting married in any state in the USA.
You're welcome to draw up a contract that the State will recognize in their
courts.
And it is called a marriage liccense. No special contract is needed
for me. And there is no valid reason why homosexuals need to jump
through so many hoops to get a small portion of the rights that married
heterosexuals take for granted, and STILL get denied many of the really
important rights.
You're excluded from the present contract that the State enforces.
No, I am not. And there is no reason that homosexuals should be
excluded from that contract.
That
contract defies all sorts of stare decisis in contract law already- and some
of the practices/precedents are biased/loaded in favor of the State's
interests- generally, the welfare of children, preservation of the family
and so on.
All of which homosexuals can do just as well as heterosexuals.
Second, it is not about the children.
That's entirely what it's about-
Nope. Marriage is not about the children at all if the couple does not
wish to have children.
in fact, read the provisions in the Colorado Constitution and the
legislative declartations attendent the marriage laws.
Such declarations have been routinely through out of court, especially
at the federal level.
Homosexuals are just as capable
to raise children to be productive members of society as heterosexuals.
got a cite on that, or is it simply an opinion?
Here are some cites from amicus briefs to courts on this subject.
From the recent case Howard vs. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services
American Psychological Association
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file823_12137.pdf
Child Welfare League of America and the Arkansas Advocates for Children
and Families
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/childwelfareleagueofamericafriendofthecourtbrief.pdf
Post Trial Brief
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/howard%20brief.pdf
Circuit Court Decision
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/howard2.pdf
They said that about 'single mothers' too, and are changing their minds in
light of accumulated evidence to the contrary.
However, you cannot force men or women to marry, so they really do not
have much choice in the matter. They cannot also take children away
from people without solid justification based on objective evidence.
However, in almost every case in recent years where the welfare of
children was a prime consideration, i.e. adoption and foster care
cases, arguments based on the unsuitability of homosexuals to be
parents were basically tossed out because there was no facts to support
it, and plenty of facts against it.
Well, in all fairness, saying negative things about homosexuals is starting
to border on 'hate crime' because of their special preferences.
With good reason. Most things that bigots and homophobes say about
homosexuals are not true at all.
Agencies that know what they are
talking about, such as the Child Welfare League, support getting rid of
bans against homosexuals adopting children or fostering them.
They're looking for a larger pool of people to take unwanted children out of
orphanages/state sponsored homes.
Also, there is no reason to deny homosexuals from that pool.
Looking to a group that contains so many ephebephiles is probably
counterproductive to children's welfare.
OK. Dictionary.com is not recognizing the word "ephebephile", nor is
Merriam-Webster Online, and I have never seen it before myself. How
about defining that word.
However, if you are talking about pedophiles, then you are perpetuating
a myth. There are not many pedophiles among homosexuals, and the ratio
is probably lower than among heterosexuals. Therefore, according to
YOUR argument, heterosexuals should not be allowed to adopt of foster
children.
Also, marriage is not necessarily about having children.
The State's interest in the contract is primarily about 'children's welfare'
and 'preserving the Family'-
Something that has been consistantly tossed out, and which does not
exclude homosexuals in any case.
that's stated clearly in some state's
constitutions and certainly the legislative intent of both sanctions and
protections.
Which provides no reason to exclude homosexuals from getting married or
being parents.
......The limits on who can get married tend to deal with
whether one of the people is too young, too closely related, or not
mentally capable to give informed consent to the marriage. That is
about it.
Yup-
conditions that affect child-bearing, by and large.
Actually, they have more to do with informed consent.
The exceptions prove the validity of the generality.
Which does nothing to support forbidding homosexuals from getting
married.
There is no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry the
consenting, unrelated adult of his or her choice in the same manner
that heterosexuals can.
You can- have any sort of ceremony/declaration you care to in front of
whomever you choose to witness your banns.
I can. Homosexuals cannot. Homosexuals are prevented by bigoted laws
from getting married. I can get married in front of a Justice of the
Peace if I want to, and my marriage will be recognized, and I will have
all the rights that a married person has in relationshipt to my spouse.
