| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2005 07:44:19 AM |
| Object: |
Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion",
but whenever followers of *other* faiths want the same
freedom and the courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
And then WHINE about "activist judges" and "legislating
from the bench."
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when
backed into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of
lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have
personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole
process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan
for you and not as something for which you should apologize,
retract, or make amends, except verbally and secretly to God,
Himself.
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's
plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just
part of God's will for the betterment of mankind.
9. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view
and oppose all such information through classification of such
information in a derogatory and simplistic manner(e.g., by cate-
gorizing it as left-wing propaganda).
11. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality
is complex and there are shades of gray.
12. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport
to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for
whom you don't have that right anyhow.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
08 Dec 2005 08:47:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:55:18 -0800, Bonnie *****
<bonnieb@fifispad.org> wrote:
COUNTRIES/STATES WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Belgium
Canada
Holland
Massachusetts
LOOK! "ilb."
Gay-wed foes submit signatures to seek ban vote
By Emelie Rutherford/ MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, December 8, 2005 - Updated: 12:11 AM EST
Get ready for another messy gay marriage debate at the Massachusetts
State House.
Gay marriage foes yesterday gave the secretary of state what they
said are more than enough signatures
Many of which were collected by deception. So much so that the
legislature held a hearing on the deceptive practises of the signature
gathers... then passed regulations that each petition for a ballot
initiative must be printed on a different coloured paper so that
signature gatherers could not practice "bait & switch" and other
dishonest tactics on voters
[http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/11/110405massAmend.htm].
One wonders why, if the anti-gay forces hold the "moral high ground"
and have "God on their side", they have to lie and cheat to get
signatures.... but you can easily find out who the bigots are by reading
the last of petition signatories at
http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/thelist.html
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
08 Dec 2005 11:18:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:47:18 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
default@easynews.com wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:55:18 -0800, Bonnie *****
<bonnieb@fifispad.org> wrote:
COUNTRIES/STATES WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Belgium
Canada
Holland
Massachusetts
LOOK! "ilb."
Gay-wed foes submit signatures to seek ban vote
By Emelie Rutherford/ MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, December 8, 2005 - Updated: 12:11 AM EST
Get ready for another messy gay marriage debate at the Massachusetts
State House.
Gay marriage foes yesterday gave the secretary of state what they
said are more than enough signatures
Many of which were collected by deception. So much so that the
legislature held a hearing on the deceptive practises of the signature
gathers... then passed regulations that each petition for a ballot
initiative must be printed on a different coloured paper so that
signature gatherers could not practice "bait & switch" and other
dishonest tactics on voters
[http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/11/110405massAmend.htm].
One wonders why, if the anti-gay forces hold the "moral high ground"
and have "God on their side", they have to lie and cheat to get
signatures.... but you can easily find out who the bigots are by reading
the last of petition signatories at
http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/thelist.html
You missed the part that pointed out that 147,000 sigs had been
confirmed. Far more that the 60,000 (+/-) required to get the issue on
the ballot. <SNIGGER>
<snip>
That should be (SLASH) the sound of queers in Massachusetts "doing"
their wrist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
08 Dec 2005 11:50:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:47:18 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:55:18 -0800, Bonnie *****
<bonnieb@fifispad.org> wrote:
COUNTRIES/STATES WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Belgium
Canada
Holland
Massachusetts
LOOK! "ilb."
Gay-wed foes submit signatures to seek ban vote
By Emelie Rutherford/ MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, December 8, 2005 - Updated: 12:11 AM EST
Get ready for another messy gay marriage debate at the Massachusetts
State House.
Gay marriage foes yesterday gave the secretary of state what they
said are more than enough signatures
Many of which were collected by deception. So much so that the
legislature held a hearing on the deceptive practises of the signature
gathers... then passed regulations that each petition for a ballot
initiative must be printed on a different coloured paper so that
signature gatherers could not practice "bait & switch" and other
dishonest tactics on voters
[http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/11/110405massAmend.htm].
One wonders why, if the anti-gay forces hold the "moral high ground"
and have "God on their side", they have to lie and cheat to get
signatures.... but you can easily find out who the bigots are by reading
the last of petition signatories at
http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/thelist.html
You missed the part that pointed out that 147,000 sigs had been
confirmed. Far more that the 60,000 (+/-) required to get the issue on
the ballot. <SNIGGER>
<snip>
That should be (SLASH) the sound of queers in Massachusetts "doing"
their wrist.
