| 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 |
01 May 2005 12:40:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:51:01 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
If I married a 14 year old using a fake ID, thaty marriage would be
valid until a court found that I had violated the law.
Valid only among you close atheist friends of course. I read some
where recently that those of your religion often marry 14 year olds
using a fake ID (predominately in Idaho) for the benefit of what you
often refer to as "those hot two or three night stands" with a young
girl.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 May 2005 10:41:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 05:40:25 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:51:01 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
If I married a 14 year old using a fake ID, thaty marriage would be
valid until a court found that I had violated the law.
Valid only among you close atheist friends of course. I read some
where recently that those of your religion often marry 14 year olds
using a fake ID (predominately in Idaho) for the benefit of what you
often refer to as "those hot two or three night stands" with a young
girl.
As usual, you have no leg to stand on.
1. Atheism is not a religion, just a state of not believing in
deities.
2. Under the Constitutional protection of due process, that marriage
would be valid until a court determined that it was in fact
fraudulent. This wouldn't even require a jury trial, just a hearing
before a judge where evidence was presented showing that my bride was
fourteen, and had used a fake ID when getting the license.
3. You seem to be obcessed with sex. Seek help.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 May 2005 08:16:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 15:41:17 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2005 05:40:25 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:51:01 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
If I married a 14 year old using a fake ID, thaty marriage would be
valid until a court found that I had violated the law.
Valid only among you close atheist friends of course. I read some
where recently that those of your religion often marry 14 year olds
using a fake ID (predominately in Idaho) for the benefit of what you
often refer to as "those hot two or three night stands" with a young
girl.
As usual, you have no leg to stand on.
1. Atheism is not a religion, just a state of not believing in
deities.
2. Under the Constitutional protection of due process, that marriage
would be valid until a court determined that it was in fact
fraudulent. This wouldn't even require a jury trial, just a hearing
before a judge where evidence was presented showing that my bride was
fourteen, and had used a fake ID when getting the license.
TOTAL BULL *****! Unless you happen to be a resident of the Suckabarrag
tribe and reside on the reservation (on Mindanao.)
3. You seem to be obcessed with sex. Seek help.
Flap Jack,you're the one who brought up fucking a 14 year old girl.
The one who is so excited by the thought of sex it even fucks over
your spelling. You atheist must be a terribly over-fed and
under-fucked herd. Life's a ***** and then you find out you have
atheism. (sheeesh!)
BTW -- You're ignorant, but there is no help for the terminally
ignorant. Seek relief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
02 May 2005 11:55:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 01:16:58 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Sun, 01 May 2005 15:41:17 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
2. Under the Constitutional protection of due process, that marriage
would be valid until a court determined that it was in fact
fraudulent. This wouldn't even require a jury trial, just a hearing
before a judge where evidence was presented showing that my bride was
fourteen, and had used a fake ID when getting the license.
TOTAL BULL *****! Unless you happen to be a resident of the Suckabarrag
tribe and reside on the reservation (on Mindanao.)
I see that again you fail to offer anything that would support your
position. So, care to quote actual law on the subject?
3. You seem to be obcessed with sex. Seek help.
Flap Jack,you're the one who brought up fucking a 14 year old girl.
The one who is so excited by the thought of sex it even fucks over
your spelling. You atheist must be a terribly over-fed and
under-fucked herd. Life's a ***** and then you find out you have
atheism. (sheeesh!)
LOL! Buddy, if you only knew how wrong you are...
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 09:02:38 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one state
is a marriage in them all.
That's probably part of the problem, all the states stick to the minimal
requirements. Since there are no states that hold the bar higher than
others (I.E.: Domestic violence = instant and permanent divorce of said
parties; Or, mandatory waiting periods before the knot can be tied; Not
even a "three tries and you're single, for good" law), society is doomed
to sub-par marital performance and behaviors. (Heck, even Ohio's "Trust
me to respect the sanctity of marriage" guru -- Mr. Burress -- is on
wife number three.)
