| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"CashNKerry" |
| Date: |
12 Feb 2004 08:54:46 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:lg4n20dup5eoehvbrdhbmjcmbko2bth2qr@4ax.com...
Doesn't MATTER whether homosexuality is inborn or a
choice or some combination of the two. If two people
of the same sex want a legal marriage then they ought
to GET one unless the State can show some pretty
damned good reasons why they can't.
Sorry, the Homosexual Activists haven't shown any reasons why marriage
should be redefined after 6,000 years of human history.
You lose.
.
|
|
| User: "John LaVoy" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 09:17:58 AM |
|
|
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:WsMWb.14351$_44.17659@attbi_s52...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:lg4n20dup5eoehvbrdhbmjcmbko2bth2qr@4ax.com...
Doesn't MATTER whether homosexuality is inborn or a
choice or some combination of the two. If two people
of the same sex want a legal marriage then they ought
to GET one unless the State can show some pretty
damned good reasons why they can't.
Sorry, the Homosexual Activists haven't shown any reasons why marriage
should be redefined after 6,000 years of human history.
You lose.
Nah, you are just reverting to a style employed by many religious
extremists. In this case, you ask for a reason and when one is given, you
just say "that isn't a reason." Here's a reason: marriage should be
redefined because society and culture have changed in significant ways. Or,
here's another one: in a society posited on equal rights, it is an
inherent benefit to assure that all citizens have equal rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 11:30:54 AM |
|
|
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:c0g5f6$257n$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
"CashNKerry" <HeinzMoneyTalks@DeanWalks.com> wrote in message
news:WsMWb.14351$_44.17659@attbi_s52...
"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:lg4n20dup5eoehvbrdhbmjcmbko2bth2qr@4ax.com...
Doesn't MATTER whether homosexuality is inborn or a
choice or some combination of the two. If two people
of the same sex want a legal marriage then they ought
to GET one unless the State can show some pretty
damned good reasons why they can't.
Sorry, the Homosexual Activists haven't shown any reasons why marriage
should be redefined after 6,000 years of human history.
You lose.
Nah, you are just reverting to a style employed by many religious
extremists. In this case, you ask for a reason and when one is given, you
just say "that isn't a reason." Here's a reason: marriage should be
redefined because society and culture have changed in significant ways.
Or,
here's another one: in a society posited on equal rights, it is an
inherent benefit to assure that all citizens have equal rights.
Ask yourself a very simple question. What is marriage. Let me suggest that
marriage is simply a contract between a man and a women (as it is presently
defined) to try and live together for the rest of their lives. Nothing more
and nothing less.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
12 Feb 2004 12:19:02 PM |
|
|
In article <iLOWb.1576$_g.1210@twister.socal.rr.com>,
okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com says...
inherent benefit to assure that all citizens have equal rights.
Ask yourself a very simple question. What is marriage. Let me suggest that
marriage is simply a contract between a man and a women (as it is presently
defined) to try and live together for the rest of their lives. Nothing more
and nothing less.
No, not quite. It is much more than a simple contract. It is an institution
that evolved in its present form probably almost as early as mankind setting
up communities. Its basic purpose is procreation and protection of offspring
until they reach maturity. It is thus sex-specific, not
sexual-orientation-specific. It has nothing to do with love, affection,
companionship and all that stuff. The fact that it does today and that lots
of married couples can't or won't procreate is irrelevant. The majority do.
Beyond procreation it also performs the very important function of defining
relationships and the custody and legacy of property. Some of these can be
dealt with via mere contracts between persons and willingness of others to
accord to same-sex couples many of the benefits accorded married heterosexual
couples. But not all. Same sex couples can't procreate. Period. Adoption
doesn't count, or other means to bring a child into the household. Marriage
confers numerous benefits that only apply to two people of different sexes.
Just for one, one spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other.
That's based on common law, which is sex-specific. So far as I know there is
no recognition of homosexuality in common law even though practice of it goes
well back beyond early Greece.
To deny same-sex couples the same privileges in law as married heterosexual
couples (and thats physical sex, not sexual preference) is not illegal
discrimination against a class of people. The Massachussets Supreme Court has
it all wrong. Any attempt to amend the US Consitution would also have it all
wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 02:27:59 PM |
|
|
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:ZK6dncfP39cOXrbdRVn-tw@bway.net...
The Massachussets Supreme Court has
it all wrong. Any attempt to amend the US Consitution would also
have it all
wrong.
Unfortunately, that's what it's going to come to.
This assault on a fundamental social institution
is an ideological curveball that is going to
require the Marriage Amendment.
There is one other way to handle it, but
Congress won't do it and there's also the
danger that it could be readily changed
by another Congress.
That would be to re-pass something like the
Defense of Marriage Act and explicitly
deny any jurisdiction to the courts. Congess
has that power, but I don't think it has ever
used it, and as bad as the courts are on
issues like this, it would open up a can
of worms much more worrisome than
a Constitutional amendment would.
