| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"CashNKerry" |
| Date: |
12 Feb 2004 08:51:51 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Wake Up America" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 09:00:30 AM |
|
|
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:bqMWb.13595$jk2.45471@attbi_s53...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Yep, You have all you want so that makes everyone else happy.
More an issue of money for corporate America to deny benefits to there
partners.> Period
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fraud Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 09:08:19 AM |
|
|
"Wake Up America" <mmm@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iyMWb.1213$tL3.1189@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:bqMWb.13595$jk2.45471@attbi_s53...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Yep, You have all you want so that makes everyone else happy.
What laws would you like to change, or what age-old definitions would you
like to redefine, so as to make rapists happy, or to make the boys of NAMBLA
happy, or to make Exhibitionists happy, or to make women who want to "marry"
their Great Dane happy?
You've already indicated you want to redefine marriage, so as to make
yourself happy. What you haven't done is to present any rational reason why
society should suddenly redefine marriage after 6,000 years of human
history.
Thus you lose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dickmcb" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 09:35:20 AM |
|
|
"Fraud Kerry" <ForbesMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:DFMWb.292928$xy6.1447115@attbi_s02...
"Wake Up America" <mmm@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iyMWb.1213$tL3.1189@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:bqMWb.13595$jk2.45471@attbi_s53...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Yep, You have all you want so that makes everyone else happy.
What laws would you like to change, or what age-old definitions would you
like to redefine, so as to make rapists happy, or to make the boys of
NAMBLA
happy, or to make Exhibitionists happy, or to make women who want to
"marry"
their Great Dane happy?
You've already indicated you want to redefine marriage, so as to make
yourself happy. What you haven't done is to present any rational reason
why
society should suddenly redefine marriage after 6,000 years of human
history.
Thus you lose.
********************************************
Yes, and there have been Gay people for 6,000 years to. Republicans just
can't keep their noses out of other peoples bedrooms, they can't help
themselves. Why can't you people just mind your own business and let other
people that love and care for each other be united in marriage? Why do you
hate Gay people so much?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SameSexMarriageKerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 09:43:25 AM |
|
|
"Dickmcb" <mcburney.r@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:duqdnTD0aZ-_ALbdRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"Fraud Kerry" <ForbesMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:DFMWb.292928$xy6.1447115@attbi_s02...
"Wake Up America" <mmm@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iyMWb.1213$tL3.1189@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:bqMWb.13595$jk2.45471@attbi_s53...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Yep, You have all you want so that makes everyone else happy.
What laws would you like to change, or what age-old definitions would
you
like to redefine, so as to make rapists happy, or to make the boys of
NAMBLA
happy, or to make Exhibitionists happy, or to make women who want to
"marry"
their Great Dane happy?
You've already indicated you want to redefine marriage, so as to make
yourself happy. What you haven't done is to present any rational reason
why
society should suddenly redefine marriage after 6,000 years of human
history.
Thus you lose.
********************************************
Yes, and there have been Gay people for 6,000 years to.
And they have always been allowed to marry, just as they are allowed to now.
But at the same time, marriage has always been defined as the union of one
man, one woman. After 6,000 years, the HomoFascist minority suddenly wants
to dictate to society and wants to impose its will on the majority and wants
to suddenly redefine marriage.
Republicans just
can't keep their noses out of other peoples bedrooms, they can't help
themselves.
John Kerry says he opposed same-sex marriage. John Kerry is a Democrat, not
"a Republican" as you seem to imagine.
Why can't you people just mind your own business and let other
people that love and care for each other be united in marriage?
Because we, the majority, are part of society just as you HomoFascists are.
Thus we have NO intention of allowing you HomoFascists, who are the
minority, to dictate YOUR will upon the rest of us. We have NO intention
of allowing you to redefine marriage after 6,000 years.
Why do you
hate Gay people so much?
Why are you a HomoFascist?
And why do you have such low regard for the sanctity of marriage and for
6,000 years of human history?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dickmcb" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 10:20:11 AM |
|
|
"SameSexMarriageKerry" <KingFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:xaNWb.161818$U%5.723910@attbi_s03...
