Religions > Atheism > Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Jabsco" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2003 03:02:24 PM |
| Object: |
Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.
What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance to old
beliefs are making way". Come on faggots, explain this... I don't
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds vote
otherwise? Why is there currently 38 states with anti-gay marriage laws,
all properly voted for by the public? I am having troubles understanding
why the only way faggots can appear to be accepted is by finding a
sympathetic judge to scratch out laws for them. Can't you get the
"accepting" public to vote for them for you? Why isn't it that the faggots
aren't putting these issues on the ballets rather than taking it to
sympathetic judges and congress men?
===
Ohio House passes anti-gay marriage bill
COLUMBUS -- Gay marriage would be banned and state employees could not
obtain health insurance and other benefits for unmarried partners under a
bill passed by the Ohio House on Wednesday.
The measure, approved by a 73-23 vote, would recognize marriage as a union
"between one man and one woman" and declare that extending benefits for
unmarried partners to state employees, whether of the same or opposite sex,
is against state policy.
Supporters of the measure point toward the possibility of other states
approving homosexual unions as the impetus for Ohio to set its own standards
for marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last month declared that state's
gay marriage ban unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to extend the legal
benefits of marriage to domestic partners.
But opponents called the bill discrimination.
House minority leader Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island, said committee
hearings on the bill were filled with "hate filled language and bigoted
comments" about homosexuals.
"I cannot allow myself to be aligned with that," he said. "I have respect
for my fellow members ... but I don't want them to be the morality police."
Redfern added that considering society's 50-percent divorce rate, it's hard
to argue that the issue is about upholding the sanctity of marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 07:47:18 PM |
|
|
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's legs.
Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FDA4849.B386FB03@serv.net...
Beserker Rage wrote:
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fe22dca.5460859@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:02:24 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.
What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance to
old
beliefs are making way".
Gay marriage will happen despite the ranting of bigoted lunatics like
you. Luckily, we have a Constitution that guarantees equal protection
under the law. Jus like segregation , this bigotry will soon be
outlawed.
Should we also protect people who are into fucking corpses and animals
and
children?
Neither children nor animals nor corpses are capable of giving consent.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 03:55:59 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's legs.
Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Of course, in Texas it's legal. Go figure.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 09:33:50 AM |
|
|
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's
legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 06:00:35 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, a stranger
called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's
legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M22014FC6
That's the county clerk's page for my home. You can go code diving,
or you can call (408) 299-5664, and ask about it yourself.
Call your own county clerk's office. They'll fill you in on the law
in your home state and county.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 08:24:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:00:35 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M22014FC6
Looks as if they forgot to include the part about having to have the
intention and ability to have children. Can't depend on civil
servants to get it right.
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 09:54:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's
legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
If you are too stupid to realize that a dog cannot enter into a legal
contract then you really don't warrant further response.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 09:52:03 PM |
|
|
In article <3fe4360f.73114171@news.west.earthlink.net>,
JB@leftisright.org wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's
legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
If you are too stupid to realize that a dog cannot enter into a legal
contract then you really don't warrant further response.
I note that buried in that personal attack, there is no statute citation.
Oh, and the assertion wasn't that a dog could enter into a contract or
not, it was that a dog is not competent to consent to sex.
Please pay attention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 10:14:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:52:03 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <3fe4360f.73114171@news.west.earthlink.net>,
JB@leftisright.org wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's
legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
If you are too stupid to realize that a dog cannot enter into a legal
contract then you really don't warrant further response.
I note that buried in that personal attack, there is no statute citation.
LOL! God you're dense. Please, show us even one example of an animal
entering into a legal contract.
Oh, and the assertion wasn't that a dog could enter into a contract or
not, it was that a dog is not competent to consent to sex.
Do you even understand the concept of 'informed consent'? No? I didn't
think so. Don't try to play with the big boys, you just end up making
an ***** of yourself.
Please pay attention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 10:28:47 AM |
|
|
In article <3ff5e34b.117487125@news.west.earthlink.net>,
JB@leftisright.org wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:52:03 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <3fe4360f.73114171@news.west.earthlink.net>,
JB@leftisright.org wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas
Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on
people's legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
If you are too stupid to realize that a dog cannot enter into a legal
contract then you really don't warrant further response.
I note that buried in that personal attack, there is no statute
citation.
