| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Buck" |
| Date: |
22 May 2005 10:23:06 PM |
| Object: |
Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have been
hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any seriously
cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have
been through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied
to a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of
course, one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be
allowed?" Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about.
There are certain religious practices which have been legalized for
certain specific religions, but not for the general public. Such as
the consumption of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native
americans can collect eagle feathers in certain areas while for a
non-native to do it could land them a fine, even if it was a
naturally-shed feather. In the case of _some_ things people might
claim as a religious freedom issue - such as the afore-mentioned
satanic sacrifice - it can be demonstrated that there are legitimate
social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be demonstrated that
there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or two
gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each other,
even though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily
by members of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared
checking accounts among family members), then there would be a
legitimate reason to suppress the practice. If it can't be shown that
society has any vested interest in suppressing the practice of
permitting people to enter legally binding contracts, then doing so is
demonstrably unreasonable and a clear violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
.
|
|
| User: "in His name" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
22 May 2005 08:01:44 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It
may have been hashed about before, but I've never
seen it phrased in any seriously cohesive way.
It has been raised numerous times, but that shouldn't even
slow you down. Another voice isn't just welcome, it's
necessary.
"So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be allowed?"
But there is a Satanic church. And they can perform
legal marriages. It is against the laws of the United
States to discriminate against anyone on the basis of
their membership within the Satanic church.
Apparently gay people are a bigger threat to Christianity
than Satan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 05:01:18 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 21:01:44 -0400, "in His name" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apparently gay people are a bigger threat to Christianity
than Satan.
Not if they are celibate.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 10:41:03 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote
"in His name" wrote:
Apparently gay people are a bigger threat to Christianity
than Satan.
Not if they are celibate.
There isn't a Christian on the Earth who agrees with you. Period.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 06:40:40 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rda3919i2fpkvgtoelouf09r2h3st4i26l@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 21:01:44 -0400, "in His name" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Apparently gay people are a bigger threat to Christianity
than Satan.
Not if they are celibate.
Is that because Satan is never celibate? Is that why so many demons exist?
If so, how would gays being celibate affect the number of gays in future
generations? Should gays be allowed t marry if they remain celibate?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 05:33:31 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 21:01:44 -0400, "in His name" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apparently gay people are a bigger threat to Christianity
than Satan.
Not if they are celibate.
*snicker*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
22 May 2005 10:28:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
<snip>
...demonstrably unreasonable and a clear violation of equal protection.
....in that it is interfering with the right of an individual to
practice their religion as they see fit when no vested public interest
in doing so has been proven, I mean.
Thoughts? :-?
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 06:40:42 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:qcj291lgrq0a5ovvp9hpogevb5m0f9e7nk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
<snip>
...demonstrably unreasonable and a clear violation of equal protection.
...in that it is interfering with the right of an individual to
practice their religion as they see fit when no vested public interest
in doing so has been proven, I mean.
Thoughts? :-?
The question is not whether gays should be allowed to have weddings, but
whether they should receive the civil protection of having the marriage
recognized by the State. A gay wedding would not necessarily be specific to
a particular religion. So religious discrimination is not he issue.
Dickscrimination because of sexual orientation is the issue. The U.S.
constitution does not specifically prohibit Dykescrimination .
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 10:40:54 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have been
hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any seriously
cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have
been through the years, as a religious rite
Because it is not a religious rite. Marriage is a legal contract with
both rights and obligations enforcable by law. No religious rite fits
that description in a secular country.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs no x, please" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 06:22:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have been
hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any seriously
cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have
been through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied
to a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair.
Because religion has NOTHING to do with it.
Of
course, one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be
allowed?"
I think the RSPCA would not accept that. It would encourage extremely
young girls to loose their virginity real fast though.
Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about.
Oh, I think goats don't quite agree here.
There are certain religious practices which have been legalized for
certain specific religions, but not for the general public.
That much is true. Otherwise halal killing of animals would be
prosecuted. (Another reason to support separation of church and
state!)
Such as the consumption of peyote buttons,
I don't think you need a religion for that in Holland.
or the fact that only native
americans can collect eagle feathers in certain areas while for a
non-native to do it could land them a fine, even if it was a
naturally-shed feather.
It's kind of hard to proof that. "Honest, officer. My feathers fell of
an eagle!"
