| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dennis Jones" |
| Date: |
03 Dec 2003 08:19:01 AM |
| Object: |
IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
LA,CA
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
03 Dec 2003 09:23:44 AM |
|
|
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
LA,CA
If I had sex on the Metro, does that make me a Metrosexual?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
03 Dec 2003 10:13:46 AM |
|
|
Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
LA,CA
If I had sex on the Metro, does that make me a Metrosexual?
Again we see the pettiness of the conservative mind, that the
denial of human rights to children is treated as no different than
a rut on a train. Can't you think of any but yourselves?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
03 Dec 2003 10:49:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:23:44 GMT, "Dr. DuFonet"
<accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
LA,CA
If I had sex on the Metro, does that make me a Metrosexual?
No, all you must do is "feel" for them and identify with this poor
downtrodden group. You don't actually have to *do* anything for them.
It's all about how you feel about it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
03 Dec 2003 11:20:53 AM |
|
|
The Frog wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:23:44 GMT, "Dr. DuFonet"
<accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
LA,CA
If I had sex on the Metro, does that make me a Metrosexual?
No, all you must do is "feel" for them and identify with this poor
downtrodden group. You don't actually have to *do* anything for them.
It's all about how you feel about it.
This coming from one who keeps asking how many there are
to see if they count as human beings. It is obvious you do not
even see them as human beings, let alone have the same right
as heterosexuals to equally marry.
If the only legal marriage is one between a man and a woman
then a hermaphrodites, nor the other intersexuals can legally
marry at all. It is obvious you don't "feel" for them at all.
More frog tears.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
03 Dec 2003 05:09:48 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
05 Dec 2003 04:08:47 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<03uzb.68976$I53.3129788@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
AFAIK, the transgendered and transsexuals, and
possibly hermaphrodites as well.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
05 Dec 2003 01:35:08 PM |
|
|
Bob Dog wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<03uzb.68976$I53.3129788@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
AFAIK, the transgendered and transsexuals, and
possibly hermaphrodites as well.
Again conservatives prove that bigotry is born of ignorance.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
03 Dec 2003 06:07:56 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
Proof bigotry is born of ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
04 Dec 2003 04:41:21 AM |
|
|
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCE7629.C1250038@nospam.com...
Fester wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
Proof bigotry is born of ignorance.
Defensive ... much? You throw words around like bigot, but you know nothing
about me. What's the matter, too ashamed of yourself to answer a simple
question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
04 Dec 2003 11:09:10 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCE7629.C1250038@nospam.com...
Fester wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
Proof bigotry is born of ignorance.
Defensive ... much? You throw words around like bigot, but you know nothing
about me. What's the matter, too ashamed of yourself to answer a simple
question?
Yes yes, this is the newest attempt of conservatives to twist
a word or phrase around to throw it back at the user. When
in fact by your definition as you use the word a slave would be
a bigot for demanding equal right and equal treatment. That the
slave is a bigot because he is intolerant of his masters intolerance.
How dare he. The only ones with a homosexual agenda are your
lot (you Trent Lott) the homosexual agenda of hate.
And once again I am called a ***** lover for fighting for the rights
of others. If not for bigotry why ask if I am ashamed of myself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
06 Dec 2003 10:36:25 AM |
|
|
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCF655C.100B295B@nospam.com...
Fester wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCE7629.C1250038@nospam.com...
Fester wrote:
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FCDEC74.F97637F7@nospam.com...
"Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be
asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If
intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will
null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right
to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment,
they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not
be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between
an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals
cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban
Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children
you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a
human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that
intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his
Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks
need not apply.
Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a
"All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally.
And the ratings were more important than human lives to the
news media, and when they came for you bastards there was no
one left. Hope you love the world you made.
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
Proof bigotry is born of ignorance.
Defensive ... much? You throw words around like bigot, but you know
nothing
about me. What's the matter, too ashamed of yourself to answer a simple
question?
Yes yes, this is the newest attempt of conservatives to twist
a word or phrase around to throw it back at the user. When
in fact by your definition as you use the word a slave would be
a bigot for demanding equal right and equal treatment. That the
slave is a bigot because he is intolerant of his masters intolerance.
How dare he. The only ones with a homosexual agenda are your
lot (you Trent Lott) the homosexual agenda of hate.
And once again I am called a ***** lover for fighting for the rights
of others. If not for bigotry why ask if I am ashamed of myself?
You're a hoot! You post this impassioned plea for equal rights for
"intersexuals" and you won't even defint eh term when asked. But do go on,
please tell me how I'm oppressing your sorry *****. It's funny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "193.2 CLAYTON FM...\Shits and Memories" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
06 Dec 2003 07:07:48 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:dAnAb.83765$Vu5.4576685@twister.southeast.rr.com...