LOL! God you're dense. Please, show us even one example of an animal
entering into a legal contract.
Please show me where contractual capacity is an element of consent in
regards to sex.
Do you sign a contract every time you have sex?
Oh, and the assertion wasn't that a dog could enter into a contract or
not, it was that a dog is not competent to consent to sex.
Do you even understand the concept of 'informed consent'? No? I didn't
think so.
Cite me any statute that prohibits sex with animals based on any notion
of consent.
[Here's a hint: none of these anti-bestiality statutes are based on
either consent or capacity to contract.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 12:59:33 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <3ff5e34b.117487125@news.west.earthlink.net>,
JB@leftisright.org wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:52:03 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <3fe4360f.73114171@news.west.earthlink.net>,
JB@leftisright.org wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas
Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on
people's legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
If you are too stupid to realize that a dog cannot enter into a legal
contract then you really don't warrant further response.
I note that buried in that personal attack, there is no statute
citation.
LOL! God you're dense. Please, show us even one example of an animal
entering into a legal contract.
Please show me where contractual capacity is an element of consent in
regards to sex.
Do you sign a contract every time you have sex?
Many animals can and do "make their mark" on agreements. It's a legal
signature in the US. You don't have to be literate to contract.
Bob
Oh, and the assertion wasn't that a dog could enter into a contract or
not, it was that a dog is not competent to consent to sex.
Do you even understand the concept of 'informed consent'? No? I didn't
think so.
Cite me any statute that prohibits sex with animals based on any notion
of consent.
[Here's a hint: none of these anti-bestiality statutes are based on
either consent or capacity to contract.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 04:52:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:59:33 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Many animals can and do "make their mark" on agreements. It's a legal
signature in the US. You don't have to be literate to contract.
You do, however, have to be human and adult, among other things (sane,
not coerced, etc.). A dog paw print on a contract is void prima
facie, insofar as any responsibility on the dog's part is concerned.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:17:40 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v7qptv0kvpl0n5v6ftqmhnmtkqo8dlsp4m@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:59:33 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Many animals can and do "make their mark" on agreements. It's a legal
signature in the US. You don't have to be literate to contract.
You do, however, have to be human and adult, among other things (sane,
not coerced, etc.). A dog paw print on a contract is void prima
facie, insofar as any responsibility on the dog's part is concerned.
Al, would you please killfile these asswipes. They've had the well-defined
concept of informed consent explained to them ad nauseum. They're too
fucking stupid to get it.
For those interested, www.findlaw.com is an excellent source of definition
and precedent for the legal concepts that apply to same-sex marriage, such
as informed consent and compelling state interest.
(Anybody want to take bets on how long it takes Booby to call findlaw.com a
'gay agenda rump rider' site? :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
15 Dec 2003 11:24:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:17:40 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> posted in alt.atheism:
Al, would you please killfile these asswipes.
Nah, they're still fun.
(Anybody want to take bets on how long it takes Booby to call findlaw.com a
'gay agenda rump rider' site? :)
You want to bet on his intelligence? Even Boob wouldn't be stupid
enough to take that bet.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 04:49:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 04:14:41 GMT, (Jefferson
Brady) posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:52:03 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
I note that buried in that personal attack, there is no statute citation.
LOL! God you're dense. Please, show us even one example of an animal
entering into a legal contract.
Contracts are legal only when (among other things) all parties thereto
are competent. This is the law in all jurisdictions on this planet
that have contract laws. "Competent" includes, but is not limited to,
"sane", "adult" and "human being", in those same jurisdictions.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 09:56:22 AM |
|
|
Jefferson Brady wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's
legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
If you are too stupid to realize that a dog cannot enter into a legal
contract then you really don't warrant further response.
If you are too stupid to realize that Adam and Steve cannot enter into a
legal family and produce children then you really don't warrant further
response.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 05:47:41 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:56:22 -0700, a stranger
called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
If you are too stupid to realize that Adam and Steve cannot enter into a
legal family and produce children then you really don't warrant further
response.
Neither can my wife and I. Yet we're legally married.
Again, marriage is not about having children. It is not a
requirement.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 04:44:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:56:22 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
If you are too stupid to realize that Adam and Steve cannot enter into a
legal family
Not yet, but there's no reason, other than your homophobia, that they
shouldn;t be allowed to.
and produce children
Sorry, but it's not your choice, or the government's, whether I
produce children. Married couples can (and do) remain childless and
couples with children can remain unmarried. One has nothing to do
with the other.