In the case of _some_ things people might
claim as a religious freedom issue - such as the afore-mentioned
satanic sacrifice - it can be demonstrated that there are legitimate
social reasons for suppressing them.
As long as it does not interfere with common law. Kind of hard to rip
out a heart of a non quite dead goat and avoid a cruelty to animal
charge.
If it can be demonstrated that
there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or two
gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each other,
even though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily
by members of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared
checking accounts among family members), then there would be a
legitimate reason to suppress the practice.
Nonsense. Religion has nothing to do with it. If my partner dies, why
should his mother inherit OUR house? We've been together for better or
for worse well over 11 years. Had he or me been of the other gender
(but not both at the same time of course) I inherit OUR house
automatically. However, common law does not allow for that.
I don't think a lot of people here are interested in any kind of
church wedding whatsoever. This is alt.atheism, remember?
All we ask for is equal treatment. Do whatever you want in your
church.
If it can't be shown that
society has any vested interest in suppressing the practice of
permitting people to enter legally binding contracts, then doing so is
demonstrably unreasonable and a clear violation of equal protection.
Yes. What you suggest is a kind of second rate marriage law for gays,
and superior rate for straights.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 02:38:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have been
hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any seriously
cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have
been through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied
to a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair.
Because the Christofascist-neocon-RepubliCUNTfaction wants to redefine
and impose their religion-based idea of "marriage" on everyone through
secular law.
"Back in the seventies when school bussing was the hot-button issue
that united the xenophobes, the matter was nicely summed up by Jesse
Jackson who explained -- ÔIt ain't the bus, it's us.Õ It ain't
marriage, it's us -- be reminded that homophobia bears the word
ÔirrationalÔ at the core of its definition -- the opponents to this
particular aspect of civil rights for Gays and Lesbians are clearly
little interested in het marriage which would be affected in NO WAY
WHATSOEVER. What is driving them to devise new definitions of
marriage, each one subtly excluding, (while in a wax over the
imaginary ÔchangingÔ of marriage) us for seemingly disinterested
reasons comes down to one thing -- this is not about marriage it is
about how profoundly they hate us." -- Ward Stewart, posted to APH,
July 5, 2001
Many churches, such as UU, MCC, Reformed Mormons (no joke) already
perform religious-ritual SSM's (same-sex marriages). BUT -- if the
Christofascists try to control what those churches do in their
sanctuaries, the Christofascists know that they'll be the next group
to be controlled in that way.
Besides, it's far more effective when the Christofascists try to
change/re-write/redefine the laws so that everyone is forced to live,
at least in public, according to their sick, fucked-up, cultic dogma.
There's also the issue of having a common enemy --
Nothing unites a mob like a common enemy.
And what is currently uniting the Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholics,
Fred Phelps, and conservative Episcopalians?
Answer: they all hate GLBT people.
All the aforementioned have created this imaginary "boogey-man," in
the form of "those icky and eeeeevil gays." From Catholic
pronouncements from church officials from the Vatican on down to
evangelical whores like Anita Bryant, the message is the same.
And one day, all those churches are going to regret getting into bed
with each other, in their ideological orgy of hate.
p. 158, Invitation to Sociology, Peter L. Berger
The persecution of homosexuals fulfills the same function of "bad
faith"
as racial prejudice or discrimination. In both cases one's shaky
identity
is guaranteed by the counterimage of the despised group. As Sarte has
shown in his description of the anti-Semite, one legitimates oneself
by
hating the figure one has set up as the opposite of oneself. The white
man
despises the Negro and in that very act confirms his own identity as
one
entitled to show contempt. In the same way, one comes to believe in
one's
own dubious virility as one spits upon the homosexual.
Ein Prosit der GemŸtlichkeit --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 07:04:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have been
hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any seriously
cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to a
certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be allowed?"
Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about. There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption of
peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of _some_
things people might claim as a religious freedom issue - such as the
afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or two
gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human beings.
Despite the rhetoric from the Xtian fascists, "special treatment" is
exactly what they DON'T want.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 07:11:36 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have been
hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any seriously
cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to a
certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be allowed?"
Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about. There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption of
peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of _some_
things people might claim as a religious freedom issue - such as the
afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or two
gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by
members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else, they'd
realize they already have that.
Despite the rhetoric from the Xtian fascists, "special treatment" is
exactly what they DON'T want.
