Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers- 

Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you. 
Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you. 
Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you. 
Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you. 

I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.
Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
was concieved and conceptualized in the Blue states. We've always been
way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels lagged hundred
years behind.

So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?
Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
and foreign policy? You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
to the table. You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We
create and design everything from the clothes on your back, to the
books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
to. You need us more than we need you.

Let's start the secession movement!

We're more productive, we're smarter, why should we share a nation
with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else? Our
soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!! How
does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?! No value for life,
you bigoted hicks are a waste. You motherfuckers are going to get US
killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.

The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
Al-Queda is atrocious enough. We have Satellites that can see a dime
on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes and U.S.
intelligence all over the damn planet.

The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
this country.

Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better
off! Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
LOVELESS marriage these days?!

If I'm not mistaken most of the Troops who have given their lives and are 
currently fighting for you right to be a total jerk are from the RED states. 
So if it weren't for the red states you wouldn't have the right to say the 
stupid things you say.  By the way. The South plays better Football!!!
"Steve Blonske" <steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com...
> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-
>
> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.
> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.
> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you.
> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you.
>
> I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
> second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
> should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
> have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
> first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.
> Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
> was concieved and conceptualized in the Blue states. We've always been
> way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels lagged hundred
> years behind.
>
> So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?
> Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
> and foreign policy? You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
> to the table. You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We
> create and design everything from the clothes on your back, to the
> books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
> to. You need us more than we need you.
>
> Let's start the secession movement!
>
> We're more productive, we're smarter, why should we share a nation
> with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
> and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else? Our
> soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!! How
> does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?! No value for life,
> you bigoted hicks are a waste. You motherfuckers are going to get US
> killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.
>
> The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
> Al-Queda is atrocious enough. We have Satellites that can see a dime
> on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes and U.S.
> intelligence all over the damn planet.
>
> The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
> away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
> we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
> this country.
>
> Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better
> off! Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
> Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
> LOVELESS marriage these days?! 

"Steve Blonske" <steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com> wrote

> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-
>
> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.

Actually, isn't the big claim that the Republicans are the evil rich men?
lol.

> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.

Republicans.

> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you.

Republicans.

> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you.

LA, Chicago, et al?

I like this troll.

"Steve Blonske" <steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com...
> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-
>
> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.
> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.
> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you.
> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you.
>
> I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
> second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
> should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
> have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
> first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.
> Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
> was concieved and conceptualized in the Blue states. We've always been
> way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels lagged hundred
> years behind.
>
> So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?
> Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
> and foreign policy? You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
> to the table. You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We
> create and design everything from the clothes on your back, to the
> books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
> to. You need us more than we need you.
>
> Let's start the secession movement!
>
> We're more productive, we're smarter, why should we share a nation
> with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
> and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else? Our
> soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!! How
> does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?! No value for life,
> you bigoted hicks are a waste. You motherfuckers are going to get US
> killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.
>
> The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
> Al-Queda is atrocious enough. We have Satellites that can see a dime
> on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes and U.S.
> intelligence all over the damn planet.
>
> The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
> away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
> we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
> this country.
>
> Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better
> off! Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
> Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
> LOVELESS marriage these days?!


listen up, faggot.  where does the food that you require to be a shameless 
cocksucking, hair braiding pansy come from?  right.  red states.  fuck off. 

Sorry for the top post, but this will be quick. I also realize the
spacebastards thing means this is a troll, but I work with people that
believe the same shit this horses ass is posting, so I'm going to roll
with it.

The reason Kerry is not going to be President is because a shmuck like
this guy (and the ones I work with) will spend all this time typing
and sending it to 30 newsgroups, but he won't take the time to pry his
nerd ass out of the computer chair and vote. The dumb bastards I work
with all scream for  union action at every memo and policy change, but
then piss and moan about paying dues to a union that does nothing for
them. All talk. 5 of them were bitching about Bush this morning, but
none voted.
I had a tough time with this election, but felt Bush was going to be
the guy that screwed me the least. It sucks, but that's how it is.

All you Kerry slackers that didn't vote screwed the pooch. You've been
talking shit since Gorebot got sent packing, and STILL couldn't get it
done. There is your BLUE work ethic. All talk, no action.
You're going to bring Edwards back as the front-runner with that
creepy reptilain smile and speech in 08, and fucking lose again!

On 4 Nov 2004 16:01:46 -0800, steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve
Blonske) wrote:

>Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers- 
>
>Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you. 
>Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you. 
>Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you. 
>Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you. 
>
>I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
>second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
>should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
>have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
>first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.
>Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
>was concieved and conceptualized in the Blue states. We've always been
>way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels lagged hundred
>years behind.
>
>So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?
>Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
>and foreign policy? You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
>to the table. You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We
>create and design everything from the clothes on your back, to the
>books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
>to. You need us more than we need you.
>
>Let's start the secession movement!
>
>We're more productive, we're smarter, why should we share a nation
>with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
>and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else? Our
>soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!! How
>does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?! No value for life,
>you bigoted hicks are a waste. You motherfuckers are going to get US
>killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.
>
>The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
>Al-Queda is atrocious enough. We have Satellites that can see a dime
>on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes and U.S.
>intelligence all over the damn planet.
>
>The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
>away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
>we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
>this country.
>
>Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better
>off! Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
>Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
>LOVELESS marriage these days?!

Please continue with the hissy-fits.  The taste of your tears is very sweet. 

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:cmei9l$ai$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> listen up, faggot.  where does the food that you require to be a shameless 
> cocksucking, hair braiding pansy come from?  right.  red states.  fuck 
> off.
>

Look everyone, it's a red state poster child! 

"Steve Blonske" <steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com...
> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-

Dude, let it go.  Most of those "Red States" are only two-thirds red, if
that, and most of those "Blue States" are barely over half blue.  The last
thing we need in this country is yet another ignorant way of hating each
other over one tiny piece of useless information, like which state someone
lives in.

"Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com> wrote in message 
news:glBid.24309$OD3.1235222@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:cmei9l$ai$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>>
>> listen up, faggot.  where does the food that you require to be a 
>> shameless cocksucking, hair braiding pansy come from?  right.  red 
>> states.  fuck off.
>>
>
> Look everyone, it's a red state poster child!
>


^Look everyone, its an AIDS infested, pizza delivering liberal arts poster 
child^ 

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Steve Blonske" <steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com...
> > Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-
>
> Dude, let it go.  Most of those "Red States" are only two-thirds red, if
> that, and most of those "Blue States" are barely over half blue.  The
> last thing we need in this country is yet another ignorant way of hating
> each other over one tiny piece of useless information, like which state
> someone lives in.

The other last thing we need is any more feeding of the alt.spacebastards
trolls.

Just a question for everybody: when are we going to get back to talking
about games?

Steve Tilson

-- 
"We're not going to kill you.  The moral thing is to let you die a natural
death.  Alone.  In a pile of your own filth."
                                      - Frylock

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:cmeqhk$6a6$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> "Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com> wrote in message 
> news:glBid.24309$OD3.1235222@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:cmei9l$ai$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>>>
>>> listen up, faggot.  where does the food that you require to be a 
>>> shameless cocksucking, hair braiding pansy come from?  right.  red 
>>> states.  fuck off.
>>>
>>
>> Look everyone, it's a red state poster child!
>>
>
>
> ^Look everyone, its an AIDS infested, pizza delivering liberal arts poster 
> child^
>

Sorry Jethro, I've been to university.  No need to supplement my income with 
pizza delivery, and take away your job. 

Khee Mao wrote:
> listen up, faggot.  where does the food that you require to be a
> shameless cocksucking, hair braiding pansy come from?  right.  red
> states.  fuck off.

Willie Nelson braids his hair. 

-- 

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"tncoaster" <swami2302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10olhc6pjkguh9a@corp.supernews.com...
> If I'm not mistaken most of the Troops who have given their lives and are
> currently fighting for you right to be a total jerk are from the RED
states.

Cite, please.

On 4 Nov 2004 16:01:46 -0800, steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve
Blonske) wrote:

>I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
>second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. 
[SNIP drivel]

I'm sure you know the history, part of USA tried over 150 years ago
and failed.  What makes you think we'd have any luck this time?

I'm not happy that an idiot won the right to screw USA for the next 4
years but you don't hear me throwing childish tantrum and using 4
letters word.  It's much easier to renounce the citizenship and move
to another country.
-- 
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net

steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve Blonske) wrote in message news:<266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com>...
>
> The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
> away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
> we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
> this country.
> 


  I did notice that a large portion of the red states contained
numerous redneck inbreds, I guess that explains the popular vote:

20% Redneck Hicks
10% Cowards (worried about phantom threats)
10% Rich People (that are mainly the only ones to benefit from Bush's
tax cuts)
10% Fanatical religious zealots who are mainly those snake handler
types
1% Bush's family, friends, and business associates.

First off, I'm in a "blue" state... though that's in all actuality a
misnomer.  PA is RED, RED, RED.  Philadelphia drowns out our voice.  THEY
are the only reason PA is a "blue" state.  Rest of my comments in-line.

"Steve Blonske" <steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com...
> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-
>

Nice way to start off a discussion.  You really will get positive feedback
and a "coming together" by being so polite.

> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.

Who do you think FEEDS this country.  We do, not you.

> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.

Who MAKES the shit you sell to the world?  We do, not you.

> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you.

Unless you, yourself, belong to the top 1% of wage earners, YOU cannot make
this claim.

> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you.

I'll take our "small town" schools over the inner city death zones any day.
We get a better teacher:student ratio too.

>
> I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
> second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
> should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
> have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
> first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.

Oh, I see.  You're REALLY just prejudiced against the south.  Or you're too
clueless to know the difference.  Take your pick.

> Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
> was conceived and conceptualized in the Blue states.

Half of those original 13 colonies were what you would call "backward, hick
states."  Did you even STUDY when you were in school, or are you still
waiting to get to that part?

>We've always been way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels
lagged hundred
> years behind.
>

You're sweet.  Clueless, arrogant, but sweet.

> So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?

One voice, one vote.  Don't like it?  Move somewhere else.  I hear Canada's
taking reservations.

> Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
> and foreign policy?

Let?  Listen, assbag, go study how our representative republic works.

>You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
> to the table.

It really must suck to be so naive and inexperienced.  Have you even
traveled 10 miles in your lifetime?

>You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We create and design
everything from the clothes on your back, to the
> books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
> to. You need us more than we need you.
>

We'll remember that the next time you're hungry.  Or the next time you need
protection from attack (most of the men and women fighting for YOU come from
those red areas), or the next time you need building supplies, or cars, or
hehehehe... customers for the crap you peddle.

> Let's start the secession movement!
>

Do.  Please.  We really don't need YOU.  Take a closer look at the map... go
county by county.  What do you see?  Hmmmmmm?  A SEA of red.... with dots,
specks of blue.  Gee, all those specks wouldn't be urban areas, would
they???  Very few cities in this country aren't liberal... and very few
aren't going BROKE.  You're a drain on the system.

> We're more productive,

Point of fact, no, you're not.  You don't "produce" anything...   WE DO.
You sell it, ship it, etc.

>we're smarter,

Please.  Enlighten me.  Offer some proof here.  This ought to be good.


>why should we share a nation
> with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
> and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else?

You don't even think before you type, do you?  You just keep those fingers
tapping (and your mouth yapping).  This comment is too inane to even bother
wasting my time.

>Our soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!!

Ahhhhhhhh.... A Chomsky/Moore zombie.  Please, do tell, what lies?  Do you
even KNOW the definition of a lie?  If everyone in the world tells you the
sky is blue, so you repeat it to a blind man, only later to find out the sky
is in fact gray... did you LIE?  Gimme a break.

And those soldiers OVERWHELMINGLY support Bush.  Evidently, they don't agree
with you or your pseudointellectual (read: self important) idols.

>How does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?!

You really have to start paying closer attention.  It's NOT ABOUT gay
marriage.  It's about states having the right to decide for THEMSELVES.  If
California, or any other state, wants to allow gay marriage, good for them,
more power to them.  BUT, if, say, Kansas doesn't want to, they should have
that right also.  Therefore, a gay marriage in Cali shouldn't mean that
another state should be forced to recognize it.  So simple, it's stupid.


>No value for life,

You just move your fingers, and words come out.  Is your brain even in gear?
Do you think before you type?  Or is your hatred just that consuming?

> you bigoted hicks are a waste.

Take a long look in the mirror.  The only bigot I've seen so far is YOU.

>You motherfuckers are going to get US
> killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.

Really?  They haven't been attacking us for over twenty years?  I just
imagined all that?  They'll just go away and be nice if the "right" people
are in charge???  Grow up.

>
> The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
> Al-Queda is atrocious enough.

Perhaps if our intelligence agencies hadn't been gutted, and neutered by the
"correct" party, we wouldn't be playing catch up.

>We have Satellites that can see a dime
> on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes

It can see the dime... but only if it knows where to look.

>and U.S. intelligence all over the damn planet.

That had atrophied under the Democrats watch to the point where the best
they could do was guess.  Then we act off those guesses... and you call them
lies.

>
> The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
> away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
> we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
> this country.
>
Your animosity and intolerance knows no bounds, does it?  Registered
democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a wide margin.  Yet the dem.s
keep getting their asses handed to them time and again.... and this after
they DOMINATED the political system for over 2 generations.  You're gonna
have to look a little harder for the reasons why.  It's not because our
voice is louder.  (Although, currently, we have more voices... even if WE
aren't the one's constantly bitching).


> Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better off!

Tell you what.  Take all of the Democrat cities (there are no democrat
states), move them to NJ and NE, and go ahead - with our blessing - and form
your own country.  No, we won't protect you.  No, we won't feed you (gonna
have to pay... and the price just went up).  There'll be no foreign aid
coming your way.  I give it 20 years, and you'll all be illegal aliens... or
following Sharia law.


>Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
> Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
> LOVELESS marriage these days?!

You're right.  You bitches are such nags.  You want the world, but aren't
willing to work for it.  You want freedom, but aren't willing to fight for
it.  You want safety, but aren't willing to make the sacrifices to provide
it.  You claim to be tolerant people, but are the most intolerant group on
Earth.  You claim to embrace diversity, but cannot stand a differing
viewpoint.  You claim to love this country, yet hate everything it was
founded on, and everything it stands for.  You claim to be experienced
people, yet most of you don't know a single person who'd vote the other
way.... and much less, can't understand why.  You claim to want unity, but
don't even understand what that means - you *think* it means "everyone sees
things MY way."

Just STFU.  Get out more.  Learn how to THINK... not just spew what others
tell you.  You may think it through (after carefully weighing all views),
and still believe in your philosophy.  Great.  But at least you'd be honest.
I can respect honesty.  I can't respect you.

(To everyone else:  I'm normally more cordial than this, but I have a nasty
habit of matching tone with tone)

steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve Blonske) wrote in message news:<266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com>...
> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers- 
> 
> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you. 
> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you. 
> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you. 
> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you. 
> 
> I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
> second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
> should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
> have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
> first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.
> Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
> was concieved and conceptualized in the Blue states. We've always been
> way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels lagged hundred
> years behind.
> 
> So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?
> Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
> and foreign policy? You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
> to the table. You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We
> create and design everything from the clothes on your back, to the
> books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
> to. You need us more than we need you.
> 
> Let's start the secession movement!
> 
> We're more productive, we're smarter, why should we share a nation
> with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
> and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else? Our
> soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!! How
> does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?! No value for life,
> you bigoted hicks are a waste. You motherfuckers are going to get US
> killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.
> 
> The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
> Al-Queda is atrocious enough. We have Satellites that can see a dime
> on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes and U.S.
> intelligence all over the damn planet.
> 
> The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
> away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
> we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
> this country.
> 
> Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better
> off! Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
> Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
> LOVELESS marriage these days?!

Yaaaaay! Let's hear it for The United States of New York City, Boston,
and Los Angeles. Three rousing cheers for the great, new republic.
Hmmmm, but who will feed us? Ahhhh, maybe we an get the Canadian
farmers, or the New Zealander herders onboard?......Mommy, I'm hungry!

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:cmeqhk$6a6$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu: 

> "Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com> wrote in message 
> news:glBid.24309$OD3.1235222@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>> "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:cmei9l$ai$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>>>
>>> listen up, faggot.  where does the food that you require to be a 
>>> shameless cocksucking, hair braiding pansy come from?  right.  red 
>>> states.  fuck off.
>>
>> Look everyone, it's a red state poster child!
> 
> ^Look everyone, its an AIDS infested, pizza delivering liberal arts
> poster child^ 

Even worse, he looks like he's from Canada. Probably a welfare queen hoping 
he doesn't die in line before he can get seen by a doctor.

steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve Blonske) wrote in message news:<266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com>...
> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers- 
> 
> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you. 
> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you. 
> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you. 
> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you. 
> 
> I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
> second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
> should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
> have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
> first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.
> Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
> was concieved and conceptualized in the Blue states. We've always been
> way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels lagged hundred
> years behind.
> 
> So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?
> Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
> and foreign policy? You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
> to the table. You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We
> create and design everything from the clothes on your back, to the
> books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
> to. You need us more than we need you.
> 
> Let's start the secession movement!
> 
> We're more productive, we're smarter, why should we share a nation
> with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
> and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else? Our
> soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!! How
> does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?! No value for life,
> you bigoted hicks are a waste. You motherfuckers are going to get US
> killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.
> 
> The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
> Al-Queda is atrocious enough. We have Satellites that can see a dime
> on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes and U.S.
> intelligence all over the damn planet.
> 
> The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
> away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
> we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
> this country.
> 
> Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better
> off! Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
> Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
> LOVELESS marriage these days?!


Steve,

I know that you are upset bro, but we just have to try to hang in
there and hope that the country will be okay. Don't forget that in the
red states there are people that wanted Kerry, but they were just
outnumbered.  I think the evangelical vote really helped Bush.

It has always puzzled me that a group that supposedly follows the ten
commandents supports war. One of the commandments is Thou shall not
kill.  Now either you believe this or you don't.

It seems the religious right believes it is okay to kill for wars. So
to me this means they don't follow the ten commandments. If they don't
follow one commandment, why should they follow any others.
Hypocrites!!

"Jason Costa" <jcwatchdog@msn.com> wrote in message 
news:37cabe21.0411050011.1426c919@posting.google.com...
>  I did notice that a large portion of the red states contained
> numerous redneck inbreds, I guess that explains the popular vote:
>
> 20% Redneck Hicks
> 10% Cowards (worried about phantom threats)
> 10% Rich People (that are mainly the only ones to benefit from Bush's
> tax cuts)
> 10% Fanatical religious zealots who are mainly those snake handler
> types
> 1% Bush's family, friends, and business associates.

<alt.spacebastards removed>

Your hypothesis is obviously wrong.  You've no category for "Voter Fraud." 

On 5 Nov 2004 05:09:40 -0800, darrenthomas703@yahoo.com (Darren
Thomas) wrote:

>steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve Blonske) wrote in message news:<266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com>...
>> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers- 
>> 
>> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you. 
>> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you. 
>> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you. 
>> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you. 
>> 
>> I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
>> second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
>> should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
>> have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
>> first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.
>> Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
>> was concieved and conceptualized in the Blue states. We've always been
>> way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels lagged hundred
>> years behind.
>> 
>> So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?
>> Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
>> and foreign policy? You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
>> to the table. You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We
>> create and design everything from the clothes on your back, to the
>> books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
>> to. You need us more than we need you.
>> 
>> Let's start the secession movement!
>> 
>> We're more productive, we're smarter, why should we share a nation
>> with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
>> and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else? Our
>> soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!! How
>> does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?! No value for life,
>> you bigoted hicks are a waste. You motherfuckers are going to get US
>> killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.
>> 
>> The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
>> Al-Queda is atrocious enough. We have Satellites that can see a dime
>> on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes and U.S.
>> intelligence all over the damn planet.
>> 
>> The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
>> away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
>> we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
>> this country.
>> 
>> Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better
>> off! Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
>> Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
>> LOVELESS marriage these days?!
>
>
>Steve,
>
>I know that you are upset bro, but we just have to try to hang in
>there and hope that the country will be okay. Don't forget that in the
>red states there are people that wanted Kerry, but they were just
>outnumbered.  I think the evangelical vote really helped Bush.
>
>It has always puzzled me that a group that supposedly follows the ten
>commandents supports war. One of the commandments is Thou shall not
>kill.  Now either you believe this or you don't.

Talk about ignorant. I think that if you will return to the original
text, you will find that the word "kill" actually translates to
"murder." Then we have to decide whether killing in war is murder.
Prove me wrong.
>
>It seems the religious right believes it is okay to kill for wars. So
>to me this means they don't follow the ten commandments. If they don't
>follow one commandment, why should they follow any others.
>Hypocrites!!

"howdy" <somebody@somewhere.con> wrote in message
news:m3ano0l4scu6iifk1bigcj4j7i0sfjh2uk@4ax.com...

> >It has always puzzled me that a group that supposedly follows the ten
> >commandents supports war. One of the commandments is Thou shall not
> >kill.  Now either you believe this or you don't.
>
> Talk about ignorant. I think that if you will return to the original
> text, you will find that the word "kill" actually translates to
> "murder." Then we have to decide whether killing in war is murder.
> Prove me wrong.

Okay, then, try to come up with an answer for this one.  Firstly, forget the
Old Testament.  Jesus made very clear that much of it was to be thrown
out--he is the New Covenant.
Jesus also made it very, very clear that violence is NEVER justified, not
even in defense of your own life.  Not ever.  He wasn't talking about just
murder.  So if you believe war is justified, you're not a Christian.  If you
believe killing someone who is trying to kill you is justified, you are not
a Christian.

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:K9Oid.18663$KJ6.2522@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "howdy" <somebody@somewhere.con> wrote in message
> news:m3ano0l4scu6iifk1bigcj4j7i0sfjh2uk@4ax.com...
> 
>>> It has always puzzled me that a group that supposedly follows the ten
>>> commandents supports war. One of the commandments is Thou shall not
>>> kill.  Now either you believe this or you don't.
>>
>> Talk about ignorant. I think that if you will return to the original
>> text, you will find that the word "kill" actually translates to
>> "murder." Then we have to decide whether killing in war is murder.
>> Prove me wrong.
> 
> Okay, then, try to come up with an answer for this one.  Firstly, forget
> the Old Testament.  Jesus made very clear that much of it was to be
> thrown out--he is the New Covenant.
> Jesus also made it very, very clear that violence is NEVER justified,
> not even in defense of your own life.

No he didn't.

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:K9Oid.18663$KJ6.2522@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "howdy" <somebody@somewhere.con> wrote in message
> news:m3ano0l4scu6iifk1bigcj4j7i0sfjh2uk@4ax.com...
>
> > >It has always puzzled me that a group that supposedly follows the ten
> > >commandents supports war. One of the commandments is Thou shall not
> > >kill.  Now either you believe this or you don't.
> >
> > Talk about ignorant. I think that if you will return to the original
> > text, you will find that the word "kill" actually translates to
> > "murder." Then we have to decide whether killing in war is murder.
> > Prove me wrong.
>
> Okay, then, try to come up with an answer for this one.  Firstly, forget
the
> Old Testament.  Jesus made very clear that much of it was to be thrown
> out--he is the New Covenant.
> Jesus also made it very, very clear that violence is NEVER justified, not
> even in defense of your own life.  Not ever.  He wasn't talking about just
> murder.  So if you believe war is justified, you're not a Christian.  If
you
> believe killing someone who is trying to kill you is justified, you are
not
> a Christian.
>
>

There are many versions of the bible to choose from.  What?  You don't like
any of those?  Well then, write your own!  That way it can fit your purposes
like a glove!

drax

<SteveTilson@rightbehindyou.com> wrote in message news:20041104230319.879

> Just a question for everybody: when are we going to get back to talking
> about games?
>
> Steve Tilson

Um, when was that?

"tncoaster" <swami2302@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:10olhc6pjkguh9a@corp.supernews.com...
> If I'm not mistaken most of the Troops who have given their lives and are 
> currently fighting for you right to be a total jerk are from the RED 
> states. So if it weren't for the red states you wouldn't have the right to 
> say the stupid things you say.  By the way. The South plays better 
> Football!!!
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                        Ahh...priorities. 
Good argument okie! 

Thusly "Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> Spake Unto All:

>> Just a question for everybody: when are we going to get back to talking
>> about games?
>>
>> Steve Tilson
>
>Um, when was that?

He means the week before Doom3 was released.


-- 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04wills.html?th

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Ray D. <rayjen@ptd.net> wrote:

> > Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.

> Who do you think FEEDS this country.  We do, not you.

Check again.  Both California and Illinois are largely agricultural once 
you get outside the large population areas.  Sure, you've got the 
breadbasket which is largely in the mid-west, but unless you just want to 
eat wheat and corn products, you're going to get most of your produce, 
rice and soybeans from California.

> > Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.

> Who MAKES the shit you sell to the world?  We do, not you.

Actually the correct answer is China and Mexico.  The US has outsourcing
its manufacturing for decades.


I'm not going to bother reading further since it seems there are idiots on 
both sides who don't realize that Bush only won the popular vote by about 
3.5%, with even the states declared strongly for one candidate or the 
other being pretty evenly divided.  It was a long and bitter battle but 
now that it's over, Bush needs to work to unite the people behind him and 
get rid of this blue v. red silliness.

steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve Blonske) wrote in
news:266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com: 

> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers- 
> 
> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you. 
> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you. 
> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you. 
> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you. 

So are you admitting that the Democratic party is actually the party of
the rich? 

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10onoop4ketog2d@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Ray D. <rayjen@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> > > Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.
>
> > Who do you think FEEDS this country.  We do, not you.
>
> Check again.  Both California and Illinois are largely agricultural once
> you get outside the large population areas.  Sure, you've got the
> breadbasket which is largely in the mid-west, but unless you just want to
> eat wheat and corn products, you're going to get most of your produce,
> rice and soybeans from California.
>

New York, contrary to popular belief, isn't paved from end to end.  In fact,
we are one of the nations largest producers of fruit.


> > > Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.
>
> > Who MAKES the shit you sell to the world?  We do, not you.
>
> Actually the correct answer is China and Mexico.  The US has outsourcing
> its manufacturing for decades.
>
>
> I'm not going to bother reading further since it seems there are idiots on
> both sides who don't realize that Bush only won the popular vote by about
> 3.5%, with even the states declared strongly for one candidate or the
> other being pretty evenly divided.  It was a long and bitter battle but
> now that it's over, Bush needs to work to unite the people behind him and
> get rid of this blue v. red silliness.


He can't, all his issues are blue vs. red.  He's only going to reach out to
those who share his goals.

drax

"Steve Blonske" <steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com...
> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-
>
> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.
> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.
> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you.
> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you.

Who's this "we"?  Ya got a mouse in your pocket?

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> It was a long and bitter battle but
> now that it's over, Bush needs to work to unite the people behind him and
> get rid of this blue v. red silliness.

Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and their
failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2v26gnF2evgofU1@uni-berlin.de...

> He can't, all his issues are blue vs. red.  He's only going to reach out
to
> those who share his goals.

Um, like Ted Kennedy, you silly 'tard.  :)

Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Ray D. <rayjen@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> > > Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.
>
> > Who do you think FEEDS this country.  We do, not you.
>
> Check again.  Both California and Illinois are largely agricultural once
> you get outside the large population areas.  Sure, you've got the
> breadbasket which is largely in the mid-west, but unless you just want to
> eat wheat and corn products, you're going to get most of your produce,
> rice and soybeans from California.

Operative phrase: "once you get outside the large population areas."
Which, if you look at the county-by-county break-down, is where the
Democratic vote actually was centered.  The rural areas in practically
*every* state went Republican.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

I have a hunch that if the blue states actually did secede, and if their
red counties didn't go with them (or if their inhabitants relocated to red
states), it would be hard for the blue states to maintain their
agricultural output.  And when I say "hard," I mean "impossible."

Steve Tilson

-- 
"We're not going to kill you.  The moral thing is to let you die a natural
death.  Alone.  In a pile of your own filth."
                                      - Frylock

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:

> Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and their
> failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.

Fictional?  

Just like the ways the republicans came down on *anyone* who tried to 
criticize the persident as being a "liberal deomcrat"?  My favorite is 
when the administration and its supporters slam the media for having a
"liberal bias" when someone *dared* to ask the president a question that 
wasn't handed to him before the press conference...  I mean, really, how 
dare the media ask the president questions other than what he had for 
dinner the other night!

Sorry, I'm neither a liberal nor a democrat (I don't believe in parties) 
but becuase I think for myself, I've been labeled as one of those 'liberal 
democrats' you hear so much about.  Saying all democrats are liberals is 
like saying all republicans are right-wing extremists.  It's just not true, 
but it's something the administration would love for you to believe...

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:03:16 -0800, "Khee Mao"
<big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> thought hard and said:

>
>"Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com> wrote in message 
>news:glBid.24309$OD3.1235222@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:cmei9l$ai$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>>>
>>> listen up, faggot.  where does the food that you require to be a 
>>> shameless cocksucking, hair braiding pansy come from?  right.  red 
>>> states.  fuck off.
>>>
>>
>> Look everyone, it's a red state poster child!
>>
>
>
>^Look everyone, its an AIDS infested, pizza delivering liberal arts poster 
>child^ 

I do not think liberal arts students are qualified to deliver pizza.

--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16                        A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 SteveTilson@rightbehindyou.com wrote:

> > Check again.  Both California and Illinois are largely agricultural once
> > you get outside the large population areas.  Sure, you've got the
> > breadbasket which is largely in the mid-west, but unless you just want to
> > eat wheat and corn products, you're going to get most of your produce,
> > rice and soybeans from California.

> Operative phrase: "once you get outside the large population areas."
> Which, if you look at the county-by-county break-down, is where the
> Democratic vote actually was centered.  The rural areas in practically
> *every* state went Republican.

True.  But the discussion was about whole states, not individual 
counties.  If you were to look at votes-by-county in most states, you'll 
see it's a pretty much a patchwork.

> I have a hunch that if the blue states actually did secede, and if their
> red counties didn't go with them (or if their inhabitants relocated to red
> states), it would be hard for the blue states to maintain their
> agricultural output.  And when I say "hard," I mean "impossible."

If a state tried to secede, but some of its counties didn't, that's not 
quite the same thing...

Now if you want to say if the blue counties seceded then you'd end up with 
quite a mess, I predict :)

As for maintaining agricultural output, it's not like Americans are doing 
much of the work now, and most farms are owned by mega-corp size companies 
anyways.

