| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jeff Thomas" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2004 01:41:04 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be. Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in Europe.
Jeff
.
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
06 Nov 2004 03:57:16 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be. Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
<snip Nazi crap>
Talk about self-contradiction. You say most people appose gay marriage and
then you say that not allowing it is not Democratic! For myself, I
couldn't care less if the legislatures of every state in the union, but I'll
oppose having it imposed on us by fiat from judges or city mayors
overstepping their bounds. THAT is tyranny!
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
06 Nov 2004 06:55:39 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:0e1jd.44884$hr3.1793634@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be. Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
<snip Nazi crap>
Talk about self-contradiction. You say most people appose gay marriage
and then you say that not allowing it is not Democratic! For myself, I
couldn't care less if the legislatures of every state in the union, but
I'll oppose having it imposed on us by fiat from judges or city mayors
overstepping their bounds. THAT is tyranny!
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't tyranny?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
06 Nov 2004 09:51:45 AM |
|
|
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:cmihkb$ivn$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:0e1jd.44884$hr3.1793634@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
<snip Nazi crap>
Talk about self-contradiction. You say most people appose gay marriage
and then you say that not allowing it is not Democratic! For myself, I
couldn't care less if the legislatures of every state in the union, but
I'll oppose having it imposed on us by fiat from judges or city mayors
overstepping their bounds. THAT is tyranny!
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't tyranny?
Correct. A law defining marriage as a contract between any eligible man and
any eligible woman is not tyranny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
06 Nov 2004 11:18:30 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<lq6jd.23394$YL.2385499@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:cmihkb$ivn$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't tyranny?
Correct. A law defining marriage as a contract between any eligible man and
any eligible woman is not tyranny.
By your logic, a law defining marriage as only permissible between
people of the same race is not tyrrany.
Sorry, but forbidding gays the same rights as straights IS tyrrany.
Anything less than equal rights for all is tyrrany.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
07 Nov 2004 05:08:57 AM |
|
|
"Chris" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:686c02c0.0411062118.ec85df1@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<lq6jd.23394$YL.2385499@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:cmihkb$ivn$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't tyranny?
Correct. A law defining marriage as a contract between any eligible man
and
any eligible woman is not tyranny.
By your logic, a law defining marriage as only permissible between
people of the same race is not tyrrany.
True, start lobbying your local legislature.
Sorry, but forbidding gays the same rights as straights IS tyrrany.
Anything less than equal rights for all is tyrrany.
Equal protection is satisfied by the current definition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
08 Nov 2004 06:39:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:08:57 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Chris" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:686c02c0.0411062118.ec85df1@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<lq6jd.23394$YL.2385499@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:cmihkb$ivn$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't tyranny?
Correct. A law defining marriage as a contract between any eligible man
and
any eligible woman is not tyranny.
By your logic, a law defining marriage as only permissible between
people of the same race is not tyrrany.
True, start lobbying your local legislature.
Sorry, but forbidding gays the same rights as straights IS tyrrany.
Anything less than equal rights for all is tyrrany.
Equal protection is satisfied by the current definition.
Didn't the South say something like that, just before 1860?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
06 Nov 2004 01:02:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:51:45 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:cmihkb$ivn$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:0e1jd.44884$hr3.1793634@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
<snip Nazi crap>
Talk about self-contradiction. You say most people appose gay marriage
and then you say that not allowing it is not Democratic! For myself, I
couldn't care less if the legislatures of every state in the union, but
I'll oppose having it imposed on us by fiat from judges or city mayors
overstepping their bounds. THAT is tyranny!
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't tyranny?
Correct. A law defining marriage as a contract between any eligible man and
any eligible woman is not tyranny.
Tell me somewhat: Where does the bible define marriage?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
06 Nov 2004 01:09:54 PM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:hq7qo0hv3ooofvg6jjsja99t8sfbr4icnp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:51:45 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:cmihkb$ivn$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:0e1jd.44884$hr3.1793634@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as
being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
<snip Nazi crap>
Talk about self-contradiction. You say most people appose gay marriage
and then you say that not allowing it is not Democratic! For myself,
I
couldn't care less if the legislatures of every state in the union, but
I'll oppose having it imposed on us by fiat from judges or city mayors
overstepping their bounds. THAT is tyranny!