That should probably be changed. In the schools, there is something
known as "proof of engagement." (At least in Ohio.) The child must be
shown to be attending, records of the performance of assignments must be
kept, and certain tests to measure performance are assessed.
Marriage gives the concept an interesting literal twist, engagement can
be directly and literally witnessed. So, why not require it? No
engagement? "You're moving too fast. Slow down, and try again." Las
Vegas might protest, but if you've seen one sequined Elvis impersonator
who will marry anyone for the proper fee then you've seen part of the
problem.
A mandatory waiting period -- starting at the moment of documented
engagement -- would also seem a reasonable stipulation. Say, six months.
That's enough time to discover the really glaring incompatibilities,
even if the potential spouses see each other only once a fortnight.
Marriage is a serious thing. Oddly enough, we make folks wait longer to
get a license to drive wheeled pieces of mechanical mayhem (I.E.: Cars)
than we do for folks wanting a marriage license. Um, "Hello!?!"
Training should also be something factored into the equation. We make
potential drivers take tests to earn their drivers licenses. Name one
state that makes the successful completion of a course in Conflict
Management a requirement for marriage. How about one that requires a
class on Marital Finances and Children for those with intentions of
breeding? Not a one. Pathetic.
Curiously, the so-called "moral forces" in this nation don't seem to,
ahem, "value" things like that.
--
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 |
29 Apr 2005 12:00:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:32:38 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
Which violates the Constitution of the U*nited States. Specifically:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one state
is a marriage in them all.
But none of them give homosexuals a inch of ground to stand on.
Admit it "You're Fucked" -- the best you ever going to get is a small
bone called civil union. Massachusetts' illegal action by the state
Supreme Court will be rescinded and all faux marriages made under the
court ruling will be null and void.
That's your future. That'll be $50 dollars, please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 12:15:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:32:38 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to
another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
Which violates the Constitution of the U*nited States.
Specifically:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one state
is a marriage in them all.
But none of them give homosexuals a inch of ground to stand on.
Admit it "You're Fucked" -- the best you ever going to get is a
small
bone called civil union. Massachusetts' illegal action by the state
Supreme Court will be rescinded and all faux marriages made under the
court ruling will be null and void.
That's your future. That'll be $50 dollars, please.
actually history moves slowly but clearly against your hate and bigotry
and toward freedom and tolerance for all people. In your future you
will been seen as the hateful bigot you are. You're on the wrong side
of history. Deal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 01:08:48 PM |
|
|
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114794911.219177.142640@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
w...@privacy.net wrote:
actually history moves slowly but clearly against your hate and bigotry
and toward freedom and tolerance for all people.
Thank God.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 04:41:21 PM |
|
|
On 29 Apr 2005 10:15:11 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:32:38 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to
another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
Which violates the Constitution of the U*nited States.
Specifically:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one state
is a marriage in them all.
But none of them give homosexuals a inch of ground to stand on.
Admit it "You're Fucked" -- the best you ever going to get is a
small
bone called civil union. Massachusetts' illegal action by the state
Supreme Court will be rescinded and all faux marriages made under the
court ruling will be null and void.
That's your future. That'll be $50 dollars, please.
actually history moves slowly but clearly against your hate and bigotry
and toward freedom and tolerance for all people. In your future you
will been seen as the hateful bigot you are. You're on the wrong side
of history. Deal.
You don't recognize it yet but you homos have gotten all the
"tolerance" you're ever going to get. It's down the porcelain fixture
for you from here on out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 May 2005 06:21:40 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 29 Apr 2005 10:15:11 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:32:38 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his
beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
the
following
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to
another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
Which violates the Constitution of the U*nited States.
Specifically:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one
state
is a marriage in them all.
But none of them give homosexuals a inch of ground to stand on.
Admit it "You're Fucked" -- the best you ever going to get is a
small
bone called civil union. Massachusetts' illegal action by the
state
Supreme Court will be rescinded and all faux marriages made under
the
court ruling will be null and void.
That's your future. That'll be $50 dollars, please.
actually history moves slowly but clearly against your hate and
bigotry
and toward freedom and tolerance for all people. In your future you
will been seen as the hateful bigot you are. You're on the wrong
side
of history. Deal.
