| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Apr 2006 10:43:19 PM |
| Object: |
Push for national gay-marriage ban |
How much more needs to be done to get the crazed LLL (Looney Liberal
Lemmings) to understand; Americans do not want same-sex marriage. Whatever
arguments can be made in favor of creating this right do not supercede the
fact that Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion. Imposing the will of a
few against the wishes of the masses amounts to no more than totalitarian
government; and afterall, isn't that what you 'liberals' so firmly oppose?
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/9139
WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- Roman Catholic leaders and evangelical
Protestants, joined by other religious groups, are pushing to amend the U.S.
Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
As a kickoff, the group signed a petition in support of an amendment, The
New York Times reported. Those who added their names included seven Catholic
cardinals, a number of archbishops, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis and at least
one official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
One Catholic group -- the Knights of Columbus -- plans to distribute 10
million postcards at Catholic churches for congregants to send to their
congressional representatives.
"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater
this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the lay
Catholic group.
In 2004, proposed amendments to state constitutions on homosexual marriage
helped bring out conservative voters and may have contributed to President
George W. Bush's victory over Sen.. John Kerry.
But some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue
has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed,
compared to 63 percent in 2004.
--
----------
J Young
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 05:59:26 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkwtd9woyy.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Butchering the chevron trail again, Sebree?
You're the one who's too damned stupid to understand what you're doing.
How you manage to post at all is a mystery.
FYI, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right or privilege.
The Constitution is not written for anything other than individuals.
It is NOT written for couples.
It's already been shown to apply to couples. You just blithely ignore it and
pretend that hasn't been stated.
Read it and stop propagating unconstitutional lies in the USA.
Single persons are who are not afforded equal protections in this issue,
and
the Constitution is specifically written for individuals.
Prove it, Crackhead of South Carolina.
Read it for yourself.
I have, and you're delusional as always.
The Constitution does not forbid marrying.
But it does forbid unequal treatment of the people.
....which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized, because what we have now
is unequal treatment - which is contrary to that nettlesome Amendment XIV.
Heterosexuals are free to marry the consenting non-related single adult of
their choice. Homosexuals aren't.
Each person within our borders is an individual.
We're talking about marriage, Moonbat Wentzky. Try and keep up with the
concept.
The Constitution is written so that no one person is treated unfairly here.
Simple enough?
So why the hell are YOU bitching about being treated unfairly? Get back on
your meds.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Peoria 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Opponent/time TBD (Game 1)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 01:54:36 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
Butchering the chevron trail again, Sebree?
FYI, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right or privilege.
The Constitution is not written for anything other than individuals.
It is NOT written for couples.
Read it and stop propagating unconstitutional lies in the USA.
Single persons are who are not afforded equal protections in this issue, and
the Constitution is specifically written for individuals.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. They found
a fundamental right to civil marriage in Zablocki and have never found
that discrimination against single people violates the 14th Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 02:51:08 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1146250475.973424.26360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Butchering the chevron trail again, Sebree?
FYI, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right or privilege.
The Constitution is not written for anything other than individuals.
It is NOT written for couples.
Read it and stop propagating unconstitutional lies in the USA.
Single persons are who are not afforded equal protections in this issue,
and
the Constitution is specifically written for individuals.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Which one?
What year?
They found
a fundamental right to civil marriage in Zablocki and have never found
that discrimination against single people violates the 14th Amendment.
What a ***** lie.
Discrimination against single persons is illegal.
Even Civil Rights law says that much.
The Constitution does nothing at all to grant anyone privileges or
protections above any other person here.
Marriage is a non-issue to the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 02:57:43 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1146250475.973424.26360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Butchering the chevron trail again, Sebree?
FYI, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right or privilege.
The Constitution is not written for anything other than individuals.
It is NOT written for couples.
Read it and stop propagating unconstitutional lies in the USA.
Single persons are who are not afforded equal protections in this issue,
and
the Constitution is specifically written for individuals.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Which one?
What year?
Regarding civil marriage as a fundamental right: Zablocki (1978)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=434&invol=374
They found
a fundamental right to civil marriage in Zablocki and have never found
that discrimination against single people violates the 14th Amendment.