Homosexuals are denied the option of getting married, and denied all
those rights. And if his or her partner's (since he/she cannot be a
spouse since they cannot get married) family is against them being
together, and then that partner dies or is hospitalized, he or she can
be denied visitation rights, right to have a say in the care of his/her
partner, or have everything taken away from him/her in the event of
death because the will was challenged. That includes children that
they had raised together, his/her home, even much of their savings.
And that is not even touching on other benefits such as insurance
coverage.
There are many, many rights that married couples enjoy and take for
granted that homosexual couples cannot get and cannot be awarded in any
sort of contract. What's more, filing such legal papers can be very
expensive, which is another unnecessary burden on homosexual couples
that heterosexual couples do not have to contend with. All those
papers that homosexuals couples would have to file deal with things
that are automatically given to heterosexual couples. Which is another
example of the inequality of the law.
What you can't do is make a contract with the State that moves you into that
special contractual status reserved, in general, for Families.
Why can't I? There is nothing that prevents me from getting a marriage
license and getting married. However, bigoted laws that you seem to
support prevent homosexuals from getting married and forming families
that are protected in the exact same manner as heterosexual couples.
What homosexuals want to do is to remove the special, privileged status
that heterosexuals enjoy, and get the EQUAL RIGHTS that are supposedly
GUARANTEED then by the US Constitution, specifically the 14th
Amendment. They have families too, and they are being denied the
rights that heterosexuals cna take for granted..
Certain
'biases' are allowed that are counter to other sorts of contracts that the
State recognizes that are simply inappropriate for a contract that doesn't
bear the same sorts of responsibilities.
Chas
Homosexual couples in committed relationships that would get married if
the opportunity was available NEED the same rights as heterosexual
couples get without question when they get married. The biases are
unnecessary and unneeded, and simply show the narrowmindedness of many
people. There is no valid reason that I have seen to deny homosexuals
the right to get married. They raise families. They love each other.
They have the same needs and goals, and deserve the same protections.
They have the same responsibilities as heterosexual couples. And they
should have the same rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution.
You should really watch your unwarranted assumptions. They are wrong.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 11:01:35 AM |
|
|
In article <6pidncNWDMWt_gTZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Chas <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
......
Well, in all fairness, saying negative things about homosexuals is starting
to border on 'hate crime' because of their special preferences.
Such statements are just ignorant. Generalizations of any class of
people (GLBT, christians, liberals, jews, blacks....) are of vanishing
utility. Some of the very best and worst people I know happen to be gay.
Bad neighbors come in all colors.
Get out more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gravity" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 11:49:16 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Packman" <pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:e7bqgv$jvp$1@news.ucar.edu...
In article <6pidncNWDMWt_gTZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Chas <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
.....
Well, in all fairness, saying negative things about homosexuals is
starting
to border on 'hate crime' because of their special preferences.
Such statements are just ignorant. Generalizations of any class of
people (GLBT, christians, liberals, jews, blacks....) are of vanishing
utility. Some of the very best and worst people I know happen to be gay.
Bad neighbors come in all colors.
Get out more.
the annoying thing is that some things are protected (in USA) and some are
not. you cannot fire someone for being homosexual, black, or disabled. you
can fire them for being fat and being a smoker, at least that is still the
law in some states.
you can even administer pseudo-IQ tests which discriminate based on
intelligence. you can discriminate based on spelling and grammar, which
shows clear bias toward native speakers of English.
so basically some slurs and discrimination is allowed and some is not. nice
to know the world is still fucked up.
it's debateable whether being homosexual is any less of a choice than being
obese or psychotic.
i dunno, a rule should be "don't work anywhere you aren't wanted." when the
boss feels it's time for you to go, don't be an ***** about it.
you'll note that the Dutch are having issues with radical Islam, as they are
trying to be tolerant, yet please the others as well.
Gravity
.
|
|
|
| User: "American Woman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:33:12 PM |
|
|
"gravity" <gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote :
"Daniel Packman" <pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:e7bqgv$jvp$1@news.ucar.edu...
In article <6pidncNWDMWt_gTZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Chas <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
.....
Well, in all fairness, saying negative things about homosexuals is
starting
to border on 'hate crime' because of their special preferences.
Such statements are just ignorant. Generalizations of any class of
people (GLBT, christians, liberals, jews, blacks....) are of
vanishing utility. Some of the very best and worst people I know
happen to be gay. Bad neighbors come in all colors.
