Religions > Bible > There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever.
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2004 09:43:56 PM |
| Object: |
There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
| User: "GentleOwlSpirit" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 12:22:29 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not come to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
Peace, Sioux
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 01:07:52 PM |
|
|
"GentleOwlSpirit" <lemaj@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qj9Wb.6651$Ch.326@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not come
to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
The Bible is not the law of the land.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fitzdraco" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 12:51:49 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:c_9Wb.272539$xy6.1383263@attbi_s02...
"GentleOwlSpirit" <lemaj@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qj9Wb.6651$Ch.326@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not come
to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
The Bible is not the law of the land.
--
Peacenik
Thank you, the only thing the Bible proves is that 2000 years ago people
wrote decent fiction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GentleOwlSpirit" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
11 Feb 2004 04:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" wrote in message >
"GentleOwlSpirit" <> wrote in message
....
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not come
to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
The Bible is not the law of the land.
--
Peacenik
====================================
So if we leave the "land" to the homosexuals and let them just have it, they
will no doubt bring the human race to extinction as they don't/won't
procreate.
Peace, Sioux
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
11 Feb 2004 11:11:59 PM |
|
|
"GentleOwlSpirit" <lemaj@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:G6yWb.45574$uS3.28813@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Peacenik" wrote in message >
"GentleOwlSpirit" <> wrote in message
...
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not
come
to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
The Bible is not the law of the land.
--
Peacenik
====================================
So if we leave the "land" to the homosexuals and let them just have it,
they
will no doubt bring the human race to extinction as they don't/won't
procreate.
Peace, Sioux
(pssssst....................since it obviously escape your
mini-brain......there are more people on this planet than just the
homosexuals)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brent Norman" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
11 Feb 2004 11:19:07 PM |
|
|
"GentleOwlSpirit" <lemaj@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<G6yWb.45574$uS3.28813@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
"Peacenik" wrote in message >
"GentleOwlSpirit" <> wrote in message
...
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not come
to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
The Bible is not the law of the land.
--
Peacenik
====================================
So if we leave the "land" to the homosexuals and let them just have it, they
will no doubt bring the human race to extinction as they don't/won't
procreate.
Peace, Sioux
You seem to have confused the whole issue. By allowing homosexuals to
marry, it is in no way, shape or form forcing heterosexual people to
get into same-sex relationships.
You seem to be of the school of thought that says, "if there's a drop
of water, it is automatically a river!"
In your reasoning, all heterosexuals will be forced somehow to become
homosexual, an impossiblity, since sexual orientation is not a
characteristic that works that way. If you are gay, you are gay. If
you are straight, you are straight. This is a basic fact your lot
doesn't seem to understand. Heterosexuals have and will continue to
produce homosexuals as well as heterosexuals for the foreseeable
future. Nothing will change in that respect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
11 Feb 2004 06:06:02 PM |
|
|
"GentleOwlSpirit" <lemaj@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qj9Wb.6651$Ch.326@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not come
to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
Peace, Sioux
Sooooo....Do you also advocate killing unruly sons(1), killing people that
work on Sunday(2), killing rape victims if they do not cry out loud enough
to be heard(3), polygamy(4), incest(5) and the subjugation of women(6)?
(1) Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which
will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a
drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he
die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear,
and fear.
(2) Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there
shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth
work therein shall be put to death.
(3) Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an
husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and
ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried
not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's
wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
(4) Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was
Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
(5) Genesis 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain,
and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt
in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and
there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all
the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him,
that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn
went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down,
nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the
younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink
wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve
seed of our father.
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the
younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor
when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same
is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi:
the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
(6) 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it
is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at
home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
And do you have any unicorns? They, too, are in the Bible....pathetic.
More importantly, though, here is one of the laws that the government must
adhere to:
First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...."
That means christianity, too.
Craig was right: not a single damn one of you can give a legitimate and
relevant argument for denying equal rights to a taxpaying segment of our
population, namely gays. Craig does not allow his faith or his religion to
cloud his rational thought in his behavior toward others. He does not use
Jesus as an excuse to be a narrow-minded,
Spare me the sanctimonious ***** of civil unions. For a $36 marriage license,
the State of Texas enforces the word of my wife in case of my
incapacitation. A "civil union" does not carry even half that force.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brent Norman" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
11 Feb 2004 11:14:13 PM |
|
|
"GentleOwlSpirit" <lemaj@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<qj9Wb.6651$Ch.326@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not come to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
Peace, Sioux
The *literal*
translation of the "famous" Lev 18:22 is:
"You must not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man; it is ritually
impure."
