| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 11:47:58 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending. Let each man provide his own
health care, just like single straight people do. This notion that one
guy stays home and plays "Donna Reed" while the other one goes to work
should not become a burden on the American health care system. The
people of Michigan (and many other states) have spoken; No gay
marriage. Stop seeking "special" dispensations just because your
different.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm
Despite marriage ban, couples want health care
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Monday asking the
courts to protect same-sex couples' health benefits in light of a state
constitutional ban on gay marriage.
In the suit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, the ACLU asked the
court to stipulate that the ban on gay marriage does not extend to
health care benefits for same-sex partners. The amendment, they said,
is ambiguous.
The ACLU filed the suit less than a week after state Attorney General
Mike Cox issued his legal interpretation about what effect the
amendment should have on health benefits. He concluded that the
amendment bans government agencies from extending benefits to same-sex
couples in any future contract negotiations.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 09:58:40 PM |
|
|
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<You want special
rights....>>>
Again, incorrect. True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not "special."
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
For that matter there is no compelling need for homosexuality. Should
homosexuality vanish from the earth in the next instant it would never
be missed. In fact it would be highly beneficial in the US as it would
remove the major breeding ground for AIDS. As well as relieve the tax
payers of the financial burden of providing free medical treatment for
all the homosexuals who have AIDS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 10:13:07 PM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Who Cares!" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:11:46 AM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:7bgee.1122$1o3.499@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| <wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
| news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
| > On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
|
| > There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry.
|
| Dumbass.
That's a compelling need? Maybe NUMB-*****, but dumbass?
But then again,
Who Cares!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 10:36:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
Yes, they are, but that's still not a compelling reason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:39:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
Yes, they are, but that's still not a compelling reason.
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes....
--
"Sex pays a lot better than death."
"Plus, the outfits are cooler."
-- Lady Heather and Catherine Willows (Slaves of Las Vegas)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:18:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:39:46 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
Yes, they are, but that's still not a compelling reason.
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes....
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:22:38 PM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:a6sl711n3opvif3rf7vl1ibeg7e7m22cm2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:39:46 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
Yes, they are, but that's still not a compelling reason.
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes....
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
You don't speak for us.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 05:12:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 May 2005 21:22:38 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:a6sl711n3opvif3rf7vl1ibeg7e7m22cm2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:39:46 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
Yes, they are, but that's still not a compelling reason.
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes....
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
You don't speak for us.
Sure I do you just haven't the balls to admit it.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 09:43:55 PM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:p7rn7195pd5mbpmd6o5q0iu497iad94mos@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 May 2005 21:22:38 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:a6sl711n3opvif3rf7vl1ibeg7e7m22cm2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:39:46 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
Yes, they are, but that's still not a compelling reason.
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes....
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
You don't speak for us.
Sure I do you just haven't the balls to admit it.
Interesting display of delusional ego. OK, not all that interesting.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:48:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:39:46 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
Yes, they are, but that's still not a compelling reason.
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes....
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
Hardly, but sooner or later America does catch up......
--
"Sex pays a lot better than death."
"Plus, the outfits are cooler."
-- Lady Heather and Catherine Willows (Slaves of Las Vegas)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 05:14:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 04:48:36 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:39:46 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
Dumbass.
Yes, they are, but that's still not a compelling reason.
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes....
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
Hardly, but sooner or later America does catch up......
Your neighbors have been at for a thousand years and are still fucked
over and barely making it in the second world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 12:44:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:39:46 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
And therein lies the problem.... nobody likes arrogant assholes!
--
+==================== 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: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 05:17:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:44:12 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:39:46 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:13:07 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
And therein lies the problem.... nobody likes arrogant assholes!
They dislike cowards even more. Of course you knew that being
canadian.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 10:47:42 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:4s2j71ds0r7af2luaduketcc84avni9fqf@4ax.com:
On 4 May 2005 07:01:27 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<You want special
rights....>>>
Again, incorrect. True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not "special."
