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. |
14 Dec 2003 02:02:55 AM |
|
|
Irrelevant. I merely answered a posting that said that marriage had nothing
to do with reproduction. I proved it wrong.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4vuntvc3bm0d54t8s5rgb227s8od04frbs@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:04:38 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
So it isn't about this?
The Church's teaching
Since there's no religious requirement for marriage, the Church's
teaching is irrelevant to those who aren't members of that Church, and
to the law, which is prohibited to recognize the requirements of the
Church.
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."
That's fine - for those who CHOOSE to follow the dictates of the
Christian religion. Since this nation's government is PROHIBITED to
recognize religious requirements, what the Church says has nothing to
do with marriage outside of the Church.
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).
ONLY within the confines of the Church. Those not choosing to be
members of that Church CAN'T legally be bound by its beliefs. The
Church CAN NOT dictate law, only requirements for its members.
--
"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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 01:26:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:55 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Irrelevant. I merely answered a posting that said that marriage had nothing
to do with reproduction. I proved it wrong.
No, you dragged up a totally irrelevant ancient religious doctrine in
a discussion about present U. S. law.
You give new meaning to the word "desperate". As well as a few other
words.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(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 04:11:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:04:38 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
So it isn't about this?
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).
Sorry but the 'code of cannon law' has absolutely no legal standing
in the United States. In the United States of a American marraige is a
legal contract. Having children is not required, the desire to have
children is not required, the ability to have children is not required
to enter into this contract.
Do you believe that those incapable of reproducing or those chose not
to reproduce should be allowed to marry?
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fe206ec.61047328@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:16:08 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then what is marriage all about?
It's about making a commitment to the person you love and enjoying the
benefits provided when that relationship is given legal status.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:skaltvo6nb85ofpga21kftkah6e1i8gpbl@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:49:20 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Blacks and Whites can have a baby too. Faggots cannot.
Since marriage isn't about having babies, that's totally irrelevant.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has
a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should
survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are
for
the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 09:18:11 PM |
|
|
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about having
children anymore, now can you?
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3ff08dc0.95563437@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:04:38 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
So it isn't about this?
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).
Sorry but the 'code of cannon law' has absolutely no legal standing
in the United States. In the United States of a American marraige is a
legal contract. Having children is not required, the desire to have
children is not required, the ability to have children is not required
to enter into this contract.
Do you believe that those incapable of reproducing or those chose not
to reproduce should be allowed to marry?
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fe206ec.61047328@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:16:08 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then what is marriage all about?
It's about making a commitment to the person you love and enjoying the
benefits provided when that relationship is given legal status.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:skaltvo6nb85ofpga21kftkah6e1i8gpbl@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:49:20 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Blacks and Whites can have a baby too. Faggots cannot.
Since marriage isn't about having babies, that's totally irrelevant.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures,
or
has
a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
should
survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are
for
the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(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 01:23:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:18:11 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about having
children anymore, now can you?
The legal definition in the US? Yes. It never was about having
children.
--
"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: "A. Lincoln" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 01:32:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:23:08 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:18:11 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about having
children anymore, now can you?
The legal definition in the US? Yes. It never was about having
children.
What do you think the SCOTUS Justice was alluding to when he made the
following statement in the Loving v.Virginia case:
Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967) "Marriage is one of the basic
civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."
This says something about its relationship to the child-bareing and
rearing capabilities of those married. SOmething that you homophiles
don't want to hear.
--
Mercenaries Don't Die - They Go To Hell To Regroup
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 02:44:56 PM |
|
|
A. Lincoln wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:23:08 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:18:11 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about having
children anymore, now can you?
The legal definition in the US? Yes. It never was about having
children.
What do you think the SCOTUS Justice was alluding to when he made the
following statement in the Loving v.Virginia case:
Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967) "Marriage is one of the basic
civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."
This says something about its relationship to the child-bareing and
rearing capabilities of those married. SOmething that you homophiles
don't want to hear.
What the rump rider crowd hates most to hear is that "marriage" has
always meant children and families. US law on "marriage" has always
meant children and families. The law has never before had to define
children and families because everyone has always known what "marriage"
meant. Until liberal leftist bigots got into power we never had to
answer questions like, "What does "is" mean?"
