| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 07:35:19 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
:|I am passing along what the Supreme Court said. Many people try to pass off
:|the "marriage is civil right" phrase without including the entire text. What
:|the court said is that "marriage AND procreation" combine to form a
:|fundamental right basic to the survival of the race. Simple logic proves
:|this. Can we survive without marriage? Sure we can. Can we survive without
:|procreation. Not for long. In the days that this decision was taken, society
:|frowned upon unwedded child bearing. Thus, when the Supreme Court decided a
:|number of cases on the basis that "procreation" was fundamental to our
:|survival, they included marriage as a matter of political correctness of the
:|times. When the homosexual community attempts to use a case that claims
:|"marriage is a civil right" as a basis for same sex marriage they are being
:|dishonest. Marriage is a contract between 3 separate entities. A husband, a
:|wife and a state. It is not a right. A person can give up a right, such as
:|"you have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right", without
:|government accompaniment. No one can give up a legal marriage without
:|government accompaniment. They have to get court approval to disolve the
:|marriage. Even if it was a common law marriage, if there is property or
:|children involved.
What formal training have you had in law?
Do you know the meaning of Issues, Facts, Holding, Held, Ruled, Ruling,
Dicta?
Let's look at some important things:
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
[Holding]
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on
the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78, reversed.
*****************************************************************************
SOME MORE INFO:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/214/
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/love.shtml
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/lov.shtml
Loving v. Virginia
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Loving%20v.%20Virginia
What Chief Justice Warren said
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate
all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. At
the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
the "most rigid scrutiny", and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be
shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state
objective, independent of the racial discrimination which was the object of
the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court
have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative
purpose...which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his
conduct is a criminal offense."
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
*********************************************************************************
The Marriage Cases
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1707576
f a law doesn't infringe on a fundamental rights or involve a "suspect
class", it can still be challenged as totally arbitrary and unreasonable.
As long as the government can advance a "rational basis" for a law, it
survives the test. The reason doesn't have to be based on evidence or
facts, it just has to make sense. In effect, the judge says, "Give me one
good reason why the government needs this law" and if a lawyer can make up
a good reason off the top of his head, then the law stands. Here Judge
Kramer's opinion rests on solid United States Supreme Court precedent. The
Supreme Court has thrown out a Colorado law which abolished local civil
rights laws protecting homosexuals (equal access to housing, employment,
etc.) using the "rational basis test". Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Also, the Supreme Court has recognized that sexual activity between
consenting adults is a protected exercise of "liberty", and struck down
Texas' sodomy laws. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). Technically,
Lawrence was a Due Process case, not an Equal Protection case, and the
Court stated that its holding did not extend to the issue of same-sex
marriage. Lawrence does foreclose, however, the easiest "rational basis"
argument the government could have made here: that sodomy is a crime and
prohibiting same-sex marriage helps fight crime.
Now that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, opponents of same-sex marriage
are struggling to find a rationale for their position which will stand up
in a court of law. "The Bible says so" is not a very effective legal
argument, especially in this case, where the Bible says no such thing. The
government, pointing out that California law already extends many of the
legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples, tried to make a case
that California was not discriminating against homosexuals, but asserted
that the government had an interest in reserving the term "marriage" for
couples who can procreate. Citing language in some 19th century California
cases, the government argued that it had a legitimate purpose in defining
"marriage" to include only couples who can procreate. Judge Kramer
dispensed with this argument by pointing out that opposite sex couples who
either cannot or do not want children are allowed to marry in California.
In California, the judge observed, "One does not have to be married in
order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married."
Moreover, Judge Kramer noted, the fact that same-sex couples enjoyed all
the benefits of marriage under California law, except the dignity of the
name of "marriage", suggests that there was no legitimate government
purpose for the law depriving them of that dignity. Tradition isn't enough,
when entire classes are being denied fundamental rights for no reason other
than tradition.
Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately stepped up to microphones to
call the decision "ludicrous", "mind-boggling", "activist", and "judicial
tyranny". Talking heads on the television announced in grave tones that the
decision "was certain to be appealed", suggesting there was something wrong
with it. In fact, while the decision will be appealed, it will be affirmed.