"Dickmcb" <mcburney.r@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:duqdnTD0aZ-_ALbdRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"Fraud Kerry" <ForbesMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:DFMWb.292928$xy6.1447115@attbi_s02...
"Wake Up America" <mmm@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iyMWb.1213$tL3.1189@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:bqMWb.13595$jk2.45471@attbi_s53...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Yep, You have all you want so that makes everyone else happy.
What laws would you like to change, or what age-old definitions would
you
like to redefine, so as to make rapists happy, or to make the boys of
NAMBLA
happy, or to make Exhibitionists happy, or to make women who want to
"marry"
their Great Dane happy?
You've already indicated you want to redefine marriage, so as to make
yourself happy. What you haven't done is to present any rational
reason
why
society should suddenly redefine marriage after 6,000 years of human
history.
Thus you lose.
********************************************
Yes, and there have been Gay people for 6,000 years to.
And they have always been allowed to marry, just as they are allowed to
now.
But at the same time, marriage has always been defined as the union of one
man, one woman. After 6,000 years, the HomoFascist minority suddenly
wants
to dictate to society and wants to impose its will on the majority and
wants
to suddenly redefine marriage.
Republicans just
can't keep their noses out of other peoples bedrooms, they can't help
themselves.
John Kerry says he opposed same-sex marriage. John Kerry is a Democrat,
not
"a Republican" as you seem to imagine.
Why can't you people just mind your own business and let other
people that love and care for each other be united in marriage?
Because we, the majority, are part of society just as you HomoFascists
are.
Thus we have NO intention of allowing you HomoFascists, who are the
minority, to dictate YOUR will upon the rest of us. We have NO intention
of allowing you to redefine marriage after 6,000 years.
Why do you
hate Gay people so much?
Why are you a HomoFascist?
And why do you have such low regard for the sanctity of marriage and for
6,000 years of human history?
*************************************
Actually I am not a "HomoFascist" ( whatever that is, sounds something
like Nazi speak). I am married to a woman and happily so but if my neighbors
were Gay and wanted to get married I certainly wouldn't have anything
against it because it would be none of my business would it? You use the
same agrument that was used during segregation. The Blacks are a minority
and they are "different" from the majority so we the majority can dictate
and control what the Black minority can and can not do. I bet you are also
against mixed race marriages, especially white and black marriages right? As
for John Kerry being against Gay marriage, from what I understand he has the
same position as Chaney, for Gay Civil Unions and against Gay Marriage which
of course is his right. What is your position on Gay Civil Unions and on
White Black marriage? Just > courious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aging Hippy Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 10:36:03 AM |
|
|
"Dickmcb" <mcburney.r@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_OmdnfVHKcY4OrbdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
"SameSexMarriageKerry" <KingFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:xaNWb.161818$U%5.723910@attbi_s03...
"Dickmcb" <mcburney.r@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:duqdnTD0aZ-_ALbdRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"Fraud Kerry" <ForbesMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:DFMWb.292928$xy6.1447115@attbi_s02...
"Wake Up America" <mmm@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iyMWb.1213$tL3.1189@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:bqMWb.13595$jk2.45471@attbi_s53...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Yep, You have all you want so that makes everyone else happy.
What laws would you like to change, or what age-old definitions
would
you
like to redefine, so as to make rapists happy, or to make the boys
of
NAMBLA
happy, or to make Exhibitionists happy, or to make women who want to
"marry"
their Great Dane happy?
You've already indicated you want to redefine marriage, so as to
make
yourself happy. What you haven't done is to present any rational
reason
why
society should suddenly redefine marriage after 6,000 years of human
history.
Thus you lose.
********************************************
Yes, and there have been Gay people for 6,000 years to.
And they have always been allowed to marry, just as they are allowed to
now.
But at the same time, marriage has always been defined as the union of
one
man, one woman. After 6,000 years, the HomoFascist minority suddenly
wants
to dictate to society and wants to impose its will on the majority and
wants
to suddenly redefine marriage.
Republicans just
can't keep their noses out of other peoples bedrooms, they can't help
themselves.