Nope I am looking foward to the vote. It will be 2 more years until a
vote, and by then same sex marriage will be the norm. People vote
against things out of fear. Once they see there is nothing to fear they
will no longer vote against it. I guess we will have to wait and see,
huh?
tulle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
08 Dec 2005 12:28:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:50:49 GMT, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
default@easynews.com
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:55:18 -0800, Bonnie *****
<bonnieb@fifispad.org> wrote:
COUNTRIES/STATES WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Belgium
Canada
Holland
Massachusetts
LOOK!
At your misattribution from your vain attempt to forge another post.
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 04:47:15 PM |
|
|
In News pan.2005.12.06.07.45.25.25231@XXXoptonline.net,, Bill K. at
bilkay@XXXoptonline.net, typed this:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:07:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Are we in agreement that the fundamental right is not just "the right
to marry", but extends further to whom you choose to marry?
Those (including courts) who have posited a "fundamental right" to
marry, without including many caveats, have made a foolish error.
In your opinion...
It's obvious that any supposed "right" to marry cannot be universal
and fundamental.
To consenting adults? Sure it can.
You can't have a "fundamental right" to something
that requires the concurrence of someone else.
Nonsense.
What about the people
who are so unattractive they can't find a mate? If they have a
"fundamental right to marry", is government obligated to FORCE
someone to marry them?
Strawman argument not based in reality, or the courts opinion. Try again.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 02:46:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:47:15 +0000, Andrealphus wrote:
In News pan.2005.12.06.07.45.25.25231@XXXoptonline.net,, Bill K. at
bilkay@XXXoptonline.net, typed this:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:07:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Are we in agreement that the fundamental right is not just "the right
to marry", but extends further to whom you choose to marry?
Those (including courts) who have posited a "fundamental right" to
marry, without including many caveats, have made a foolish error.
In your opinion...
It's obvious that any supposed "right" to marry cannot be universal
and fundamental.
To consenting adults? Sure it can.
You can't have a "fundamental right" to something
that requires the concurrence of someone else.
Nonsense.
What about the people
who are so unattractive they can't find a mate? If they have a
"fundamental right to marry", is government obligated to FORCE
someone to marry them?
Strawman argument not based in reality,
"Strawman argument" is so easy to say, but you really ought to reserve it
for when it's appropriate. I don't think you understand what it means.
or the courts opinion. Try again.
You have no evidence that in any of these court opinions you cite, the
justices viewed marriage as anything but what its common definition said
it was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 08:15:20 AM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
You have no evidence that in any of these court opinions you cite, the
justices viewed marriage as anything but what its common definition said
it was.
I'm sure The Court was not thinking about same-sex marriage in these
rulings (it wasn't even on the radar screen at the time). However,
these rulings set forth principles that must be applied to future cases
including same-sex marriage. For you to be correct, The Court will
have to come up with a rationale for why same-sex marriages should not
be viewed using those principles. Maybe they can do that, but I have
not yet seen a good argument to do so.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 12:24:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 06:15:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote: <snip>
You have no evidence that in any of these court opinions you cite, the
justices viewed marriage as anything but what its common definition
said it was.
I'm sure The Court was not thinking about same-sex marriage in these
rulings (it wasn't even on the radar screen at the time). However,
these rulings set forth principles that must be applied to future cases
including same-sex marriage.
Using the same "logic", you'd have to agree that since terrorists have
launched a new (to the U.S. at least) type of "war" against us, all rules
applying to war, under the previous definition, can be applied to THIS
war.
For you to be correct, The Court will
have to come up with a rationale for why same-sex marriages should not
be viewed using those principles.
No, it is up to the proponents of same-sex marriage to come up with a
rationale for why it SHOULD be viewed using those principles, just as the
Bush administration is being forced to defend common war-time tactics in
this new type of "war". In WWII, e.g., German agents who infiltrated the
U.S. were summarily shot, with SCOTUS concurrence.
Maybe they can do that, but I have
not yet seen a good argument to do so.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 04:23:35 PM |
|
|
"Bill K." <bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.07.18.24.45.231114@XXXoptonline.net...