In light of controlling precedent from the United States Supreme Court and
similar California State Supreme Court rulings, it does not appear to me
that Judge Kramer (who is decribed to be a Catholic and Republican in his
personal life) had much choice in ruling the way he did, nor will the
California Supreme Court.
Judge Kramer's decision was expressly based on the Constitution of the
State of California. This has led some same-sex marriage opponents to
announce that they will seek to amend the state constitution. State
constitutions are easier to amend than the federal Constitution. Two bills
are pending before the California Legislature that would put a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot,
and if the passage of Proposition 22 (one of the laws defining marriage in
California as between a man and a woman) is any indication, such an
amendment could succeed. State constitutional amendments prohibiting
same-sex marriage passed last year in a dozen states.
Amendments to state constitutions will not help in the inevitable battle at
the federal level. The cases cited by Judge Kramer —United States Supreme
Court decisions based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution— show that his decision was compelled by the United States
Constitution. Thus, opponents of same-sex marriage will have to muster
better arguments to persuade the United States Supreme Court, or gather
together the super-majority (3/4) of state legislatures necessary to amend
the United States Constitution, if they expect to prevail in the end. A
dozen "red states" are not enough to amend the federal Constitution.
In the Supreme Court, the only plausible argument I can think of would be
something based on the New Federalism: the notion that some areas of law
are for the States to decide. Granted, this would sound a lot like the
"States Rights" arguments which were shot down in flames during the civil
rights movement. "States Rights" might be more acceptable to the Court now,
if it were limited to marriage and domestic relations laws, which in the
United States have always been the prerogative of state legislatures to
define and regulate, and which vary considerably from state to state. This
would require, however, some fancy legal footwork to distinguish Loving v.
Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas, and I don't give it a
snowball's chance in Hell. If the commentary on this case from the
Religious Right is any indication, they will certainly fail to persuade the
necessary supermajority of the American people. As Lincoln said, "You can
fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the
time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Sterilization, Eugenics, and Privacy
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_SkinnerOK.htm
Significance
In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the acts of marriage and
procreation were fundamental rights of all people, even though the
Constitution does not specifically list them as such. Thus, a private
sphere of conduct between individuals was being recognized.
*******************************************************************************************
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause,
though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the
foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which
involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to
sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating
effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are
inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no
redemption for the individual whom the law touches.
***********************************************************************************
Marriage and precreation does not mean procreation is required. It does
not mean even a potential for precreation is required.
It is absurb for you to imply or suggest otherwise. If they were so tests
would have to be made upon application fopr a marriage lic to ensure both
persons were capable of producing childern. They would have to swear they
wantd children and were going to try and have children.
Anyone who was infertile, or did not want to produce children would be,
based on your your position, denied the right to marry
How stupid your position is when actually looked at.
SUMMING UP
The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal
decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,
procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, family relationships,
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, child rearing and education, Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and contraception, see, e.g., Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, and have recognized the right of the
individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters
so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or
beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453. Roe's central
holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents.
Pp. 846-853.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PERSONAL DECISIONS RELATING TO MARRIAGE:
LOVING v VIRGINIA, PROCREATION: SKINNER v OKLAHOMA
Marriage is a fundamental right, precreation is a fundamenetal right.
However, unliKe what you are trying to sell, precreation is not a required
standard for marriage.
Check out Griswold v Connecticut.
************************************************************************
http://www.bpf.org/html/resources_and_links/statements/pdfs/samesexmarriage.pdf
Here are a few facts to consider:
• In 1967, when interracial marriage was legalized, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man [sic],
fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
• Civil marriage offers 1,049 federal protections and benefits. Hundreds
more are offered by every state. These include rights that cover medical
emergencies, taxes, financial issues, inheritance, burial decisions,
adoption, family law, employment benefits, immigration, Social Security,
housing, and veterans’ benefits.
• In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, and the first state-sanctioned same-sex
marriages began on May 17, 2004.