Additionally, the "condemnation" uses the hebrew word "toevah", which
has been roughly translated as "abomination". The
Hebrews had special words to single out various misdeeds.
If the passage in question was referring to sexual misconduct, the
writer would have used "zimmah" instead of "toevah". "zimmah" was
used to condemn immoral
acts like rape and prostitution, whereas "toevah" was used to condemn
idolatrous practices.
Wherever BAAL or the fertility goddess Ashtoreth are mentioned,
"toevah" is the word used in the Law to denounce these idolatrous
practices.
This passage is more likely related
to idolatry, as it could be an idiom of some sort whose true meaning
may never be known.
Anti-homosexual activists conveniently believe the short-cuts of
translation and logic that have caused this misinterpretation of
scripture, since it doesn't affect them in any way to interpret it as
such.
The fallacy in that reasoning is that if this passage can be
interpreted to be a proscription against male homosexuality, there is
no implication of female homosexuality here; it would have been
sensible to condemn both male and female homosexuality right in this
section as well, but it is mysteriously absent. There are too many
uncertainties to be able to conclude that this passage condemns
homosexuality.
The reason I believe that this passage is not related to any
homosexuality as it exists today, is that the context of the Chapter
suggests it is related to strange worship practices. Why else would
the hebrew word that is roughly translated as "abomination" here,
("toevah")be used? "toevah" was used to condemn ritual misdeeds
throughout the Bible, such as Egyptians being around people who raise
sheep and:
* Offering improper sacrifices to God in the eyes of the Egyptians
* The Gold/Silver used to make false Idols
* Burning your sons or daughters as sacrifices to idols
* Eating 'prohibited' animals
* Offering a sacrifice to God, of an animal that is crippled or ill.
However, another word that is also often translated as "abomination",
("zimmah" - sexual/carnal sin) is used to condemn:
* Having sex with your daughter
* Having your daughters serve as prostitutes
* A Man marrying both a mother AND a daughter
* The slaying of a concubine with sexual overtones
* Taking someone else's wife
* Wicked people with evil motives
* Being naked and ashamed for all to see
* Sleeping with your daughter-in-law or half-sister
* prostitution/promiscuity
This means that what is being condemned in Leviticus with regard to a
"sleeping the sleep of a woman" is an idiom for a very specific
idolatrous or ritual act, rather than a sexual orientation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
12 Feb 2004 01:05:16 AM |
|
|
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ad4b4f.0402112114.52cd86ae@posting.google.com...
"GentleOwlSpirit" <lemaj@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<qj9Wb.6651$Ch.326@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
-- Craig Chilton
On homosexualuality behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination.
As for those who say those are the old laws, Jesus said I don't not come
to
abolish the Law, I come to fulfill the Law.
Peace, Sioux
The *literal*
translation of the "famous" Lev 18:22 is:
"You must not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man; it is ritually
impure."
Additionally, the "condemnation" uses the hebrew word "toevah", which
<snip>
I see the big kids have come out to play....
-DMc
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 02:44:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:22:29 -0500,
"GentleOwlSpirit" <lemaj@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote in message
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
NO one has been able to do that.
So their ONLY possible reason is homophobic bigotry.
Which is worth precisely as much as racial bigotry.
Not a plugged Confederate penny.
On homosexual behavior the Bible states as follows:
Lev. 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination. As for those who say those are the old laws,
Jesus said I don't not come to abolish the Law, I come to fulfill
the Law.
Peace, Sioux
That's a Biblical precept. NOT a **fact**. MOST of the old
Jewish laws of Leviticus were regarded as invalid or were outright
cancelled in the New Testament. Otherwise, societies would be
putting fortune-tellers and people who eat lobster to death! But
even if not, whether or not one subscribes to Biblical teachings is
HIS/HER choice. Nothing in the Bible authorizes a GESTAPO
to enforce its precepts (either real or perceived, valid or invalid)
upon society in general.