Get out more.
the annoying thing is that some things are protected (in USA) and
some are not. you cannot fire someone for being homosexual
You can't? I think here you can.
, black,
or disabled. you can fire them for being fat and being a smoker, at
least that is still the law in some states.
Colorado is an at will hiring state, you can let someone go for no
reason at all. Of course in the case of blacks or disabled, they can
just hire someone else from the get go if they don't like that.
But people should be able to use their private property as they please
and AD laws just infringe those rights.
you can even administer pseudo-IQ tests which discriminate based on
intelligence. you can discriminate based on spelling and grammar,
which shows clear bias toward native speakers of English.
Yeah, it's hard to prevent people from using their property as they
please.
i dunno, a rule should be "don't work anywhere you aren't wanted."
Thats the bottom line. Why would we want to work where people hate us?
--
American Woman
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:50:50 PM |
|
|
In article <-cKdnZ8XsuzlkgfZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@forethought.net>, American
Woman <AW@nospam.not> wrote:
Colorado is an at will hiring state, you can let someone go for no
reason at all. Of course in the case of blacks or disabled, they can
just hire someone else from the get go if they don't like that.
Get an education. You don't understand what "at will" means.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
22 Jun 2006 01:31:10 PM |
|
|
gravity wrote:
the annoying thing is that some things are protected (in USA) and some are
not. you cannot fire someone for being homosexual, black, or disabled. you
can fire them for being fat and being a smoker, at least that is still the
law in some states.
You're mostly wrong. In 32 states a private employer is within his
rights firing an otherwise excellent well-performing employee for
merely being gay. Only 18 states offer state-wide protection (many
major metropolitan areas have local ordinances, New York has no
state-wide law, but New York City does).
.
|
|
|
| User: "American Libertarian Woman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
22 Jun 2006 01:53:58 PM |
|
|
"bklyntv@yahoo.com" <bklyntv@yahoo.com> wrote :
gravity wrote:
the annoying thing is that some things are protected (in USA) and
some are not. you cannot fire someone for being homosexual, black,
or disabled. you can fire them for being fat and being a smoker, at
least that is still the law in some states.
You're mostly wrong. In 32 states a private employer is within his
rights firing an otherwise excellent well-performing employee for
merely being gay. Only 18 states offer state-wide protection (many
major metropolitan areas have local ordinances, New York has no
state-wide law, but New York City does).
These "protections" are bogus anyway, they only work with really stupid
employers. If they find out someone is gay and don't mention it as a
reason, they can fire them for "doing lousy work" or for "their work
deteriorating" or because of a "lay off".
Don't depend on government to protect you.
--
American Libertarian Woman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:10:17 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:26:31 -0600, Chas wrote:
"American Woman" <AW@nospam.not> wrote
Mike, I believe that the whole idea of civil rights is being
misconstrued as "special rights" for certain groups,
The "special rights" argument is such BS. Equal rights aren't "special
rights".
They are when one re-defines 'equal rights' to include choice-behaviour
as an entitled class.
Like only straight people being able to marry for instance?
--
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
It's the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:34:30 AM |
|
|
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote
Like only straight people being able to marry for instance?
Lots of homosexuals marry- oftimes to heterosexuals.
The State doesn't care about your preferences, only your responsibilities
about child-bearing/rearing.
The special status of Marriage, which is often contrary to any other
contract law, is predicated on the State's *Constitutional* mandate (as in
Colorado) to 'protect the family' and provide for the 'welfare of children'.
Feel free to celebrate your love and write a contract for the State, under a
forma that it recognizes.
--
Chas
It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, practice and conditioning tools)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 12:22:05 PM |
|
|
Chas wrote:
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote
Like only straight people being able to marry for instance?
Lots of homosexuals marry- oftimes to heterosexuals.
Which means that it is a loveless marriage, one that is likely to end
in divorce since both the people are likely to start looking for
someone that they actually love.
The State doesn't care about your preferences, only your responsibilities
about child-bearing/rearing.
Actually, they do care about the people's preferences, or they would
not forbif homosexuals from marrying the person that they love. The
responsibilities are no different between homosexual and heterosexual
marriages, and both homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally capable
of raising children. Child bearing is a non-issue since couples that
don't want or cannot bear children are not restricted from getting
married, and there are plenty of children that are waiting to be
adopted.
