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: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 09:58:58 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FFF6766.7000501@hotmail.com...
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FFD7091.8060809@hotmail.com>...
Juan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:50:33 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:52:47 GMT, a stranger
called by some Juan Horovitz came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:26:38 GMT, "Light Templar"
<I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote:
Try to provide a legal basis for what you said, take all the time
you like.
No need to disprove drivel, as it will always be drivel. Further,
your
drivel doesn't provide proof that extending legally recognized
marriages to
homosexuals will destroy, in any way, shape, or form, marriage.
Provide an unchallengeable argument for states HAVING to recognizing
something that does not and never has existed; homo-marriage. The
onus
is yours.
Not in the United States. Here, we follow the law.
Marrriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia, among others.)
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our
very existence and survival." -Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967)
Homosexual marriage is NOT "fundamental to our very existence and
survival." Homosexual marriage was not even considered in 1967.
Homosexual rump riding is not a "marriage" and can never be a marriage.
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding".
Exactly. That's why sexual mating of male and female is an important
part of "marriage" and anything else is not.
So...2 straights that marry and one becomes unable to perform the act, you'd
terminate their marriage?
Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Yes. Marriage is about producing children and raising families -- the
next generation of society, a compelling interest of a society, religion
and government. Children are produced by sexual joining of male and
female -- hence "marriage."
Please. We've debunked the children thing 1000 times. There are tens of
thousands of married straight couples that by choice or medical issue will
NEVER have children. By your reasoning, those people shouldn't be married.
Loving v. Virginia dealt strictly with racial discrimination and
racial discrimination ONLY. The marriage laws ever thereafter have
been void of all intensional discrimination.
A man and woman, male and female, of any races can unite in a sexual,
biological union. Two of either can not.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
Been said many times -- learn to read -- pull your head out of the sand.
"marriage."
Marriage is just a word...it's another way to say union, coupling, pairing,
etc. You just don't seem to understand that a legalization of a CIVIL union
between gays or lesbians won't hurt your precious little morals. You need to
look at the divorce rate among straight marrieds...you guys need to get your
own house in order before you tell us what we can and can't do. And I have
yet to see any argument from your side that hold water. "tradition" or
"values" just don't cut it...please provide a rational LEGAL reason why gay
people cannot have a civil union, and the rights associated with said union.
Don't appeal to "tradition", don't appeal to children, and don't appeal to
religion...those points have already been debunked multiple times. And as
many people have pointed out, your precious little question that you asked
earlier was based on a flawed premise - you have yet to offer any proof that
civil unions between gays/lesbians would have ANY effect on straight
marriage.
Numerous cases since 1967 involving alleged discri
mination by the
state have always been settled in favor of the state when those
claiming discrimination could not show that there was any INTENDED
DISCRIMINATION on the part of the state.
The onus in on homosexuals to prove that the states are intentionally
discriminating against then in their marriage laws.
Rump riders can choose to marry if they find a suitable partner for a
biological union, same as anyone else.
Of course, that is just like saying that "straight people just haven't
found the right same-sex partner", or similarly ludicrous
postulations.
Of course if you CHOOSE a rump rider life style instead of a biological
union - marriage - that is entirely up to you.
How many gigabytes of independent scientific research would you like that
indicates homosexuality is not a choice and not a "disease" as you seem to
imply. Check with the APA and the DSM-IV for starters.
Bob
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 10:58:17 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:45:58 -0700, a stranger
called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
Brent Norman wrote:
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding".
Exactly. That's why sexual mating of male and female is an important
part of "marriage" and anything else is not.
Bob, people who cannot physically have sex are allowed to marry in
every state of the union.
Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Yes. Marriage is about producing children and raising families -- the
next generation of society, a compelling interest of a society, religion
and government. Children are produced by sexual joining of male and
female -- hence "marriage."
People who are sterile, or who just don't want kids, are allowed to
marry in every state of the union.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
Been said many times -- learn to read -- pull your head out of the sand.
"marriage."