There is NO sensible reason to deny same-sex marriage to ANY
couple of legal marrying age.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Trust" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 11:00:12 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fitzdraco" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 12:39:24 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:w68Wb.271885$xy6.1381882@attbi_s02...
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
While there is no good reason to disallow gay marriage, there is a very good
reason to ban incest. When you breed to close to your on genetics you run
the risk of having recessive genes expressing themselves. Family members
often possess the same recessive genes. So yes there is a health issue there
effecting another person, the potential child. Homosexual marriage will
produce no children so it's not an issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 07:51:26 PM |
|
|
"Fitzdraco" <fitzdraco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102ig7nrtpit877@corp.supernews.com...
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:w68Wb.271885$xy6.1381882@attbi_s02...
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not
acceptable.
While there is no good reason to disallow gay marriage, there is a very
good
reason to ban incest. When you breed to close to your on genetics you run
the risk of having recessive genes expressing themselves. Family members
often possess the same recessive genes. So yes there is a health issue
there
effecting another person, the potential child. Homosexual marriage will
produce no children so it's not an issue.
I was just reading some articles, apparently 26 states allow first cousin
marriages.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 07:30:05 PM |
|
|
"Fitzdraco" <fitzdraco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102ig7nrtpit877@corp.supernews.com...
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:w68Wb.271885$xy6.1381882@attbi_s02...
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not
acceptable.
While there is no good reason to disallow gay marriage, there is a very
good
reason to ban incest. When you breed to close to your on genetics you run
the risk of having recessive genes expressing themselves. Family members
often possess the same recessive genes. So yes there is a health issue
there
effecting another person, the potential child. Homosexual marriage will
produce no children so it's not an issue.
Research has recently shown that is only true where Mother/Son,
Father/Daughter, and Brother/Sister incest is concerned, where there is any
'new' genetic material added to the mix whatsoever, this isn't a problem.
Additionally, I believe that first cousins is legal in two or three states.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fitzdraco" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 07:58:19 PM |
|
|
--
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do
evil; but for good people do evil-that takes religion.
There's a new religous sect called "Jehovah's Bystanders." It's for people
who don't want to get involved.
If there really is a God who created the entire universe with all of its
glories, and He decides to deliver a message to humanity, He will not use,
as His messenger, a person on cable TV with a bad hairstyle." - David Barry
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." - George
Carlin
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:xAfWb.19066$F23.13488@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fitzdraco" <fitzdraco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102ig7nrtpit877@corp.supernews.com...
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:w68Wb.271885$xy6.1381882@attbi_s02...
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very
real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes,
the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the
building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not
acceptable.
While there is no good reason to disallow gay marriage, there is a very
good
reason to ban incest. When you breed to close to your on genetics you
run
the risk of having recessive genes expressing themselves. Family members
often possess the same recessive genes. So yes there is a health issue
there
effecting another person, the potential child. Homosexual marriage will
produce no children so it's not an issue.
Research has recently shown that is only true where Mother/Son,
Father/Daughter, and Brother/Sister incest is concerned, where there is
any
'new' genetic material added to the mix whatsoever, this isn't a problem.
Additionally, I believe that first cousins is legal in two or three
states.
No breeding too close to your families gene pool is still dangerous, it is
just less so the further away you get. And yes as you stated it is legal in
26 states. Now this doesn't bother me as it's there kids and if they want to
take the risk let them. I am against selective breeding being enforced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
11 Feb 2004 05:10:06 AM |
|
|
"Fitzdraco" <fitzdraco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102j9uofd47l5e3@corp.supernews.com...
--
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can
do
evil; but for good people do evil-that takes religion.
There's a new religous sect called "Jehovah's Bystanders." It's for people
who don't want to get involved.
If there really is a God who created the entire universe with all of its
glories, and He decides to deliver a message to humanity, He will not use,
as His messenger, a person on cable TV with a bad hairstyle." - David
Barry
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -
George
Carlin
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:xAfWb.19066$F23.13488@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Fitzdraco" <fitzdraco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102ig7nrtpit877@corp.supernews.com...
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:w68Wb.271885$xy6.1381882@attbi_s02...
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very
real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes,
the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the
building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not
acceptable.
While there is no good reason to disallow gay marriage, there is a
very
good
reason to ban incest. When you breed to close to your on genetics you
run
the risk of having recessive genes expressing themselves. Family
members
often possess the same recessive genes. So yes there is a health issue
there
effecting another person, the potential child. Homosexual marriage
will
produce no children so it's not an issue.