What a ***** lie.
Discrimination against single persons is illegal.
You may believe that is the way it should be, but you are factually in
error about the way it is. The goodies provided by civil marriage
discriminate against single people - and those goodies are perfectly
legal.
Cite any case in which discrimination against single people was found
to be illegal.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 03:12:08 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1146254262.942200.53620@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1146250475.973424.26360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Butchering the chevron trail again, Sebree?
FYI, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right or privilege.
The Constitution is not written for anything other than individuals.
It is NOT written for couples.
Read it and stop propagating unconstitutional lies in the USA.
Single persons are who are not afforded equal protections in this
issue,
and
the Constitution is specifically written for individuals.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Which one?
What year?
Regarding civil marriage as a fundamental right: Zablocki (1978)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=434&invol=374
They found
a fundamental right to civil marriage in Zablocki and have never found
that discrimination against single people violates the 14th Amendment.
What a ***** lie.
Discrimination against single persons is illegal.
You may believe that is the way it should be, but you are factually in
error about the way it is.
The way it is and the Constitution are quite dissimilar.
The goodies provided by civil marriage
discriminate against single people - and those goodies are perfectly
legal.
You are boneheaded fool, imo, if you think that violating the Constitution
si legal in the USA.
Cite any case in which discrimination against single people was found
to be illegal.
I don't need to.
You already cited the discriminatory practices of the boneheaded fools in
power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 09:25:46 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1146254262.942200.53620@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1146250475.973424.26360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Butchering the chevron trail again, Sebree?
FYI, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right or privilege.
The Constitution is not written for anything other than individuals.
It is NOT written for couples.
Read it and stop propagating unconstitutional lies in the USA.
Single persons are who are not afforded equal protections in this
issue,
and
the Constitution is specifically written for individuals.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Which one?
What year?
Regarding civil marriage as a fundamental right: Zablocki (1978)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=434&invol=374
They found
a fundamental right to civil marriage in Zablocki and have never found
that discrimination against single people violates the 14th Amendment.
What a ***** lie.
Discrimination against single persons is illegal.
You may believe that is the way it should be, but you are factually in
error about the way it is.
The way it is and the Constitution are quite dissimilar.
What the Constitution menas is decided upon by the Supreme Court, not
you. And they have decided that marriage is fundamental Constitutional
right and discrimination against single people does not violate the
Constitution.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 12:04:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:47:15 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
Butchering the chevron trail again, Sebree?
FYI, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right or privilege.
So what the ***** are you crying about?
The Constitution is not written for anything other than individuals.
It is NOT written for couples.
It is written for citizens. ALL citizens. Or would you rather see
niggahs as property again?
Read it and stop propagating unconstitutional lies in the USA.
Single persons are who are not afforded equal protections in this issue, and
the Constitution is specifically written for individuals.
Says who? You? Or somebody sane?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 10:21:31 PM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2006 20:07:16 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 14:42:26 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 16:53:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
There is nothing wrong with
homosexuality, and there is no reason to hate them or deny them the
same rights that we heterosexuals enjoy and accept without question.
Marry whom ever you wish as long as you comply with the very same laws
regarding marriage that heterosexuals must comply with.
Laws which you oppose.
In particular the equal protection clause of the constitution.
***** hole -- It says nothing about sexual orientation.
There is indeed NO exception for sexual orientation.
Neither does any of the other founding documents, ***** hole. But you
***** suckers keep leaning on then like mexicans on shovels.
That is because that is where their rights are embedded, the
Constitution. That is what says that they should have the same rights
as heterosexuals, and that is what gives them the right to sue for
those rights.
It doesn't say that you ***** suckers have more rights than
heterosexuals.
It does say, however, that they have the same rights as us
heterosexuals. And that means that they have the right to marry the
consenting adult of their choice, just as we do
As long as it is within the laws of the state in which you marry.
Otherwise forget about it. The SCOTUS has affirmed that marriage is a
state's right's issue. it's the states game they make the rules and
you play by them. You're fucked (or maybe 'Not Fucked' depending on
how you look at it) if you choose not to.