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't tyranny?
Correct. A law defining marriage as a contract between any eligible man
and
any eligible woman is not tyranny.
Tell me somewhat: Where does the bible define marriage?
Having not read it, I couldn't say.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
07 Nov 2004 12:03:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:02:17 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
said in alt.atheism:
Tell me somewhat: Where does the bible define marriage?
Tell me: why does it matter what the bible says?
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
07 Nov 2004 12:59:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:51:45 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't tyranny?
Correct. A law defining marriage as a contract between any eligible man and
any eligible woman is not tyranny.
Exactly as a law defining which type of men can be property of other
men is not tyranny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
07 Nov 2004 02:20:08 AM |
|
|
Jos Flachs" <"wcruise wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:51:45 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
And not allowing 2 people who want to get married by law isn't
tyranny?
Correct. A law defining marriage as a contract between any eligible
man and any eligible woman is not tyranny.
Exactly as a law defining which type of men can be property of other
men is not tyranny.
I just watched "Bowling for Columbine" where Moses talked about the white
men who wrote the constitution and then when asked why there was so much
more violence here than other countries said that it might be because of the
ethnic mix here.
Sounds like Moses is racist as well as a gun nut.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
06 Nov 2004 03:42:36 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no>...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be. Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in Europe.
Jeff
I would simply like someone to once and for all give me an answer to
this simple question: How does it affect you if gays want to marry?
And if you mention the bible I'll scream. Give a valid, reasonable
answer or admit there is none. Admit this anti-gay stuff is just
hatred and not based on facts or even fears.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
06 Nov 2004 03:51:12 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411061342.5a120fb7@posting.google.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no>...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to
German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in
Europe.
Jeff
I would simply like someone to once and for all give me an answer to
this simple question: How does it affect you if gays want to marry?
And if you mention the bible I'll scream. Give a valid, reasonable
answer or admit there is none. Admit this anti-gay stuff is just
hatred and not based on facts or even fears.
I would submit to you that most of the opposition ot gay marriage is not
anti-gay at all. Rather it is a reaction to having judges and rogue
officials hijacking the people's will to decide the issue through our
legislatures. I personally would be OK if my state enacted a law redefining
marriae in a way that included same-sex couples. I would be pissed if some
judge decided that his opinon was more important than the rest of us all put
together. It's called consent of the governed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
08 Nov 2004 08:15:38 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<kHbjd.46701$hr3.1841023@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411061342.5a120fb7@posting.google.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no>...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to
German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in
Europe.
Jeff
I would simply like someone to once and for all give me an answer to
this simple question: How does it affect you if gays want to marry?
And if you mention the bible I'll scream. Give a valid, reasonable
answer or admit there is none. Admit this anti-gay stuff is just
hatred and not based on facts or even fears.
I would submit to you that most of the opposition ot gay marriage is not
anti-gay at all. Rather it is a reaction to having judges and rogue
officials hijacking the people's will to decide the issue through our
legislatures. I personally would be OK if my state enacted a law redefining
marriae in a way that included same-sex couples. I would be pissed if some
judge decided that his opinon was more important than the rest of us all put
together. It's called consent of the governed.
So Gays don't have the same civil rights as everybody else until *you
vote for them? Does this apply to women too? African-Americans? Are
civil rights only by popular opinion now? Can you vote to suppress
freedom of the press? Don't be an *****. The judge is supposed to rule
based upon law and the constution. It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
08 Nov 2004 05:56:51 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<kHbjd.46701$hr3.1841023@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411061342.5a120fb7@posting.google.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no>...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as
being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to
German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in
Europe.
Jeff
I would simply like someone to once and for all give me an answer to
this simple question: How does it affect you if gays want to marry?
And if you mention the bible I'll scream. Give a valid, reasonable
answer or admit there is none. Admit this anti-gay stuff is just
hatred and not based on facts or even fears.