[snip]
No, it is up to the proponents of same-sex marriage to come up with a
rationale for why it SHOULD be viewed using those principles, just as the
Billy, Billy, Billy. I've already told you about civil rights and compelling
state interest.
I can only conclude that you still haven't looked it up, or you're just too
fucking stupid to understand how it works.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 11:35:47 PM |
|
|
Bill K. <bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 06:15:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote: <snip>
You have no evidence that in any of these court opinions you cite, the
justices viewed marriage as anything but what its common definition
said it was.
I'm sure The Court was not thinking about same-sex marriage in these
rulings (it wasn't even on the radar screen at the time). However,
these rulings set forth principles that must be applied to future cases
including same-sex marriage.
Using the same "logic", you'd have to agree that since terrorists have
launched a new (to the U.S. at least) type of "war" against us,
Oooo! Beware of the bogeymen! Terrorists! Boo!
all rules
applying to war, under the previous definition, can be applied to THIS
war.
Do the ends justify the means?
For you to be correct, The Court will
have to come up with a rationale for why same-sex marriages should not
be viewed using those principles.
No, it is up to the proponents of same-sex marriage to come up with a
rationale for why it SHOULD be viewed using those principles,
14th amendment's equal protection clause.
just as the
Bush administration is being forced to defend common war-time tactics in
this new type of "war". In WWII, e.g., German agents who infiltrated the
U.S. were summarily shot, with SCOTUS concurrence.
Why do you neocons always justify your hate with ***** propaganda
and lies? Are you incapable of knowing the truth about anything?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
08 Dec 2005 06:36:08 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2005 21:35:47 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
wrote:
Bill K. <bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 06:15:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote: <snip>
You have no evidence that in any of these court opinions you cite, the
justices viewed marriage as anything but what its common definition
said it was.
I'm sure The Court was not thinking about same-sex marriage in these
rulings (it wasn't even on the radar screen at the time). However,
these rulings set forth principles that must be applied to future cases
including same-sex marriage.
Using the same "logic", you'd have to agree that since terrorists have
launched a new (to the U.S. at least) type of "war" against us,
Oooo! Beware of the bogeymen! Terrorists! Boo!
all rules
applying to war, under the previous definition, can be applied to THIS
war.
Do the ends justify the means?
For you to be correct, The Court will
have to come up with a rationale for why same-sex marriages should not
be viewed using those principles.
No, it is up to the proponents of same-sex marriage to come up with a
rationale for why it SHOULD be viewed using those principles,
14th amendment's equal protection clause.
just as the
Bush administration is being forced to defend common war-time tactics in
this new type of "war". In WWII, e.g., German agents who infiltrated the
U.S. were summarily shot, with SCOTUS concurrence.
Why do you neocons always justify your hate with ***** propaganda
and lies? Are you incapable of knowing the truth about anything?
Try this one on for size, boy -- 142,000 reasons for you ***** sucker
to be weeping:
Gay-wed opponents submit signatures to seek ban vote
By Emelie Rutherford/ MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, December 8, 2005 - Updated: 12:11 AM EST
Get ready for another messy gay marriage debate at the Massachusetts
State House.
Gay marriage foes yesterday gave the secretary of state what they
said are more than enough signatures to place a constitutional ban
before lawmakers, stirring emotions for advocates on both sides of the
marriage debate.
Voteonmarriage.org and six other campaigns trying to change the
state’s laws and constitution through initiative petitions appear to
have delivered more than the required 65,825 signatures to place their
proposals before the Legislature and, they hope, on the ballot.
“It is a day to celebrate,” said Kris Mineau, president of the
Massachusetts Family Institute in Newton.
The gay marriage ban would not allow civil unions, as a more
moderate ban lawmakers rejected in September would have. Massachusetts
became the first state to allow gay marriage 19 months ago.
Natick’s Kim Puhala, who married her female partner in October,
called yesterday’s signature delivery “disheartening.”
“You have to have faith that the people of Massachusetts, if this
did go to the ballot, would vote against discrimination,” Puhala said.
Voteonmarriage.org delivered at least 148,200 signatures already
certified by local officials to Galvin yesterday, Mineau said.
Supporters such as Upton’s Bob Kilroy volunteered hours weekends
this fall gathering signatures at their churches.
The proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by
one-quarter of lawmakers in two legislative sessions for it to be
placed on the ballot for voters to decide.