You don't recognize it yet but you homos have gotten all the
"tolerance" you're ever going to get. It's down the porcelain fixture
for you from here on out.
If you take the time to study history, I think you will find you are
wrong. It matters not what small minded bigots like you think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 May 2005 08:07:25 PM |
|
|
On 1 May 2005 04:21:40 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
On 29 Apr 2005 10:15:11 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:32:38 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his
beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
the
following
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to
another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
Which violates the Constitution of the U*nited States.
Specifically:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one
state
is a marriage in them all.
But none of them give homosexuals a inch of ground to stand on.
Admit it "You're Fucked" -- the best you ever going to get is a
small
bone called civil union. Massachusetts' illegal action by the
state
Supreme Court will be rescinded and all faux marriages made under
the
court ruling will be null and void.
That's your future. That'll be $50 dollars, please.
actually history moves slowly but clearly against your hate and
bigotry
and toward freedom and tolerance for all people. In your future you
will been seen as the hateful bigot you are. You're on the wrong
side
of history. Deal.
You don't recognize it yet but you homos have gotten all the
"tolerance" you're ever going to get. It's down the porcelain fixture
for you from here on out.
If you take the time to study history, I think you will find you are
wrong. It matters not what small minded bigots like you think.
If you check out "recent history" and forget the Alexander the Great
was a ***** sucker too, you would be better served. You got your lights
put out in eleven states in the last general election. Since then four
more states have passed legislation saying that marriage can only be
between one man and one woman...a binge of homosexual marriages in a
few renegade areas have all been declared null and void. The
Massachusetts State Supreme Court is about to be recalled and out fear
has agreed to reconsider their infamous, "***** what the people think
we say queers can marry" decision. Yes, boy, It's down the porcelain
fixture for you from here on out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
02 May 2005 02:04:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 1 May 2005 04:21:40 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
On 29 Apr 2005 10:15:11 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com>
wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:32:38 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his
beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
the
following
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to
another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
Which violates the Constitution of the U*nited States.
Specifically:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one
state
is a marriage in them all.
But none of them give homosexuals a inch of ground to stand on.
Admit it "You're Fucked" -- the best you ever going to get is a
small
bone called civil union. Massachusetts' illegal action by the
state
Supreme Court will be rescinded and all faux marriages made under
the
court ruling will be null and void.
That's your future. That'll be $50 dollars, please.
actually history moves slowly but clearly against your hate and
bigotry
and toward freedom and tolerance for all people. In your future you
will been seen as the hateful bigot you are. You're on the wrong
side
of history. Deal.
You don't recognize it yet but you homos have gotten all the
"tolerance" you're ever going to get. It's down the porcelain fixture
for you from here on out.
If you take the time to study history, I think you will find you are
wrong. It matters not what small minded bigots like you think.
If you check out "recent history" and forget the Alexander the Great
was a ***** sucker too, you would be better served. You got your lights
put out in eleven states in the last general election. Since then four
more states have passed legislation saying that marriage can only be
between one man and one woman...a binge of homosexual marriages in a
few renegade areas have all been declared null and void. The
Massachusetts State Supreme Court is about to be recalled and out fear
has agreed to reconsider their infamous, "***** what the people think
we say queers can marry" decision. Yes, boy, It's down the porcelain
fixture for you from here on out.
That's a problem for the country, but not the point. The point is: If
one state licenses SSM, then then all the states recognize that
marriage. Your benefits argument does not invalidate that. From then on,
it is a matter of time, just as it was and is for blacks, women, and all
the other minorities you want to feel superior to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 01:59:11 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:04:48 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
(...)
If you check out "recent history" and forget the Alexander the Great
was a ***** sucker too, you would be better served. You got your lights
put out in eleven states in the last general election. Since then four
more states have passed legislation saying that marriage can only be
between one man and one woman...a binge of homosexual marriages in a
few renegade areas have all been declared null and void. The
Massachusetts State Supreme Court is about to be recalled and out fear
has agreed to reconsider their infamous, "***** what the people think
we say queers can marry" decision. Yes, boy, It's down the porcelain
fixture for you from here on out.