What Bob means is that he has this strange view of the world, one
where marriage isn't about love and companionship for life, but
slamming out those babies!
In the Bobverse, fertility testing is required for marriage, and it is
against the law *not* to have kids. Also, in the Bobverse it's
nigh-impossible to get pregnant and raise kids without being married.
--
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: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
10 Jan 2004 10:59:01 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:qib000l9gdjh6qe9sp13vbm7kd24jubp7d@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:45:58 -0700, a stranger
called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
Brent Norman wrote:
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding".
Exactly. That's why sexual mating of male and female is an important
part of "marriage" and anything else is not.
Bob, people who cannot physically have sex are allowed to marry in
every state of the union.
Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Yes. Marriage is about producing children and raising families -- the
next generation of society, a compelling interest of a society, religion
and government. Children are produced by sexual joining of male and
female -- hence "marriage."
People who are sterile, or who just don't want kids, are allowed to
marry in every state of the union.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
Been said many times -- learn to read -- pull your head out of the sand.
"marriage."
What Bob means is that he has this strange view of the world, one
where marriage isn't about love and companionship for life, but
slamming out those babies!
In the Bobverse, fertility testing is required for marriage, and it is
against the law *not* to have kids. Also, in the Bobverse it's
nigh-impossible to get pregnant and raise kids without being married.
You know the type...gotta keep her barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
11 Jan 2004 01:41:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:59:01 GMT, "Amelia M. Samples"
<milla@georgebush.visi.com>, Message ID:
<pbWLb.70345$fq1.59691@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:qib000l9gdjh6qe9sp13vbm7kd24jubp7d@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:45:58 -0700, a stranger
called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
Brent Norman wrote:
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding".
Exactly. That's why sexual mating of male and female is an important
part of "marriage" and anything else is not.
Bob, people who cannot physically have sex are allowed to marry in
every state of the union.
Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Yes. Marriage is about producing children and raising families -- the
next generation of society, a compelling interest of a society, religion
and government. Children are produced by sexual joining of male and
female -- hence "marriage."
People who are sterile, or who just don't want kids, are allowed to
marry in every state of the union.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
Been said many times -- learn to read -- pull your head out of the sand.
"marriage."
What Bob means is that he has this strange view of the world, one
where marriage isn't about love and companionship for life, but
slamming out those babies!
In the Bobverse, fertility testing is required for marriage, and it is
against the law *not* to have kids. Also, in the Bobverse it's
nigh-impossible to get pregnant and raise kids without being married.
You know the type...gotta keep her barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...
Yep, insecure weaklings looking for brood mares.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
08 Jan 2004 02:32:13 PM |
|
|
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFD7091.8060809@hotmail.com>...
Juan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:50:33 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:52:47 GMT, a stranger
called by some Juan Horovitz came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:26:38 GMT, "Light Templar"
<I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote:
Try to provide a legal basis for what you said, take all the time you like.
No need to disprove drivel, as it will always be drivel. Further, your
drivel doesn't provide proof that extending legally recognized marriages to
homosexuals will destroy, in any way, shape, or form, marriage.
Provide an unchallengeable argument for states HAVING to recognizing
something that does not and never has existed; homo-marriage. The onus
is yours.
Not in the United States. Here, we follow the law.
Marrriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia, among others.)
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our
very existence and survival." -Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967)
Homosexual marriage is NOT "fundamental to our very existence and
survival." Homosexual marriage was not even considered in 1967.
Homosexual rump riding is not a "marriage" and can never be a marriage.
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding". Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Loving v. Virginia dealt strictly with racial discrimination and
racial discrimination ONLY. The marriage laws ever thereafter have
been void of all intensional discrimination.
A man and woman, male and female, of any races can unite in a sexual,
biological union. Two of either can not.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
We said that already. "Marriage." DUH! Big Red Truck!
Are you blond?
Numerous cases since 1967 involving alleged discrimination by the
state have always been settled in favor of the state when those
claiming discrimination could not show that there was any INTENDED
DISCRIMINATION on the part of the state.