Research has recently shown that is only true where Mother/Son,
Father/Daughter, and Brother/Sister incest is concerned, where there is
any
'new' genetic material added to the mix whatsoever, this isn't a
problem.
Additionally, I believe that first cousins is legal in two or three
states.
No breeding too close to your families gene pool is still dangerous, it is
just less so the further away you get. And yes as you stated it is legal
in
26 states. Now this doesn't bother me as it's there kids and if they want
to
take the risk let them. I am against selective breeding being enforced.
Marrying within your own race elevates your risk of birth defect as well.
But to a very small degree. About the same as marrying a first cousin.
"Fact: Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as
opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available
for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You
have a defect that runs in your family) In plain terms first cousins have at
a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. Check the links section
for more information on genetic counselors. The National Society of Genetic
Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to
2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age."
http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 01:05:57 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:w68Wb.271885$xy6.1381882@attbi_s02...
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
As is yours.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope.
Fallacy: slippery slope. They said the same about legalizing interracial
amrriage at the time of Loving v. Virginia. The sky didn't fall. Men didn't
marry their sons, cats didn't marry dogs and forks didn't marry rocks.
Why don't we experiment? Let gay marriage become legal. Then we will see if
it leads to what you say. How about it? If women start marrying their dogs
and straight marriages become meaningless, then we'll believe you.
In essense, it becomes undefined.
Wrong. Its definition is strengthened, made more inclusive, and the inherent
bigotry is eradicated. Or don't you think bigotry should be eradicated?
With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
Gay marriage would create more family units, making a stronger society, if
the family unit is indeed, as you claim (without support) the building block
of society. (Funny, I always thought the individual was the building block
of society).
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "curtsybear" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 02:05:15 PM |
|
|
In alt.politics.homosexuality Peacenik <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
Why don't we experiment? Let gay marriage become legal. Then we will see if
it leads to what you say. How about it? If women start marrying their dogs
and straight marriages become meaningless, then we'll believe you.
<http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_862819.html?menu=news.quirkies.unlucky>
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/05/britney.spears.wedding.ap/>
You're going to have to come up with different specifications for this
experiment.
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"Really? Did you teach Monica Blewinsky how to use her filthy tongue to
destroy the country? The recession we're having now was caused by her
busy little body." -- Bernadette explains why they found little bits of
Greenspan's DNA on that blue dress.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 03:13:54 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:w68Wb.271885$xy6.1381882@attbi_s02...
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
I don't recall that Craig ever mentioned his sexual preference.
Anyway, things objectional to some people does NOT mean those people have a
right to outlaw the actions of others!
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined.
Ahhhhhhh...........the old insane domino theory!
Homosexuality has nothing to do with incest!
It is defined by the union of two people (adults).
Obviously that is too much for you to comprehend!
With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
Where are the facts that the "family" is the building blockof our society?
Don't single people count?
Were are the facts that the (comprised of ONLY a male father, a female
mother..and possibly children) are the ONLY family unit?
family unit"
Your babbling has no evidence - only bigotry, to support it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 04:08:21 PM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:102iicehc3538f8@corp.supernews.com...
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:w68Wb.271885$xy6.1381882@attbi_s02...
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
I don't recall that Craig ever mentioned his sexual preference.
Anyway, things objectional to some people does NOT mean those people have
a
right to outlaw the actions of others!
You hit that one square between the eyes.
If "objectionable" were a criteria for abolishment, there'd be a lot fewer
TV preachers around. Not to mention the fact of what is really
objectionable.
I find stupid people (Thomas Trust, Osprey, and PapaJack come to mind)
objectionable, but they still get the same rights that the rest of us get.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined.
Ahhhhhhh...........the old insane domino theory!
Homosexuality has nothing to do with incest!
I wonder if those dolts realize that incest runs rampant in the Bible? The
same Bible they use to justify their ignorance and bigotry.
It is defined by the union of two people (adults).
Obviously that is too much for you to comprehend!
I'm an Atheist. I wonder if "they" consider my marriage invalid?
With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not
acceptable.
Where are the facts that the "family" is the building blockof our society?
Don't single people count?
