| 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: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 12:02:49 PM |
|
|
"Fritz" <YouPiss@off.net> wrote in message news:427CEE31.4AD92E1B@off.net...
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 06:21:29 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 5 May 2005 08:59:23 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is
a
special right granted to homosexuals there....
Again, I ask a very simple question: in what way is it "special"?
That question has been answered so many times by so many people.
Not only in newsgroups but in all the media -- Look it up. I won't do
your mining for you.
It isn't special. The right is to marry anyone you want, who wants to
marry you. Then restricting the set of possible partners to be the
opposite sex is the specialization of the right. Therefore, the
restricted right as it exists now is the specialization of the general
right. Allowing same sex marriage will *remove* a specialization, not
add one.
No, that's not true. The state has no more compelling reason to change
the structure of marriage to allow same sex marriages than it does to
allow multiple partners to marry. Unlike homosexual thinking, the
purpose of marriage is not to provide such things as tax breaks,
hospital visitation rights and the equal distribution of property.
Being the dumass you are
So you have no facts, your post is dismissed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 04:39:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:34:58 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 06:21:29 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 5 May 2005 08:59:23 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there....
Again, I ask a very simple question: in what way is it "special"?
That question has been answered so many times by so many people.
Not only in newsgroups but in all the media -- Look it up. I won't do
your mining for you.
It isn't special. The right is to marry anyone you want, who wants to
marry you. Then restricting the set of possible partners to be the
opposite sex is the specialization of the right. Therefore, the
restricted right as it exists now is the specialization of the general
right. Allowing same sex marriage will *remove* a specialization, not
add one.
No, that's not true. The state has no more compelling reason to change
the structure of marriage to allow same sex marriages than it does to
allow multiple partners to marry. Unlike homosexual thinking, the
purpose of marriage is not to provide such things as tax breaks,
hospital visitation rights and the equal distribution of property.
Being the dumass you are, I guess they didn't think you'd
understand the part about love.
Men who love to suck other men's dicks? Men who love to ***** other men
in the ***** or be fucked in the *****? How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage. What value will such relationships add to our society when,
unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality IN AND OF ITS SELF ADDS NOTHING
BUT GRIEF.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 04:47:31 PM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ecdq71tjn329pt8f6d253o905dq1lvob0i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:34:58 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
Men who love to suck other men's dicks? Men who love to ***** other men
in the ***** or be fucked in the *****? How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage.
How WON'T it benefit?!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:21:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:47:31 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ecdq71tjn329pt8f6d253o905dq1lvob0i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:34:58 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
Men who love to suck other men's dicks? Men who love to ***** other men
in the ***** or be fucked in the *****? How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage.
How WON'T it benefit?!
Ask OSAMA, ***** wit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:26:50 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bc1s71tpalv6ft8vub5947sa8kjr50o14p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:47:31 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage.
How WON'T it benefit?!
Ask OSAMA, ***** wit.
I'm asking you - yellow bellied coward.
How WON'T it benefit?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:49:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:26:50 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bc1s71tpalv6ft8vub5947sa8kjr50o14p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:47:31 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage.
How WON'T it benefit?!
Ask OSAMA, ***** wit.
I'm asking you - yellow bellied coward.
How WON'T it benefit?
You haven't the intelligence to understand. I won't waste my time on a
***** wit like you, boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 08:48:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 May 2005 00:49:59 +0000, wrote in message
news:<o6dt71tcbgpam0tgmhf0im5qp6pl3jimqf@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:26:50 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net>
wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:bc1s71tpalv6ft8vub5947sa8kjr50o14p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:47:31 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage.
How WON'T it benefit?!
Ask OSAMA, ***** wit.
I'm asking you - yellow bellied coward. How WON'T it benefit?
You haven't the intelligence to understand. I won't waste my time on a
***** wit like you, boy.
In other words, you have no answer. You're lying again, as per usual.
--
Lurlean Lie #17:
Bill Baker loves to hang out in gay bars and show off for compliments.
news:7908c278.0404061040.30e9b925@posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 04:50:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:34:58 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 06:21:29 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
wrote:
On 5 May 2005 08:59:23 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there....
Again, I ask a very simple question: in what way is it "special"?
That question has been answered so many times by so many people.
Not only in newsgroups but in all the media -- Look it up. I won't do
your mining for you.
