| 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: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 10:24:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:47:22 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Same-sex couples do all of the things that mixed-sex couples do,
including raise children.
No, they don't. They don't conceive children together.
What is "outre" about paying taxes, or going
to PTA meetings, or mowing one's lawn. Aside from the gender of the
participants, what distinguishes a same-sex couple from a mixed-sex
one?
One is natural, or normal, the other is unnatural, or abnormal.
Also, you use the word "normal." Do you mean normal as in a vague
reference to some statistical mean, or normal as a moral judgement, or
expression of acceptability on your part?
Normal as in agreeing with human nature and biology. Normal couples have
normal sex, which places a sperm in the body of a woman to unite with
her egg and produce a child. Abnormal couples butt-*****, which has
little to do with the biology of reproduction.
So you think anal and oral sex are abnormal between M/F couples???
LOL!!!!!!! You can't be serious, can you???
And what of Birth Control? By your 'logic' anyone using birthcontrol
are Abnormal since they desire SEX without procreation.
I think YOU are the abnormal one in this thread.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 08:06:25 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GmpVe.38111$4i6.33269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can anyone
help me out?
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly.
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 08:09:38 AM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:GmpVe.38111$4i6.33269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can
anyone
help me out?
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly.
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 12:52:07 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mcAVe.3563$Ap4.315771@twister.nyc.rr.com...
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GmpVe.38111$4i6.33269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can anyone
help me out?
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly.
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Rejecting normality is every American's patriotic
duty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 08:24:21 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't using the word
"normal" merely to mean conforming to orthodoxy. You are expressing a
value judgement that homosexuality is bad.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 08:26:48 AM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't using
the word
"normal" merely to mean conforming to orthodoxy. You are
expressing a
value judgement that homosexuality is bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie. Whatever
badness arises from it probably varies from
individual to individual, but from my
observation, it is invariably harmful to
those who engage in it. But so are many
vices, and so I have no problem accepting
homosexuals as friends or colleagues.
What I object to is the absurd attempt
to raise vice to ersatz virtue through the
abuse of the institution of marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 01:01:54 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ssAVe.3564$Ap4.315975@twister.nyc.rr.com...
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't using the word
"normal" merely to mean conforming to orthodoxy. You are expressing a
value judgement that homosexuality is bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
You getting kind of mystical here. "The meaning
and essential Truth of marriage." Very mystical.
Almost sounds like a religious thing, rather than
a proper governmental activity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 02:42:05 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't using
the word "normal" merely to mean conforming to orthodoxy. You are
expressing a value judgement that homosexuality is bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 03:24:29 PM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126640525.308051.29010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs.
Gary
pretends that he isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to
be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't
using
the word "normal" merely to mean conforming to
orthodoxy. You are
expressing a value judgement that homosexuality is bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
An objective statement about homosexual
behavior doesn't imply any specific
animus toward any person who engages in
homosexual acts.
You're confused about a bunch of things,
and the self-assumed moral validity of your own
political correctness is one of the most
obvious of them.
Homosexual behavior is an objective
phenomenon that can be compared to the
natural functions of the human body, the
natural function and purpose of sex, and
the nature of sex as discoverable in
the opposition of the two sexes. On that
basis it is reasonable to conclude that
homosexual behavior is intrinsically
disordered -- not a natural use of the
body, not a natural use of sexual function,
and lacking the defining opposition of
the two sexes.
In fact, while homosexual behavior is
sex*ual*, it is not in fact actual sex, which
means that it is not in any respect equal
to actual sex between members of the opposite
sexes.
Indeed, any real analysis of homosexuality
that is based in reality as opposed to
wishes will not make homosexual activists
happy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 12:57:42 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1AGVe.3580$Ap4.327160@twister.nyc.rr.com...
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126640525.308051.29010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In fact, while homosexual behavior is
sex*ual*, it is not in fact actual sex, which
means that it is not in any respect equal
to actual sex between members of the opposite
sexes.
Wait a minute. First, you guys said, "oral sex _is
sex," back in the days of SlickWilly; now you
say, "oral sex _isn't actual sex." You have a
serious consistency problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 03:56:03 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126640525.308051.29010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
An objective statement about homosexual
behavior doesn't imply any specific
animus toward any person who engages in
homosexual acts.
If not animus, what feelings do you have for gay people?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 04:14:02 PM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126644963.809963.143190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126640525.308051.29010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
An objective statement about homosexual
behavior doesn't imply any specific
animus toward any person who engages in
homosexual acts.
If not animus, what feelings do you have for gay people?
That depends on the individual, but it
doesn't include any a priori animus simply
because someone is homosexual. I basically
want to see everyone do well in life, whether
I like them personally or not. I never root
for someone's failure, unless the success
they seek would be criminal or evil. I don't,
for instance, root for women to be successful
prostitutes.