***
Massachusetts is going to ***** you homos in the ***** - Royally, boy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 05:43:51 PM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 06:15:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote: <snip>
<snip>
For you to be correct, The Court will>
have to come up with a rationale for why same-sex marriages should not
be viewed using those principles.
No, it is up to the proponents of same-sex marriage to come up with a
rationale for why it SHOULD be viewed using those principles
I recommend a refresher course in civics and US constitutional law. In
order for the government to deny some citizens a right that others have,
the *Government* must show its reasons. It is not up to those who seek
the right to show why they should have it, but up to the *state* so show
why they cannot have it!
The correct legal definition of what the *state* [NOT those seeking the
right] must show is "A narrowly tailored, compelling state interest".
For example, the state can show that marring your sister will probably
lead to children with genetic defects and an unequal power balance in
the marriage. Thus the state has a narrowly tailored -it applies only
to those closely related - and compelling state interest - to prevent
defective children - to deny close relatives the right to marry each other.
Now if you can come up with a narrowly tailored, compelling state
interest [which will stand in a court of law] as to why same-sex
marriage should be denied, By all means state it as we would be
interested to hear this. Bear in mind, that legions of the finest
lawyers, backed by the resources of the state, and paid for with
millions of taxpayer dollars, have been UTTERLY UNABLE to provide a
narrowly tailored, compelling state interest to deny same-sex marriages
in their appearances before 4 state high courts and 7 provincial high
courts in North America.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 10:22:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:43:51 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 06:15:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote: <snip>
<snip>
For you to be correct, The Court will>
have to come up with a rationale for why same-sex marriages should not
be viewed using those principles.
No, it is up to the proponents of same-sex marriage to come up with a
rationale for why it SHOULD be viewed using those principles
I recommend a refresher course in civics and US constitutional law.
This from a foreigner whose government just went ***** hole over elbow
and down the shitter. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaahaha
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 01:15:02 PM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 06:15:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote: <snip>
You have no evidence that in any of these court opinions you cite, the
justices viewed marriage as anything but what its common definition
said it was.
I'm sure The Court was not thinking about same-sex marriage in these
rulings (it wasn't even on the radar screen at the time). However,
these rulings set forth principles that must be applied to future cases
including same-sex marriage.
Using the same "logic", you'd have to agree that since terrorists have
launched a new (to the U.S. at least) type of "war" against us, all rules
applying to war, under the previous definition, can be applied to THIS
war.
Of course The Court will look to precedent from prior wars to judge
cases in this war, but that is not a mandate. Instead, each side will
argue why 1) those principles support their side and/or 2) how the new
case is different and thus why the old principles do not apply. The
Court then determines which side has the better argument.
Same thing for same-sex marriage.
For you to be correct, The Court will
have to come up with a rationale for why same-sex marriages should not
be viewed using those principles.
No, it is up to the proponents of same-sex marriage to come up with a
rationale for why it SHOULD be viewed using those principles
I've offered up that rationale elsewhere in this thread. I have not
seen a persuasive case that argues why this case is different and thus
why the old principles should not apply.
just as the
Bush administration is being forced to defend common war-time tactics in
this new type of "war". In WWII, e.g., German agents who infiltrated the
U.S. were summarily shot, with SCOTUS concurrence.
Please offer an argument - backed by citations - for how current cases
involving this war have not met the template I presented above.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 03:22:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:15:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Using the same "logic", you'd have to agree that since terrorists have
launched a new (to the U.S. at least) type of "war" against us, all rules
applying to war, under the previous definition, can be applied to THIS
war.
Of course The Court will look to precedent from prior wars to judge
cases in this war, but that is not a mandate. Instead, each side will
argue why 1) those principles support their side and/or 2) how the new
case is different and thus why the old principles do not apply. The
Court then determines which side has the better argument.
Same thing for same-sex marriage.
<snip>
Again, by YOUR "logic", the burden would be on Bush's opponents to show
that new rules must be applied. But the left insists the OPPOSITE. The
left consistently comes up with "principles" that only seem to apply when
it suits THEM.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 03:37:06 PM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:15:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Using the same "logic", you'd have to agree that since terrorists have
launched a new (to the U.S. at least) type of "war" against us, all rules
applying to war, under the previous definition, can be applied to THIS
war.
