Religions > Atheism > Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Jabsco" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2003 06:55:16 PM |
| Object: |
Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
Hey faggots, I'm still confused. Help me out here. Didn't you faggots say
that the tide has changed and that EVERYONE is accepting faggots now, and
that only a few minor bigots won't accept? Didn't you say the majority of
people are accepting ***** behavior? I don't understand this article, I am
very confused. Why is it that faggots can only be accepted by imposing
their will on other people and seeking out sypathetic judges to change laws
for them? How come they can't take their case to the 'majority public' in
the voting booths? Surely if EVERYONE is accepting faggots now, they should
EASILY get these laws passed on the ballots!! Why is it that 38 states now
have a consititutional ban on ***** marriages if the majority of the voters
want otherwise? Help me out here...
===
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/national/21GAY.html?ex=1073192400&en=a887ec494ccc1c01&ei=5004&partner=UNTD
Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an
amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also
found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a
potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the
Republicans in the 2004 election.
Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the
public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive
of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East
Coast.
Attitudes on the subject seem to be inextricably linked to how people view
marriage itself. For a majority of Americans - 53 percent - marriage is
largely a religious matter. Seventy-one percent of those people oppose gay
marriage. Similarly, 33 percent of Americans say marriage is largely a legal
matter and a majority of those people - 55 percent - say they support gay
marriage.
The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among
respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.
The nationwide poll found that 55 percent of Americans favored an amendment
to the constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a
woman, while 40 percent opposed the idea.
The findings come after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 last
month that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state's Constitution.
That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States
Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.
President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment
immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried
that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But
last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will
support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man
and a woman, codify that."
The statement signals the White House's increasing confidence that it can
exploit the matter in the presidential campaign, both to energize its
evangelical supporters and to discredit the eventual Democratic nominee.
Most of the Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage but favor civil
unions. Howard Dean, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic
nomination, signed a law when he was governor of Vermont allowing civil
unions, an action that Republicans have already used to portray him as too
liberal for mainstream America.
The court rulings generated extensive publicity and concern, not only about
same-sex marriage but also about having the courts set social agendas that
have not been approved by the legislative process.
"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it,"
said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition,
which strongly opposes gay marriage and is working actively for a
constitutional ban.
The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 in
telephone interviews with 1,057 people. It carries a margin of sampling
error of plus or minus three percentage points. Responses about gay rights
tend to be influenced somewhat by the wording of the questions.
This poll and other surveys show that as the courts have extended legal
rights to gays this year, Americans have become increasingly uncomfortable
with same-sex relations.
For decades, a majority of Americans have not approved of homosexual
relations. That had begun to change, until the Supreme Court ruling in June
and the Massachusetts ruling in November. A New York Times/CBS News poll
conducted in July found that 54 percent of respondents said homosexual
relations should be legal. Only 41 percent of the respondents in the latest
poll said they should be legal.
Richard Waters, 71, a retired elementary school teacher in Little Valley,
N.Y., and a Republican, said in a follow-up interview to the poll that he
strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
02 Jan 2004 10:12:53 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Bob wrote:
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
thing down, on its knees, and begging.
Yep, the rump riders are always out trying to destroy marriage. We can
read their pathetic attempts here. They try to redefine marriage into
some "social contract" and government benefit program. They can't marry
because their chosen lifestyle turns away from normal male/female
relationships, so they hate to see normal men and women having normal
families. In their hatred and jealousy they try to destroy marriage so
they can have a piece of the sham. Trouble is, even if they win, they
lose. A sham of a social contract is not a marriage and never will be.
They are filled with jealousy and hatred of any normal man or woman who
refuses to accept their sordid perversion as "normal" and always attack
him/her personally with their usual list of flames. One almost ought
to have sympathy for their sick sordid pathetic lives.
Bob
You might be just the one to answer a question I've had for a couple of
years now. Man to man, tell me:
exactly how does gay marriage threaten me, my wife, our daughter, the
cat, or our family relationship?
--
Kermit
Remove _your_inhibitions_ to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
02 Jan 2004 10:52:40 PM |
|
|
"Kermit" <freehand_your_inhibitions_@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3FF64145.5030005@charter.net...
Bob wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Bob wrote:
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
thing down, on its knees, and begging.