Once the Marriage Amendment goes
to the superlegislature of the states it
needs 37 states to ratify it, and 38
states have already passed laws
defining marriage as being exclusively
between a man and a woman. So
the chances for a MA being ratified
are pretty good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gk" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 02:38:35 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jraXb.147835$cM1.26719956@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:ZK6dncfP39cOXrbdRVn-tw@bway.net...
The Massachussets Supreme Court has
it all wrong. Any attempt to amend the US Consitution would also
have it all
wrong.
Unfortunately, that's what it's going to come to.
This assault on a fundamental social institution
is an ideological curveball that is going to
require the Marriage Amendment.
Which will later require the "Equal Marriage Rights Amendment", to repeal
it. A ban of gay marriages in the constitution would be the most shameful
abuse of the constitutional amendment process since prohibition and won't
stop the momentum the gay rights movement has in the long run.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 02:54:03 PM |
|
|
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bBaXb.44246$Ii2.28023@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jraXb.147835$cM1.26719956@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:ZK6dncfP39cOXrbdRVn-tw@bway.net...
The Massachussets Supreme Court has
it all wrong. Any attempt to amend the US Consitution would also
have it all
wrong.
Unfortunately, that's what it's going to come to.
This assault on a fundamental social institution
is an ideological curveball that is going to
require the Marriage Amendment.
Which will later require the "Equal Marriage Rights Amendment", to
repeal
it. A ban of gay marriages in the constitution would be the most
shameful
abuse of the constitutional amendment process since prohibition and
won't
stop the momentum the gay rights movement has in the long run.
Believe me, if the Marriage Amendment is ratified, and there's
a very good chance that it will be, it will never be repealed.
And it's nothing at all like Prohibition. It's not preventing
people from making and selling something. It's defining
the meaning of a social institution that shouldn't have
had to be so defined were it not for this attempt
to rob marriage of its meaning and make it into
something utterly different from what it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gk" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:07:53 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LPaXb.147838$cM1.26723570@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bBaXb.44246$Ii2.28023@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jraXb.147835$cM1.26719956@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:ZK6dncfP39cOXrbdRVn-tw@bway.net...
The Massachussets Supreme Court has
it all wrong. Any attempt to amend the US Consitution would also
have it all
wrong.
Unfortunately, that's what it's going to come to.
This assault on a fundamental social institution
is an ideological curveball that is going to
require the Marriage Amendment.
Which will later require the "Equal Marriage Rights Amendment", to
repeal
it. A ban of gay marriages in the constitution would be the most
shameful
abuse of the constitutional amendment process since prohibition and
won't
stop the momentum the gay rights movement has in the long run.
Believe me, if the Marriage Amendment is ratified, and there's
a very good chance that it will be, it will never be repealed.
Never say never.
And it's nothing at all like Prohibition. It's not preventing
people from making and selling something.
Prohibition was an attempt by religious zealots to try to force their ideas
of morality on others. Sounds the same to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:03:11 PM |
|
|
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F0bXb.44251$Ii2.5164@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LPaXb.147838$cM1.26723570@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bBaXb.44246$Ii2.28023@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jraXb.147835$cM1.26719956@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:ZK6dncfP39cOXrbdRVn-tw@bway.net...
The Massachussets Supreme Court has
it all wrong. Any attempt to amend the US Consitution would
also
have it all
wrong.
Unfortunately, that's what it's going to come to.
This assault on a fundamental social institution
is an ideological curveball that is going to
require the Marriage Amendment.
Which will later require the "Equal Marriage Rights Amendment",
to
repeal
it. A ban of gay marriages in the constitution would be the most
shameful
abuse of the constitutional amendment process since prohibition
and
won't
stop the momentum the gay rights movement has in the long run.
Believe me, if the Marriage Amendment is ratified, and there's
a very good chance that it will be, it will never be repealed.
Never say never.
O.K. It would have as much chance of being repealed
as the 13th Amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gk" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:15:40 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jYaXb.147840$cM1.26725312@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F0bXb.44251$Ii2.5164@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LPaXb.147838$cM1.26723570@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bBaXb.44246$Ii2.28023@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jraXb.147835$cM1.26719956@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:ZK6dncfP39cOXrbdRVn-tw@bway.net...
The Massachussets Supreme Court has
it all wrong. Any attempt to amend the US Consitution would
also
have it all
wrong.
Unfortunately, that's what it's going to come to.
This assault on a fundamental social institution
is an ideological curveball that is going to
require the Marriage Amendment.
Which will later require the "Equal Marriage Rights Amendment",
to
repeal
it. A ban of gay marriages in the constitution would be the most
shameful
abuse of the constitutional amendment process since prohibition
and
won't
stop the momentum the gay rights movement has in the long run.
Believe me, if the Marriage Amendment is ratified, and there's
a very good chance that it will be, it will never be repealed.