(besides, I suspect if most of us were given a chunk of land, and some 
supplies and told him to grow his own food, most of us would end up 
starving to death ;)

"Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote in message news:<moMid.33506$SW3.28946@fed1read01>...
> "Jason Costa" <jcwatchdog@msn.com> wrote in message 
> news:37cabe21.0411050011.1426c919@posting.google.com...
> >  I did notice that a large portion of the red states contained
> > numerous redneck inbreds, I guess that explains the popular vote:
> >
> > 20% Redneck Hicks
> > 10% Cowards (worried about phantom threats)
> > 10% Rich People (that are mainly the only ones to benefit from Bush's
> > tax cuts)
> > 10% Fanatical religious zealots who are mainly those snake handler
> > types
> > 1% Bush's family, friends, and business associates.
> 
> <alt.spacebastards removed>
> 
> Your hypothesis is obviously wrong.  You've no category for "Voter Fraud."

Keep the insults coming.  Watching you losers wallow in your misery is
pure entertainment.  It's amazing you dolts actually thought john
kerry could win.

BWAHAHAHA!

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:48:42 GMT, "Leon Dexter"
<leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"howdy" <somebody@somewhere.con> wrote in message
>news:m3ano0l4scu6iifk1bigcj4j7i0sfjh2uk@4ax.com...
>
>> >It has always puzzled me that a group that supposedly follows the ten
>> >commandents supports war. One of the commandments is Thou shall not
>> >kill.  Now either you believe this or you don't.
>>
>> Talk about ignorant. I think that if you will return to the original
>> text, you will find that the word "kill" actually translates to
>> "murder." Then we have to decide whether killing in war is murder.
>> Prove me wrong.
>
>Okay, then, try to come up with an answer for this one.  Firstly, forget the
>Old Testament.  Jesus made very clear that much of it was to be thrown
>out--he is the New Covenant.
>Jesus also made it very, very clear that violence is NEVER justified, not
>even in defense of your own life.  Not ever.  He wasn't talking about just
>murder.  So if you believe war is justified, you're not a Christian.  If you
>believe killing someone who is trying to kill you is justified, you are not
>a Christian.
>
Rather than  argue with a moron, I will simply say that you obviously
have zero knowledge of scripture and Jesus' teachings. For example: to
turn the other cheek would imply that after that there are no other
cheeks to turn, since we only have two. In other words, forgiveness is
one thing, but Jesus never said to be anyone's whipping boy. Please,
before you say anything else, have a halfass idea of what you are
talking about. Also, Jesus did not throw anything out, He fulfilled
the Old Testament. Get a clue.

"Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message 
news:6ed688b3.0411051825.f777640@posting.google.com...
> "Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote in message 
> news:<moMid.33506$SW3.28946@fed1read01>...
>> "Jason Costa" <jcwatchdog@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:37cabe21.0411050011.1426c919@posting.google.com...
>> >  I did notice that a large portion of the red states contained
>> > numerous redneck inbreds, I guess that explains the popular vote:
>> >
>> > 20% Redneck Hicks
>> > 10% Cowards (worried about phantom threats)
>> > 10% Rich People (that are mainly the only ones to benefit from Bush's
>> > tax cuts)
>> > 10% Fanatical religious zealots who are mainly those snake handler
>> > types
>> > 1% Bush's family, friends, and business associates.
>>
>> <alt.spacebastards removed>
>>
>> Your hypothesis is obviously wrong.  You've no category for "Voter 
>> Fraud."
>
> Keep the insults coming.  Watching you losers wallow in your misery is
> pure entertainment.  It's amazing you dolts actually thought john
> kerry could win.

It was a joke.  Do I need to insert emoticons for you?

> BWAHAHAHA!

The really funny thing is that you think that there is a substantial 
difference between Bush and Kerry. 

"Impmon" wrote
> (Steve Blonske) wrote:
>
>>I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
>>second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast.
> [SNIP drivel]
>
> I'm sure you know the history, part of USA tried over 150 years ago
> and failed.  What makes you think we'd have any luck this time?
>
> I'm not happy that an idiot won the right to screw USA for the next 4
> years but you don't hear me throwing childish tantrum and using 4
> letters word.  It's much easier to renounce the citizenship and move
> to another country.

Nope.

I'm pretty sure it's easier to throw childish tantrums and use four-letters 
words. 

"Doug Jacobs" <wrote

> now that it's over, Bush needs to work to unite the people behind him and
> get rid of this blue v. red silliness.

But I'm fond of the silliness. 

"Doug Jacobs"  wrote
> Fred Liken wrote:

>> Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and their
>> failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.

> Fictional?

Dividedness? 

"howdy" wrote

> Rather than  argue with a moron,

Good for you.

> I will simply say that you obviously
> have zero knowledge of scripture and Jesus' teachings.

Oh. You changed your mind.

> For example: to
> turn the other cheek would imply that after that there are no other
> cheeks to turn, since we only have two.

So the bible teaches us to forgive our enemies just the once?

> In other words, forgiveness is
> one thing, but Jesus never said to be anyone's whipping boy.

Yet 'he' was the ultimate whipping boy.

> Please,
> before you say anything else, have a halfass idea of what you are
> talking about. Also, Jesus did not throw anything out, He fulfilled
> the Old Testament. Get a clue.

And Arnie's playing him in the film: "Ill be back; but I wont be black". 

"FLY135" wrote
>
> "Steve Blonske" wrote

>> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-

I can see Eminem opening a concert with that.

>> Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.
>> Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.
>> Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you.
>> Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you.
>
> Who's this "we"?  Ya got a mouse in your pocket?

I recognize that song anyway:

Who controls the British Crown?
Who keeps the metric system down? We do. We do.

Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps? We do. We do.

Who holds back the electric car?
Who made Steve Gutenburg . . . a star? We do. We do.

Who robs cave fish of their site?
Who rigs every Oscar night? We do. We do.

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:418c025b$0$18509$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2v26gnF2evgofU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > He can't, all his issues are blue vs. red.  He's only going to reach out
> to
> > those who share his goals.
>
> Um, like Ted Kennedy, you silly 'tard.  :)
>
>

You really shouldn't bring your lover into this, fred :)

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:418c021b$0$18473$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote
>
> > It was a long and bitter battle but
> > now that it's over, Bush needs to work to unite the people behind him
and
> > get rid of this blue v. red silliness.
>
> Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and their
> failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.
>
>

Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.  Especially when Bush had
previously said that gay marriage was an issue for the states to decide.

drax

On 4 Nov 2004 16:01:46 -0800, steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve
Blonske) wrote:

>Who do you think makes the money for this country? 

Heh... without the people who fled to the red states, from the blue
states, there wouldn't BE any blue states, or any states at all.
You're talking about white people, not states. You know that, right?

And it's not even a state thing. It's a big city thing. The suburbs
are white. The suburbs are red. You know all those white people who
WORK at the companies who make all the money who make the big cities
possible?

Those are republicans.

If you *really* want to argue about who makes the United States great,
you are going to have a REALLY hard sell, claiming it's democrats. Are
you a fool? Well, are you?

I live in California. California is about 40% white. George W Bush got
46% of the vote in California. That's all of the white people, plus
some percentage of the hispanic vote. My congressman is David Drier. A
republican. I voted for him. He won. In fact, all my elected officials
except the 2 California Senators are Republican. The incumbets were
all republicans allready, and they won again, all of them. I live 50
miles from Los Angeles. In a white neighborhood. In the suburbs.

Don't talk to me about blue states, talk to me about poor people. And
what will happen to the democratic party when poor people eventually
realize that democrats aren't making them any less poor?

Huh?

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:2v417vF2hoqf7U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
> marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.

Uh huh. The American people are attacked, and then when they try to defend 
themselves in the way the Constitution itself mandates, they're accused of 
being "divisive" by their attackers. It wasn't Republicans, the so-called 
"religious right," or anybody else on the conservative side who brought up 
this subject. It was radical perverts and their allies trying to overthrow 
the laws enacted by the majority of citizens in every state in this country. 
They tried it first in defiance of the law (California), and then by 
judicial fiat (Massachusetts). The constitutional amendment proposal was a 
reaction to that, and only the most brazen of liars would try to claim 
otherwise. 

drax wrote:
> "Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
> news:418c021b$0$18473$45beb828@newscene.com...
> 
>>"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>It was a long and bitter battle but
>>>now that it's over, Bush needs to work to unite the people behind him
> 
> and
> 
>>>get rid of this blue v. red silliness.
>>
>>Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and their
>>failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
> marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.  Especially when Bush had
> previously said that gay marriage was an issue for the states to decide.
> 
> drax

Oh, it's much worse then that.  In Bush's very first news conference, he 
says, and I quote:

"The campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and 
results. I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals."

Gee, isn't that nice.  He'll reach out to anyone who already agrees with 
him.  How bipartisan of him.

Fasten your seatbelts America, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
MSH

In message <bAbjd.39210$QJ3.38035@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Cutter 
Slade <confed@evilemail.com> writes
>"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2v417vF2hoqf7U1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
>> marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
>
>Uh huh. The American people are attacked, and then when they try to defend
>themselves in the way the Constitution itself mandates, they're accused of
>being "divisive" by their attackers.
I would say "hysterical" rather than "divisive", going by this post. A 
couple of guys say that they love each other and want to get married, 
and you reckon that this is an attack on the American people? It's 
hardly 9/11, now, is it? If the American people are so feeble in their 
beliefs that they will be destroyed by a few lesbians plighting their 
troths, then those beliefs weren't worth much in the first place. And 
here was me thinking that America was the Land of the Free.
-- 
John Secker

holleyrp@delanet.com (Robert P Holley) wrote in message 

> Keep the insults coming.  Watching you losers wallow in your misery is
> pure entertainment.  It's amazing you dolts actually thought john
> kerry could win.
> 
> BWAHAHAHA!



  I'm somewhat happy Bush won again.  When he fails miserably in the
next 4 years, he won't have anyone to blame but himself.  4 more years
will mean well over 3,000 US soldiers dying, passing the amount of
people that died on September 11th.  A good amount will die within the
next month.  George stirred up a hornets nest for no reason and now
all will pay the price.  I'm hoping people that are posting here with
your mentality are around 17 to 25 years old and male.  Luckily I'm
well past draft age.

howdy <somebody@somewhere.con> wrote in message 

> Rather than  argue with a moron, I will simply say that you obviously
> have zero knowledge of scripture and Jesus' teachings. For example: to
> turn the other cheek would imply that after that there are no other
> cheeks to turn, since we only have two. In other words, forgiveness is
> one thing, but Jesus never said to be anyone's whipping boy. Please,
> before you say anything else, have a halfass idea of what you are
> talking about. Also, Jesus did not throw anything out, He fulfilled
> the Old Testament. Get a clue.


  Really?  It's funny you say that because when Jesus was hanging on
the cross he could have easily had God send a legion of angels to
destroy his enemies.  Instead he let himself be a "whipping boy" in
your words.  He never raised a hand against anyone, as an example to
the world.  But I guess he did this to fulfill his purpose, but hell,
if his purpose was to just die on the cross, that wasn't much of a
purpose was it?  There was a reason behind why he died.  And when you
find that reason, and about the peace that Jesus taught, then you'll
have your answer about war.  War is when we fail following in the
footsteps of Jesus, and you can rationalize it away all you want.  And
if you want to make a case that sometimes war is necessary and debate
it, fine, but attacking a country that didn't attack us and had
nothing to do with September 11th is not debateable.  The war was a
waste of human life.  Put plainly, even Saddam being an ass and all,
if we hadn't gone into Iraq, there would be 1000 more US troops alive
today and over 50,000 (possibly more) Iraqis alive today.  Yet when
you consider the number of dead and what has been accomplished so far,
you kind of start to see (if you have half a brain, which is obvious
you don't have anyways) that it would have been better if we never
would have gone there in the first place, especially considering we
were lied to about how involved Iraq had been in anything.  And that
they had no weapons nuclear, chemical or biological.  Or that they
didn't even have conventional weapons of any significance (at least
last time he fired a few scud missles every now and then).

"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> > For example: to turn the other cheek would imply that after that
> > there are no other cheeks to turn, since we only have two.
> 
> So the bible teaches us to forgive our enemies just the once?

I believe we have seventy times seven cheeks.  And even if we
only had two, there would still always be the other cheek to
turn.  To say that we can stop turning the other cheek is just
revisionist theology by people that want to claim to be Christian
without actually having to follow the teachings of Jesus.

-- 
Darin Johnson
    Luxury!  In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...

In article <F+c+2bH6JVjBFwVN@secker.demon.co.uk>,
   John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <bAbjd.39210$QJ3.38035@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Cutter 
>Slade <confed@evilemail.com> writes
>>"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2v417vF2hoqf7U1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>> Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
>>> marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
>>
>>Uh huh. The American people are attacked, and then when they try to 
defend
>>themselves in the way the Constitution itself mandates, they're accused 
of
>>being "divisive" by their attackers.
>I would say "hysterical" rather than "divisive", going by this post. A 
>couple of guys say that they love each other and want to get married, 
>and you reckon that this is an attack on the American people? It's 
>hardly 9/11, now, is it? If the American people are so feeble in their 
>beliefs that they will be destroyed by a few lesbians plighting their 
>troths, then those beliefs weren't worth much in the first place. And 
>here was me thinking that America was the Land of the Free.

The source of that particular contention is all about money.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

"Jason Costa" <jcwatchdog@msn.com> wrote in message 
news:37cabe21.0411061610.4412d93d@posting.google.com...
> holleyrp@delanet.com (Robert P Holley) wrote in message
>
>> Keep the insults coming.  Watching you losers wallow in your misery is
>> pure entertainment.  It's amazing you dolts actually thought john
>> kerry could win.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHA!
>
>
>
>  I'm somewhat happy Bush won again.  When he fails miserably in the
> next 4 years, he won't have anyone to blame but himself.  4 more years
> will mean well over 3,000 US soldiers dying, passing the amount of
> people that died on September 11th.  A good amount will die within the
> next month.  George stirred up a hornets nest for no reason and now
> all will pay the price.  I'm hoping people that are posting here with
> your mentality are around 17 to 25 years old and male.  Luckily I'm
> well past draft age.

So.... by your own logic, you are happy over 3,000 soldiers will die? Dick. 

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099674299.welpo2iCD6tL/4V6jb/jdA@bubbanews...
> > Jesus also made it very, very clear that violence is NEVER justified,
> > not even in defense of your own life.
>
> No he didn't.

Brilliant response.  Deny everything.

"howdy" <somebody@somewhere.con> wrote in message

> Rather than  argue with a moron, I will simply say that you obviously
> have zero knowledge of scripture and Jesus' teachings.

You could go to hell for that.  See below.  But I feel the same way--I'm not
going to argue, I'll let Jesus do it for me.

For example: to
> turn the other cheek would imply that after that there are no other
> cheeks to turn, since we only have two. In other words, forgiveness is
> one thing, but Jesus never said to be anyone's whipping boy. Please,
> before you say anything else, have a halfass idea of what you are
> talking about. Also, Jesus did not throw anything out, He fulfilled
> the Old Testament. Get a clue.

Really?  That's a clever way of mangling his intent.  Here are a few quotes
from Jesus for you, including the one you've mangled.  See if you can mangle
them all to mean it's okay to hate and kill.

From Matthew 5:
"Ye have heard that is was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill;
and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgement:  and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An yey for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee
on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you."

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:DFyjd.20596$KJ6.520@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:1099674299.welpo2iCD6tL/4V6jb/jdA@bubbanews...
>
>>> Jesus also made it very, very clear that violence is NEVER justified,
>>> not even in defense of your own life.
>>
>> No he didn't.
> 
> Brilliant response.  Deny everything.

There was nothing to deny. You didn't provide and evidence.

"Cutter Slade" <confed@evilemail.com> wrote in message
news:bAbjd.39210$QJ3.38035@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2v417vF2hoqf7U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
> > marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
>
> Uh huh. The American people are attacked, and then when they try to defend
> themselves in the way the Constitution itself mandates, they're accused of
> being "divisive" by their attackers. It wasn't Republicans, the so-called
> "religious right," or anybody else on the conservative side who brought up
> this subject. It was radical perverts and their allies trying to overthrow
> the laws enacted by the majority of citizens in every state in this
country.
> They tried it first in defiance of the law (California), and then by
> judicial fiat (Massachusetts). The constitutional amendment proposal was a
> reaction to that, and only the most brazen of liars would try to claim
> otherwise.
>
>

In other words, since the states didn't do what GWB wanted it becomes a
federal issue.  How odd that you feel attacked by gay marriage.

drax

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote

> > > He can't, all his issues are blue vs. red.  He's only going to reach
out
> > to
> > > those who share his goals.
> >
> > Um, like Ted Kennedy, you silly 'tard.  :)
>
> You really shouldn't bring your lover into this, fred :)

Yep, no substance from drax, as usual.

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote

> > Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and their
> > failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.
>
> Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
> marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.

Nope.  The definition of marriage isn't a divisive issue.  The clear
majority are in favor of protecting the definition of marriage.

Sorry, you'll need a new issue.

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:418fb491$0$18522$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > He can't, all his issues are blue vs. red.  He's only going to reach
> out
> > > to
> > > > those who share his goals.
> > >
> > > Um, like Ted Kennedy, you silly 'tard.  :)
> >
> > You really shouldn't bring your lover into this, fred :)
>
> Yep, no substance from drax, as usual.
>
>

Right, I couldn't counter the awesome substance of your Ted Kennedy
diversion post.  GWB's issues are red vs. blue.  Can you actually refute
that?

drax

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:418fb550$0$83705$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and
their
> > > failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.
> >
> > Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
> > marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
>
> Nope.  The definition of marriage isn't a divisive issue.  The clear
> majority are in favor of protecting the definition of marriage.
>
> Sorry, you'll need a new issue.
>
>

You're diverting again.  We're not talking about the definition of marriage
we're talking about Bush's decision to push a constitutional amendment to
ban gay marriage when he previously said it was an issue for the states.
Even if a majority are in favor of the amendment it doesn't stand much
chance of passing.  It is, without a doubt, one of the issues that divided
people during election.

drax

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Green Shampoo <green_shampoo@webtv.net> wrote:

> So.... by your own logic, you are happy over 3,000 soldiers will die? Dick. 

If that is the price to get the American people to wake up and realize 
they made a mistake back in 2004, so be it.  Hopefully, that'll be the 
only bad thing that happens over the next 4 years.

Just remember - *YOU* (for proper values of "you") chose Bush.  I only 
hope that the rest of the world can live with the consequences.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I would say "hysterical" rather than "divisive", going by this post. A 
> couple of guys say that they love each other and want to get married, 
> and you reckon that this is an attack on the American people? It's 
> hardly 9/11, now, is it? If the American people are so feeble in their 
> beliefs that they will be destroyed by a few lesbians plighting their 
> troths, then those beliefs weren't worth much in the first place. And 
> here was me thinking that America was the Land of the Free.

It's also rather sad when you think about it...  America was founded by 
people seeking religious freedom that they didn't have back in Europe.  
Later, America was formed by people seeking political freedom from 
England.  The founding fathers very deliberately mandated a separation of 
church and state.

Now we've got a president who is trying to dictate what *his* religion 
says into laws - which is fine if you believe in *his* religion.  I 
don't.  Many others don't either.  

steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve Blonske) wrote in message news:<266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com>...
> Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers- 

[snip]

Get over it dude.  I would posit that the "red" states need the "blue"
states as much as the "blue" states need the "red" states.  There's no
way in hell you could magically seperate them and expect everything to
be hunky-dorey.

Why do people try and make it out like this is the most cataclysmic
thing that's ever happened to the USA?  We've gone through much worse
in the past, and we'll go through much worse in the future.

Yeah, Bush is a tool (slightly moreso than Kerry), but it's not the
end of the world.  Also, bitching about it on gaming related public
forums has, approximately, a snow balls chance in hell of
accomplishing anything (much like my post).

-V

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote

> > > Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning
gay
> > > marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
> >
> > Nope.  The definition of marriage isn't a divisive issue.  The clear
> > majority are in favor of protecting the definition of marriage.
> >
> > Sorry, you'll need a new issue.
>
> You're diverting again.

No, sorry, I'm not.

> We're not talking about the definition of marriage

Yes we are.

> we're talking about Bush's decision to push a constitutional amendment to
> ban gay marriage

Actually, just define marriage as between a man and a woman.

> when he previously said it was an issue for the states.

Before the courts started saying it was a right under the Consitution.

> Even if a majority are in favor of the amendment it doesn't stand much
> chance of passing.

It sure does, actually.

> It is, without a doubt, one of the issues that divided
> people during election.

Based on what data?  Without a doubt based on your perception, perhaps?

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Thrasher <spectre911@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And it's not even a state thing. It's a big city thing. The suburbs
> are white. The suburbs are red. You know all those white people who
> WORK at the companies who make all the money who make the big cities
> possible?

That's odd, I'm White, spent part of my time in the suburbs, yet both of 
my parents voted democrat most of the time, and many of the others living 
in the suburb were also democrat.

> Those are republicans.

> If you *really* want to argue about who makes the United States great,
> you are going to have a REALLY hard sell, claiming it's democrats. Are
> you a fool? Well, are you?

> I live in California. California is about 40% white. George W Bush got
> 46% of the vote in California. That's all of the white people, plus
> some percentage of the hispanic vote. My congressman is David Drier. A
> republican. I voted for him. He won. In fact, all my elected officials
> except the 2 California Senators are Republican. The incumbets were
> all republicans allready, and they won again, all of them. I live 50
> miles from Los Angeles. In a white neighborhood. In the suburbs.

I also live in CA.  I'm about 50 miles from San Francisco and Oakland...  
They definitely voted democrat, regardless of their color, background, or 
income level.  White != rich, White != automatic republican.  Try again.

> Don't talk to me about blue states, talk to me about poor people. And
> what will happen to the democratic party when poor people eventually
> realize that democrats aren't making them any less poor?

I fail to see how this is a failing of the Democrats when Bush passes tax 
break after tax break without opposition for the Americans that make up the 
top 1% of income earners.  I'm pretty sure no one here - even if you think 
you're pretty well off - falls into this category.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> The founding fathers very deliberately mandated a separation of
> church and state.

Again, showing your profound ignorance.  There was not separation of chuch
and state in the Constitution.  That term appears only in a letter from
Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut to
dispell rumors that the Federal Government was going to adopt a national
religion and dictate to men what religion they would have or how to worship
God.  It was not that religion would not have a place in state.  The first
amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") was a wall to protect
religion from the state, not the state from religion, my friend.

Religion was a part of the American government from begining up until
recently.
They opened the Constitutional Convention with prayer.
Government officials had to declare faith in God until 1960.
Morality with its basis in the Bible was taught in public schools until the
60's.
Prayer was in schools until the 1960's.

The 1960's was the turning point for America away from religion.  The
current administration is a correction of those mistakes.  Fact is, the last
40 years haven't been the best for America.

> Now we've got a president who is trying to dictate what *his* religion
> says into laws

Name one, thanks.

> - which is fine if you believe in *his* religion.  I
> don't.  Many others don't either.

Ignorance.

Fred Liken wrote:

> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
> 
> 
>>>Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and their
>>>failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.
>>
>>Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
>>marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
> 
> 
> Nope.  The definition of marriage isn't a divisive issue.  The clear
> majority are in favor of protecting the definition of marriage.
> 
> Sorry, you'll need a new issue.

Maybe, but the idea of putting restrictions to liberty in the 
constitution bothers the heck out of me.  We tried that once before with 
lots of public support and for seemingly good reasons.  It turned into a 
disaster and had to be rescinded.

I'm not trying to draw too close an analogy here, just noting that the 
constitution is the wrong place to restrict what people can do.  Call me 
old school, but I think the constitution is there to restrict what 
*government* can do, not what people can do.

Now if the president wants to make an amendment saying that the federal 
government has no say in marriage law, making it a state only issue, 
that works for me.

MSH

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:418fcb23$0$82982$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning
> gay
> > > > marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
> > >
> > > Nope.  The definition of marriage isn't a divisive issue.  The clear
> > > majority are in favor of protecting the definition of marriage.
> > >
> > > Sorry, you'll need a new issue.
> >
> > You're diverting again.
>
> No, sorry, I'm not.
>
> > We're not talking about the definition of marriage
>
> Yes we are.
>

No, we're talking about it being a divisive issue.

> > we're talking about Bush's decision to push a constitutional amendment
to
> > ban gay marriage
>
> Actually, just define marriage as between a man and a woman.
>

define it however you want, I don't care.  Except what it means to the two
people involved it is nothing more than a legal contract anyway.

> > when he previously said it was an issue for the states.
>
> Before the courts started saying it was a right under the Consitution.
>

State courts, which is the states.  So, since the states didn't do what GWB
wanted he decided to push for an amendment to the constitution.

> > Even if a majority are in favor of the amendment it doesn't stand much
> > chance of passing.
>
> It sure does, actually.
>

Two thirds of each house, two thirds of the states?  I don't see that
happening.

> > It is, without a doubt, one of the issues that divided
> > people during election.
>
> Based on what data?  Without a doubt based on your perception, perhaps?
>

Debates, pre-election polls, and exit polls, the amount of time and energy
the administration spent on it.  Do you have some contradicting data to
share?

drax

Thusly "Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> Spake Unto All:

>Nope.  The definition of marriage isn't a divisive issue.  The clear
>majority are in favor of protecting the definition of marriage.

I still don't understand that. In what way is it better that gays live
in sin, and occasionally raise children out of wedlock, than that they
marry?

This threatens the fabric of society how, exactly?

Is the logic that by preventing them from marrying they wont have sex?

Fred, you're a dittohead - what's the party line?


-- 
"Despite the report of the 9/11 Commission saying there is no evidence Iraq was 
providing significant support to al Qaeda, 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was 
providing substantial support to al Qaeda (30% of Kerry supporters), with 20% 
believing that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. Sixty-three percent of Bush 
supporters even believe that clear evidence of this support has been found"

 - The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, 21st Oct, 2004, finds that a majority of Bushs
supporters live in a parallel reality.

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2va6hrF2h4bu8U1@uni-berlin.de...

> > > Even if a majority are in favor of the amendment it doesn't stand much
> > > chance of passing.
> >
> > It sure does, actually.
>
> Two thirds of each house, two thirds of the states?  I don't see that
> happening.

That's fine.

> > > It is, without a doubt, one of the issues that divided
> > > people during election.
> >
> > Based on what data?  Without a doubt based on your perception, perhaps?
> >
>
> Debates, pre-election polls, and exit polls,

Ok, pony up.

> the amount of time and energy the administration spent on it.

They spent a lot of time and energy on education reform... does that mean
education is divisive?

> Do you have some contradicting data to share?

I'm not supporting a claim.

"Green Shampoo" <green_shampoo@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:cmm2f5$29n$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> "Jason Costa" <jcwatchdog@msn.com> wrote in message
> >  I'm somewhat happy Bush won again.  When he fails miserably in the
> > next 4 years, he won't have anyone to blame but himself.  4 more years
> > will mean well over 3,000 US soldiers dying, passing the amount of
> > people that died on September 11th.  A good amount will die within the
> > next month.  George stirred up a hornets nest for no reason and now
> > all will pay the price.  I'm hoping people that are posting here with
> > your mentality are around 17 to 25 years old and male.  Luckily I'm
> > well past draft age.
>
> So.... by your own logic, you are happy over 3,000 soldiers will die?
Dick.

I agree, what a ridiculous statement.  Why is everyone on the left so
prone to massive melodrama?  It's pathetic.

> 
> If that is the price to get the American people to wake up and realize 
> they made a mistake back in 2004, so be it.  Hopefully, that'll be the 
> only bad thing that happens over the next 4 years.
> 
> Just remember - *YOU* (for proper values of "you") chose Bush.  I only 
> hope that the rest of the world can live with the consequences.


Your Daddy made a mistake when he didn't pull out or wear a condom.  Do 
us a favor and enlist so you too can be one of the 3,000.

-- 
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=15340&t=1

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099875254.odi1PghwJow/9dgShuNChw@bubbanews...
>
> There was nothing to deny. You didn't provide and evidence.

Here--it's from another post I made.  In my original post, I mistakenly
thought that this stuff was common knowledge, and easily found in cases
where it isn't.  I never realized there were people who thought Jesus
condoned violence--I just thought they were ignoring that he condemned it.

From Matthew 5:
"Ye have heard that is was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill;
and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgement:  and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An yey for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee
on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you."

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:

> > we're talking about Bush's decision to push a constitutional amendment to
> > ban gay marriage

> Actually, just define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Which would, in effect, ban gay marriage would it not?  If not, please 
explain to me how a same-sex couple could be declared "married" in the 
eyes of the law.

Do note that this will also have civil rights implications as it is 
already illegal to discriminate against people based on their sex, color, 
or sexual preference.  It also will have a significant impact on whether 
one's partner could receive medical/insurance benefits.  Some places only 
provide family coverage for *spouses* - meaning, legally two people 
legally married.  If Bush succeeds in defining marriage as a partnership 
ONLY between 1 woman and 1 man, then it will run amuck of the 
anti-discrimination laws that have already been on the books for decades.


Of course, none of this explains *WHY* there's this need for government to 
dictate what two consenting adults do in private, much less put it in the 
constitution...  

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message 
news:10p0549ps91ka30@corp.supernews.com...

> Of course, none of this explains *WHY* there's this need for government to
> dictate what two consenting adults do in private, much less put it in the
> constitution...

You can do whatever you want in private - nobody's stopping you.

The debate is over whether same-sex couples should receive the same legal 
recognition as "normal" married couples. 

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:vsUjd.9059$O11.6904@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:1099875254.odi1PghwJow/9dgShuNChw@bubbanews...
>
>> There was nothing to deny. You didn't provide and evidence.
> 
> Here--it's from another post I made.  In my original post, I mistakenly
> thought that this stuff was common knowledge, and easily found in cases
> where it isn't.  I never realized there were people who thought Jesus
> condoned violence--I just thought they were ignoring that he condemned
> it. 
> 
> From Matthew 5:
> "Ye have heard that is was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
> kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement:
> But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
> cause shall be in danger of the judgement:  and whosoever shall say to
> his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever
> shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

The word for "kill" is murder.

From the New American Standard Version:

You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER'
and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' "But I say to
you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the
court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be
guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be
guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. 

> "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An yey for an eye, and a tooth
> for a tooth:
> But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
> thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
> 
> "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
> and hate thine enemy.
> But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
> good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
> you, and persecute you."

No where does He say that one doesn't have the right to kill someone in
self defense. 