Were are the facts that the (comprised of ONLY a male father, a female
mother..and possibly children) are the ONLY family unit?
family unit"
Your babbling has no evidence - only bigotry, to support it!
You're batting two-for-two, Zen.
I believe that Craig asked for a "legitimate reason," none of which have
been presented thus far.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 11:52:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:00:12 GMT,
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote:
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore
the very real fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as
loathsome by many.
Well... I suppose that may gay folks DO regard heterosexual sex
to be loathsome. But to their credit, THEY aren't running around
condemning and badmouthing us for it, or seeking to discriminate
against us for it.
And at bottom, what a person does in PRIVATE sexually is
precisely as much anyone else's business as it is if he collects
stamps or coins in private. NO big deal. A NON-issue for all
SENSIBLE and **intelligent** people.
So that makes nearly all homosexuals infinitely MORE sensible
and intelligent than ANY heterosexual who ignorantly and hatefully
pretends that sexual orientation is ANYTHING to whine about.
Redefining marriage...
"Redefining," yes, but MORE accurately, it is a case of making
marriage LESS exclusionary. A very **good** thing to do.
...opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the rest of
the slope.
ROTFL!!!!!! There you **whiners** go with that nonsensical
"slippery slope" of yours again. LOOK, nitwit, if something is
worthwhile, then your supposed "slope" will lead to it. We saw that
in the phasing out of racial discrimination. First slavery bought the
farm, and then segregation. A very *desirable* abd *beneficial*
"slope."
First cousins can legally marry in many places already. It's been
that way for a LONG time in many such locales. And the ONLY thing
wrong with incest between consenting adults is the birth defects
(mental and/or physical) that could resulkt from inbreeding. SO -- if
one or the other or both partners is/are **sterile**, then there is NO
problem, and they *should* be permitted to marry.
In essense, it becomes undefined.
Wrong. As it is **necessary** to set delimiting parameters, those
parameters will always exist. Because it is complicated enough for
TWO people to get along well as a couple, polygamy will probably
always be illegal due to the potential it waould have for exascer-
bating societal problems (such as gridlocked family courts) And due
to inbreeding problems, "incestuous" marriage will probably always
be illegal for couples wherein both partners are fertile.
But since there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to continue
to exclude same-sex couples and sterile family members from marrying,
we can EXPECT for those **nonsensical** restrictions soon to become
EXTINCT.
With the building block of our society being the family unit, that
is simply not acceptable.
Utter bullcrap, for the reasons stated clearly above.
If you think you can provide a VALID and FACTUAL refutation
of what I just said, have a go. Lots of luck!!
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
11 Feb 2004 05:08:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:00:12 GMT, "Thomas Trust"
<ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
It's not damaging me, our children, our lives... so what is the
problem?
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
What consitutes family, anyway?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
11 Feb 2004 11:32:55 AM |
|
|
"Krisblake" <krisblake@email.com> wrote in message
news:163k20516n1j4re2jr1ehhll4m3o27rchi@4ax.com...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:00:12 GMT, "Thomas Trust"
<ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
It's not damaging me, our children, our lives... so what is the
problem?
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the building
block of our society being the family unit, that is simply not
acceptable.
What consitutes family, anyway?
Obviously you haven't been keeping up .......
What constitutes family is whatever extremist right wing, ultra conservative
republican, christian fanatics say it is!
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: It's just a matter of degrees. |
11 Feb 2004 11:27:12 PM |
|
|
Several years ago .. while watching one of the popular afternoon talk shows
( Oprah, Donahue, or one of that sort) ..
I watched with amazement while a young woman stated that ALL HOMOOSEXUALS
should be collected, and then caged, out in the dessert in one of our
southwestern states.
How DARE she make such an outrageously UNAMERICAN..UNCHRISTIAN ...arrogant
and ignorant assertion?
How DARE she project such INSANITY against OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS!
While this seems remote from all question about gay marriages - it really
isn't.
It's just a matter of degrees on how much you ROB others of their civl
rights because of YOUR bigoted insanity!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 04:11:01 PM |
|
|
Thomas Trust wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the very real
fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as loathsome by many.
Excuse me... but just what business is it of *yours* what other people
are doing sexually in private? Well... unless you are a peeping tom....