The onus in on homosexuals to prove that the states are intentionally
discriminating against then in their marriage laws.
Rump riders can choose to marry if they find a suitable partner for a
biological union, same as anyone else.
Of course, that is just like saying that "straight people just haven't
found the right same-sex partner", or similarly ludicrous
postulations.
Tell us, how would destroying the age old institution of marriage
improve your relationship with your rump rider buddies?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent Norman" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 10:00:57 AM |
|
|
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFDBE4D.7050202@hotmail.com>...
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFD7091.8060809@hotmail.com>...
Juan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:50:33 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:52:47 GMT, a stranger
called by some Juan Horovitz came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:26:38 GMT, "Light Templar"
<I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote:
Try to provide a legal basis for what you said, take all the time you like.
No need to disprove drivel, as it will always be drivel. Further, your
drivel doesn't provide proof that extending legally recognized marriages to
homosexuals will destroy, in any way, shape, or form, marriage.
Provide an unchallengeable argument for states HAVING to recognizing
something that does not and never has existed; homo-marriage. The onus
is yours.
Not in the United States. Here, we follow the law.
Marrriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia, among others.)
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our
very existence and survival." -Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967)
Homosexual marriage is NOT "fundamental to our very existence and
survival." Homosexual marriage was not even considered in 1967.
Homosexual rump riding is not a "marriage" and can never be a marriage.
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding". Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Loving v. Virginia dealt strictly with racial discrimination and
racial discrimination ONLY. The marriage laws ever thereafter have
been void of all intensional discrimination.
A man and woman, male and female, of any races can unite in a sexual,
biological union. Two of either can not.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
We said that already. "Marriage." DUH! Big Red Truck!
Are you blond?
You said "a sexual, biological union"
You debased the definition of the institution of marriage into a
sexual act.
Numerous cases since 1967 involving alleged discrimination by the
state have always been settled in favor of the state when those
claiming discrimination could not show that there was any INTENDED
DISCRIMINATION on the part of the state.
The onus in on homosexuals to prove that the states are intentionally
discriminating against then in their marriage laws.
Rump riders can choose to marry if they find a suitable partner for a
biological union, same as anyone else.
Of course, that is just like saying that "straight people just haven't
found the right same-sex partner", or similarly ludicrous
postulations.
Tell us, how would destroying the age old institution of marriage
improve your relationship with your rump rider buddies?
It's your contention that a same sex marriage will somehow "destroy
the age old institution of marriage". I have yet to see any
compelling arguments in favour of that assertion.
As for what marriage does for a relationship, why don't you ask the
women/woman whose rump(s) you ride to tell you how marriage will
improve your relationship. I'm sure they/she could come up with
several reasons, though you may not accept them, since your definition
of marriage appears to be a sex act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 10:08:04 AM |
|
|
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFDBE4D.7050202@hotmail.com>...
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFD7091.8060809@hotmail.com>...
Juan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:50:33 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:52:47 GMT, a stranger
called by some Juan Horovitz came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:26:38 GMT, "Light Templar"
<I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote:
Try to provide a legal basis for what you said, take all the time you like.
No need to disprove drivel, as it will always be drivel. Further, your
drivel doesn't provide proof that extending legally recognized marriages to
homosexuals will destroy, in any way, shape, or form, marriage.
Provide an unchallengeable argument for states HAVING to recognizing
something that does not and never has existed; homo-marriage. The onus
is yours.
Not in the United States. Here, we follow the law.
Marrriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia, among others.)
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our
very existence and survival." -Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967)
Homosexual marriage is NOT "fundamental to our very existence and
survival." Homosexual marriage was not even considered in 1967.
Homosexual rump riding is not a "marriage" and can never be a marriage.
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding". Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Loving v. Virginia dealt strictly with racial discrimination and
racial discrimination ONLY. The marriage laws ever thereafter have
been void of all intensional discrimination.