State's ball, state's bat -- Never ever forget that (sung to the tune
of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
27 Apr 2006 10:40:24 PM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 20:07:16 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 14:42:26 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 16:53:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r=E2lant.org> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r=E2lant.org> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
There is nothing wrong with
homosexuality, and there is no reason to hate them or deny the=
m the
same rights that we heterosexuals enjoy and accept without que=
stion.
Marry whom ever you wish as long as you comply with the very sa=
me laws
regarding marriage that heterosexuals must comply with.
Laws which you oppose.
In particular the equal protection clause of the constitution.
***** hole -- It says nothing about sexual orientation.
There is indeed NO exception for sexual orientation.
Neither does any of the other founding documents, ***** hole. But you
***** suckers keep leaning on then like mexicans on shovels.
That is because that is where their rights are embedded, the
Constitution. That is what says that they should have the same rights
as heterosexuals, and that is what gives them the right to sue for
those rights.
It doesn't say that you ***** suckers have more rights than
heterosexuals.
It does say, however, that they have the same rights as us
heterosexuals. And that means that they have the right to marry the
consenting adult of their choice, just as we do. And it should not
matter the gender of the partner. And by the way, there would be
nothing to prevent heterosexuals from marrying a person of the same
gender as well, which also shows that they do not have more rights.
It also gives some information of challenging laws and actions of the
government,
And you again fail you reading comprehension and retention test.
As long as it is within the laws of the state in which you marry.
And those laws are not found unconstitutional. And every state allows
heterosexuals to marry, so I have no problem.
Otherwise forget about it.
No. The unconstitutional laws that forbid homosexuals from marrying
each other, as well as the laws that annul any of their legal marriages
and unions from another state while they are in that state, can and
will be overturned. There is no reason for such discriminatory laws.
And such laws must be fought and overturned or changed.
The SCOTUS has affirmed that marriage is a
state's right's issue.
And they can later state that the states cannot deny people the right
to get married because of the pairing or genders, just as they did 40
years ago when they overturned the laws in all the states that forbade
people of different races to marry.
it's the states game they make the rules and
you play by them. You're fucked (or maybe 'Not Fucked' depending on
how you look at it) if you choose not to.
No, I am not. Unjust, unequal, unconstitutional laws can always be
challenged. And the laws that forbid homosexuals from marrying are
unjust, unequal, and unconstitutional.
Besides, laws that recognize some marriages from a state but do not
recognize others are definitely unconstitutional. They violate the
Fair Use and Credit clause. Those laws are certain to fail when they
are challenged. They have nothing whatsoever to stand on.
State's ball, state's bat -- Never ever forget that (sung to the tune
of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.)
By MY diamond. I have the US Constitution on my side. And unlike you,
I fight to defend the rights of others. You only fight to propagate
your own bigotry and irrational hatred of others.
What's more, the "rules" state that I can challenge what the state says
about the game, and force them to play by the actual rules.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 03:31:13 AM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2006 20:40:24 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
No, I am not. Unjust, unequal, unconstitutional laws can always be
challenged. And the laws that forbid homosexuals from marrying are
unjust, unequal, and unconstitutional.
They are none of those thing except in the minds of homosexuals. You
are much like the illegal aliens now screaming for full citizenship.
You want special treatment you don't want to have to obey the laws of
the land you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign. It ain't gonna happen, hombre...trust me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 09:42:40 AM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 20:40:24 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
No, I am not. Unjust, unequal, unconstitutional laws can always be
challenged. And the laws that forbid homosexuals from marrying are
unjust, unequal, and unconstitutional.
They are none of those thing except in the minds of homosexuals.
How would you know? You lie about just about everything that I have
seen, and you have shown that you do not understand anything about the
people you villify.
You
are much like the illegal aliens now screaming for full citizenship.
You want special treatment
Nope. They want the same rights. Rights that they are currently being
denied.
you don't want to have to obey the laws of
the land
Yes, they do. They want the laws to recognize their relationships as
being just as valid as heterosexual ones.