By your rules all marriages become null when the woman goes through
menopause.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 06:27:05 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
Not yet, but there's no reason, other than your homophobia,
The classic "homophobia" flame.
Pathetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 08:21:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:27:05 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Not yet, but there's no reason, other than your homophobia,
The classic "homophobia" flame.
And as true now as always. The only question is why? Do you hate
gays because you hate your own homosexuality? Or because you hate
your father, who was gay?
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 06:56:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:27:05 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Not yet, but there's no reason, other than your homophobia,
The classic "homophobia" flame.
It must be true. You certainly haven't been able to offer any valid
reasons for your opposition to same sex marriage. And when directly
asked about those reasons you refuse to answer. The only logical
conclusion is that you're a bigot and a homophone.
Pathetic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 10:07:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:56:22 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's
legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
If you are too stupid to realize that a dog cannot enter into a legal
contract then you really don't warrant further response.
If you are too stupid to realize that Adam and Steve cannot enter into a
legal family and produce children then you really don't warrant further
response.
Gosh bob, you still haven't shown us the law that says marriage
requires the production of children nor have you answered my question
about whether or not heterosexual couples incapable or unwilling to
reproduce should be denied the right to marry. Your entire argument is
based on that premise that marriage is only for reproduction, yet you
refuse to answer this simple question
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 03:02:01 PM |
|
|
There you go fag. Something you could have done yourself but was too lazy
and ignorant to do, or perhaps scared at what you may find. An old
reference, refering to marriage being for the pro-creation. It even shows
that an annulment is quite possible if the wife refuses to have children.
===
The Church's teaching is summarized in Canon 1013 of the 1917 Code of Canon
Law, which states that "the primary end of marriage is the procreation and
education of children." The intention of having children, provided that this
is possible, is consequently essential to the very substance of the
matrimonial contract, which is for "acts which are in themselves capable of
engendering children" (Cf. Canon 1081, 7577 Code of Canon Law).
The importance of children as the primary end of marriage was again stressed
by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII:
To the question: "Whether the views of certain recent writers can be
admitted, who either deny that the primary end of marriage is the
procreation and education of children, or teach that the secondary ends are
not necessarily subordinate to the primary end, but are equally principal
and independent" the reply was: In the negative (Quoted in Bouscaren &
Ellis, Canon Law, p.400).
Yet the 1983 Code of Canon Law embraces this concept condemned less than 40
years earlier by not only placing the two ends of marriage on an equal and
independent level, but even listing first the secondary end (i.e., mutual
support, or the good of the spouses):
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between
themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered
towards the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of
offspring (Canon 1055, §1, 1983 Code of Canon Law).
It is ultimately this new concept of marriage, as being for the couple
themselves, and not so much for children, which has resulted in the refusal
of Catholics since Vatican II to have large families. Artificial birth
control, which is the destruction of Catholic families, is no longer
condemned as a mortal sin, for marriage is now considered in a selfish way,
as being for the couple itself, rather than an outpouring of love desiring
to participate in God's work of creation and sanctification of His children.
The so-called practice of Natural Family Planning (NFP), propagated in the
post-conciliar Church as a "Catholic" method of contraception, derives also
from the same contraceptive mentality. Since marriage is considered
primarily for the couple itself, they consider themselves free to determine
the number of children and their spacing. This can be a mortal sin if NFP is
employed without sufficient reason, as approved by the Church (e.g., serious
eugenic, social or medical reasons, such as danger to the life of the mother
through additional children). Whether it be through artificial or natural
means that the first purpose of marriage is frustrated, such couples who are
not willing to accept all the children God sends them do indeed fail to live
up to their marriage vows.
However, this does not mean the marriage vows of couples who limit children
by artificial contraception or natural family planning are invalid. The
exclusion of children is certainly a grounds for a declaration of nullity,
but only when there is an explicit, provable and positive act of the will to
avoid children, for this is an intention contrary to the substance of
marriage itself. The difficulty in such cases is to determine whether it is
the obligation of having children which is refused, or whether it is simply
the fulfillment of this obligation (Cf. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest, I,
pp.532, 533). Those couples who accept the obligation of having children are
certainly validly married, even if they do not always fulfill this
obligation, e.g., by limiting the number of their children. This is the case
of those selfish couples who are determined to limit the size of their
family from the beginning of their marriage. They are truly married,
although their marriage is not pleasing to God, and they will never be able
to communicate to their children generosity, the spirit of sacrifice, the
love of the Cross, of souls, and the Church.