It isn't special. The right is to marry anyone you want, who wants to
marry you. Then restricting the set of possible partners to be the
opposite sex is the specialization of the right. Therefore, the
restricted right as it exists now is the specialization of the general
right. Allowing same sex marriage will *remove* a specialization, not
add one.
No, that's not true. The state has no more compelling reason to change
the structure of marriage to allow same sex marriages than it does to
allow multiple partners to marry. Unlike homosexual thinking, the
purpose of marriage is not to provide such things as tax breaks,
hospital visitation rights and the equal distribution of property.
Being the dumass you are, I guess they didn't think you'd
understand the part about love.
Men who love to suck other men's dicks? Men who love to ***** other men
in the ***** or be fucked in the *****? How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage. What value will such relationships add to our society when,
unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality IN AND OF ITS SELF ADDS NOTHING
BUT GRIEF.
Prove the assertion using credible sourses.
-- Fritz ...
--
"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 |
08 May 2005 07:34:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:50:51 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:34:58 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 06:21:29 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 5 May 2005 08:59:23 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there....
Again, I ask a very simple question: in what way is it "special"?
That question has been answered so many times by so many people.
Not only in newsgroups but in all the media -- Look it up. I won't do
your mining for you.
It isn't special. The right is to marry anyone you want, who wants to
marry you. Then restricting the set of possible partners to be the
opposite sex is the specialization of the right. Therefore, the
restricted right as it exists now is the specialization of the general
right. Allowing same sex marriage will *remove* a specialization, not
add one.
No, that's not true. The state has no more compelling reason to change
the structure of marriage to allow same sex marriages than it does to
allow multiple partners to marry. Unlike homosexual thinking, the
purpose of marriage is not to provide such things as tax breaks,
hospital visitation rights and the equal distribution of property.
Being the dumass you are, I guess they didn't think you'd
understand the part about love.
Men who love to suck other men's dicks? Men who love to ***** other men
in the ***** or be fucked in the *****? How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage. What value will such relationships add to our society when,
unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality IN AND OF ITS SELF ADDS NOTHING
BUT GRIEF.
Prove the assertion using credible sourses.
Two Hundred thousands deaths from AIDS in the US during the two
decades 1980-1990. How's that for starters sweet lips and homosexuals
are still the No.1 vector of AIDS in the US. There willful and knowing
spread of a deadly disease causes untold grief.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:52:52 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pk1s71ladd4pq6l86tn4t97qrvfvnkikds@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:50:51 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality IN AND OF ITS SELF ADDS NOTHING
BUT GRIEF.
Prove the assertion using credible sourses.
Two Hundred thousands deaths from AIDS in the US during the two
That has nothing to do with homosexuality.
You're an idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:51:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:52:52 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pk1s71ladd4pq6l86tn4t97qrvfvnkikds@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:50:51 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality IN AND OF ITS SELF ADDS NOTHING
BUT GRIEF.
Prove the assertion using credible sourses.
Two Hundred thousands deaths from AIDS in the US during the two
That has nothing to do with homosexuality.
You're an idiot.
Really, ***** wit? Most of them were homosexuals!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 05:06:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:34:58 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 06:21:29 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
wrote:
On 5 May 2005 08:59:23 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there....
Again, I ask a very simple question: in what way is it "special"?
That question has been answered so many times by so many people.
Not only in newsgroups but in all the media -- Look it up. I won't do
your mining for you.
It isn't special. The right is to marry anyone you want, who wants to
marry you. Then restricting the set of possible partners to be the
opposite sex is the specialization of the right. Therefore, the
restricted right as it exists now is the specialization of the general
right. Allowing same sex marriage will *remove* a specialization, not
add one.
No, that's not true. The state has no more compelling reason to change
the structure of marriage to allow same sex marriages than it does to
allow multiple partners to marry. Unlike homosexual thinking, the
purpose of marriage is not to provide such things as tax breaks,
hospital visitation rights and the equal distribution of property.
Being the dumass you are, I guess they didn't think you'd
understand the part about love.
Men who love to suck other men's dicks? Men who love to ***** other men
in the ***** or be fucked in the *****? How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage. What value will such relationships add to our society when,
unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality IN AND OF ITS SELF ADDS NOTHING
BUT GRIEF.
They will probably "benefit" in much the same way as it does
with heterosexuals that do it.
You do know that heterosexuals do these things too, right?
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:38:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 18:06:26 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:34:58 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 06:21:29 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 5 May 2005 08:59:23 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there....