It would never pass all 50 states.
"Cutter Slade" <confed@evilemail.com> wrote in message 
news:bAbjd.39210$QJ3.38035@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:2v417vF2hoqf7U1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
>> marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
>
> Uh huh. The American people are attacked, and then when they try to defend 
> themselves in the way the Constitution itself mandates, they're accused of 
> being "divisive" by their attackers. It wasn't Republicans, the so-called 
> "religious right," or anybody else on the conservative side who brought up 
> this subject. It was radical perverts and their allies trying to overthrow 
> the laws enacted by the majority of citizens in every state in this 
> country. They tried it first in defiance of the law (California), and then 
> by judicial fiat (Massachusetts). The constitutional amendment proposal 
> was a reaction to that, and only the most brazen of liars would try to 
> claim otherwise.
> 

"Dixie Normous" <smithop@hotspam.com> wrote in message 
news:10p01ed33jsns98@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>
>> If that is the price to get the American people to wake up and realize 
>> they made a mistake back in 2004, so be it.  Hopefully, that'll be the 
>> only bad thing that happens over the next 4 years.
>>
>> Just remember - *YOU* (for proper values of "you") chose Bush.  I only 
>> hope that the rest of the world can live with the consequences.
>
>
> Your Daddy made a mistake when he didn't pull out or wear a condom.  Do us 
> a favor and enlist so you too can be one of the 3,000.
>
HELL NO! I'm enlisted and I don't want this dick alongside me. I am a combat 
lifesaver and might be responsible for trying to save his life.
> -- 
> http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&amp;id=15340&amp;t=1 

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message 
news:10ovha585f3ujd2@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Now we've got a president who is trying to dictate what *his* religion
> says into laws - which is fine if you believe in *his* religion.  I
> don't.  Many others don't either.

Thats your own problem. Fact is, the constitution says you are free to 
worship as you choose. Another fact (I hope I'm not confusing you with 
facts) is that the most basic "Law" of Christianity is to love others.
Yet another fact (can you keep up, here?) is that Congress, not the 
President, create laws in this country. Yes, the President can approve or 
reject, but Congress can always veto. 

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message

> The word for "kill" is murder.
>
> From the New American Standard Version:
>
> You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER'
> and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' "But I say to
> you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the
> court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be
> guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be
> guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
>
> > "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An yey for an eye, and a tooth
> > for a tooth:
> > But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
> > thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
> >
> > "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
> > and hate thine enemy.
> > But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
> > good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
> > you, and persecute you."
>
> No where does He say that one doesn't have the right to kill someone in
> self defense.

Kill, murder--do you speak Aramaic?  Your translation stinks, but it doesn't
matter, it means the same if you read it right--Jesus says that violence
will get you into hell, and even insults risk doing so.  He doesn't say "you
don't have the right to kill", no--He says you will be judged guilty of
disobeying Him, and go to Hell for it.  I suppose you have trouble
understanding what he means because you don't want to obey.

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nZ_jd.9418$O11.5958@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>
> > The word for "kill" is murder.
> >
> > From the New American Standard Version:
> >
> > You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT
MURDER'
> > and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' "But I say to
> > you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before
the
> > court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be
> > guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be
> > guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
> >
> > > "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An yey for an eye, and a tooth
> > > for a tooth:
> > > But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
> > > thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
> > >
> > > "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
> > > and hate thine enemy.
> > > But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
> > > good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
> > > you, and persecute you."
> >
> > No where does He say that one doesn't have the right to kill someone in
> > self defense.
>
> Kill, murder--do you speak Aramaic?  Your translation stinks, but it
doesn't
> matter, it means the same if you read it right--Jesus says that violence
> will get you into hell, and even insults risk doing so.  He doesn't say
"you
> don't have the right to kill", no--He says you will be judged guilty of
> disobeying Him, and go to Hell for it.  I suppose you have trouble
> understanding what he means because you don't want to obey.

Which makes zero sense because if someone is trying to kill YOU,
and you are FORCE to kill them in self-defense, it would be an
extreme injustice to be punished in hell for it.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Chupacabra <chupa@cabra.com> wrote:

> > Of course, none of this explains *WHY* there's this need for government to
> > dictate what two consenting adults do in private, much less put it in the
> > constitution...

> You can do whatever you want in private - nobody's stopping you.

You sure about that?  I'm pretty sure that there's a few states that still 
have laws about sodomy on the books...

> The debate is over whether same-sex couples should receive the same legal 
> recognition as "normal" married couples. 

Why shouldn't they?  We already have laws saying that the government can't 
discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual preference.  Seems to me that 
it should be a pretty clear cut issue.  You know, this being the land of the 
free and all that...

"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:Xg%jd.36998$ye4.26704@twister.rdc-

> Which makes zero sense because if someone is trying to kill YOU,
> and you are FORCE to kill them in self-defense, it would be an
> extreme injustice to be punished in hell for it.


"Forced", you mean.  Don't complain to me, tell Jesus.  If you disagree,
then you're not a Christian.  Your choice.  I'm not going to criticize
someone for believing in self-defense.  But I will criticize a hypocrit who
claims to be a Christian but supports war, bigotry, racism, or other forms
of hate.  Including the church itself, some of the time.

"Leon Dexter" wrote:
> "Jim Vieira" wrote:
> > Which makes zero sense because if someone is trying to kill YOU,
> > and you are FORCE to kill them in self-defense, it would be an
> > extreme injustice to be punished in hell for it.
>
> "Forced", you mean.

Typo... noticed it after I posted.  Thanks though.

> Don't complain to me, tell Jesus.

I'll make sure to ask him about it next time I talk to him. ;)

>  If you disagree,
> then you're not a Christian.  Your choice.

I disagree, and I'm not a Christian, but I used to be (was raised
as one).  I lost my faith totally in my early adult years, and think
it's hogwash now.  I was just making the point that such a strict
reading of those doctrines demonstrates a serious flaw.  Whether
the flaw is in the "word", or in how it's being interrpeted, I will
leave to scholars.

>  I'm not going to criticize
> someone for believing in self-defense.  But I will criticize a hypocrit
who
> claims to be a Christian but supports war, bigotry, racism, or other forms
> of hate.  Including the church itself, some of the time.

Those are mighty sweeping generalizations.  As I said was raised
Christian but lost my faith long ago.  But all of the Christians I
have met are good, honest people who would stop and help anyone
who was in need, regardless of their race, political beliefs, sexual
tendancies.  And I never heard any of them say that they believe
that homosexuals should be punished.  Most I have ever talked to
about it say that people can do whatever they want in their own life
and it's God's place to judge, not theirs.

But really, this constant barrage of racist, homophobic bigots is
nothing more than leftist rhetoric which helps them keep minority
groups enslaved as a voting block.  It's one of YOUR sides scare
tactics.  Whenever people as for specifics as to how the right is
racist, they point to things like welfare reform... when welfare has
proven to be a total failure, and our position is actually that of
"teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" if you know
the old saying.  Or they point to our standing against quotas and
affirmative action... which is blatantly racist and even Dr.King would
have to be appalled, considering he wanted for people to be judged
only on their merits and not on the color of their skin.

You guys just spin our positions into strawman arguments that are
nothing more than emotional rhetoric to sucker in people who are
being enabled rather than being helped.

In article <2va6hrF2h4bu8U1@uni-berlin.de>, drax1313
@spamsandwichhotmail.com says...

> >
> > > We're not talking about the definition of marriage
> >
> > Yes we are.
> >
> No, we're talking about it being a divisive issue.

From the results, you could argue that it is anything but.  

Don't you usually call issues 'divisive' when the other side has 52% and 
your side has 48% ?  

- Gerry Quinn

"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:hU0kd.35265$T02.17736@twister.rdc-

> >  I'm not going to criticize
> > someone for believing in self-defense.  But I will criticize a hypocrit
> who
> > claims to be a Christian but supports war, bigotry, racism, or other
forms
> > of hate.  Including the church itself, some of the time.
>
> Those are mighty sweeping generalizations.  As I said was raised
> Christian but lost my faith long ago.  But all of the Christians I
> have met are good, honest people who would stop and help anyone
> who was in need, regardless of their race, political beliefs, sexual
> tendancies.  And I never heard any of them say that they believe
> that homosexuals should be punished.  Most I have ever talked to
> about it say that people can do whatever they want in their own life
> and it's God's place to judge, not theirs.

Really?  All of the Christians I've met have been impossible to lump
together, as good or bad.  They're as varied as any other group of people.
But, as I've said, many of them are not Christians, they are hypocrits.  If
you don't believe in Jesus's teachings, then stop claiming to be Christian,
I say.  The ones howling for blood--whether it's Muslim blood (which I find
completely hateful, and I know several like that) or terrorist blood (which
I find perfectly fine, except then for their claim to be Christians), are
the ones I like to open a Bible and have a nice talk with.  That's what
Jesus would have done, even if they had been getting ready to behead him.


 > But really, this constant barrage of racist, homophobic bigots is
> nothing more than leftist rhetoric which helps them keep minority
> groups enslaved as a voting block.  It's one of YOUR sides scare
> tactics.  Whenever people as for specifics as to how the right is
> racist, they point to things like welfare reform... when welfare has
> proven to be a total failure, and our position is actually that of
> "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" if you know
> the old saying.  Or they point to our standing against quotas and
> affirmative action... which is blatantly racist and even Dr.King would
> have to be appalled, considering he wanted for people to be judged
> only on their merits and not on the color of their skin.

What's MY side?  Do you know my views on welfare reform or affirmative
action?  I've never called a "right wing" person a racist, homophobe, or
bigot just for being Republican.  I have more specific gripes than that.  I
hate mass bigotry, and that definitely includes "right wing" and "left wing"
bullshit.  That sort of crap is only good for the occasional laugh.  I know
it's easy to end up criticizing "them", but I try to rein it in.


>
> You guys just spin our positions into strawman arguments that are
> nothing more than emotional rhetoric to sucker in people who are
> being enabled rather than being helped.

Wow, you've really gone off on a tangeant now.  I don't know why you want to
change the subject to how "your side" is being demonized by "my side".
Apparantly, you're not a "Christian" hypocrit, so what did I say to bring
this tirade?

In article <10p0549ps91ka30@corp.supernews.com>,
   Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
<snip>

>Of course, none of this explains *WHY* there's this need for government to 
>dictate what two consenting adults do in private, much less put it in the 
>constitution...  

To answer your question of why, money.  This issue is very
useful because most males have a cultural homophobic fear.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <n_Ujd.2627752$yk.415231@news.easynews.com>,
   "Chupacabra" <chupa@cabra.com> wrote:
>"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message 
>news:10p0549ps91ka30@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Of course, none of this explains *WHY* there's this need for government 
to
>> dictate what two consenting adults do in private, much less put it in 
the
>> constitution...
>
>You can do whatever you want in private - nobody's stopping you.
>
>The debate is over whether same-sex couples should receive the same legal 
>recognition as "normal" married couples. 
>
>
Exactly.  And the bottom line is money.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <cmokjt$2ii$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>,
   MSH <mshaslam@drizzle.com> wrote:
>Fred Liken wrote:
>
>> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
>> 
>> 
>>>>Actually, most of the dividedness was caused by the Democrats and their
>>>>failed shot at the Presidency.  It's fictional.
>>>
>>>Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
>>>marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
>> 
>> 
>> Nope.  The definition of marriage isn't a divisive issue.  The clear
>> majority are in favor of protecting the definition of marriage.
>> 
>> Sorry, you'll need a new issue.
>
>Maybe, but the idea of putting restrictions to liberty in the 
>constitution bothers the heck out of me. 

Good.  It should.

> .. We tried that once before with 
>lots of public support and for seemingly good reasons.  It turned into a 
>disaster and had to be rescinded.
>
>I'm not trying to draw too close an analogy here, just noting that the 
>constitution is the wrong place to restrict what people can do.  Call me 
>old school, but I think the constitution is there to restrict what 
>*government* can do, not what people can do.

It's important to note that your use of government should be
"Federal government".  
>
>Now if the president wants to make an amendment saying that the federal 
>government has no say in marriage law, making it a state only issue, 
>that works for me.

That [state-only issue] is the Constitution.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <10ovj4v399lvoac@corp.supernews.com>,
   Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
<snip>

>I fail to see how this is a failing of the Democrats when Bush passes tax 
>break after tax break without opposition for the Americans that make up 
the 
>top 1% of income earners.  I'm pretty sure no one here - even if you think 
>you're pretty well off - falls into this category.

You are wrong.  If you were honest and did a reality check
you would compare your 2003 income and SS taxes with an
earlier year.

Mine went down; this was the first time in my life they did go down.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:418ff3d8$0$18474$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2va6hrF2h4bu8U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > > > Even if a majority are in favor of the amendment it doesn't stand
much
> > > > chance of passing.
> > >
> > > It sure does, actually.
> >
> > Two thirds of each house, two thirds of the states?  I don't see that
> > happening.
>
> That's fine.
>
> > > > It is, without a doubt, one of the issues that divided
> > > > people during election.
> > >
> > > Based on what data?  Without a doubt based on your perception,
perhaps?
> > >
> >
> > Debates, pre-election polls, and exit polls,
>
> Ok, pony up.
>

Did you watch the debates?  Wasn't "moral values" sited as common reason
people voted for Bush?

Here's a link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50225-2004Jul14.html

Here's a quote from the article.

 Reflecting the polls, senators expressed reluctance to alter the
Constitution to include a divisive social issue, especially at the expense
of tampering with traditional state prerogatives over marriage law.

> > the amount of time and energy the administration spent on it.
>
> They spent a lot of time and energy on education reform... does that mean
> education is divisive?
>

They did?  I know they "reformed" it, but I didn't know they spent a lot of
time and energy on it.  Amazingly enough what they did was divisive (not
nearly as divisive as the gay marriage issue), and was a point of contention
during the debates.

> > Do you have some contradicting data to share?
>
> I'm not supporting a claim.
>
>

I guess that's no then.

drax

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:nZ_jd.9418$O11.5958@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
> 
>> The word for "kill" is murder.
>>
>> From the New American Standard Version:
>>
>> You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT
>> MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' "But
>> I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be
>> guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You
>> good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and
>> whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery
>> hell. 
>>
>>> "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An yey for an eye, and a tooth
>>> for a tooth:
>>> But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
>>> smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
>>>
>>> "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
>>> and hate thine enemy.
>>> But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
>>> good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
>>> you, and persecute you."
>>
>> No where does He say that one doesn't have the right to kill someone in
>> self defense.
> 
> Kill, murder--do you speak Aramaic?  

If you knew how to do an exegesis then you would know "kill" in this
context is "murder". 

> Your translation stinks,

The New American Standard translation stinks? Considering that it is
considered one of the best and more up-to-date translations, I'd say
you're full of crap. Interesting that you think you know better than the
theologians who translated the Bible. 

Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message news:<10ovgl1dhps7obe@corp.supernews.com>...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Green Shampoo <green_shampoo@webtv.net> wrote:
> 
> > So.... by your own logic, you are happy over 3,000 soldiers will die? Dick. 
> 
> If that is the price to get the American people to wake up and realize 
> they made a mistake back in 2004, so be it.  Hopefully, that'll be the 
> only bad thing that happens over the next 4 years.

So let's see...soldiers dying to protect our freedoms: bad. Soldiers
dying to prove your political point: good.

You and Jason are fucking pathetic.

> Just remember - *YOU* (for proper values of "you") chose Bush.  I only 
> hope that the rest of the world can live with the consequences.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Green Shampoo is a big Bush
supporter.

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1100006690.VoiupGkXv/R/QsUTcSOnlg@bubbanews...

> > Kill, murder--do you speak Aramaic?
>
> If you knew how to do an exegesis then you would know "kill" in this
> context is "murder".

Yes, I know that.  And I speak Arabic, which is a lot closer to Aramaic than
yet another re-translated English version.  So I know that the distinction
you are making between "murder" and "kill" is semantic crap.  You'd love for
it to be a loophole, along with so many hypocrits like you--so it's okay to
kill, as long as you're not "murdering".  But the distinction, originally,
between the two words is the difference between killing people and killing
animals.


>
> > Your translation stinks,
>
> The New American Standard translation stinks? Considering that it is
> considered one of the best and more up-to-date translations, I'd say
> you're full of crap. Interesting that you think you know better than the
> theologians who translated the Bible.

Yes, it's a re-translation, meant to put the Bible into contemporary
English, so that people can understand it without all the "Ye" and "Thou"
talk.  It removes words that people might not understand, like "wroth",
replacing it with "angry".  Stuff like that.  It's one more removal from the
original intent.  And the simplified English obviously didn't work for you,
since you think you can still ignore stuff like this:

> >>> "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
> >>> for a tooth:
> >>> But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
> >>> smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
> >>>
> >>> "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
> >>> and hate thine enemy.
> >>> But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
> >>> good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
> >>> you, and persecute you."

Care to explain why you didn't address "love your enemies" or "do good to
them that hate you" or "resist not evil"?  I'd say that speaks pretty
clearly to the fact that you don't have the right to resort to violence.

In message <bJidnS3SLZUzKw3cRVn-tg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes
>In article <n_Ujd.2627752$yk.415231@news.easynews.com>,
>   "Chupacabra" <chupa@cabra.com> wrote:
>>"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
>>news:10p0549ps91ka30@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Of course, none of this explains *WHY* there's this need for government
>to
>>> dictate what two consenting adults do in private, much less put it in
>the
>>> constitution...
>>
>>You can do whatever you want in private - nobody's stopping you.
>>
>>The debate is over whether same-sex couples should receive the same legal
>>recognition as "normal" married couples.
>>
>>
>Exactly.  And the bottom line is money.
>
I can imagine that a lot of the proponents have a financial motive - get 
a pension or benefits for a partner - but do you really think that all 
the opponents are driven by a desire to stop people getting these 
benefits?
-- 
John Secker

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2A6kd.22025$KJ6.13467@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:1100006690.VoiupGkXv/R/QsUTcSOnlg@bubbanews...
> 
>>> Kill, murder--do you speak Aramaic?
>>
>> If you knew how to do an exegesis then you would know "kill" in this
>> context is "murder".
> 
> Yes, I know that.  And I speak Arabic, which is a lot closer to Aramaic
> than yet another re-translated English version. 

Yes, I'm sure it is, but Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic. So,
thanks for demonstrating that, once again, you're full of crap. 

The original Greek word used in the Matthew verse is 'phoneuo' which means 
'murder'.

tncoaster wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken most of the Troops who have given their lives and are 
> currently fighting for you right to be a total jerk are from the RED states. 

	Wrong.  They're fighting for Cheney and Bush and oil.  They're not 
fighting for me.  My life wasn't in danger before they went to Iraq, and 
it's not any safer now that they are there.  If anything, this diversion 
that is the war in Iraq has kept us from going after the real 
criminals--you know, that Osama guy.

	Incidentally, because of the Patriot Act and coming-soon Patriot Act II, 
it will someday be harder for me to "be a total jerk," not easier.

-- 
			--Cuth

In message <vsUjd.9059$O11.6904@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Leon 
Dexter <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> writes
>"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>news:1099875254.odi1PghwJow/9dgShuNChw@bubbanews...
>>
>> There was nothing to deny. You didn't provide and evidence.
>
>Here--it's from another post I made.  In my original post, I mistakenly
>thought that this stuff was common knowledge, and easily found in cases
>where it isn't.  I never realized there were people who thought Jesus
>condoned violence--I just thought they were ignoring that he condemned it.
>
>From Matthew 5:
>"Ye have heard that is was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill;
>and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement:
>But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
>shall be in danger of the judgement:  and whosoever shall say to his
>brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say,
>Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
>
>"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An yey for an eye, and a tooth for a
>tooth:
>But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee
>on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
>
>"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
>hate thine enemy.
>But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
>them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
>persecute you."
>
>
I am afraid you are wasting your time. Fundamental "Christians" don't 
want to know about what Christ actually said, about forgiveness, 
non-violence, loving your enemy and so on. They would rather turn to 
Paul, or better still to the more intolerant parts of the Old Testament, 
where they can find all the bigotry, revenge, violence and genocide that 
their hearts could desire. The fact that Christ explicitly rejected all 
this is ignored. They should really be called fundamental Paulians, or 
Leviticans.
-- 
John Secker

>>
> I am afraid you are wasting your time. Fundamental "Christians" don't want 
> to know about what Christ actually said, about forgiveness, non-violence, 
> loving your enemy and so on. They would rather turn to Paul, or better 
> still to the more intolerant parts of the Old Testament, where they can 
> find all the bigotry, revenge, violence and genocide that their hearts 
> could desire. The fact that Christ explicitly rejected all this is 
> ignored. They should really be called fundamental Paulians, or Leviticans.
> -- 
> John Secker

You never said a truer word.
I don't think the USA is a "Christian" country at all.

Skeats 

Cuthbert Gurdlestone <chgurdlestone1154@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:41910ACB.50408@earthlink.net: 

> tncoaster wrote:
>
>> If I'm not mistaken most of the Troops who have given their lives and
>> are currently fighting for you right to be a total jerk are from the
>> RED states. 
> 
>      Wrong.  They're fighting for Cheney and Bush and oil.  They're not 
> fighting for me.  My life wasn't in danger before they went to Iraq, and
> it's not any safer now that they are there.  If anything, this diversion
> that is the war in Iraq has kept us from going after the real 
> criminals--you know, that Osama guy.

Considering that troop levels in Afghanistan have increased since Iraq was
invaded, I'd say you're full of shit. 

John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:Pqw8zoBXvQkBFw86@secker.demon.co.uk: 

> In message <vsUjd.9059$O11.6904@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Leon 
> Dexter <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> writes
>
>> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>> news:1099875254.odi1PghwJow/9dgShuNChw@bubbanews...
>>
>>> There was nothing to deny. You didn't provide and evidence.
>>
>> Here--it's from another post I made.  In my original post, I mistakenly
>> thought that this stuff was common knowledge, and easily found in cases
>> where it isn't.  I never realized there were people who thought Jesus
>> condoned violence--I just thought they were ignoring that he condemned
>> it. 
>>
>> From Matthew 5:
>> "Ye have heard that is was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
>> kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement:
>> But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
>> cause shall be in danger of the judgement:  and whosoever shall say to
>> his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever
>> shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
>>
>> "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An yey for an eye, and a tooth
>> for a tooth:
>> But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
>> thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
>>
>> "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
>> and hate thine enemy.
>> But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
>> good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
>> you, and persecute you."
>
> I am afraid you are wasting your time. Fundamental "Christians" don't 
> want to know about what Christ actually said, about forgiveness, 
> non-violence, loving your enemy and so on.

The vast majority of Christians have no problem with this. It is people 
like you who think that not tolerating what the Bible declares as immoral 
behavior is somehow non-Christian.

"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message news:HDSjd.34350

> > So.... by your own logic, you are happy over 3,000 soldiers will die?
> Dick.
>
> I agree, what a ridiculous statement.  Why is everyone on the left so
> prone to massive melodrama?  It's pathetic.

Theatrics.  Pure and simple.  They're actors playing a role that someone
else wrote for them.  They don't know what they're talking about, but they
continuously try to upstage each other.  Pathetic people with no direction
looking for attention.

Back to serving me my morning espressos, emo bitches!

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> > > we're talking about Bush's decision to push a constitutional amendment
to
> > > ban gay marriage
>
> > Actually, just define marriage as between a man and a woman.
>
> Which would, in effect, ban gay marriage would it not?  If not, please
> explain to me how a same-sex couple could be declared "married" in the
> eyes of the law.

Civil unions, are "marriages" in the eyes of the law.

> Do note that this will also have civil rights implications as it is
> already illegal to discriminate against people based on their sex, color,
> or sexual preference.

No, it won't.  They'll have the same rights under Civil Unions as
heterosexuals would have under Marriages.

> It also will have a significant impact on whether
> one's partner could receive medical/insurance benefits.  Some places only
> provide family coverage for *spouses* - meaning, legally two people
> legally married.

Um, that can be changed, especially if a civil union is in affect.  They
don't have to be declared Married for that to be changed.

> If Bush succeeds in defining marriage as a partnership
> ONLY between 1 woman and 1 man, then it will run amuck of the
> anti-discrimination laws that have already been on the books for decades.

No, that's nonsense because civil unions can be used interchangeably to
protect their rights if need be.

> Of course, none of this explains *WHY* there's this need for government to
> dictate what two consenting adults do in private, much less put it in the
> constitution...

That's dumb.  Marriages aren't matters of "consenting adults ... in
private".  Don't be silly.  Marriages are civil contracts and government has
a say in contracts.

Nick Vargish <nav+posts@bandersnatch.org> wrote in 
news:87y8hau64t.fsf@localhost.localdomain.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--
so-tickle-me:

> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:
> 
>> The vast majority of Christians have no problem with this. It is people 
>> like you who think that not tolerating what the Bible declares as immoral 
>> behavior is somehow non-Christian.
> 
> There's a difference between tolerating a belief in the Bible's
> morality, and thinking it should be part of the legal code of the
> land. Christians can believe whatever they want, but their religion
> should stop at their front door.

So who gets to determine what laws are religious and what laws aren't?

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:

> The vast majority of Christians have no problem with this. It is people 
> like you who think that not tolerating what the Bible declares as immoral 
> behavior is somehow non-Christian.

There's a difference between tolerating a belief in the Bible's
morality, and thinking it should be part of the legal code of the
land. Christians can believe whatever they want, but their religion
should stop at their front door.

Democracy as the framers intended was not simply the rule of the
majority -- it was also about letting the minority have a voice, and
giving everyone choices as to how they live their lives.

Nick

-- 
#  sigmask  ||  0.2  ||  20030107  ||  public domain  ||  feed this to a python
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y)-1),' Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAcboefstobudi/psh?')

"Philip B Kirschner" <philk02@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:eeXjd.48161$fF6.20717132@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

> "Cutter Slade" <confed@evilemail.com> wrote in message
> news:bAbjd.39210$QJ3.38035@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2v417vF2hoqf7U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >> Right, because pushing for an amendment to the constitution banning gay
> >> marriage couldn't possibly be considered divisive.
> >
> > Uh huh. The American people are attacked, and then when they try to
defend
> > themselves in the way the Constitution itself mandates, they're accused
of
> > being "divisive" by their attackers. It wasn't Republicans, the
so-called
> > "religious right," or anybody else on the conservative side who brought
up
> > this subject. It was radical perverts and their allies trying to
overthrow
> > the laws enacted by the majority of citizens in every state in this
> > country. They tried it first in defiance of the law (California), and
then
> > by judicial fiat (Massachusetts). The constitutional amendment proposal
> > was a reaction to that, and only the most brazen of liars would try to
> > claim otherwise.


> It would never pass all 50 states.

Doesn't have to, silly goose.  Only three fourths of the states, and only
their legislators, not necessarily the populace.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> > You can do whatever you want in private - nobody's stopping you.
>
> You sure about that?  I'm pretty sure that there's a few states that still
> have laws about sodomy on the books...

They aren't enforcable now, I'm pretty sure.  Didn't they get over ruled in
Texas just recently?

> > The debate is over whether same-sex couples should receive the same
legal
> > recognition as "normal" married couples.
>
> Why shouldn't they?  We already have laws saying that the government can't
> discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual preference.  Seems to me that
> it should be a pretty clear cut issue.  You know, this being the land of
the
> free and all that...

Um, same reason you can't charge over 10% interest rates on private loans in
some areas, etc.  It's not a matter of a right, because Marriage isn't a
protected right between heterosexuals, even.  You don't have the right to
get married.  It's contract law.

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote

> > > the amount of time and energy the administration spent on it.
> >
> > They spent a lot of time and energy on education reform... does that
mean
> > education is divisive?
> >
>
> They did?  I know they "reformed" it, but I didn't know they spent a lot
of
> time and energy on it.

Amazing...

"Green Shampoo" <green_shampoo@webtv.net> wrote in message news:<cmm2f5$29n$00$1@news.t-online.com>...
> So.... by your own logic, you are happy over 3,000 soldiers will die? Dick.

  No, that Bush won't have anyone to blame but himself, and everyone
that was stupid enough to believe in this guy were wrong in supporting
him.  The 3,000 that will die will happen, and it's because of the
people who voted for Bush that this will happen.  I voted for Kerry,
so in effect I was against the 3,000 dying, if you voted for Bush
you're the one who supports the soldiers dying.  You're using the same
twisted logic that the Bush administration uses to confuse the issues.

holleyrp@delanet.com (Robert P Holley) wrote in message 

> So let's see...soldiers dying to protect our freedoms: bad. Soldiers
> dying to prove your political point: good.
> 
> You and Jason are fucking pathetic.


   I never said that, ass.  I'm saying it will happen, and it will
show Bush as the one who was at fault for this, and I'll be happy he
will be held accountable and not be able to blame someone or something
other than himself (being the incompetent leader that he is).  I knew
that before the election and voted accordingly to keep him out.  You
probably knew it too and because you're probably some type of war
mongering fool like Bush, you supported him.

In rec.games.video.sony Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:

> > Why shouldn't they?  We already have laws saying that the government can't
> > discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual preference.  Seems to me that
> > it should be a pretty clear cut issue.  You know, this being the land of
> the
> > free and all that...

> Um, same reason you can't charge over 10% interest rates on private loans in
> some areas, etc.  It's not a matter of a right, because Marriage isn't a
> protected right between heterosexuals, even.  You don't have the right to
> get married.  It's contract law.

What do interest rates have to do with getting legally (as opposed to 
religiously/spiritually) married?

Marriage isn't currentally defined as only occuring between 1 male and 1 
female.  Otherwise, Bush wouldn't need to have this appended to the 
constitution as such.  Individual states can - and 11 did - make this 
definition but I have to wonder...  Is it even legal for them to make such 
a declaration when there are already federal laws saying you can't 
discriminate based on gender?

For instance, what would happen if you filled out the wedding license 
application such that the man filled out the bride part, and the woman 
filled out the groom part?  Would that be denied because you can't have a 
male-bride, and a female-groom?  If not, then what's stopping two same-sex 
people from filling out the same application?  Ok, so one of them will 
have to be a male-bride or female-groom, big whoop.

And no one has still told me *WHY* gay marriage was the big issue this 
election.  Whatever happend to tolerance?

In rec.games.video.sony John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I can imagine that a lot of the proponents have a financial motive - get 
> a pension or benefits for a partner - but do you really think that all 
> the opponents are driven by a desire to stop people getting these 
> benefits?

I doubt that most of the opponents of this are even aware of the legal 
implications with regards to benefits/insurance/etc.  They just know it's 
wrong, and therefore must be outlawed.

In rec.games.video.sony Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:

> Civil unions, are "marriages" in the eyes of the law.

How is a civil union different from a marriage?  Note that I'm not talking 
about the thing you do with a priest/minister/what-have-you - that's the 
religious/spiritual aspect of marriage and is a whole other can of worms.

What I want to know is why can't a same-sex couple use the same marriage 
license form that a heterosexual couple does.  Same requirements would be 
met - namely, some sort of service performed by a spiritual leader, Elvis, 
or judge witnessed by at least 2 other adults.

If a hetero-sexual couple is married by a judge in a civil service (=civil 
union?)