Never say never.
O.K. It would have as much chance of being repealed
as the 13th Amendment.
Like the future Equal Marriage Rights Amendment will be, the 13th amendment
was one that had to be passed to protect the rights of people from religious
zealots. In the 13th amendment's case, it was those who felt they had the
god-given right to own other people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:12:23 PM |
|
|
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y7bXb.44254$Ii2.10428@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jYaXb.147840$cM1.26725312@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Never say never.
O.K. It would have as much chance of being repealed
as the 13th Amendment.
Like the future Equal Marriage Rights Amendment will be, the 13th
amendment
was one that had to be passed to protect the rights of people from
religious
zealots. In the 13th amendment's case, it was those who felt they
had the
god-given right to own other people.
If you think that sodomy has the same claim on
marriage that a slave had on not being owned,
then I think that you're in need of a perspective
update.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gk" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:23:36 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:X4bXb.147842$cM1.26728239@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y7bXb.44254$Ii2.10428@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jYaXb.147840$cM1.26725312@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Never say never.
O.K. It would have as much chance of being repealed
as the 13th Amendment.
Like the future Equal Marriage Rights Amendment will be, the 13th
amendment
was one that had to be passed to protect the rights of people from
religious
zealots. In the 13th amendment's case, it was those who felt they
had the
god-given right to own other people.
If you think that sodomy has the same claim on
marriage that a slave had on not being owned,
then I think that you're in need of a perspective
update.
You're the one that brought up slavery. I didn't say they were comparable in
stature. And I didn't say anything about sodomy.
Don't put words in my mouth. There's a Commandment against bearing false
witness, you know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:19:40 PM |
|
|
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ofbXb.44257$Ii2.37596@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:X4bXb.147842$cM1.26728239@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y7bXb.44254$Ii2.10428@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jYaXb.147840$cM1.26725312@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Never say never.
O.K. It would have as much chance of being repealed
as the 13th Amendment.
Like the future Equal Marriage Rights Amendment will be, the
13th
amendment
was one that had to be passed to protect the rights of people
from
religious
zealots. In the 13th amendment's case, it was those who felt
they
had the
god-given right to own other people.
If you think that sodomy has the same claim on
marriage that a slave had on not being owned,
then I think that you're in need of a perspective
update.
You're the one that brought up slavery. I didn't say they were
comparable in
stature. And I didn't say anything about sodomy.
Don't put words in my mouth. There's a Commandment against bearing
false
witness, you know.
You *just* wrote, in your last post upthred:
"Like the future Equal Marriage Rights Amendment will be, the 13th
amendment
was one that had to be passed to protect the rights of people from
religious
zealots. In the 13th amendment's case, it was those who felt they had
the
god-given right to own other people."
Don't waste anymore of my time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gk" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 04:08:53 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MbbXb.147844$cM1.26730473@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ofbXb.44257$Ii2.37596@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:X4bXb.147842$cM1.26728239@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y7bXb.44254$Ii2.10428@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jYaXb.147840$cM1.26725312@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Never say never.
O.K. It would have as much chance of being repealed
as the 13th Amendment.
Like the future Equal Marriage Rights Amendment will be, the
13th
amendment
was one that had to be passed to protect the rights of people
from
religious
zealots. In the 13th amendment's case, it was those who felt
they
had the
god-given right to own other people.
If you think that sodomy has the same claim on
marriage that a slave had on not being owned,
then I think that you're in need of a perspective
update.
You're the one that brought up slavery. I didn't say they were
comparable in
stature. And I didn't say anything about sodomy.
Don't put words in my mouth. There's a Commandment against bearing
false
witness, you know.
You *just* wrote, in your last post upthred:
"Like the future Equal Marriage Rights Amendment will be, the 13th
amendment
was one that had to be passed to protect the rights of people from
religious
zealots. In the 13th amendment's case, it was those who felt they had
the
god-given right to own other people."
Yep. Nowhere did I say banning gay marriage was as bad as slavery. I just
said that eventually a constutional amendement will be necessary to protect
rights from the religious zealots.. And nowhere did I mention sodomy. So
***** off, liar.
Don't waste anymore of my time.
What a joke. Run off to mama.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
14 Feb 2004 06:10:41 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<X4bXb.147842$cM1.26728239@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y7bXb.44254$Ii2.10428@lakeread03...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jYaXb.147840$cM1.26725312@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Never say never.
O.K. It would have as much chance of being repealed
as the 13th Amendment.
Like the future Equal Marriage Rights Amendment will be, the 13th
amendment
was one that had to be passed to protect the rights of people from
religious
zealots. In the 13th amendment's case, it was those who felt they
had the
god-given right to own other people.
If you think that sodomy has the same claim on
marriage that a slave had on not being owned,
then I think that you're in need of a perspective
update.
If such an amendment passes, the queers will simply create their
own institution with all the trappings of marriage.