Moreover, even if a couple deliberately excludes all children, the Church
always presumes, until proven otherwise, that it is the fulfillment of the
duty that is excluded, and not the obligation of having children itself, and
that consequently the marriage is valid.
http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2001_October/Questions_Answers.htm
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fe838fa.73860796@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:56:22 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <jgoltvgrvvvs16v6uju7c8omnuto6ueudg@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
they sure can... I see male dogs all the time jumping up on people's
legs. >Would it be consent if the dog jumped up on a woman?
Nope. Under the law, the dog is not competant.
Cite that law.
If you are too stupid to realize that a dog cannot enter into a legal
contract then you really don't warrant further response.
If you are too stupid to realize that Adam and Steve cannot enter into a
legal family and produce children then you really don't warrant further
response.
Gosh bob, you still haven't shown us the law that says marriage
requires the production of children nor have you answered my question
about whether or not heterosexual couples incapable or unwilling to
reproduce should be denied the right to marry. Your entire argument is
based on that premise that marriage is only for reproduction, yet you
refuse to answer this simple question
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 05:48:50 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:02:01 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
There you go fag. Something you could have done yourself but was too lazy
and ignorant to do, or perhaps scared at what you may find. An old
reference, refering to marriage being for the pro-creation. It even shows
that an annulment is quite possible if the wife refuses to have children.
That's *church.* We are talking about *state*. Cite the section of
US Code State Code requiring couples wishing to marry to be fertile,
or requiring children.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 04:46:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:02:01 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fe838fa.73860796@news.west.earthlink.net...
Gosh bob, you still haven't shown us the law that says marriage
requires the production of children nor have you answered my question
about whether or not heterosexual couples incapable or unwilling to
reproduce should be denied the right to marry. Your entire argument is
based on that premise that marriage is only for reproduction, yet you
refuse to answer this simple question
There you go fag. Something you could have done yourself but was too lazy
and ignorant to do, or perhaps scared at what you may find. An old
reference, refering to marriage being for the pro-creation. It even shows
that an annulment is quite possible if the wife refuses to have children.
===
The Church's teaching is summarized in Canon 1013 of the 1917 Code of Canon
Law, which states that "the primary end of marriage is the procreation and
The Church can call it whatever it likes, but that doesn't make it law
applicable to anyone not a member of the Church.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 03:58:19 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:20:07 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Beserker Rage" <BeserkerRage@nordicseas> came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
Should we also protect people who are into fucking corpses and animals and
children?
Oh, for Cthuthlu's sake!
Go. To. A. Library.
Look up "Informed Consent." Learn what it means. Understand what it
means. Unsteand what it means in relation to marriage and sex.
Dogs can't sign contracts, nor can four year olds. They have owners,
or guardians who are legally repsonsible for them. They cannot, under
the law, give informed consent to *anything.*
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 11:27:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:20:07 GMT, "Beserker Rage"
<BeserkerRage@nordicseas> posted in alt.atheism:
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fe22dca.5460859@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:02:24 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.
What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance to old
beliefs are making way".
Gay marriage will happen despite the ranting of bigoted lunatics like
you. Luckily, we have a Constitution that guarantees equal protection
under the law. Jus like segregation , this bigotry will soon be
outlawed.
Should we also protect people who are into fucking corpses and animals and
children?
No, but we should protect people who equate "fucking corpses and
animals and children" with homosexuality. They're not intelligent
enough to protect themselves.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 03:35:28 PM |
|
|
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 05:04:34 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDA34A0.6020501@hotmail.com...
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
So does the phrase "Intelligent President Bush" but somehow he still exists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 12:34:13 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDA34A0.6020501@hotmail.com...
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not as much as "Republican integrity".
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phylter" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 01:00:45 AM |
|
|
"Mr. N" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> astounded us with:
news:5c8493998564732ed6614bed7c3f9e44@news.teranews.com:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDA34A0.6020501@hotmail.com...
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not as much as "Republican integrity".
LOL!
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