Hetero or homo, how does the resulting union differ?  Is not a spouse a 
spouse - regardless of gender?  Don't the same promises apply?  Why 
wouldn't the same laws apply as well?

Or does it really come back to the religious/spiritual aspect?  Does the 
word "marriage" imply that the union has been blessed by the $CHURCH - 
whatever value for $CHURCH you with to use...  But then does this mean 
that people who don't have a religious ceremony aren't actually married, 
but have actually been living in sin for these many years/decades?  So 
then you'll have:

Man/Woman/priest = marriage

but

Man/Woman/judge = civil union

and

Man/Man/judge = civil union

Hmm...

Does this mean that the hetero couple that got marr..."Bonded" by the 
judge aren't married?

But what if you're not Christian/Jewish?  Buddists still get "bonded", 
for instance.  So do aethiests(sp).  Are these people considered "married" 
or just part of a "civil union"?

If there's no difference, then what's the fuss?

> > Do note that this will also have civil rights implications as it is
> > already illegal to discriminate against people based on their sex, color,
> > or sexual preference.

> No, it won't.  They'll have the same rights under Civil Unions as
> heterosexuals would have under Marriages.

Then if the two are equal and interchanable as you argued, why create a
separate word at all??

Does this mean I should start going to social functions and introduce "my 
life partner" instead of "wife" because we're not "married" but have been 
"civil union"?

Are you really telling me that this whole gay marriage thing came down to 
the use of the word "marriage"?  Are we, as a people, really that shallow 
and narrow minded?  I suppose we have a precedent seeing as how boys don't 
play with "dolls" but with "action figures".  Yeah, that's it.

And for but a word, the election was decided?

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cmei9l$ai$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
> "Steve Blonske" <steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com...
> > Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers-
> >
> > Who do you think makes the money for this country? We do, not you.
> > Who does more business with the rest of the world? We do, not you.
> > Who pays more taxes into the federal budget? We do, not you.
> > Who has the best schools, from nursery to medical? We do, not you.
> >
> > I hope we really do secede one day because you jokers would be a
> > second-rate country without the Northeast and the West coast. Lincoln
> > should have never fought to keep you idiots in the Union. We would
> > have been so much better off without you. We were industrialized
> > first, while you geniuses were still picking cotton out of your asses.
> > Hell, we were the majority of the original 13 colonies. This country
> > was concieved and conceptualized in the Blue states. We've always been
> > way ahead of the learning curve while you dumb yokels lagged hundred
> > years behind.
> >
> > So, I say, why the fuck should we let you ignoramuses call the shots?
> > Why the hell should we let you Red-state retards dictate our domestic
> > and foreign policy? You self-righteous bastards don't bring anything
> > to the table. You're the ones always riding on OUR shoulders. We
> > create and design everything from the clothes on your back, to the
> > books you read, to the movies you watch, and to the music you listen
> > to. You need us more than we need you.
> >
> > Let's start the secession movement!
> >
> > We're more productive, we're smarter, why should we share a nation
> > with heartland hicks who commit every sin in the book 10 times over,
> > and have the nerve to be concerned about "morals" above all else? Our
> > soldiers are getting killed!!! KILLED, over TREASONOUS lies!!! How
> > does that not hold precedent over same sex issues?! No value for life,
> > you bigoted hicks are a waste. You motherfuckers are going to get US
> > killed by copycat Islamic nuts with your stupidity.
> >
> > The fact that you believe Bush and his cronies can't find Osama and
> > Al-Queda is atrocious enough. We have Satellites that can see a dime
> > on the ground in every detail from space for godsakes and U.S.
> > intelligence all over the damn planet.
> >
> > The smarter part of the public needs to keep this stupidity as far
> > away from us as possible. I now see America will never grow as long as
> > we have inbreds still stuck in the dark ages with the loudest voice in
> > this country.
> >
> > Break away from the Union now Democrat States we'll be much better
> > off! Think about it, both sides can't stand each other anyway, in the
> > Congress or out in the streets..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
> > LOVELESS marriage these days?!
> 
> 
> listen up, faggot.  where does the food that you require to be a shameless 
> cocksucking, hair braiding pansy come from?  right.  red states.  fuck off.

Actually, quite a lot of food comes from California, which is pretty
damn blue if I remember correctly.

In article <cqG4T9APpQkBFw$3@secker.demon.co.uk>, 
john@secker.demon.co.uk says...
> In message <bJidnS3SLZUzKw3cRVn-tg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes

> >Exactly.  And the bottom line is money.
> >
> I can imagine that a lot of the proponents have a financial motive - get 
> a pension or benefits for a partner - but do you really think that all 
> the opponents are driven by a desire to stop people getting these 
> benefits?

Quite clearly not, since many more favour allowing 'civil union' than 
favour allowing 'marriage'.  And if there were grounds for confidence 
that the distinction between the two would not over time be chipped away 
by unelected functionaries, the number might increase.

At the risk of being very politically incorrect, I wonder whether the 
problem is that we're being asked to celebrate something that appears as 
a cross between a disability and a culture?  

- Gerry Quinn

In article <cqG4T9APpQkBFw$3@secker.demon.co.uk>,
   John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <bJidnS3SLZUzKw3cRVn-tg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes
>>In article <n_Ujd.2627752$yk.415231@news.easynews.com>,
>>   "Chupacabra" <chupa@cabra.com> wrote:
>>>"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
>>>news:10p0549ps91ka30@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> Of course, none of this explains *WHY* there's this need for 
government
>>to
>>>> dictate what two consenting adults do in private, much less put it in
>>the
>>>> constitution...
>>>
>>>You can do whatever you want in private - nobody's stopping you.
>>>
>>>The debate is over whether same-sex couples should receive the same 
legal
>>>recognition as "normal" married couples.
>>>
>>>
>>Exactly.  And the bottom line is money.
>>
>I can imagine that a lot of the proponents have a financial motive - get 
>a pension or benefits for a partner - but do you really think that all 
>the opponents are driven by a desire to stop people getting these 
>benefits?

Not all; the followers don't think about the underlying motives of
the leaders of opposition.  One of these leaders has been advertising
in this state; his agenda is selling his book and getting even with
the NY Times.


It's not just benefits but control over the wealth.  Take a good
hard look at how the Federal income tax has changed over the
years.  Have you noticed that the people who bleat "family
values" the loudest (this is both Democrats and Republicans),
keep narrowing the definition of "family"?  You can't easily
get tax breaks for supporting anybody outside the husband-wife-kids
family.  The whole tax structure seems to be evolving towards
individual isolation and socialism.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <MPG.1bfc0062b697b649989acf@news.indigo.ie>,
   Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <cqG4T9APpQkBFw$3@secker.demon.co.uk>, 
>john@secker.demon.co.uk says...
>> In message <bJidnS3SLZUzKw3cRVn-tg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes
>
>> >Exactly.  And the bottom line is money.
>> >
>> I can imagine that a lot of the proponents have a financial motive - get 
>> a pension or benefits for a partner - but do you really think that all 
>> the opponents are driven by a desire to stop people getting these 
>> benefits?
>
>Quite clearly not, since many more favour allowing 'civil union' than 
>favour allowing 'marriage'.  And if there were grounds for confidence 
>that the distinction between the two would not over time be chipped away 
>by unelected functionaries, the number might increase.
>
>At the risk of being very politically incorrect, I wonder whether the 
>problem is that we're being asked to celebrate something that appears as 
>a cross between a disability and a culture?  

The purpose of marriage is transfer and/or merger of power and assets.

/BAH

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> > Um, same reason you can't charge over 10% interest rates on private
loans in
> > some areas, etc.  It's not a matter of a right, because Marriage isn't a
> > protected right between heterosexuals, even.  You don't have the right
to
> > get married.  It's contract law.
>
> What do interest rates have to do with getting legally (as opposed to
> religiously/spiritually) married?

Contract law.  Keep up.

> Marriage isn't currentally defined as only occuring between 1 male and 1
> female.  Otherwise, Bush wouldn't need to have this appended to the
> constitution as such.

Yep, that doesn't change the fact that it's contract law.

> Individual states can - and 11 did - make this
> definition but I have to wonder...  Is it even legal for them to make such
> a declaration when there are already federal laws saying you can't
> discriminate based on gender?

Because it's not discrimination.

> For instance, what would happen if you filled out the wedding license
> application such that the man filled out the bride part, and the woman
> filled out the groom part?

You'd have to fill it out again.

> And no one has still told me *WHY* gay marriage was the big issue this
> election.  Whatever happend to tolerance?

There's tolerance.  Civil unions is a great example of said tolerance,
rather than nothing at all.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> > Civil unions, are "marriages" in the eyes of the law.
>
> How is a civil union different from a marriage?  Note that I'm not talking
> about the thing you do with a priest/minister/what-have-you - that's the
> religious/spiritual aspect of marriage and is a whole other can of worms.
>
> What I want to know is why can't a same-sex couple use the same marriage
> license form that a heterosexual couple does.

What's the big deal with them using a different one?

> Are you really telling me that this whole gay marriage thing came down to
> the use of the word "marriage"?  Are we, as a people, really that shallow
> and narrow minded?

Yep.  The the radical gay activists are really that "shallow and narrow
minded".  They've run out of legitimate things to fight against.

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:6KKdneOEDYc0iw_cRVn-qw@rcn.net...

> The purpose of marriage is transfer and/or merger of power and assets.

So a civil union will do just fine, no?

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:6KKdneCEDYfniA_cRVn-qw@rcn.net...

> It's not just benefits but control over the wealth.  Take a good
> hard look at how the Federal income tax has changed over the
> years.  Have you noticed that the people who bleat "family
> values" the loudest (this is both Democrats and Republicans),
> keep narrowing the definition of "family"?

Not really.  Example?

> You can't easily
> get tax breaks for supporting anybody outside the husband-wife-kids
> family.

So?

> The whole tax structure seems to be evolving towards
> individual isolation and socialism.

What?  How so?  Seems to be that they are supporting the "husband-wife-kids"
family, just fine, and even strengthening it.  Also, inheritance is becoming
more protected for working families.

"Jason Costa" <jcwatchdog@msn.com> wrote in message 
news:37cabe21.0411091459.140789ea@posting.google.com...
> holleyrp@delanet.com (Robert P Holley) wrote in message
>
>> So let's see...soldiers dying to protect our freedoms: bad. Soldiers
>> dying to prove your political point: good.
>>
>> You and Jason are fucking pathetic.
>
>
>   I never said that, ass.  I'm saying it will happen, and it will
> show Bush as the one who was at fault for this, and I'll be happy he
> will be held accountable and not be able to blame someone or something
> other than himself (being the incompetent leader that he is).  I knew
> that before the election and voted accordingly to keep him out.  You
> probably knew it too and because you're probably some type of war
> mongering fool like Bush, you supported him.

You really think Bush is going to be held accountable for anything? Holley 
is right, I'm not a big Bush supporter, but the dude (Bush)  is smart enough 
to get out of anything. If Bush says the moon is made out of pond water, 
people will believe him. If Bush says he has 37 inch penis, people will 
believe him. If Bush says Iraq is a threat to United States security, people 
will believe him.
As much as I hate the guy, bitching about him will do nothing but make his 
supporters' blind love for him grow exponentially. People bitching about him 
is what caused him to be re-elected, in my opinion. 

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message news:<419232f9$0$18510$45beb828@newscene.com>...
> "Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote
> 
> > > Um, same reason you can't charge over 10% interest rates on private
>  loans in
> > > some areas, etc.  It's not a matter of a right, because Marriage isn't a
> > > protected right between heterosexuals, even.  You don't have the right
>  to
> > > get married.  It's contract law.
> >
> > What do interest rates have to do with getting legally (as opposed to
> > religiously/spiritually) married?
> 
> Contract law.  Keep up.

The Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right.
 
> > Individual states can - and 11 did - make this
> > definition but I have to wonder...  Is it even legal for them to make such
> > a declaration when there are already federal laws saying you can't
> > discriminate based on gender?
> 
> Because it's not discrimination.

How so?

Josh Rosenbluth

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411101216.3bcd011d@posting.google.com...
> "Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:<419232f9$0$18510$45beb828@newscene.com>...
> > "Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote
> >
> > > > Um, same reason you can't charge over 10% interest rates on private
> >  loans in
> > > > some areas, etc.  It's not a matter of a right, because Marriage
isn't a
> > > > protected right between heterosexuals, even.  You don't have the
right
> >  to
> > > > get married.  It's contract law.
> > >
> > > What do interest rates have to do with getting legally (as opposed to
> > > religiously/spiritually) married?
> >
> > Contract law.  Keep up.
>
> The Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right.

Yeah, I don't think so.  What case do you think did that?

Thanks.

Fred Liken wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
>>
>>The Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right.
> 
> Yeah, I don't think so.  What case do you think did that?

Loving v. Virginia:  "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as 
one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of 
happiness by free men.  Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of 
man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Also, you didn't reply to my question as to why you think same-sex 
marriage bans aren't discrimination.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192A2C5.60900@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Fred Liken wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message

> Also, you didn't reply to my question as to why you think same-sex
> marriage bans aren't discrimination.

Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.  They
still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to marry
someone of the opposite sex.  :)

But, you dismiss the fact that there's still the possibility for civil
unions which would have the same effect as marriage.  In fact, that would
extend the privileges of marriage to people that choose to not marry but
rather enter a civil union with a member of the same sex increasing their
privileges under law.

OOO

> >>
> >>The Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't think so.  What case do you think did that?
>
> Loving v. Virginia:  "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as
> one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
> happiness by free men.  Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
> man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Ok, I see.  Thanks.

The context was interatial marriages and whether or not they could be
annulled.  They were married in DC and moved to Virgina and Virginian law
annulled their marriage and scentanced them to a year in jail, which was
defered if they left Virginia and didn't come back.  The problem was it
violated their due process in the case of the disolving the marriage and the
fact that they were interacial.

The presidence was a case where they tried to sterilize a man and they said
that was against his rights, etc, because, marriage was fundamental to our
very existence and survival, and that his due processes was violated in the
case that decided to sterilize him.

So, I stand corrected, there is the right to marry in the context that it is
necessary for procreation, etc.

But, there's also the precidence that marriage is controlled by legislation.
They can set the age, etc, and define what marriage is, like they did with
the protection of marriage act.

The problem is that activist judges are overstepping their bounds and
redefining marriage.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192A2C5.60900@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Fred Liken wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message

> Also, you didn't reply to my question as to why you think same-sex
> marriage bans aren't discrimination.

Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.  They
still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to marry
someone of the opposite sex.  :)

But, you dismiss the fact that there's still the possibility for civil
unions which would have the same effect as marriage.  In fact, that would
extend the privileges of marriage to people that choose to not marry but
rather enter a civil union with a member of the same sex increasing their
privileges under law.

OOO

> >>
> >>The Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't think so.  What case do you think did that?
>
> Loving v. Virginia:  "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as
> one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
> happiness by free men.  Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
> man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Ok, I see.  Thanks.

The context was interatial marriages and whether or not they could be
annulled.  They were married in DC and moved to Virgina and Virginian law
annulled their marriage and scentanced them to a year in jail, which was
defered if they left Virginia and didn't come back.  The problem was it
violated their due process in the case of the disolving the marriage and the
fact that they were interacial.

The presidence was a case where they tried to sterilize a man and they said
that was against his rights, etc, because, marriage was fundamental to our
very existence and survival, and that his due processes was violated in the
case that decided to sterilize him.

So, I stand corrected, there is the right to marry in the context that it is
necessary for procreation, etc.

But, there's also the precidence that marriage is controlled by legislation.
They can set the age, etc, and define what marriage is, like they did with
the protection of marriage act.

The problem is that activist judges are overstepping their bounds and
redefining marriage.

Fred Liken wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4192A2C5.60900@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Fred Liken wrote:
>>
>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
>>
>>Also, you didn't reply to my question as to why you think same-sex
>>marriage bans aren't discrimination.
> 
> Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.  They
> still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to marry
> someone of the opposite sex.  :)

Same thing was said in Loving by the state of Virginia.  Blacks had the 
same right to marry anyone of the same race, just like whites.  Yet, it 
was still discrimination.

> But, you dismiss the fact that there's still the possibility for civil
> unions which would have the same effect as marriage.  In fact, that would
> extend the privileges of marriage to people that choose to not marry but
> rather enter a civil union with a member of the same sex increasing their
> privileges under law.

In practice, civil unions will most likely be different in some way from 
marriage.  That's the point of separate not being equal.  For example 
right now, Vermont civil unions are not recognized by the federal 
government.  But even if in theory civil unions were 100% identical to 
marriage except for the name, that begs the question, "why have a 
different name if it is the same thing?"

>>>>The Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right.
>>>
>>>Yeah, I don't think so.  What case do you think did that?
>>
>>Loving v. Virginia:  "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as
>>one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
>>happiness by free men.  Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
>>man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.
> 
> Ok, I see.  Thanks.
> 
> So, I stand corrected, there is the right to marry in the context that it is
> necessary for procreation, etc.
> 
> But, there's also the precidence that marriage is controlled by legislation.
> They can set the age, etc, and define what marriage is, like they did with
> the protection of marriage act.
> 
> The problem is that activist judges are overstepping their bounds and
> redefining marriage.

The legislature can define and set the limits to marriage so long as 
they do so either 1) without discriminating against a class of people, 
or 2) they discriminate with a valid purpose (e.g., age because of the 
ability to give informed consent).  The open question is whether the 
current definition (one man, one woman) unlawfully discriminates against 
gays.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote

> >>Also, you didn't reply to my question as to why you think same-sex
> >>marriage bans aren't discrimination.
> >
> > Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.
They
> > still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to
marry
> > someone of the opposite sex.  :)
>
> Same thing was said in Loving by the state of Virginia.

No, they didn't redefine Marriage to be between a white and a white or a
black and a black.  They had the same definition of marriage as we do today.
What they did was make marrying a person of a different race illegal.

Gays can still marry if they want.  No one is saying that if you are gay,
you cannot marry someone of the opposite sex.

There's no discrimination as to their right to marry based on their sexual
persuasion, sorry.

You'll have to admit that they are still allowed to marry, no?

> Blacks had the
> same right to marry anyone of the same race, just like whites.  Yet, it
> was still discrimination.

No, you are trying to change what was actually stated in the court ruling.
It was about due process and the automatic annulment of the marriage based
on race.

There is no automatic annulment or restriction on a gay person marrying.
They can still marry and that right is being protected.  The only thing here
is the definition of what marriage is.  Where you got that it was a basic
right was only talking about normal marriages as a necessary part of
procreation, not gay-marriages.  Gay-marriages aren't a right under those
precedents.

> > But, you dismiss the fact that there's still the possibility for civil
> > unions which would have the same effect as marriage.  In fact, that
would
> > extend the privileges of marriage to people that choose to not marry but
> > rather enter a civil union with a member of the same sex increasing
their
> > privileges under law.
>
> In practice, civil unions will most likely be different in some way from
> marriage.

Well, you're speculating on that point and you're speculating that it will
be different than it inherently is.  If it is deemed necessary to allow
civil unions, then it will be necessary for them to be protected under law,
so you really don't have anything there.

> That's the point of separate not being equal.

That's the point of the OPINION that seperate will not in practice be
equal...

It's not a fact, my friend, it's speculation.

> For example
> right now, Vermont civil unions are not recognized by the federal
> government.

Well, isn't that what we are talking about extending it to?  The Federal
government would recognize them under what we are talking about, that
hypothetically they could.

But, if they don't choose to create the civil union recognization, then
that's outside of the scope of the imediate discussion, you understand?

But, in that discussion, there still isn't discrimination because the
federal government isn't required to recognize those civil unions.

> But even if in theory civil unions were 100% identical to
> marriage except for the name, that begs the question, "why have a
> different name if it is the same thing?"

Because it intrinsically isn't a marriage.  No one is claiming it is the
same thing as marriage.  It would offer the same privileges of marriage to
people that choose not to marry, but rather enter civil unions.

The fact is, they would have the same privileges as a married couple even
though they aren't married.  It's an extension of privileges because
homosexuallity is accepted.

Tolerance, my friend.  Just think how much gays are accepted in America.  So
much that their biggest plight is what their unions are called.

> >>>>The Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right.
> >>>
> >>>Yeah, I don't think so.  What case do you think did that?
> >>
> >>Loving v. Virginia:  "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as
> >>one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
> >>happiness by free men.  Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
> >>man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.
> >
> > Ok, I see.  Thanks.
> >
> > So, I stand corrected, there is the right to marry in the context that
it is
> > necessary for procreation, etc.
> >
> > But, there's also the precidence that marriage is controlled by
legislation.
> > They can set the age, etc, and define what marriage is, like they did
with
> > the protection of marriage act.
> >
> > The problem is that activist judges are overstepping their bounds and
> > redefining marriage.

> The legislature can define and set the limits to marriage so long as
> they do so either 1) without discriminating against a class of people,

And, they aren't discriminating against gays.  Gays are still allowed to get
married.  Sorry, but you have to admit that a gay person can marry a member
of the opposite sex.  They do it all the time and have families with them.
New Jersey's Governor, for example.

Those rights aren't being taken away.

> or 2) they discriminate with a valid purpose (e.g., age because of the
> ability to give informed consent).

Yep.

> The open question is whether the current definition (one man, one woman)
> unlawfully discriminates against gays.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Clearly not since they can still have the right to get married even if they
are gay.

Fred Liken wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
> 
> Gays can still marry if they want.  No one is saying that if you are gay,
> you cannot marry someone of the opposite sex.

The Court recently ruled that homosexual sodomy cannot be illegal.  One 
of their reasons was that such laws discriminate against gays.  You 
would argue there is no discrimination because gays and straights 
equally can have heterosexual sex.  Sorry, your argument lost.

> There's no discrimination as to their right to marry based on their sexual
> persuasion, sorry.
> 
> You'll have to admit that they are still allowed to marry, no?

There is discrimination.  Gays cannot marry the sole, unmarried to 
anyone else, adult, unrelated person they desire for their lifelong 
partner.  Straights can.

>>Blacks had the
>>same right to marry anyone of the same race, just like whites.  Yet, it
>>was still discrimination.
> 
> No, you are trying to change what was actually stated in the court ruling.
> It was about due process and the automatic annulment of the marriage based
> on race.

It was about both Due Process and Equal Protection/discrimination. 
Quoting from Loving:  "the State contends that, because its 
miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro 
participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their 
reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious 
discrimination based upon race. [...] we reject the notion."

> Gay-marriages aren't a right under those precedents.

I didn't say they were.  What the precedents tell us is the state has a 
burden to show why it should be allowed to discriminate against gay 
people.  The state may or may not meet that burden.

>>But even if in theory civil unions were 100% identical to
>>marriage except for the name, that begs the question, "why have a
>>different name if it is the same thing?"
> 
> Because it intrinsically isn't a marriage.  No one is claiming it is the
> same thing as marriage.  It would offer the same privileges of marriage to
> people that choose not to marry, but rather enter civil unions.

You are arguing that if we call it "schmarriage", it's OK, but if we 
call it "marriage", it's not.  IMO, that is nonsensical.

Josh Rosenbluth

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:
> <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:6KKdneOEDYc0iw_cRVn-qw@rcn.net...

> > The purpose of marriage is transfer and/or merger of power and assets.

> So a civil union will do just fine, no?

Then why is it the piece of paper you get from city hall says "MARRIAGE 
LICENSE" on it and not "CIVIL UNION LICENSE" - and if there is no 
difference, why not let the same-sex couples use the same piece of paper?

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:

> What's the big deal with them using a different one?

If they're identical, why come up with a different name?  Name one thing 
that's different in the eyes of the law between a hetero and same-sex 
civil union.

By creating a different name, you are explicitly saying that a marriage is 
NOT the same thing as a civil union.  If a civil union grants the same 
exact rights/powers/what have you as a marriage, then why isn't it a 
marriage?  If the two are truly identical then the terms are 
interchangable.

If this is not the case, then you've just taken a step down the path 
called "Separate, but equal".  And we all know what a shining example of 
civil rights *that* was...  

> > Are you really telling me that this whole gay marriage thing came down to
> > the use of the word "marriage"?  Are we, as a people, really that shallow
> > and narrow minded?

> Yep.  The the radical gay activists are really that "shallow and narrow
> minded".  They've run out of legitimate things to fight against.

Yet, having the president of the united states  propose a constitutional 
amendment that bans same-sex couples from being married is considered  the 
epitome of open-mindedness, tolerance and progress.  OK.

Note that all the gay community wants with regards to gay marriage is for 
same-sex couples to be treated in the same manner by the law as hetero 
couples.  They're not asking for special priveleges or anything like 
that.  Just to be treated the same.  What is the problem?

I really don't understand how people think that by allowing two men or two 
women to get married is going to somehow destroy the fabric of society, 
let alone damage what it means to be married...  I suppose all those 
hetero couples that get divorced are considered paragons of what marriage 
means, to say nothing of folks in Hollywood, like J-Lo or Britney Spears who 
seem to treat marriage like an outfit you can just discard when it goes out 
of style.  Yeah, you're right.  Letting same-sex couples marry after they've 
been together for years (even decades) would make a mockery of the whole 
partner-for-life aspect of marriage.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote

> > Gays can still marry if they want.  No one is saying that if you are
gay,
> > you cannot marry someone of the opposite sex.
>
> The Court recently ruled that homosexual sodomy cannot be illegal.  One
> of their reasons was that such laws discriminate against gays.

Yep, because the government allows them to enter into homosexual
relationships and private sexual conduct.

> You
> would argue there is no discrimination because gays and straights
> equally can have heterosexual sex.  Sorry, your argument lost.

lol.  No, it most certainly did not because that wasn't using "my" argument.

Sodomy is deemed protected under the Constitution, according to "LAWRENCE et
al. v. TEXAS".  Sodomy is something that a man and a woman can perform, or a
man and a man.  The question was could it be restricted to not include a man
and a man.

The crux of the argument was that anti-sodomy laws were being used to target
homosexuals, and that it was recently that they had been.

Here, you are creating criminals out of people for something they are doing.

Marriage, on the other hand, is completely different.  First, it is not a
new tradition that homosexuals cannot be married.  That's a long standing
accepted fact.  Second, it is not a criminal matter that has a due process
that is being circumvented.

They were saying that gays couldn't perform sodomy.  They aren't saying that
gays can't marry.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges, and that won't work.

> > There's no discrimination as to their right to marry based on their
sexual
> > persuasion, sorry.
> >
> > You'll have to admit that they are still allowed to marry, no?
>
> There is discrimination.  Gays cannot marry the sole, unmarried to
> anyone else, adult, unrelated person they desire for their lifelong
> partner.  Straights can.

I take that to mean that you are admiting that they can marry, just that
they can't marry who they desire to.  Sadly, being able to marry who you
desire to is not a right, or I'd be married to Sandra Bullok, or the ilk.

But, none the less, the government isn't preventing them from being able to
marry that person.  The fact that the other person is of the same sex is
preventing the term marriage from even applying.  There's no discrimination
because they aren't being disallowed from doing anything.

> >>Blacks had the
> >>same right to marry anyone of the same race, just like whites.  Yet, it
> >>was still discrimination.
> >
> > No, you are trying to change what was actually stated in the court
ruling.
> > It was about due process and the automatic annulment of the marriage
based
> > on race.
>
> It was about both Due Process and Equal Protection/discrimination.
> Quoting from Loving:  "the State contends that, because its
> miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro
> participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their
> reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious
> discrimination based upon race. [...] we reject the notion."

That's what I said.

> > Gay-marriages aren't a right under those precedents.
>
> I didn't say they were.  What the precedents tell us is the state has a
> burden to show why it should be allowed to discriminate against gay
> people.  The state may or may not meet that burden.

The state isn't discriminating against gay people because it isn't taking
away a right.  They aren't saying that gays can't marry.  There's no burden
to meet.

> >>But even if in theory civil unions were 100% identical to
> >>marriage except for the name, that begs the question, "why have a
> >>different name if it is the same thing?"
> >
> > Because it intrinsically isn't a marriage.  No one is claiming it is the
> > same thing as marriage.  It would offer the same privileges of marriage
to
> > people that choose not to marry, but rather enter civil unions.
>
> You are arguing that if we call it "schmarriage", it's OK, but if we
> call it "marriage", it's not.  IMO, that is nonsensical.

I can call a car a plane, but that's nonsensical, because a car isn't a
plane.  A civil union isn't a marriage, so to call it one is nonsensical.

You're just being argumentative and the fact that what a civil union is
called is the biggest issue in "gay rights" just shows how far America's
come in accepting homosexuals.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10p5iivendgjha3@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken
<fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:
> > <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6KKdneOEDYc0iw_cRVn-qw@rcn.net...
>
> > > The purpose of marriage is transfer and/or merger of power and assets.
>
> > So a civil union will do just fine, no?
>
> Then why is it the piece of paper you get from city hall says "MARRIAGE
> LICENSE" on it and not "CIVIL UNION LICENSE" - and if there is no
> difference, why not let the same-sex couples use the same piece of paper?

Um, who said there was no difference, Mr. MakeBelieve?

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:

> Gays can still marry if they want.  No one is saying that if you are gay,
> you cannot marry someone of the opposite sex.

> There's no discrimination as to their right to marry based on their sexual
> persuasion, sorry.

> You'll have to admit that they are still allowed to marry, no?

But the government is dictating who you can marry.  If two consenting 
adults want to get married, why does it matter if they're different 
genders or the same gender?  And using "civil union" for same sex couples 
is a step backwards towards "separate but equal".

> > But even if in theory civil unions were 100% identical to
> > marriage except for the name, that begs the question, "why have a
> > different name if it is the same thing?"

> Because it intrinsically isn't a marriage.  No one is claiming it is the
> same thing as marriage.  It would offer the same privileges of marriage to
> people that choose not to marry, but rather enter civil unions.

You're contradicting yourself here.  If a civil union offers the same 
privileges as a marriage, then how is a civil union NOT a marriage?  How 
do they differ?  If there is no difference, why create a separate word for 
it?

> The fact is, they would have the same privileges as a married couple even
> though they aren't married.  It's an extension of privileges because
> homosexuallity is accepted.

How would they not be married?  You haven't explained how a civil union 
can be exactly the same as a marriage in the eyes of the law, without 
being a marriage.

Or, how about explaining it the other way.  How is a marriage not a civil 
union?  Does it come down to who performs the ceremony?  Does this mean 
that many couples aren't actually married, but are in civil unions because 
they didn't have their ceremony performed by someone associated with a 
specific religion?  Ooh, wait, that would be discriminatory as well.

> Tolerance, my friend.  Just think how much gays are accepted in America.  So
> much that their biggest plight is what their unions are called.