Of course The Court will look to precedent from prior wars to judge
cases in this war, but that is not a mandate. Instead, each side will
argue why 1) those principles support their side and/or 2) how the new
case is different and thus why the old principles do not apply. The
Court then determines which side has the better argument.
Same thing for same-sex marriage.
<snip>
Again, by YOUR "logic", the burden would be on Bush's opponents to show
that new rules must be applied.
If there is a precedent that supports Bush's claim to indefinitely
detain someone without a charge, Bush will argue that precedent is
controlling. The other side will present arguments as to why that
precedent does not hold in this new case. The Court will weigh both
sides without a burden placed on either side.
Ditto for same-sex marriage. I argue that precedent requires same-sex
marriage be viewed as fundamental. The other side needs to fashion an
argument as to why the precedent does not apply - and thus same-sex
marriage is not fundamental. I am NOT claiming the either side has a
greater burden in the determination of whether same-sex marriage is
fundamental.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 05:55:14 PM |
|
|
In News pan.2005.12.06.08.46.02.397353@XXXoptonline.net,, Bill K. at
bilkay@XXXoptonline.net, typed this:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:47:15 +0000, Andrealphus wrote:
In News pan.2005.12.06.07.45.25.25231@XXXoptonline.net,, Bill K. at
bilkay@XXXoptonline.net, typed this:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:07:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Are we in agreement that the fundamental right is not just "the
right to marry", but extends further to whom you choose to marry?
Those (including courts) who have posited a "fundamental right" to
marry, without including many caveats, have made a foolish error.
In your opinion...
It's obvious that any supposed "right" to marry cannot be universal
and fundamental.
To consenting adults? Sure it can.
You can't have a "fundamental right" to something
that requires the concurrence of someone else.
Nonsense.
What about the people
who are so unattractive they can't find a mate? If they have a
"fundamental right to marry", is government obligated to FORCE
someone to marry them?
Strawman argument not based in reality,
"Strawman argument" is so easy to say, but you really ought to
reserve it for when it's appropriate.
It was quite appropriate, and yes I understand fully what it means.
I don't think you understand
what it means.
or the courts opinion. Try again.
You have no evidence that in any of these court opinions you cite, the
justices viewed marriage as anything but what its common definition
said it was.
It's common definition up until 1967 was of a man and woman of the same
race. Are you saying that the courts did not see it differently?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 03:30:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:55:14 +0000, Andrealphus wrote: <snip>
What about the people
who are so unattractive they can't find a mate? If they have a
"fundamental right to marry", is government obligated to FORCE
someone to marry them?
Strawman argument not based in reality,
"Strawman argument" is so easy to say, but you really ought to reserve
it for when it's appropriate.
It was quite appropriate, and yes I understand fully what it means.
I don't think you understand
what it means.
<snip>
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up
only to be easily confuted
I'm providing this while doubting that you know how to comprehend what you
read. If I set up the argument to be easily confuted, why haven't you
confuted it? In actuality, though, a "straw man" is something I would set
up so that I could confute it.
If you want copious examples of "straw men", your cohorts use them all the
time. Attributing all arguments to "hate", "bigotry", etc., is a form of
the "straw man" tactic. Saying that prolifers want to kill or enslave
women is a "straw man" tactic. Saying that opposition to same-sex marriage
is motivated by "homophobia" is a "straw man" tactic. I could go on and on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 08:32:07 AM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include perverted
definitions, marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by the
early Christian church. See "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by
John Boswell.... and closer to home, in the land our forefathers stole
from the aboriginal peoples. See "Berdasch" for details.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 12:07:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by the
early Christian church. See "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by
John Boswell.... and closer to home, in the land our forefathers stole
from the aboriginal peoples. See "Berdasch" for details.
Every word nothing more than homosexual propaganda written by
homosexual propagandist and flaming homophiles.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 01:51:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include perverted
definitions, marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by the
early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out? If George Bush
made such an unsupportable statement, I'm SURE you'd be screaming "LIAR"!
See "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by
John Boswell.... and closer to home, in the land our forefathers stole
from the aboriginal peoples. See "Berdasch" for details.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
07 Dec 2005 08:15:56 AM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include perverted
definitions, marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by the
early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out?
NO.
If George Bush
made such an unsupportable statement, I'm SURE you'd be screaming "LIAR"!