Again, I ask a very simple question: in what way is it "special"?
That question has been answered so many times by so many people.
Not only in newsgroups but in all the media -- Look it up. I won't do
your mining for you.
It isn't special. The right is to marry anyone you want, who wants to
marry you. Then restricting the set of possible partners to be the
opposite sex is the specialization of the right. Therefore, the
restricted right as it exists now is the specialization of the general
right. Allowing same sex marriage will *remove* a specialization, not
add one.
No, that's not true. The state has no more compelling reason to change
the structure of marriage to allow same sex marriages than it does to
allow multiple partners to marry. Unlike homosexual thinking, the
purpose of marriage is not to provide such things as tax breaks,
hospital visitation rights and the equal distribution of property.
Being the dumass you are, I guess they didn't think you'd
understand the part about love.
Men who love to suck other men's dicks? Men who love to ***** other men
in the ***** or be fucked in the *****? How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage. What value will such relationships add to our society when,
unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality IN AND OF ITS SELF ADDS NOTHING
BUT GRIEF.
They will probably "benefit" in much the same way as it does
with heterosexuals that do it.
You do know that heterosexuals do these things too, right?
Not same sex heterosexuals. That's why we are not the No.1 vector of
AIDS in the US and you homosexual ***** suckers and ***** fucker are.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 11:18:20 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 18:06:26 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:34:58 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 06:21:29 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
wrote:
On 5 May 2005 08:59:23 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there....
Again, I ask a very simple question: in what way is it "special"?
That question has been answered so many times by so many people.
Not only in newsgroups but in all the media -- Look it up. I won't do
your mining for you.
It isn't special. The right is to marry anyone you want, who wants to
marry you. Then restricting the set of possible partners to be the
opposite sex is the specialization of the right. Therefore, the
restricted right as it exists now is the specialization of the general
right. Allowing same sex marriage will *remove* a specialization, not
add one.
No, that's not true. The state has no more compelling reason to change
the structure of marriage to allow same sex marriages than it does to
allow multiple partners to marry. Unlike homosexual thinking, the
purpose of marriage is not to provide such things as tax breaks,
hospital visitation rights and the equal distribution of property.
Being the dumass you are, I guess they didn't think you'd
understand the part about love.
Men who love to suck other men's dicks? Men who love to ***** other men
in the ***** or be fucked in the *****? How will the state benefit by
recognizing the such behavior as being the equal of traditional
marriage. What value will such relationships add to our society when,
unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality IN AND OF ITS SELF ADDS NOTHING
BUT GRIEF.
They will probably "benefit" in much the same way as it does
with heterosexuals that do it.
You do know that heterosexuals do these things too, right?
Not same sex heterosexuals.
I don't know what this is.
That's why we are not the No.1 vector of
AIDS in the US and you homosexual ***** suckers and ***** fucker are.
It's only a matter of time.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 09:44:11 AM |
|
|
W: < <<It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it
is a
special right granted to homosexuals there....
Jenn: <>Again, I ask a very simple question: in what way is it
"special"?
W: <<That question has been answered so many times by so many people.
Not only in newsgroups but in all the media -- Look it up. I won't do
your mining for you.
IOW, you won't explain how it's "special" because you can't. The
context of "special" on this issue means "peculiar to a person or
thing." The logic of why this request isn't "special" is easy to
follow: When I'm able to marry someone of the same gender, you will be
allowed that as well. Thus, it's not "special." You say that I can
now marry someone of the opposite gender, just as you can, therefore I
have the same marriage rights as do you. The same will be true when
the laws are changed and the same is true now in Mass: We will both be
able to marry those of the same gender or of the oppostie gender. If
you believe that this is "special", you must admit that what YOU have
now are "special rights." Perfectly logical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 05:20:52 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2005 07:44:11 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
IOW, you won't explain how it's "special" because you can't.
No, in these words: Look it up ***** WIT!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 06:11:25 PM |
|
|
W: <<<No, in these words: Look it up
No, I've seen NO valid explanation of how SSM is a "special right." By
definition, it isn't special, because it's available to ALL. Why can't
you understand that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 07:41:22 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2005 16:11:25 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
W: <<<No, in these words: Look it up
No, I've seen NO valid explanation of how SSM is a "special right." By
definition, it isn't special, because it's available to ALL. Why can't
you understand that?