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins,
In some jurisdictions in the USA, first cousin marriages are *already*
legal and have been for years... I don't see you leading a campaign to
have that changed. Next?
incest
The state has already shown a "narrowly tailored, compelling state
interest" before the courts using "due process" as to why incestuous
marriages are not permitted. The state, using the finest lawyers that
millions of our taxpayer dollars could buy, has been unable to show any
"narrowly tailored, compelling state interest" before 4 top state courts
in the USA, [and 3 top provincial courts in Canada], as to why same-sex
marriage should be prohibited.
If you feel that you can demonstrate a "narrowly tailored, compelling
state interest" as to why same-sex marriage should not be permitted, by
all means post it here ---->
and yes, the
rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes undefined. With the building
block of our society being the family unit,
Homosexuals come from families and homosexuals *DO* have families. See
the article on how over 8,000 children will benefit from the legal
protections afforded by same-sex marriage in Massachusetts alone which I
posted further up this thread.
<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: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 11:27:56 AM |
|
|
Thomas Trust wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the
very real fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as
loathsome by many.
Most of them could probably get used to it... and if not, their
children will.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest
and yes, the rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes
undefined. With the building block of our society being the
family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
What is 'acceptable' varies according to place and time. You may
have to get used to the fact that homosexuality is no longer
considered unacceptable by society, and that it is no longer
considered acceptable to deny homosexuals the same rights as
heterosexuals. You may not like it, but that's what happens -
Society changes. Then later on, everyone will wonder what all
the fuss was about :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Trust" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 12:04:52 PM |
|
|
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:c0b45t$13muss$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thomas Trust wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the
very real fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as
loathsome by many.
Most of them could probably get used to it... and if not, their
children will.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest
and yes, the rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes
undefined. With the building block of our society being the
family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
What is 'acceptable' varies according to place and time. You may
have to get used to the fact that homosexuality is no longer
considered unacceptable by society, and that it is no longer
considered acceptable to deny homosexuals the same rights as
heterosexuals. You may not like it, but that's what happens -
Society changes. Then later on, everyone will wonder what all
the fuss was about :-)
You are going to have to get used to a Constitutional amendment defining
marriage as between a man and a woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 03:15:26 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote in message
news:839Wb.272222$xy6.1382606@attbi_s02...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:c0b45t$13muss$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thomas Trust wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40305143.12432376@netnews.mchsi.com...
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore the
very real fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as
loathsome by many.
Most of them could probably get used to it... and if not, their
children will.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest
and yes, the rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes
undefined. With the building block of our society being the
family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
What is 'acceptable' varies according to place and time. You may
have to get used to the fact that homosexuality is no longer
considered unacceptable by society, and that it is no longer
considered acceptable to deny homosexuals the same rights as
heterosexuals. You may not like it, but that's what happens -
Society changes. Then later on, everyone will wonder what all
the fuss was about :-)
You are going to have to get used to a Constitutional amendment defining
marriage as between a man and a woman.
You're going to have to get used to watching your bigoted delusions get
shattered BY the Constitution!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever. |
10 Feb 2004 02:36:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:04:52 GMT,
"Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com> wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
Thomas Trust wrote:
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote:
For months, now, I have challenged the Anti-Gay-Rights
bigots to produce so much as even ***ONE FACT*** that
supports their loathsome and hateful stance against this
reasonable and sensible human right.
You call anti-gay stances as loathsome, and yet you ignore
the very real fact that your sexual behavior is viewed as
loathsome by many.
Most of them could probably get used to it... and if not, their
children will.
Redefining marriage opens the door to first cousins, incest
and yes, the rest of the slope. In essense, it becomes
undefined. With the building block of our society being the
family unit, that is simply not acceptable.
What is 'acceptable' varies according to place and time. You
may have to get used to the fact that homosexuality is no longer
considered unacceptable by society, and that it is no longer
considered acceptable to deny homosexuals the same rights as
heterosexuals. You may not like it, but that's what happens -
Society changes. Then later on, everyone will wonder what all
the fuss was about :-)
You are going to have to get used to a Constitutional amendment
defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
In your DREAMS, ignorant bigot. You have no more chance
of ever seeing something as hateful and mindless as that than
the KKK does of ever seeing segregation come back. Humanity is
OUTGROWING its petty and stupid bigotries, and YOUR ilk are
being left in the dust where you belong.