In order to broach the subject of "gay marriage" they first have to
destroy the meaning of "marriage" because it excludes rump riders by
definition. The judge in the Virginia case undoubtedly had more sense.
Bob
--
Mercenaries Don't Die - They Go To Hell To Regroup
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:58:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:44:56 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
What the rump rider crowd hates most to hear is that "marriage" has
always meant children and families.
Why should I hate your stupidity? I just laugh at it.
US law on "marriage" has always meant children and families.
Citation? (The only national precedent says exactly the opposite.)
The law has never before had to define
children and families because everyone has always known what "marriage"
meant.
Which is why there's no fertility test for marriage. Which is why
couples who very obviously can't have children have always been able
to get married.
As I said, I just laugh at your stupidity.
Until liberal leftist bigots got into power we never had to
answer questions like, "What does "is" mean?"
Until right-wing fascists stole power we never had to worry about loss
of freedom by government fiat.
The judge in the Virginia case undoubtedly had more sense.
Than you? Certainly. Any judge has. Which Virginia judge are we
talking about here? (A. Lincoln was talking about a federal judge in
DC, not any Virginia judge. And A. L. was as wrong as you are.)
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(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 03:37:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:44:56 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
A. Lincoln wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:23:08 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:18:11 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about having
children anymore, now can you?
The legal definition in the US? Yes. It never was about having
children.
What do you think the SCOTUS Justice was alluding to when he made the
following statement in the Loving v.Virginia case:
Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967) "Marriage is one of the basic
civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."
This says something about its relationship to the child-bareing and
rearing capabilities of those married. SOmething that you homophiles
don't want to hear.
What the rump rider crowd hates most to hear is that "marriage" has
always meant children and families. US law on "marriage" has always
meant children and families.
Prove it bob. Show us the law. You have been challenged on this
several times and still you have provided nothing to support your
ridiculous assertion.
The law has never before had to define
children and families because everyone has always known what "marriage"
meant.
Sorry bob, you can keep re posting it but it doesn't make it true.
Children have never been a requirement of marriage.
Until liberal leftist bigots got into power we never had to
answer questions like, "What does "is" mean?"
Leftist bigots? Care to provide an example? No? Bob, brace yourself. I
have some surprising news fore you little man, YOU are the bigot. YOU
are the one trying to deny rights to a group of people just because
you don't like them.
In order to broach the subject of "gay marriage" they first have to
destroy the meaning of "marriage"
That's nonsense and you know it, bob.
because it excludes rump riders by
definition. The judge in the Virginia case undoubtedly had more sense.
You just keep getting dumber, don't you bob?
Did you reproduce bob?
Should people incapable of reproducing or unwilling to reproduce be
allowed to marry?
How exactly, would allowing gay marriages harm traditional marriage.
You still haven't answered the question you ignorant little bigot.
Bob
--
Mercenaries Don't Die - They Go To Hell To Regroup
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wild Bill Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
15 Dec 2003 06:13:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:37:16 GMT, (Jefferson
Brady) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:44:56 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
What the rump rider crowd hates most to hear is that "marriage" has
always meant children and families. US law on "marriage" has always
meant children and families.
Prove it bob. Show us the law. You have been challenged on this
several times and still you have provided nothing to support your
ridiculous assertion.
Homosexuals have provided nothing to disprove the states position that
marriage laws are intended to apply specifically to the marriage of
one man to one woman. Neither homosexuals provided any reason for the
current laws to be changed. their frequent allusion to the 14th
amendment is erroneous as that amendment does not address the issue no
matter how much homosexuals may wish that it did. The state makes laws
that will best serve the total society. The state does not and has no
reason to make laws providing rights specifically based on sexual
behavior. That, however, is what homosexuals are demanding that the
state do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
15 Dec 2003 06:27:39 PM |
|
|
Wild wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:37:16 GMT, (Jefferson
Brady) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:44:56 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
What the rump rider crowd hates most to hear is that "marriage" has
always meant children and families. US law on "marriage" has always
meant children and families.
Prove it bob. Show us the law. You have been challenged on this
several times and still you have provided nothing to support your
ridiculous assertion.
