| 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: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:47:38 AM |
|
|
In article <51i4j1dfioaq5tmolf8gjb8s12gt1umo8q@4ax.com> thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> writes:
On 21 Sep 2005 07:42:30 -0700, wrote:
How will a married couple's contract be changed if others are allowed
to enter into their own contract agreements?
Same thing, you change a contractual instrument - definition of
marriage, contract no longer exist.
Nobody's contract would have been changed.
Of course it would. If men were allowed to marry men, then
options unavailable to `chirabbit' at the time of his
own marriage would now exist. This would then mean
that his own present marriage contract is now unfairly
restrictive, and in all fairness should be amenable to
re-negotion, adding the option of his marrying another man.
I think you can see how his understandable resentment
over other men gaining this opportunity which remains
closed to him could threaten his abilities to
continue carrying out the terms of his present union.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:02:00 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 21 Sep 2005 07:42:30 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
How will a married couple's contract be changed if others are allowed
to enter into their own contract agreements?
Same thing, you change a contractual instrument - definition of
marriage, contract no longer exist.
So, if the Tampa Bay Devil rays sign a woman to pitch (something they
came close to last season) every single contractual agreement in
baseball will suddenly be null and void?
--
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: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 06:02:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:43:53 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:27:45 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:59:24 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
From http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html
HERE:
"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C.
because their home state of Virginia still upheld the
antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were
illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the
states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in
jail,. . ."
Looks like SOMEONE used to define 'marriage' as between two people of
the same race. What World do YOU live in?
James, Seattle
<LOL> You're talking about a law, not the definition of marriage, ya
hapless moron...
It is the law that defines marriage, since marriage is a legal
contract.
<LOL> Whatever you want to think about it is just fine with me....
"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: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 02:34:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:02:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:43:53 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:27:45 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:59:24 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
From http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html
HERE:
"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C.
because their home state of Virginia still upheld the
antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were
illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the
states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in
jail,. . ."
Looks like SOMEONE used to define 'marriage' as between two people of
the same race. What World do YOU live in?
James, Seattle
<LOL> You're talking about a law, not the definition of marriage, ya
hapless moron...
It is the law that defines marriage, since marriage is a legal
contract.
<LOL> Whatever you want to think about it is just fine with me....
Another non-response.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 05:38:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:34:14 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:02:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:43:53 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:27:45 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:59:24 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
From http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html
HERE:
"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C.
because their home state of Virginia still upheld the
antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were
illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the
states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in
jail,. . ."
Looks like SOMEONE used to define 'marriage' as between two people of
the same race. What World do YOU live in?
James, Seattle
<LOL> You're talking about a law, not the definition of marriage, ya
hapless moron...
It is the law that defines marriage, since marriage is a legal
contract.
<LOL> Whatever you want to think about it is just fine with me....
Another non-response.
Sorry, but I really have no motivation to try to change your mind
about the definition of marriage...
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:58:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:38:24 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:34:14 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:02:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:43:53 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:27:45 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:59:24 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
From http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html
HERE:
"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C.
because their home state of Virginia still upheld the
antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were
illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the
states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in
jail,. . ."
Looks like SOMEONE used to define 'marriage' as between two people of
the same race. What World do YOU live in?
James, Seattle
<LOL> You're talking about a law, not the definition of marriage, ya
hapless moron...
It is the law that defines marriage, since marriage is a legal
contract.
<LOL> Whatever you want to think about it is just fine with me....
Another non-response.
Sorry, but I really have no motivation to try to change your mind
about the definition of marriage...
You have no definition more authoritative than that provided by law to
offer. I have not (as you and others have) talked about opinions
about what marriage should be and tried to claim that those opinions
were somehow what marriage was. I have pointed out what the law says
it is. I have pointed out that, since marriage is an institution
created by law, what the law says it is is the objective definition;
and that definition has changed. All you have done in response is to
make inane and insulting comments without any relevance.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 11:20:50 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:58:56 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:38:24 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:34:14 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:02:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:43:53 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:27:45 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:59:24 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
From http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html
HERE:
"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C.
because their home state of Virginia still upheld the
antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were
illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the
states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in
jail,. . ."
Looks like SOMEONE used to define 'marriage' as between two people of
the same race. What World do YOU live in?
James, Seattle
<LOL> You're talking about a law, not the definition of marriage, ya
hapless moron...
It is the law that defines marriage, since marriage is a legal
contract.
<LOL> Whatever you want to think about it is just fine with me....
Another non-response.
Sorry, but I really have no motivation to try to change your mind
about the definition of marriage...
You have no definition more authoritative than that provided by law to
offer.