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in the
exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages. That is not
changing anything except the applicability of the laws, and bring them
in line with the Constituions guarentees of equal protection under the
law and equal applicability of the law.
You are the yapping dog, not me. You are yapping because the world in
moving forward and disgarding your narrow-minded intolerance and hatred
as the unneeded baggage that it is.
It ain't gonna happen, hombre...trust me.
Yes, it is, villian. Trust me. In the long run, the United States
does not tolerate intolerance or intolerant laws. This has been seen
over and over again in our history. We favor our ideals of liberty and
equality.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 09:52:37 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1146235360.822985.148210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 20:40:24 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
No, I am not. Unjust, unequal, unconstitutional laws can always be
challenged. And the laws that forbid homosexuals from marrying are
unjust, unequal, and unconstitutional.
They are none of those thing except in the minds of homosexuals.
How would you know? You lie about just about everything that I have
seen, and you have shown that you do not understand anything about the
people you villify.
You
are much like the illegal aliens now screaming for full citizenship.
You want special treatment
Nope. They want the same rights. Rights that they are currently being
denied.
you don't want to have to obey the laws of
the land
Yes, they do. They want the laws to recognize their relationships as
being just as valid as heterosexual ones.
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in the
exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages.
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married persons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 01:02:30 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1146235360.822985.148210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
[...]
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in the
exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages.
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married persons.
....which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized. I guess you'd better
start planning your exit, eh?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Peoria 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Opponent/time TBD (Game 1)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 02:33:07 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1146235360.822985.148210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
[...]
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in the
exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages.
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
I guess you'd better
start planning your exit, eh?
From the Constitutionality discussion of equal protections for each and
every US Citizen as dictated by the Constitution and its amendments?
You gotta be kidding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 12:13:28 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1146235360.822985.148210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
[...]
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in the
exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages.
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Idiot. I'm married, and none of my rights (or Dale's) are affected in the
least by the fact that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts...and it'd
make no difference if Dale and I were still single.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
*****. Allowing them will even the field...and you'll still be free to
choose to marry the single non-related consenting adult of your choice.
I guess you'd better start planning your exit, eh?
From the Constitutionality discussion of equal protections for each and
every US Citizen as dictated by the Constitution and its amendments?
You gotta be kidding.
I'm deadly serious, son. You're the one who can't add two and two and get
four, the majority of the time.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Peoria 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Opponent/time TBD (Game 1)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 05:31:34 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkirotynev.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1146235360.822985.148210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
[...]
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in the
exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages.
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment than
to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Idiot. I'm married,
You actually know that?
You say that like you expect some type of award or 'unequal' treatment.
Read the Amndment.
and none of my rights (or Dale's) are affected in the
least by the fact that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts...and
it'd
make no difference if Dale and I were still single.
*****.
Your privilieges and protections would be much different if you were still
single.
Read the Amendment.
exacerbate the problems that singles
face.
*****. Allowing them will even the field...and you'll still be free to
choose to marry the single non-related consenting adult of your choice.
All of which does nothing to fulfill the 14th Amendment.
I guess you'd better start planning your exit, eh?
From the Constitutionality discussion of equal protections for each and
every US Citizen as dictated by the Constitution and its amendments?
You gotta be kidding.
I'm deadly serious, son.
I am not your son.
You're the one who can't add two and two and get
four, the majority of the time.
The Constitution is written for the people as individuals.
Your wolfish , gang mentality that thinks it is for groups of people above
individuals is quite un-American.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Peoria 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Opponent/time TBD (Game 1)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 11:06:38 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkirotynev.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1146235360.822985.148210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
[...]
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in the
exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages.
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment than
to neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Idiot. I'm married,
You actually know that?
If you don't believe I am, take it up with Harris County *and* the state of
Texas. (After all, my marriage is a public record. Get your caretakers to
look it up for you - I'll even give you the date: August 11, 1990.)
You say that like you expect some type of award or 'unequal' treatment.
Read the Amndment.