Homosexuals have provided nothing to disprove the states position that
marriage laws are intended to apply specifically to the marriage of
one man to one woman. Neither homosexuals provided any reason for the
current laws to be changed. their frequent allusion to the 14th
amendment is erroneous as that amendment does not address the issue no
matter how much homosexuals may wish that it did. The state makes laws
that will best serve the total society. The state does not and has no
reason to make laws providing rights specifically based on sexual
behavior. That, however, is what homosexuals are demanding that the
state do.
Exactly. There is no "right" to sexual perversion.
Bob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:54:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:32:46 GMT, A. Lincoln <alin76@tera.news.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:23:08 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:18:11 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about having
children anymore, now can you?
The legal definition in the US? Yes. It never was about having
children.
What do you think the SCOTUS Justice was alluding to when he made the
following statement in the Loving v.Virginia case:
"the SCOTUS Justice"? You don't want to say that it was a minority
opinion?
Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967) "Marriage is one of the basic
civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."
The finding of Loving v State? That the State had no business
determining who could marry.
This says something about its relationship to the child-bareing and
rearing capabilities of those married.
Not something legal, though. The precedent is exactly the opposite of
what you imply.
SOmething that you homophiles don't want to hear.
Homophile? I've known three people who I can definitely say are
homosexual. I haven't seen any of them in years, have great respect
for one of them, can't stand another and have no feelings about the
third. Some homophile. Not that the sobriquet bothers me.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(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 02:45:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:32:46 GMT, A. Lincoln <alin76@tera.news.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:23:08 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:18:11 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about having
children anymore, now can you?
The legal definition in the US? Yes. It never was about having
children.
What do you think the SCOTUS Justice was alluding to when he made the
following statement in the Loving v.Virginia case:
Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967) "Marriage is one of the basic
civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."
This says something about its relationship to the child-bareing and
rearing capabilities of those married. SOmething that you homophiles
don't want to hear.
I'm sorry , did you provide a cite for the law that says reproduction
is a requirement for marriage? I'm sure you must have if you're trying
to use this argument as a reason to justify your bigotry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 10:11:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:18:11 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about having
children anymore, now can you?
LOL! you go back 1200 years and find some obscure writing and try to
apply it to US marriage law? That's ridiculous. You really should
try to pay attention to thread if you intend to comment.
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3ff08dc0.95563437@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:04:38 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
So it isn't about this?
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).
Sorry but the 'code of cannon law' has absolutely no legal standing
in the United States. In the United States of a American marraige is a
legal contract. Having children is not required, the desire to have
children is not required, the ability to have children is not required
to enter into this contract.
Do you believe that those incapable of reproducing or those chose not
to reproduce should be allowed to marry?
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fe206ec.61047328@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:16:08 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then what is marriage all about?
It's about making a commitment to the person you love and enjoying the
benefits provided when that relationship is given legal status.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:skaltvo6nb85ofpga21kftkah6e1i8gpbl@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:49:20 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Blacks and Whites can have a baby too. Faggots cannot.
Since marriage isn't about having babies, that's totally irrelevant.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures,
or
has
a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
should
survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are
for
the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 02:02:12 AM |
|
|
Wow... Absurds have great imaginations. They apply so much meaning into
something that wasn't said.... they do it every time and each time it
astonishes me even more.
Okay Absurd, where did I apply this to US marriage law? I simply answered
you when you stated that marriage was never about reproduction. I guess it
is so hard for some people to be humiliated that they have to resort to
changing the meaning of the post.
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3ff3e245.117225234@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:18:11 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
I didn't say it did. But you can't say that marriage was never about
having
children anymore, now can you?
LOL! you go back 1200 years and find some obscure writing and try to
apply it to US marriage law? That's ridiculous. You really should
try to pay attention to thread if you intend to comment.
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3ff08dc0.95563437@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:04:38 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
So it isn't about this?
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).
Sorry but the 'code of cannon law' has absolutely no legal standing
in the United States. In the United States of a American marraige is a
legal contract. Having children is not required, the desire to have
children is not required, the ability to have children is not required
to enter into this contract.
Do you believe that those incapable of reproducing or those chose not
to reproduce should be allowed to marry?
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fe206ec.61047328@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:16:08 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then what is marriage all about?