The special status of Marriage, which is often contrary to any other
contract law, is predicated on the State's *Constitutional* mandate (as in
Colorado) to 'protect the family' and provide for the 'welfare of children'.
Feel free to celebrate your love and write a contract for the State, under a
forma that it recognizes.
So, why forbid homosexuals from getting married then? You are not
"protecting the family" by forbidding a couple from getting married,
especially if they are already raising children, and you are not
"providing for the welfare of children" for the same reasons.
The form of contract that homosexual couples should have access to that
the State recognizes is the standard marriage license. There is no
reason that they should be denied it, they need all the same rights,
responsibilities, and protections that it offers that heterosexuals get
without question, and they need them for the same reasons that
heterosexual couples need them.
Perhaps you can explain how the "contract" can be written up that
affords the homosexual couple ALL the same rights, responsibilities,
and privileges that heterosexual married couples are given, and for the
same price as the standard marriage license. You can start with the
couple being legally recognized as each other's next of kin.
Mark Sebree
--
Chas
It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, practice and conditioning tools)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 01:26:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote
Lots of homosexuals marry- oftimes to heterosexuals.
Which means that it is a loveless marriage, one that is likely to end
in divorce since both the people are likely to start looking for
someone that they actually love.
Not something the State cares about-
you can probably divorce at the cost of half your worth anytime you care to.
If you have children, loved or not, you'll carry the responsiblity, willing
or not.
Actually, they do care about the people's preferences, or they would
not forbif homosexuals from marrying the person that they love.
They don't-
'love' isn't a consideration.
They prohibit same-sex Marriage, as it isn't within the special contract of
Marriage.
The
responsibilities are no different between homosexual and heterosexual
marriages, and both homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally capable
of raising children.
*Bearing* children engenders a specially tight bond that 'adoption' isn't
going to do anything but mimic. That's why the State has allowed special
contractual provisions that wouldn't stand in any other scenario.
So, why forbid homosexuals from getting married then?
They don't.
--
Chas
It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, practice and conditioning tools)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 09:01:34 PM |
|
|
Chas wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote
Lots of homosexuals marry- oftimes to heterosexuals.
Which means that it is a loveless marriage, one that is likely to end
in divorce since both the people are likely to start looking for
someone that they actually love.
Not something the State cares about-
However, people with a sense of compassion do care about it. That is
the primary reason that people get married, for love. Why do you want
to deny that option to homosexual couples, and deny them the same
rights as heterosexual couples?
you can probably divorce at the cost of half your worth anytime you care to.
As can anyone that is married. However, that is meaningless when you
forbid a group from getting married, especially when there is no good
reason for the prohibition.
If you have children, loved or not, you'll carry the responsiblity, willing
or not.
Which actually has nothing to do with the topic of the discussion,
which is marriage. Children are not required to be present in a
marriage, nor is there any requirement that they be produced by the
couple in marriage. Elderly couples can get married, sterile couples
can get married, and couples that never plan to have children can get
married.
Actually, they do care about the people's preferences, or they would
not forbif homosexuals from marrying the person that they love.
They don't-
Yes, they do. The law in most states prevent homosexuals from marrying
the consenting adult of his or her choice simply cause the state does
not like the choice. That is rather blatant discrimination.
'love' isn't a consideration.
It is to the people that are getting married. Heterosexuals have the
right to marry the person that he or she loves, and homosexuals are
forbidden from doing so. That is in violation of the 14th Amendment
which supposedly protects everyone's rights to having the same rights
and protections under the law.
They prohibit same-sex Marriage, as it isn't within the special contract of
Marriage.
And why not? There is no reason to forbid homosexuals to marry in the
same manner as heterosexuals. There is no reason to deny homosexuals
couples the same rights that heterosexual couples take for granted.
There is no reason for this blatant discrimination.
Marriage is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts, and
the 14th Amendment guarantees that ever
The
responsibilities are no different between homosexual and heterosexual
marriages, and both homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally capable
of raising children.
*Bearing* children engenders a specially tight bond that 'adoption' isn't
going to do anything but mimic.