I would submit to you that most of the opposition ot gay marriage is not
anti-gay at all. Rather it is a reaction to having judges and rogue
officials hijacking the people's will to decide the issue through our
legislatures. I personally would be OK if my state enacted a law
redefining
marriae in a way that included same-sex couples. I would be pissed if
some
judge decided that his opinon was more important than the rest of us all
put
together. It's called consent of the governed.
So Gays don't have the same civil rights as everybody else until *you
vote for them?
The current definition of marriage applies equally to all.
Does this apply to women too? African-Americans? Are
civil rights only by popular opinion now? Can you vote to suppress
freedom of the press? Don't be an *****. The judge is supposed to rule
based upon law and the constution.
And yet you would have them invent new laws.
It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
09 Nov 2004 05:40:44 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<7JTjd.52293$hr3.2028165@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
And I suppose you don't consider *that to be an exaggeration? Those
are the stupid kind of arguments you "conservatives" are famous for.
Irrational and emotional and way off the point.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
09 Nov 2004 06:02:54 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411091540.78e5b553@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<7JTjd.52293$hr3.2028165@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
And I suppose you don't consider *that to be an exaggeration? Those
are the stupid kind of arguments you "conservatives" are famous for.
Irrational and emotional and way off the point.
Actually, qutie rational and on point. A right does not come into being
merely because you declare it to be so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 08:28:45 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<OUckd.50060$Jb.1854096@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411091540.78e5b553@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<7JTjd.52293$hr3.2028165@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
And I suppose you don't consider *that to be an exaggeration? Those
are the stupid kind of arguments you "conservatives" are famous for.
Irrational and emotional and way off the point.
Actually, qutie rational and on point. A right does not come into being
merely because you declare it to be so.
Getting snotty doesn't make your opinions facts either.
Read the other posts answering your "point". They are correct in
pointing out the obvious, which I skipped, that dogs are not people
and can not therefore enter into a legal contract.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 05:15:35 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411100628.541e472@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<OUckd.50060$Jb.1854096@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411091540.78e5b553@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<7JTjd.52293$hr3.2028165@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
And I suppose you don't consider *that to be an exaggeration? Those
are the stupid kind of arguments you "conservatives" are famous for.
Irrational and emotional and way off the point.
Actually, qutie rational and on point. A right does not come into being
merely because you declare it to be so.
Getting snotty doesn't make your opinions facts either.
Read the other posts answering your "point". They are correct in
pointing out the obvious, which I skipped, that dogs are not people
and can not therefore enter into a legal contract.
And 2 people of the same sex are not a a man and a woman and therefore
cannot enter into a marriage contract.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 12:19:41 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:15:35 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411100628.541e472@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<OUckd.50060$Jb.1854096@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411091540.78e5b553@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<7JTjd.52293$hr3.2028165@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
And I suppose you don't consider *that to be an exaggeration? Those
are the stupid kind of arguments you "conservatives" are famous for.
Irrational and emotional and way off the point.
Actually, qutie rational and on point. A right does not come into being
merely because you declare it to be so.
Getting snotty doesn't make your opinions facts either.
Read the other posts answering your "point". They are correct in
pointing out the obvious, which I skipped, that dogs are not people
and can not therefore enter into a legal contract.
And 2 people of the same sex are not a a man and a woman and therefore
cannot enter into a marriage contract.
Acording to laws that violate the equal protection guaranteed by the
Constitution. There is nothing about the contract of marriage that
would justify not allowing two men or two women to enter into it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 01:18:44 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
< snip >
The current definition of marriage applies equally to all.
Yes, exactly! The current law doesn't say anything about marriage only
being allowed between a man and a woman. That's why so many states, as
well as our dear President, are trying to *change* that definition *to*
"one man and one woman".
If the current definition actually excluded homosexual marriage, then
none of these new laws would be "needed".
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 07:32:29 PM |
|
|
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:2vhs8mF2j1gugU1@uni-berlin.de...
Fester wrote:
< snip >
The current definition of marriage applies equally to all.
