| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:01:14 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FH1Xe.84845$p_1.56254@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
thomas p wrote:
The above is your opinion. The reality is that marriage is a legal
contract. Legal contracts are defined by man-made law. The laws
defining marriage have been changed many times. None of that is my
opinion; it is objective fact.
You're getting close. Keep thinking about it.
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as marriage.
This law will not be changed.
LOL, laws change ALL the time. It used to be the law that blacks and whites
couldn't drink of the same fountain. Funny, how they can do that now, isn't
it?
It used to be the law in all states (and, sadly, still is in some) that
adoptees couldn't get ahold of their OBC (original birth certificate). That
is now being changed. Funny, that.
None of this is my opinion, it is objective fact.
Hate to burst your homophobic bubble, but is absolutely IS your opinion that
the law will not be changed. And I'd love to see the look on your face when
it is.
However will you be able to go on? Poor you!
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:13:02 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
thomas p wrote:
The above is your opinion. The reality is that marriage is a legal
contract. Legal contracts are defined by man-made law. The laws
defining marriage have been changed many times. None of that is my
opinion; it is objective fact.
You're getting close. Keep thinking about it.
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as marriage.
This law will not be changed.
In case you haven't been keeping up, legally recognized same-sex
marriages are being performed, right now, both outside and inside this
country. The law has changed in some places, and the polls of younger
generations show a continuous increase in the percentage of the
population which finds same-sex marriage acceptable.
It seems to me that the resistance to same-sex marriage will go the way
of resistance to mixed-race marriage... it will end up in the dustbin
of history.
None of this is my opinion, it is objective fact.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:00:32 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
thomas p wrote:
The above is your opinion. The reality is that marriage is a legal
contract. Legal contracts are defined by man-made law. The laws
defining marriage have been changed many times. None of that is my
opinion; it is objective fact.
You're getting close. Keep thinking about it.
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as marriage.
This law will not be changed.
In case you haven't been keeping up, legally recognized same-sex
marriages are being performed, right now, both outside and inside this
country. The law has changed in some places, and the polls of younger
generations show a continuous increase in the percentage of the
population which finds same-sex marriage acceptable.
It seems to me that the resistance to same-sex marriage will go the way
of resistance to mixed-race marriage... it will end up in the dustbin
of history.
I think resistancve to same-sex marriage will go the way of
resistance to plural marriage- going on strong now and forever!
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 06:05:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
thomas p wrote:
The above is your opinion. The reality is that marriage is a legal
contract. Legal contracts are defined by man-made law. The laws
defining marriage have been changed many times. None of that is my
opinion; it is objective fact.
You're getting close. Keep thinking about it.
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as marriage.
This law will not be changed.
In case you haven't been keeping up, legally recognized same-sex
marriages are being performed, right now, both outside and inside this
country. The law has changed in some places, and the polls of younger
generations show a continuous increase in the percentage of the
population which finds same-sex marriage acceptable.
It seems to me that the resistance to same-sex marriage will go the way
of resistance to mixed-race marriage... it will end up in the dustbin
of history.
I think resistancve to same-sex marriage will go the way of
resistance to plural marriage- going on strong now and forever!
Like the resistance to interracial marriage! Going strong now and forever!
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:14:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:31:49 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
The above is your opinion. The reality is that marriage is a legal
contract. Legal contracts are defined by man-made law. The laws
defining marriage have been changed many times. None of that is my
opinion; it is objective fact.
You're getting close. Keep thinking about it.
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as marriage.
This law will not be changed.
Why do you keep denying reality? The law has been changed.
None of this is my opinion, it is objective fact.
No, it is a denial of reality, and you have also admitted that we have
the right to change the law.
Gary Eickmeier
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:07:03 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:31:49 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Yup. And the law evolves over time as society changes.
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as marriage.
Most of America did not want to see segragation end in the 1930s.
That changed.
This law will not be changed.