I've read it far more than you'll ever understand any of it, son.
and none of my rights (or Dale's) are affected in the least by the fact
that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts...and it'd make no
difference if Dale and I were still single.
*****.
That's your middle name.
Your privilieges and protections would be much different if you were still
single. Read the Amendment.
Been there, done that, you're still a delusional whackjob. No film at 10.
exacerbate the problems that singles
face.
*****. Allowing them will even the field...and you'll still be free to
choose to marry the single non-related consenting adult of your choice.
All of which does nothing to fulfill the 14th Amendment.
Your opinion is fact-free.
I guess you'd better start planning your exit, eh?
From the Constitutionality discussion of equal protections for each and
every US Citizen as dictated by the Constitution and its amendments?
You gotta be kidding.
I'm deadly serious, son.
I am not your son.
Thank whatever gods there may be for THAT favor!
You're the one who can't add two and two and get four, the majority of the
time.
The Constitution is written for the people as individuals.
Only in your less than credible opinion.
Your wolfish , gang mentality that thinks it is for groups of people above
individuals is quite un-American.
So what are YOU going to do about it, besides keep whining?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Peoria 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Opponent/time TBD (Game 1)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:02:53 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkslnwcqnl.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkirotynev.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1146235360.822985.148210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
[...]
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage
laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in
the
exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages.
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment
than
to neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by
allowing
same-sex marriages.
Idiot. I'm married,
You actually know that?
If you don't believe I am, take it up with Harris County *and* the state
of
Texas. (After all, my marriage is a public record.
Good job.
Maybe that would be a good FOI request to show people what is acceptable and
honorable in the USA.
Get your caretakers to
look it up for you - I'll even give you the date: August 11, 1990.)
Happy 15th anniversary.
My Father and Mother had their 50th eariler this year.
My Mother's Mother died the other day.
She was 100 plus some months.
She was ~101.5 counting her days in the womb of her mother.
You say that like you expect some type of award or 'unequal' treatment.
Read the Amndment.
I've read it far more than you'll ever understand any of it, son.
Why do you think it is so difficult to understand verbatim english?
and none of my rights (or Dale's) are affected in the least by the fact
that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts...and it'd make no
difference if Dale and I were still single.
*****.
That's your middle name.
***** 'taxation' Wentzky?
Taxation is in there.
Your privilieges and protections would be much different if you were still
single. Read the Amendment.
Been there, done that, you're still a delusional whackjob. No film at 10.
Remember the differences?
There are some benefits to being single, but i really can't think of them at
the moment.
exacerbate the problems that singles
face.
*****. Allowing them will even the field...and you'll still be free
to
choose to marry the single non-related consenting adult of your choice.
All of which does nothing to fulfill the 14th Amendment.
Your opinion is fact-free.
Free isn't bad.
I guess you'd better start planning your exit, eh?
From the Constitutionality discussion of equal protections for each and
every US Citizen as dictated by the Constitution and its amendments?
You gotta be kidding.
I'm deadly serious, son.
I am not your son.
Thank whatever gods there may be for THAT favor!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
You're the one who can't add two and two and get four, the majority of
the
time.
The Constitution is written for the people as individuals.
Only in your less than credible opinion.
If you can see it another way please let me know.
Your wolfish , gang mentality that thinks it is for groups of people above
individuals is quite un-American.
So what are YOU going to do about it, besides keep whining?
You think that whining didn't start Roe V Wade or this current same-sex
marriage movement?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 11:11:15 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkslnwcqnl.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkirotynev.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1146235360.822985.148210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
[...]
you want everything changed to favor your loud little yapping
dog campaign.
The only thing that homosexuals want changed is for the marriage laws
to include homosexuals marriages, and to treat and protect them in
the exact same way as they do for heterosexual marriages.
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment than
to neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by
allowing same-sex marriages.
Idiot. I'm married,
You actually know that?
If you don't believe I am, take it up with Harris County *and* the state of
Texas. (After all, my marriage is a public record.
Good job. Maybe that would be a good FOI request to show people what is
acceptable and honorable in the USA.
Pure *****. All it shows is that we're married. "Acceptable and
honorable" has nothing to do with it.