Yep, the rump riders are always out trying to destroy marriage. We can
read their pathetic attempts here. They try to redefine marriage into
some "social contract" and government benefit program. They can't marry
because their chosen lifestyle turns away from normal male/female
relationships, so they hate to see normal men and women having normal
families. In their hatred and jealousy they try to destroy marriage so
they can have a piece of the sham. Trouble is, even if they win, they
lose. A sham of a social contract is not a marriage and never will be.
They are filled with jealousy and hatred of any normal man or woman who
refuses to accept their sordid perversion as "normal" and always attack
him/her personally with their usual list of flames. One almost ought
to have sympathy for their sick sordid pathetic lives.
Bob
You might be just the one to answer a question I've had for a couple of
years now. Man to man, tell me:
exactly how does gay marriage threaten me, my wife, our daughter, the
cat, or our family relationship?
Odd theory.... My wife and I have survived poverty, four children, all
manner of sickness, and even our in-laws and have come out of the fray
together still. Yet now I'm being told that when a couple of guys get
equal, legal marital recognition, my wife and I must fly apart like two
errant electrons. Yes, odd theory indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
03 Jan 2004 12:04:04 AM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
Bob wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Bob wrote:
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
thing down, on its knees, and begging.
Yep, the rump riders are always out trying to destroy marriage. We
can read their pathetic attempts here. They try to redefine marriage
into some "social contract" and government benefit program. They
can't marry because their chosen lifestyle turns away from normal
male/female relationships, so they hate to see normal men and women
having normal families. In their hatred and jealousy they try to
destroy marriage so they can have a piece of the sham. Trouble is,
even if they win, they lose. A sham of a social contract is not a
marriage and never will be.
They are filled with jealousy and hatred of any normal man or woman
who refuses to accept their sordid perversion as "normal" and always
attack him/her personally with their usual list of flames. One
almost ought to have sympathy for their sick sordid pathetic lives.
Bob
You might be just the one to answer a question I've had for a couple of
years now. Man to man, tell me:
exactly how does gay marriage threaten me, my wife, our daughter, the
cat, or our family relationship?
Yep, the same old rump rider rhetorical nonsense. Do they teach you
that crap in rump rider school? Do you think it has any relevance to
the destruction of marriage that you are trying to do? Do you think it
fools anyone?
Year after year, the same old tired rump rider rhetoric. It gets so
noxious after a while.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emi M Briet" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
03 Jan 2004 07:07:11 AM |
|
|
In article <3FF65B54.3000100@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Yep, the same old rump rider rhetorical nonsense. Do they teach you
that crap in rump rider school? Do you think it has any relevance to
the destruction of marriage that you are trying to do? Do you think it
fools anyone?
Year after year, the same old tired rump rider rhetoric. It gets so
noxious after a while.
You still didn't answer Kermit's question...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
03 Jan 2004 05:33:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:07:11 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Emi M
Briet <emi@emiofbrie.cx> wrote:
| In article <3FF65B54.3000100@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
| wrote:
|
| > Yep, the same old rump rider rhetorical nonsense. Do they teach you
| > that crap in rump rider school? Do you think it has any relevance to
| > the destruction of marriage that you are trying to do? Do you think it
| > fools anyone?
| >
| > Year after year, the same old tired rump rider rhetoric. It gets so
| > noxious after a while.
|
| You still didn't answer Kermit's question...
He can't. Mommy hasn't told him the answer yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
03 Jan 2004 10:03:34 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:04:04 -0700, a stranger
called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
You might be just the one to answer a question I've had for a couple of
years now. Man to man, tell me:
exactly how does gay marriage threaten me, my wife, our daughter, the
cat, or our family relationship?
Yep, the same old rump rider rhetorical nonsense. Do they teach you
that crap in rump rider school? Do you think it has any relevance to
the destruction of marriage that you are trying to do? Do you think it
fools anyone?
Year after year, the same old tired rump rider rhetoric. It gets so
noxious after a while.
bob, of course, can't answer. All he has are these same sentences.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
03 Jan 2004 07:32:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:04:04 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
to alt.atheism:
Kermit wrote:
You might be just the one to answer a question I've had for a couple of
years now. Man to man, tell me:
exactly how does gay marriage threaten me, my wife, our daughter, the
cat, or our family relationship?
Yep, the same old rump rider rhetorical nonsense. Do they teach you
that crap in rump rider school? Do you think it has any relevance to
the destruction of marriage that you are trying to do? Do you think it
fools anyone?
Year after year, the same old tired rump rider rhetoric. It gets so
noxious after a while.