It has been changed, and more changes are coming.
None of this is my opinion, it is objective fact.
Oh, really? Perhaps you can supply objective evidence then,
especially for that last claim of yours.
--
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: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:18:39 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:0bfpi1toghe5gokr4l8rm0hidn7bgkomn6@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:31:49 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Yup. And the law evolves over time as society changes.
Yup? No.
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as
marriage.
Most of America did not want to see segragation end in the 1930s.
That changed.
This law will not be changed.
It has been changed, and more changes are coming.
The Constitution was destroyed by people like you who short-circuited the
processes provided for change in the Constitution. Now, everyone is going to
pay the bloody price for that arrogance. I wouldn't give a plugged nickel
for the future of any homosexuals ten years out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:34:48 AM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:0bfpi1toghe5gokr4l8rm0hidn7bgkomn6@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:31:49 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Yup. And the law evolves over time as society changes.
Yup? No.
No, what? Are you claiming that laws never change?
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as
marriage.
Most of America did not want to see segragation end in the 1930s.
That changed.
This law will not be changed.
It has been changed, and more changes are coming.
The Constitution was destroyed by people like you who short-circuited the
processes provided for change in the Constitution.
How was the process short-circuited? So far as I know, the amendment
process hasn't changed.
Now, everyone is going to pay the bloody price for that arrogance.
What price is that?
I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the future of any homosexuals ten
years out.
Why not? Homosexuals have been around as long as humans have been
around. What's going to happen to them in ten years?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:29:27 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
20:18:39 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:0bfpi1toghe5gokr4l8rm0hidn7bgkomn6@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:31:49 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Yup. And the law evolves over time as society changes.
Yup? No.
Yes. See marriage laws over the past two centuries. Hell, look at
copyright and patent law!
It has been changed, and more changes are coming.
The Constitution was destroyed by people like you who short-circuited the
processes provided for change in the Constitution. Now, everyone is going to
pay the bloody price for that arrogance. I wouldn't give a plugged nickel
for the future of any homosexuals ten years out.
Oddly, here in the real world, the Constitution is still in force and
has not been destroyed.
What price, exactly? Be specific.
--
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: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:28:43 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:i6rpi1dfebnd3v4on1rv0tt26gco0s26b1@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
20:18:39 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:0bfpi1toghe5gokr4l8rm0hidn7bgkomn6@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:31:49 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Yup. And the law evolves over time as society changes.
Yup? No.
Yes. See marriage laws over the past two centuries. Hell, look at
copyright and patent law!
You can read marriage laws in the Jewish and Christian Bibles, and other
writings that are thousands of years old. But then, you don't but into any
of that stuff, do you?
It has been changed, and more changes are coming.
The Constitution was destroyed by people like you who short-circuited the
processes provided for change in the Constitution. Now, everyone is going
to
pay the bloody price for that arrogance. I wouldn't give a plugged nickel
for the future of any homosexuals ten years out.
Oddly, here in the real world, the Constitution is still in force and
has not been destroyed.
What price, exactly? Be specific.
In my opinion, I expect to see the homosexual minority to be attacked
viciously by the mainstream population for their attacks and attempted
destruction of the "American way of life".
Anything else you want to know?
--
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: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:36:35 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
00:28:43 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:i6rpi1dfebnd3v4on1rv0tt26gco0s26b1@4ax.com...
Yes. See marriage laws over the past two centuries. Hell, look at
copyright and patent law!
You can read marriage laws in the Jewish and Christian Bibles, and other
writings that are thousands of years old. But then, you don't but into any
of that stuff, do you?
Trying to change the subject, I see.
As for marriage in the Bible, how many wives did Solomon have again?
Oddly, here in the real world, the Constitution is still in force and
has not been destroyed.
What price, exactly? Be specific.
In my opinion, I expect to see the homosexual minority to be attacked
viciously by the mainstream population for their attacks and attempted
destruction of the "American way of life".