A man and woman, male and female, of any races can unite in a sexual,
biological union. Two of either can not.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
We said that already. "Marriage." DUH! Big Red Truck!
Are you blond?
You said "a sexual, biological union"
You debased the definition of the institution of marriage into a
sexual act.
Sexual union certainly always has been an important part of marriage.
Taking the underlying sexual union out of marriage would destroy it's
age old meaning and purpose -- the rump rider goal.
Numerous cases since 1967 involving alleged discrimination by the
state have always been settled in favor of the state when those
claiming discrimination could not show that there was any INTENDED
DISCRIMINATION on the part of the state.
The onus in on homosexuals to prove that the states are intentionally
discriminating against then in their marriage laws.
Rump riders can choose to marry if they find a suitable partner for a
biological union, same as anyone else.
Of course, that is just like saying that "straight people just haven't
found the right same-sex partner", or similarly ludicrous
postulations.
Tell us, how would destroying the age old institution of marriage
improve your relationship with your rump rider buddies?
It's your contention that a same sex marriage will somehow "destroy
the age old institution of marriage". I have yet to see any
compelling arguments in favour of that assertion.
As for what marriage does for a relationship, why don't you ask the
women/woman whose rump(s) you ride to tell you how marriage will
improve your relationship. I'm sure they/she could come up with
several reasons, though you may not accept them, since your definition
of marriage appears to be a sex act.
Marriage isn't a government handout program bucko.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent Norman" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 06:34:58 PM |
|
|
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFED1E4.4080805@hotmail.com>...
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFDBE4D.7050202@hotmail.com>...
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFD7091.8060809@hotmail.com>...
Juan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:50:33 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:52:47 GMT, a stranger
called by some Juan Horovitz came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:26:38 GMT, "Light Templar"
<I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote:
Try to provide a legal basis for what you said, take all the time you like.
No need to disprove drivel, as it will always be drivel. Further, your
drivel doesn't provide proof that extending legally recognized marriages to
homosexuals will destroy, in any way, shape, or form, marriage.
Provide an unchallengeable argument for states HAVING to recognizing
something that does not and never has existed; homo-marriage. The onus
is yours.
Not in the United States. Here, we follow the law.
Marrriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia, among others.)
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our
very existence and survival." -Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967)
Homosexual marriage is NOT "fundamental to our very existence and
survival." Homosexual marriage was not even considered in 1967.
Homosexual rump riding is not a "marriage" and can never be a marriage.
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding". Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Loving v. Virginia dealt strictly with racial discrimination and
racial discrimination ONLY. The marriage laws ever thereafter have
been void of all intensional discrimination.
A man and woman, male and female, of any races can unite in a sexual,
biological union. Two of either can not.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
We said that already. "Marriage." DUH! Big Red Truck!
Are you blond?
You said "a sexual, biological union"
You debased the definition of the institution of marriage into a
sexual act.
Sexual union certainly always has been an important part of marriage.
It is important, but most will agree that marriage is about a lot more
than a sex act. The way you talk about it, the only component to
marriage is a sexual union. Any married couple I know spend a VERY
SMALL percentage of their married lives with sex, as compared to other
pursuits and activities together. THey spend a lot more time talking,
or eating meals together than having sex. Sex is part of marriage,
but it is surely not the primary defining factor.
Taking the underlying sexual union out of marriage would destroy it's
age old meaning and purpose -- the rump rider goal.
Debasing marriage down to a sex act destroys it right there and then.
OK, please tell us the purpose of marriage.
Numerous cases since 1967 involving alleged discrimination by the
state have always been settled in favor of the state when those
claiming discrimination could not show that there was any INTENDED
DISCRIMINATION on the part of the state.
The onus in on homosexuals to prove that the states are intentionally
discriminating against then in their marriage laws.
Rump riders can choose to marry if they find a suitable partner for a
biological union, same as anyone else.
Of course, that is just like saying that "straight people just haven't
found the right same-sex partner", or similarly ludicrous
postulations.
Tell us, how would destroying the age old institution of marriage
improve your relationship with your rump rider buddies?