Yes, exactly! The current law doesn't say anything about marriage only
being allowed between a man and a woman. That's why so many states, as
well as our dear President, are trying to *change* that definition *to*
"one man and one woman".
If the current definition actually excluded homosexual marriage, then none
of these new laws would be "needed".
Entirely FALSE! Current marriage laws in all states (except MA now) require
the parties to be of different sexes. The spate of laws that were voted on
are changes to state constitutions in order to prevent rogue judges (like
the ones in MA) from incorrectly interpretting the various state
constitutions, by making the people's will explicit in them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 10:29:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:32:29 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:2vhs8mF2j1gugU1@uni-berlin.de...
Fester wrote:
< snip >
The current definition of marriage applies equally to all.
Yes, exactly! The current law doesn't say anything about marriage only
being allowed between a man and a woman. That's why so many states, as
well as our dear President, are trying to *change* that definition *to*
"one man and one woman".
If the current definition actually excluded homosexual marriage, then none
of these new laws would be "needed".
Entirely FALSE! Current marriage laws in all states (except MA now) require
the parties to be of different sexes.
Only in your perverted dreams, sweety. Otherwise there wouldn't be any
need to quickly specify the gender requirement.
The spate of laws that were voted on
are changes to state constitutions in order to prevent rogue judges (like
the ones in MA) from incorrectly interpretting the various state
constitutions, by making the people's will explicit in them.
Ah, the famous will of the people. The people want what you want,
right?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
09 Nov 2004 05:48:43 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<kHbjd.46701$hr3.1841023@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411061342.5a120fb7@posting.google.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no>...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as
being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to
German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in
Europe.
Jeff
I would simply like someone to once and for all give me an answer to
this simple question: How does it affect you if gays want to marry?
And if you mention the bible I'll scream. Give a valid, reasonable
answer or admit there is none. Admit this anti-gay stuff is just
hatred and not based on facts or even fears.
I would submit to you that most of the opposition ot gay marriage is not
anti-gay at all. Rather it is a reaction to having judges and rogue
officials hijacking the people's will to decide the issue through our
legislatures. I personally would be OK if my state enacted a law
redefining
marriae in a way that included same-sex couples. I would be pissed if
some
judge decided that his opinon was more important than the rest of us all
put
together. It's called consent of the governed.
So Gays don't have the same civil rights as everybody else until *you
vote for them?
The current definition of marriage applies equally to all.
Does this apply to women too? African-Americans? Are
civil rights only by popular opinion now? Can you vote to suppress
freedom of the press? Don't be an *****. The judge is supposed to rule
based upon law and the constution.
And yet you would have them invent new laws.
It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
Hmmm........the same argument Duke used.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
NFS Porsche Unleashed, Hot Pursuit 2, Underground.
Yeowww
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
09 Nov 2004 06:03:35 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:kbSdnWbM_bAHygzcRVnyhw@pipex.net...
Fester wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<kHbjd.46701$hr3.1841023@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411061342.5a120fb7@posting.google.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no>...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as
being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to
German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in
Europe.
Jeff
I would simply like someone to once and for all give me an answer to
this simple question: How does it affect you if gays want to marry?
And if you mention the bible I'll scream. Give a valid, reasonable
answer or admit there is none. Admit this anti-gay stuff is just
hatred and not based on facts or even fears.
I would submit to you that most of the opposition ot gay marriage is not
anti-gay at all. Rather it is a reaction to having judges and rogue
officials hijacking the people's will to decide the issue through our
legislatures. I personally would be OK if my state enacted a law
redefining
marriae in a way that included same-sex couples. I would be pissed if
some
judge decided that his opinon was more important than the rest of us all
put
together. It's called consent of the governed.
So Gays don't have the same civil rights as everybody else until *you
vote for them?
The current definition of marriage applies equally to all.
Does this apply to women too? African-Americans? Are
civil rights only by popular opinion now? Can you vote to suppress
freedom of the press? Don't be an *****. The judge is supposed to rule
based upon law and the constution.
And yet you would have them invent new laws.
It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
Hmmm........the same argument Duke used.