That's a problem for the country, but not the point. The point is: If
one state licenses SSM, then then all the states recognize that
marriage. Your benefits argument does not invalidate that. From then on,
it is a matter of time, just as it was and is for blacks, women, and all
the other minorities you want to feel superior to.
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in
proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there
is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the
eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free. Their passions forge their fetters."
- Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
*********
Homosexuals are headed down the porcelain fixture...
Do you remember this one? Note carefully the last sentence:
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upholds the "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" policy, and overturns a previous ruling by Eugene
Nickerson in Able. The Court holds that it is not empowered to
question the judgment of Congress in running the military, and that
the equal protection violation claims by Able are not supported by
case law, inasmuch as sexual orientation is not recognized as a
suspect class.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 02:12:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in
proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there
is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the
eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free. Their passions forge their fetters."
- Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
*********
Homosexuals are headed down the porcelain fixture...
Do you remember this one? Note carefully the last sentence:
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upholds the "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" policy, and overturns a previous ruling by Eugene
Nickerson in Able. The Court holds that it is not empowered to
question the judgment of Congress in running the military, and that
the equal protection violation claims by Able are not supported by
case law, inasmuch as sexual orientation is not recognized as a
suspect class.
First, this argument isn't about service in the military. It's about
marriage. Second, we aren't talking about equal protection claims
either. We're talking about the fact that a mrriage license granted in
one state must be recognized by all the states. Finally, since you asked
me to "note carefully" what the court said (I did, and it does not
support your case), you should note carefully the last lines of the
quote you provided from Edmund Burke:
"It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of
intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
He was talking about people like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 10:46:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:12:18 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in
proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there
is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the
eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free. Their passions forge their fetters."
- Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
*********
Homosexuals are headed down the porcelain fixture...
Do you remember this one? Note carefully the last sentence:
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upholds the "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" policy, and overturns a previous ruling by Eugene
Nickerson in Able. The Court holds that it is not empowered to
question the judgment of Congress in running the military, and that
the equal protection violation claims by Able are not supported by
case law, inasmuch as sexual orientation is not recognized as a
suspect class.
First, this argument isn't about service in the military. It's about
marriage. Second, we aren't talking about equal protection claims
either. We're talking about the fact that a mrriage license granted in
one state must be recognized by all the states. Finally, since you asked
me to "note carefully" what the court said (I did, and it does not
support your case), you should note carefully the last lines of the
quote you provided from Edmund Burke:
"It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of
intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
He was talking about people like you.
He was talking about people like promiscuous homosexuals who continue
to knowingly and willfully spread HIV/AIDS and who are killing your
chances of even gaining a effective level of "tolerance." No one has
yet played the AIDS card in opposition to the demands of
homosexuals...someone will though and it will be the beginning of the
end of the homosexual crusade.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 09:29:22 AM |
|
|
wrote:
He was talking about people like promiscuous homosexuals who continue
to knowingly and willfully spread HIV/AIDS and who are killing your
chances of even gaining a effective level of "tolerance." No one has
yet played the AIDS card in opposition to the demands of
homosexuals..
Probably because it's a stupid idea.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 09:59:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 May 2005 10:29:22 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
He was talking about people like promiscuous homosexuals who continue
to knowingly and willfully spread HIV/AIDS and who are killing your
chances of even gaining a effective level of "tolerance." No one has
yet played the AIDS card in opposition to the demands of
homosexuals..
Probably because it's a stupid idea.
What might work might work.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 02:03:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:12:18 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wrote:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in
proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there
is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the
eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free. Their passions forge their fetters."
- Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
*********
Homosexuals are headed down the porcelain fixture...
Do you remember this one? Note carefully the last sentence:
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upholds the "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" policy, and overturns a previous ruling by Eugene
Nickerson in Able. The Court holds that it is not empowered to
question the judgment of Congress in running the military, and that
the equal protection violation claims by Able are not supported by
case law, inasmuch as sexual orientation is not recognized as a
suspect class.