Translation:
Damnedifiknow.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
03 Jan 2004 05:32:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:04:04 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality Bob
<boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Kermit wrote:
[snip]
| > You might be just the one to answer a question I've had for a couple of
| > years now. Man to man, tell me:
| > exactly how does gay marriage threaten me, my wife, our daughter, the
| > cat, or our family relationship?
|
| Yep, the same old rump rider rhetorical nonsense. Do they teach you
| that crap in rump rider school? Do you think it has any relevance to
| the destruction of marriage that you are trying to do? Do you think it
| fools anyone?
|
| Year after year, the same old tired rump rider rhetoric. It gets so
| noxious after a while.
Why don't you answer the question bob. Oh you can't, can you!
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 11:31:40 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Yep, the rump riders are always out trying to destroy marriage.
Funny, I thought divorce was doing that rather well without us. (And
never mind the fact that *our* divorce rate has as yet to even reach the
halfway mark of straight divorce, even in places that have had same-sex
marriage for over a decade.)
It's well past midnight. You can stop drinking now.
--
Phone sex is best approximated by stacking several dozen dollar bills on
your bedside table, setting the pile on fire, and watching it burn while
you masturbate.
-- Wired, May, 1995
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 12:03:32 PM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Bob wrote:
Yep, the rump riders are always out trying to destroy marriage.
Funny, I thought divorce was doing that rather well without us. (And
never mind the fact that *our* divorce rate has as yet to even reach the
halfway mark of straight divorce, even in places that have had same-sex
marriage for over a decade.)
It's well past midnight. You can stop drinking now.
Yep, another slam at straights. How very typical of the rump riders out
to destroy marriage. They hate to see marriages succeed and focus on
problems.
No matter how many times the rump riders try to deny biology, there it
is. Marriage is the biological union of male and female, always has
been, always will be.
They might as well claim that the moon is green cheese, or that pigs fly.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 07:46:53 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
It's well past midnight. You can stop drinking now.
Yep, another slam at straights.
Strange. I thought I was slamming a moron. Hmm... He's straight? How
odd. He's not supposed to be that way around homosexuals, is he?
--
Phone sex is best approximated by stacking several dozen dollar bills on
your bedside table, setting the pile on fire, and watching it burn while
you masturbate.
-- Wired, May, 1995
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
02 Jan 2004 12:53:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:32:16 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality Bob
<boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Dionisio wrote:
| > Bob wrote:
| >
| >> Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
| >
| > So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
| > thing down, on its knees, and begging.
|
| Yep, the rump riders are always out trying to destroy marriage. We can
| read their pathetic attempts here. They try to redefine marriage into
| some "social contract" and government benefit program. They can't marry
| because their chosen lifestyle turns away from normal male/female
| relationships, so they hate to see normal men and women having normal
| families. In their hatred and jealousy they try to destroy marriage so
| they can have a piece of the sham. Trouble is, even if they win, they
| lose. A sham of a social contract is not a marriage and never will be.
|
| They are filled with jealousy and hatred of any normal man or woman who
| refuses to accept their sordid perversion as "normal" and always attack
| him/her personally with their usual list of flames. One almost ought
| to have sympathy for their sick sordid pathetic lives.
News flash for ya boob - when SSM becomes legal your marriage will
disintegrate before your very eyes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
02 Jan 2004 09:34:46 AM |
|
|
Jeff North wrote:
News flash for ya boob - when SSM becomes legal your marriage will
disintegrate before your very eyes.
Why do you think he's married? Have you seen the times when he posts?
He's up to all hours of the night, cavorting with homosexuals. What
self-respecting straight woman would put up with a husband like that?
--
Phone sex is best approximated by stacking several dozen dollar bills on
your bedside table, setting the pile on fire, and watching it burn while
you masturbate.
-- Wired, May, 1995
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Ongapo" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 10:36:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:42:49 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
thing down, on its knees, and begging.
Your life revolves around sex; promiscuous sex. You identify your
existence by your sexual orientation. We already know all of that.
Have you any new information about you choice of homosexuality as a
life style?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 11:51:40 AM |
|
|
Al wrote:
Dionisio <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
thing down, on its knees, and begging.
Your life revolves around sex; promiscuous sex.
And that's different from those whose life revolves around sex, how? Oh,
they claim "marriage"? Well, I think we identified what marriage is all
about.
You identify your existence by your sexual orientation.
As do you. Hardly seems to be a crime.