Unsupported? The very paragraph below this which you apparently failed
to read provides the evidence!
See "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by
John Boswell.... and closer to home, in the land our forefathers stole
from the aboriginal peoples. See "Berdasch" for details.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 05:11:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:51:52 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include perverted
definitions, marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by the
early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out?
Do you often disbelieve Reality, in the form of well-documented,
thoroughly researched historical facts?
Boswell, John "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"
New York: Vintage Books (a division of Random House) 1994
Villard Edition ISBN: 0-679-43228-0
Vintage Edition ISBN: 0-679-75164-5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 02:52:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:11:46 -0800, Bonnie ***** wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:51:52 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include perverted
definitions, marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by the
early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out?
Do you often disbelieve Reality, in the form of well-documented,
thoroughly researched historical facts?
Any damn fool can write a book, and if it fits 'liberal' dogma, it'll
probably get published. Boswell tried to make a case on sketchy "evidence"
and self-serving inferences. He failed, except in the closed minds of
those who will accept no society that doesn't conform to their warped
views.
It's interesting that Boswell, that great advocate for same-sex "marriage",
died of AIDS. If he was a true devotee of marriage, his chances of
contracting a sexually transmitted disease would be virtually zero. Anyone
who thinks homosexuals give up their promiscuous lifesyles when they
"marry" is living in la-la land.
Boswell, John "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"
New York: Vintage Books (a division of Random House) 1994
Villard Edition ISBN: 0-679-43228-0
Vintage Edition ISBN: 0-679-75164-5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 05:56:11 PM |
|
|
In News pan.2005.12.06.08.52.21.424044@XXXoptonline.net,, Bill K. at
bilkay@XXXoptonline.net, typed this:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:11:46 -0800, Bonnie ***** wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:51:52 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include
perverted definitions, marriage has always meant a union between
a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by
the early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out?
Do you often disbelieve Reality, in the form of well-documented,
thoroughly researched historical facts?
Any damn fool can write a book, and if it fits 'liberal' dogma,
You haven't even read the book and you are tossing "conservative" dogma at
it. Why don't the rules you spout pertain to you?
Boswell, John "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"
New York: Vintage Books (a division of Random House) 1994
Villard Edition ISBN: 0-679-43228-0
Vintage Edition ISBN: 0-679-75164-5
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 07:05:25 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:vyplf.351$Dd2.10@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In News pan.2005.12.06.08.52.21.424044@XXXoptonline.net,, Bill K. at
bilkay@XXXoptonline.net, typed this:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:11:46 -0800, Bonnie ***** wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:51:52 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include
perverted definitions, marriage has always meant a union between
a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by
the early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out?
Do you often disbelieve Reality, in the form of well-documented,
thoroughly researched historical facts?
Any damn fool can write a book, and if it fits 'liberal' dogma,
You haven't even read the book and you are tossing "conservative" dogma at
it. Why don't the rules you spout pertain to you?
Blustering Billy is ripe for the killfile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 10:05:00 PM |
|
|
In News pzqlf.23698$BZ5.17505@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com,, Dennis Kemmerer
at dk@suespammers.org, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:vyplf.351$Dd2.10@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In News pan.2005.12.06.08.52.21.424044@XXXoptonline.net,, Bill K. at
bilkay@XXXoptonline.net, typed this:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:11:46 -0800, Bonnie ***** wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:51:52 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab
parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"Bill K." <bilkay@XXXoptonline.net>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include
perverted definitions, marriage has always meant a union between
a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed
by the early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out?
Do you often disbelieve Reality, in the form of well-documented,
thoroughly researched historical facts?
Any damn fool can write a book, and if it fits 'liberal' dogma,
You haven't even read the book and you are tossing "conservative"
dogma at it. Why don't the rules you spout pertain to you?
Blustering Billy is ripe for the killfile.
Yep.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 07:36:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:56:11 GMT, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD>
In News pan.2005.12.06.08.52.21.424044@XXXoptonline.net,, Bill K. at
bilkay@XXXoptonline.net, typed this:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:11:46 -0800, Bonnie ***** wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:51:52 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include
perverted definitions, marriage has always meant a union between
a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by
the early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out?
Do you often disbelieve Reality, in the form of well-documented,
thoroughly researched historical facts?