That hurts 8-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 09:57:14 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:kbSdnWbM_bAHygzcRVnyhw@pipex.net...
Fester wrote:
Snippage......
It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
Hmmm........the same argument Duke used.
That hurts 8-)
Yeah, I guess I was a bit harsh.
:)
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
NFS Porsche Unleashed, Hot Pursuit 2, Underground.
Yeowww
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
09 Nov 2004 01:48:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:56:51 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<kHbjd.46701$hr3.1841023@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411061342.5a120fb7@posting.google.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no>...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as
being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non
issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to
German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in
Europe.
Jeff
I would simply like someone to once and for all give me an answer to
this simple question: How does it affect you if gays want to marry?
And if you mention the bible I'll scream. Give a valid, reasonable
answer or admit there is none. Admit this anti-gay stuff is just
hatred and not based on facts or even fears.
I would submit to you that most of the opposition ot gay marriage is not
anti-gay at all. Rather it is a reaction to having judges and rogue
officials hijacking the people's will to decide the issue through our
legislatures. I personally would be OK if my state enacted a law
redefining
marriae in a way that included same-sex couples. I would be pissed if
some
judge decided that his opinon was more important than the rest of us all
put
together. It's called consent of the governed.
So Gays don't have the same civil rights as everybody else until *you
vote for them?
The current definition of marriage applies equally to all.
The law does not apply equally to all. That is the important point.
Does this apply to women too? African-Americans? Are
civil rights only by popular opinion now? Can you vote to suppress
freedom of the press? Don't be an *****. The judge is supposed to rule
based upon law and the constution.
And yet you would have them invent new laws.
The Bill of Rights is new?
It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
Are dogs able to understand a contract?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
09 Nov 2004 05:31:49 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:0d72p0t5r31vfmgh47ufaic0n6fqvgljr1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:56:51 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411080615.13f7c98@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<kHbjd.46701$hr3.1841023@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0411061342.5a120fb7@posting.google.com...
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ke%id.131921$nl.3127@pd7tw3no>...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as
being
a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be.
Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most
people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a
non
issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to
German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in
Europe.
Jeff
I would simply like someone to once and for all give me an answer to
this simple question: How does it affect you if gays want to marry?
And if you mention the bible I'll scream. Give a valid, reasonable
answer or admit there is none. Admit this anti-gay stuff is just
hatred and not based on facts or even fears.
I would submit to you that most of the opposition ot gay marriage is
not
anti-gay at all. Rather it is a reaction to having judges and rogue
officials hijacking the people's will to decide the issue through our
legislatures. I personally would be OK if my state enacted a law
redefining
marriae in a way that included same-sex couples. I would be pissed if
some
judge decided that his opinon was more important than the rest of us
all
put
together. It's called consent of the governed.
So Gays don't have the same civil rights as everybody else until *you
vote for them?
The current definition of marriage applies equally to all.
The law does not apply equally to all. That is the important point.
Does this apply to women too? African-Americans? Are
civil rights only by popular opinion now? Can you vote to suppress
freedom of the press? Don't be an *****. The judge is supposed to rule
based upon law and the constution.
And yet you would have them invent new laws.
The Bill of Rights is new?
I grepped a copy of the BOR. Nowhere could I find a match for any of the
following:
marriage
gay
buttfuck
Sorry, it's not in there.
It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
Are dogs able to understand a contract?
Do you understand that marriage is a contract available to all who can
consent?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dez Akin" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 12:43:40 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<Frckd.50053$Jb.1851630@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
And yet you would have them invent new laws.
The Bill of Rights is new?
I grepped a copy of the BOR. Nowhere could I find a match for any of the
following:
marriage
gay
buttfuck
Sorry, it's not in there.
No, its not in the bill of rights, as the person you're previous
poster is contesting, but it is in the constitution; Specifically the
14th ammendment in section 1, the equal protection clause, which
applies to all statuatory law. So while marriage, gay, and the ever
colourful 'buttfuck' isn't in the constitution, any statute is covered
by the constitution.