If America was truly tolerant, this wouldn't be an issue at all.  The 
governemt would be issuing marriage certificates to both hetero and gay 
couples alike.

> > The legislature can define and set the limits to marriage so long as
> > they do so either 1) without discriminating against a class of people,

> And, they aren't discriminating against gays.  Gays are still allowed to get
> married.  Sorry, but you have to admit that a gay person can marry a member
> of the opposite sex.  They do it all the time and have families with them.
> New Jersey's Governor, for example.

> Those rights aren't being taken away.

So what if someone wants to marry someone else of the same sex?  Explain why 
that isn't allowed - AND isn't a violation of the couples' civil rights.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken
<fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:
>
> > What's the big deal with them using a different one?
>
> If they're identical, why come up with a different name?

Because they aren't identical.  Marriage is between a man and a woman and
Civil Unions can be between the same sex.

> Name one thing
> that's different in the eyes of the law between a hetero and same-sex
> civil union.

That they are between different sexes versus the same sex.

> By creating a different name, you are explicitly saying that a marriage is
> NOT the same thing as a civil union.

Yeah.  There's no secret there.

> If a civil union grants the same
> exact rights/powers/what have you as a marriage, then why isn't it a
> marriage?

See above.

> If the two are truly identical then the terms are
> interchangable.

No one claimed they were.

> If this is not the case, then you've just taken a step down the path
> called "Separate, but equal".

It's not separate.  Gays can still marry, just not the same sex.

> And we all know what a shining example of
> civil rights *that* was...

Yawn...  Apples and Oranges.  No one is being denied anything.  Gays can
still marry.

> > > Are you really telling me that this whole gay marriage thing came down
to
> > > the use of the word "marriage"?  Are we, as a people, really that
shallow
> > > and narrow minded?
>
> > Yep.  The the radical gay activists are really that "shallow and narrow
> > minded".  They've run out of legitimate things to fight against.
>
> Yet, having the president of the united states  propose a constitutional
> amendment that bans same-sex couples from being married is considered  the
> epitome of open-mindedness, tolerance and progress.  OK.

Um, it doesn't go against open-mindedness, tolerance, or progress.  Those
are your views on the subject, and that's fine, but they aren't based on
facts.

It's not taking any right away from anyone.  It's not saying that if you are
a gay person, you can't get married.

It doesn't ban civil unions, which would actually be progress.

> Note that all the gay community wants with regards to gay marriage is for
> same-sex couples to be treated in the same manner by the law as hetero
> couples.

They want the privileges of marriage even though they aren't a husband and a
wife, which is the definition of marriage.  They want additional privileges
to be created for the case where a same sex couple wants to be bound.
That's not being stopped by having an amendment that states that marriage is
between a man and a woman because that doesn't outlaw civil unions.

> They're not asking for special priveleges or anything like
> that.  Just to be treated the same.  What is the problem?

Actually, they are asking for additional privileges, which I don't think
should be denied and I support civil unions.  And, they are asking for the
word marriage to be redefined to include same-sex couples, which I don't
support.

Two different things.

> I really don't understand how people think that by allowing two men or two
> women to get married is going to somehow destroy the fabric of society,
> let alone damage what it means to be married...

Well, honestly, you don't have to understand it and that's fine by me.

> I suppose all those
> hetero couples that get divorced are considered paragons of what marriage
> means, to say nothing of folks in Hollywood, like J-Lo or Britney Spears
who
> seem to treat marriage like an outfit you can just discard when it goes
out
> of style.

Yep, quite sad.  It's the continuous degradation of marriage and partly
because it isn't respected as a commitment.  Marriage is a necessary part of
a civilized society that your ilk just really would never understand.

> Yeah, you're right.  Letting same-sex couples marry after they've
> been together for years (even decades) would make a mockery of the whole
> partner-for-life aspect of marriage.

They couldn't get married since marriage is between a man and a woman.
That's the definition.

On one hand you want to claim that marriage means nothing, then on the other
hand it means so much that it must be given to anyone that wants the term...

On one hand you want to claim that marriage is losing its meaning, then on
the other hand you want to fundamentally change its meaning.

Inconsistent.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:

> Um, who said there was no difference, Mr. MakeBelieve?

You did.

Several times.

In almost every post, actually.  

I even asked you what the difference would be between a marriage and civil 
union, and your response was always that a civil union is the same as a 
marriage in the eyes of the law, just with a different name.

Don't tell me you're just now realizing what an indefensible position that 
is, and are now trying the white house's "spin the past to fit your 
current situation" it won't work.  You'd be infinitely better off just 
conceding, or just dropping the subject, rather than stoop to such 
immature tactics.

Fred Liken wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
>
> lol.  No, it most certainly did not because that wasn't using "my" argument.

Your argument was that gays and straights have the same right to marry, 
the same restrictions, and hence there is no discrimination.  A direct 
consequence of that argument is that gays and straights have the same 
right to engage in heterosexual sex, the same restrictions against 
homosexual sex, and hence there is no discrimination.

> Here, you are creating criminals out of people for something they are doing.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is completely different.  First, it is not a
> new tradition that homosexuals cannot be married.  That's a long standing
> accepted fact.  Second, it is not a criminal matter that has a due process
> that is being circumvented.

Your points about sodomy and marriage being different are valid.  But, 
the principle of equal application not automatically implying 
discrimination applies in both cases.  The salient difference is that 
with sodomy, we know the discrimination is not permissible.  With 
marriage, it might be.

>>There is discrimination.  Gays cannot marry the sole, unmarried to
>>anyone else, adult, unrelated person they desire for their lifelong
>>partner.  Straights can.
> 
> I take that to mean that you are admiting that they can marry, just that
> they can't marry who they desire to.  Sadly, being able to marry who you
> desire to is not a right, or I'd be married to Sandra Bullok, or the ilk.

It's not that gays are denied the right to marry any one specific 
individual.  It's that they are being denied the right to marry *anyone* 
in the feasible set of people they desire to marry, that feasible set 
defined by who they are as a class of people.  That's class-based 
discrimination.

>>It was about both Due Process and Equal Protection/discrimination.
>>Quoting from Loving:  "the State contends that, because its
>>miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro
>>participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their
>>reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious
>>discrimination based upon race. [...] we reject the notion."
> 
> That's what I said.

That quote demonstrates that equal application of marriage laws to two 
classes of people does not automatically imply there isn't 
discrimination of one class over the other.

> I can call a car a plane, but that's nonsensical, because a car isn't a
> plane.  A civil union isn't a marriage, so to call it one is nonsensical.

A car and a plane aren't 100% identical except for the name.  A civil 
union and a marriage are by your own construction.

Josh Rosenbluth

In rec.games.video.sony Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:

> > If they're identical, why come up with a different name?

> Because they aren't identical.  Marriage is between a man and a woman and
> Civil Unions can be between the same sex.

But if both unions receive the same coverage under the law, then why name 
them differentally?  What does the state care if the union is between 
people of different or the same gender?   

And you still haven't said why marriage can't apply to couples of the same 
sex.

> > Name one thing
> > that's different in the eyes of the law between a hetero and same-sex
> > civil union.

> That they are between different sexes versus the same sex.

That's an immaterial difference, don't you think?  After all, we're 
talking about matters of tax and inheritance here, not what sort of sex 
you're having in the bedroom.

> > If this is not the case, then you've just taken a step down the path
> > called "Separate, but equal".

> It's not separate.  Gays can still marry, just not the same sex.

And what's the legal justification behind that?  Why can a man/woman do 
something that a man/man or woman/woman cannot do?  

> > And we all know what a shining example of
> > civil rights *that* was...

> Yawn...  Apples and Oranges.  No one is being denied anything.  Gays can
> still marry.

....just not same sex couples.  Yeah.  That makes sense.

> > Yet, having the president of the united states  propose a constitutional
> > amendment that bans same-sex couples from being married is considered  the
> > epitome of open-mindedness, tolerance and progress.  OK.

> Um, it doesn't go against open-mindedness, tolerance, or progress.  Those
> are your views on the subject, and that's fine, but they aren't based on
> facts.

So denying people's civil liberties is your idea of social progress?  The 
fact is that this whole attempt at banning same-sex marriage is being 
driven by fear, ignorance and narrow mindedness.  Give me just ONE good 
reason why the state should care about this issue.

> It's not taking any right away from anyone.  It's not saying that if you are
> a gay person, you can't get married.

> It doesn't ban civil unions, which would actually be progress.

So you finally show your true colors.  

> > Note that all the gay community wants with regards to gay marriage is for
> > same-sex couples to be treated in the same manner by the law as hetero
> > couples.

> They want the privileges of marriage even though they aren't a husband and a
> wife, which is the definition of marriage.  They want additional privileges
> to be created for the case where a same sex couple wants to be bound.
> That's not being stopped by having an amendment that states that marriage is
> between a man and a woman because that doesn't outlaw civil unions.

Where is it defined that marriage is only between a man and a woman?  
And how is allowing same sex couples to be married considered additional 
privelages?

> > They're not asking for special priveleges or anything like
> > that.  Just to be treated the same.  What is the problem?

> Actually, they are asking for additional privileges, which I don't think
> should be denied and I support civil unions.  And, they are asking for the
> word marriage to be redefined to include same-sex couples, which I don't
> support.

> Two different things.

What priveleges are these?  The only thing the gay community is asking for 
is for same-sex marriages to be honored the same as hetero marriages. 

Apparentally the idea of two men living together is considered more 
damaging to the sanctity of marriage, than J-Lo's joke weddings.  Yup, got 
it.  

*plonk*

In article <4192B7F1.8000305@gotcha.comcast.net>, 
jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net says...
> Fred Liken wrote:
> > 
> > Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.  They
> > still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to marry
> > someone of the opposite sex.  :)
> 
> Same thing was said in Loving by the state of Virginia.  Blacks had the 
> same right to marry anyone of the same race, just like whites.  Yet, it 
> was still discrimination.

Well in that case, banning same-sex marriages is clearly the opposite of 
discrimination ;-)

- Gerry Quinn

In article <2vh2t0F2lt2pdU1@uni-berlin.de>,
   "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
>news:41912899$0$18491$45beb828@newscene.com...
>> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > > > the amount of time and energy the administration spent on it.
>> > >
>> > > They spent a lot of time and energy on education reform... does that
>> mean
>> > > education is divisive?
>> > >
>> >
>> > They did?  I know they "reformed" it, but I didn't know they spent a 
lot
>> of
>> > time and energy on it.
>>
>> Amazing...
>>
>>
>
>Do you have any kids in school?  I do, and as far as I can see nothing has
>really changed.  If anything things have gotten worse.  
>No child left behind encourages schools to inflate grades 
>and pass kids that haven't learned what
>they need to learn.

Then you had better start breaking your teachers unions and start
hiring and promoting teachers based on performance rather than
political agility.  The unions in this state (Mass.) are trying
to undo the edict that performance of teachers be evaluated.

/BAH



Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:41912899$0$18491$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > the amount of time and energy the administration spent on it.
> > >
> > > They spent a lot of time and energy on education reform... does that
> mean
> > > education is divisive?
> > >
> >
> > They did?  I know they "reformed" it, but I didn't know they spent a lot
> of
> > time and energy on it.
>
> Amazing...
>
>

Do you have any kids in school?  I do, and as far as I can see nothing has
really changed.  If anything things have gotten worse.  No child left behind
encourages schools to inflate grades and pass kids that haven't learned what
they need to learn.

drax

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:4192bc99$0$83342$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
>
> Where you got that it was a basic
> right was only talking about normal marriages as a necessary part of
> procreation, not gay-marriages.

Marriage is necessary for procreation?

> Because it intrinsically isn't a marriage.  No one is claiming it is the
> same thing as marriage.  It would offer the same privileges of marriage to
> people that choose not to marry, but rather enter civil unions.
>
> The fact is, they would have the same privileges as a married couple even
> though they aren't married.  It's an extension of privileges because
> homosexuallity is accepted.
>
> Tolerance, my friend.  Just think how much gays are accepted in America.
So
> much that their biggest plight is what their unions are called.
>

So, the big argument is about the word marriage?  How silly.

drax

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:419233f5$0$58490$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote
>
> > > Civil unions, are "marriages" in the eyes of the law.
> >
> > How is a civil union different from a marriage?  Note that I'm not
talking
> > about the thing you do with a priest/minister/what-have-you - that's the
> > religious/spiritual aspect of marriage and is a whole other can of
worms.
> >
> > What I want to know is why can't a same-sex couple use the same marriage
> > license form that a heterosexual couple does.
>
> What's the big deal with them using a different one?
>

Laws would need to authored and passed on federal, state, and local levels
to deal with civil unions.  Many of these laws would be nearly identical to
laws already on the books regarding marriage.  Sounds like inefficient
government and a waste of taxpayer money.


> > Are you really telling me that this whole gay marriage thing came down
to
> > the use of the word "marriage"?  Are we, as a people, really that
shallow
> > and narrow minded?
>
> Yep.  The the radical gay activists are really that "shallow and narrow
> minded".  They've run out of legitimate things to fight against.
>
>

Amazing.

drax

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10p6b33ablffl08@corp.supernews.com...
> In rec.games.video.sony Fred Liken <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:
>
> > > If they're identical, why come up with a different name?
>
> > Because they aren't identical.  Marriage is between a man and a woman
and
> > Civil Unions can be between the same sex.
>
> But if both unions receive the same coverage under the law, then why name
> them differentally?  What does the state care if the union is between
> people of different or the same gender?
>
> And you still haven't said why marriage can't apply to couples of the same
> sex.

It's really pretty simple.  A lot of people don't want the govt. to
officially sanction gay love.  A marriage is a recognition of love (the
romantic type) between two individuals and the traditional commitment
associated.  A civil union is officially sanctioning the commitment between
two individuals who want to benefit from the same or similar civil laws that
apply to marriage.

I personally don't have any moral issues with gay people but from the
standpoint of society I have to agree that it's useful to make such a
distinction.  I don't relish the idea of the day when taking a walk through
the park and seeing young lovers includes two males kissing.  If that's
homophobic then too bad.  I can respect gay people and still find certain
public displays offensive.  The objection to gay marriage can be simply a
statement of drawing the line and saying that certain aspects of gay
behavior are not universally accepted.  It doesn't have to be just a
religious objection.

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:VdudnRu2GJP_xA7cRVn-rw@rcn.net...
> In article <2vh2t0F2lt2pdU1@uni-berlin.de>,
>    "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
> >news:41912899$0$18491$45beb828@newscene.com...
> >> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > > > the amount of time and energy the administration spent on it.
> >> > >
> >> > > They spent a lot of time and energy on education reform... does
that
> >> mean
> >> > > education is divisive?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > They did?  I know they "reformed" it, but I didn't know they spent a
> lot
> >> of
> >> > time and energy on it.
> >>
> >> Amazing...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Do you have any kids in school?  I do, and as far as I can see nothing
has
> >really changed.  If anything things have gotten worse.
> >No child left behind encourages schools to inflate grades
> >and pass kids that haven't learned what
> >they need to learn.
>
> Then you had better start breaking your teachers unions and start
> hiring and promoting teachers based on performance rather than
> political agility.  The unions in this state (Mass.) are trying
> to undo the edict that performance of teachers be evaluated.
>

Well, I simply moved to a better school district, when I was able to do so.
Also, while I think teachers should be evaluated, I don't think that grades
are a direct correlation of teacher perrformance.  There are (an increasing
number of)students that are either unwilling or unable to learn.  I'm really
not a big fan of unions either. I've had some experience with them, all of
it bad.

drax

> 
> I personally don't have any moral issues with gay people but from the
> standpoint of society I have to agree that it's useful to make such a
> distinction.  I don't relish the idea of the day when taking a walk through
> the park and seeing young lovers includes two males kissing. 

sounds like you have an issue with gay people, moral or not.


> If that's
> homophobic then too bad. 

in other words you just dont care.


> I can respect gay people and still find certain
> public displays offensive. 

sure, many people find public displays of affection between heterosexual 
couples offensive. should we ban public displays of affection because of 
this? if you see something you dont like should that thing be removed? 
lets turn this argument back onto you - do you feel responsible for 
somebody else's quality of vision? what if somebody finds your 
appearance offensive?


> The objection to gay marriage can be simply a
> statement of drawing the line and saying that certain aspects of gay
> behavior are not universally accepted.  It doesn't have to be just a
> religious objection.
> 

at one point the belief that the world was round was not universally 
accepted. with your kind of attitude we would have stayed in the dark 
ages. marriage should be a right to any consenting pair of adults, 
anything else is discrimination. im sure you would be the first to 
complain if somebody was disciminating against you - and yet you are 
quite happy to discriminate against others. this is why your arguments 
put forth here are borne from hypocrisy.

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote

> > > What I want to know is why can't a same-sex couple use the same
marriage
> > > license form that a heterosexual couple does.

> > What's the big deal with them using a different one?

> Laws would need to authored and passed on federal, state, and local levels
> to deal with civil unions.

Not necessarily.

> Many of these laws would be nearly identical to
> laws already on the books regarding marriage.  Sounds like inefficient
> government and a waste of taxpayer money.

Who claimed progress should be free?  And, I don't think it's a waste of tax
payers money to extend the privileges granted under marriage to gay civil
unions.

> > > Are you really telling me that this whole gay marriage thing came down
> to
> > > the use of the word "marriage"?  Are we, as a people, really that
> shallow
> > > and narrow minded?
> >
> > Yep.  The the radical gay activists are really that "shallow and narrow
> > minded".  They've run out of legitimate things to fight against.
>
> Amazing.

Oh course you find it amazing.  You're a parrot.

"Jimmery" <not@chance> wrote in message
news:4193919f$0$6326$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > I personally don't have any moral issues with gay people but from the
> > standpoint of society I have to agree that it's useful to make such a
> > distinction.  I don't relish the idea of the day when taking a walk
through
> > the park and seeing young lovers includes two males kissing.
>
> sounds like you have an issue with gay people, moral or not.

Yes that is correct.  Just the same as we all have issues with various
topics of discussion.  You just quoted my post where I gave an example of an
"issue" that wasn't related to morals.

> > If that's
> > homophobic then too bad.
>
> in other words you just dont care.

That's exactly the point I was making.

> > I can respect gay people and still find certain
> > public displays offensive.
>
> sure, many people find public displays of affection between heterosexual
> couples offensive. should we ban public displays of affection because of
> this?

If enough people found it offensive that that's exactly what would happen.
But that isn't the case.  It's not uncommon to find significant acceptance
of displays of affection between members of the opposite sex.  There is a
famous photograph of a returning WW2 soldier kissing a girl.  So it's pretty
obvious that this has been in acceptance for quite a while.

> if you see something you dont like should that thing be removed?

Yes, everything should be determined by what I think.

> lets turn this argument back onto you - do you feel responsible for
> somebody else's quality of vision? what if somebody finds your
> appearance offensive?

Society has long accepted the public display of people that are ugly.  The
act of society acclimating to a specific aspect of behavior is exactly what
this topic entails.  So objecting to public display of ugly people is just
as analogeous to the accepting of public displays of affection between gays
than the reverse.  I.E. society would find it offensive if one was to
promote making ugly people stay out of sight.

> > The objection to gay marriage can be simply a
> > statement of drawing the line and saying that certain aspects of gay
> > behavior are not universally accepted.  It doesn't have to be just a
> > religious objection.
> >
>
> at one point the belief that the world was round was not universally
> accepted. with your kind of attitude we would have stayed in the dark
> ages.

Grasping at straws.  Determining acceptable human social behavior is not
simply a matter of stating a fact.

> marriage should be a right to any consenting pair of adults,
> anything else is discrimination. im sure you would be the first to
> complain if somebody was disciminating against you - and yet you are
> quite happy to discriminate against others. this is why your arguments
> put forth here are borne from hypocrisy.

LOL, and your statements are borne from shallow thinking.  It is not
hypocrisy to weigh multiple perspectives.  Society has always placed limits
on behavior based on many factors.  Society is a cooperative effort that
requires tolerance not only of a person's individual rights, but how the
expression of those rights impact others.  If gay people want to take the
society's conventional interpretation of the meaning of marriage and force
them to adopt a new meaning then the greatest chance of success is to gently
reformulate society's acceptance.  It isn't suprising that the act of trying
to shove it down their throats would meet with equal resistance.

The idea that simply taking something from others, declaring the right to
bastardize the meaning, and saying that everyone must accept it is an
example of shallow thinking.  Society has a right to view marraige as having
a traditional meaning and is under no obligation to instantly change that
because some people feel their rights are subverted.  The concept of civil
union addresses fundamental rights of the individual without hijacking a
long standing tradition.

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:419396d7$0$18474$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > What I want to know is why can't a same-sex couple use the same
> marriage
> > > > license form that a heterosexual couple does.
>
> > > What's the big deal with them using a different one?
>
> > Laws would need to authored and passed on federal, state, and local
levels
> > to deal with civil unions.
>
> Not necessarily.
>

I don't see how that's possible, perhaps you could elaborate.


> > Many of these laws would be nearly identical to
> > laws already on the books regarding marriage.  Sounds like inefficient
> > government and a waste of taxpayer money.
>
> Who claimed progress should be free?  And, I don't think it's a waste of
tax
> payers money to extend the privileges granted under marriage to gay civil
> unions.
>

Nobody said progress should be free.  You asked what the big deal was in
using a different term to describe a committed gay relationship.  I gave you
one reason.  So, what's the big deal with using the same word?

> > > > Are you really telling me that this whole gay marriage thing came
down
> > to
> > > > the use of the word "marriage"?  Are we, as a people, really that
> > shallow
> > > > and narrow minded?
> > >
> > > Yep.  The the radical gay activists are really that "shallow and
narrow
> > > minded".  They've run out of legitimate things to fight against.
> >
> > Amazing.
>
> Oh course you find it amazing.  You're a parrot.
>

I'm no more a parrot than you are.  Aside from your aversion to the meaning
of the word marriage being changed / expanded you haven't given a reason for
gay unions not to be called marriage.

drax

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Green Shampoo <green_shampoo@webtv.net> wrote:

> > Now we've got a president who is trying to dictate what *his* religion
> > says into laws - which is fine if you believe in *his* religion.  I
> > don't.  Many others don't either.

> Thats your own problem. Fact is, the constitution says you are free to 
> worship as you choose. Another fact (I hope I'm not confusing you with 
> facts) is that the most basic "Law" of Christianity is to love others.
> Yet another fact (can you keep up, here?) is that Congress, not the 
> President, create laws in this country. Yes, the President can approve or 
> reject, but Congress can always veto. 

A bill must pass both the house and the senate before going to the 
president to be signed into law.  As I recall, any of the 3 branches can 
propose a law in the form of a bill.  It's then a matter of getting it 
ratified.

Now then, civics lesson aside, you cannot deny that many of the proposals 
that Bush has made have been religiously motivated - among them, the 
constitutional amendment about marriage, and his position on stem cell 
research.  And yet our devoutly Christian president went on to ignore his 
own religion's greatest "law" and attacked Iraq.  Love thy neighbor indeed.

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> writes:

> Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.  They
> still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to marry
> someone of the opposite sex.  :)

Ah yes, the same way blacks could sit on the seats NOT marked "whites
only".

If the purpose of marriage is to produce more plebes for the kings to
tax, then by all means make child production mandatory for married
couples. But I was under the impression the USA was set up to throw
off all the oldfashioned European-monarchy ideas - including marriage
restrictions like that?

"Green Shampoo" <green_shampoo@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:cmtl9d$aji$04$1@news.t-online.com...

> As much as I hate the guy, bitching about him will do nothing but make his
> supporters' blind love for him grow exponentially. People bitching about
him
> is what caused him to be re-elected, in my opinion.

Probably true.  Especially when 90% of the bitching is based on falsehoods,
etc, that anyone with any inclination can figure out with a pip of research.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken
<fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:
>
> > Um, who said there was no difference, Mr. MakeBelieve?
>
> You did.

Lie.

> Several times.

Lie.

> In almost every post, actually.

Lie.

> I even asked you what the difference would be between a marriage and civil
> union, and your response was always that a civil union is the same as a
> marriage in the eyes of the law, just with a different name.

Lie.

Hey, if all you're going to do is lie, then what's the point?

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:

> It's really pretty simple.  A lot of people don't want the govt. to
> officially sanction gay love.  A marriage is a recognition of love (the
> romantic type) between two individuals and the traditional commitment
> associated.  A civil union is officially sanctioning the commitment between
> two individuals who want to benefit from the same or similar civil laws that
> apply to marriage.

How does recognition equal sanctioning?

Who says that romantic love is only between people of different sex? 

And since when does the state care if the people filling out the marriage 
certificate have any sort of feelings (romantic or otherwise) for one 
another?

Do not confuse the state with the church.  From the state's point of view, 
a marriage is simply a contract that states the two people involved are to 
be treated as a legal partnership as defined by the state and federal laws.

Love is not a requirement to get a marriage license.  All you need is a 
few signatures, a handful of a cash, and a judge.

Now, having the church say it won't marry gay couples is a different 
issue.  However, since the church is a private entity, it's not bound by 
the same laws as the state.  I may not like the church's stand on gay 
couples marrying, but I do have to respect the church's right to make that 
decision.

> I personally don't have any moral issues with gay people but from the
> standpoint of society I have to agree that it's useful to make such a
> distinction.  I don't relish the idea of the day when taking a walk through
> the park and seeing young lovers includes two males kissing.  If that's
> homophobic then too bad.  I can respect gay people and still find certain
> public displays offensive.  The objection to gay marriage can be simply a
> statement of drawing the line and saying that certain aspects of gay
> behavior are not universally accepted.  It doesn't have to be just a
> religious objection.

Why make the distinction at all?  Saying two people are married shouldn't be 
a function of their gender. 

Not that this has anything to do with public displays of affection.  
There's still a strong double-standard there.  If it's socially acceptable 
for hetero couples to hold hands, or kiss in public, why not gay couples?  
Granted, it's not something you see everyday - which is probably the cause 
for most people's discomfort.  

Even then, what's considered acceptable in one place, doesn't hold elsewhere.  
For instance, in Japan, hetero couples holding hands in public is considered 
a real shameless display of PDA.  However, it's not uncommon to see 
schoolgirls holding hands if they're close friends.  No love (homosexual or 
otherwise) exists nor is assumed.  

Even our own society has changed.  It wasn't that long ago that people in the 
US were attacking women's fashion, saying that the very idea of them wearing 
*pants* was downright obscene.  Things change.  That's life. If our goal is 
to create a true open society, we all must be willing to be simultaneously 
tolerant and respectful.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:

> If enough people found it offensive that that's exactly what would happen.
> But that isn't the case.  It's not uncommon to find significant acceptance
> of displays of affection between members of the opposite sex.  There is a
> famous photograph of a returning WW2 soldier kissing a girl.  So it's pretty
> obvious that this has been in acceptance for quite a while.

But that wasn't always the case...  Society has changed.  The reason you 
don't find that picture offensive is that that's what you were brought up 
with.  Go over to Asia, show the same photo and ask if such behavior would 
be considered acceptable, and you'll get a very different answer...

Society has changed.  It used to be socially acceptable to own slaves, and 
later, to see signs saying "Whites Only".  Would you find that acceptable 
as well?

> LOL, and your statements are borne from shallow thinking.  It is not
> hypocrisy to weigh multiple perspectives.  Society has always placed limits
> on behavior based on many factors.  Society is a cooperative effort that
> requires tolerance not only of a person's individual rights, but how the
> expression of those rights impact others.  If gay people want to take the
> society's conventional interpretation of the meaning of marriage and force
> them to adopt a new meaning then the greatest chance of success is to gently
> reformulate society's acceptance.  It isn't suprising that the act of trying
> to shove it down their throats would meet with equal resistance.

You're the bigot with the double standards, and you're calling him shallow?

As for the "gentle" approach, what do you think has been happening over 
the past 20-30 years?  Good grief, even within my lifetime, I've seen 
*HUGE* strides made to bring homosexuality out of the closet.  Maybe it's 
still the 1950s where *you* live, but the rest of the world (or most of it 
anyways) has moved forward.

> The idea that simply taking something from others, declaring the right to
> bastardize the meaning, and saying that everyone must accept it is an
> example of shallow thinking.  Society has a right to view marraige as having
> a traditional meaning and is under no obligation to instantly change that
> because some people feel their rights are subverted.  The concept of civil
> union addresses fundamental rights of the individual without hijacking a
> long standing tradition.

The definitions of marriage I've always heard was that it's between 2 
people who love each other.  "Man" and "Woman" were not mentioned, though 
you can argue that was implied.  But things change.  Heck, this country 
didn't used to consider Blacks to be people - in fact as the constitution 
was originally written, they only counted as 3/5ths of a person.  Maybe if 
we apply the same thing to Gays, they'll be happy with that, hm?

And praytell, how would extending the *government's* definition of marriage 
to include same-sex and hetero couples going to subvert anyone's rights?

In article <10p7bdqp8sve4f@corp.supernews.com>,
Doug Jacobs  <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
>
>> Thats your own problem. Fact is, the constitution says you are free to 
>> worship as you choose. Another fact (I hope I'm not confusing you with 
>> facts) is that the most basic "Law" of Christianity is to love others.
>> Yet another fact (can you keep up, here?) is that Congress, not the 
>> President, create laws in this country. Yes, the President can approve or 
>> reject, but Congress can always veto. 
>
>A bill must pass both the house and the senate before going to the 
>president to be signed into law.  As I recall, any of the 3 branches can 
>propose a law in the form of a bill.  It's then a matter of getting it 
>ratified.

Ugh. Only the House and Senate can propose bills (the President usually 
gets a member of his party to sponsor his). As a bit of trivia, according 
to the Constitution, only the House can propose taxation bills.

The President may veto bills. The Congress can try to override a veto, but 
you need a 2/3 majority to do it.

==========
Steve Liu
"Colonel Klink, why have you forsaken me?" - Homer Simpson

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message news:<4192b18c$0$18465$45beb828@newscene.com>...
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4192A2C5.60900@gotcha.comcast.net...
> > Also, you didn't reply to my question as to why you think same-sex
> > marriage bans aren't discrimination.
> 
> Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.  They
> still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to marry
> someone of the opposite sex.  :)

That's like saying that laws against mixed-race marriages
aren't discrimination, since the people involved still 
have the right to get married, they'll just have to marry 
someone of the same race.   

If two couples both want to get married, but only one is 
allowed to, solely because of the races of the people 
involved, that IS racial discrimination, right? I'd 
certainly say so.  So if two couples both want to get 
married, but only one is allowed to, solely because 
the other is a same-sex couple, that is discrimination 
as well.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 drax <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm no more a parrot than you are.  Aside from your aversion to the meaning
> of the word marriage being changed / expanded you haven't given a reason for
> gay unions not to be called marriage.