It's your contention that a same sex marriage will somehow "destroy
the age old institution of marriage". I have yet to see any
compelling arguments in favour of that assertion.
As for what marriage does for a relationship, why don't you ask the
women/woman whose rump(s) you ride to tell you how marriage will
improve your relationship. I'm sure they/she could come up with
several reasons, though you may not accept them, since your definition
of marriage appears to be a sex act.
Marriage isn't a government handout program bucko.
No it isn't , well at least not here in Canada. In Canada, married
couples actually have to pay MORE taxes in many cases. Clearly it
must be more than government handouts. Have you done that survey of
the woman/women whose rumps you ride, what marriage does for the
relationship? You didn't answer that one.
And once again I ask, exactly how will SSM "destroy the age old
institution of marriage"? Please be specific.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 07:24:04 PM |
|
|
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ad4b4f.0401091634.14544ec2@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FFED1E4.4080805@hotmail.com>...
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FFDBE4D.7050202@hotmail.com>...
Brent Norman wrote:
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FFD7091.8060809@hotmail.com>...
Juan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:50:33 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:52:47 GMT, a stranger
called by some Juan Horovitz came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:26:38 GMT, "Light Templar"
<I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote:
Try to provide a legal basis for what you said, take all the
time you like.
No need to disprove drivel, as it will always be drivel.
Further, your
drivel doesn't provide proof that extending legally recognized
marriages to
homosexuals will destroy, in any way, shape, or form, marriage.
Provide an unchallengeable argument for states HAVING to
recognizing
something that does not and never has existed; homo-marriage. The
onus
is yours.
Not in the United States. Here, we follow the law.
Marrriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia, among others.)
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to
our
very existence and survival." -Loving v. State of Virginia, (1967)
Homosexual marriage is NOT "fundamental to our very existence and
survival." Homosexual marriage was not even considered in 1967.
Homosexual rump riding is not a "marriage" and can never be a
marriage.
Neither is heterosexual "rump riding". Unlike you, most people know
that marriage is about a lot more than "rump riding", or as normal
people would say, marriage is about a lot more than sex.
Loving v. Virginia dealt strictly with racial discrimination and
racial discrimination ONLY. The marriage laws ever thereafter have
been void of all intensional discrimination.
A man and woman, male and female, of any races can unite in a
sexual,
biological union. Two of either can not.
What does that prove? A "Sexual, biological union", come on... say
what you really mean...
We said that already. "Marriage." DUH! Big Red Truck!
Are you blond?
You said "a sexual, biological union"
You debased the definition of the institution of marriage into a
sexual act.
Sexual union certainly always has been an important part of marriage.
It is important, but most will agree that marriage is about a lot more
than a sex act. The way you talk about it, the only component to
marriage is a sexual union. Any married couple I know spend a VERY
SMALL percentage of their married lives with sex, as compared to other
pursuits and activities together. THey spend a lot more time talking,
or eating meals together than having sex. Sex is part of marriage,
but it is surely not the primary defining factor.
Taking the underlying sexual union out of marriage would destroy it's
age old meaning and purpose -- the rump rider goal.
Debasing marriage down to a sex act destroys it right there and then.
OK, please tell us the purpose of marriage.
Numerous cases since 1967 involving alleged discrimination by the
state have always been settled in favor of the state when those
claiming discrimination could not show that there was any INTENDED
DISCRIMINATION on the part of the state.
The onus in on homosexuals to prove that the states are
intentionally
discriminating against then in their marriage laws.
Rump riders can choose to marry if they find a suitable partner for
a
biological union, same as anyone else.
Of course, that is just like saying that "straight people just
haven't
found the right same-sex partner", or similarly ludicrous
postulations.
Tell us, how would destroying the age old institution of marriage
improve your relationship with your rump rider buddies?
It's your contention that a same sex marriage will somehow "destroy
the age old institution of marriage". I have yet to see any
compelling arguments in favour of that assertion.