....and if you believe that and if you're also happy with it, I
congratulate you. I believe otherwise but I cannot see any reason why
I should attempt to change your mind on the subject...
I have not (as you and others have) talked about opinions
about what marriage should be and tried to claim that those opinions
were somehow what marriage was.
I certainly haven't talked about what I think marriage should be... I
was married once a long time ago, and I may again someday if for no
other reason than to satisfy legal issues.... IOW, I'd be perfectly
happy to use a civil union... The term "marriage" means little to
me.
I have pointed out what the law says
it is. I have pointed out that, since marriage is an institution
created by law, what the law says it is is the objective definition;
and that definition has changed. All you have done in response is to
make inane and insulting comments without any relevance.
well, you see, you're on a quest to legalize same sex marriage and my
quest is for entertainment....
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 02:28:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:20:50 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
snip
It is the law that defines marriage, since marriage is a legal
contract.
<LOL> Whatever you want to think about it is just fine with me....
Another non-response.
Sorry, but I really have no motivation to try to change your mind
about the definition of marriage...
You have no definition more authoritative than that provided by law to
offer.
...and if you believe that and if you're also happy with it, I
congratulate you. I believe otherwise but I cannot see any reason why
I should attempt to change your mind on the subject...
Another non-response. I still see no definition of marriage more
authoritative than that provided by law.
I have not (as you and others have) talked about opinions
about what marriage should be and tried to claim that those opinions
were somehow what marriage was.
I certainly haven't talked about what I think marriage should be... I
was married once a long time ago, and I may again someday if for no
other reason than to satisfy legal issues.... IOW, I'd be perfectly
happy to use a civil union... The term "marriage" means little to
me.
What it means to you is irrelevant. You have claimed that the
definition has never changed. You have claimed that the definition is
a union between a man and a woman and that that has always been the
definition, but you have provided no reason why that definition is
superior to what the law has said marriage is.
I have pointed out what the law says
it is. I have pointed out that, since marriage is an institution
created by law, what the law says it is is the objective definition;
and that definition has changed. All you have done in response is to
make inane and insulting comments without any relevance.
well, you see, you're on a quest to legalize same sex marriage and my
quest is for entertainment....
In other words you have no way to defend your position. That was my
point; thank you for the confirmation. Whether or not same-sex is
legalized (that has already happened in a number of jurisdictions), it
is still the marriage laws that have defined what a legal marriage is.
Obviously those laws have changed becoming, in the process,
sometimes more and sometimes less inclusive. There can be no question
that those changes have taken place. There can be no question that
those changes have constituted changes in the definition of marriage.
You have claimed that the definition never changed, and now you assume
the role of class clown when you cannot defend that claim.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 05:46:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:28:09 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:20:50 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
snip
It is the law that defines marriage, since marriage is a legal
contract.
<LOL> Whatever you want to think about it is just fine with me....
Another non-response.
Sorry, but I really have no motivation to try to change your mind
about the definition of marriage...
You have no definition more authoritative than that provided by law to
offer.
...and if you believe that and if you're also happy with it, I
congratulate you. I believe otherwise but I cannot see any reason why
I should attempt to change your mind on the subject...
Another non-response. I still see no definition of marriage more
authoritative than that provided by law.
That's fine... <LOL> You're probably seeing what you want to see.
I have not (as you and others have) talked about opinions
about what marriage should be and tried to claim that those opinions
were somehow what marriage was.
I certainly haven't talked about what I think marriage should be... I
was married once a long time ago, and I may again someday if for no
other reason than to satisfy legal issues.... IOW, I'd be perfectly
happy to use a civil union... The term "marriage" means little to
me.
What it means to you is irrelevant. You have claimed that the
definition has never changed. You have claimed that the definition is
a union between a man and a woman and that that has always been the
definition, but you have provided no reason why that definition is
superior to what the law has said marriage is.
That's probably because "the law" never even attempted to define
marriage...
I have pointed out what the law says
it is. I have pointed out that, since marriage is an institution
created by law, what the law says it is is the objective definition;
and that definition has changed. All you have done in response is to
make inane and insulting comments without any relevance.
well, you see, you're on a quest to legalize same sex marriage and my
quest is for entertainment....
In other words you have no way to defend your position.
No actually, I see no reason to defend anything since it's you, not
me, that's wanting to change things.
That was my
point; thank you for the confirmation. Whether or not same-sex is
legalized (that has already happened in a number of jurisdictions), it
is still the marriage laws that have defined what a legal marriage is.
Obviously those laws have changed becoming, in the process,
sometimes more and sometimes less inclusive. There can be no question
that those changes have taken place. There can be no question that
those changes have constituted changes in the definition of marriage.