Because he's a narrowminded homophobe, thus proving nothing more he writes 
is of any consequence.  

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10p7inlt931hm4f@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <fly_135(@ hot not
not)notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's really pretty simple.  A lot of people don't want the govt. to
> > officially sanction gay love.  A marriage is a recognition of love (the
> > romantic type) between two individuals and the traditional commitment
> > associated.  A civil union is officially sanctioning the commitment
between
> > two individuals who want to benefit from the same or similar civil laws
that
> > apply to marriage.
>
> How does recognition equal sanctioning?

Sanction: Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action
valid.

That's what happens when an "Authoritative" body gives recognition.  Don't
play word games.  Try and understand the gist of the post.

> Who says that romantic love is only between people of different sex?

Nobody.

> And since when does the state care if the people filling out the marriage
> certificate have any sort of feelings (romantic or otherwise) for one
> another?

It doesn't.  But that doesn't change society's interpretation of the
institution of marraige.

> Do not confuse the state with the church.  From the state's point of view,
> a marriage is simply a contract that states the two people involved are to
> be treated as a legal partnership as defined by the state and federal
laws.

And how does that differ from civil union?  Remember it's society that
doesn't want the institution of marriage reinterpreted by govt.

> Love is not a requirement to get a marriage license.  All you need is a
> few signatures, a handful of a cash, and a judge.

So.

> Now, having the church say it won't marry gay couples is a different
> issue.  However, since the church is a private entity, it's not bound by
> the same laws as the state.  I may not like the church's stand on gay
> couples marrying, but I do have to respect the church's right to make that

> decision.

You don't have to respect society's right to interpret marriage as between a
man and a woman, but you have to deal with it.  That is the issue.

> > I personally don't have any moral issues with gay people but from the
> > standpoint of society I have to agree that it's useful to make such a
> > distinction.  I don't relish the idea of the day when taking a walk
through
> > the park and seeing young lovers includes two males kissing.  If that's
> > homophobic then too bad.  I can respect gay people and still find
certain
> > public displays offensive.  The objection to gay marriage can be simply
a
> > statement of drawing the line and saying that certain aspects of gay
> > behavior are not universally accepted.  It doesn't have to be just a
> > religious objection.
>
> Why make the distinction at all?  Saying two people are married shouldn't
be
> a function of their gender.

So says you and people who agree with you.  The point is that you are at
odds with an apparent majority that says otherwise.

> Not that this has anything to do with public displays of affection.
> There's still a strong double-standard there.  If it's socially acceptable
> for hetero couples to hold hands, or kiss in public, why not gay couples?

Because, unfortunately for gays God, nature, or years of learned behavior
have caused heterosexuals to be offended by overt gay behavior.

> Granted, it's not something you see everyday - which is probably the cause
> for most people's discomfort.

Could be.

> Even then, what's considered acceptable in one place, doesn't hold
elsewhere.

Bingo!

> For instance, in Japan, hetero couples holding hands in public is
considered
> a real shameless display of PDA.  However, it's not uncommon to see
> schoolgirls holding hands if they're close friends.  No love (homosexual
or
> otherwise) exists nor is assumed.

The last sentance is key.

> Even our own society has changed.  It wasn't that long ago that people in
the
> US were attacking women's fashion, saying that the very idea of them
wearing
> *pants* was downright obscene.  Things change.  That's life. If our goal
is
> to create a true open society, we all must be willing to be simultaneously
> tolerant and respectful.

Yes, but being simultaneously tolerant and respectful goes both ways.  It
isn't a one-side proposition to gives gays exactly what they want at the
expense of the apparent majority that is not ready to accept it.

There is a bit of a underlying hypocrisy in demanding the right to gay
marraige.  Why is it that gays feel that being married is so important, yet
readily dismiss the importance of the meaning of marraige to those (the
majority of people throughout history) who believe it's a heterosexual
institution?

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10p7jjphon006ba@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <fly_135(@ hot not
not)notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If enough people found it offensive that that's exactly what would
happen.
> > But that isn't the case.  It's not uncommon to find significant
acceptance
> > of displays of affection between members of the opposite sex.  There is
a
> > famous photograph of a returning WW2 soldier kissing a girl.  So it's
pretty
> > obvious that this has been in acceptance for quite a while.
>
> But that wasn't always the case...  Society has changed.  The reason you
> don't find that picture offensive is that that's what you were brought up
> with.  Go over to Asia, show the same photo and ask if such behavior would
> be considered acceptable, and you'll get a very different answer...

If you really understood my position on this you would know that you are
just reiterating what I'm saying in a different way.

> Society has changed.  It used to be socially acceptable to own slaves, and
> later, to see signs saying "Whites Only".  Would you find that acceptable
> as well?

Not at all.  I have no problem with the protection of civil right's wrt
gays.  I just disagree that a union between gays must be allowed to be
sanctioned by the govt as marriage in order for their civil rights to be
protected.

> > LOL, and your statements are borne from shallow thinking.  It is not
> > hypocrisy to weigh multiple perspectives.  Society has always placed
limits
> > on behavior based on many factors.  Society is a cooperative effort that
> > requires tolerance not only of a person's individual rights, but how the
> > expression of those rights impact others.  If gay people want to take
the
> > society's conventional interpretation of the meaning of marriage and
force
> > them to adopt a new meaning then the greatest chance of success is to
gently
> > reformulate society's acceptance.  It isn't suprising that the act of
trying
> > to shove it down their throats would meet with equal resistance.
>
> You're the bigot with the double standards, and you're calling him
shallow?

Yes I am.  As well as you.  Equating "whites only" with the refusal to allow
gays to basterdize the meaning of a time honored social tradition is
shallow.  Not to mention your interpretation of what is a bigot.

> As for the "gentle" approach, what do you think has been happening over
> the past 20-30 years?  Good grief, even within my lifetime, I've seen
> *HUGE* strides made to bring homosexuality out of the closet.  Maybe it's
> still the 1950s where *you* live, but the rest of the world (or most of it
> anyways) has moved forward.

Bombastic speech.

> > The idea that simply taking something from others, declaring the right
to
> > bastardize the meaning, and saying that everyone must accept it is an
> > example of shallow thinking.  Society has a right to view marraige as
having
> > a traditional meaning and is under no obligation to instantly change
that
> > because some people feel their rights are subverted.  The concept of
civil
> > union addresses fundamental rights of the individual without hijacking a
> > long standing tradition.
>
> The definitions of marriage I've always heard was that it's between 2
> people who love each other.  "Man" and "Woman" were not mentioned, though
> you can argue that was implied.

Yep I would argue that.  It's also implied that it's between humans.

>   But things change.  Heck, this country
> didn't used to consider Blacks to be people - in fact as the constitution
> was originally written, they only counted as 3/5ths of a person.  Maybe if
> we apply the same thing to Gays, they'll be happy with that, hm?
>
> And praytell, how would extending the *government's* definition of
marriage
> to include same-sex and hetero couples going to subvert anyone's rights?

Apparently you don't think that society has any rights wrt maintaining any
values on institutions that are grounded in tradition.  However, there are a
lot of people who don't agree with you on that point.

It cannot be denied that every society places boundaries on what it accepts.
And it's well known that those boundaries change as the general attitude of
society changes.  For a person to understand why people oppose gay marriage
they must also understand the principles upon which society deems what is
and isn't acceptable.  Calling people bigots and trying to equate gay rights
with other civil rights and injustices might give you a sense of superiority
and correctness in your thinking.  But it doesn't change the reality that
your statements are not fact but opinions, which aren't shared by everyone.

FLY135 wrote:
> 
> It's really pretty simple.  A lot of people don't want the govt. to
> officially sanction gay love.  A marriage is a recognition of love (the
> romantic type) between two individuals and the traditional commitment
> associated.  A civil union is officially sanctioning the commitment between
> two individuals who want to benefit from the same or similar civil laws that
> apply to marriage.

If marriage and civil unions are 100% identical except for the name then 
either they both recognize love and commitment, or they both only 
recognize commitment and not the love.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1100024542.cCJv4dIK42x//uy92VzAPw@bubbanews...

>
> Yes, I'm sure it is, but Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic. So,
> thanks for demonstrating that, once again, you're full of crap.
>
> The original Greek word used in the Matthew verse is 'phoneuo' which means
> 'murder'.

Firstly, Jesus didn't speak the Gospel in Greek, he spoke it in Aramaic.  So
that's one translation before it was even written--if it was written in
Greek.  But that's not fact, anyway, it's widely disputed.  The oldest
scripts remaining are in Greek, but are possibly translations from Aramaic
scripts.
Not that it matters much, though--after saying "Thou shalt not kill/murder",
Jesus goes on to say that violence and even hateful language are sins, too.
So should you really be arguing whether it's okay to kill because Jesus
MIGHT have used a word that means "murder" instead of "kill"?

And I notice that you STILL won't address any of this:

"Care to explain why you didn't address "love your enemies" or "do good to
them that hate you" or "resist not evil"?  I'd say that speaks pretty
clearly to the fact that you don't have the right to resort to violence.

I guess you can't explain why you think Jesus didn't condemn violence in
self-defense if you acknowledge the Gospel of Matthew, aside from one
"mistranslated" word.

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:4192b18c$0$18465$45beb828@newscene.com...
> The problem is that activist judges are overstepping their bounds and
> redefining marriage.

    <raises hand>
    Perhaps you could explain how examining the principles of the
Constitution, and concluding that restricting legal status for relationships
based on sexual orientation *conflicts with the principles of equality
contained therin* is ... "activism"?
    The observation that a current practice violates the principles upon
which the country was founded (and, ostensibly, continues to value) is not
"activism" - it's *tradition*!

-Michael

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Du%kd.8640$_J2.7358@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
> news:4192b18c$0$18465$45beb828@newscene.com...
> > The problem is that activist judges are overstepping their bounds and
> > redefining marriage.
>
>     <raises hand>
>     Perhaps you could explain how examining the principles of the
> Constitution, and concluding that restricting legal status for
relationships
> based on sexual orientation *conflicts with the principles of equality
> contained therin* is ... "activism"?

Because what is legally recognized as marriage is nothing more -- and never
was anything more -- than a legalization of a societal definition because of
a desire to promote a specific perceived benefit to society from the
encouragement of that societal institution.  As such, it isn't the place for
a set of judges to determine what that societal definition should be, but
for the society to determine what that definition should be.

To say this in smaller words: what constitutes marriage has always been a
societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
should be determined by society, not a judge.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10p7inlt931hm4f@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <fly_135(@ hot not
not)notmail.com> wrote:

> Love is not a requirement to get a marriage license.  All you need is a
> few signatures, a handful of a cash, and a judge.

Yes, marriage has NEVER been about love, which kind of destroys the notion
that gay couples are in love as much as heterosexual couples are and so
should be able to have recognition of that (as activists for same sex
marriage insist).

>
> Now, having the church say it won't marry gay couples is a different
> issue.  However, since the church is a private entity, it's not bound by
> the same laws as the state.  I may not like the church's stand on gay
> couples marrying, but I do have to respect the church's right to make that
> decision.

The problem is that there is a valid fear that once marriage is redefined to
include same sex couples it will be considered discriminatory for them to
refuse to perform them -- and the defense of "freedom of religion" will not
suffice to defend their rights to refuse to perform them.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4193F023.6090908@gotcha.comcast.net...
> FLY135 wrote:
> >
> > It's really pretty simple.  A lot of people don't want the govt. to
> > officially sanction gay love.  A marriage is a recognition of love (the
> > romantic type) between two individuals and the traditional commitment
> > associated.  A civil union is officially sanctioning the commitment
between
> > two individuals who want to benefit from the same or similar civil laws
that
> > apply to marriage.
>
> If marriage and civil unions are 100% identical except for the name then
> either they both recognize love and commitment, or they both only
> recognize commitment and not the love.

IF being the key word.

>>sure, many people find public displays of affection between heterosexual
>>couples offensive. should we ban public displays of affection because of
>>this?
> 
> If enough people found it offensive that that's exactly what would happen.

nicely avoiding my question there. i didnt ask what would cause the 
banning of public displays of affection, i asked if it *should* be 
banned - in your opinion. however...


> But that isn't the case.  It's not uncommon to find significant acceptance
> of displays of affection between members of the opposite sex.  There is a
> famous photograph of a returning WW2 soldier kissing a girl.  So it's pretty
> obvious that this has been in acceptance for quite a while.

....you dont seem to want to voice your own opinion, instead you choose 
to hide behind the intangible general concensus of "public opinion" 
which in reality is derived from an outspoken minority that fears change.


> Society has long accepted the public display of people that are ugly.

depends on what you mean by long. well before the 20th century extreme 
cases of ugliness was not accepted at all, those unfortunate individuals 
had to wear sacks over their head in public places and they were 
discriminated against and generally cast out of society.


> So objecting to public display of ugly people is just
> as analogeous to the accepting of public displays of affection between gays
> than the reverse.  I.E. society would find it offensive if one was to
> promote making ugly people stay out of sight.

at least they would today. and im sure in the future society would find 
it unacceptable to discriminate between sexual orientation, particulary 
on such a fundamental right as the legal union of two loving partners, 
which we call marriage.


>>at one point the belief that the world was round was not universally
>>accepted. with your kind of attitude we would have stayed in the dark
>>ages.
> 
> 
> Grasping at straws.  Determining acceptable human social behavior is not
> simply a matter of stating a fact.

surprisingly you are missing the point... back in the past the world 
being round was not a fact but, at best, a theory. language and 
acceptance are changing concepts, but you want to resist these changes 
and cling desperately to your ignorant attitude so you can justify your 
discrimination.


>>marriage should be a right to any consenting pair of adults,
>>anything else is discrimination. im sure you would be the first to
>>complain if somebody was disciminating against you - and yet you are
>>quite happy to discriminate against others. this is why your arguments
>>put forth here are borne from hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> LOL, and your statements are borne from shallow thinking.

shallow thinking is a generalization of ignorance, hypocrisy, prejudice 
and discrimination. all the 'qualities' that you are displaying.


>  It is not
> hypocrisy to weigh multiple perspectives.  Society has always placed limits
> on behavior based on many factors.  Society is a cooperative effort that
> requires tolerance not only of a person's individual rights, but how the
> expression of those rights impact others.  If gay people want to take the
> society's conventional interpretation of the meaning of marriage and force
> them to adopt a new meaning then the greatest chance of success is to gently
> reformulate society's acceptance.  It isn't suprising that the act of trying
> to shove it down their throats would meet with equal resistance.

the "conventional interpretation of marriage" is as undefined and 
changable as the statement is vague. and again, it is another concept 
which has changed over time. 300 years ago marriage for the common man 
was simply a case of standing on your doorstep and declaring to the 
world that you and your spouse were married. later the christian church 
made marriage at church compulsory. later in history places like las 
vegas changed how marriage operates once more - allowing you to have 
shotgun weddings, still legal in the eyes of the law.

each time the deffinition of marriage has changed over the years there 
has been resistance from ignorant individuals like yourself. but 
unfortunately for you this has not halted progress.


> The idea that simply taking something from others, declaring the right to
> bastardize the meaning, and saying that everyone must accept it is an
> example of shallow thinking.

i have just shown you that the very definition of marriage has been 
bastardized and altered over time. to oppose the constant and gradual 
change of the deffinition of concepts and language is not only a perfect 
example of the shallow thinking you are so eager to brand me with, but 
its also the futile actions of someone who is, how did you put it, 
"grasping at straws".


>  Society has a right to view marraige as having
> a traditional meaning and is under no obligation to instantly change that
> because some people feel their rights are subverted.  The concept of civil
> union addresses fundamental rights of the individual without hijacking a
> long standing tradition.

the long standing tradition is only applicable to a certain subset of 
people who prescribe to the christian church. and yet you deem it 
perfectly acceptable to discriminate against another group of people of 
a similiar or larger quantity simply because you feel threatened by 
their alternate sexuality.

the "society" that you are so eager to represent is nothing more than 
the highly publicized views of an insecure minority - a minority which 
you have obviously borrowed your opinions from. unfortunately for them 
you seem incapable of arguing logically, answering questions and using 
put downs that are more applicable to the intended recipient than 
yourself. you hide behind the views of "society" when you obviously lack 
an understanding of how society operates and continually develops over 
time - you want to put extraneous deffinitions onto concepts in order to 
protect your insecurities about sexuality.

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:gu0ld.31580$Z7.1157434@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snip>
> To say this in smaller words: what constitutes marriage has always been a
> societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
> should be determined by society, not a judge.

Imagine you are a supreme court justice and your highest law proclaims:  No 
state shall make or enforce any law which denies to any person within its 
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now imagine you have to review a state statute that indicates:  The state 
bestowed benefits of marriage are only available when a man and woman form a 
legal union of marriage, and shall not be available to a union between 
people the same gender.

In the example above the state grants marriage benefits based on the gender 
of the person.  If you are *not* an activist judge how do you rule? 

"Jimmery" <not@chance> wrote in message
news:4194d18b$0$4425$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >>sure, many people find public displays of affection between heterosexual
> >>couples offensive. should we ban public displays of affection because of
> >>this?
> >
> > If enough people found it offensive that that's exactly what would
happen.
>
> nicely avoiding my question there. i didnt ask what would cause the
> banning of public displays of affection, i asked if it *should* be
> banned - in your opinion. however...

I wasn't avoiding the question.  I was trying to convey the reasons why
things are done.  My personal opinion is not that relevant.  The answer if
you really want it is no.

> > But that isn't the case.  It's not uncommon to find significant
acceptance
> > of displays of affection between members of the opposite sex.  There is
a
> > famous photograph of a returning WW2 soldier kissing a girl.  So it's
pretty
> > obvious that this has been in acceptance for quite a while.
>
> ...you dont seem to want to voice your own opinion, instead you choose
> to hide behind the intangible general concensus of "public opinion"
> which in reality is derived from an outspoken minority that fears change.

My opinion doesn't matter.  What is so important about my opinion when the
discussion is not about what I personally want?

> > So objecting to public display of ugly people is just
> > as analogeous to the accepting of public displays of affection between
gays
> > than the reverse.  I.E. society would find it offensive if one was to
> > promote making ugly people stay out of sight.
>
> at least they would today. and im sure in the future society would find
> it unacceptable to discriminate between sexual orientation, particulary
> on such a fundamental right as the legal union of two loving partners,
> which we call marriage.

You are making exactly the point that you admonished me previously for
making instead of telling you my opinions.  However, my opinion is that
calling the legal union between two gay people a "marriage" is not a
fundamental right.

> >>at one point the belief that the world was round was not universally
> >>accepted. with your kind of attitude we would have stayed in the dark
> >>ages.
> >
> >
> > Grasping at straws.  Determining acceptable human social behavior is not
> > simply a matter of stating a fact.
>
> surprisingly you are missing the point... back in the past the world
> being round was not a fact...

That's an amazing reinterpretation of the word "fact".

>  but, at best, a theory. language and
> acceptance are changing concepts, but you want to resist these changes
> and cling desperately to your ignorant attitude so you can justify your
> discrimination.

Well IMO that an ignorant statement of my position.

> > LOL, and your statements are borne from shallow thinking.
>
> shallow thinking is a generalization of ignorance, hypocrisy, prejudice
> and discrimination. all the 'qualities' that you are displaying.

Actually you are one displaying ignorance.

> the "conventional interpretation of marriage" is as undefined and
> changable as the statement is vague. and again, it is another concept
> which has changed over time. 300 years ago marriage for the common man

Yeah, hardly anyone knows what a marriage is.  The ignorance flows.

> was simply a case of standing on your doorstep and declaring to the
> world that you and your spouse were married. later the christian church
> made marriage at church compulsory. later in history places like las
> vegas changed how marriage operates once more - allowing you to have
> shotgun weddings, still legal in the eyes of the law.

Yet in all those 300 years and more, marriage was between a man and a woman.

> each time the deffinition of marriage has changed over the years there
> has been resistance from ignorant individuals like yourself. but
> unfortunately for you this has not halted progress.

LOL, yeah I've really been halting progress.  Your ignorance continues to
flow.

> i have just shown you that the very definition of marriage has been
> bastardized and altered over time. to oppose the constant and gradual
> change of the deffinition of concepts and language is not only a perfect
> example of the shallow thinking you are so eager to brand me with, but
> its also the futile actions of someone who is, how did you put it,
> "grasping at straws".

Yep and when people don't adopt your views they are ignorant and prejudiced.
This is an example of bigoted thinking.

> the long standing tradition is only applicable to a certain subset of
> people who prescribe to the christian church. and yet you deem it
> perfectly acceptable to discriminate against another group of people of
> a similiar or larger quantity simply because you feel threatened by
> their alternate sexuality.

Bigoted people are quick to assign attributes to others.  You are doing a
fine job.  So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that only
Christians think that a marriage is between a man and a women.  The
ignorance continues to flow.

> the "society" that you are so eager to represent is nothing more than
> the highly publicized views of an insecure minority.

Tell that to society.  I already can see that you are a very shallowed
minded person that sees fit to denegrate others if they disagree with you.

> - a minority which
> you have obviously borrowed your opinions from. unfortunately for them
> you seem incapable of arguing logically, answering questions and using
> put downs...

When people such as yourself cannot argue logically and use "put downs", I
will respond with like put downs since it seems to be what you understand
best.  I can guarantee you that I used no derogartory comment towards anyone
in this news group except as a response to like comments.  It's recorded
here and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.  It's pretty amazing that you
would accuse me of relying on put downs when your post is a virtual diatribe
that uses puts downs as a cornerstone of your position.

Also I defy you to back up your claims that I "borrowed my opinions from a
minority".  My opinions are derived from observing the majority.  My
opinions are based on paying attention to reality and are a statement of
what I believe are the rationale that motivates society to do what it does.
The only thing I have revealed about my own personal thinking wrt gays is
that I don't relish the day when I see two men kissing in public.  And I bet
that I am in the majority in that respect.

> that are more applicable to the intended recipient than
> yourself. you hide behind the views of "society" when you obviously lack
> an understanding of how society operates and continually develops over
> time - you want to put extraneous deffinitions onto concepts in order to
> protect your insecurities about sexuality.

If anything my posts were the inspiration in this thread to discuss the fact
that society changes over time.  The fact that you are unable to grasp that
is what I'm been saying all along is an indication that you bigoted thinking
prevents you from acting understanding people who you believe think
diferently from you.

tncoaster wrote:

> ..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
>>LOVELESS marriage these days?! 

Bill and Hillary Clinton, for two.


stePH
-- 
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's 
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Du%kd.8640$_J2.7358@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
> news:4192b18c$0$18465$45beb828@newscene.com...
> > The problem is that activist judges are overstepping their bounds and
> > redefining marriage.
>
>     <raises hand>
>     Perhaps you could explain how examining the principles of the
> Constitution, and concluding that restricting legal status for
relationships
> based on sexual orientation *conflicts with the principles of equality
> contained therin* is ... "activism"?
>     The observation that a current practice violates the principles upon
> which the country was founded (and, ostensibly, continues to value) is not
> "activism" - it's *tradition*!

Or maybe rationalization.

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:gu0ld.31580$Z7.1157434@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >     Perhaps you could explain how examining the principles of the
> > Constitution, and concluding that restricting legal status for
relationships
> > based on sexual orientation *conflicts with the principles of equality
> > contained therin* is ... "activism"?
>
> Because what is legally recognized as marriage is nothing more -- and
never
> was anything more -- than a legalization of a societal definition because
of
> a desire to promote a specific perceived benefit to society from the
> encouragement of that societal institution.  As such, it isn't the place
for
> a set of judges to determine what that societal definition should be, but
> for the society to determine what that definition should be.

    You are missing the point.  The same society with its "societal
definition of marriage" built into its constitutions ALSO has a "societal
definition of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW" built into them which demands that
the government not discriminate.  Expanding the institution of marriage does
not conflict with extant (constitutional) laws.  *Denying* it to consenting
(homosexual) adults, however, *blatantly* violates the provisions against
equality that are considered supremely important.

    Society has, by expressly invoking antidiscrimination principles in its
social charter, *already decided* how gay marriages should be treated, if it
is to apply them self-consistently, just as it once realized belatedly that
interracial marriages must be legal as well.

    Further, the social benefit arguments that make government recognition
of marriages desirable every one of them support including homosexual unions
in the enterprise; gay couples can and do raise children, can and do provide
stable and enduring economic units, can and do take care of one another so
that they live longer, etc.  The only argument against it is christian
bigotry, under the guise of "morality" that is nothing of the sort.  We're
still waiting for a coherent argument that proves how allowing another group
to enjoy marriage "threatens" the institution - particularly given the
obvious echoes of the arguments against allowing blacks and whites to marry,
which did *so* much harm to intraracial marriages thereafter ...

    If you think your god hates gays, *you* can strive not to be one - you
don't get to force your neighbors to conform to your petty tribal bigotries.

    Read the constitution and its amendments, people.

-Michael

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> Because he's a narrowminded homophobe, thus proving nothing more he writes
> is of any consequence.

Hahahaha!  The crown jewel of parrot puke!

Hey, if they don't agree with you, they must be homophobes!  I love it.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>     <raises hand>
>     Perhaps you could explain how examining the principles of the
> Constitution, and concluding that restricting legal status for relationships
> based on sexual orientation *conflicts with the principles of equality
> contained therin* is ... "activism"?
>     The observation that a current practice violates the principles upon
> which the country was founded (and, ostensibly, continues to value) is not
> "activism" - it's *tradition*!

So... activism/liberalism is the tradition in the US.

Which would mean that the conservatives, by definition, should be striving 
to protect the need for change and social progression.

Which would mean that the extreme righ wing folks are the *real* liberals.

"FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message news:<9M3ld.8811$_J2.6750@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4193F023.6090908@gotcha.comcast.net...
> > FLY135 wrote:
> > >
> > > It's really pretty simple.  A lot of people don't want the govt. to
> > > officially sanction gay love.  A marriage is a recognition of love (the
> > > romantic type) between two individuals and the traditional commitment
> > > associated.  A civil union is officially sanctioning the commitment
>  between
> > > two individuals who want to benefit from the same or similar civil laws
>  that
> > > apply to marriage.
> >
> > If marriage and civil unions are 100% identical except for the name then
> > either they both recognize love and commitment, or they both only
> > recognize commitment and not the love.
> 
> IF being the key word.

I am guessing you believe they shouldn't be 100% identical.  How
should they tangibly different in terms of rights, benefits and
responsibilities?

Josh Rosenbluth

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411121323.a738f77@posting.google.com...
> "FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
news:<9M3ld.8811$_J2.6750@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:4193F023.6090908@gotcha.comcast.net...
> > > FLY135 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's really pretty simple.  A lot of people don't want the govt. to
> > > > officially sanction gay love.  A marriage is a recognition of love
(the
> > > > romantic type) between two individuals and the traditional
commitment
> > > > associated.  A civil union is officially sanctioning the commitment
> >  between
> > > > two individuals who want to benefit from the same or similar civil
laws
> >  that
> > > > apply to marriage.
> > >
> > > If marriage and civil unions are 100% identical except for the name
then
> > > either they both recognize love and commitment, or they both only
> > > recognize commitment and not the love.
> >
> > IF being the key word.
>
> I am guessing you believe they shouldn't be 100% identical.  How
> should they tangibly different in terms of rights, benefits and
> responsibilities?

I actually misread your previous post, but yes they could very well be
identical.  In fact, the easiest way for the federal govt to do this would
be to enact a law that states that civil unions are equivilent to marriage
wrt all federal laws.  Of course this sounds like nonsense to those who
don't think that the values and traditions of a society deserve any
consideration.  I'm not advocating such a law as I haven't studied all of
the arguments and rationale behind every law related to marriage.

Personally I'd like to see a civil union that is different from marriage
that heterosexual couples could choose over marriage.  Divorce law has
destroyed the concept of marriage in many ways.  Even prenups can be
subverted by lawyers, judges, and the courts.  It's funny and maybe even
ironic that those who argue for gay marriage would inject the idea (in other
posts) that rejecting it is somehow analogeous to society's view on slavery
in the past.  Alimony is the closest thing to slavery (indentured servitude)
that "legitimately" exists in our society today.  In some, if not most cases
it's an extreme liberal view of entitlement that enslaves another
individual.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>     Read the constitution and its amendments, people.

You're expecting people to read and think for themselves?  If more people 
did that, we wouldn't have elected Bush.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Allan C Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> The problem is that there is a valid fear that once marriage is redefined to
> include same sex couples it will be considered discriminatory for them to
> refuse to perform them -- and the defense of "freedom of religion" will not
> suffice to defend their rights to refuse to perform them.

A friend of mine was going to marry someone from another religion and they
were going to have a dual ceremony (one for each religion.)  However they 
had a hard time finding someone willing to perform his half of the ceremony.  
The person they originally contacted refused, saying it was against his
beliefs to marry a mixed-faith couple.

Was this within his rights, or could my friend have made a civil rights 
issue out of this? (I doubt it, since it was the individual making the 
refusal - not "the church"?)

Would it have been any different had it been a mono-faith same-sex couple?

Church organizations have gotten upset at priests or ministers who have 
performed ceremonies for same-sex couples, even though such ceremonies 
were not recognized the state.  (so they were married in spirit, just not 
legally married.)

My understanding is that this would just allow same-sex couples to receive 
the same legal benefits as other married couples.  It does not, to the 
best of my knowledge, include things like saying priests/ministers/etc. 
*MUST* perform ceremonies for same-sex couples, nor does it even say they 
*MAY* perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.  After all, there aren't 
any state or federal laws about who can/cannot be named as a baby's 
godparent.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:

> I actually misread your previous post, but yes they could very well be
> identical.  In fact, the easiest way for the federal govt to do this would
> be to enact a law that states that civil unions are equivilent to marriage
> wrt all federal laws.  Of course this sounds like nonsense to those who
> don't think that the values and traditions of a society deserve any
> consideration.  I'm not advocating such a law as I haven't studied all of
> the arguments and rationale behind every law related to marriage.

Again, the way that the state sees marriage is very different than how the 
church - much less individuals - see marriage.  The state makes no such 
requirement that you must love, honor, and support your spouse.  It does 
say you each share legal responsibility for the other but that's about it.

> Personally I'd like to see a civil union that is different from marriage
> that heterosexual couples could choose over marriage.  Divorce law has
> destroyed the concept of marriage in many ways.  Even prenups can be
> subverted by lawyers, judges, and the courts.  It's funny and maybe even
> ironic that those who argue for gay marriage would inject the idea (in other
> posts) that rejecting it is somehow analogeous to society's view on slavery
> in the past.  Alimony is the closest thing to slavery (indentured servitude)
> that "legitimately" exists in our society today.  In some, if not most cases
> it's an extreme liberal view of entitlement that enslaves another
> individual.

