Lo, many moons past, on 10 Apr 2004 16:42:13 GMT, a stranger called by
some Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism

Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:4a6g705gb6dl456l4474qlas3q2u0tl1qk@4ax.com:

Nope. They cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice.

Neither can heterosexuals.

Certainly they can! Care to provide some examples, with cites, of
consenting heterosexuals who cannot marry?

That violates the 14th Amendment.

No, it doesn't.

Sorry, but the Supreme Courts of four states disagree.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"

Blacks are born black, nobody is born a *****.

Stay stupid.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:18:04 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:

On 10 Apr 2004 02:47:20 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:j8he70hvtf8s1krkf67qlc3bccce9796jt@4ax.com:

Lo, many moons past, on 9 Apr 2004 20:12:14 GMT, a stranger called by
some Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism

What does same-sex "marriage" have to do with equal rights?

Ask the Supreme Court. They wrote Loving v. Virginia and made it
clear that marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as everybody else.

That is what Virginia said about Blacks and for the same reasons.
Virgina lost the case.

Blacks are born black, nobody is born a *****.

Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:mqef70le3ied44r1frl9rege8jo4sun6ur@4ax.com:

On 10 Apr 2004 02:47:20 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:j8he70hvtf8s1krkf67qlc3bccce9796jt@4ax.com:

Lo, many moons past, on 9 Apr 2004 20:12:14 GMT, a stranger called by
some Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism

What does same-sex "marriage" have to do with equal rights?

Ask the Supreme Court. They wrote Loving v. Virginia and made it
clear that marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as everybody else.

That is what Virginia said about Blacks and for the same reasons.
Virgina lost the case.

Except that race has nothing to do with sexual behavior.

Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:05:57 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:

Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:49:42 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:

2) It is the proponents of gay marriage who seek to infringe upon the
rights of others.

What right would they be infringing on? If two men or two women are
able to legally marry each other, what legal right will you lose?

A right very similar to the one that you lose if you are in a crowded
theater and someone yells "Fire".

What does it say to intersexual children that in the USA you
can never grow up to legally marry because you cannot ever
pass the very narrow definition of being exclusively a man or a
woman? It says in the USA you are inferior to all other human
beings, it harms them in ways they are unlikely to ever get over.
Their rights have been immeasurably broken and denied.

You poor little boo boo will get over the fact that Billy and
Joe got married, while intersexual children are unlikely to ever
get over the harm done to them by them told by the US
government you are freaks and not human enough to marry.
If your marriage is so tenuous that a few guys getting married
effect your life or marriage in any way you should have
gotten a divorce long ago. Your marriage is nothing but a
vanity plate marriage to hold up like a greener lawn or
a new truck, and has nothing to do with love or a legal
loving bond. Now get a divorce like your other 50 percent
buddies with vanity marriages.

Cry me a river, Horny.

What a joke!

Pretending that this is about "intersexual children" instead of about
sex deviates.

Then answer this: who does a XXY hermaphrodite legally
marry if the only legal marriage is one between a exclusive
man to a woman?

I don't know or care. That is another issue to take up on another
day. We are not talking about hermaphrodites - you are using them as
a fig leaf for a weak argument.

This issue is not made in a vacuum, this effects intersexuals more
so than homosexuals themselves,

as you bigots point out, a
gay at least could marry a woman, an intersexual cannot marry
at all.

You bigots also like to say it is a behavior and sexual
preference, intersexuals blow your myth all to hell.

You
have no argument, you have not presented one ruling, one
thing that shows you are anything but a poor amateur on
this subject

and law in general, you are weak and delusional.
All you have is myths, lies and nothing more to back your
case. Where's the beef, meat head.

Hell, how many male homosexuals even WANT to marry other men?

3000+ in San Francisco when given the opportunity.

Oh, *****! They're engaging in a form of lavender-labeled civil
disobedience and adolescent-like petulance (Midge Decter once wrote an
article for Commentary, comparing male homosexuals to adolescent
boys). They're getting the equivalent of "Mexican marriages" like two
teenagers on spring break.