It's about making a commitment to the person you love and enjoying
the
benefits provided when that relationship is given legal status.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:skaltvo6nb85ofpga21kftkah6e1i8gpbl@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:49:20 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Blacks and Whites can have a baby too. Faggots cannot.
Since marriage isn't about having babies, that's totally
irrelevant.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his
creatures,
or
has
a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
should
survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions
are
for
the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Shelly, Legendary White God" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 06:56:36 AM |
|
|
"Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:brh5bu$rk6$0@pita.alt.net...
Wow... Absurds have great imaginations. They apply so much meaning into
something that wasn't said.... they do it every time and each time it
astonishes me even more.
Okay Absurd, where did I apply this to US marriage law? I simply answered
you when you stated that marriage was never about reproduction. I guess
it
is so hard for some people to be humiliated that they have to resort to
changing the meaning of the post.
hahaha
http://tinyurl.com/yx0u
so noted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:14:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:56:36 -0500, "Tom Shelly, Legendary White God"
<i_is_also_randy_jabsco@sonoted.org> posted in alt.atheism:
so noted
<so plonked>
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(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. |
14 Dec 2003 06:12:00 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:12 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Okay Absurd, where did I apply this to US marriage law? I simply answered
you when you stated that marriage was never about reproduction. I guess it
is so hard for some people to be humiliated that they have to resort to
changing the meaning of the post.
Randy, your desperate reaching into Catholic doctrine is cute, but
refuses to address the point. To the United States, marriage is a
Civil contract. I got married in the borrowed day room of my
then-fiancee's great-grandmother's retirement building. After
wesigned the certificate, we were married according to California (and
the other 49, lesser, states.)
You could get married in a full wedding mass, performed by a Cardinal,
and until you sign that card, as far as the state is concerned you are
single.
Church law applies to Catholics. They chose to live by it. Or not.
Now, the question remains: Is there a good, legal reason why gays
should not be allowed to marry?
--
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 01:24:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:12 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Okay Absurd, where did I apply this to US marriage law? I simply answered
you when you stated that marriage was never about reproduction.
The thread is about marriage law in the U. S. in the 21st century. DO
try to keep up.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 05:51:40 PM |
|
|
No, it isn't. The origin of this entire thread was started by myself and it
simply asked a little question. It simply asked if it was true that
faggotry is so accepted by the public, why do fags have to run to
sympathetic lawyers to get the laws changed. Why don't they just get it
done at the voting polls.
Please try to keep up.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j5eptv0vfku6u68cdci6kv81hirpdvto13@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:12 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Okay Absurd, where did I apply this to US marriage law? I simply
answered
you when you stated that marriage was never about reproduction.
The thread is about marriage law in the U. S. in the 21st century. DO
try to keep up.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(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 08:00:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:51:40 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
No, it isn't. The origin of this entire thread was started by myself and it
simply asked a little question. It simply asked if it was true that
faggotry is so accepted by the public, why do fags have to run to
sympathetic lawyers to get the laws changed. Why don't they just get it
done at the voting polls.
No one paid any attention to your little ignorant post. DO learn how
usenet works, child.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 10:24:09 PM |
|
|
Really? 446 articles posted to my original thread say otherwise.
Take foot out of mouth before speaking.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hd5qtvsej2p8tvqq0dns1nea066lc57g29@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:51:40 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
No, it isn't. The origin of this entire thread was started by myself and
it
simply asked a little question. It simply asked if it was true that
faggotry is so accepted by the public, why do fags have to run to
sympathetic lawyers to get the laws changed. Why don't they just get it
done at the voting polls.
No one paid any attention to your little ignorant post. DO learn how
usenet works, child.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(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. |
15 Dec 2003 11:42:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:24:09 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hd5qtvsej2p8tvqq0dns1nea066lc57g29@Pern.rk...
No one paid any attention to your little ignorant post. DO learn how
usenet works, child.
Really? 446 articles posted to my original thread say otherwise.
After the subject had changed to something interesting.
Take foot out of mouth before speaking.