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
An intersexual is someone who had characteristics of both male and
female...sometimes at a genetic level (XXY). The most well known type of
intersexual is hermaphrodites, but it's wider ranging than that. I was
reading an article about it the other day, but I'm not digging through the
rubbish to find it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
09 Dec 2003 05:26:07 PM |
|
|
"193.2 CLAYTON FM..."Shits and Memories"" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au>
wrote in message news:3fd27d2a$0$20185$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:dAnAb.83765$Vu5.4576685@twister.southeast.rr.com...
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
An intersexual is someone who had characteristics of both male and
female...sometimes at a genetic level (XXY). The most well known type of
intersexual is hermaphrodites, but it's wider ranging than that. I was
reading an article about it the other day, but I'm not digging through the
rubbish to find it.
TY for letting me in o the secret 8-) FWIW, I say let them declare
themselves to be whatever gender they want, and marry whomever of the
opposite sex they choose. But I guess that's a hard, right-wing, oppressive
stance to take.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
09 Dec 2003 06:34:03 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
TY for letting me in o the secret 8-) FWIW, I say let them
declare themselves to be whatever gender they want, and
marry whomever of the opposite sex they choose.
Especially now, when you're talking about intersexuals the way
you are here, even the idiots & trolls can see what a useless,
idiotic troll you are.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "193.2 CLAYTON FM...\Shits and Memories" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
10 Dec 2003 02:32:32 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:jSsBb.96685$I53.4803768@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"193.2 CLAYTON FM..."Shits and Memories"" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au>
wrote in message news:3fd27d2a$0$20185$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:dAnAb.83765$Vu5.4576685@twister.southeast.rr.com...
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
An intersexual is someone who had characteristics of both male and
female...sometimes at a genetic level (XXY). The most well known type
of
intersexual is hermaphrodites, but it's wider ranging than that. I was
reading an article about it the other day, but I'm not digging through
the
rubbish to find it.
TY for letting me in o the secret 8-) FWIW, I say let them declare
themselves to be whatever gender they want, and marry whomever of the
opposite sex they choose. But I guess that's a hard, right-wing,
oppressive
stance to take.
As long as it is an honest, loving, supportive, long term relationship
between consenting human adults, I say let them marry who they love and live
happily ever after. This whole "it will destroy marriage" crap is laughable
to anyone living in the real world. I know a gay couple who have been in a
loving, monogamous relationship for 37 years, yet aren't allowed to marry.
I also know a heterosexual couple who married (after knowing each other for
6 months in which both of them had heaps of affairs) and broke up 3 and a
half weeks after their legal, church approved and sanctified marriage.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
09 Dec 2003 08:37:29 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"193.2 CLAYTON FM..."Shits and Memories"" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au>
wrote in message news:3fd27d2a$0$20185$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:dAnAb.83765$Vu5.4576685@twister.southeast.rr.com...
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
An intersexual is someone who had characteristics of both male and
female...sometimes at a genetic level (XXY). The most well known type of
intersexual is hermaphrodites, but it's wider ranging than that. I was
reading an article about it the other day, but I'm not digging through the
rubbish to find it.
TY for letting me in o the secret 8-) FWIW, I say let them declare
themselves to be whatever gender they want, and marry whomever of the
opposite sex they choose.
Always a double standard with your lot (you Trent Lott) you would
allow them a special compensation but not allow transsexuals the
same right nor homosexuals the same right, to just call themselves
whatever they like so they too can marry. Always a double standard,
always a special status for yourselves, always a special right
for yourselves.
But I guess that's a hard, right-wing, oppressive
stance to take.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
10 Dec 2003 06:33:20 AM |
|
|
"Dennis Jones" <Jones@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FD67FF5.79E50888@nospam.com...
Fester wrote:
"193.2 CLAYTON FM..."Shits and Memories""
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au>
wrote in message news:3fd27d2a$0$20185$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:dAnAb.83765$Vu5.4576685@twister.southeast.rr.com...
So WTF is an "intersexual?"
An intersexual is someone who had characteristics of both male and
female...sometimes at a genetic level (XXY). The most well known type
of
intersexual is hermaphrodites, but it's wider ranging than that. I
was
reading an article about it the other day, but I'm not digging through
the
rubbish to find it.
TY for letting me in o the secret 8-) FWIW, I say let them declare
themselves to be whatever gender they want, and marry whomever of the
opposite sex they choose.
Always a double standard with your lot (you Trent Lott) you would
allow them a special compensation but not allow transsexuals the
same right nor homosexuals the same right, to just call themselves
whatever they like so they too can marry. Always a double standard,
always a special status for yourselves, always a special right
for yourselves.