John Kerry says he opposed same-sex marriage. John Kerry is a Democrat,
not
"a Republican" as you seem to imagine.
Why can't you people just mind your own business and let other
people that love and care for each other be united in marriage?
Because we, the majority, are part of society just as you HomoFascists
are.
Thus we have NO intention of allowing you HomoFascists, who are the
minority, to dictate YOUR will upon the rest of us. We have NO
intention
of allowing you to redefine marriage after 6,000 years.
Why do you
hate Gay people so much?
Why are you a HomoFascist?
And why do you have such low regard for the sanctity of marriage and for
6,000 years of human history?
*************************************
Actually I am not a "HomoFascist"
Then don't accuse others of "hating Gay people so much". Learn to debate
the ISSUES instead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wake Up America" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 01:48:14 PM |
|
|
"SameSexMarriageKerry" <KingFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:xaNWb.161818$U%5.723910@attbi_s03...
"Dickmcb" <mcburney.r@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:duqdnTD0aZ-_ALbdRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"Fraud Kerry" <ForbesMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:DFMWb.292928$xy6.1447115@attbi_s02...
"Wake Up America" <mmm@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iyMWb.1213$tL3.1189@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:bqMWb.13595$jk2.45471@attbi_s53...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Yep, You have all you want so that makes everyone else happy.
What laws would you like to change, or what age-old definitions would
you
like to redefine, so as to make rapists happy, or to make the boys of
NAMBLA
happy, or to make Exhibitionists happy, or to make women who want to
"marry"
their Great Dane happy?
You've already indicated you want to redefine marriage, so as to make
yourself happy. What you haven't done is to present any rational
reason
why
society should suddenly redefine marriage after 6,000 years of human
history.
Thus you lose.
********************************************
Yes, and there have been Gay people for 6,000 years to.
And they have always been allowed to marry, just as they are allowed to
now.
But at the same time, marriage has always been defined as the union of one
man, one woman. After 6,000 years, the HomoFascist minority suddenly
wants
to dictate to society and wants to impose its will on the majority and
wants
to suddenly redefine marriage.
Republicans just
can't keep their noses out of other peoples bedrooms, they can't help
themselves.
John Kerry says he opposed same-sex marriage. John Kerry is a Democrat,
not
"a Republican" as you seem to imagine.
Why can't you people just mind your own business and let other
people that love and care for each other be united in marriage?
Because we, the majority, are part of society just as you HomoFascists
are.
Thus we have NO intention of allowing you HomoFascists, who are the
minority, to dictate YOUR will upon the rest of us. We have NO intention
of allowing you to redefine marriage after 6,000 years.
Why do you
hate Gay people so much?
Why are you a HomoFascist?
And why do you have such low regard for the sanctity of marriage and for
6,000 years of human history?
I think you are the one pandering your views on other people. It does not
say that you have to divorce and get married to the same sex.
Anyway laws have always changed over time. Doesn't change the bible. Nor
does it change your views. And you are still very well capable to screw up
your kids mind by your own narrow view.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John LaVoy" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 10:09:51 AM |
|
|
"SameSexMarriageKerry" <KingFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:xaNWb.161818$U%5.723910@attbi_s03...
And they have always been allowed to marry, just as they are allowed to
now.
Yer a typical wacko. The exact same argument was used to justify
anti-miscegenation laws. If you read the decisions onm that, the SCOTUS
specifically rejected that argument.
But at the same time, marriage has always been defined as the union of one
man, one woman.
Oh really. And I suppose we are to completely ignore the vast body of
evidence regarding polygyny of various sorts, including the bible? If you
can be so far wrong on basic facts, why would anyone take you seriously?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aging Hippy Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 10:36:02 AM |
|
|
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0g8ge$21rh$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"SameSexMarriageKerry" <KingFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:xaNWb.161818$U%5.723910@attbi_s03...
And they have always been allowed to marry, just as they are allowed to
now.
Yer a typical wacko.