A good point, though not quite on topic ;)  Those who would argue that 
same-sex couples being able to declare themselves "married" somehow 
damages, diminishes, or destroys the very fabric of society seem to be 
happy enough to ignore the rampant amounts of divorce and other 
shennanigans that our so-called leaders partake in - to say nothing of our 
entertainers (some of whom seem to be unable to make a commitment stick 
longer than 30 days...)

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10pa6nlbl9tcm11@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Michael Scott Brown
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >     <raises hand>
> >     Perhaps you could explain how examining the principles of the
> > Constitution, and concluding that restricting legal status for
relationships
> > based on sexual orientation *conflicts with the principles of equality
> > contained therin* is ... "activism"?
> >     The observation that a current practice violates the principles upon
> > which the country was founded (and, ostensibly, continues to value) is
not
> > "activism" - it's *tradition*!
>
> So... activism/liberalism is the tradition in the US.

    The point you appear to be failing to comprehend is that the thing
called activism *isn't*.

-Michael

FLY135 wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> 
> Personally I'd like to see a civil union that is different from marriage
> that heterosexual couples could choose over marriage.

Please be specific.  How do you think civil unions should differ from 
marriage?  Should same-sex couples be able to enter into these civil 
unions in addition to opposite-sex couples?

Josh Rosenbluth

"stePH" <acetheta@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2vk8luF2mjhjhU1@uni-berlin.de...
> tncoaster wrote:
>
> > ..and who the fuck wants to stay in a
> >>LOVELESS marriage these days?!
>
> Bill and Hillary Clinton, for two.
>

Unfortunatly a lot of people just aren't romantic or idealist
they are practical and realistic

*sigh* I believe so strongly in love and peace
but find it much more rewarding to set an example
rather that force my beliefs onto other people

- D
*listening to John Lennon, once again*

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41957CF8.2070907@gotcha.comcast.net...
> FLY135 wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Personally I'd like to see a civil union that is different from marriage
> > that heterosexual couples could choose over marriage.
>
> Please be specific.  How do you think civil unions should differ from
> marriage?  Should same-sex couples be able to enter into these civil
> unions in addition to opposite-sex couples?

They should differ in the sense that they are a contract between
individuals.  Marriage is not that.  Marriage law promotes creating unfair
divisions and burdens on individuals when the marriage fails.  In my state
divorces are "no fault" and the decisions about what should happen when the
marriage "contract" is to be disolved have little to do with each
individual's performance wrt meeting responsibilities.  I would prefer that
civil unions start with a clean slate that recognizes and even emphasizes
the importance of preparing a contract.for the union.  A civil union could
dispense with all the precedence in law that makes divorce a time bomb and
promotes welfare for lawyers.  A civil union should be for people who
"incidentally" may love each other, but more importantly want to join
togeather to take advantage of many of the laws regarding marriage.  It is
essentially a clean slate to examine what is important about marriage law
and what has been corrupted.

Of course all of this is not all that pertinant to the original issue, but
you asked.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10papnq11vejoda@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <fly_135(@ hot not
not)notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I actually misread your previous post, but yes they could very well be
> > identical.  In fact, the easiest way for the federal govt to do this
would
> > be to enact a law that states that civil unions are equivilent to
marriage
> > wrt all federal laws.  Of course this sounds like nonsense to those who
> > don't think that the values and traditions of a society deserve any
> > consideration.  I'm not advocating such a law as I haven't studied all
of
> > the arguments and rationale behind every law related to marriage.
>
> Again, the way that the state sees marriage is very different than how the
> church - much less individuals - see marriage.  The state makes no such
> requirement that you must love, honor, and support your spouse.  It does
> say you each share legal responsibility for the other but that's about it.

The I've been trying to make is that a civil union can give gays virtually
all the benefits of marriage without sanctioning the idea that it is
marriage.  This dispenses with argument that govt is redefining marriage to
be also between same sex partners.  Regardless of whether it's your opinion
that this is an example of backwards thinking, you have a marjority of
society that feels it's important.  If gays want to get married in the
church that still can.  And perhaps some time in the future society will
modify it's thinking.  The main point of contention is whether it's
discrimination and violates a constitutional right to ban marriage between
gays.  If a civil union has esentially the same benefits offered by marriage
then I don't think that claim could be made.

> > Personally I'd like to see a civil union that is different from marriage
> > that heterosexual couples could choose over marriage.  Divorce law has
> > destroyed the concept of marriage in many ways.  Even prenups can be
> > subverted by lawyers, judges, and the courts.  It's funny and maybe even
> > ironic that those who argue for gay marriage would inject the idea (in
other
> > posts) that rejecting it is somehow analogeous to society's view on
slavery
> > in the past.  Alimony is the closest thing to slavery (indentured
servitude)
> > that "legitimately" exists in our society today.  In some, if not most
cases
> > it's an extreme liberal view of entitlement that enslaves another
> > individual.
>
> A good point, though not quite on topic ;)  Those who would argue that
> same-sex couples being able to declare themselves "married" somehow
> damages, diminishes, or destroys the very fabric of society seem to be
> happy enough to ignore the rampant amounts of divorce and other

Embellishment of an argument is not exclusive to any one side.  I would say
that the problem is judges proclaim that gays have a constitutional right
that society overwhelmingly objects to.  And perhaps the point is that gays
do have a constitutional right to laws formulated to benefit marriage, but
the solution is to provide them with those rights through civil union
without forcing a govt imposed redefinition of something that has
significance in religion and culture.

> shennanigans that our so-called leaders partake in - to say nothing of our
> entertainers (some of whom seem to be unable to make a commitment stick
> longer than 30 days...)

I think that arguing the point that many people abuse marriage, so therefore
we should abandon trying to believe it has meaningful significance is not
the right angle.

In article <qO4ld.46784$SW3.17304@fed1read01>, thoth@notlisted.net 
says...
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
> news:gu0ld.31580$Z7.1157434@news20.bellglobal.com...
> <snip>
> > To say this in smaller words: what constitutes marriage has always been a
> > societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
> > should be determined by society, not a judge.
> 
> Imagine you are a supreme court justice and your highest law proclaims:  No 
> state shall make or enforce any law which denies to any person within its 
> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Now imagine you have to review a state statute that indicates:  The state 
> bestowed benefits of marriage are only available when a man and woman form a 
> legal union of marriage, and shall not be available to a union between 
> people the same gender.
> 
> In the example above the state grants marriage benefits based on the gender 
> of the person.  If you are *not* an activist judge how do you rule? 

I reject the argument that marriage benefits are granted based on the 
gender of the person - clearly they are granted based, instead, on a 
legal union of marriage.  

Nobofy is being denied the right to marriage based on their gender.  
Some people may have preferences that make marriage with the 
conventional number or gender of persons unattractive, but there is no 
fundamental requirement to cater for all preferences.

- Gerry Quinn

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message 
news:MPG.1c002180c880ec60989aee@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <qO4ld.46784$SW3.17304@fed1read01>, thoth@notlisted.net
> says...
>> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> news:gu0ld.31580$Z7.1157434@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> <snip>
>> > To say this in smaller words: what constitutes marriage has always been 
>> > a
>> > societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
>> > should be determined by society, not a judge.
>>
>> Imagine you are a supreme court justice and your highest law proclaims: 
>> No
>> state shall make or enforce any law which denies to any person within its
>> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>>
>> Now imagine you have to review a state statute that indicates:  The state
>> bestowed benefits of marriage are only available when a man and woman 
>> form a
>> legal union of marriage, and shall not be available to a union between
>> people the same gender.
>>
>> In the example above the state grants marriage benefits based on the 
>> gender
>> of the person.  If you are *not* an activist judge how do you rule?
>
> I reject the argument that marriage benefits are granted based on the
> gender of the person - clearly they are granted based, instead, on a
> legal union of marriage.
>
> Nobofy is being denied the right to marriage based on their gender.
> Some people may have preferences that make marriage with the
> conventional number or gender of persons unattractive, but there is no
> fundamental requirement to cater for all preferences.

The hypothetical above was not an argument.  It was intended to be an 
illustration of why it is a mistake to blame the judiciary for refusing to 
enforce limitations on the gender of a spouse.  Second, in almost every 
state in the union people are denied a license to marry simply because the 
gender of their prospective spouse does not conform to the state law (I 
cannot understand your denial of this fact).  The issue is not whether there 
is a constitutional or "fundamental requirement to cater to all 
preferences."  The issue is whether a court's refusal to enforce a ban on 
same gender marriages can be considered "activism" considering the equal 
protection clause and it's accompanying case law.  I obviously don't think 
it can, but my mind is open so I posted the hypothetical and asked the 
question. 

"FLY135" <FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message 
news:%Zgld.14559$Gm6.4644@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> They should differ in the sense that they are a contract between
> individuals.  Marriage is not that.  Marriage law promotes creating unfair
> divisions and burdens on individuals when the marriage fails.

Just a thought:  Same gender spouses can enter into a prenuptual agreement 
that contracts around state family law regulation of property division on 
dissolution, so to some extent what you suggest is already available for 
same-sex couples.

Thoth wrote:
> "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.1c002180c880ec60989aee@news.indigo.ie...
> 
>>In article <qO4ld.46784$SW3.17304@fed1read01>, thoth@notlisted.net
>>says...
>>
>>>"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:gu0ld.31580$Z7.1157434@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>To say this in smaller words: what constitutes marriage has always been 
>>>>a
>>>>societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
>>>>should be determined by society, not a judge.
>>>
>>>Imagine you are a supreme court justice and your highest law proclaims: 
>>>No
>>>state shall make or enforce any law which denies to any person within its
>>>jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>>>
>>>Now imagine you have to review a state statute that indicates:  The state
>>>bestowed benefits of marriage are only available when a man and woman 
>>>form a
>>>legal union of marriage, and shall not be available to a union between
>>>people the same gender.
>>>
>>>In the example above the state grants marriage benefits based on the 
>>>gender
>>>of the person.  If you are *not* an activist judge how do you rule?
>>
>>I reject the argument that marriage benefits are granted based on the
>>gender of the person - clearly they are granted based, instead, on a
>>legal union of marriage.
>>
>>Nobofy is being denied the right to marriage based on their gender.
>>Some people may have preferences that make marriage with the
>>conventional number or gender of persons unattractive, but there is no
>>fundamental requirement to cater for all preferences.
> 
> The hypothetical above was not an argument.  It was intended to be an 
> illustration of why it is a mistake to blame the judiciary for refusing to 
> enforce limitations on the gender of a spouse.  Second, in almost every 
> state in the union people are denied a license to marry simply because the 
> gender of their prospective spouse does not conform to the state law (I 
> cannot understand your denial of this fact).  The issue is not whether there 
> is a constitutional or "fundamental requirement to cater to all 
> preferences."  The issue is whether a court's refusal to enforce a ban on 
> same gender marriages can be considered "activism" considering the equal 
> protection clause and it's accompanying case law.  I obviously don't think 
> it can, but my mind is open so I posted the hypothetical and asked the 
> question.

The original poster said "what constitutes marriage has always been a 
societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples 
should be determined by society, not a judge."  That logic, leading to 
the conclusion that judges should always butt out, cannot possibly be 
correct.  The de-facto definition of marriage in the USA used to be 
same-race only.  Judges invalidated that definition as a violation of 
Equal Protection, and I suppose we can all agree that was the correct 
decision.  Thus, your argument that Equal Protection sometimes trumps 
societal definition holds.  But, does Equal Protection trump societal 
definition in the present case?

You claim it might because denial of same-sex marriage is gender 
discrimination.  Although denial of same-sex marriage differentiates on 
the basis of gender, it is not gender discrimination because such 
discrimination requires that one gender be favored over the other.  On 
the other hand, denial of same-sex marriage is sexual orientation 
discrimination because straights are favored over gays.

So the issue becomes is it judicial activism to change the societal 
definition of marriage when that definition discriminates against gays? 
  Do gays have any Equal Protection rights and how strong are those 
rights?  The current answers are "yes" and "somewhat weak" per Romer v. 
Evans.  So, the final answer is not at all clear.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:419626E7.4040303@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Thoth wrote:
>
> The original poster said "what constitutes marriage has always been a 
> societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples 
> should be determined by society, not a judge."  That logic, leading to the 
> conclusion that judges should always butt out, cannot possibly be correct. 
> The de-facto definition of marriage in the USA used to be same-race only. 
> Judges invalidated that definition as a violation of Equal Protection, and 
> I suppose we can all agree that was the correct decision.  Thus, your 
> argument that Equal Protection sometimes trumps societal definition holds. 
> But, does Equal Protection trump societal definition in the present case?

The question of whether one trumps the other is an easy one.  The answer 
lies in the hierarchy of the rules.  Equal protection is a constitutional 
rule.  Marriage is regulated by state statute.  Constitutional rules 
necessarily prevail over statutory rules.  It cannot be judicial activism to 
follow the rules, can it?

> You claim it might because denial of same-sex marriage is gender 
> discrimination.  Although denial of same-sex marriage differentiates on 
> the basis of gender, it is not gender discrimination because such 
> discrimination requires that one gender be favored over the other.  On the 
> other hand, denial of same-sex marriage is sexual orientation 
> discrimination because straights are favored over gays.

Differentiate not discriminate sounds like "separate but equal."  But I'd 
rather not go back to Plessy v. Ferguson rational for equal protection 
review.  I think it's clear that a statute that says a marriage is between a 
man and a woman necessarily differentiates or disciminates between that 
combination and the only other possible combination that currently makes a 
constitutional difference.  For the issue to be sexual orientation the 
statute would have to only permit marriage between hetrosexual couples. 
Then same gender marriages could take place so long as the couple was 
straight.  <g>

> So the issue becomes is it judicial activism to change the societal 
> definition of marriage when that definition discriminates against gays? Do 
> gays have any Equal Protection rights and how strong are those rights? 
> The current answers are "yes" and "somewhat weak" per Romer v. Evans.  So, 
> the final answer is not at all clear.

We're not using the same terms.  You appear to use "societal definition" 
like it is some distinct entity that has authority that transcends the 
statutory basis of every marriage law.  I simply don't think it's judicial 
activism to strike a marriage statute when it conflicts with constitutional 
protections. If society doesn't like it can amend the constitution. 

"Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote in message
news:8Crld.48513$SW3.22015@fed1read01...
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> We're not using the same terms.  You appear to use "societal definition"
> like it is some distinct entity that has authority that transcends the
> statutory basis of every marriage law.  I simply don't think it's judicial
> activism to strike a marriage statute when it conflicts with
constitutional
> protections. If society doesn't like it can amend the constitution.

    Hence, Bush's flag-waving on the matter. However, an amendment banning
marriage or its legal equivalent to homosexuals would *also* have to rewrite
the equal protection rules in order to not conflict with the extant
constitutional regulations (or leave them an explicit
just-like-marriage-but-with-a-different-name establishment)... I wonder when
the Bushies are going to point out that part of their "christian" quest?
He's actually committed to either denying them marriage while giving them
marriage (that's a waste of capital) or to STRIKING DOWN THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSES OF OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION!

    Suddenly "saving marriage" from "attack" by people who ... want to get
married ... becomes a lot more nonsensical.

-Michael

Thoth wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:419626E7.4040303@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Thoth wrote:
>>
>>The original poster said "what constitutes marriage has always been a 
>>societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples 
>>should be determined by society, not a judge."  That logic, leading to the 
>>conclusion that judges should always butt out, cannot possibly be correct. 
>>The de-facto definition of marriage in the USA used to be same-race only. 
>>Judges invalidated that definition as a violation of Equal Protection, and 
>>I suppose we can all agree that was the correct decision.  Thus, your 
>>argument that Equal Protection sometimes trumps societal definition holds. 
>>But, does Equal Protection trump societal definition in the present case?
> 
> The question of whether one trumps the other is an easy one.  The answer 
> lies in the hierarchy of the rules.  Equal protection is a constitutional 
> rule.  Marriage is regulated by state statute.  Constitutional rules 
> necessarily prevail over statutory rules.  It cannot be judicial activism to 
> follow the rules, can it?

Of course not.  But, the definition of Equal Protection is anything but 
clear.  Thus, the rules are anything but clear.

>>You claim it might because denial of same-sex marriage is gender 
>>discrimination.  Although denial of same-sex marriage differentiates on 
>>the basis of gender, it is not gender discrimination because such 
>>discrimination requires that one gender be favored over the other.  On the 
>>other hand, denial of same-sex marriage is sexual orientation 
>>discrimination because straights are favored over gays.
> 
> Differentiate not discriminate sounds like "separate but equal."  But I'd 
> rather not go back to Plessy v. Ferguson rational for equal protection 
> review.  I think it's clear that a statute that says a marriage is between a 
> man and a woman necessarily differentiates or disciminates between that 
> combination and the only other possible combination that currently makes a 
> constitutional difference.  For the issue to be sexual orientation the 
> statute would have to only permit marriage between hetrosexual couples. 
> Then same gender marriages could take place so long as the couple was 
> straight.  <g>

In law, discrimination has a different definition (having nothing to do 
with "separate but equal") than the common usage which equates 
differentiation and discrimination.  Class-based discrimination requires 
that one sub-class within the class is favored over another.  That 
determination is made independent of how (or even if) the law 
differentiates.

Current marriage laws do not favor one gender over the other, and 
therefore cannot be gender discrimination.  Also consider the example of 
the Texas sodomy law which criminalized same-sex sodomy, but not 
opposite-sex sodomy.  By your argument, that is gender discrimination. 
But, The Court in a concurring opinion found it to be sexual orientation 
discrimination because gays in overwhelmingly disproportionate numbers 
practice same-sex sodomy.

>>So the issue becomes is it judicial activism to change the societal 
>>definition of marriage when that definition discriminates against gays? Do 
>>gays have any Equal Protection rights and how strong are those rights? 
>>The current answers are "yes" and "somewhat weak" per Romer v. Evans.  So, 
>>the final answer is not at all clear.
> 
> We're not using the same terms.  You appear to use "societal definition" 
> like it is some distinct entity that has authority that transcends the 
> statutory basis of every marriage law.I simply don't think it's judicial 
> activism to strike a marriage statute when it conflicts with constitutional 
> protections.

As above, the problem is what constitutes constitutional protections is 
not at all clear.  If case law suggests those protections are relatively 
weak (as is the case for gays), then some may argue a judge should yield 
to societal norms (which is not a distinct entity) rather than making 
the protections stronger than they have been.  Others may argue that a 
judge has a duty to strengthen the protections.

Josh Rosenbluth

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> 
>     Hence, Bush's flag-waving on the matter. However, an amendment banning
> marriage or its legal equivalent to homosexuals would *also* have to rewrite
> the equal protection rules in order to not conflict with the extant
> constitutional regulations (or leave them an explicit
> just-like-marriage-but-with-a-different-name establishment)... I wonder when
> the Bushies are going to point out that part of their "christian" quest?
> He's actually committed to either denying them marriage while giving them
> marriage (that's a waste of capital) or to STRIKING DOWN THE EQUAL
> PROTECTION CLAUSES OF OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION!

The Federal Marriage Amendment would not strike down the Equal 
Protection clause.  It would make that clause inapplicable to any 
marriage case not involving one man and one woman.  Marriage cases 
involving one man and one woman, and all other non-marriage cases, would 
still be subject to Equal Protection as before.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41965757.1070706@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > He's actually committed to either denying them marriage while giving
them
> > marriage (that's a waste of capital) or to STRIKING DOWN THE EQUAL
> > PROTECTION CLAUSES OF OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION!
>
> The Federal Marriage Amendment would not strike down the Equal
> Protection clause.  It would make that clause inapplicable to any
> marriage case not involving one man and one woman.

    Ie; striking it down.  *Moron*.

-Michael

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:41965757.1070706@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>>>He's actually committed to either denying them marriage while giving
>>
> them
> 
>>>marriage (that's a waste of capital) or to STRIKING DOWN THE EQUAL
>>>PROTECTION CLAUSES OF OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION!
>>
>>The Federal Marriage Amendment would not strike down the Equal
>>Protection clause.  It would make that clause inapplicable to any
>>marriage case not involving one man and one woman.
> 
>     Ie; striking it down.

No.  Adding back what you snipped:  "Marriage cases involving one man 
and one woman, and all other non-marriage cases, would still be subject 
to Equal Protection as before."

Josh Rosenbluth

In article <sksld.9953$_J2.9506@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, 
mistermichael@earthlink.net says...
>
>     Hence, Bush's flag-waving on the matter. However, an amendment banning
> marriage or its legal equivalent to homosexuals would *also* have to rewrite
> the equal protection rules in order to not conflict with the extant
> constitutional regulations 

Quite right.  That is why an amendment banning homosexuals from getting 
married is most unlikely.

- Gerry Quinn

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4196B4E7.4020203@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

> >>The Federal Marriage Amendment would not strike down the Equal
> >>Protection clause.  It would make that clause inapplicable to any
> >>marriage case not involving one man and one woman.
> >
> >     Ie; striking it down.
>
> No.  Adding back what you snipped:  "Marriage cases involving one man
> and one woman, and all other non-marriage cases, would still be subject
> to Equal Protection as before."

    *IE; STRIKING IT DOWN*.

    Fucking.
    Moron.

-Michael

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c014adbc0811c86989af4@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <sksld.9953$_J2.9506@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> mistermichael@earthlink.net says...
> >
> >     Hence, Bush's flag-waving on the matter. However, an amendment
banning
> > marriage or its legal equivalent to homosexuals would *also* have to
rewrite
> > the equal protection rules in order to not conflict with the extant
> > constitutional regulations
>
> Quite right.  That is why an amendment banning homosexuals from getting
> married is most unlikely.

    I look forward to the christian's attempt.  This can't occur without
rather a lot of discourse on the matter, and nothing shows up a bigoted
fuckwit like the light of day.  By the end of the navel gazing session and
the resurrection of love for our founding principles of equality, the
country will be rushing to see which state can make gay marriages the *most*
legal, first!  America's historic trend has been to recognize the fellow
humanity of more and more of its oppressed minorities; slaves, women, people
of colour ...now homosexuals are demanding to be part of society, and it's
an argument they can't lose.  All the "moral" mongers have to offer is "god
hates gays" - but all we need is one homosexual religion that glorifies them
and suddenly there is a theological impasse!

    Be careful what you wish for, Bushies!

-Michael

"Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote in message
news:qO4ld.46784$SW3.17304@fed1read01...
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:gu0ld.31580$Z7.1157434@news20.bellglobal.com...
> <snip>
> > To say this in smaller words: what constitutes marriage has always been
a
> > societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
> > should be determined by society, not a judge.
>
> Imagine you are a supreme court justice and your highest law proclaims:
No
> state shall make or enforce any law which denies to any person within its
> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>
> Now imagine you have to review a state statute that indicates:  The state
> bestowed benefits of marriage are only available when a man and woman form
a
> legal union of marriage, and shall not be available to a union between
> people the same gender.
>
> In the example above the state grants marriage benefits based on the
gender
> of the person.  If you are *not* an activist judge how do you rule?

This is a FAR more complicated issue than you are making it out to be, but
if you had actually read what you quoted you could probably have figured out
what my response would be:

What is legally recognized as marriage is nothing more than a recognition of
a social convention that the government recognizes for some perceived
benefit.  As such, while there is nothing stopping a jurisdiction from also
recognizing same sex unions, a jurisdiction is not BOUND to recognize such
same sex unions unless not recognizing that is inconsistent with the social
convention.  Moreover, a jurisdiction may -- without violating equal
protection -- refuse to recognize same sex unions even if it would be
inconsistent with the social convention if they can show that none of the
benefits for which they choose to recognize marriage are possible in that
situation.

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Cp6ld.13175$Gm6.7642@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:gu0ld.31580$Z7.1157434@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >     Perhaps you could explain how examining the principles of the
> > > Constitution, and concluding that restricting legal status for
> relationships
> > > based on sexual orientation *conflicts with the principles of equality
> > > contained therin* is ... "activism"?
> >
> > Because what is legally recognized as marriage is nothing more -- and
> never
> > was anything more -- than a legalization of a societal definition
because
> of
> > a desire to promote a specific perceived benefit to society from the
> > encouragement of that societal institution.  As such, it isn't the place
> for
> > a set of judges to determine what that societal definition should be,
but
> > for the society to determine what that definition should be.
>
>     You are missing the point.  The same society with its "societal
> definition of marriage" built into its constitutions ALSO has a "societal
> definition of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW" built into them which demands that
> the government not discriminate.  Expanding the institution of marriage
does
> not conflict with extant (constitutional) laws.  *Denying* it to
consenting
> (homosexual) adults, however, *blatantly* violates the provisions against
> equality that are considered supremely important.

No, you are missing the point.  Yes, it is indeed true that the US, in its
constitution, forbids discrimination.  The problem is not with that.  The
problem is that the courts have to decide "Is denying marriage to same sex
couples discrimination or not?"  This decision is not as simple as simply
saying "These people are treated differently as a class."  For example, it
is perfectly acceptable and legal for an airline to say "No blind person may
apply to be a pilot", because there is a very good reason for them to do so,
and so the fact that they treat a recognizable class differently does not
make it discrimination.

In this case, the judges are overstepping their bounds by insisting that
same sex marriages must be recognized because the definiton of marriage
SHOULD include such reasons.  But the definition of marriage is a social
convention, and so what is a part of that definition should be determined by
society.  So all the judges could do is examine the definition as it is
currently defined in convention, and determine whether or not same sex
marriages meet that standard or not.  And they do not -- whether that is
right or wrong.  So a judge could NOT determine that this is discrimination,
and so their attempts to do so are overstepping their bounds.

Note that you can oppose this by arguing that marriage -- at least legally
recognized marriage -- ISN'T just a matter of societal definition.  But that
isn't what they and you are arguing.

>
>     Society has, by expressly invoking antidiscrimination principles in
its
> social charter, *already decided* how gay marriages should be treated, if
it
> is to apply them self-consistently, just as it once realized belatedly
that
> interracial marriages must be legal as well.

Well, here's the difference in that case (whether or not that was the actual
argument at the time):

People of the same race were considered to meet the definition of marriage,
since they could marry each other.  Once people of the same races were
considered -- in the mind of society -- to be of the same species (ie all
humans/persons), then interracial couples met the definition of "a man and a
woman" as per the traditional and societal definition.  And so those who
opposed interracial marriages were not doing what is being done here and
insisting that the marriages wouldn't be marriages, but were insisting that
THOSE two people shouldn't get married.  And since those marriages WERE
consistent with the societal convention, the onus was on the opposition to
such unions to either change the social convention or show why such unions
didn't provide a benefit to the government.  And since they couldn't,
interracial marriages had to be recognized.

The difference here is that for same sex unions, there is a decent argument
to say that, by social convention, those things aren't marriages.  And note
that if they still considered the races as separate species, interracial
marriages could have been banned without any issues of equal protection.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10pap7md7gtpk79@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Allan C Cybulskie
<allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that there is a valid fear that once marriage is
redefined to
> > include same sex couples it will be considered discriminatory for them
to
> > refuse to perform them -- and the defense of "freedom of religion" will
not
> > suffice to defend their rights to refuse to perform them.
>
> A friend of mine was going to marry someone from another religion and they
> were going to have a dual ceremony (one for each religion.)  However they
> had a hard time finding someone willing to perform his half of the
ceremony.
> The person they originally contacted refused, saying it was against his
> beliefs to marry a mixed-faith couple.
>
> Was this within his rights, or could my friend have made a civil rights
> issue out of this? (I doubt it, since it was the individual making the
> refusal - not "the church"?)

I doubt it would have succeeded, since this was a "freedom of religion
versus freedom of religion" issue.

Since marriage is not really a right, there isn't really a case here.  In my
opinion.  However, your friend almost certainly COULD have taken it to court
and if he hit the right judge might even have won.

>
> Would it have been any different had it been a mono-faith same-sex couple?
>
> Church organizations have gotten upset at priests or ministers who have
> performed ceremonies for same-sex couples, even though such ceremonies
> were not recognized the state.  (so they were married in spirit, just not
> legally married.)
>
> My understanding is that this would just allow same-sex couples to receive
> the same legal benefits as other married couples.  It does not, to the
> best of my knowledge, include things like saying priests/ministers/etc.
> *MUST* perform ceremonies for same-sex couples, nor does it even say they
> *MAY* perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.  After all, there aren't
> any state or federal laws about who can/cannot be named as a baby's
> godparent.

The fear is that -- for the most part -- freedom of religion has not faired
that well when placed up against the favoured social causes du jour.  So if
a same sex couple said that they had to perform a marriage ceremony for them
because marriage is defined to include same sex unions, many Christians are
not convinced that the court would in fact make the correct decision and
insist that their freedom of religion allows them to refuse to grant such a
marriage.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419626E7.4040303@gotcha.comcast.net...
> The original poster said "what constitutes marriage has always been a
> societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
> should be determined by society, not a judge."  That logic, leading to
> the conclusion that judges should always butt out, cannot possibly be
> correct.  The de-facto definition of marriage in the USA used to be
> same-race only.  Judges invalidated that definition as a violation of
> Equal Protection, and I suppose we can all agree that was the correct
> decision.  Thus, your argument that Equal Protection sometimes trumps
> societal definition holds.  But, does Equal Protection trump societal
> definition in the present case?

Well, first, I only claimed that it did in the case of marriage -- which is
nothing more than societal definition -- and in recent post I pointed out
that the reason that that was the correct decision was that by the societial
definition such marriages should have been recognized, and so the argument
in that case was not "That isn't marriage!" but "We don't want those people
getting married!", whereas in this case the argument really and justifiably
is "That isn't marriage!".

Note that by that argument (in the other post) the society could recognize
it because they thought there was a reason to or something they wanted to
promote, which certainly applies to interracial marriages as well.

> So the issue becomes is it judicial activism to change the societal
> definition of marriage when that definition discriminates against gays?

The issue really is "does the societal definition of marriage actually
discriminate (in a legally actionable way) against gays?"  And my answer is
since that's just a societal definition, it cannot discriminate in that way.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4196B4E7.4020203@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> 
>>>>The Federal Marriage Amendment would not strike down the Equal
>>>>Protection clause.  It would make that clause inapplicable to any
>>>>marriage case not involving one man and one woman.
>>>
>>>    Ie; striking it down.
>>
>>No.  Adding back what you snipped:  "Marriage cases involving one man
>>and one woman, and all other non-marriage cases, would still be subject
>>to Equal Protection as before."
> 
>     *IE; STRIKING IT DOWN*.

"Striking it [the Equal Protection clause] down" means to *completely* 
expunge, eliminate or cancel the Equal Protection Clause.  The Federal 
Marriage Amendment would leave the Equal Protection clause almost 
entirely intact.