Any damn fool can write a book, and if it fits 'liberal' dogma,
You haven't even read the book and you are tossing "conservative" dogma at
it. Why don't the rules you spout pertain to you?
Because Mr. KY is too busy sucking his imaginary sky *****'s *****.
Boswell, John "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"
New York: Vintage Books (a division of Random House) 1994
Villard Edition ISBN: 0-679-43228-0
Vintage Edition ISBN: 0-679-75164-5
Happy Chanukah!
Merry Christmas/Felix Navidad/Frohe Weihnachten/Prettige Kertmis!
Faaaabulous Kwanzaa
Merry Yule!
Suoer Solstice!
Happy New Year!
(Sorry if I left anyone out)
Rev. Bonnie *****, ULC, MM, FOAD Signatory
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
06 Dec 2005 07:35:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:52:23 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Bill KY."
<bilky@XXXoptonline.net>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:11:46 -0800, Bonnie ***** wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:51:52 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:32:07 -0500, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:01:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
Until "political correctness" coerced dictionaries to include perverted
definitions, marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!! Wrong!!! Same-sex marriages were performed by the
early Christian church.
Do you believe EVERYTHING your nihilist buddies spew out?
Do you often disbelieve Reality, in the form of well-documented,
thoroughly researched historical facts?
Any damn fool can write a book,
What's your excuse, then?
Now let's see -- we have the well-documented, thoroughly researched,
peer-reviewed, published work of the former head of the history
department at Yale University
VERSUS
you -- a garden-variety Usenet troll with an agenda.
Gosh, even a rock can see that you lose. Why can't you?
<snip lies from Bill KY, who is too afraid to address the actual
material>
Gosh, Mr. KY, looks like you have no refutation, what with your
attacking the author rather than the material in question.
Fear will do that to you.
Boswell, John "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"
New York: Vintage Books (a division of Random House) 1994
Villard Edition ISBN: 0-679-43228-0
Vintage Edition ISBN: 0-679-75164-5
Happy Chanukah!
Merry Christmas/Felix Navidad/Frohe Weihnachten/Prettige Kertmis!
Faaaabulous Kwanzaa
Merry Yule!
Suoer Solstice!
Happy New Year!
(Sorry if I left anyone out)
Rev. Bonnie *****, ULC, MM, FOAD Signatory
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
05 Dec 2005 04:35:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:11:18 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:13:28 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Were we seeking to REMOVE same-sex unions from marriage laws, THEN, and
only then, would the onus be on us to prove our case. Since YOU'RE the
ones trying to change the laws, the onus is on YOU.
Usually you are correct, but not always. If the change I seek corrects
a denial of a fundamental right, the onus falls on you.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
You haven't even proven that there is a denial of some "fundamental
right". Do you think that anyone can make any specious claim about some
"fundamental right" being violated, and it's up to the rest of us to prove
that it hasn't? That's NUTS!
A fundamental right is not conferred by a specious claim. It is
conferred by SCOTUS.
Loving
Loving v. Virginia
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1).
put the onus on the state because (in part) "the freedom to marry
has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Just saying this doesn't make it so. This might be a nice opening
argument, but an opening argument is merely an outline of what the
prosecution or defense attorney believes he can prove in court. If you
rest your case without presenting any evidence to back up your opening
argument, you're not likely to win the case.
IMO, Loving dictates
that the onus is on the state to justify prohibiting the sterile and
elderly from marrying.
It all depends on whether you look at it as a matter of exclusion or a
matter of inclusion. When you're clear in your mind about
what the purpose of marriage is (and I'm not sure our society is), you
don't approach it as a question of exclusion, i.e., heterosexuality isn't
like a bunch of little boys who build a tree house (marriage) to keep
girls (homosexuals) out. But that's the way many homosexuals and
homophiles view it (at least rhetorically).
I am confident that The Court would rule to invalidate a state law
which did not premit the sterile and elderly to marry. And I am more
than happy to rest my case - and yours - on the outcome of such a
ruling.
Also, consider these words from Antonin Scalia in his Lawrence
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102_
dissent:
Also, it's important to note that the crux of the Loving decision is in
the last paragraph, to wit, "To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive
all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law." This
makes for a fairly narrow result - if a prohibition is supportable, it
isn't affected by this decision.
'If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state
interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, [...] what
justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of
marriage to homosexual couples [...]? Surely not the encouragement of
procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.'
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