Get your caretakers to
look it up for you - I'll even give you the date: August 11, 1990.)
Happy 15th anniversary.
News flash: this is 2006.
My Father and Mother had their 50th eariler this year.
Good on them...my parents' 53rd will be in September.
My Mother's Mother died the other day.
She was 100 plus some months.
She was ~101.5 counting her days in the womb of her mother.
In other words, she died at the age of 100 (plus some months). No one else
(except the fanatic fetus fetishists like you) adds nine months to their
birthdate.
You say that like you expect some type of award or 'unequal' treatment.
Read the Amndment.
I've read it far more than you'll ever understand any of it, son.
Why do you think it is so difficult to understand verbatim english?
You can't understand anything as stated in English, as you've demonstrated
more than a few times. Besides, words change over time. Even you ought to be
able to get a grip on that fact.
and none of my rights (or Dale's) are affected in the least by the fact
that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts...and it'd make no
difference if Dale and I were still single.
*****.
That's your middle name.
***** 'taxation' Wentzky?
Taxation is in there.
Idiot. Your name ought to be John ***** Wentzky. (So much for your
understanding the printed word.)
Your privilieges and protections would be much different if you were still
single. Read the Amendment.
Been there, done that, you're still a delusional whackjob. No film at 10.
Remember the differences?
There are some benefits to being single, but i really can't think of them at
the moment.
That figures, seeing as you've been single all your life, and will stay that
way for the rest of your life.
exacerbate the problems that singles
face.
*****. Allowing them will even the field...and you'll still be free
to choose to marry the single non-related consenting adult of your
choice.
All of which does nothing to fulfill the 14th Amendment.
Your opinion is fact-free.
Free isn't bad.
Your brain damage is.
I guess you'd better start planning your exit, eh?
From the Constitutionality discussion of equal protections for each and
every US Citizen as dictated by the Constitution and its amendments?
You gotta be kidding.
I'm deadly serious, son.
I am not your son.
Thank whatever gods there may be for THAT favor!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
You definitely don't get out much, do you?
You're the one who can't add two and two and get four, the majority of
the time.
The Constitution is written for the people as individuals.
Only in your less than credible opinion.
If you can see it another way please let me know.
It's written for individuals and groups. I had that much figured out by the
time I was through seventh grade.
Your wolfish , gang mentality that thinks it is for groups of people above
individuals is quite un-American.
So what are YOU going to do about it, besides keep whining?
You think that whining didn't start Roe V Wade or this current same-sex
marriage movement?
Same-sex marriage has been around far longer than you or I...and it's already
legal in Massachusetts, and if you can't take that, I guess you'll never get
near Canada, as it's legal across the Dominion. Your whining will only
convince more people that your opinions can be safely ignored.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Peoria 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Opponent/time TBD (Game 1)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "newsguy" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 09:15:41 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
This weird ***** logic is like saying "Marriage and singlehood
do not have equal protections currently." Allowing blacks to
marry whites will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face. Fix the inequality of the married folks to the single folks,
not compound the inequality by denying intersexual children
the right to grow up and marry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 10:18:12 PM |
|
|
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146276941.927432.238520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment than
to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that
singles
face.
This weird ***** logic is like saying "Marriage and singlehood
do not have equal protections currently."
They don't.
Allowing blacks to
marry whites will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
No. Race is irrelevant to marriage.
Fix the inequality of the married folks to the single folks,
not compound the inequality by denying intersexual children
the right to grow up and marry.
Are you seeking to do such?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 11:11:24 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146276941.927432.238520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment than
to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that
singles
face.
This weird ***** logic is like saying "Marriage and singlehood
do not have equal protections currently."
They don't.
Singles are afforded all the rights of single entities. It is equal.
Allowing blacks to
marry whites will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
No. Race is irrelevant to marriage.
As is sexual orientation or gender.
Fix the inequality of the married folks to the single folks,
not compound the inequality by denying intersexual children
the right to grow up and marry.
Are you seeking to do such?