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 05:36:33 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:X4bXb.147842
$cM1.26728239@twister.nyc.rr.com:
If you think that sodomy has the same claim on
marriage that a slave had on not being owned,
then I think that you're in need of a perspective
update.
It's those of you so worked up by the prospect that need the perspective
update, loon.
--
Un-elect Dubya in 2004
John Kerry for President
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Kerry is a sleazeball" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:14:02 PM |
|
|
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F0bXb.44251$Ii2.5164@lakeread03...
Prohibition was an attempt by religious zealots to try to force their
ideas
of morality on others. Sounds the same to me.
Yes, the Homosexual Activists are attempting to force their ideas of
morality on others, that is correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gk" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:17:50 PM |
|
|
""Kerry is a sleazeball"" <AlexPiolier@AP.com> wrote in message
news:t6bXb.28742$jk2.68203@attbi_s53...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F0bXb.44251$Ii2.5164@lakeread03...
Prohibition was an attempt by religious zealots to try to force their
ideas
of morality on others. Sounds the same to me.
Yes, the Homosexual Activists are attempting to force their ideas of
morality on others, that is correct.
When they hold a gun to your head to force you into a gay marriage, let us
know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "\Kerry is a sleazeball" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 03:19:57 PM |
|
|
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%9bXb.44256$Ii2.18304@lakeread03...
""Kerry is a sleazeball"" <AlexPiolier@AP.com> wrote in message
news:t6bXb.28742$jk2.68203@attbi_s53...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F0bXb.44251$Ii2.5164@lakeread03...
Prohibition was an attempt by religious zealots to try to force their
ideas
of morality on others. Sounds the same to me.
Yes, the Homosexual Activists are attempting to force their ideas of
morality on others, that is correct.
When they hold a gun to your head to force you into a gay marriage, let us
know.
That's not what they are doing. What they are doing is attempting to
redefine marriage, such that it is no longer the union of husband and wife.
Thus they are attempting to demean marriage, the bedrock of human society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 06:43:20 PM |
|
|
""Kerry is a sleazeball"" <AlexPiolier@AP.com> wrote in message
news:1cbXb.28334$yE5.103028@attbi_s54...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%9bXb.44256$Ii2.18304@lakeread03...
""Kerry is a sleazeball"" <AlexPiolier@AP.com> wrote in message
news:t6bXb.28742$jk2.68203@attbi_s53...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F0bXb.44251$Ii2.5164@lakeread03...
Prohibition was an attempt by religious zealots to try to force
their
ideas
of morality on others. Sounds the same to me.
Yes, the Homosexual Activists are attempting to force their ideas of
morality on others, that is correct.
When they hold a gun to your head to force you into a gay marriage, let
us
know.
That's not what they are doing. What they are doing is attempting to
redefine marriage, such that it is no longer the union of husband and
wife.
Yes, they are trying and succeeding to redefine marriage in a more equitable
manner.
Thus they are attempting to demean marriage,
No, they are attempting to strengthen it; to iron out its flaws; to make it
better.
the bedrock of human society.
The individual, free and equal to all other individuals, is the bedrock of
human society.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ignorant Democrats" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 06:48:51 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:IaeXb.29822$jk2.69469@attbi_s53...
""Kerry is a sleazeball"" <AlexPiolier@AP.com> wrote in message
news:1cbXb.28334$yE5.103028@attbi_s54...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%9bXb.44256$Ii2.18304@lakeread03...
""Kerry is a sleazeball"" <AlexPiolier@AP.com> wrote in message
news:t6bXb.28742$jk2.68203@attbi_s53...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F0bXb.44251$Ii2.5164@lakeread03...
Prohibition was an attempt by religious zealots to try to force
their
ideas
of morality on others. Sounds the same to me.
Yes, the Homosexual Activists are attempting to force their ideas of
morality on others, that is correct.
When they hold a gun to your head to force you into a gay marriage,
let
us
know.
That's not what they are doing. What they are doing is attempting to
redefine marriage, such that it is no longer the union of husband and
wife.
Yes, they are trying and succeeding to redefine marriage in a more
equitable
manner.
Yes, what could be more "equitable" than a man marrying his sister! Oh
joy, the HomoFascists' brave new world! And no more of that icky "husband
and wife" nomenclature to deal with either! Everything will be
"equitable", once the HomoFascists impose their will on the majority! Oh
how gay it will all be!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
13 Feb 2004 09:10:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:43:20 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
""Kerry is a sleazeball"" <AlexPiolier@AP.com> wrote in message
news:1cbXb.28334$yE5.103028@attbi_s54...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%9bXb.44256$Ii2.18304@lakeread03...
""Kerry is a sleazeball"" <AlexPiolier@AP.com> wrote in message
news:t6bXb.28742$jk2.68203@attbi_s53...
"gk" <gregk99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F0bXb.44251$Ii2.5164@lakeread03...