• Some cities and states offer domestic partnership benefits, Vermont
offers civil unions, and Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries.” However,
these forms of partnership fall short of civil marriage, offering only a
handful of state rights and responsibilities, which are not transferable to
another state, and no federal rights. • Same-gender couples already legally
marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. The U.S. does not recognize
these marriages within the U.S.
• If ratified, the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting
same-sex marriage would be the only constitutional amendment in history,
with the exception of Prohibition (which was repealed), to reduce civil
rights. Every other constitutional amendment has expanded civil rights.
• State-sanctioned marriage would not require any religious organization to
perform or recognize any marriage. No legislative enactment will change the
tenets of any religious faith. In the spirit of freedom, justice, civil
rights, and equal protection under the law for all human beings, the
Buddhist Peace Fellowship supports civil marriage for samegender couples
who choose to marry and to share fully and equally in the rights and
responsibilities of marriage. We oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment to
prohibit the basic civil right of marriage for same-gender couples.
*******************************************************************************
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833,851
(1992)
The following is how Justice Ling-Cohan follows up on the above point:
Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond
question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right toprivacy,
extend to protect marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long
recognized the fundamental importance of marriage. As early as 1888, in
Maynard v. Hill (125 US 190, 205, 211 [1888]), the Supreme Court stated
that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be
neither civilization nor progress.”
In 1923, the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923),
recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up
children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process
Clause. Nineteen years later, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US at 541 (1942),
it described marriage as “fundamental to the very existence and survival of
the race.” In 1967, the Loving Court recognized marriage as a fundamental
right under the Constitution, striking down the state’s antimiscegenation
statute: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men... Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to
our very existence and survival.” 388 US at 12 (quoting Skinner, supraat
541).
One decade later, in Zablocki v. Redhail, (434 US at 384 [1978]), the Court
reaffirmed its holding in Loving, stating that “[a]lthough Loving arose in
the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of
this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for
all individuals.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted that marriage is
a: “right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our
political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming
together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to a
degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life,
not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty,
not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a
purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Griswold v. Conn., 381 US at 486 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court has
“long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Bd of Ed v. LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974); see also Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (quoting Griswold, supra).
As stated by the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to
define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of
the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the
attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Lawrence v.Texas, 539 US 558, 574 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US at 851). The Court further
emphasized that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
As other States have also observed, the right to marry "is not a privilege
conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against
unwarranted State interference." Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,
440 Mass at 345, 798 NE2d at 970 (Greaney, J. concurring). "[I]t is a
fundamental right of free men." Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal 2d at 714, 198 P2d
at 19.
The second aspect of the fundamental right to marry, which is what this
action concerns, is the right to choose whom one marries. The right to
choose one's spouse "resides with the individual." See Loving, 388 US at 12
(freedom to marry embraces the choice to select a partner across racial
lines which cannot be infringed by State);Perez, 32 Cal 2d 711, supra
(same); Goodridge, 440 Mass 309, supra (freedom to marry person of same
sex). "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to
marry the person of one's choice..." Goodridge, 440 Mass at 227, 798 NE2d
at 958. See also Perez, 32 Cal 2d at 715, 198 P2d at 19 ("right to marry is
the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"); Brause v.
Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743*6 (Alaska Super)(deciding whom to
marry is a fundamental right, whether decision results in traditional or
nontraditional choice), superseded by Alaska Const Art 1, § 25 (effective
Jan. 3, 1999) (providing that a valid marriage "may exist only between one
man and one woman").
Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil
marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such
exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to
marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere
with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to
“rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by
sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate
only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388.
There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry:
Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York,
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather
Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the
state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose
one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S.
Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay
couples the right to marry.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 02:32:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:56:21 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:kn8941dvj2i62b544qb35h1p22p2o0qgc8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:22:08 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
That is not what is being put forth here. What is being challenged is that
people are using the quote "marriage is fundamental to our survival" as a
basis for claiming same sex marriage is a fundamental civil right. That is
dishonest because the original quote is, and you can read it in the case
below, "marriage AND procreation". No one is claiming you can't get
married
if you can't procreate. But, surely it must be agreed that we can not
survive unless we procreate.
And since homosexuals, the infertile, and others who cannot, or chose
not to procreate are a distinct minority, I fail to see the problem.
When I was born, the population of the world stood at about 3.5
billion. It's now over 6 billion.
Do you
/reinserting the question snipped by the dishonest coward.
"Do you think we're in danger of dying out due to not enough babies?"
I'll stop you right there. I prefer you address the point rather than the
person. And, frankly, I'm not really interested in a discussion with anyone
that feels the need to promote their religion, or lack thereof. PLONK
I see you're a coward as well as dishonest. Douglas *did* address the
point, oh cowardly cur. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with
someone, but there is when the actions are such as you made and the
false witness you stated.
/cue lip-curling contempt
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 02:33:07 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:s8qg41h8qoa0cnb1qhi068prqf7jf7m8k5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:56:21 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:kn8941dvj2i62b544qb35h1p22p2o0qgc8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:22:08 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
That is not what is being put forth here. What is being challenged is
that
people are using the quote "marriage is fundamental to our survival" as
a
basis for claiming same sex marriage is a fundamental civil right. That
is
dishonest because the original quote is, and you can read it in the case
below, "marriage AND procreation". No one is claiming you can't get
married
if you can't procreate. But, surely it must be agreed that we can not
survive unless we procreate.
And since homosexuals, the infertile, and others who cannot, or chose
not to procreate are a distinct minority, I fail to see the problem.
When I was born, the population of the world stood at about 3.5
billion. It's now over 6 billion.
Do you
/reinserting the question snipped by the dishonest coward.
"Do you think we're in danger of dying out due to not enough babies?"
I'll stop you right there. I prefer you address the point rather than the
person. And, frankly, I'm not really interested in a discussion with
anyone
that feels the need to promote their religion, or lack thereof. PLONK
I see you're a coward as well as dishonest. Douglas *did* address the
point, oh cowardly cur. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with
someone, but there is when the actions are such as you made and the
false witness you stated.
/cue lip-curling contempt
PLONK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 04:20:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:33:07 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
PLONK
The coward runs away again.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 11:02:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:20:56 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:33:07 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
PLONK
The coward runs away again.
Amazing how that's the tendency of those "Clothed in the armour of the
Lord®"
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
26 Mar 2005 03:40:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:22:08 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:0em841ho00p7svmbqlb3vtjqatarocjece@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
We allow quadraplegics, people who have lost their sexual organs to
accidents, and prisoners serving life-sentences to marry, so your
claim is so much *****.
There is no requirement for procreation, or even sex, in order for a
marriage to be valid.
That is not what is being put forth here. What is being challenged is that
people are using the quote "marriage is fundamental to our survival" as a
basis for claiming same sex marriage is a fundamental civil right.
No they are not.
That is
dishonest
Yes it is dishonest of you to make such a silly claim.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 02:28:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:22:08 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:0em841ho00p7svmbqlb3vtjqatarocjece@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
We allow quadraplegics, people who have lost their sexual organs to
accidents, and prisoners serving life-sentences to marry, so your
claim is so much *****.
There is no requirement for procreation, or even sex, in order for a
marriage to be valid.
That is not what is being put forth here. What is being challenged is that
people are using the quote "marriage is fundamental to our survival" as a
basis for claiming same sex marriage is a fundamental civil right. That is
dishonest because the original quote is, and you can read it in the case
below, "marriage AND procreation". No one is claiming you can't get married
if you can't procreate. But, surely it must be agreed that we can not
survive unless we procreate.
Not everyone is willing, able, or necessary to procreate for humans to
survive.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 10:59:43 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:22:08 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:0em841ho00p7svmbqlb3vtjqatarocjece@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
We allow quadraplegics, people who have lost their sexual organs to
accidents, and prisoners serving life-sentences to marry, so your
claim is so much *****.
There is no requirement for procreation, or even sex, in order for a
marriage to be valid.
That is not what is being put forth here. What is being challenged is that
people are using the quote "marriage is fundamental to our survival" as a
basis for claiming same sex marriage is a fundamental civil right. That is
dishonest because the original quote is, and you can read it in the case
below, "marriage AND procreation". No one is claiming you can't get married
if you can't procreate. But, surely it must be agreed that we can not
survive unless we procreate.
Do you Sincerely believe that if same-sex marriages happen our SPECIES
will be in danger of not reproducing enough?????
My god, man... Maybe we should give gay couples and infertile couples
INCENTIVES to marry!
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 11:18:40 AM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:ptdg41h7g3i7he92hn2vhkuf0j0m9pj1h4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:22:08 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:0em841ho00p7svmbqlb3vtjqatarocjece@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time.
Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
We allow quadraplegics, people who have lost their sexual organs to
accidents, and prisoners serving life-sentences to marry, so your
claim is so much *****.
There is no requirement for procreation, or even sex, in order for a
marriage to be valid.
That is not what is being put forth here. What is being challenged is that
people are using the quote "marriage is fundamental to our survival" as a
basis for claiming same sex marriage is a fundamental civil right. That is
dishonest because the original quote is, and you can read it in the case
below, "marriage AND procreation". No one is claiming you can't get
married
if you can't procreate. But, surely it must be agreed that we can not
survive unless we procreate.
Do you Sincerely believe that if same-sex marriages happen our SPECIES
will be in danger of not reproducing enough?????
My god, man... Maybe we should give gay couples and infertile couples
INCENTIVES to marry!
James, Seattle
Maybe the homosexual community should find some other basis for what they
wish to accomplish. As long as they continue to refer to Skinner v. Oklahoma
as justification for same sex marriage, they are going to have to confront
the entire decision, not just a phrase or two they like. As for the "do you"
stuff if you can't address the point without addressing the person, you
needn't waste time responding to me because I will only acknowledge you
once.
--
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution,
according to the fixed rules which govern the
interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the
theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to
control its meaning, we have no longer a Con-
stitution; we are under the government of individ-
ual men, who for the time being have power to
declare what the Constitution is according to
their own views of what it ought to mean"
Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 12:03:10 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
Maybe the homosexual community should find some other basis for what they
wish to accomplish. As long as they continue to refer to Skinner v. Oklahoma
as justification for same sex marriage, they are going to have to confront
the entire decision, not just a phrase or two they like.
I haven't seen evidence that "the homosexual community" is using
Skinner v. Oklahoma. Your claim was that some later courts made
reference to it in decisions involving marriage as a fundamental
right.
I googled on "homosexual marriage skinner oklahoma" and got 938 hits
I googled on "homosexual marriage loving virginia" and got 126,000
hits. Making it "skinner v. oklahoma" and "loving v. virginia" to
avoid random words creeping into articles gives 688 vs 6270
respectively. I looked at the page citing skinner v. oklahoma and
most of them were pages opposed to homosexual marriage, with a few
summary articles mentioning that some court cited it in another
relevant decision.
Thus its appears you are using a strawman argument, since far more
advocates of homosexual marriage rely on loving vs. virginia which
dealt explicitly with marriage as a fundamental right.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 04:19:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:18:40 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Maybe the homosexual community should find some other basis for what they
wish to accomplish. As long as they continue to refer to Skinner v. Oklahoma
as justification for same sex marriage, they are going to have to confront
the entire decision, not just a phrase or two they like. As for the "do you"
stuff if you can't address the point without addressing the person, you
needn't waste time responding to me because I will only acknowledge you
once.
Actually, we using Loving v Virginia far more often.
Now, tell me which states have a fertility requirement for marriage
licenses, please.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 01:51:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:19:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now, tell me which states have a fertility requirement for marriage
licenses, please.
All of them excepting Massachusetts and it will be reverting back
after the next statewide ballot. Maybe even before since the sane
people on the state Supreme court have agreed to reconsider the
activist Chief Justices's biased decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 07:58:40 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:19:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now, tell me which states have a fertility requirement for marriage
licenses, please.
All of them
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of the relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate fertility as a
requirement for the license?
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
06 Apr 2005 01:41:00 PM |
|
|
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:53:00 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:40:13 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
wbt@privacy.net writes:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:56:42 GMT, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net writes:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:40 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of the
relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate fertility
as a requirement for the license?
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's assumed even if the woman has had a ????
Why did you snip part of the sentence you are pretending to quote?
Probably because it was even more irrelevant than the rest of your
post.
The states doesn't ask if she has had a hysterectomy. They know
that
man and woman can produce children. They know that a man and man
or woman and woman can't.
A man and a woman who has had a histerectomy cannot produce
children.
The state doesn't look into the reproductive organs of a man and
woman who wish to marry. There is always the presumption that they
can product offsprings and form a family unit; Man, Woman, Child.
There is never a chance of two males or two females doing that. Why
not admit that you have lost this argument and move on,boy...have
you considered confining your limited knowledge to NGs like,
alt.sushi?
Your "presumption" has yet to be mentioned in statutary law.
Try again.....
No presumption exists when the state marries geriatric couples,
either...
You must become more learned in the area of legislative history if you
are going to make such broad statements and expect them to stand.
You presume that people that are disagreeing you on issues of law are
unfamiliar with the nature and effect of legislative history.
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Analyst" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
07 Apr 2005 08:57:10 AM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d31afs$6gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:53:00 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:40:13 GMT, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net writes:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:56:42 GMT, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net writes:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:40 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of
the relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate
fertility as a requirement for the license?
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a
woman.
It's assumed even if the woman has had a ????
Why did you snip part of the sentence you are pretending to
quote?
Probably because it was even more irrelevant than the rest of
your post.
The states doesn't ask if she has had a hysterectomy. They
know that
man and woman can produce children. They know that a man and
man or woman and woman can't.
A man and a woman who has had a histerectomy cannot produce
children.
The state doesn't look into the reproductive organs of a man and
woman who wish to marry. There is always the presumption that
they can product offsprings and form a family unit; Man, Woman,
Child. There is never a chance of two males or two females doing
that. Why not admit that you have lost this argument and move
on,boy...have you considered confining your limited knowledge to
NGs like, alt.sushi?
Your "presumption" has yet to be mentioned in statutary law.
Try again.....
No presumption exists when the state marries geriatric couples,
either...
You must become more learned in the area of legislative history if
you are going to make such broad statements and expect them to
stand.
You presume that people that are disagreeing you on issues of law are
unfamiliar with the nature and effect of legislative history.
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
Yep. I'm familiar with the logical fallacies involved. I'm even familiar
with the emotional pattern. Quite tragic really. Still, it has taken a
substantial effort not to fire off a flame or two >;D "Must be mature.
Must be mature..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
07 Apr 2005 10:55:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:57:10 GMT, Analyst
<post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d31afs$6gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
[]
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
Yep. I'm familiar with the logical fallacies involved. I'm even familiar
with the emotional pattern. Quite tragic really. Still, it has taken a
substantial effort not to fire off a flame or two >;D "Must be mature.
Must be mature..."
"Flame on, dude"..... :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
07 Apr 2005 01:24:31 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns96317139F1035basketcasesoftwareea‡.217.125.201> Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:2sla51tao7lndladqvggq5fgtvb3t45m7t@4ax.com:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:57:10 GMT, Analyst
<post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d31afs$6gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
[]
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
Yep. I'm familiar with the logical fallacies involved. I'm even
familiar with the emotional pattern. Quite tragic really. Still, it
has taken a substantial effort not to fire off a flame or two >;D
"Must be mature. Must be mature..."
"Flame on, dude"..... :)
The temptation is bad enough already. Esp. after he referred to me, and
several others, as "boy", "sweetpea", etc. I almost suspect a troll in
his case, but I'm not sure if I'm reading all of the signs right. :S If
I establish him as a troll...WAR!
Oh, by "sweetpea" he's just hitting on me, in an adorable
hapless sixth-grade kind of way.
(and hey, would HE ever be in for a surprise...)
-- cry
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
08 Apr 2005 03:13:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:24:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <Xns96317139F1035basketcasesoftwareea‡.217.125.201> Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:2sla51tao7lndladqvggq5fgtvb3t45m7t@4ax.com:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:57:10 GMT, Analyst
<post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d31afs$6gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
[]
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
Yep. I'm familiar with the logical fallacies involved. I'm even
familiar with the emotional pattern. Quite tragic really. Still, it
has taken a substantial effort not to fire off a flame or two >;D
"Must be mature. Must be mature..."
"Flame on, dude"..... :)
The temptation is bad enough already. Esp. after he referred to me, and
several others, as "boy", "sweetpea", etc. I almost suspect a troll in
his case, but I'm not sure if I'm reading all of the signs right. :S If
I establish him as a troll...WAR!
Oh, by "sweetpea" he's just hitting on me, in an adorable
hapless sixth-grade kind of way.
(and hey, would HE ever be in for a surprise...)
/wbt wide-eyed;
"You're so big....."
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
08 Apr 2005 03:16:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1epd511d4n7er493lk9l2rg1f0bhuqmta0@4ax.com> stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:24:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <Xns96317139F1035basketcasesoftwareea‡.217.125.201> Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:2sla51tao7lndladqvggq5fgtvb3t45m7t@4ax.com:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:57:10 GMT, Analyst
<post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d31afs$6gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
[]
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
Yep. I'm familiar with the logical fallacies involved. I'm even
familiar with the emotional pattern. Quite tragic really. Still, it
has taken a substantial effort not to fire off a flame or two >;D
"Must be mature. Must be mature..."
"Flame on, dude"..... :)
The temptation is bad enough already. Esp. after he referred to me, and
several others, as "boy", "sweetpea", etc. I almost suspect a troll in
his case, but I'm not sure if I'm reading all of the signs right. :S If
I establish him as a troll...WAR!
Oh, by "sweetpea" he's just hitting on me, in an adorable
hapless sixth-grade kind of way.
(and hey, would HE ever be in for a surprise...)
/wbt wide-eyed;
"You're so big....."
Not to mention hairy...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
10 Apr 2005 08:49:35 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:16:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1epd511d4n7er493lk9l2rg1f0bhuqmta0@4ax.com> stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:24:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <Xns96317139F1035basketcasesoftwareea‡.217.125.201> Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:2sla51tao7lndladqvggq5fgtvb3t45m7t@4ax.com:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:57:10 GMT, Analyst
<post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d31afs$6gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
[]
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
Yep. I'm familiar with the logical fallacies involved. I'm even
familiar with the emotional pattern. Quite tragic really. Still, it
has taken a substantial effort not to fire off a flame or two >;D
"Must be mature. Must be mature..."
"Flame on, dude"..... :)
The temptation is bad enough already. Esp. after he referred to me, and
several others, as "boy", "sweetpea", etc. I almost suspect a troll in
his case, but I'm not sure if I'm reading all of the signs right. :S If
I establish him as a troll...WAR!
Oh, by "sweetpea" he's just hitting on me, in an adorable
hapless sixth-grade kind of way.
(and hey, would HE ever be in for a surprise...)
/wbt wide-eyed;
"You're so big....."
Not to mention hairy...
and so testicular......(laughing)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Analyst" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
07 Apr 2005 11:07:29 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:2sla51tao7lndladqvggq5fgtvb3t45m7t@4ax.com:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:57:10 GMT, Analyst
<post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d31afs$6gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
[]
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
Yep. I'm familiar with the logical fallacies involved. I'm even
familiar with the emotional pattern. Quite tragic really. Still, it
has taken a substantial effort not to fire off a flame or two >;D
"Must be mature. Must be mature..."
"Flame on, dude"..... :)
The temptation is bad enough already. Esp. after he referred to me, and
several others, as "boy", "sweetpea", etc. I almost suspect a troll in
his case, but I'm not sure if I'm reading all of the signs right. :S If
I establish him as a troll...WAR!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
08 Apr 2005 03:12:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:07:29 GMT, Analyst
<post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:2sla51tao7lndladqvggq5fgtvb3t45m7t@4ax.com:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:57:10 GMT, Analyst
<post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d31afs$6gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> writes:
wbt@privacy.net wrote in
news:eg4r41pobo1pq0t3l17j5e5ts46ihv8m2n@4ax.com:
[]
Actually, he just assumes he can shut you up by saying "Go off
and read the Encyclopaedia Galactica, and then we'll talk".
Of course if he had anything more in mind than mere diversion and
evasion, he could have quoted you chapter and verse from
said document way back in the beinning.