....and yet there is...
You have claimed that the definition never changed, and now you assume
the role of class clown when you cannot defend that claim.
defend against whom/what?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 11:26:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:46:20 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:28:09 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:20:50 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
snip
You have claimed that the definition never changed, and now you assume
the role of class clown when you cannot defend that claim.
defend against whom/what?
Don't forget the funny shoes.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 04:40:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:26:59 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:46:20 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:28:09 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:20:50 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
snip
You have claimed that the definition never changed, and now you assume
the role of class clown when you cannot defend that claim.
defend against whom/what?
Don't forget the funny shoes.
How about if you establish what your goal of posting your opinions on
usenet might be?
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 01:16:18 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:34:14 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Sorry, but I really have no motivation to try to change your mind
about the definition of marriage...
I'd settle for a rational argument that supports your viewpoint, but I
am still waiting to hear one from you.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 11:33:03 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:59:24 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
From http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html
HERE:
"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C.
because their home state of Virginia still upheld the
antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were
illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the
states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in
jail,. . ."
Looks like SOMEONE used to define 'marriage' as between two people of
the same race. What World do YOU live in?
<LOL> You're talking about a law, not the definition of marriage, ya
hapless moron...
If not the law, where does the definition of civil marriage come from?
Isn't civil marriage a construct of the law?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1904 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 10:00:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:59:24 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
From http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html
HERE:
"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C.
because their home state of Virginia still upheld the
antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were
illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the
states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in
jail,. . ."
Looks like SOMEONE used to define 'marriage' as between two people of
the same race. What World do YOU live in?
This is the same guy who wrote "Gay marriage: I couldn't care less if
someone wanted to marry their tennis racket and I think that anybody
that does needs to get their own life."
He also wrote: "Race relations: I'm half European, and half American
Indian with a touch of African. My wife was Black so my kids are half
black, and my woman friend for the last several years is Philippino."
He'll say anything just to get a little attention.
James, Seattle
"'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 |
20 Sep 2005 01:28:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:00:12 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:59:24 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
From http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html
HERE:
"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C.
because their home state of Virginia still upheld the
antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were
illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the
states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in
jail,. . ."
Looks like SOMEONE used to define 'marriage' as between two people of
the same race. What World do YOU live in?
This is the same guy who wrote "Gay marriage: I couldn't care less if
someone wanted to marry their tennis racket and I think that anybody
that does needs to get their own life."
Yeah! <shrug>
He also wrote: "Race relations: I'm half European, and half American
Indian with a touch of African. My wife was Black so my kids are half
black, and my woman friend for the last several years is Philippino."
Yeah! <shrug>
Poor old Jamieson is an insult to homosexuals because he's afraid to
come out of the closet without using a sock puppet nym....
"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: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 09:39:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
In other words you have no logical argument. The miscegenation laws
are well-known. Under those laws a marriage was between two persons
of the same race, i.e. it was part of the definition; and it no longer
is.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 01:28:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:39:10 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
In other words you have no logical argument.
Argument for/against what?
The miscegenation laws
are well-known. Under those laws a marriage was between two persons
of the same race, i.e. it was part of the definition; and it no longer
is.
Laws against interracial marriage do not define marriage, ya moron.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
"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: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 02:34:17 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:28:45 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:39:10 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
In other words you have no logical argument.
Argument for/against what?
The miscegenation laws
are well-known. Under those laws a marriage was between two persons
of the same race, i.e. it was part of the definition; and it no longer
is.
Laws against interracial marriage do not define marriage, ya moron.
Of course they did. Marriage is a legal institution, therefore it is
the law that defines what marriage is. The definition changed when
the miscegenation laws were removed. Continuing to deny the obvious
is rather silly, but carry on if it amuses you.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 07:07:21 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:fu22j15j68u1vsleutm2p0s0ga1ggogqdq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:28:45 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:39:10 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:34:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used
to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Josh Rosenbluth
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
In other words you have no logical argument.
Argument for/against what?
The miscegenation laws
are well-known. Under those laws a marriage was between two persons
of the same race, i.e. it was part of the definition; and it no longer
is.
Laws against interracial marriage do not define marriage, ya moron.
Of course they did. Marriage is a legal institution, therefore it is
the law that defines what marriage is. The definition changed when
the miscegenation laws were removed. Continuing to deny the obvious
is rather silly, but carry on if it amuses you.
Speaking of obvious. I believe, Thomas, that you are the best example of a
state created drone that I have ever seen. I wonder if you will ever
understand how little oxygen is in your container.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:58:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:07:21 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:fu22j15j68u1vsleutm2p0s0ga1ggogqdq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:28:45 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
snip
His claim requires no counter argument. He knows full well that the
definition of marriage never included anything about race...
In other words you have no logical argument.
Argument for/against what?
The miscegenation laws
are well-known. Under those laws a marriage was between two persons
of the same race, i.e. it was part of the definition; and it no longer
is.
Laws against interracial marriage do not define marriage, ya moron.
Of course they did. Marriage is a legal institution, therefore it is
the law that defines what marriage is. The definition changed when
the miscegenation laws were removed. Continuing to deny the obvious
is rather silly, but carry on if it amuses you.
Speaking of obvious. I believe, Thomas, that you are the best example of a
state created drone that I have ever seen. I wonder if you will ever
understand how little oxygen is in your container.
That's nice! I always enjoy a little nostalgia. It is good to know
that school yard wit is still with us.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:05:11 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Wed, 21 Sep 2005
07:07:21 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Speaking of obvious. I believe, Thomas, that you are the best example of a
state created drone that I have ever seen. I wonder if you will ever
understand how little oxygen is in your container.
Faced with a losing argument, Kelo resorts to personal attacks.
Typical.
--
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 |
21 Sep 2005 11:32:27 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:gkt2j1dh0191940c8auuaap2vl7ahtggi6@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Wed, 21 Sep 2005
07:07:21 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Speaking of obvious. I believe, Thomas, that you are the best example of
a
state created drone that I have ever seen. I wonder if you will ever
understand how little oxygen is in your container.
Faced with a losing argument, Kelo resorts to personal attacks.
Typical.
Now, that's funny, after all the personal attacks that have been leveled at
me.
Another *shining* example of queer logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:01:59 AM |
|
|
The definition changed when the miscegenation laws were removed.
That is not true, definiton stayed the same, it least in this country
public perception of marriage has always been as a union between a man
and woman, so miscegenation laws had nothig to do with definition of
marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 02:28:13 AM |
|
|
On 21 Sep 2005 08:01:59 -0700, wrote:
The definition changed when the miscegenation laws were removed.
That is not true, definiton stayed the same, it least in this country
public perception of marriage has always been as a union between a man
and woman,
I was not talking about public perceptions.
so miscegenation laws had nothig to do with definition of
marriage.
A marriage between a Black and a White person did not exist, because
the law said such marriages could not exist. The law defined what
marriage was and what it was not.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 09:04:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
Gosh, another hard question!
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1904 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 08:38:15 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
He claims to be married to a black woman.
He's talking out his *****.
Josh Rosenbluth
"'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 |
20 Sep 2005 09:27:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:38:15 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:48 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:30 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
The definition has, however, changed. Part of the definition used to
be between people of the same race. It is no longer, and that is a
change.
Hey, if you want to believe that, you go right ahead....
Do you have a logical argument to counter his claim? Or, are you just
talking out of your *****?
He claims to be married to a black woman.
Actually, since she died in 1982, I don't think I'm considered to be
married to her anymore...
--
" I've been gender-confused all mylife. I fit neither stereotype.
Try as I will, I honestly cannot see any difference, other than
the obvious physical ones, between the sexes. I am cheerfully bi,
mated to one who is not, and quite happy that way."
--Greywolf Zepp Jamieson Nov 13 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/6a9927c474d797ba?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 08:51:40 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:10:40 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:10:16 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:14:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:50 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:21:32 GMT, 655321
<DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
On 2005-09-17 09:08:22 -0700, nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> said:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:45:37 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore 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...
Yes, and in America, too.
Well, if you think you can marry your "boyfriend" you go right
ahead....
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."
No response to this, eh? Thought not.
Why would you expect me to respond to that irrelevant nonsense?
What makes it irrelevant? Is it not a fact that the definition of
marriage has changed many times since the concept came into existence?
Nope, sorry, but marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
Now, perhaps you were talking about somebody getting married multiple
times?
Yes, that's right, marriage has changed many times; and it continues
to change. There have also always been different rules for marriage
in different places just like today. I am glad to see that you
understand that now.
Except that it has *Never* changed, ya moron.
That is fascinating. How did it change without ever changing? Would
that be a religious mystery?
It was always between a man and a woman... always.
Oh, really? Is that a fact?
In ancient Sparta, gay unions were officially recognized by the state.
On the Dorian island of Thera, it was also officially recognized.
In 2nd Century Rome, it was ridiculed but recognized.
Take a look at Herodotus. Take a look at Greek, Roman, and Mayan art.
See http://www.androphile.org/sop1000.htm
Bye now.
--
****************************************************
* 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: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 04:56:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:51:40 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:10:40 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:10:16 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:14:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:50 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo. | | |