Ther you go again, assuming the worst of people. I only spoke about how I
thought "intersexuals" should be accommodated and you go on to tell me about
how I want to "oppress" others not in that group. No wonder you're so
bitter and angry at the world. I think that transexuals ought to be able to
declae themselves to belong to their new gender and be allowed to marry
someone of the opposite sex too.
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage is a legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution asserts no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of courts to decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
10 Dec 2003 04:03:18 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage is a legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution asserts no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of courts to decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck down bans on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able to define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result in racial
discrimination, so be it.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
10 Dec 2003 06:03:10 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage is a legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution asserts no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of courts to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck down bans on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able to define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result in racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy to be a minor
irritant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
11 Dec 2003 09:47:04 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage is a legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution asserts no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of courts to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck down bans on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able to define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result in racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy to be a minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
11 Dec 2003 05:31:21 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage is a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of courts to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck down bans on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able to define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result in racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy to be a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be brief. Denial of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman (who are both
unmarried) does not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
11 Dec 2003 08:52:43 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage is a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck down bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy to be a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be brief. Denial of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman (who are both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on gender, the
analogy stands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
12 Dec 2003 01:59:43 AM |
|
|
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:%3aCb.8347$_r6.6724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage is
a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of
courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck down bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy to be a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be brief. Denial of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman (who are both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on gender, the
analogy stands.
BS. The law applies to all. Any man can marry any woman. Be they straight
or gay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
12 Dec 2003 04:40:49 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:PzeCb.133908$dl.5130816@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:%3aCb.8347$_r6.6724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage
is
a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of
courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck down
bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy to be
a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be brief. Denial
of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman (who are
both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on gender, the
analogy stands.
BS. The law applies to all. Any man can marry any woman. Be they
straight
or gay.
BS. The law applies to all. Any person can marry a member of their own
race. Be they
white or black.
Same difference. And just this argument was made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
12 Dec 2003 06:13:45 AM |
|
|
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:RWgCb.214$Pg1.119@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:PzeCb.133908$dl.5130816@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:%3aCb.8347$_r6.6724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing. Marriage
is
a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of
courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or
isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck down
bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy to
be
a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be brief.
Denial
of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman (who are
both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on gender, the
analogy stands.
BS. The law applies to all. Any man can marry any woman. Be they
straight
or gay.
BS. The law applies to all. Any person can marry a member of their own
race. Be they
white or black.
Same difference. And just this argument was made.
Wrong again. The words, "of their own race" violates the 14th. Without
that qualifier, equal protection is served.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
12 Dec 2003 06:19:15 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZhiCb.100878$Vu5.6910383@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:RWgCb.214$Pg1.119@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:PzeCb.133908$dl.5130816@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:%3aCb.8347$_r6.6724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing.
Marriage
is
a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our
Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach of
courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or
isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck
down
bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be able
to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to result
in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy to
be
a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be brief.
Denial
of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause of the
14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman (who
are
both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on gender,
the
analogy stands.
BS. The law applies to all. Any man can marry any woman. Be they
straight
or gay.
BS. The law applies to all. Any person can marry a member of their
own
race. Be they
white or black.
Same difference. And just this argument was made.
Wrong again. The words, "of their own race" violates the 14th. Without
that qualifier, equal protection is served.
No more or less than "of their opposite gender" violates the 14th. Without
that qualifier, equal protection
is served.
Same difference, different attribute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
12 Dec 2003 06:55:42 AM |
|
|
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:7niCb.94$0s2.39@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZhiCb.100878$Vu5.6910383@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:RWgCb.214$Pg1.119@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:PzeCb.133908$dl.5130816@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:%3aCb.8347$_r6.6724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing.
Marriage
is
a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our
Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the reach
of
courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is or
isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck
down
bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be
able
to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to
result
in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false analogy
to
be
a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be brief.
Denial
of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause of
the
14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman (who
are
both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on gender,
the
analogy stands.
BS. The law applies to all. Any man can marry any woman. Be they
straight
or gay.
BS. The law applies to all. Any person can marry a member of their
own
race. Be they
white or black.
Same difference. And just this argument was made.
Wrong again. The words, "of their own race" violates the 14th. Without
that qualifier, equal protection is served.
No more or less than "of their opposite gender" violates the 14th.
Without
that qualifier, equal protection
is served.
Same difference, different attribute.
Yes it is a different attribute. A legally permissable one. Gays can get
married just like normal people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
12 Dec 2003 04:35:58 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:iViCb.133931$dl.5153106@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:7niCb.94$0s2.39@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZhiCb.100878$Vu5.6910383@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:RWgCb.214$Pg1.119@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:PzeCb.133908$dl.5130816@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:%3aCb.8347$_r6.6724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing.
Marriage
is
a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our
Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the
reach
of
courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is
or
isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court struck
down
bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be
able
to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to
result
in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false
analogy
to
be
a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be brief.