That's just delusional. If this was going to happen, it would have
occured already in the one state that does allow gay marriage. It
hasn't.
Anything else you want to know?
Yes, what other minorities do you hate for not conforming to your
demands?
--
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: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:57:31 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:43vpi1tolbiqiqjolsqv0na63c5l8hjdve@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
00:28:43 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:i6rpi1dfebnd3v4on1rv0tt26gco0s26b1@4ax.com...
Yes. See marriage laws over the past two centuries. Hell, look at
copyright and patent law!
You can read marriage laws in the Jewish and Christian Bibles, and other
writings that are thousands of years old. But then, you don't but into
any
of that stuff, do you?
Trying to change the subject, I see.
Nope, presents an answer to the origins of marriage question.
As for marriage in the Bible, how many wives did Solomon have again?
A lot, all women as far as I know.
Oddly, here in the real world, the Constitution is still in force and
has not been destroyed.
What price, exactly? Be specific.
In my opinion, I expect to see the homosexual minority to be attacked
viciously by the mainstream population for their attacks and attempted
destruction of the "American way of life".
That's just delusional. If this was going to happen, it would have
occured already in the one state that does allow gay marriage. It
hasn't.
You apparently don't have a sense to the time and triggers that can set this
kind of reaction off.
The backlash has already started and I don't believe the Federal Government
will have the support to stop it.
Anything else you want to know?
Yes, what other minorities do you hate for not conforming to your
demands?
I don't hate anybody, I dislike some people but I don't hate anyone. I'm
just engaging you in an honest exchange of opinions. However, it seems that
all you have for an opinion is someone else's worn out clichés.
--
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: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 10:24:44 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
00:57:31 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Trying to change the subject, I see.
Nope, presents an answer to the origins of marriage question.
Marriage predates the oldest versions of any books of the Bible.
Cuniform tablets recovered from Mesopotamian sites make references to
marriages. Those are close to 6,500 years old.
As for marriage in the Bible, how many wives did Solomon have again?
A lot, all women as far as I know.
So the Bible supports polygamy?
In my opinion, I expect to see the homosexual minority to be attacked
viciously by the mainstream population for their attacks and attempted
destruction of the "American way of life".
That's just delusional. If this was going to happen, it would have
occured already in the one state that does allow gay marriage. It
hasn't.
You apparently don't have a sense to the time and triggers that can set this
kind of reaction off.
Did you see where the Massachusetts legislature overwhelmingly
rejected an Amendment to the Commonwealth's constitution that would
ban gay marriage? The vote was 157-39. Dozens of lawmakers changed
their votes
``I would defy anybody – anybody in this chamber, anybody in
Massachusetts – to say that the apocalypse has come, yet some have
predicted it. Sixty-five-hundred married couples later, the sun still
shines in Massachusetts. My coffee does not have curdled milk,'' said
openly gay Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge).
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=102616
So, where's the backlash? It's been 16 months! Hell, all the polls
in Massachusetts show growing acceptance of gay marriage as people
realize that it doesn't affect them in the least.
The backlash has already started and I don't believe the Federal Government
will have the support to stop it.
Show me some concrete examples of this backlash.
Yes, what other minorities do you hate for not conforming to your
demands?
I don't hate anybody, I dislike some people but I don't hate anyone. I'm
just engaging you in an honest exchange of opinions. However, it seems that
all you have for an opinion is someone else's worn out clichés.
I'm the one actually quoting law, court cases, and the news. You have
nothing so far.
--
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: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 11:20:48 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> posting the following on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:44:04
GMT iin alt.atheism?
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
They can, however, much like in the wonderful
Land of Oz, create ersatz "marriages" based
on wishes and self-deception.
Governments have long engaged in such
obvious distortions of reality.
0_o
OK, then if you discount what governments say about marriage, why do
you care at all about the issue?