Despite your fascist denial, they want special rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 08:47:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have been
hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any seriously
cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to a
certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be allowed?"
Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about. There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption of
peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of _some_
things people might claim as a religious freedom issue - such as the
afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or two
gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by
members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else, they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Despite the rhetoric from the Xtian fascists, "special treatment" is
exactly what they DON'T want.
Despite your fascist denial, they want special rights.
It is truly uncanny how the Xtian Morality Police can take a group
that is trying to receive equal treatment under the law, which they
clearly do not have, and label them as wanting "special rights." Just
like the way blacks wanted "special rights" so they could ride on
buses in any seat they wanted, and send their children to the same
schools as white children. I guess the idea of the "uppity *****"
has been modernized a bit, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
23 May 2005 09:15:43 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have been
hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any seriously
cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have
been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to a
certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of
course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be allowed?"
Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about. There are
certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption of
peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can collect
eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could land
them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of _some_
things people might claim as a religious freedom issue - such as the
afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be demonstrated that there
are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or two
gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each other,
even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by
members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Despite the rhetoric from the Xtian fascists, "special treatment" is
exactly what they DON'T want.
Despite your fascist denial, they want special rights.
It is truly uncanny how the Xtian Morality Police
No such group kid, try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 06:28:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have
been hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any
seriously cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have
been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to a
certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of
course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be allowed?"
Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about. There are
certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption
of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can collect
eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could land
them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of
_some_ things people might claim as a religious freedom issue - such
as the afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be demonstrated
that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or
two gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each
other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by
members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else, like,
say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Are you ignorant, a deliberate liar, or just enjoy rhetorical games? In
the USA, gays cannot marry each other and have their marriage recognized
in every state. Ergo, they cannot "marry just like anyone else." In
fact, several states have lately amended their constitutions to
specifically bar gay marriage.
Despite the rhetoric from the Xtian fascists, "special treatment" is
exactly what they DON'T want.
Despite your fascist denial, they want special rights.
It is truly uncanny how the Xtian Morality Police
No such group kid, try again.
There is, it just doesn't have a charter....yet.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 07:40:41 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.11.28.24.272305@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have
been hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any
seriously cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects have
been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to a
certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of
course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be allowed?"
Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about. There are
certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption
of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can collect
eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could land
them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of
_some_ things people might claim as a religious freedom issue - such
as the afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be demonstrated
that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or
two gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each
other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by
members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else, like,
say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Are you ignorant, a deliberate liar, or just enjoy rhetorical games?
Guess you only have LIES to post. Come back when you learn how to debate
RATIONALLY.
Cheers!
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 05:30:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:40:41 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.11.28.24.272305@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have
been hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any
seriously cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects
have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to
a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of
course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be
allowed?" Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about.
There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption
of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can
collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could
land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of
_some_ things people might claim as a religious freedom issue -
such as the afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be
demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or
two gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each
other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by
members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Are you ignorant, a deliberate liar, or just enjoy rhetorical games?
Guess you only have LIES to post. Come back when you learn how to debate
RATIONALLY.
Cheers!
Well, that was informative. I don't see how asking a question constitutes
a LIE [sic], but I wouldn't expect an intelligent answer from you.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 05:33:13 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.22.30.45.393891@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:40:41 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.11.28.24.272305@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have
been hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any
seriously cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects
have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to
a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of
course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be
allowed?" Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about.
There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption
of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can
collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could
land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of
_some_ things people might claim as a religious freedom issue -
such as the afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be
demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or
two gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each
other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by
members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Are you ignorant, a deliberate liar, or just enjoy rhetorical games?
Guess you only have LIES to post. Come back when you learn how to debate
RATIONALLY.
Cheers!
Well, that was informative.
You are welcome. Next time, TRY to be at least rational, if not mature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
26 May 2005 06:54:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:33:13 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.22.30.45.393891@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:40:41 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.11.28.24.272305@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<noneya@youwish.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have
been hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any
seriously cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects
have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied
to a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair.
Of course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be
allowed?" Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about.
There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain
specific religions, but not for the general public. Such as the
consumption of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native
americans can collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could
land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of
_some_ things people might claim as a religious freedom issue -
such as the afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be
demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys
or two gals from entering into a legally binding contract with
each other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily
by members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State"
when Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone
else, like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Are you ignorant, a deliberate liar, or just enjoy rhetorical games?