It's inevitable, as a writer, that I am an
exceedingly close observer of people. If all
I did was react to the raw data of those
observations, as I did when I was younger,
I would be overcome with alienation from
the vast majority of individuals, their
sexuality notwithstanding. My own happiness
depends, therefore, on being able to
contextualize everyone's shortcomings,
including my own, and to be open to people
as they are. Everything has its limits,
however. Usenet certainly demonstrates
that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 06:50:47 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126644963.809963.143190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126640525.308051.29010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
An objective statement about homosexual
behavior doesn't imply any specific
animus toward any person who engages in
homosexual acts.
If not animus, what feelings do you have for gay people?
<snip>
It's inevitable, as a writer, that I am an
exceedingly close observer of people. If all
I did was react to the raw data of those
observations, as I did when I was younger,
I would be overcome with alienation from
the vast majority of individuals, their
sexuality notwithstanding. My own happiness
depends, therefore, on being able to
contextualize everyone's shortcomings,
including my own, and to be open to people
as they are. Everything has its limits,
however. Usenet certainly demonstrates
that.
That is perhaps the most pretentious thing I've ever heard come out of
Usenet... and that's saying something.
Amazing... simply amazing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:21:19 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126644963.809963.143190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126640525.308051.29010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
An objective statement about homosexual
behavior doesn't imply any specific
animus toward any person who engages in
homosexual acts.
If not animus, what feelings do you have for gay people?
That depends on the individual, but it
doesn't include any a priori animus simply
because someone is homosexual. I basically
want to see everyone do well in life, whether
I like them personally or not.
How nice of you to wish a gay person success in life when you think
their sexual, initimate, loving relationships (a big part of doing well
in life) are a disorder. I'm sure you judge gay people in all other
aspects the same you judge straight people. But when it comes to
sexuality and intimate love, don't pretend that you wish them well.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:56:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:24:29 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126640525.308051.29010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
An objective statement about homosexual
behavior doesn't imply any specific
animus toward any person who engages in
homosexual acts.
OBJECTIVE? "Homosexuality is disordered" is NOT an objective
statement.
Homosexual behavior is an objective
phenomenon that can be compared to the
natural functions of the human body, the
natural function and purpose of sex, and
the nature of sex as discoverable in
the opposition of the two sexes.
Funny, I thought the "natural function and purpose of sex" was for
bonding and mutual enjoyment. If not, then you must think that birth
control is unnatural and intrinsically disordered as well.
What about anal and oral sex between males and females? That should
also be unnatural and intrisically disordered in your world view,
correct?
Bigot.
On that
basis it is reasonable to conclude that
homosexual behavior is intrinsically
disordered
On WHAT basis? 99.99% of SEX between men and women is NOT for
procreation, so certainly you cannot be referring to that, can you??
-- not a natural use of the
body, not a natural use of sexual function,
and lacking the defining opposition of
the two sexes.
You throw around the word "natural" as if you know what it means. Do
you realize that men & women (and men & men and Women & women) have
been having anal, oral, cucumber, dog, fish, corn sex since the
beginning of time?
Just because YOU only desire, M/F sex, woman flat on her back, you on
top sex doesn't mean that's the only "natural" act.
In fact, while homosexual behavior is
sex*ual*, it is not in fact actual sex, which
means that it is not in any respect equal
to actual sex between members of the opposite
sexes.
You're talking out your *****. Anal sex is sex as much as anything
else.... and I'll tell you right now, I'm willing to be anal sex with
a woman is VERY equal to anal sex with a man... except, God found fit
to put the prostate gland in the perfect spot for fingers and cocks to
rub it....
but that in your bible and suck on it.
Indeed, any real analysis of homosexuality
that is based in reality as opposed to
wishes will not make homosexual activists
happy.
Your bigoted 'reality' is not the only 'reality' it seems.... I know
many gay couples that have been together 10+ years, and one has been
together 25 years. Just because you see the world through bigotted
colored glasses doesn't mean the world conforms to your view.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 03:21:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't using
the word "normal" merely to mean conforming to orthodoxy. You are
expressing a value judgement that homosexuality is bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed... vulgar prejudice dressed up in pretty rhetoric is still just
as ugly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 03:28:26 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126642867.921225.277080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs.
Gary
pretends that he isn't a bigot. Martin is proud
to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't
using
the word "normal" merely to mean conforming to
orthodoxy. You are
expressing a value judgement that homosexuality is
bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed... vulgar prejudice dressed up in pretty rhetoric
is still just
as ugly.
Well, your disavowal of real distinctions
in the real world cloaked in the usual
putrid political correctness unto postmodern
fantasy is the very ugly end of rationality
and meaning, for you at least.