As for what marriage does for a relationship, why don't you ask the
women/woman whose rump(s) you ride to tell you how marriage will
improve your relationship. I'm sure they/she could come up with
several reasons, though you may not accept them, since your definition
of marriage appears to be a sex act.
Marriage isn't a government handout program bucko.
No it isn't , well at least not here in Canada. In Canada, married
couples actually have to pay MORE taxes in many cases. Clearly it
must be more than government handouts. Have you done that survey of
the woman/women whose rumps you ride, what marriage does for the
relationship? You didn't answer that one.
And once again I ask, exactly how will SSM "destroy the age old
institution of marriage"? Please be specific.
He can't be specific without admitting that he's just a closed minded bigot,
a closet case, or both.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 07:48:47 PM |
|
|
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ad4b4f.0401091634.14544ec2@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FFED1E4.4080805@hotmail.com>...
[snip]
It is important, but most will agree that marriage is about a lot more
than a sex act. The way you talk about it, the only component to
marriage is a sexual union.
To idiots like Boob, it's a penis and a vagina.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amelia M. Samples" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 07:48:31 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:btnlqn$9amd0$2@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ad4b4f.0401091634.14544ec2@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FFED1E4.4080805@hotmail.com>...
[snip]
It is important, but most will agree that marriage is about a lot more
than a sex act. The way you talk about it, the only component to
marriage is a sexual union.
To idiots like Boob, it's a penis and a vagina.
[snip]
More like just a penis. Bob's already said that the woman's enjoyment is
irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "curtsybear" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 10:59:22 AM |
|
|
In alt.politics.homosexuality Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brent Norman wrote:
You said "a sexual, biological union"
You debased the definition of the institution of marriage into a
sexual act.
Sexual union certainly always has been an important part of marriage.
Taking the underlying sexual union out of marriage would destroy it's
age old meaning and purpose -- the rump rider goal.
"Sexual union" seems to happen quite a bit outside of marriage -- which
has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuals, unless you think that
all those horny boyz and gurlz mating like bunnies are homosexual if
they do it outside of marriage.
How do you feel about the fact that sexual unions have NOTHING WHATSOEVER
TO DO WITH MARRIAGE, given that heterosexuals seem perfectly capable of
engaging in sex without getting married? How do you feel about the fact
that heterosexuals frequently seem to engage in sex outside of their
marriages WHILE MARRIED as well?
I think it would be best that we shouldn't let such types as those
nasty heterosexuals sully marriage by taking that sexual union outside
of the marital bounds. How would we accomplish this reintegration of
sexual union and marriage? Why we should outlaw heterosexual marriage!
At least that's what you're suggesting for the homosexuals. Sauce for
the goose AND gander, eh?
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"Some of them's kind of cute - but the homo's always puts the flamingo's
too close together and bends them over so they look like they're a
sniffing and a rimming on each other." -- Lurlean Tucker explains why
she sticks to garden gnomes when advising spiritual outdoor enhancement.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 12:52:38 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:08:04 -0700, a stranger
called by some Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
Sexual union certainly always has been an important part of marriage.
Except for paraplegics, people who get married while in prison,
soldiers who are married by radio to women at home (it has happened)
There is no requirement, legally, for married people to have sex in
any fashion.
Taking the underlying sexual union out of marriage would destroy it's
age old meaning and purpose -- the rump rider goal.
And again you try to introduce the idea that marriage is solely about
raising children. Something I discredited so thoroughly that you
killfiled me in response.
--
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: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
09 Jan 2004 10:42:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:32:13 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> added
the following words of wisdom:
Tell us, how would destroying the age old institution of marriage
improve your relationship with your rump rider buddies?
Why don't you tell us how homosexuals marrying would destroy your "age
old institution of marriage"?
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emi M Briet" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
08 Jan 2004 03:42:17 PM |
|
|
In article <3FFD7091.8060809@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rump riders can choose to marry if they find a suitable partner for a
biological union, same as anyone else.
Another failure to understand the concept.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage | | | |
