In article <1plo41h2hmrtnhavifok4509ubh54fssk2@4ax.com> writes:
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 11:33:52 -0800,
wrote:
wrote:
There will always be an assumption of fertility
between a man and a woman. Nature demands it.
What do you think of this reasoning:
'If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state
interest" [...] what justification could there possibly be for denying
the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he
liberty protected by the Constitution," Surely not the encouragement of
procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.'
You have no argument. There is no mention of homosexuals in the
constitution.
You have no argument, there is no endorsement of heterosexuality in the
Constitution either.........
*****! Another "liberal" arts (read,"stupidity") major. There is an
endorsement. It's in the form of "the people" and several other
phrases. The majority decided that some years ago when they ratified
all the governing documents. Just as today they are on their way to
deciding that there will be no homosexual marriages in 48 states and 3
territories of the United States. See how that works, babe...
Ah, my, it just gets better and better, doesn't it?
First off, we learn that the following bit of legal phraseology,
the one contained between the two arrows, below:
(read real close now, it's VERY succint)
---> <---
declares that "any and all marriages performed within the boundaries of this
state shall be null and void in the event that the parties herein joined are
incapable of the production of offspring".
....and if that weren't almost too much entertainment for your dollar,
NOW we learn that by "the people", the founding fathers, whether
out of a squeamish nature or simply because no one remembered to
bring the thesaurus, were really trying to say "all and only heterosexual
people".
I can certainly see why "wbt" sets the X-No-Archive flags. But it's not
enough; if I ever committed a post like that one, I'd also set the X-No-Read flag
and the X-No-Post flag as well.
-- cary
.