I think newsguy is seeking to fix the inequality of heterosexual couples
versus homosexual/intersexual couples.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 05:28:04 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4452e787$0$23926$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146276941.927432.238520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment
than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that
singles
face.
This weird ***** logic is like saying "Marriage and singlehood
do not have equal protections currently."
They don't.
Singles are afforded all the rights of single entities. It is equal.
Wrong. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say that apples do not have the
right to equal protection and privileges that oranges have.
Allowing blacks to
marry whites will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
No. Race is irrelevant to marriage.
As is sexual orientation or gender.
Marriage is not something that two persons of the same sex can actually
achieve.
Fix the inequality of the married folks to the single folks,
not compound the inequality by denying intersexual children
the right to grow up and marry.
Are you seeking to do such?
I think newsguy is seeking to fix the inequality of heterosexual couples
versus homosexual/intersexual couples.
The 14th Amendment isn't only for couples or for singles.
It written for people.
Marriage is not something that the 14th Amendment specifies as something
that enables persons to be awarded unequal privileges and protections.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 03:09:20 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4452e787$0$23926$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146276941.927432.238520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment
than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that
singles
face.
This weird ***** logic is like saying "Marriage and singlehood
do not have equal protections currently."
They don't.
Singles are afforded all the rights of single entities. It is equal.
Wrong. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say that apples do not have the
right to equal protection and privileges that oranges have.
So, when you bring two apples together, you get an orange?
Allowing blacks to
marry whites will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
No. Race is irrelevant to marriage.
As is sexual orientation or gender.
Marriage is not something that two persons of the same sex can actually
achieve.
Why?
Fix the inequality of the married folks to the single folks,
not compound the inequality by denying intersexual children
the right to grow up and marry.
Are you seeking to do such?
I think newsguy is seeking to fix the inequality of heterosexual couples
versus homosexual/intersexual couples.
The 14th Amendment isn't only for couples or for singles.
It written for people.
All people.
Marriage is not something that the 14th Amendment specifies as something
that enables persons to be awarded unequal privileges and protections.
And what is unequal about homosexual marriage? You've yet to explain
this satisfactorily.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 08:56:21 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4453c806$0$24021$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4452e787$0$23926$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146276941.927432.238520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment
than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by
allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that
singles
face.
This weird ***** logic is like saying "Marriage and singlehood
do not have equal protections currently."
They don't.
Singles are afforded all the rights of single entities. It is equal.
Wrong. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say that apples do not have
the right to equal protection and privileges that oranges have.
So, when you bring two apples together, you get an orange?
Allowing blacks to
marry whites will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
No. Race is irrelevant to marriage.
As is sexual orientation or gender.
Marriage is not something that two persons of the same sex can actually
achieve.
Why?
I am speaking in the literal sense.
Fix the inequality of the married folks to the single folks,
not compound the inequality by denying intersexual children
the right to grow up and marry.
Are you seeking to do such?
I think newsguy is seeking to fix the inequality of heterosexual couples
versus homosexual/intersexual couples.
The 14th Amendment isn't only for couples or for singles.
It written for people.
All people.
Agreed.
Marriage is not something that the 14th Amendment specifies as something
that enables persons to be awarded unequal privileges and protections.
And what is unequal about homosexual marriage? You've yet to explain this
satisfactorily.
I do not see it as being necessary to grant unto homosexuals equal treatment
to authorize same-sex marriages.
What I see as being a greater need is providing each and every individual
within the United States the equal protections that the 14th Amendment
forbids denying them.
I would somehow find a way to give people what they need rather than
creating policies which tend to obfuscate and confuse and gloss over the
reality that exists in America while we all know that people are suffering
and need help here.
The 47,000,000 uninsureds are not all gay persons.
Am I right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:06:28 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4453c806$0$24021$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4452e787$0$23926$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146276941.927432.238520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment
than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by
allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that
singles
face.
This weird ***** logic is like saying "Marriage and singlehood
do not have equal protections currently."
They don't.
Singles are afforded all the rights of single entities. It is equal.
Wrong. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say that apples do not have
the right to equal protection and privileges that oranges have.
So, when you bring two apples together, you get an orange?