-- cary
Yep. I'm familiar with the logical fallacies involved. I'm even
familiar with the emotional pattern. Quite tragic really. Still, it
has taken a substantial effort not to fire off a flame or two >;D
"Must be mature. Must be mature..."
"Flame on, dude"..... :)
The temptation is bad enough already. Esp. after he referred to me, and
several others, as "boy", "sweetpea", etc. I almost suspect a troll in
his case, but I'm not sure if I'm reading all of the signs right. :S If
I establish him as a troll...WAR!
WBT aka 'well beyond toiletries' is a troll, and more.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 09:53:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:40 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:19:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now, tell me which states have a fertility requirement for marriage
licenses, please.
All of them
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of the relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate fertility as a
requirement for the license?
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a woman.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 09:56:42 PM |
|
|
writes:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:40 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of the relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate fertility as a
requirement for the license?
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's assumed even if the woman has had a hysterectomy????
Try again. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
30 Mar 2005 01:08:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:56:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
wbt@privacy.net writes:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:40 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of the relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate fertility as a
requirement for the license?
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's assumed even if the woman has had a ????
The states doesn't ask if she has had a hysterectomy. They know that
man and woman can produce children. They know that a man and man or
woman and woman can't.
Try again. :-)
Yes, do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
30 Mar 2005 09:40:13 PM |
|
|
writes:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:56:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:40 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of the relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate fertility as a
requirement for the license?
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's assumed even if the woman has had a ????
Why did you snip part of the sentence you are pretending to quote?
The states doesn't ask if she has had a hysterectomy. They know that
man and woman can produce children. They know that a man and man or
woman and woman can't.
A man and a woman who has had a histerectomy cannot produce children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
31 Mar 2005 01:43:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:40:13 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
wbt@privacy.net writes:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:56:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
wbt@privacy.net writes:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:40 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of the relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate fertility as a
requirement for the license?
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's assumed even if the woman has had a ????
Why did you snip part of the sentence you are pretending to quote?
Probably because it was even more irrelevant than the rest of your
post.
The states doesn't ask if she has had a hysterectomy. They know that
man and woman can produce children. They know that a man and man or
woman and woman can't.
A man and a woman who has had a histerectomy cannot produce children.
The state doesn't look into the reproductive organs of a man and woman
who wish to marry. There is always the presumption that they can
product offsprings and form a family unit; Man, Woman, Child. There is
never a chance of two males or two females doing that. Why not admit
that you have lost this argument and move on,boy...have you considered
confining your limited knowledge to NGs like, alt.sushi?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
01 Apr 2005 08:07:01 PM |
|
|
writes:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:40:13 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
writes:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:56:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
writes:
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's assumed even if the woman has had a ????
Why did you snip part of the sentence you are pretending to quote?
Probably because it was even more irrelevant than the rest of your
post.
Hey moron, you snipped the object of a short sentence, and then
repeated the word in your response. Why did you mention it all all if
it was "irrelevant"? The real reason is that you had no good answer
and couldn't stand to see a counterexample in print.
The states doesn't ask if she has had a hysterectomy. They know that
man and woman can produce children. They know that a man and man or
woman and woman can't.
A man and a woman who has had a histerectomy cannot produce children.
The state doesn't look into the reproductive organs of a man and woman
who wish to marry. There is always the presumption that they can
product offsprings and form a family unit; Man, Woman, Child. There is
never a chance of two males or two females doing that. Why not admit
that you have lost this argument and move on,boy...have you considered
confining your limited knowledge to NGs like, alt.sushi?
Why not admit that a there is no presumption that a woman will produce
a child when the necessary organ has been removed? Trying to pretend
that you did not lose the argument by declaring victory is just plain
idiotic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
31 Mar 2005 05:53:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:40:13 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
writes:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:56:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:40 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Really? Perhaps you would care to post cites of some of the relevant
sections of those marriage statutes which mandate fertility as a
requirement for the license?
It's assumed since the marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's assumed even if the woman has had a ????
Why did you snip part of the s | | | | | | | | | | | |