I think you are projecting your marriage, after all, you think
if two guys get married it effect your marriage, like a school girl
who comes to school and finds out someone is wearing the
same dress. Oh poor boo boo.

It's
well known that male homosexuals tend to be VERY VERY promiscuous.
How many of them really want to take fidelity vows?

And how is promiscuity relevant to the laws of marriage?

Inherent in the marital vows are vows of fidelity, of course.

That's why 50 percent of, mostly conservative, marriages end
in divorce, with a little slap and tickle of the secretary.

Your lot
set up a catch 22 that intersexual and homosexuals cannot legally
marry, are not protected in housing nor in employment, so they
cannot bring a mate home or talk about them at work without
risk, then yell promiscuity when they follow your rules. How very
hypocritical of you. Blacks were very promiscuous when they
could not marry as well, it is part of the symptom of oppression.

Male homosexuals are promiscuous because men, in general, like sex
hot, dripping, and frequent.

Your sexual fantasies noted, twinkles.

However, straight men have to temper their sex drives to accommodate
the reticence of women. Gay men have similar sex drives to their
partners don't have to deal with such reticence and so they bang away.

Sound like you are jealous, why not come out and you can
do it too.

If promiscuity was caused by "oppression", then gay women would also
be promiscuous but lesbian affairs are largely sexless ones.

Yeah back on your La La planet.

That's
because women, in general, have a coyness about sex without anything
near the urgency to obtain sexual release that men do.

Sheesh, you do live in your own world don't you.

Earth to Gazzy, Earth to Gazzy, get in tough with reality some time.

No, Horny. Gay men are promiscuous because men in general are
promiscuous when they are not otherwise discouraged.

Is that what you read in your gazzy magazines?

For most gay men, this isn't even about a "fundamental right".

"Gay marriage" is no different than invading Disneyland in drag and
securing the "right" to dance on the same ballroom floor as the
married straight people with children.

Yes it is, it is all about why should a black child be allowed to
sit next to a white child in the same school. If you cannot
understand what the word equal means there is nothing one
can say to make you understand it. What part of equal rights
don't you understand?

I don't understand the analogy between race and sexual preference, as
anything other than "racial card" used to promote shame when the
empiricism of the argument is otherwise weak.

This is becoming pointless you are just too stupid to
be worth it. A gay can marry a lesbian it has nothing to
do with sexual preference, only their sexual organs they
are born with are the deciding factor, the very same as the
race blacks are born with.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 05:58:37 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

It's about American citizens, and their rights under the Constitution.
Y'all make it about sex.

Why, I didn't know that residents of San Francisco expressed
themselves in a southern drawl.

Obviously, notwithstanding your attempt to wrap yourself in the
American flag, this is about American citizens and their rights under
the Constitution AND it's about sex.

Well, this fight has been going on for almost twenty years.

When San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same sex
couples, people lined up around City Hall.. and down the block. And
around it. They camped there during a howling Pacific storm. They
drove non-stop from the far corners of the state and flew in from
other states. As they came out with their marriage certificates, they
waved them like they were holding the World Series trophy. In one
*week* 3,000 same-sex couples were married. There were marriages in
every corner of City Hall. It took hundreds of volunteers to process
the paperwork.

I'd say that many are eager.

Oh, come off it. This was a gay Woodstock. Not one person in a
hundred went there with the intention of truly committing himself or
herself to a marital relationship - this was part adolescent temper
tantrum and part hippie lovefest.

It was an ATTENTION-GETTING DEVICE.

Sheesh! Apparently, you weren't in on the gag!

You know, during the Civil Rights movement it was common to hear "them
niggers don't care about voting" as an excuse for things like poll
taxes

Makes no sense. Why impose a tax for a service that is unlikely to be
used?

and other bars. Nothing ever changes.

Yeah, I know. And for 34 years or so, effete and affluent
homosexuals, often living in communities that tolerate them, such as
San Fran Freakshow, exercising viselike control over opinion-shaping
and lifestyle-shaping industries such as fashion and entertainment,
like to posture themselves as victims and compare their lot in life to
that of economically deprived and relatively unempowered racial
minorities - without asking the minorities themselves for permission,
of course.