And you're a typical name-calling HomoFascist *****. Go to hell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "America" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage - Nothing whatsoever, except to stupid homophobic bigots such as the Klueless Kultie Kook |
12 Feb 2004 11:00:48 AM |
|
|
The homofascist ***** wrote:
... a typical name-calling HomoFascist ***** ...
Of course you are. You're too brain-damaged to avoid your
bigotry and hate, you poor thing. I feel so sorry for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erik Aronesty" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 02:37:28 PM |
|
|
"SameSexMarriageKerry" <KingFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message news:<xaNWb.161818$U%5.723910@attbi_s03>...
Because we, the majority, are part of society just as you HomoFascists are.
Thus we have NO intention of allowing you HomoFascists, who are the
minority, to dictate YOUR will upon the rest of us.
It's not like anyone's forcing you to bend over and.... oh... ? I'm so sorry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arne Langsetmo" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 01:55:42 PM |
|
|
Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Wake Up America" <mmm@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iyMWb.1213$tL3.1189@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:bqMWb.13595$jk2.45471@attbi_s53...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Yep, You have all you want so that makes everyone else happy.
What laws would you like to change, or what age-old definitions would you
like to redefine, so as to make rapists happy, or to make the boys of NAMBLA
happy, or to make Exhibitionists happy, or to make women who want to "marry"
their Great Dane happy?
You've already indicated you want to redefine marriage, so as to make
yourself happy. What you haven't done is to present any rational reason why
society should suddenly redefine marriage after 6,000 years of human
history.
"6,000 years of human history"??? YECCCHH! I think we got ourselves
a live fundie here, folks.
But I'd point out that this purported "6,000 years" seemed to be
perfectly happy about harems, concubines, slavery, and polygamy,
according to your seeming source. Maybe we "redefined" things
too far already, eh?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Thus you lose.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "America" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 09:48:33 AM |
|
|
Nothing.
It's abnormal and a fairly recent historical development to fear
rather than accept homosexuality.
Those who don't understand science are the prey of their fears.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 12:59:14 PM |
|
|
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote:
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is ... some people are ASKING. If
you say 'no' then you need to give a good
REASON ... beyond "Well shucks, we ain't done
it like that before ...".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 09:55:24 AM |
|
|
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
There is no rational reason to oppose equal rights for
people to marry the willing adult of their choice.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aging Hippy Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 10:36:02 AM |
|
|
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgfzdgfg2b.fsf@panix1.panix.com...
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
Homosexuals already have that, so you're going to have to come up with
something more substantial than that!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wake Up America" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 01:54:04 PM |
|
|
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:SXNWb.15353$uV3.34753@attbi_s51...
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgfzdgfg2b.fsf@panix1.panix.com...
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
Homosexuals already have that, so you're going to have to come up with
something more substantial than that!
Death benefits, insurance benefits, and many other issues are denied to same
sex unions.PERIOD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John LaVoy" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 10:42:46 AM |
|
|
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:SXNWb.15353$uV3.34753@attbi_s51...
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgfzdgfg2b.fsf@panix1.panix.com...
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
Homosexuals already have that, so you're going to have to come up with
something more substantial than that!
No they don't. A right which you cannot exercise is not a right at all. The
Supreme Court already ruled that limiting the choice of the marraige partner
is limiting the right of marriage. Virginia vs. Loving. Though it will be
a shock to many, if this comes before the Su[preme Court, I do not see them
denying the right to gay marraige. From a purely rational perspective,
there is nothing to prevent it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aging Hippy Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 10:49:20 AM |
|
|
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0gae5$278l$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:SXNWb.15353$uV3.34753@attbi_s51...
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgfzdgfg2b.fsf@panix1.panix.com...
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
Homosexuals already have that, so you're going to have to come up with
something more substantial than that!
No they don't. A right which you cannot exercise is not a right at all.
The
Supreme Court already ruled that limiting the choice of the marraige
partner
is limiting the right of marriage. Virginia vs. Loving.
Well, in that case, homosexuals ALREADY have the right to marry their
mother, their father, AND their first cousin, don't they! Virginia vs.
Loving, as you say.