Guess you only have LIES to post. Come back when you learn how to
debate RATIONALLY.
Cheers!
Well, that was informative.
You are welcome. Next time, TRY to be at least rational, if not mature.
Yes. Next time I sign up for lessons in mature rationality, I'll be sure
to look you up.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
26 May 2005 06:58:08 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.26.11.54.57.113924@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:33:13 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.22.30.45.393891@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:40:41 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.11.28.24.272305@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<noneya@youwish.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have
been hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any
seriously cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects
have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied
to a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair.
Of course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be
allowed?" Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about.
There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain
specific religions, but not for the general public. Such as the
consumption of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native
americans can collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could
land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of
_some_ things people might claim as a religious freedom issue -
such as the afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be
demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys
or two gals from entering into a legally binding contract with
each other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily
by members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State"
when Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone
else, like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Are you ignorant, a deliberate liar, or just enjoy rhetorical games?
Guess you only have LIES to post. Come back when you learn how to
debate RATIONALLY.
Cheers!
Well, that was informative.
You are welcome. Next time, TRY to be at least rational, if not mature.
Yes. Next time I sign up for lessons in mature rationality, I'll be sure
to look you up.
Sign up soon!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 05:35:34 PM |
|
|
Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.22.30.45.393891@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:40:41 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.11.28.24.272305@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have
been hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any
seriously cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects
have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied to
a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair. Of
course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be
allowed?" Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about.
There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain specific
religions, but not for the general public. Such as the consumption
of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native americans can
collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could
land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of
_some_ things people might claim as a religious freedom issue -
such as the afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be
demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys or
two gals from entering into a legally binding contract with each
other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily by
members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Are you ignorant, a deliberate liar, or just enjoy rhetorical games?
Guess you only have LIES to post. Come back when you learn how to debate
RATIONALLY.
Cheers!
Well, that was informative.
You are welcome. Next time, TRY to be at least rational, if not mature.
We never expect rational discourse when it comes to you, Sir. Why should
you expect it if you can't provide it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
26 May 2005 06:59:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:35:34 +0000, DanielSan wrote:
Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.22.30.45.393891@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:40:41 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.11.28.24.272305@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stpsa.com> wrote in message
news:cg1591lp3kmdolovvaajrnkvv7ervti6ee@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:11:36 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<noneya@youwish.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.23.12.04.14.974324@stopspam.net...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:06 -0700, Uncle Buck wrote:
This is just a thought I'm going to throw out there. It may have
been hashed about before, but I've never seen it phrased in any
seriously cohesive way.
Why could not gay marriage be approached as many other subjects
have been
through the years, as a religious rite that should not be denied
to a certain class of people just because it's a minority affair.
Of course,
one can always say, "So why shouldn't satanic sacrifices be
allowed?" Just stop there, this isn't murder we're talking about.
There are certain
religious practices which have been legalized for certain
specific religions, but not for the general public. Such as the
consumption of peyote buttons, or the fact that only native
americans can collect eagle
feathers in certain areas while for a non-native to do it could
land them
a fine, even if it was a naturally-shed feather. In the case of
_some_ things people might claim as a religious freedom issue -
such as the afore-mentioned satanic sacrifice - it can be
demonstrated that there are
legitimate social reasons for suppressing them. If it can be
demonstrated
that there is a legitimate social reason for preventing two guys
or two gals from entering into a legally binding contract with
each other, even
though similar legally binding contracts are entered into daily
by members
of the same gender (such as power of attorney or shared checking
accounts
among family members), then there would be a legitimate reason to
suppress
the practice. If it can't be shown that society has any vested
interest
in suppressing the practice of permitting people to enter legally
binding
contracts, then doing so is demonstrably unreasonable and a clear
violation of equal protection.
Thoughts? :-?
As far as I can tell, Gays want to be treated like (*gasp*) human
beings.
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone
else, they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State"
when Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone
else, like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Are you ignorant, a deliberate liar, or just enjoy rhetorical games?
Guess you only have LIES to post. Come back when you learn how to
debate RATIONALLY.
Cheers!
Well, that was informative.
You are welcome. Next time, TRY to be at least rational, if not mature.
We never expect rational discourse when it comes to you, Sir. Why should
you expect it if you can't provide it?