See: Gramsci's "cultural counter-hegemony"
for the actual origins of your debauched
thinking, and Michel Foucault for their
final repository.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 12:36:28 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KDGVe.3581$Ap4.327198@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126642867.921225.277080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't using
the word "normal" merely to mean conforming to orthodoxy. You are
expressing a value judgement that homosexuality is bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed... vulgar prejudice dressed up in pretty rhetoric is still just
as ugly.
Well, your disavowal of real distinctions
in the real world cloaked in the usual
putrid political correctness unto postmodern
fantasy is the very ugly end of rationality
and meaning, for you at least.
That sentence is pretty postmodern itself,
hypocrite.
See: Gramsci's "cultural counter-hegemony"
for the actual origins of your debauched
thinking, and Michel Foucault for their
final repository.
Yeah, yeah. It's a slippery slope from
not caring a rat's ***** if two guys get
married to linguistic anarchy. I'd tell
you what the real slippery slope is,
but you don't want to hear it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 04:10:06 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126642867.921225.277080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs.
Gary
pretends that he isn't a bigot. Martin is proud
to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't
using
the word "normal" merely to mean conforming to
orthodoxy. You are
expressing a value judgement that homosexuality is
bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed... vulgar prejudice dressed up in pretty rhetoric
is still just
as ugly.
Well, your disavowal of real distinctions
in the real world cloaked in the usual
putrid political correctness unto postmodern
fantasy is the very ugly end of rationality
and meaning, for you at least.
Taking refuge in Postmodernism, I see... how amusing.
There are indeed real distinctions to be made, even if individuals
acting rationally and in good faith disagree as to the exact nature of
those distinctions.
However, homosexuality is no more "disordered" than left-handedness,
and being different is neither good or bad based solely on what an
observer deems is it's deviation from some perceived statistical mean.
"Political correctness" is an empty phrase, a blank in our little war
of words. It makes a sound, but carries no no impact, and is of no
significance.
Just man up, say you dislike homosexuality, and leave it at that. Your
impotent attempts at justifying your dislike via vaguely
academic-sounding terms detracts from rather than reinforces your
position. You are being many things, but rational isn't one of them.
See: Gramsci's "cultural counter-hegemony"
for the actual origins of your debauched
thinking, and Michel Foucault for their
final repository.
:) Silly person, the actual origins of my "debauched" thinking are
quite familiar to me, and reside where they always have, within my own
skull. I need not clutch some obscure philosphical tome to my chest
like a drowning man clutching a life preserver, for I know how to swim,
have all my life, and do not fear to meet the water unaided.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 04:24:25 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126645806.664544.293730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126642867.921225.277080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs.
Gary
pretends that he isn't a bigot. Martin is
proud
to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you
aren't
using
the word "normal" merely to mean conforming to
orthodoxy. You are
expressing a value judgement that homosexuality is
bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Nah, nothing bigoted in that.
Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed... vulgar prejudice dressed up in pretty
rhetoric
is still just
as ugly.
Well, your disavowal of real distinctions
in the real world cloaked in the usual
putrid political correctness unto postmodern
fantasy is the very ugly end of rationality
and meaning, for you at least.
Taking refuge in Postmodernism, I see... how amusing.
That's what you've done, not me.
There are indeed real distinctions to be made, even if
individuals
acting rationally and in good faith disagree as to the
exact nature of
those distinctions.
Well, calling a fish a dog is not a
good faith disagreement, so.
However, homosexuality is no more "disordered" than
left-handedness,
Of course it is.
and being different is neither good or bad based solely on
what an
observer deems is it's deviation from some perceived
statistical mean.
You're spouting nonsense. The natural opposition
and complementarity of the two sexes is not a
"perceived statistical mean." The sexual deviation
from that natural opposition and complementarity
is a difference in kind, not degree, such that
the comparison of homosexuality to heterosexuality
is not one of mere modalities but distinct
differences, where the former is unnatural and
the latter is natural.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 05:54:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:26:48 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
Are you married?
--
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: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:35:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:26:48 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126617861.087142.279170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
Oh well, so much for honesty. Of course you aren't using
the word
"normal" merely to mean conforming to orthodoxy. You are
expressing a
value judgement that homosexuality is bad.
"[A] value judgement that homosexuality is bad."
That's pretty funny.
I'm expressing, first and foremost, that
"gay marriage" is an impossibility, because it
has nothing to do with the meaning and essential
truth of marriage.
You mean Marriages that are Arranged to bring two political families
together?
You mean Marriage where the woman supplies the dowery?
You mean like the Unnatural, Ungodly, and Perverted union of a
blackman with a whitewoman?????
Do you realize that marriage for LOVE is a recent invention and was
opposed by nearly Everyone when the mear idea was suggested? Of
course you didn't... you think marriage has always been as it is NOW.