--
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: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 08:49:44 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:T6HWe.62$zG1.51@trnddc05...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126886921.617530.50450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126885913.094242.151990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How is society denying the institution of marriage to
two
men any
different than denying the institution of marriage to a
black man and a
white woman.
Hmmmm. Let's see here. Let's scratch our
heads a while over this vexing question.
O.K., time's up. Not allowing two men
to "marry" has something to do with what
the institution of marriage is about, i.e.,
the union of a man and a woman. Not
allowing a black man and a white woman
to get married is about...race!
You're telling two consenting adults they can't enter
into a voluntary
legal arrangement - marriage. The institution of marriage
is "about" a
legally binding contract.
Yeah, between a man and a woman.
That's what marriage *is.*
Sorry, but no. A marriage can be *EITHER* between a man
and a woman or a same-sex coupling like that of an
opposite-sex marriage.
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
I'm sorry, but there is.
It's an oxymoron. To assert otherwise is nothing
more than a corruption of language and meaning.
The definition of "marriage" has been corrupt since ancient times.
It's a postmodern sop to a transient narrative
of gay activists and queer theorists.
I'm sorry, but "same-sex marriage" has been around since long before
postmodernism.
It has
nothing to do with real marriage, and never will.
In short, it's just plain old *****.
"Real marriage" is the only ***** here. Stop trying to claim that
marriage has always been one-man-and-one-woman. That, in short, is just
plain old *****.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 11:19:07 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> posting the following on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:22:17
GMT iin alt.atheism?
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
In several nations, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, there is.
All legal and it happens everyday.
It's an oxymoron. To assert otherwise is nothing
more than a corruption of language and meaning.
It's a postmodern sop to a transient narrative
of gay activists and queer theorists. It has
nothing to do with real marriage, and never will.
In short, it's just plain old *****.
Are you married? I've been for 14 wonderful years. Pray tell, what
makes a "real marriage" that requires opposite sex couples? Before
you say children let me point out that I've been sterile for the
majority of my married life.
--
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: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 11:57:05 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 12:03:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 04:54:26 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening. By the way, you guys changed the definition of
marriage from its original meaning. Back in Biblical times, it was
legal to have and be married to multiple concubines.
Can we bring back concubinal marriage? After all, you guys changed it
to "one man and one woman."
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 06:02:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
By the way, you guys changed the definition of
marriage from its original meaning. Back in Biblical times, it was
legal to have and be married to multiple concubines.
Can we bring back concubinal marriage? After all, you guys changed it
to "one man and one woman."
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 02:02:27 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:08:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:27 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Surprise, surprise.. Its quite illegal in California... and who
cares about the "Netherlands etc."
Say, maybe we should send all you fairies that want to get married to
Europe...
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:27 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Surprise, surprise.. Its quite illegal in California... and who
cares about the "Netherlands etc."
What difference does it make if you care or not? Same-sex marriage is
legal in the Netherlands and in Spain, and it will soon be legal in
other countries.. It does exist. Whether you like it or not, it is
an objective fact.
Say, maybe we should send all you fairies that want to get married to
Europe...
I am European, and you do not know what my sexual orientation is; nor
is it relevant. Too bad that you have to depend on attempted insults
and the denial of reality instead of an actual argument. It should
tell you something about your position.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 06:04:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:42 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:27 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Surprise, surprise.. Its quite illegal in California... and who
cares about the "Netherlands etc."
What difference does it make if you care or not?
He doesn't really care. He's just a troll, who's sole intent is to
annoy and harrass. To that end, he will say anything to annoy you,
and even try and hurt you. If that fails, he'll begin stalking you.
Just plonk him and do more productive things.
Same-sex marriage is
legal in the Netherlands and in Spain, and it will soon be legal in
other countries.. It does exist. Whether you like it or not, it is
an objective fact.
Say, maybe we should send all you fairies that want to get married to
Europe...