Then you don't know much about adoption and the people that adopt or
are adopted. The bond that is between an adopted child and the parent
is every bit as strong as between a parent and his or her natural
child. What's more, there is NEVER any question about whether or not
the child was wanted since the adoptive parents had to take positive
and conscious steps to get the adoption submitted and processed.
Perhaps one day, you will learn something about the subject. Me, I
learned about it from (at least) one friend in college that was
adopted, one friend giving up a child for adoption (for reasons that
are not my place to divulge), and one friend from high school that has
adopted at least 4 children.
That's why the State has allowed special
contractual provisions that wouldn't stand in any other scenario.
Then why are homosexuals forbidden from marrying, and, in many states,
from adopting children? You, and bigots like you, are denying them a
fundamental right, the right to marriage to the person that they love.
You are denying them the same rights that you and I take for granted,
in violation of the 14th Amendment.
So, why forbid homosexuals from getting married then?
They don't.
They are in every state except Mass. They are denied the right to
marry in the same manner and for the same reasons as heterosexuals.
Mark Sebree
--
Chas
It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, practice and conditioning tools)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 10:44:51 PM |
|
|
In article <jYydnf9YhqLVEgTZnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Chas <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
......
*Bearing* children engenders a specially tight bond that 'adoption' isn't
going to do anything but mimic. That's why the State has allowed special
contractual provisions that wouldn't stand in any other scenario.
There are plenty of individual examples that support this assertion
and plenty that disprove it. It remains a useless generalization.
Get out more.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 01:29:53 PM |
|
|
vote crosspost like retard man
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 12:25:44 PM |
|
|
This is a non-issue in Mass. The sky-hasn't fallen. The standard of
living is still one of the highest in the nation. Nobody thinks about
this issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gayle" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 05:50:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
This is a non-issue in Mass. The sky-hasn't fallen. The standard of
living is still one of the highest in the nation. Nobody thinks about
this issue.
Does anybody (besides me) in Mass. think
about the idea that what happened there
mobilized other parts of the country and
gave Karl Rove what he needed to fuel a
grassroots campaign through churches to
get a ban-gay-marriages referendum vote
on the ballot in many states, especially
including the swing states? And,
according to exit polls, that folks in
those states turned out in far greater
numbers to vote for the referendum than
they would have simply to vote for Bush?
I think that's exactly what happened in
the swing states. Karl Rove said so,
too, for wahatever that's worth. Ask
John Kerry if he thinks it was a
non-issue in terms of the election
results. It made waves, big ones. Of
course, Mass. was also the first state
to revolt against British rule and to
abolish slavery. Maybe the first to
recognize interracial marriage, too, but
I'm not sure. Making waves is nothing
new here and, yer right, the sky hasn't
fallen. But the idea that it set
something in motion beyond the state is
worth thinking about. imo.
Gayle
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: *VOTE* Yes on Marriage Protection Amendment! `` |
21 Jun 2006 05:55:46 PM |
|
|
"Gayle" <gayleco@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:VKCdnbi5Nd6kUATZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@rcn.net...
hunthurst@earthlink.net wrote:
This is a non-issue in Mass. The sky-hasn't fallen. The standard of
living is still one of the highest in the nation. Nobody thinks about
this issue.
Does anybody (besides me) in Mass. think
about the idea that what happened there
mobilized other parts of the country and
gave Karl Rove what he needed to fuel a
grassroots campaign through churches to
get a ban-gay-marriages referendum vote
on the ballot in many states, especially
including the swing states? And,
according to exit polls, that folks in
those states turned out in far greater
numbers to vote for the referendum than
they would have simply to vote for Bush?
I think that's exactly what happened in
the swing states. Karl Rove said so,
too, for wahatever that's worth. Ask
John Kerry if he thinks it was a
non-issue in terms of the election
results. It made waves, big ones. Of
course, Mass. was also the first state
to revolt against British rule and to
abolish slavery. Maybe the first to
recognize interracial marriage, too, but
I'm not sure. Making waves is nothing
new here and, yer right, the sky hasn't
fallen. But the idea that it set
something in motion beyond the state is
worth thinking about. imo.
Gayle
will you marry me ?
oh wait , we can't do that ,
one of us needs to surrender their status ,
i'd have to become an , i can't say it
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