Prohibition was an attempt by religious zealots to try to force
their
ideas
of morality on others. Sounds the same to me.
Yes, the Homosexual Activists are attempting to force their ideas of
morality on others, that is correct.
When they hold a gun to your head to force you into a gay marriage, let
us
know.
That's not what they are doing. What they are doing is attempting to
redefine marriage, such that it is no longer the union of husband and
wife.
Yes, they are trying and succeeding to redefine marriage in a more equitable
manner.
Thus they are attempting to demean marriage,
No, they are attempting to strengthen it; to iron out its flaws; to make it
better.
the bedrock of human society.
The individual, free and equal to all other individuals, is the bedrock of
human society.
As you say equality is individual. What right does a heterosexual male
have that is deined a homosexual male.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
14 Feb 2004 12:02:39 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402d9068.2931795@news.verizon.net...
As you say equality is individual. What right does a heterosexual male
have that is deined a homosexual male.
The right to marry.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
14 Feb 2004 12:50:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:02:39 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402d9068.2931795@news.verizon.net...
As you say equality is individual. What right does a heterosexual male
have that is deined a homosexual male.
The right to marry.
Both a homosexual and a heterosexual male have the equal right to
marry. Neither one has the option of marring their sisters, goats,
sheep and members of the same sex.
Equality sometimes is not equal to happiness.
--
Peacenik
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
14 Feb 2004 12:23:38 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402dc445.16208927@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:02:39 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402d9068.2931795@news.verizon.net...
As you say equality is individual. What right does a heterosexual male
have that is deined a homosexual male.
The right to marry.
Both a homosexual and a heterosexual male have the equal right to
marry.
Hmm, where have I heard that type of fallacious argument before? "Both a
black person and a white person have the equal right to marry. (Just not to
each other.)" - ca. 1967, during the debates about interracial marriage
You freedom-haters are so predictable with your fallacious and irrational
bigotry.
Neither one has the option of marring their sisters, goats,
sheep
Slippery slope fallacy, non-sequitur and red herring. Wow, three fallacies
in one!
Your name should be "fallacy boy", since that's the only type of argument
freedom-haters like you seem capable of.
and members of the same sex.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a gay
person? None. Claiming that "gays have the right to marry...just not each
other" is nothing but weasel words and obfuscation by freedom-haters in
their attempt to legitimize their bigotry.
Equality sometimes is not equal to happiness.
True, but that's no reason to deny equal rights. Currently, a gay person
does NOT have the right to marry someone of the sex he/she is attracted to;
which is a right enjoyed by straigts.
And it's starting in Massachusetts and San Francisco. Even as I write this,
gays couples are being MARRIED in San Francisco, and it gives me great
pleasure to see this happening. And gay marriage WILL be legal in
Massachusetts this May. And there ain't a thing you freedom-haters can do to
stop it!
And it must be infuriating to freedom-haters like you. Good!
FREEDOM AND EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL. END BIGOTRY NOW!
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
14 Feb 2004 03:52:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:23:38 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402dc445.16208927@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:02:39 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402d9068.2931795@news.verizon.net...
As you say equality is individual. What right does a heterosexual male
have that is deined a homosexual male.
The right to marry.
Both a homosexual and a heterosexual male have the equal right to
marry.
Hmm, where have I heard that type of fallacious argument before? "Both a
black person and a white person have the equal right to marry. (Just not to
each other.)" - ca. 1967, during the debates about interracial marriage
Straw man argument. No amount of whining, posturing or civil rights
legislation are going to make a homosexual sexually viable. and
fucking and children are what marriage is about.
You freedom-haters are so predictable with your fallacious and irrational
bigotry.
Neither one has the option of marring their sisters, goats,
sheep
Slippery slope fallacy, non-sequitur and red herring. Wow, three fallacies
in one!
Your name should be "fallacy boy", since that's the only type of argument
freedom-haters like you seem capable of.
and members of the same sex.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a gay
person? None. Claiming that "gays have the right to marry...just not each
other" is nothing but weasel words and obfuscation by freedom-haters in
their attempt to legitimize their bigotry.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a
person who has a thing for goats?
The business of the human race is the creation and upbringing of
children. To the extent that this is true homosexuals are non players.
It's not bigotry son it's biology.
Equality sometimes is not equal to happiness.
True, but that's no reason to deny equal rights. Currently, a gay person
does NOT have the right to marry someone of the sex he/she is attracted to;
which is a right enjoyed by straigts.
And it's starting in Massachusetts and San Francisco. Even as I write this,
gays couples are being MARRIED in San Francisco, and it gives me great
pleasure to see this happening. And gay marriage WILL be legal in
Massachusetts this May. And there ain't a thing you freedom-haters can do to
stop it!
And it must be infuriating to freedom-haters like you. Good!
FREEDOM AND EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL. END BIGOTRY NOW!