He appears to enjoy using words in unusual ways: He insists that gays can
marry each other, when clearly they cannot. When asked for an explanation
of his clearly false statement, he labels the question as a LIE. He may
well be one of those people who go thru life wondering why everyone around
them seems to make no sense, oblivious to the fact that the problem is
THEM!
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
26 May 2005 08:15:26 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:59:01 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:35:34 +0000, DanielSan wrote:
Sir Marksman wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.22.30.45.393891@stopspam.net...
snip
We never expect rational discourse when it comes to you, Sir. Why should
you expect it if you can't provide it?
He appears to enjoy using words in unusual ways: He insists that gays can
marry each other, when clearly they cannot. When asked for an explanation
of his clearly false statement, he labels the question as a LIE. He may
well be one of those people who go thru life wondering why everyone around
them seems to make no sense, oblivious to the fact that the problem is
THEM!
I suspect that he delibrately responds with pointless inanities, and
that he is not very bright. He resembles a little boy who is
determined to be annoying. He is a waste of time.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 08:57:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Just like pre-1965 Blacks could ride the bus just like anyone else?
Or
Like pre- Loving v. State of Virginia Blacks could marry just like
anyone else (any white could marry any white, and any black could
marry any black)?
Are you really so blinded by your hate/fear that you cannot see?
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 08:59:26 AM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:1ic691hgio6q0ala08o2ufd54u62jsphlh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Just like pre-1965 Blacks could ride the bus just like anyone else?
Off topic. Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 01:46:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:59:26 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:1ic691hgio6q0ala08o2ufd54u62jsphlh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Just like pre-1965 Blacks could ride the bus just like anyone else?
Off topic. Try again.
A valid comparison is not off topic, and it was a valid comparison -
one that you appear unable to face.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
24 May 2005 04:16:14 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:tls6919b626dov8vcvhab0hii6qhnpl9t0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:59:26 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:1ic691hgio6q0ala08o2ufd54u62jsphlh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Just like pre-1965 Blacks could ride the bus just like anyone else?
Off topic. Try again.
A valid comparison is not off topic,
It was not valid.
Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
25 May 2005 12:20:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:16:14 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:tls6919b626dov8vcvhab0hii6qhnpl9t0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:59:26 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:1ic691hgio6q0ala08o2ufd54u62jsphlh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State" when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Just like pre-1965 Blacks could ride the bus just like anyone else?
Off topic. Try again.
A valid comparison is not off topic,
It was not valid.
Try again.
No need to. The comparison is very inconvenient for you, but that
does not make it invalid. A group of citizens were not being allowed
to exercise their civil rights and arguments that were found to be
invalid were used to justify it. Today quite similar arguments are
being used against another group of citizens. You and others try to
wave it away by pointing out irrelevancies such as one grouping was
based on race and the one now is based on sexual orientation. The
only relevant point is that both groups are made up of citizens, which
is why the first group won in court not because it was a racial group.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
25 May 2005 12:23:08 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:c37891pll81ggn0sua7uoi5qdnnte496bq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:16:14 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:tls6919b626dov8vcvhab0hii6qhnpl9t0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:59:26 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:1ic691hgio6q0ala08o2ufd54u62jsphlh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State"
when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Just like pre-1965 Blacks could ride the bus just like anyone else?
Off topic. Try again.
A valid comparison is not off topic,
It was not valid.
Try again.
No need to.
I accept your surrender.
Cheers!
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage linked to religious freedom? |
25 May 2005 03:21:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:23:08 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:c37891pll81ggn0sua7uoi5qdnnte496bq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:16:14 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:tls6919b626dov8vcvhab0hii6qhnpl9t0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:59:26 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:1ic691hgio6q0ala08o2ufd54u62jsphlh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Sir Marksman" <noneya@youwish.com>
wrote:
You are blind then. If they wanted to be treated like everyone else,
they'd
realize they already have that.
Well, I guess I must have been in a "Temporary Vegetative State"
when
Bush signed the law giving gays the same rights as everyone else,
like, say, getting married. To each other.
Gays can marry just like anyone else. How did you miss that?
Just like pre-1965 Blacks could ride the bus just like anyone else?
Off topic. Try again.
A valid comparison is not off topic,
It was not valid.
Try again.
No need to.
I accept your surrender.
Cheers!
Pathetic display of dishonesty.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