I am European, and you do not know what my sexual orientation is; nor
is it relevant. Too bad that you have to depend on attempted insults
and the denial of reality instead of an actual argument. It should
tell you something about your position.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:22:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:04:45 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:42 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:27 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Surprise, surprise.. Its quite illegal in California... and who
cares about the "Netherlands etc."
What difference does it make if you care or not?
He doesn't really care. He's just a troll, who's sole intent is to
annoy and harrass. To that end, he will say anything to annoy you,
and even try and hurt you. If that fails, he'll begin stalking you.
Just plonk him and do more productive things.
<ROTFLMAO> Give it up Jamieson, everybody already knows that you were
the guy that wrote all those homosexual fantasies as Greywolf the
Wanderer.... But why are you so afraid to come out of the closet and
talk about it?
"Me, I was born under the altar of man-love. Heh heh
heh. queer as a three dollar bill, that's me. And damn
proud of it, too."
--Zepp/Greywolf Jamieson Nov 29 2000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/85b927a7b7981ae3?hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:22:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:42 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:27 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Surprise, surprise.. Its quite illegal in California... and who
cares about the "Netherlands etc."
What difference does it make if you care or not? Same-sex marriage is
legal in the Netherlands and in Spain, and it will soon be legal in
other countries.. It does exist. Whether you like it or not, it is
an objective fact.
Well, slavery is an objective fact in some places too...
Say, maybe we should send all you fairies that want to get married to
Europe...
I am European, and you do not know what my sexual orientation is; nor
is it relevant. Too bad that you have to depend on attempted insults
and the denial of reality instead of an actual argument. It should
tell you something about your position.
My position?
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:14:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:52 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:42 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:27 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Surprise, surprise.. Its quite illegal in California... and who
cares about the "Netherlands etc."
What difference does it make if you care or not? Same-sex marriage is
legal in the Netherlands and in Spain, and it will soon be legal in
other countries.. It does exist. Whether you like it or not, it is
an objective fact.
Well, slavery is an objective fact in some places too...
Once again you admit that you were wrong. You are getting better.
Say, maybe we should send all you fairies that want to get married to
Europe...
I am European, and you do not know what my sexual orientation is; nor
is it relevant. Too bad that you have to depend on attempted insults
and the denial of reality instead of an actual argument. It should
tell you something about your position.
My position?
Is the word too hard for you?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 09:18:36 AM |
|
|
in article u3fpi11e0cvjtsfrqs4pmllvu4afgrdl01@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/17/05 9:22 PM:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:42 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:27 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Surprise, surprise.. Its quite illegal in California... and who
cares about the "Netherlands etc."
What difference does it make if you care or not? Same-sex marriage is
legal in the Netherlands and in Spain, and it will soon be legal in
other countries.. It does exist. Whether you like it or not, it is
an objective fact.
Well, slavery is an objective fact in some places too...
Say, maybe we should send all you fairies that want to get married to
Europe...
I am European, and you do not know what my sexual orientation is; nor
is it relevant. Too bad that you have to depend on attempted insults
and the denial of reality instead of an actual argument. It should
tell you something about your position.
My position?
Strictly missionary.
Steve
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 12:04:41 PM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Same-sex marriage does not exist in California.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:43 PM |
|
|
On 17 Sep 2005 10:04:41 -0700, wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:48 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:05 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Marriage by definition, by its *reality*,
requires a man and a woman.
So we change the definition. No problem :-)
<LOL> Don't hold your breath on that....
Is already happening.
In your dreams, perhaps...
No, California actually exists, as does the Netherlands etc. Wake up.
Same-sex marriage does not exist in California.
It does, however, exist, and the number of places where it is legal
continues to increase. The fact that it exists in a nation such as
Spain (with little opposition except from the Catholic hierarchy)
should tell you something. I don't really see the problem. If
someone does not like same-sex marriage, they should just refrain
from entering into such a marriage.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