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
There is no compelling need for anyone to marry,
or vote, or go to school, or celebrate Christmas. Life
is full of options that we all have equal access to.
Unless you are gay and living around homophobes, of
course.
For that matter there is no compelling need for homosexuality. Should
homosexuality vanish from the earth in the next instant it would never
be missed. In fact it would be highly beneficial in the US as it would
remove the major breeding ground for AIDS. As well as relieve the tax
payers of the financial burden of providing free medical treatment for
all the homosexuals who have AIDS.
If gays can support the cost of VD, teenage
pregnancies, maternity wards, divorce courts,
paternity suits and the military then straights
can support the relatively cheap expenses of aids
drugs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 10:42:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:47:42 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<ta2eneN0*Email@comcast.com> wrote:
There is no compelling need for anyone to marry,
or vote, or go to school, or celebrate Christmas. Life
is full of options that we all have equal access to.
Unless you are gay and living around homophobes, of
course.
You appear to be very angry about something. Have you decided what?
BTW -- we all live around people who have opinions that conflict with
our own.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
09 May 2005 05:53:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
To the contrary: If your father had married a man, the world would have
been a nicer place.
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 11:04:40 PM |
|
|
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
09 May 2005 05:57:55 PM |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
May I? "It would be special because it has never happened before. What
is new, is automatically special. And God hates automatics, which is why
your mechanic loves to service them for filthy lucre."
Hmm... No too verbose. Ah, well.
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 10:47:24 AM |
|
|
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 06:04:06 PM |
|
|
writes:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
Given WBT's operational definition of a "special right", we can
obviously eliminate a "special right" for homosexuals by legalizing
same-sex marriages in the other states. Then the right will no
longer be "special" according to WBT's definition. QED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 06:56:47 PM |
|
|
No One: <<Given WBT's operational definition of a "special right", we
can
obviously eliminate a "special right" for homosexuals by legalizing
same-sex marriages in the other states. =A0Then the right will no
longer be "special" according to WBT's definition. QED. >
I find the "special rights" argument very interesting, because it's
CLAEARLY NOT SPECIAL. It might be considered "special" if gay people
were being granted some kind of exlusive right to something, but that's
not how it is, obviously. Those people use the arugument that gay
people can NOW get married just like everyone else; all we have to do
is marry a person of the opposite sex. When the laws change, as in
Mass, gay people won't be the only ones who can marry people of the
same sex; hetero people will be able to do that too! Ergo, it's not
"special." "Special rights" is just another catch phrase used by the
RR to demomize what we seek. Thinking people see through it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 07:23:28 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> writes:
No One: <<Given WBT's operational definition of a "special right", we
can
obviously eliminate a "special right" for homosexuals by legalizing
same-sex marriages in the other states. Then the right will no
longer be "special" according to WBT's definition. QED. >
<snip> "Special rights" is just another catch phrase used by the
RR to demomize what we seek. Thinking people see through it.
The funny thing is that WBT tried to parrot the RR's catch phrase and
botched it in an amusing way. You may have seen the tongue-in-cheek
employee evaluation form that rates communication skills, starting
with "Talks with God" and progresses down to "Argues with himself,"
and ends with "Loses arguments with himself." WBT managed to lose an
argument with himself!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:54:19 AM |
|
|
On 7 May 2005 16:56:47 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
I find the "special rights" argument very interesting, because it's
CLAEARLY NOT SPECIAL. It might be considered "special" if gay people
were being granted some kind of exlusive right to something, but that's
not how it is, obviously. Those people use the arugument that gay
people can NOW get married just like everyone else; all we have to do
is marry a person of the opposite sex.
When the laws change, as in Mass, gay people won't be the only ones
who can marry people of the same sex; hetero people will be able to do
that too!
But all people won't be able to marry -- there will still be a certain
minority who will be prevented (by the state) from marrying. What
will you do about them -- stamp your feet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:55:03 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:433s7155vnmtd2gg49mumugog0v0cpkqru@4ax.com...