--
Peacenik
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
14 Feb 2004 05:21:56 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402e946e.17228883@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:23:38 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402dc445.16208927@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:02:39 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402d9068.2931795@news.verizon.net...
As you say equality is individual. What right does a heterosexual
male
have that is deined a homosexual male.
The right to marry.
Both a homosexual and a heterosexual male have the equal right to
marry.
Hmm, where have I heard that type of fallacious argument before? "Both a
black person and a white person have the equal right to marry. (Just not
to
each other.)" - ca. 1967, during the debates about interracial marriage
Straw man argument.
Wrong. Such fallacious sentiments were actually expressed back then, as they
are now.
No amount of whining, posturing or civil rights
legislation are going to make a homosexual sexually viable.
What does that have to do with anything? Gays can *****, gays can adopt. Gays
can even reproduce through artificial insemination.
and
fucking and children are what marriage is about.
If you believe this, you are shallow indeed.
Marriage is about a committed, life-long relationship between two people who
love each other.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a gay
person? None. Claiming that "gays have the right to marry...just not each
other" is nothing but weasel words and obfuscation by freedom-haters in
their attempt to legitimize their bigotry.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a
person who has a thing for goats?
Do I hear the beginning of a non-sequitur/slippery-slope/red-herring
fallacy?
The business of the human race is the creation and upbringing of
children.
Marriage is not required to produce children, you know.
To the extent that this is true homosexuals are non players.
It's not bigotry son it's biology.
So, what about infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples who do not
wish to have children? Should they too be denied the right to marry?
What about gay couples who adopt children, are artificially inseminated, or
have children through some other means? Should their children be denied the
benefit of having two married parents?
Sorry, but marriage is NOT about having children. Hell, you don't even need
to be married to have children.
Too bad you don't believe in freedom when you are a citizen of the Sweet
Land of Liberty. Perhaps you should move to a country like North Korea that
has similar attitudes about freedom as you have.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
14 Feb 2004 09:03:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:21:56 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402e946e.17228883@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:23:38 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402dc445.16208927@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:02:39 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402d9068.2931795@news.verizon.net...
As you say equality is individual. What right does a heterosexual
male
have that is deined a homosexual male.
The right to marry.
Both a homosexual and a heterosexual male have the equal right to
marry.
Hmm, where have I heard that type of fallacious argument before? "Both a
black person and a white person have the equal right to marry. (Just not
to
each other.)" - ca. 1967, during the debates about interracial marriage
Straw man argument.
Wrong. Such fallacious sentiments were actually expressed back then, as they
are now.
No amount of whining, posturing or civil rights
legislation are going to make a homosexual sexually viable.
What does that have to do with anything? Gays can *****, gays can adopt. Gays
can even reproduce through artificial insemination.
Gays can *****. But they don't. That's why they are called gay.
and
fucking and children are what marriage is about.
If you believe this, you are shallow indeed.
Marriage is about a committed, life-long relationship between two people who
love each other.
You read this on some Hallmark card?
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a gay
person? None. Claiming that "gays have the right to marry...just not each
other" is nothing but weasel words and obfuscation by freedom-haters in
their attempt to legitimize their bigotry.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a
person who has a thing for goats?
Do I hear the beginning of a non-sequitur/slippery-slope/red-herring
fallacy?
My non-sequitur/slippery-slope/red-herring fallacy is no more stupid
than yours. "Marriage" between a man and a goat and a man and a man
are both qualitiatively different then a marriage between a man and a
woman.
The business of the human race is the creation and upbringing of
children.
Marriage is not required to produce children, you know.
To the extent that this is true homosexuals are non players.
It's not bigotry son it's biology.
So, what about infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples who do not
wish to have children? Should they too be denied the right to marry?
Not if they meet the minimum requirements.
What about gay couples who adopt children, are artificially inseminated, or
have children through some other means? Should their children be denied the
benefit of having two married parents?
Sorry, but marriage is NOT about having children. Hell, you don't even need
to be married to have children.
If there weren't fucking and children would there be marriage? No.
Too bad you don't believe in freedom when you are a citizen of the Sweet
Land of Liberty. Perhaps you should move to a country like North Korea that
has similar attitudes about freedom as you have.
No. But fucking and children is the reason that marriage exists as an
instution. Freedom has nothing to do with it. No possible union
between homosexuals will ever have the same biological value as a
union between heterosexuals reguardless of what you call it.
Homosexual and heterosexual relationships ain't equal. Both have
different expectations and possible outcomes. Gays will never really
be married. At best they will be allowed by the state to enter into
some kind of contractual relationship called a "gay marriage".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
15 Feb 2004 10:27:32 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402ed4a9.33672218@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:21:56 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? Gays can *****, gays can adopt.
Gays
can even reproduce through artificial insemination.
Gays can *****. But they don't. That's why they are called gay.
They do *****. And suck. And lick. And kiss. And do everything heterosexual
couples do.
and
fucking and children are what marriage is about.