First, this argument isn't about service in the military. It's about
marriage. Second, we aren't talking about equal protection claims
either. We're talking about the fact that a mrriage license granted in
one state must be recognized by all the states. Finally, since you asked
me to "note carefully" what the court said (I did, and it does not
support your case), you should note carefully the last lines of the
quote you provided from Edmund Burke:
"It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of
intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
He was talking about people like you.
He was talking about people like promiscuous homosexuals who continue
to knowingly and willfully spread HIV/AIDS and who are killing your
chances of even gaining a effective level of "tolerance."
There are very few of those these days, no more than promiscuous
heterosexuals who are doing the same thing. Edmund Burke was talking
about people with intemperate minds, whose passions forge their fetters.
He was definitiely referring to people like you. Burke could have said
assholes, instead of "ment of intemperate minds," because that is what
he meant, and he was very clearly talking about people like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 03:36:38 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:03:47 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:12:18 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in
proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there
is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the
eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free. Their passions forge their fetters."
- Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
*********
Homosexuals are headed down the porcelain fixture...
Do you remember this one? Note carefully the last sentence:
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upholds the "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" policy, and overturns a previous ruling by Eugene
Nickerson in Able. The Court holds that it is not empowered to
question the judgment of Congress in running the military, and that
the equal protection violation claims by Able are not supported by
case law, inasmuch as sexual orientation is not recognized as a
suspect class.
First, this argument isn't about service in the military. It's about
marriage. Second, we aren't talking about equal protection claims
either. We're talking about the fact that a mrriage license granted in
one state must be recognized by all the states. Finally, since you asked
me to "note carefully" what the court said (I did, and it does not
support your case), you should note carefully the last lines of the
quote you provided from Edmund Burke:
"It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of
intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
He was talking about people like you.
He was talking about people like promiscuous homosexuals who continue
to knowingly and willfully spread HIV/AIDS and who are killing your
chances of even gaining a effective level of "tolerance."
There are very few of those these days, no more than promiscuous
heterosexuals who are doing the same thing.
That's bull ***** and you know it. If you don't you're an ignorant *****.
Edmund Burke was talking about people with intemperate minds,
whose passions forge their fetters.
A precise definition of male homosexual
He was definitiely referring to people like you. Burke could have said
assholes, instead of "ment of intemperate minds,"
He would certainly have gotten the attention of the homosexuals if he
had said "assholes", don't you agree...
because that is what he meant, and he was very clearly talking about
people like you.
You really haven't an argument have you, Malasada Muncher?
The application of his comments today would clearly be to homosexuals.
No two ways about it. Their deadly disease spreading promiscuity that
is willful and knowingly practiced by male homosexuals in the US is an
offense to human nature and to the society that they demand
unquestioning "tolerance" from. It ain't gonna happen.
Now get back in your little grass shack and let the Adults contend
this issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 07:01:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:03:47 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:12:18 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wrote:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in
proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there
is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the
eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free. Their passions forge their fetters."
- Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
*********
Homosexuals are headed down the porcelain fixture...
Do you remember this one? Note carefully the last sentence:
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upholds the "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" policy, and overturns a previous ruling by Eugene
Nickerson in Able. The Court holds that it is not empowered to
question the judgment of Congress in running the military, and that
the equal protection violation claims by Able are not supported by
case law, inasmuch as sexual orientation is not recognized as a
suspect class.
First, this argument isn't about service in the military. It's about
marriage. Second, we aren't talking about equal protection claims
either. We're talking about the fact that a mrriage license granted in
one state must be recognized by all the states. Finally, since you asked
me to "note carefully" what the court said (I did, and it does not
support your case), you should note carefully the last lines of the
quote you provided from Edmund Burke:
"It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of
intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
He was talking about people like you.
He was talking about people like promiscuous homosexuals who continue
to knowingly and willfully spread HIV/AIDS and who are killing your
chances of even gaining a effective level of "tolerance."