Which is why all the sodomy laws that only apply to homosexual
activity had to be thrown out, from a strict constructivist
standpoint; The sodomy laws that applied to everybody were thrown out
with regard to fourth ammendment 'privacy' concerns, along the same
lines of the Griswold decision that paved the way for Roe vs Wade.
Lets look at in this light, because as you said, marriage isn't in the
constitution; Its a statute. If any statutatory law was applied in a
similar fasion, say men were only able to retain male real estate
agents, the court would shut down such a law as a violation of 14th
ammendment protections. As you said, there is no special place for
marriage in the constitution.
That said, I certainly hope that this does get shut down in the courts
(though I certainly cant see how an honest constructivist could argue
against it; It has much more merit than the shaky 'privacy' rulings of
Griswold and Roe) because I'm damned sure I don't want a
constitutional ammendment enshrining discrimination forever. I'd
prefer if there was another go taken at it in the courts in a decade
or two, when society is more accepting of gays.
It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
Are dogs able to understand a contract?
Do you understand that marriage is a contract available to all who can
consent?
Exactly which side are you arguing? That statement seems to indicate
that it would be very difficult to argue against gays right to marry
with 14th ammendment considerations.
Marriage is a contract availiable to all persons... which dogs legally
are not. A more compelling inflamitory remark would be 'Next you'll
decalre a constitutional right to marry General Electric' which have
much more of the quality of personhood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 04:22:39 AM |
|
|
"Dez Akin" <dezakin@usa.net> wrote in message
news:dd43b4da.0411092243.6c403a34@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<Frckd.50053$Jb.1851630@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
And yet you would have them invent new laws.
The Bill of Rights is new?
I grepped a copy of the BOR. Nowhere could I find a match for any of the
following:
marriage
gay
buttfuck
Sorry, it's not in there.
No, its not in the bill of rights, as the person you're previous
poster is contesting, but it is in the constitution; Specifically the
14th ammendment in section 1, the equal protection clause, which
applies to all statuatory law. So while marriage, gay, and the ever
colourful 'buttfuck' isn't in the constitution, any statute is covered
by the constitution.
Which is why all the sodomy laws that only apply to homosexual
activity had to be thrown out, from a strict constructivist
standpoint; The sodomy laws that applied to everybody were thrown out
with regard to fourth ammendment 'privacy' concerns, along the same
lines of the Griswold decision that paved the way for Roe vs Wade.
Lets look at in this light, because as you said, marriage isn't in the
constitution; Its a statute. If any statutatory law was applied in a
similar fasion, say men were only able to retain male real estate
agents, the court would shut down such a law as a violation of 14th
ammendment protections. As you said, there is no special place for
marriage in the constitution.
That said, I certainly hope that this does get shut down in the courts
(though I certainly cant see how an honest constructivist could argue
against it; It has much more merit than the shaky 'privacy' rulings of
Griswold and Roe) because I'm damned sure I don't want a
constitutional ammendment enshrining discrimination forever. I'd
prefer if there was another go taken at it in the courts in a decade
or two, when society is more accepting of gays.
But the equal protection clause is satisfied by a law which allows any
eligible man to marry any eligible woman. I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating men and
women differently. More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
It is the right-wing judges who
are activists, making rulings based upon their prejudices. The
judges
you are pissed about looked at the law/constitution and rulled based
upon that. What you want is a Christian judge who will say "well the
constution says I can't discriminate, but what the hell, I'll be
damned if I'll let those faggots marry."
Next you'll want to vote before you "let" me get married.
Next you'll declare a constitutional right to marry your dog.
Are dogs able to understand a contract?
Do you understand that marriage is a contract available to all who can
consent?
Exactly which side are you arguing? That statement seems to indicate
that it would be very difficult to argue against gays right to marry
with 14th ammendment considerations.
Marriage is a contract availiable to all persons... which dogs legally
are not. A more compelling inflamitory remark would be 'Next you'll
decalre a constitutional right to marry General Electric' which have
much more of the quality of personhood.
I'm not the one who is interested in bringing new rights into existance by
fiat!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