Denial
of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause of
the
14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman
(who
are
both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on
gender,
the
analogy stands.
BS. The law applies to all. Any man can marry any woman. Be
they
straight
or gay.
BS. The law applies to all. Any person can marry a member of
their
own
race. Be they
white or black.
Same difference. And just this argument was made.
Wrong again. The words, "of their own race" violates the 14th.
Without
that qualifier, equal protection is served.
No more or less than "of their opposite gender" violates the 14th.
Without
that qualifier, equal protection
is served.
Same difference, different attribute.
Yes it is a different attribute. A legally permissable one.
That remains to be seen, so far, the courts have consistently disagreed with
you.
Gays can get
married just like normal people.
Like it or not, Gays are normal people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
12 Dec 2003 10:03:53 PM |
|
|
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:iprCb.1057$Pg1.832@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:iViCb.133931$dl.5153106@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:7niCb.94$0s2.39@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZhiCb.100878$Vu5.6910383@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:RWgCb.214$Pg1.119@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:PzeCb.133908$dl.5130816@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:%3aCb.8347$_r6.6724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing.
Marriage
is
a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our
Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the
reach
of
courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage is
or
isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court
struck
down
bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should be
able
to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to
result
in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false
analogy
to
be
a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be
brief.
Denial
of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause
of
the
14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman
(who
are
both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on
gender,
the
analogy stands.
BS. The law applies to all. Any man can marry any woman. Be
they
straight
or gay.
BS. The law applies to all. Any person can marry a member of
their
own
race. Be they
white or black.
Same difference. And just this argument was made.
Wrong again. The words, "of their own race" violates the 14th.
Without
that qualifier, equal protection is served.
No more or less than "of their opposite gender" violates the 14th.
Without
that qualifier, equal protection
is served.
Same difference, different attribute.
Yes it is a different attribute. A legally permissable one.
That remains to be seen, so far, the courts have consistently disagreed
with
you.
What planet do you live on? The only court that has agreed with you,
pending it's appeal is in Ma.
Gays can get
married just like normal people.
Like it or not, Gays are normal people.
Nope. Normal people are heterosexual. The ratio is about 20 to 1.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" |
12 Dec 2003 10:18:54 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:JcwCb.133445$I53.5589931@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:iprCb.1057$Pg1.832@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:iViCb.133931$dl.5153106@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:7niCb.94$0s2.39@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZhiCb.100878$Vu5.6910383@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:RWgCb.214$Pg1.119@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:PzeCb.133908$dl.5130816@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:%3aCb.8347$_r6.6724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:d77Cb.131307$dl.5030852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0312110747.580d3ed2@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<2vOBb.91975$Vu5.6283985@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in
message
news:d735d9de.0312101403.3d0e1e51@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<koEBb.91250$Vu5.6119265@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
As for same-sex marriages, there is no such thing.
Marriage
is
a
legal
definition, defined by state legislatures. Our
Constitution
asserts
no
right to marriage for anyone, so it is beyond the
reach
of
courts
to
decide.
It is up to our legislatures to say what marriage
is
or
isn't.
But there I go, oppressing people again!
It must have really pissed you off when The Court
struck
down
bans
on
inter-racial marriage. Afterall, the states should
be
able
to
define
marriage anyway they want to, and if that happens to
result
in
racial
discrimination, so be it.
No it didn't ***** me off. But I do find your false
analogy
to
be
a
minor
irritant.
Why is the analogy false?
Lacking the enthusiasm to belabor the obvious, I'll be
brief.
Denial
of
inter-racial marriage violates the equal protection clause
of
the
14
ammendment. A law which allows any man to marry any woman
(who
are
both
unmarried) does not.
There is no difference, one is based on race, the other on
gender,
the
analogy stands.
BS. The law applies to all. Any man can marry any woman. Be
they
straight
or gay.
BS. The law applies to all. Any person can marry a member of
their
own
race. Be they
white or black.
Same difference. And just this argument was made.
Wrong again. The words, "of their own race" violates the 14th.
Without
that qualifier, equal protection is served.
No more or less than "of their opposite gender" violates the 14th.
Without
that qualifier, equal protection
is served.
Same difference, different attribute.
Yes it is a different attribute. A legally permissable one.
That remains to be seen, so far, the courts have consistently disagreed
with
you.
What planet do you live on? The only court that has agreed with you,
pending it's appeal is in Ma.
I think you'd better come to my planet, because your planet seems to be in
error.
Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, Massachusetts, are where the courts have all
agreed.
Gays can get
married just like normal people.
Like it or not, Gays are normal people.
Nope. Normal people are heterosexual. The ratio is about 20 to 1.
Nope, homosexuals are normal too, whether you like it or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