Nothing ever changes.

Cite?

Well, you tell me. How many gay men have ever gone through a marriage
ceremony? How many are wearing wedding rings?

There is nothing preventing them from doing this - they don't need the
sanction of the state to take their own wedding vows or to purchase
engagement rings. They only need the state to issue them a piece of
paper.

But I will wager that damn few gay men have ever gone through a
marriage ceremony with another man and that damn fewer are wearing
wedding rings. So gay men don't really want to be married.

The San Francisco shindig was about urinating in the face of Middle
America - specifically, the California voters who amended the Civil
Code to do away with the concept of "gay marriage" in 2000.

The San Francisco shindig has nothing to do with "American citizens,
and their rights under the Constitution". Y'all.

I take it you're refering to the inofficial "Gay Days"? Disneyland
doesn't allow people in drag in. But as long as park vistors obey the
rules and pay their way, why should they care?

If it offends the sensibilities of straight people, especially those
with kids, I imagine that many people will care.

You know, if you are that sensitive, I suggest you either harden
yourself a bit or stay home.

<shrugs shoulders> That's the issue, isn't it?

Whose sensitivities have greater priority and who is required to stay
home if the two sensitivities clash.

Are you suggesting that a library patron DOES have the right to play
heavy metal music in the library? And that the other patrons should
go home if they don't like it?

No?

Then I guess the interests of the group, the other patrons in the
library, outweigh the individual rights of the metal-head.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 05:58:37 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 04 Apr 2004 00:27:47 GMT, a stranger
called by some Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net>
came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism

Pretending that this is about "intersexual children" instead of about
sex deviates.

It's about American citizens, and their rights under the Constitution.
Y'all make it about sex.

Why, I didn't know that residents of San Francisco expressed
themselves in a southern drawl.

That's called "Yuppabilly", isn't it?

Obviously, notwithstanding your attempt to wrap yourself in the
American flag, this is about American citizens and their rights under
the Constitution AND it's about sex.

Hell, how many male homosexuals even WANT to marry other men? It's
well known that male homosexuals tend to be VERY VERY promiscuous.
How many of them really want to take fidelity vows?

Well, this fight has been going on for almost twenty years.

When San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same sex
couples, people lined up around City Hall.. and down the block. And
around it. They camped there during a howling Pacific storm. They
drove non-stop from the far corners of the state and flew in from
other states. As they came out with their marriage certificates, they
waved them like they were holding the World Series trophy. In one
*week* 3,000 same-sex couples were married. There were marriages in
every corner of City Hall. It took hundreds of volunteers to process
the paperwork.

I'd say that many are eager.

Oh, come off it. This was a gay Woodstock. Not one person in a
hundred went there with the intention of truly committing himself or
herself to a marital relationship - this was part adolescent temper
tantrum and part hippie lovefest.

It was an ATTENTION-GETTING DEVICE.

Sheesh! Apparently, you weren't in on the gag!

You know, during the Civil Rights movement it was common to hear "them
niggers don't care about voting" as an excuse for things like poll
taxes

Makes no sense. Why impose a tax for a service that is unlikely to be
used?

and other bars. Nothing ever changes.

Yeah, I know. And for 34 years or so, effete and affluent
homosexuals, often living in communities that tolerate them, such as
San Fran Freakshow, exercising viselike control over opinion-shaping
and lifestyle-shaping industries such as fashion and entertainment,
like to posture themselves as victims and compare their lot in life to
that of economically deprived and relatively unempowered racial
minorities - without asking the minorities themselves for permission,
of course.

Nothing ever changes.

For most gay men, this isn't even about a "fundamental right".

Cite?

Well, you tell me. How many gay men have ever gone through a marriage
ceremony? How many are wearing wedding rings?

There is nothing preventing them from doing this - they don't need the
sanction of the state to take their own wedding vows or to purchase
engagement rings. They only need the state to issue them a piece of
paper.

But I will wager that damn few gay men have ever gone through a
marriage ceremony with another man and that damn fewer are wearing
wedding rings. So gay men don't really want to be married.