There, your problem is solved!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wake Up America" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 01:55:30 PM |
|
|
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:k8OWb.14042$yE5.68017@attbi_s54...
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0gae5$278l$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:SXNWb.15353$uV3.34753@attbi_s51...
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgfzdgfg2b.fsf@panix1.panix.com...
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
Homosexuals already have that, so you're going to have to come up with
something more substantial than that!
No they don't. A right which you cannot exercise is not a right at all.
The
Supreme Court already ruled that limiting the choice of the marraige
partner
is limiting the right of marriage. Virginia vs. Loving.
Well, in that case, homosexuals ALREADY have the right to marry their
mother, their father, AND their first cousin, don't they! Virginia vs.
Loving, as you say.
There, your problem is solved!
Talk about HATE!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John LaVoy" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 01:43:13 PM |
|
|
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:k8OWb.14042$yE5.68017@attbi_s54...
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0gae5$278l$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:SXNWb.15353$uV3.34753@attbi_s51...
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgfzdgfg2b.fsf@panix1.panix.com...
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
Homosexuals already have that, so you're going to have to come up with
something more substantial than that!
No they don't. A right which you cannot exercise is not a right at all.
The
Supreme Court already ruled that limiting the choice of the marraige
partner
is limiting the right of marriage. Virginia vs. Loving.
Well, in that case, homosexuals ALREADY have the right to marry their
mother, their father, AND their first cousin, don't they! Virginia vs.
Loving, as you say.
There, your problem is solved!
Actually I agree. It is merely the case that the right legal challenge has
not yet been mounted. I would prefer that states adopt legal partnership
legislation and that everyone was satisfied with that for the time being.
But, try as I might, I can find no rational reason that the SCOTUS would
support a law which categorically prohibited an entire class of law abiding
citizens from the exercise of a fundamental right. You are wrong (no
surprise) regarding incestuous relationships: it is appropriate for laws to
impact individuals in specific situations. You are not prevented from
marrying anybody who is anyone's sister, just your own sister. A gay man
could be prevented from marrying his gay brother. But a law which prohibits
all gay men from marrying anyone other male is, I think, unconstitutional. I
do think the polygamy laws will be fair game, and I am fine with that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \Gee, nice tits!\ Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 02:01:02 PM |
|
|
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0gl0i$2bvq$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:k8OWb.14042$yE5.68017@attbi_s54...
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0gae5$278l$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:SXNWb.15353$uV3.34753@attbi_s51...
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgfzdgfg2b.fsf@panix1.panix.com...
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
Homosexuals already have that, so you're going to have to come up
with
something more substantial than that!
No they don't. A right which you cannot exercise is not a right at
all.
The
Supreme Court already ruled that limiting the choice of the marraige
partner
is limiting the right of marriage. Virginia vs. Loving.
Well, in that case, homosexuals ALREADY have the right to marry their
mother, their father, AND their first cousin, don't they! Virginia vs.
Loving, as you say.
There, your problem is solved!
Actually I agree. It is merely the case that the right legal challenge
has
not yet been mounted.
Interesting point you just raised, LaVoy. Let's assume for the moment that
the Homosexual Activists actually achieve that goal one day and ram their
agenda through the court, thereby imposing the will of the Minority upon the
Majority. That does NOT mean that the Homosexual Activists will have
caused the Majority to view homosexual behavior as "normal" or "acceptable".
On the contrary, it MAY mean that they will have convinced the Majority that
the Homosexual Activists don't give a damn about democracy and instead are
merely HomoFascists.
Attempting to FORCE one's will upon others via what you term "the right
legal challenge" rather than by the democratic process in the legislature is
a two-edged sword, LaVoy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John LaVoy" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 03:06:25 PM |
|
|
"John "Gee, nice tits!" Kerry" <BigFraudAdulterer@Heinz.com> wrote in
message news:2YQWb.295570$xy6.1451168@attbi_s02...
Interesting point you just raised, LaVoy.
Let's assume for the moment that
the Homosexual Activists actually achieve that goal one day and ram their
agenda through the court, thereby imposing the will of the Minority upon
the
Majority.