No. it's only available to a selected few in one state and it won't be
available there much longer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 07:45:07 PM |
|
|
W: <<,No. it's only available to a selected few in one state
No, it's available to ALL in that state!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 10:23:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:58:40 GMT, wrote:
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 12:10:00 AM |
|
|
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1115263374.6f939763454ea5bbd17a26002b79f910@teranews...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:58:40 GMT, wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
There is no compelling need for ANYONE to marry.
Home ownership, survivial rights, visitation rights, confidentiality
rights - the reasons are legion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Who Cares!" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:12:44 AM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:IUhee.1135$1o3.808@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| "IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
| news:1115263374.6f939763454ea5bbd17a26002b79f910@teranews...
| > On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:58:40 GMT, wrote:
|
| >>There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry.
| >
| > There is no compelling need for ANYONE to marry.
|
| Home ownership, survivial rights, visitation rights, confidentiality
| rights - the reasons are legion.
So if we totally outlawed marriage you would be happy because everyone
(and their dog) would be equal, right?
But then again,
Who Cares!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 12:26:37 PM |
|
|
"Who Cares!" <whocares@freetidet.org> wrote in message
news:0Cree.6015$GQ5.4246@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
| Home ownership, survivial rights, visitation rights, confidentiality
| rights - the reasons are legion.
So if we totally outlawed marriage you would be happy because everyone
(and their dog) would be equal, right?
Wow. You're really out there on the extreme, aintcha?
.
|
|
|
| User: "curtsybear" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 01:42:12 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.politics.homosexuality.]
On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:26:37 GMT, Sanders Kaufman <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Who Cares!" <whocares@freetidet.org> wrote in message
news:0Cree.6015$GQ5.4246@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
So if we totally outlawed marriage you would be happy because everyone
(and their dog) would be equal, right?
Wow. You're really out there on the extreme, aintcha?
Mmm hmm. If it's outlawed for *you* that's "really out there on
the extreme". Gotcha.
--
"Here in New Sodom there are bath houses and sex clubs all over the place.
Whenever they close one down two more pop up in their place." -- Lurlean
Tucker regrets not having watched Fantasia *before* taking an axe to
the bath house across the street.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 10:48:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 05:10:00 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1115263374.6f939763454ea5bbd17a26002b79f910@teranews...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:58:40 GMT, wrote:
There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to marry.
There is no compelling need for ANYONE to marry.
Home ownership, survivial rights, visitation rights, confidentiality
rights - the reasons are legion.
The answer is simple -- All available to homosexuals who follow their
state's guide lines for marriage.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 10:42:27 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:58:40 GMT, wrote:
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.
except of course those people who are compelled to marry. you may or
may not be, but you have no control or right over anyone elses
decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 10:39:58 AM |
|
|
On 4 May 2005 20:42:27 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:58:40 GMT, wrote:
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.
except of course those people who are compelled to marry. you may or
may not be, but you have no control or right over anyone elses
decision.
That's true but neither does any special interest group have control
over what the state recognizes as a lawful marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 10:19:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 4 May 2005 20:42:27 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:58:40 GMT, wrote:
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.
except of course those people who are compelled to marry. you may or
may not be, but you have no control or right over anyone elses
decision.
That's true but neither does any special interest group have control
over what the state recognizes as a lawful marriage.
I wish it were so, currently a special interest group of bigoted
"christians" have control over what the state recognizes as a lawful
marriage and are working to add this hateful, bigoted, ignorant control
to our Constitution. In once sense very sad, in another simply proves
that they know that thier bigotry will not stand up to the scrutiny of
our current consitution. I predict the bigots will fail and at the end
of the day, the control this special interest group has will end and
people will be free to marry as they wish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 08:10:14 AM |
|
|
On 7 May 2005 20:19:11 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
I wish it were so, currently a special interest group of bigoted
"christians" have control over what the state recognizes as a lawful
marriage and are working to add this hateful, bigoted, ignorant control
to our Constitution. In once sense very sad, in another simply proves
that they know that thier bigotry will not stand up to the scrutiny of
our current consitution. I predict the bigots will fail and at the end
of the day, the control this special interest group has will end and
people will be free to marry as they wish.
Bigot - Any heterosexual whose opinion differs from that of any
homosexual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 08:12:31 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:s54s71hmp4eg1mrjnf2o0rramappg284ue@4ax.com...
On 7 May 2005 20:19:11 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
Bigot - Any heterosexual whose opinion differs from that of any
homosexual.
Coward - anyone who whines about homosexuals.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