That's YOUR foot in YOUR mouth, genius. The guy in the mirror is you,
not me.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(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 05:58:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:51:40 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, it isn't. The origin of this entire thread was started by myself and it
simply asked a little question. It simply asked if it was true that
faggotry is so accepted by the public, why do fags have to run to
sympathetic lawyers to get the laws changed. Why don't they just get it
done at the voting polls.
Why wasn't slavery eliminated at the polls? Luckily , the Bill of
Rights is not something that can be overturned with a vote.
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
Please try to keep up.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j5eptv0vfku6u68cdci6kv81hirpdvto13@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:12 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Okay Absurd, where did I apply this to US marriage law? I simply
answered
you when you stated that marriage was never about reproduction.
The thread is about marriage law in the U. S. in the 21st century. DO
try to keep up.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(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 08:01:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:58:17 GMT, (Jefferson
Brady) posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:51:40 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, it isn't. The origin of this entire thread was started by myself and it
simply asked a little question. It simply asked if it was true that
faggotry is so accepted by the public, why do fags have to run to
sympathetic lawyers to get the laws changed. Why don't they just get it
done at the voting polls.
Why wasn't slavery eliminated at the polls? Luckily , the Bill of
Rights is not something that can be overturned with a vote.
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
Among knives, Randy and Boob are spoons.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(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 06:34:40 PM |
|
|
Randy Jabsco wrote:
No, it isn't. The origin of this entire thread was started by myself and it
simply asked a little question. It simply asked if it was true that
faggotry is so accepted by the public, why do fags have to run to
sympathetic lawyers to get the laws changed. Why don't they just get it
done at the voting polls.
Because, even in California, whenever its been voted on its been voted
down.
Bob
Please try to keep up.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j5eptv0vfku6u68cdci6kv81hirpdvto13@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:12 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Okay Absurd, where did I apply this to US marriage law? I simply
answered
you when you stated that marriage was never about reproduction.
The thread is about marriage law in the U. S. in the 21st century. DO
try to keep up.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(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 07:07:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:34:40 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Randy Jabsco wrote:
No, it isn't. The origin of this entire thread was started by myself and it
simply asked a little question. It simply asked if it was true that
faggotry is so accepted by the public, why do fags have to run to
sympathetic lawyers to get the laws changed. Why don't they just get it
done at the voting polls.
Because, even in California, whenever its been voted on its been voted
down.
Bob, ever heard of the Bill of Rights? You don't get to vote on civil
rights.
Bob
Please try to keep up.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j5eptv0vfku6u68cdci6kv81hirpdvto13@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:12 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Okay Absurd, where did I apply this to US marriage law? I simply
answered
you when you stated that marriage was never about reproduction.
The thread is about marriage law in the U. S. in the 21st century. DO
try to keep up.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(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 07:24:20 PM |
|
|
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fea0931.192724906@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:34:40 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Randy Jabsco wrote:
No, it isn't. The origin of this entire thread was started by myself
and it
simply asked a little question. It simply asked if it was true that
faggotry is so accepted by the public, why do fags have to run to
sympathetic lawyers to get the laws changed. Why don't they just get
it
done at the voting polls.
Because, even in California, whenever its been voted on its been voted
down.
Bob, ever heard of the Bill of Rights? You don't get to vote on civil
rights.
Don't bait poor Booby. 'Bill of Rights' is right up there alongside Greek
and Calculus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 10:01:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:49:20 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
Blacks and Whites can have a baby too. Faggots cannot.
what does that have to do with marriage?
"Dennis Smeth" <Smeth@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FDA2E51.4200C73@nospam.com...
Randy Jabsco 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". Come on faggots, explain this... I don't
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds
vote
otherwise?
All 50 states at one time had laws that banned blacks from marrying
whites. Then a black and a white couple walked into the Supreme
Court and with one ruling all the those laws were null.
Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)
If a white can marry a white, then a black must have the same right
or their equal protection is violated. If a man can marry a woman
that same woman must have the same right as the man or her
equal protection rights have been violated.
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, at 260-61 (1971)
"Public officials may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to
the effects of private prejudice, however widely or deeply held."
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: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 09:20:31 AM |
|
|
Jefferson Brady wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:49:20 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote:
Blacks and Whites can have a baby too. Faggots cannot.
what does that have to do with marriage?
Everything.
.
|
|
|
|
|