There are very few of those these days, no more than promiscuous
heterosexuals who are doing the same thing.
That's bull ***** and you know it. If you don't you're an ignorant *****.
I detect that you don't know much about homosexuals. You will be
surprised to learn that homosexuals are, in general, as responsible,
moral, and ethical, as you. whether I am an ignorant ***** is irrelevant.
Edmund Burke was talking about people with intemperate minds,
whose passions forge their fetters.
A precise definition of male homosexual
Not at all. Having an intemperate mind is a personality flaw. Being
homosexual is almost entirely genetic.
He was definitiely referring to people like you. Burke could have said
assholes, instead of "ment of intemperate minds,"
He would certainly have gotten the attention of the homosexuals if he
had said "assholes", don't you agree...
He would have gotten everybody's attention. See how it got *yours*.
because that is what he meant, and he was very clearly talking about
people like you.
You really haven't an argument have you, Malasada Muncher?
The application of his comments today would clearly be to homosexuals.
It does not. Used in Burke's context, "intemperate mind" refers to one
that is excessive in its behavior. Your mental behavior here is clearly
excessive. It can't be described any other way. Burke was talking about
people like you, not homosexuals, unless, of course, they think like
you. Some of them do, of course, but intemperate thinking is as much a
flaw for those few as it is for you.
No two ways about it. Their deadly disease spreading promiscuity that
is willful and knowingly practiced by male homosexuals in the US is an
offense to human nature and to the society that they demand
unquestioning "tolerance" from. It ain't gonna happen.
The behavior you refer to applies to a tiny fraction of homosexuals,
about the same tiny fraction asfor heterosexuals.
Now get back in your little grass shack and let the Adults contend
this issue.
Your abusiveness will probably come back to destroy you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 06:50:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It is ordained in the
eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free. Their passions forge their fetters."
- Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
Homosexuals are headed down the porcelain fixture...
Do you remember this one? Note carefully the last sentence
Yes, noted the bondage reference. Let me guess, your intemperate little
mind has a problem with that. Huh, guess you shouldn't have bonded
yourself so thoroughly to that male deity of yours.
--
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 |
03 May 2005 10:58:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:50:56 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
It is ordained in the
eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free. Their passions forge their fetters."
- Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
Homosexuals are headed down the porcelain fixture...
Do you remember this one? Note carefully the last sentence
Yes, noted the bondage reference. Let me guess, your intemperate little
mind has a problem with that. Huh, guess you shouldn't have bonded
yourself so thoroughly to that male deity of yours.
Don't you even think of trying to pull the "you're religious" BULL
***** on me ***** sucker. I don't need any kind of crutch to prove
what scum you homosexual, disease spreading *****-***** machines
are. Telling the truth about you does plenty of damage...
*****************
Meth abuse elevates HIV crisis for gays
By CAMERON McWHIRTER, JILL YOUNG MILLER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/17/04
When Patrick Smith started using methamphetamine, he quickly found
that sex and the potent drug — which gay men call Tina or Crystal —
became hopelessly connected.
Whenever he had sex, he wanted meth. Whenever he was high on meth, he
wanted sex.
A methamphetamine user since he was 16, Smith spent years having
anonymous, unprotected sex while high. He took the drug whenever he
could. He hooked up with male partners — he has no idea how many — at
large dance parties and at all-night sex clubs.
Smith ran out of money and prostituted himself. He was hospitalized
about six times after overdosing on combinations of drugs. Meth was
always in the mix.
One morning about two years ago, Smith woke up in his living room
after a meth binge. His head was gashed and bleeding. Shattered glass
lay everywhere.
"My head had crashed through a glass table, and I didn't remember any
of it," said Smith, 24.
He checked into a yearlong drug rehab program.After medical tests,
counselors told him he had contracted HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
He believes he contracted the disease while having sex with strangers
while on meth.
According to a new study of gay men in San Francisco by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, men who used meth were
twice as likely to have unprotected sex as those who did not. Another
study, by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, found that
men who used meth were more than three timesas likely to be
HIV-positive.