Have you any new information about you choice of homosexuality as a
life style?
Actually, yes. I'm bi. Anything else about my sex life you'd like to
know? Best positions, favorite lubes, most unusual requests, oddest
pick-up lines, most surprising (not to mention effective) techniques?
Just ask.
--
Phone sex is best approximated by stacking several dozen dollar bills on
your bedside table, setting the pile on fire, and watching it burn while
you masturbate.
-- Wired, May, 1995
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
02 Jan 2004 10:16:27 PM |
|
|
Al wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:42:49 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
thing down, on its knees, and begging.
Your life revolves around sex; promiscuous sex. You identify your
existence by your sexual orientation. We already know all of that.
Have you any new information about you choice of homosexuality as a
life style?
Choice? Are you saying that you could be gay if you wanted to be? How
long did you think about it? When did you finally decide to be straight?
And what kind of man are you whose life *doesn't revolve around sex?
--
Kermit
Remove _your_inhibitions_ to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
03 Jan 2004 07:34:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:16:27 -0800, Kermit
<freehand_your_inhibitions_@charter.net> posted to alt.atheism:
Al wrote:
Your life revolves around sex; promiscuous sex. You identify your
existence by your sexual orientation. We already know all of that.
Have you any new information about you choice of homosexuality as a
life style?
Choice? Are you saying that you could be gay if you wanted to be?
He's saying that he's not straight, he just chose to be.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 11:11:41 AM |
|
|
Al wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:42:49 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
thing down, on its knees, and begging.
Your life revolves around sex; promiscuous sex. You identify your
existence by your sexual orientation. We already know all of that.
Have you any new information about you choice of homosexuality as a
life style?
Yep, the rump riders post the same old crapola over and over and over,
but its always the same. When their gay agenda doesn't get accepted
they start calling straight people names. Happens every time.
No matter how many times the rump riders try to deny biology, there it
is. Marriage is the biological union of male and female, always has
been, always will be.
They might as well claim that the moon is green cheese, or that pigs fly.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 11:56:00 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Al wrote:
Dionisio <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
So marriage is about sex to you, eh? Got news for ya: We got that sex
thing down, on its knees, and begging.
Your life revolves around sex; promiscuous sex. You identify your
existence by your sexual orientation. We already know all of that.
Have you any new information about you choice of homosexuality as a
life style?
Yep, the rump riders post the same old crapola over and over and over,
but its always the same. When their gay agenda doesn't get accepted
they start calling straight people names. Happens every time.
<LOL> Except, it seems, this one. I'd give you a parting gift, but we
saw what you did with "The San Francisco Treat" the last time.
--
Phone sex is best approximated by stacking several dozen dollar bills on
your bedside table, setting the pile on fire, and watching it burn while
you masturbate.
-- Wired, May, 1995
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 12:14:54 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Rhinehold wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FF38C02.90801@hotmail.com...
Key word, "marry," the union of male and female, the biological basis
of procreation.
Again, you're wrong and just can't accept it. Keep repeating this to
yourself when same sex marriages start taking place in this country as
they
are in others.
Rhinehold
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
No matter how many times the rump riders try to deny biology, there it is.
Is that all "rump riders" or just homosexual "rump riders"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 01:46:15 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Carl wrote:
WIld wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:04:46 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
I should note that I've met people who consider marriages between
different races to be perverted, and it is most certainly a behavior,
and yet the 14th Amendment protects that.
The law that prevented mixed race marriage was intended to be
discriminatory - that's the reason it was thrown out by the SCOTUS.
Ther is no marriage law that intentionally discriminates against
homos.
According to that logic, banning interracial marriage also wasn't
discriminatory because people could still marry somebody of their own
race.
Key word, "marry," the union of male and female, the biological basis
of procreation.
Bob
So, are you saying that if one or both partners are sterile (perhaps
from age) that they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
-- Kermit
Remove _your_inhibitions_ to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 06:51:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:46:15 -0800, Kermit
<freehand_your_inhibitions_@charter.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
Carl wrote:
WIld wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:04:46 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
I should note that I've met people who consider marriages between
different races to be perverted, and it is most certainly a behavior,
and yet the 14th Amendment protects that.
The law that prevented mixed race marriage was intended to be
discriminatory - that's the reason it was thrown out by the SCOTUS.
Ther is no marriage law that intentionally discriminates against
homos.
According to that logic, banning interracial marriage also wasn't
discriminatory because people could still marry somebody of their own
race.