If you believe this, you are shallow indeed.
Marriage is about a committed, life-long relationship between two people
who
love each other.
You read this on some Hallmark card?
No. Just telling it like it is.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a gay
person? None. Claiming that "gays have the right to marry...just not
each
other" is nothing but weasel words and obfuscation by freedom-haters
in
their attempt to legitimize their bigotry.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a
person who has a thing for goats?
Do I hear the beginning of a non-sequitur/slippery-slope/red-herring
fallacy?
My non-sequitur/slippery-slope/red-herring fallacy is no more stupid
than yours. "Marriage" between a man and a goat and a man and a man
are both qualitiatively different then a marriage between a man and a
woman.
Wrong. Goats cannot consent. And the topic is HUMAN rights.
And the subject is NOT marriage between humans and animals; it is gay
marriage - i.e. equal rights for all human beings.
The business of the human race is the creation and upbringing of
children.
Marriage is not required to produce children, you know.
To the extent that this is true homosexuals are non players.
It's not bigotry son it's biology.
So, what about infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples who do not
wish to have children? Should they too be denied the right to marry?
Not if they meet the minimum requirements.
And what would these "minimum requirements" be? That one cannot be gay?
What about gay couples who adopt children, are artificially inseminated,
or
have children through some other means? Should their children be denied
the
benefit of having two married parents?
Sorry, but marriage is NOT about having children. Hell, you don't even
need
to be married to have children.
If there weren't fucking and children would there be marriage? No.
So much for those childless, infertile or elderly couples that you stated
could get married. Or, was one of those "minimum requirements" to sign a
pledge that they would have children?
Too bad you don't believe in freedom when you are a citizen of the Sweet
Land of Liberty. Perhaps you should move to a country like North Korea
that
has similar attitudes about freedom as you have.
No. But fucking and children is the reason that marriage exists as an
instution.
Nope. Maybve it was 1000 years ago, but not today.
Freedom has nothing to do with it.
Freedom has EVERYTHING to do with it. Or do you believe in arranged
marriages?
No possible union
between homosexuals will ever have the same biological value as a
union between heterosexuals reguardless of what you call it.
Irrelevant. Marriage is NOT about having children; otherwise marriage would
be closed to couples who are infertile, marry when they are elderly, or who
don't want children.
That said, gay couples can and do raise families. In the paper they showed a
newlywed gay couple in San Francsico with two adopted babies: their
children.
Homosexual and heterosexual relationships ain't equal.
Yes, they ARE. Straight couples love each other every bit as much as gay
couples. And they quarrel the same. And they raise families the same.
Both have
different expectations and possible outcomes. Gays will never really
be married.
Yes, they will be REALLY married.
At best they will be allowed by the state to enter into
some kind of contractual relationship called a "gay marriage".
Let's compare your statement to the following: "Interracial couples will
never really be married. At best they will be allowed by the state to enter
into some kind of contractual relationship called an 'interracial
marriage'." Kind of puts your statement into perspective, eh?
Face it. Gays want equal rights, nothing more, nothing less. You oppose
equal rights. That makes you a bigot. Every bit as bigoted as those who
opposed interracial marriage, which they claimed was "unnatural", "unequal",
"wrong", or what have you.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
15 Feb 2004 11:40:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:27:32 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402ed4a9.33672218@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:21:56 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? Gays can *****, gays can adopt.
Gays
can even reproduce through artificial insemination.
Gays can *****. But they don't. That's why they are called gay.
Then you don't know what fucking is. Homosexuals engage in what we
heterosexuals call foreplay.
***** (fuk) v., fucked, *****•ing, interj., n. Vulgar.— v.t.1. to
have sexual intercourse with.
They do *****. And suck. And lick. And kiss. And do everything heterosexual
couples do.
and
fucking and children are what marriage is about.
If you believe this, you are shallow indeed.
Marriage is about a committed, life-long relationship between two people
who
love each other.
You read this on some Hallmark card?
No. Just telling it like it is.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a gay
person? None. Claiming that "gays have the right to marry...just not
each
other" is nothing but weasel words and obfuscation by freedom-haters
in
their attempt to legitimize their bigotry.
What use is the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex to a
person who has a thing for goats?
Do I hear the beginning of a non-sequitur/slippery-slope/red-herring
fallacy?
My non-sequitur/slippery-slope/red-herring fallacy is no more stupid
than yours. "Marriage" between a man and a goat and a man and a man
are both qualitiatively different then a marriage between a man and a
woman.
Wrong. Goats cannot consent. And the topic is HUMAN rights.
And the subject is NOT marriage between humans and animals; it is gay
marriage - i.e. equal rights for all human beings.
The business of the human race is the creation and upbringing of
children.
Marriage is not required to produce children, you know.
To the extent that this is true homosexuals are non players.
It's not bigotry son it's biology.
So, what about infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples who do not
wish to have children? Should they too be denied the right to marry?