The entire purpose of having a Constitution is to prevent the majority from
imposing their will inappropriately on the minority. It takes a real 1984
kind of mentality to conclude that a minority that earns its freedom from
oppression is imposing their will on the majority. Must gall you that all
them uppity black folks imposed their right to sit at a lunch counter on the
majority. And that them uppity women imposed their right to vote on you.
etc etc etc.
That does NOT mean that the Homosexual Activists will have
caused the Majority to view homosexual behavior as "normal" or
"acceptable".
The only people who give a rip are people like you. You appear to live in
fear that if gay folks gain equal rights in America htat they will also gain
teh acceptance you find so distressing. By teh way, the Majority, for
whom you appointed yourself spokesperson just called: they said you are
fired.
On the contrary, it MAY mean that they will have convinced the Majority
that
the Homosexual Activists don't give a damn about democracy and instead are
merely HomoFascists.
NAh, it won't mean that. You know what it will mean? It will mean that
people with small minds will be required to grow a little bit. It will mean
that bigots will have to work even further outside the law than they do now.
It will mean, after a while, that people will look a this issue just like
they looked interracial marriage: "what were we thinking?"
Attempting to FORCE one's will upon others via what you term "the right
legal challenge" rather than by the democratic process in the legislature
is
a two-edged sword, LaVoy.
I find it rather amusing that you make a point of using my name but hide
behind an alias while you do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \I like blonds!\ Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 03:15:35 PM |
|
|
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0gpsk$2ds4$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"John "Gee, nice tits!" Kerry" <BigFraudAdulterer@Heinz.com> wrote in
message news:2YQWb.295570$xy6.1451168@attbi_s02...
Interesting point you just raised, LaVoy.
Let's assume for the moment that
the Homosexual Activists actually achieve that goal one day and ram
their
agenda through the court, thereby imposing the will of the Minority upon
the
Majority.
The entire purpose of having a Constitution is to prevent the majority
from
imposing their will inappropriately on the minority.
Nope. The purpose of the Constitution is to provide the foundation and
framework of our society and our country.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 12:52:38 PM |
|
|
Why do we bother discussing with Mr. Multiple Personality?!?
This guy has been around for a while and he's the prototype of the repressed
conservative...
Don't even bother...
Check how many messages he sends daily to this newsgroup and you'll soon
realize that his knowledge of life is quite limited...
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:k8OWb.14042$yE5.68017@attbi_s54...
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0gae5$278l$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"Aging Hippy Kerry" <BigFraud@Kerry.com> wrote in message
news:SXNWb.15353$uV3.34753@attbi_s51...
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgfzdgfg2b.fsf@panix1.panix.com...
CashNKerry writes:
CashNKerry> "BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news> 0e3n20prl0dnjqkabimin3achticcvb767@4ax.com...
Rather a LOT of people were opposed to full civil
rights and desegregation of "blacks" - many still
are. However, it was the *right* thing to do. As
the function of 'marriage' in the LEGAL sense does
not absolutely require the parties to be of the
opposite sex, there's just no rational reason not
to extend the definition.
CashNKerry> There is no rational reason to redefine marriage.
Sure there is. Equal rights.
Homosexuals already have that, so you're going to have to come up with
something more substantial than that!
No they don't. A right which you cannot exercise is not a right at all.
The
Supreme Court already ruled that limiting the choice of the marraige
partner
is limiting the right of marriage. Virginia vs. Loving.
Well, in that case, homosexuals ALREADY have the right to marry their
mother, their father, AND their first cousin, don't they! Virginia vs.
Loving, as you say.
There, your problem is solved!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \Gee, nice tits!\ Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 01:21:43 PM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <Parsifal@chello.at> wrote in message
news:WXPWb.203582$AU2.63799@news.chello.at...
Why do we bother discussing with Mr. Multiple Personality?!?
This guy has been around for a while and he's the prototype of the
repressed
conservative...
Don't even bother...
Check how many messages he sends daily to this newsgroup and you'll soon
realize that his knowledge of life is quite limited...
Oh, poor baby! Now stamp your widdle leftist feet for us again!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