On 7 May 2005 16:56:47 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
When the laws change, as in Mass, gay people won't be the only ones
who can marry people of the same sex; hetero people will be able to do
that too!
But all people won't be able to marry -- there will still be a certain
minority who will be prevented (by the state) from marrying. What
will you do about them -- stamp your feet?
That's a stupid question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:53:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:55:03 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:433s7155vnmtd2gg49mumugog0v0cpkqru@4ax.com...
On 7 May 2005 16:56:47 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
When the laws change, as in Mass, gay people won't be the only ones
who can marry people of the same sex; hetero people will be able to do
that too!
But all people won't be able to marry -- there will still be a certain
minority who will be prevented (by the state) from marrying. What
will you do about them -- stamp your feet?
That's a stupid question.
You're a ***** wit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 08:00:38 AM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:433s7155vnmtd2gg49mumugog0v0cpkqru@4ax.com...
On 7 May 2005 16:56:47 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
When the laws change, as in Mass, gay people won't be the only ones
who can marry people of the same sex; hetero people will be able to
do that too!
But all people won't be able to marry -- there will still be a
certain minority who will be prevented (by the state) from marrying.
What will you do about them -- stamp your feet?
That's a stupid question.
It is a stupid question. Not only is it a stupid question, it has been
explained to Wild Butthead Taylor on several occasions. The same tests that
is currently applied to marriages, should be applied to all mariages to
establish a compelling, narrowly defined state interest in banning certain
types of marriages. Concepts such as harm, informed consent, and others
are used to establish this interest. Such explanations have flown right
over Taylor's pointed little head.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 08:09:05 AM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:W3ofe.10141$BE3.1339@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Sanders Kaufman <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
The same tests that
is currently applied to marriages, should be applied to all mariages to
establish a compelling, narrowly defined state interest in banning certain
types of marriages.
I disagree somewhat.
I think that marriage should not be a *government* institution at all.
The US shouldn't be in the business of licensing families.
I say - Straight or gay; if you want the benefits of a civil union, get a
civil union.
--
"Whenever two or more of you are gathered in His name - there is love" -
20th century poet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 08:14:56 AM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:W3ofe.10141$BE3.1339@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Sanders Kaufman <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
The same tests that
is currently applied to marriages, should be applied to all mariages
to establish a compelling, narrowly defined state interest in
banning certain types of marriages.
I disagree somewhat.
I think that marriage should not be a *government* institution at all.
And leave marriage to the sole discretion of the churches? How has that
sort of "governing" worked for us in the past? As I recall history, not
very well. If anything, I think that the churches should be taken out of
the process of civil marriage.
The US shouldn't be in the business of licensing families.
I say - Straight or gay; if you want the benefits of a civil union,
get a civil union.
So what is your main objection? The use of the word "marriage" ? Believe
it or not, the church has no proprietary claim on that word.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 11:43:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 7 May 2005 16:56:47 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
I find the "special rights" argument very interesting, because it's
CLAEARLY NOT SPECIAL. It might be considered "special" if gay people
were being granted some kind of exlusive right to something, but that's
not how it is, obviously. Those people use the arugument that gay
people can NOW get married just like everyone else; all we have to do
is marry a person of the opposite sex.
When the laws change, as in Mass, gay people won't be the only ones
who can marry people of the same sex; hetero people will be able to do
that too!
But all people won't be able to marry -- there will still be a certain
minority who will be prevented (by the state) from marrying. What
will you do about them -- stamp your feet?
So you won't be able to marry your sister, but you
can still sleep with her. Maybe next time.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:49:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 23:04:06 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
wbt@privacy.net writes:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
Given WBT's operational definition of a "special right", we can
obviously eliminate a "special right" for homosexuals by legalizing
same-sex marriages in the other states. Then the right will no
longer be "special" according to WBT's definition. QED.
That will happen at the same time that mutipartner marriage is
approved in all the states.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