Not if they meet the minimum requirements.
And what would these "minimum requirements" be? That one cannot be gay?
Nope. Only that they be a man and a woman. Many gays are married. The
just ain't married to members of the opposite sex.
What about gay couples who adopt children, are artificially inseminated,
or
have children through some other means? Should their children be denied
the
benefit of having two married parents?
Sorry, but marriage is NOT about having children. Hell, you don't even
need
to be married to have children.
If there weren't fucking and children would there be marriage? No.
So much for those childless, infertile or elderly couples that you stated
could get married. Or, was one of those "minimum requirements" to sign a
pledge that they would have children?
Too bad you don't believe in freedom when you are a citizen of the Sweet
Land of Liberty. Perhaps you should move to a country like North Korea
that
has similar attitudes about freedom as you have.
No. But fucking and children is the reason that marriage exists as an
instution.
Nope. Maybve it was 1000 years ago, but not today.
Freedom has nothing to do with it.
Freedom has EVERYTHING to do with it. Or do you believe in arranged
marriages?
No possible union
between homosexuals will ever have the same biological value as a
union between heterosexuals reguardless of what you call it.
Irrelevant. Marriage is NOT about having children; otherwise marriage would
be closed to couples who are infertile, marry when they are elderly, or who
don't want children.
That said, gay couples can and do raise families. In the paper they showed a
newlywed gay couple in San Francsico with two adopted babies: their
children.
Homosexual and heterosexual relationships ain't equal.
Yes, they ARE. Straight couples love each other every bit as much as gay
couples. And they quarrel the same. And they raise families the same.
Both have
different expectations and possible outcomes. Gays will never really
be married.
Yes, they will be REALLY married.
I'm sure that gays may feel that way but that don't make it so.
Married folks for the most part are biological mates. In a homosexual
relationship at best partners are mutual biological toys.
At best they will be allowed by the state to enter into
some kind of contractual relationship called a "gay marriage".
Let's compare your statement to the following: "Interracial couples will
never really be married. At best they will be allowed by the state to enter
into some kind of contractual relationship called an 'interracial
marriage'." Kind of puts your statement into perspective, eh?
There is really no such thing as race only racists.
Face it. Gays want equal rights, nothing more, nothing less. You oppose
equal rights. That makes you a bigot. Every bit as bigoted as those who
opposed interracial marriage, which they claimed was "unnatural", "unequal",
"wrong", or what have you.
No equal rights ammendment, no act of God or Sweedish medical
procedure is going to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man.
Your basic premise is flawed. Gay unions do not have the same
expectations and outcomes as heterosexual unions and are not equal.
Marriage at it core and at it's inseption is not ment to be some
specical kind of friendship but a biological and social framework for
the creation and raising of children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: What's wrong with 'gay' marriage |
15 Feb 2004 01:25:15 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402fa3c8.920473@news.verizon.net...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:27:32 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:402ed4a9.33672218@news.verizon.net...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:21:56 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? Gays can *****, gays can
adopt.
Gays
can even reproduce through artificial insemination.
Gays can *****. But they don't. That's why they are called gay.
Then you don't know what fucking is. Homosexuals engage in what we
heterosexuals call foreplay.
***** (fuk) v., fucked, *****•ing, interj., n. Vulgar.— v.t.1. to
have sexual intercourse with.
***** (fuk) v.; to insert a penis into a vagina or *****.
Haven't you ever heard of *****-fucking?
Let's compare your statement to the following: "Interracial couples will
never really be married. At best they will be allowed by the state to
enter
into some kind of contractual relationship called an 'interracial
marriage'." Kind of puts your statement into perspective, eh?
There is really no such thing as race only racists.
Face it. Gays want equal rights, nothing more, nothing less. You oppose
equal rights. That makes you a bigot. Every bit as bigoted as those who
opposed interracial marriage, which they claimed was "unnatural",
"unequal",
"wrong", or what have you.
No equal rights ammendment, no act of God or Sweedish medical
procedure is going to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man.
Irrelevant. You don't need to turn a amn into a woman in order for gays to
marry. All that's needed is two people, regardless of sex. Take a man, and
another man. Stand them in front of an authorized government official or
clergyman. Have them exchange wedding vows. Have the official or clergyman
pronounce them married. Issue them a government document showing that they
are married. Result: they are married.
Your basic premise is flawed. Gay unions do not have the same
expectations and outcomes as heterosexual unions and are not equal.
Sure they have the same expectations. Life-long companionship. A family to
raise. A committed relationship. Survivor benefits and other rights afforded
to married people.
Marriage at it core and at it's inseption is not ment to be some
specical kind of friendship but a biological and social framework for
the creation and raising of children.
Now I understand. You think YOU are the one who invented the concept of
marriage, so marriage can only by whatever YOU decree it to be.
And that's just too bad for couples who cannot or do not choose to have
children, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