Gay health organizations in San Francisco and New York have launched
public awareness campaigns warning about meth use and HIV transmission
through risky sexual behavior.
Smith is one of a growing number of young gay men in Atlanta who
believe they contracted HIV aftermeth abuse and risky sex. But in
metro Atlanta, which has the largest concentration of gays in the Deep
South, AIDS groups have not yet started meth-specific education
campaigns. The problem, however, has become a crisis, say some
therapists and medical experts who treat gay men.
"They are taking outrageous risks," said John Ballew, an Atlanta
therapist who says two-thirds of his clients are gay men. "It has
really become associated with the fast-lane night life among certain
gay men. My professional take on it is, the problem is just as bad as
[in] New York or San Francisco or Los Angeles."
Meth use among gay men in Atlanta is "really, really insidious," said
Michael Dubin, a counselor whose clients are all gay men. "From what I
am hearing from friends and from clients, it is a lot more extensive
than any of us would like to think, especially in the club scene. And
it leads to people throwing caution to the wind — when they know
better."
Dr. Sanjay Sharma, a psychiatrist at Grady Health System's infectious
disease program, said the drug's use among gay men has become a
serious health concern. "A lot of these substances, crystal meth in
particular, are associated with euphoria and hypersexuality," he said.
"And along with that, increased sexual risk-taking behaviors, and then
an overall impaired judgment. That's not a good combination of
effects."
Many gay men have never tried methamphetamine. Some have only
experimented briefly with the drug.But a minority of gay men
habitually abuse the drug during sexual encounters with multiple
partners. For these men, meth use has become part of sex.
Meth, a psychostimulant that excites pleasure centers in the brain,
makes users feel euphoric for hours. The drug impairs judgment, lowers
inhibitions, keeps people awake for days, and can increase sexual
arousal.
"They go from feeling like wallflowers to feeling like supermen,"
Ballew said. "Safer sex messages are just forgotten."
Many men have told Ballew the drug is rampant in their social circle.
"This drug has become almost normalized in the community," he said.
"It's hard to see how it could become more of a problem."
Decades of drug abuse
Methamphetamine has been abused in the United States for decades,
especially on the West Coast. The drug can be snorted, injected,
swallowed and smoked, and some gay men insert it anally.
The meth crisis among gay men is occurring in tandem with a dramatic
surge in meth use by heterosexuals, especially in rural areas across
Georgia and the nation. The potent, cheap drug is the leading
illegally manufactured drug in the nation, according to the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration.
Meth abuse among urban, rural and suburban heterosexuals has increased
crime and caused enormous health and social problems. But the drug use
among heterosexuals has not been as associated with risky sexual
behavior as it is among young gay men living in cities like Atlanta.
Smith said he had sworn off meth and other illegal drugs since he fell
through the table. But he said the allure of the drug was powerful.
"It gives people a way to have sex for hours and hours and hours,"
said Smith, who grew up in Marietta and now lives in Decatur. "It's
the greatest euphoria you can ever feel."
'Party and play'
Meth is so linked with this subculture of gay men engaging in
anonymous sex with strangers that men advertise either that they have
the drug or want it during sex in personal ads and on the Internet.
Their notices carry the phrase "PnP" for "party and play," a euphemism
for crystal methamphetamine and sex.
"People will have what they call Tina sex parties," said Danny
Sprouse, coordinator of HIV prevention and mental health services for
gay and bisexual men at Positive Impact Inc., an Atlanta nonprofit
that counsels people with HIV. "They may set up some rules at the
beginning to say, 'You can only have safe sex.' So they'll have a lot
of condoms available."
Or they may have Tina parties where condoms aren't even allowed,
Sprouse said, "where they say, 'We're only going to have unsafe sex.'
"
Even at condoms-only Tina parties, men don't always use protection as
the drug kicks in and the night wears on, he said.
John, a 36-year-old gay man who lives in Midtown, said he wished he
had never touched the stuff.
"On Tina, you make bad judgments about safe sex, about your life,
about just about everything," he said.