Key word, "marry," the union of male and female, the biological basis
of procreation.
Bob
So, are you saying that if one or both partners are sterile (perhaps
from age) that they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Don't bother asking dimwit Bob that question. There are two questions
that dumb ***** refuses to answer, right Bob?
The questions are:
Should heterosexual couples who unwilling to reproduce or incapable of
reproducing be allowed to marry?
How would allowing homosexual marriages harm traditional marriage?
Dimwit Bob won't even attempt to answer either of these questions.
-- Kermit
Remove _your_inhibitions_ to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
31 Dec 2003 10:29:30 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Carl wrote:
WIld wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:04:46 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
I should note that I've met people who consider marriages between
different races to be perverted, and it is most certainly a behavior,
and yet the 14th Amendment protects that.
The law that prevented mixed race marriage was intended to be
discriminatory - that's the reason it was thrown out by the SCOTUS.
Ther is no marriage law that intentionally discriminates against
homos.
According to that logic, banning interracial marriage also wasn't
discriminatory because people could still marry somebody of their own
race.
Key word, "marry," the union of male and female, the biological basis
of procreation.
There is no causation between marriage and procreation. Couples can be
married without having children and de facto couples regularly have
children. Sex has been around for quite awhile - there is a lot of it
going on.
And what about infertile heterosexuals - are they disqualified from ever
marrying?
Is a marriage void if one partner is infertile?
What about a couple who choose to not have children?
What about hermaphrodites?
Just to clarify, all the arguments I have read against gay marriage have
serious flaws in logic. Let's not even begin to mention the
incompatibility with individual freedoms etc. In fact, and I don't mean
this in a bad way, but all the anti-ssm arguments have the same
structure and tone as anti-women's suffrage, anti-colored vote,
anti-<insert minority of choice>
--
Creation Science: the ***** child of Scientism and Fundamentalism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
31 Dec 2003 11:34:45 PM |
|
|
Carl wrote:
Bob wrote:
Carl wrote:
WIld wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:04:46 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
I should note that I've met people who consider marriages between
different races to be perverted, and it is most certainly a behavior,
and yet the 14th Amendment protects that.
The law that prevented mixed race marriage was intended to be
discriminatory - that's the reason it was thrown out by the SCOTUS.
Ther is no marriage law that intentionally discriminates against
homos.
According to that logic, banning interracial marriage also wasn't
discriminatory because people could still marry somebody of their own
race.
Key word, "marry," the union of male and female, the biological basis
of procreation.
There is no causation between marriage and procreation. Couples can be
married without having children and de facto couples regularly have
children. Sex has been around for quite awhile - there is a lot of it
going on.
And what about infertile heterosexuals - are they disqualified from ever
marrying?
Is a marriage void if one partner is infertile?
What about a couple who choose to not have children?
What about hermaphrodites?
Just to clarify, all the arguments I have read against gay marriage have
serious flaws in logic. Let's not even begin to mention the
incompatibility with individual freedoms etc. In fact, and I don't mean
this in a bad way, but all the anti-ssm arguments have the same
structure and tone as anti-women's suffrage, anti-colored vote,
anti-<insert minority of choice>
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
No matter how often the rump riders try to destroy the basic concept of
"marriage," its still there.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
01 Jan 2004 12:35:44 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Carl wrote:
Just to clarify, all the arguments I have read against gay marriage
have serious flaws in logic. Let's not even begin to mention the
incompatibility with individual freedoms etc. In fact, and I don't
mean this in a bad way, but all the anti-ssm arguments have the same
structure and tone as anti-women's suffrage, anti-colored vote,
anti-<insert minority of choice>
Key word, "marriage," the biological union of male and female.
I believe this is where the flaw in your argument lies. Marriage is not
a biological behaviour. Marriage is a social construct.
No matter how often the rump riders try to destroy the basic concept of
"marriage," its still there.
Color me puzzled but I don't see how a few percent of the population
calling themselves Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs has any effect on
heterosexual marriages. Perhaps this point could be illuminated.
It is interesting to note the use of the derogatory description "rump
rider" points towards underlying masculine insecurity. This is
evidenced by the fact the issue involves both "rump riders" and "rug
munchers" yet the masculine homophobic description appears to be preferred.
Additionally, the term "rump rider" does not apply exclusively to gay
men; many married heterosexual males have been known to ride the rump,
so to speak.
.
|
|
| | | |