As for homosexuality itself, it is
intrinsically disordered, prima facie.
Did you add 'prima facie' just to make yourself LOOK knowledgeable?
It did just the opposite you know.
Whatever
badness arises from it probably varies from
individual to individual, but from my
observation, it is invariably harmful to
those who engage in it.
Badness? Is that a scientific term? I'm sure your "observation" is
very one-sided and bigoted in it's intrinsic nature.
But so are many
vices, and so I have no problem accepting
homosexuals as friends or colleagues.
What I object to is the absurd attempt
to raise vice to ersatz virtue through the
abuse of the institution of marriage.
LOL, the "institution" of marriage has been destroyed plenty by
God-Fearin' straight folk... Not to mention those nigg*rs marrying
our white women, right? You're a bigot... but as most biggots, you
don't see yourself as one.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 05:54:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:09:38 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
Until the last fifty years, being lefthanded was anything from
eccentric to sinful. It was only in the last thirty years that the
Catholic Church instructed its schools to stop trying to force
left-handed children to use their right hands.
Turns out that us left-handers tend to have a larger connection
between the two halves of the brain. What was once considered immoral
is now recognized as a simple variant in humanity.
Homosexuality is another variant.
(I should also point out that being black, Asian, or Catholic in this
great country were also pretty outre at various points...)
--
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: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:22:36 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:09:38 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:GmpVe.38111$4i6.33269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can
anyone
help me out?
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly.
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural,
What of their own nature makes two men loving each other unnatural?
Do you actually KNOW any gay/lesbian couples or are you just using
parades and festivals as your 'example'?
and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality.
There are no less than 20 gay and lesbian couples living within
walking distance of me. And although I sign my posts, 'seattle', I'm
in a rural area 1 hour's drive from that city. Without exception,
EVERY one of these couples are as normal as any straight couple I
know. ... some stereotypes persist though... the men have WONDERFUL
yards and landscaping and the three lesbian couples all have little
farms and are on the 'rugged' side in the looks department.
And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
AH! So you ARE using parades and festivals for your impression of
homosexuals! In that case, Let's all take a look to New Orleans and
Mardi Gras for a shinning example of STRAIGHT 'normalacy".
james, seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 09:12:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:09:38 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1126616785.372065.155450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:GmpVe.38111$4i6.33269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can
anyone
help me out?
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly.
When homosexuals, as an activist minority,
decided that they wanted to transform their
outre lifestyles into something resembling
normal
Well, at least Martin is honest in his beliefs. Gary
pretends that he
isn't a bigot. Martin is proud to be one.
There is nothing the least bit bigoted in
that statement. It's historically factual
and essentially true. Homosexuality is
still celebrated as an outre lifestyle,
even as it is being reconceptualized as
"normal." Hence the objection at places
like Harvard about events that are biased
toward the "heteronormative."
If normality represents the conformity of
culture and public orthodoxy to reality,
then it is impossible to *normalize*
homosexual relations. They are by their
own nature *un*natural, and it is in that
spirit that outre communities of homosexuals
do indeed celebrate their outre lifestyles.
It is a rejection of normality. And if you
need to see a public demonstration of
exactly that, make sure you catch the next
Halloween parade through Greenwich Village.
....and the whole "gay marriage" agenda is really nothing more than an
attempt to force society to categorize homosexuality as normal. If
their agenda was really just an attempt to get the legal benefits of
marriage, they would be quite happy with a civil union.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 05:57:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:12:51 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
...and the whole "gay marriage" agenda is really nothing more than an
attempt to force society to categorize homosexuality as normal. If
their agenda was really just an attempt to get the legal benefits of
marriage, they would be quite happy with a civil union.
Go read "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education." (SCOTUS, 1954) and then
humbly explain why "separate but equal" doesn't work.
Are gay Americans citizens or not? Answer that question. If they
are, then why aren't they protected by the 14th Amendment in your
view?
--
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 |
13 Sep 2005 07:30:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:57:02 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:12:51 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
...and the whole "gay marriage" agenda is really nothing more than an
attempt to force society to categorize homosexuality as normal. If
their agenda was really just an attempt to get the legal benefits of
marriage, they would be quite happy with a civil union.
Go read "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education." (SCOTUS, 1954) and then
humbly explain why "separate but equal" doesn't work.
Totally irrelevant.
Are gay Americans citizens or not?
Sure..
Answer that question. If they
are, then why aren't they protected by the 14th Amendment in your
view?
This is not an equal protection issue. A homosexual has the same
rights as I do, IOW, they can marry a person of the opposite sex of a
certain age, and the fact that they would rather marry the same sex is
no different than if they wanted to marry their pet poodle or their
ten year old sister. Marriage is something that a society sanctions
and therefore, socie | | | | | |