Allowing blacks to
marry whites will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
No. Race is irrelevant to marriage.
As is sexual orientation or gender.
Marriage is not something that two persons of the same sex can actually
achieve.
Why?
I am speaking in the literal sense.
Okay, so, literally, why is marriage something that two persons of the
same sex cannot actually acheive?
Fix the inequality of the married folks to the single folks,
not compound the inequality by denying intersexual children
the right to grow up and marry.
Are you seeking to do such?
I think newsguy is seeking to fix the inequality of heterosexual couples
versus homosexual/intersexual couples.
The 14th Amendment isn't only for couples or for singles.
It written for people.
All people.
Agreed.
Marriage is not something that the 14th Amendment specifies as something
that enables persons to be awarded unequal privileges and protections.
And what is unequal about homosexual marriage? You've yet to explain this
satisfactorily.
I do not see it as being necessary to grant unto homosexuals equal treatment
to authorize same-sex marriages.
Why?
What I see as being a greater need is providing each and every individual
within the United States the equal protections that the 14th Amendment
forbids denying them.
I would somehow find a way to give people what they need rather than
creating policies which tend to obfuscate and confuse and gloss over the
reality that exists in America while we all know that people are suffering
and need help here.
Would SSM confuse you?
The 47,000,000 uninsureds are not all gay persons.
Am I right?
Yes. I do not understand the relevance, though.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:47:09 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:44541bb8$0$24073$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4453c806$0$24021$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4452e787$0$23926$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146276941.927432.238520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment
than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by
allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems that
singles
face.
This weird ***** logic is like saying "Marriage and singlehood
do not have equal protections currently."
They don't.
Singles are afforded all the rights of single entities. It is equal.
Wrong. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say that apples do not have
the right to equal protection and privileges that oranges have.
So, when you bring two apples together, you get an orange?
Allowing blacks to
marry whites will only exarcerbate the problems that singles
face.
No. Race is irrelevant to marriage.
As is sexual orientation or gender.
Marriage is not something that two persons of the same sex can actually
achieve.
Why?
I am speaking in the literal sense.
Okay, so, literally, why is marriage something that two persons of the
same sex cannot actually acheive?
Male, female.
Fix the inequality of the married folks to the single folks,
not compound the inequality by denying intersexual children
the right to grow up and marry.
Are you seeking to do such?
I think newsguy is seeking to fix the inequality of heterosexual
couples versus homosexual/intersexual couples.
The 14th Amendment isn't only for couples or for singles.
It written for people.
All people.
Agreed.
Marriage is not something that the 14th Amendment specifies as something
that enables persons to be awarded unequal privileges and protections.
And what is unequal about homosexual marriage? You've yet to explain
this satisfactorily.
I do not see it as being necessary to grant unto homosexuals equal
treatment to authorize same-sex marriages.
Why?
Rephrase for you: I do not see it as necessary to grant homosexuals same-sex
marriage privileges in order to treat them equally at law to all other
citizens of the USA, primarily because it wouldn't actually occur.
What I see as being a greater need is providing each and every individual
within the United States the equal protections that the 14th Amendment
forbids denying them.
I would somehow find a way to give people what they need rather than
creating policies which tend to obfuscate and confuse and gloss over the
reality that exists in America while we all know that people are
suffering and need help here.
Would SSM confuse you?
No.
Schemes are easy to devise.
The 47,000,000 uninsureds are not all gay persons.
Am I right?
Yes. I do not understand the relevance, though.
PRIVILEGES, EQUAL PROTECTION!
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 10:42:04 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:44541bb8$0$24073$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4453c806$0$24021$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4452e787$0$23926$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146276941.927432.238520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkaca5y3wp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
The 14th Amendment strikes down granting unequal rights to married
persons.
...which is why same-sex marriage will be legalized.
Actually, it is why they will be smarter to honor the 14th Amendment
than to
neglect the Constitutional rights of the people even further by
allowing
same-sex marriages.
Marriage and singlehood do not have equal protections currently.
Allowing same-sex marriages will only exarcerbate the problems tha | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