John asked that his last name not be published. He has known since
1997 he is HIV-positive. He used meth for more than 18 months until he
quit, with great difficulty, this Jan. 1, he said.
While on methamphetamine, he frequented all-night Atlanta sex clubs
and often had anonymous, unprotected sex with men who also were high
on the drug, he said.
"I think there's a possibility that I may have infected someone. I
couldn't tell you who," John said. "And I have the feeling that the
people that I did have unprotected sex with had already had
unprotected sex with other people, so there's no way for them to know
if it would have been me or someone else."
Clubs encourage safety
All-male clubs in Atlanta, such as the bathhouse Flex, generallyhave
policies banning drugs on the premises, distribute free condoms, and
encourage their patrons to use protection.
At Flex, if a customer is discovered using or selling drugs, "we
revoke their membership and immediately dismiss them from the
property," said Charles Fleck, who lives in Miami and owns a chain of
male bathhouses including Flex.
Gay men are much more likely to associate meth with sex, though
prolonged abuse of the drug has been known to affect a man's ability
to maintain an erection, according to Michael Siever, founder and
director of the San Francisco-based Stonewall Project, which counsels
gay and bisexual men about the risks of abusing methamphetamine.
Immune system hurt
Researchers have found that meth abuse also wears on the immune
system, making it more dangerous for men with HIV.
Some researchers have said the drug also adversely interacts with HIV
medications.
Meth use and attendant HIV transmission has become such a concern in
New York City that Gay Men's Health Crisis, one of the nation's
largest gay AIDS/HIV groups, has launched a major education campaign
there. The organization is putting up billboards, sending out
mailings, sponsoring workshops and dispatching counselors into the
community to talk about meth abuse and HIV.
"We want to cut the chain link between using crystal, impaired
judgment, risky sex and HIV transmission," said Eric Altman, a GMHC
associate director.
While no such methamphetamine education program is under way in
Atlanta, AID Atlanta has launched a program that includes passing out
condoms at gay clubs.
"I'm not telling them what to do as far as how many sex partners they
have," said Michael Clifford, an HIV prevention specialist with AID
Atlanta who visits the clubs. "What I am telling them — or asking them
to consider and think about — is the way that they practice their sex,
to protect themselves."
'Just one weekend'
Sprouse said several of his clients at Positive Impact believed they
contracted HIV by having unsafe sex while they were high on meth.
One client was diagnosed with the virus after only one weekend of meth
use and sex, he said. The man, whom Sprouse described as shy,
churchgoing and in his mid-20s, told him he had had "very limited"
sexual experience and had practiced only safe sex before that weekend.
"Some friends of his introduced him to Tina on a Thursday evening,"
Sprouse said. "He started using Tina that night and stopped on Monday
morning. . . . He lost count over the weekend when he hit having sex
with 12 men."
About a month later, the man "developed a flulike syndrome, went and
got tested, and was HIV-positive," Sprouse said. "He came in clearly
overwhelmed. In his mind he was thinking this was just one weekend.
One weekend, and it has impacted him for the rest of his life."
By the end of last year, John, the HIV-positive man in Midtown, was
using meth every day, a habit that cost him about $250 a week, and he
had quit his job.
He also had stopped taking his HIV medications.
"I was like, 'I'm just going to let it take me down. I'm just going to
keep doing it until it kills me.' "
He also was imagining voices. "They would repeat everything I thought.
They would make fun of me."
One night at home, enraged at the voices in his head, John took a
black marker and wrote — over and over — on a white leather chair,
"They stole your mind."
He keeps the chair in his bedroom as a personal warning: Stay away
from Tina.
Staff writer David Wahlberg contributed to this article.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
09 May 2005 05:24:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dionisio <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Yes, noted the bondage reference. Let me guess, your intemperate little
mind has a problem with that. Huh, guess you shouldn't have bonded
yourself so thoroughly to that male deity of yours.
Don't you even think of trying to pull the "you're religious" BULL
***** on me ***** sucker.
Ah, you're not "religious" then? (Golly, who knew?)
--
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.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