The above paragraphs describe REALITY.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Work Work Work" |
|
| Title: Minnesota says No to Deviants |
10 Feb 2004 03:02:43 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------278525EC436E44AA73D6768A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Most of these types of abusers are pedophiles and homosexuals . Just the
type of people craig chilton calls friends.And he wants normal people to
accept HIS friends as equal and give them special rights.
I say NO !
So Noted.
--------------278525EC436E44AA73D6768A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353";
name="Minnesota"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Unknown Document
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="Minnesota"
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.8 (Macintosh; U; PPC) [Netscape]">
<title>Minnesota</title>
</head>
<body>
Subject: Minnesota Wants Violent Sex Offenders to get Life
<br>
<br>
<p>MINNESOTA: House GOP want worst sex offenders to stay in jail
<br>Under plan, violent sexual predators would receive life sentences
<br>By Rachel E. Stassen-Berger
<br>St. Paul Pioneer Press
<p>Minnesota House Republicans on Tuesday proposed legislation to ensure
the
<br>worst sex offenders would never get out of jail.
<p>They said they did not know how much the legislation would cost but
said
<br>they were willing to spend the money to pay for any increased cost
the plan
<br>would entail.
<p>Under the plan, "convicted violent sexual predators and sex offenders
who
<br>target children and vulnerable adults" would be sentenced to life in
prison
<br>without the possibility of release. Currently, that's a sentencereserved
for
<br>the worst murders.
<p>Sentences for other sex offenders also would be ratcheted up under the
plan.
<p>Dru Sjodin case
<p>Since the arrest of a convicted rapist earlier this month in the
<br>disappearance of UND student Dru Sjodin, Democratic-Farmer-Laborites,
<br>Republicans and Gov. Tim Pawlenty have suggested reviewing sex offender
<br>sentencing.
<p>Senate Majority Leader John Hottinger and House Minority Leader Matt
<br>Entenza, both DFLers, said they could support something similar to
the GOP
<br>proposal. Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, chairman of the Senate's Judiciary
<br>Committee, said new sex offender sentences would have be put in the
<br>perspective of all criminal sentences.
<p>Pawlenty was traveling and has not looked at the sentencing idea, a
<br>spokeswoman said. The governor said in reaction to the Sjodin case
that he
<br>would push the death penalty in the state - something lawmakers do
not seem
<br>inclined to pass.
<p>Rep. Kurt Zellers, a Maple Grove Republican who is sponsoring the House
<br>sentencing proposal, said his interest in reworking the sex offenders
law is
<br>very personal. Like Sjodin, he was a UND student and, like her, he
worked at
<br>the Columbia Mall.
<p>"I still have friends and family members that live up there," Zellers
said.
<br>His mother told him after Sjodin's disappearance she would think twice
about
<br>shopping in the Columbia Mall. "When my mom said that, that's when
it really
<br>hit home to me ... . (This legislation) is a really personal position
as
<br>well."
<p>Minnesota would set precedent
<p>If the GOP plan were adopted, Minnesota would be the first state to
adopt
<br>life sentences specifically for first-time sex offenders, said Tracy
<br>Oetting, of Citizens For A One Strike and You're Out Law, a group lobbying
<br>in Washington state for life in prison for some violent sex offenses.
Other
<br>states have laws that allow for life in prison for some repeat sex
<br>offenders.
<p>The Republican sentencing plan would not replace the state's current
civil
<br>commitment program for sex offenders.
<p>Under that program, which costs about $22 million a year, sex offenders
who
<br>are considered psychopathic or especially dangerous are sent to state
<br>hospitals after they have served their prison time.
<p>That program also likely will receive attention in the 2004 legislative
<br>session. The man arrested for kidnapping Sjodin, Alfonso Rodriguez
Jr., was
<br>considered for that program 18 months ago, but Department of Corrections
<br>officials did not believe he needed to be confined to a hospital. Instead,
<br>Rodriguez was released in May of this year.
<p>After Rodriguez's arrest, the state Corrections Department decided to
refer
<br>all Level 3 sex offenders, those believed most likely to offend again,
to
<br>county attorneys for possible civil commitment. That decision maybe
costly -
<br>for both counties and the state - but House Speaker Steve Sviggum,
a Kenyon
<br>Republican, said it is something the state should be willing to fund.
<p>http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/7509194.htm
</body>
</html>
--------------278525EC436E44AA73D6768A--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