Josh Rosenbluth

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>
> Moreover, a jurisdiction may -- without violating equal
> protection -- refuse to recognize same sex unions even if it would be
> inconsistent with the social convention if they can show that none of the
> benefits for which they choose to recognize marriage are possible in that
> situation.

Why do jurisdictions recognize marriage?  Do same-sex marriages fit 
inside or outside those reasons?

Josh Rosenbluth

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:419626E7.4040303@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>The original poster said "what constitutes marriage has always been a
>>societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
>>should be determined by society, not a judge."  That logic, leading to
>>the conclusion that judges should always butt out, cannot possibly be
>>correct.  The de-facto definition of marriage in the USA used to be
>>same-race only.  Judges invalidated that definition as a violation of
>>Equal Protection, and I suppose we can all agree that was the correct
>>decision.  Thus, your argument that Equal Protection sometimes trumps
>>societal definition holds.  But, does Equal Protection trump societal
>>definition in the present case?
> 
> Well, first, I only claimed that it did in the case of marriage -- which is
> nothing more than societal definition -- and in recent post I pointed out
> that the reason that that was the correct decision was that by the societial
> definition such marriages should have been recognized, and so the argument
> in that case was not "That isn't marriage!" but "We don't want those people
> getting married!", whereas in this case the argument really and justifiably
> is "That isn't marriage!".

You conclude that the societal definition of marriage includes 
inter-racial couples but excludes same-sex couples even though in both 
cases society bans both types of marriages.  That strikes me as the 
conclusion of an "activist judge" who wants to mandate his desired outcome.

>>So the issue becomes is it judicial activism to change the societal
>>definition of marriage when that definition discriminates against gays?
> 
> The issue really is "does the societal definition of marriage actually
> discriminate (in a legally actionable way) against gays?"  And my answer is
> since that's just a societal definition, it cannot discriminate in that way.

Which means the mere existence of a societal definition becomes a 
full-proof shield to the Equal Protection clause.  And as above, whether 
that definition is a true or faux definition is left in the hands of 
activist judges.

How about this alternative line of reasoning:  1) the state provides the 
reasons for civil marriage, 2) the courts determine if the current 
law/definition is consistent with those reasons, 3) if so go to step 5, 
4) if not, the state must modify the reasons until they are consistent 
with the current law/definition, and 5) does same-sex marriage fit 
inside or outside the reasons.  If the answer to step 5 is "inside", 
then the current definition violates Equal Protection.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41976937.5000104@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, a jurisdiction may -- without violating equal
> > protection -- refuse to recognize same sex unions even if it would be
> > inconsistent with the social convention if they can show that none of
the
> > benefits for which they choose to recognize marriage are possible in
that
> > situation.
>
> Why do jurisdictions recognize marriage?  Do same-sex marriages fit
> inside or outside those reasons?

That, of course, is the question.  But since this isn't obvious this should
be decided by the jurisdictions (and, in fact, MUST be decided by the
jurisdictions) and not a court of law.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419772CD.9030406@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:419626E7.4040303@gotcha.comcast.net...
> >
> >>The original poster said "what constitutes marriage has always been a
> >>societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
> >>should be determined by society, not a judge."  That logic, leading to
> >>the conclusion that judges should always butt out, cannot possibly be
> >>correct.  The de-facto definition of marriage in the USA used to be
> >>same-race only.  Judges invalidated that definition as a violation of
> >>Equal Protection, and I suppose we can all agree that was the correct
> >>decision.  Thus, your argument that Equal Protection sometimes trumps
> >>societal definition holds.  But, does Equal Protection trump societal
> >>definition in the present case?
> >
> > Well, first, I only claimed that it did in the case of marriage -- which
is
> > nothing more than societal definition -- and in recent post I pointed
out
> > that the reason that that was the correct decision was that by the
societial
> > definition such marriages should have been recognized, and so the
argument
> > in that case was not "That isn't marriage!" but "We don't want those
people
> > getting married!", whereas in this case the argument really and
justifiably
> > is "That isn't marriage!".
>
> You conclude that the societal definition of marriage includes
> inter-racial couples but excludes same-sex couples even though in both
> cases society bans both types of marriages.  That strikes me as the
> conclusion of an "activist judge" who wants to mandate his desired
outcome.

You might have wanted to reference the previous post that described this in
detail before going on this rant.

In brief, here it is again:

Traditionally, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman
(implication being of the same species).  Once it was decided that members
of different races were a) men and women and b) of the same species, and
since it was clear that members of the same race were able to legally
participate in marriage the traditional definition of marriage included
them, since it never in fact said that members of different races were
excluded, nor defined that they had to be of the same race, tribe, whatever.
Therefore, those who wanted to ban such marriages had to either ensure that
the societal definition excluded different races or show that the reasons
marriage is legally recognized did not apply to those unions.  Since they
couldn't, it was a justifiable conclusion.  Now, note that if society had
considered different races different species, then that reasoning would not
apply and the judge would not be able to make such a decision.

>
> >>So the issue becomes is it judicial activism to change the societal
> >>definition of marriage when that definition discriminates against gays?
> >
> > The issue really is "does the societal definition of marriage actually
> > discriminate (in a legally actionable way) against gays?"  And my answer
is
> > since that's just a societal definition, it cannot discriminate in that
way.
>
> Which means the mere existence of a societal definition becomes a
> full-proof shield to the Equal Protection clause.

No.  Only if the legal recognition is of nothing more than a societal
definition, which I believe is the case in marriage.  For example, jobs and
accomodations are not legally recognized as a matter of recognizing a
societal definition.

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:41976937.5000104@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>
>>Why do jurisdictions recognize marriage?  Do same-sex marriages fit
>>inside or outside those reasons?
> 
> That, of course, is the question.  But since this isn't obvious this should
> be decided by the jurisdictions (and, in fact, MUST be decided by the
> jurisdictions) and not a court of law.

Jurisdictions have the right to decide the underlying reasons for 
recognizing marriage.  But once they decide those reasons, it is the 
role of the judiciary to determine if the jurisdictions are improperly 
excluding classes of people given those reasons.

So, again I ask:  why do jurisdictions recognize marriage?  Once we 
answer that, then we can determine if these jurisdictions are improperly 
excluding same-sex couples.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote in message
news:Kjpld.48493$SW3.44104@fed1read01...
> "FLY135" <FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Zgld.14559$Gm6.4644@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > They should differ in the sense that they are a contract between
> > individuals.  Marriage is not that.  Marriage law promotes creating
unfair
> > divisions and burdens on individuals when the marriage fails.
>
> Just a thought:  Same gender spouses can enter into a prenuptual agreement
> that contracts around state family law regulation of property division on
> dissolution, so to some extent what you suggest is already available for
> same-sex couples.

I can't speak for gays as to what's most important for them but I would
suspect that medical insurance for family members and tax breaks for married
couples rank highly.  As you pointed out most other issues can be handled
through legal agreements, power of attorney, etc.

Allowing same sex couples to benefit from married IRS tax status is an
important issue.  Rather than presuming that same sex couples are being
decriminated against wrt this issue, I would submit that single and head of
household filers are suffering the same discrimination.  It would surely
call into review the purpose of married tax breaks.  I'm guessing that the
original idea was to give a montary advantage to those who fit the mold of
society's idea that a working spouse and a stay at home spouse that took
care of the children was the proper family unit.  Of course families that
don't fit that norm are as much the rule as those who do.

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:419772CD.9030406@gotcha.comcast.net...
>>
>>You conclude that the societal definition of marriage includes
>>inter-racial couples but excludes same-sex couples even though in both
>>cases society bans both types of marriages.  That strikes me as the
>>conclusion of an "activist judge" who wants to mandate his desired outcome.
> 
> Traditionally, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman
> (implication being of the same species).

In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man 
and a woman of the same race.

>>Which means the mere existence of a societal definition becomes a
>>full-proof shield to the Equal Protection clause.
> 
> No.  Only if the legal recognition is of nothing more than a societal
> definition, which I believe is the case in marriage.  For example, jobs and
> accomodations are not legally recognized as a matter of recognizing a
> societal definition.

You believe that same-sex marriage is exempt from Equal Protection 
review because it is shielded by a societal definition.  On the other 
hand, you believe that inter-racial marriage, as well as jobs and 
accommodations for either gays or blacks, are not exempt because no 
societal definition is implicated.

But how do we decide what is, or is not, a societal definition?  You 
stated societal definitions are based on tradition.  And as above IMO, 
tradition suggests there was a societal definition against inter-racial 
marriage (as well as for Jim Crow) which means they too should have been 
shielded from Equal Protection.  I think it is wrong to provide Equal 
Protection exemptions based on tradition.

I instead proposed an alternative approach which you did not comment on: 
  1) the state provides the reasons for civil marriage, 2) the courts 
determine if the current law/definition is consistent with those 
reasons, 3) if so go to step 5, 4) if not, the state must modify the 
reasons until they are consistent with the current law/definition, and 
5) does same-sex marriage fit inside or outside the reasons.  If the 
answer to step 5 is "inside", then the current definition violates Equal 
Protection.

Josh Rosenbluth

> > > >     Perhaps you could explain how examining the principles of the
> > > > Constitution, and concluding that restricting legal status for
> > relationships
> > > > based on sexual orientation *conflicts with the principles of
equality
> > > > contained therin* is ... "activism"?
> > >
> > > Because what is legally recognized as marriage is nothing more -- and
> > never
> > > was anything more -- than a legalization of a societal definition
> because
> > of
> > > a desire to promote a specific perceived benefit to society from the
> > > encouragement of that societal institution.  As such, it isn't the
place
> > for
> > > a set of judges to determine what that societal definition should be,
> but
> > > for the society to determine what that definition should be.
> >
> >     You are missing the point.  The same society with its "societal
> > definition of marriage" built into its constitutions ALSO has a
"societal
> > definition of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW" built into them which demands
that
> > the government not discriminate.  Expanding the institution of marriage
> does
> > not conflict with extant (constitutional) laws.  *Denying* it to
> consenting
> > (homosexual) adults, however, *blatantly* violates the provisions
against
> > equality that are considered supremely important.
>
> No, you are missing the point.  Yes, it is indeed true that the US, in its
> constitution, forbids discrimination.  The problem is not with that.  The
> problem is that the courts have to decide "Is denying marriage to same sex
> couples discrimination or not?"  This decision is not as simple as simply
> saying "These people are treated differently as a class."  For example, it
> is perfectly acceptable and legal for an airline to say "No blind person
may
> apply to be a pilot", because there is a very good reason for them to do
so,
> and so the fact that they treat a recognizable class differently does not
> make it discrimination.
>
> In this case, the judges are overstepping their bounds by insisting that
> same sex marriages must be recognized because the definiton of marriage
> SHOULD include such reasons.  But the definition of marriage is a social
> convention, and so what is a part of that definition should be determined
by
> society.  So all the judges could do is examine the definition as it is
> currently defined in convention, and determine whether or not same sex
> marriages meet that standard or not.  And they do not -- whether that is
> right or wrong.  So a judge could NOT determine that this is
discrimination,
> and so their attempts to do so are overstepping their bounds.
>

So are courts are ruled by "societal convention" and "societal definition"?
What happened to the rule of law? How do we protect minoroty rights? What
happens when "societal conventions' are split relatively equally and
incongruously, are there more than one "social convention"?

"Chuck" <nicklow_nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:wFNld.3811$G36.2010@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > In this case, the judges are overstepping their bounds by insisting that
> > same sex marriages must be recognized because the definiton of marriage
> > SHOULD include such reasons.  But the definition of marriage is a social
> > convention, and so what is a part of that definition should be
determined
> by
> > society.  So all the judges could do is examine the definition as it is
> > currently defined in convention, and determine whether or not same sex
> > marriages meet that standard or not.  And they do not -- whether that is
> > right or wrong.  So a judge could NOT determine that this is
> discrimination,
> > and so their attempts to do so are overstepping their bounds.
> >
>
> So are courts are ruled by "societal convention" and "societal
definition"?

When all the law is doing is codifying a social convention for some
perceived benefit, absolutely.  What else could it be?

Or do you have some problem with courts actually following the definitions
of things that are being encoded into law?

> What happened to the rule of law?

Yes, what happened to that?  Since in this case the law was defined as
codifying a social convention, rule of law would seem to preclude the courts
reinterpreting that law against what the convention says.

> How do we protect minoroty rights?

Marriage -- and legal recognition thereof -- is not a right.

> What
> happens when "societal conventions' are split relatively equally and
> incongruously, are there more than one "social convention"?

Then you ASK people to vote on what they want.  You know, kind of like
democracy?

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41979DBD.9030500@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:419772CD.9030406@gotcha.comcast.net...
> >>
> >>You conclude that the societal definition of marriage includes
> >>inter-racial couples but excludes same-sex couples even though in both
> >>cases society bans both types of marriages.  That strikes me as the
> >>conclusion of an "activist judge" who wants to mandate his desired
outcome.
> >
> > Traditionally, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman
> > (implication being of the same species).
>
> In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man
> and a woman of the same race.

Really?  And your evidence for that is?

Until the races were considered similar "species", there was no problem with
that, so I fail to see how that was ever commonly part of the definition.

>
> >>Which means the mere existence of a societal definition becomes a
> >>full-proof shield to the Equal Protection clause.
> >
> > No.  Only if the legal recognition is of nothing more than a societal
> > definition, which I believe is the case in marriage.  For example, jobs
and
> > accomodations are not legally recognized as a matter of recognizing a
> > societal definition.
>
> You believe that same-sex marriage is exempt from Equal Protection
> review because it is shielded by a societal definition.

Because marriage is nothing more THAN a societal definition.

> On the other
> hand, you believe that inter-racial marriage, as well as jobs and
> accommodations for either gays or blacks, are not exempt because no
> societal definition is implicated.

Actually, my comment on the interracial marriage was that it was always
consistent with the definition once races became recognized as the same
species in the mind of society.

>
> But how do we decide what is, or is not, a societal definition?

It's a case by case basis, but marriage seems pretty obviously to fit that
category ...

>  You
> stated societal definitions are based on tradition.  And as above IMO,
> tradition suggests there was a societal definition against inter-racial
> marriage (as well as for Jim Crow) which means they too should have been
> shielded from Equal Protection.  I think it is wrong to provide Equal
> Protection exemptions based on tradition.

If the definition of marriage really did exclude interracial marriages, then
it was a mistake for the courts to insist that it had to include it, in my
opinion, and as I have said.  I just believe that that was not the case, and
that the objections were always more of the "we don't want those two to get
married" than "that's not a marriage!".

>
> I instead proposed an alternative approach which you did not comment on:

Because it was pointless.  First, by this logic a civil union idea would
cover your equal protection fears (which isn't what is being asked for).
Second, it in no way addresses the social convention idea that I keep
raising.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41978825.5060506@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:41976937.5000104@gotcha.comcast.net...
> >
> >>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >>
> >>Why do jurisdictions recognize marriage?  Do same-sex marriages fit
> >>inside or outside those reasons?
> >
> > That, of course, is the question.  But since this isn't obvious this
should
> > be decided by the jurisdictions (and, in fact, MUST be decided by the
> > jurisdictions) and not a court of law.
>
> Jurisdictions have the right to decide the underlying reasons for
> recognizing marriage.  But once they decide those reasons, it is the
> role of the judiciary to determine if the jurisdictions are improperly
> excluding classes of people given those reasons.

Yes, once they write that into law then the courts get to decide on it.
Unfortunately, most jurisdictions have not, and will not, since it may
change over time as well.

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:MuOld.6064$Ho4.199979@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man
> > and a woman of the same race.
>
> Really?  And your evidence for that is?

    The part where interracial marriages were illegal until the middle of
the 20th century comes to mind.  It's hard for there to be simultaneously a
tradition of a thing, and the lynching of its practicioners.

-Michael

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:tmOld.5897$Ho4.195310@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > So are courts are ruled by "societal convention" and "societal
> definition"?
>
> When all the law is doing is codifying a social convention for some
> perceived benefit, absolutely.  What else could it be?

    You are making remarkably stupid statements in public, seeing as rather
a lot of the clever things about United States law involved *defying* social
convention in favor of greater conformity to oft-neglected core principles.

-Michael

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:41979DBD.9030500@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>
>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:419772CD.9030406@gotcha.comcast.net...
>>>
>>>Traditionally, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman
>>>(implication being of the same species).
>>
>>In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man
>>and a woman of the same race.
> 
> Really?  And your evidence for that is?

I am no historian on the subject, but I strongly suspect black-white 
marriages were close to non-existent, and most certainly taboo, even 
after the Civil War.  That is a de-facto definition buttressed by 
anti-miscegenation laws and repeated judicial decisions upholding those 
laws.

>> You
>>stated societal definitions are based on tradition.  And as above IMO,
>>tradition suggests there was a societal definition against inter-racial
>>marriage (as well as for Jim Crow) which means they too should have been
>>shielded from Equal Protection.  I think it is wrong to provide Equal
>>Protection exemptions based on tradition.
> 
> If the definition of marriage really did exclude interracial marriages, then
> it was a mistake for the courts to insist that it had to include it, in my
> opinion, and as I have said.  I just believe that that was not the case, and
> that the objections were always more of the "we don't want those two to get
> married" than "that's not a marriage!".

How do you know that?  How do you know the same thing doesn't apply for 
same-sex couples?  What are the objective criteria for determining what 
is a "societal definition" and what is not?

>>I instead proposed an alternative approach which you did not comment on:
> 
> Because it was pointless.  First, by this logic a civil union idea would
> cover your equal protection fears (which isn't what is being asked for).

I am not asking for anything.  I did not make a determination as to 
whether same-sex marriage or civil unions are required by Equal 
Protection.  I only put forth criteria which can be used to make that 
determination.

> Second, it in no way addresses the social convention idea that I keep
> raising.

Of course my approach is in conflict with your "social convention" 
theory because your theory appears to be nothing more than a blanket 
upholding of tradition.  The consequence of which would make 
anti-miscegenation and Jim Crow beyond the reach of Equal Protection.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:JtLld.1896$Ho4.97941@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Traditionally, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman

    No. Statements like that are just plain piss-ignorant.  Polygamy is an
enormous part of the tradition of marriage in world history - even in North
America (mormons).  Appeals to "tradition" as the basis for defining
marriage *today* also open the door to children getting married, marriage
against the bride's will, women as property, harems, setting women aside if
they don't breed sons, social/class restrictions on who would be permitted
to be married even *if* they were but one man and one woman, no possibility
of divorce, divorce with but twelve words by a man....  The "tradition" of
marriage is not a monolithic thing, inviolate throughout human history - it
is an institution that has ALWAYS changed with time and culture.

    You can't make a meaningful argument by appealing to "tradition" where
marriage is concerned, unless that argument is that the traditions of
marriage are constantly evolving.

    Here in the 21st century, a new class of people, long denied marriage by
the *bigoted* conventions of "moral" people, are standing up and demanding
that their relationships receive the same social status as those of
heterosexuals.  The "traditional" thing to do is to extend them that
privelege.

-Michael

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419768A4.8010300@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >>No.  Adding back what you snipped:  "Marriage cases involving one man
> >>and one woman, and all other non-marriage cases, would still be subject
> >>to Equal Protection as before."
> >
> >     *IE; STRIKING IT DOWN*.
>
> "Striking it [the Equal Protection clause] down" means to *completely*
> expunge, eliminate or cancel the Equal Protection Clause.  The Federal
> Marriage Amendment would leave the Equal Protection clause almost
> entirely intact.

    You don't seem to be grasping that cramming in *exceptions* to an
assertion that everyone deserves equal protection destroys the very idea.

-Michael

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:omJld.51$Ho4.37497@news20.bellglobal.com...
> No, you are missing the point.  Yes, it is indeed true that the US, in its
> constitution, forbids discrimination.  The problem is not with that.  The
> problem is that the courts have to decide "Is denying marriage to same sex
> couples discrimination or not?"  This decision is not as simple as simply
> saying "These people are treated differently as a class."  For example, it
> is perfectly acceptable and legal for an airline to say "No blind person
may
> apply to be a pilot", because there is a very good reason for them to do
so,
> and so the fact that they treat a recognizable class differently does not
> make it discrimination.

    I am quite amused at your decision to compare a BLIND PERSON OPERATING A
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MACHINE with two gay people in a committed monogamous
relationship wishing to receive the same recognition from governmental
apparatus as heterosexuals can.

> In this case, the judges are overstepping their bounds by insisting that
> same sex marriages must be recognized because the definiton of marriage
> SHOULD include such reasons.  But the definition of marriage is a social
> convention, and so what is a part of that definition should be determined
by
> society.

    You appear to be confusing *legal* recognition of marriage with *social*
recognition of marriage.  Please explain how the Catholic perspective on
divorce and annullment - a social convention maintained a a rather large
proportion of the nation's christians - should be PART OF THE GOVERNMENT
DEFINITION THAT APPLIES TO *EVERYONE*.   Once you get over that hump, the
right answer on homosexual marriage is a no-brainer.

> People of the same race were considered to meet the definition of
marriage,
> since they could marry each other.  Once people of the same races were
> considered -- in the mind of society -- to be of the same species (ie all
> humans/persons), then interracial couples met the definition of "a man and
a
> woman" as per the traditional and societal definition.  And so those who
> opposed interracial marriages were not doing what is being done here and
> insisting that the marriages wouldn't be marriages, but were insisting
that
> THOSE two people shouldn't get married.

    Oh, please.  Look at the arguments made on the matter, you ignorant
buffoon. They're the same as the ones against gay marriage.

> The difference here is that for same sex unions, there is a decent
argument
> to say that, by social convention, those things aren't marriages.

    You really need to learn about Catholicism some time. By "social
convention", a great many marriages aren't as it is.

-Michael

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:41978825.5060506@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>
>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:41976937.5000104@gotcha.comcast.net...
>>>
>>>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Why do jurisdictions recognize marriage?  Do same-sex marriages fit
>>>>inside or outside those reasons?
>>>
>>>That, of course, is the question.  But since this isn't obvious this
>>> should be decided by the jurisdictions (and, in fact, MUST be decided by the
>>>jurisdictions) and not a court of law.
>>
>>Jurisdictions have the right to decide the underlying reasons for
>>recognizing marriage.  But once they decide those reasons, it is the
>>role of the judiciary to determine if the jurisdictions are improperly
>>excluding classes of people given those reasons.
> 
> Yes, once they write that into law then the courts get to decide on it.
> Unfortunately, most jurisdictions have not, and will not, since it may
> change over time as well.

An explicit statement in the law of the reasons a jurisdiction 
recognizes marriage is not a prerequisite for a court to ask the 
jurisdiction for its reasons.  And yes, those reasons may change over 
time.  So what?

Josh Rosenbluth

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:419768A4.8010300@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>>>>No.  Adding back what you snipped:  "Marriage cases involving one man
>>>>and one woman, and all other non-marriage cases, would still be subject
>>>>to Equal Protection as before."
>>>
>>>    *IE; STRIKING IT DOWN*.
>>
>>"Striking it [the Equal Protection clause] down" means to *completely*
>>expunge, eliminate or cancel the Equal Protection Clause.  The Federal
>>Marriage Amendment would leave the Equal Protection clause almost
>>entirely intact.
> 
>     You don't seem to be grasping that cramming in *exceptions* to an
> assertion that everyone deserves equal protection destroys the very idea.

Equal Protection is filled with exceptions.  For example, The Court 
ruled that only men have to register for the draft, and that a state 
could criminalize sex between an adult man and a girl while not 
criminalizing sex between an adult woman and a boy.  IMO, those didn't 
mean the Equal Protection sky was falling.

Of course the FMA is noxious, but not because it thoroughly guts Equal 
Protection for everyone and every case.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:KlPld.10983$_J2.3120@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net: 

> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:MuOld.6064$Ho4.199979@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> > In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a
>> > man and a woman of the same race.
>>
>> Really?  And your evidence for that is?
> 
> The part where interracial marriages were illegal until the middle of 
> the 20th century comes to mind.  It's hard for there to be
> simultaneously a tradition of a thing, and the lynching of its
> practicioners. 

I wonder if Utah is for or against this debate. They had a state law
concerning marriage which was tossed out federally didnt they? 

Gandalf  Parker

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4197C79E.30000@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >>Jurisdictions have the right to decide the underlying reasons for
> >>recognizing marriage.  But once they decide those reasons, it is the
> >>role of the judiciary to determine if the jurisdictions are improperly
> >>excluding classes of people given those reasons.
> >
> > Yes, once they write that into law then the courts get to decide on it.
> > Unfortunately, most jurisdictions have not, and will not, since it may
> > change over time as well.
>
> An explicit statement in the law of the reasons a jurisdiction
> recognizes marriage is not a prerequisite for a court to ask the
> jurisdiction for its reasons.

Without that statement, how would the jurisdiction ever be able to say what
they really were?

> And yes, those reasons may change over
> time.  So what?

There's little point in encoding the reasons into law to be used by the
courts if it might change before those laws were changed and thus decisions
would be made based on archaic ideas of what reasons they had to recognize
marriages in the first place.

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lHPld.16254$Gm6.14228@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:omJld.51$Ho4.37497@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > No, you are missing the point.  Yes, it is indeed true that the US, in
its
> > constitution, forbids discrimination.  The problem is not with that.
The
> > problem is that the courts have to decide "Is denying marriage to same
sex
> > couples discrimination or not?"  This decision is not as simple as
simply
> > saying "These people are treated differently as a class."  For example,
it
> > is perfectly acceptable and legal for an airline to say "No blind person
> may
> > apply to be a pilot", because there is a very good reason for them to do
> so,
> > and so the fact that they treat a recognizable class differently does
not
> > make it discrimination.
>
>     I am quite amused at your decision to compare a BLIND PERSON OPERATING
A
> PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MACHINE with two gay people in a committed
monogamous
> relationship wishing to receive the same recognition from governmental
> apparatus as heterosexuals can.

It is simply an example that shows that discrimination is not simply "This
class is disadvantaged, therefore this is unacceptable", so I fail to see
why you are amused.  It was never an attempt to make the two situations
equivalent.

>
> > In this case, the judges are overstepping their bounds by insisting that
> > same sex marriages must be recognized because the definiton of marriage
> > SHOULD include such reasons.  But the definition of marriage is a social
> > convention, and so what is a part of that definition should be
determined
> by
> > society.
>
>     You appear to be confusing *legal* recognition of marriage with
*social*
> recognition of marriage.

Absolutely not.  I am stating flat out that legal recognition of marriage is
simply a codification of the social recognition of marriage that is done
because the government thinks it has an interest in promoting that
tradition.  This is a debatable view, of course, but I am confusing nothing.

>  Please explain how the Catholic perspective on
> divorce and annullment - a social convention maintained a a rather large
> proportion of the nation's christians - should be PART OF THE GOVERNMENT
> DEFINITION THAT APPLIES TO *EVERYONE*.   Once you get over that hump, the
> right answer on homosexual marriage is a no-brainer.

Sigh.  Tell me what the majority of people in the US or Canada think should
be the definition of marriage, and once we've determined that, THEN the
answer really is a no-brainer.  Whether those people are Christian or not
doesn't matter; and just to make it clear, whether the answer comes up as
"same sex couples are included" or "same sex couples are excluded" really
doesn't matter to me.

But no one has really asked yet, have they?

>
> > People of the same race were considered to meet the definition of
> marriage,
> > since they could marry each other.  Once people of the same races were
> > considered -- in the mind of society -- to be of the same species (ie
all
> > humans/persons), then interracial couples met the definition of "a man
and
> a
> > woman" as per the traditional and societal definition.  And so those who
> > opposed interracial marriages were not doing what is being done here and
> > insisting that the marriages wouldn't be marriages, but were insisting
> that
> > THOSE two people shouldn't get married.
>
>     Oh, please.  Look at the arguments made on the matter, you ignorant
> buffoon. They're the same as the ones against gay marriage.

Who cares?  My argumentation is valid ... and in my view is the correct
reasoning to intervene and ensure that interracial couples are allowed to
marry.  The fact that some people tried to argue something that was not
valid does not in any way invalidate what I consider to be the correct
arguments ... and a set of arguments that currently do not apply to same sex
marriages.

>
> > The difference here is that for same sex unions, there is a decent
> argument
> > to say that, by social convention, those things aren't marriages.
>
>     You really need to learn about Catholicism some time. By "social
> convention", a great many marriages aren't as it is.

You really need to step outside of this hatred of Catholicism and look to
the greater view in society.

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TvPld.10992$_J2.1493@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:JtLld.1896$Ho4.97941@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Traditionally, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman
>
>     No. Statements like that are just plain piss-ignorant.  Polygamy is an
> enormous part of the tradition of marriage in world history - even in
North
> America (mormons).

Hmmm.  One small subculture in Western tradition whose idea was rejected by
almost everyone else as soon as they came across it.  A wonderful
counter-example.  I applaud you [sarcasm].

> Appeals to "tradition" as the basis for defining
> marriage *today* also open the door to children getting married, marriage
> against the bride's will, women as property, harems, setting women aside
if
> they don't breed sons, social/class restrictions on who would be permitted
> to be married even *if* they were but one man and one woman, no
possibility
> of divorce, divorce with but twelve words by a man....  The "tradition" of
> marriage is not a monolithic thing, inviolate throughout human history -
it
> is an institution that has ALWAYS changed with time and culture.

And I have never disagreed with that.  But can you honestly say that, today,
it has evolved to include same sex couples?  If you can, then the law should
be changed.  If not, then it shouldn't.  This has been the heart of my
argument.

But, looking at your own arguments here, do you think that people who wanted
to, say, have a polygamous marriage or marriage with someone underage
(parental permission) should be allowed to do so because the definition of
marriage is constantly changing?

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4197C2B1.5080502@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:41979DBD.9030500@gotcha.comcast.net...
> >
> >>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:419772CD.9030406@gotcha.comcast.net...
> >>>
> >>>Traditionally, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman
> >>>(implication being of the same species).
> >>
> >>In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man
> >>and a woman of the same race.
> >
> > Really?  And your evidence for that is?
>
> I am no historian on the subject, but I strongly suspect black-white
> marriages were close to non-existent, and most certainly taboo, even
> after the Civil War.  That is a de-facto definition buttressed by
> anti-miscegenation laws and repeated judicial decisions upholding those
> laws.

Oh, I suspect that that was the case as well.  But remember that, in many
cases, the races were not considered equally "human", which WOULD then be a
reason to claim that interracial marriages weren't marriages (although that
is fairly logically inconsistent as soon as you legally recognize that all
races can at least marry INSIDE the races).  And I will concede that it is
possible that legally allowing interracial marriages came before all races
were considered equally human.  But I don't think that the traditional
definition ever was as explicit over race as it was over men and women.

>
> >> You
> >>stated societal definitions are based on tradition.  And as above IMO,
> >>tradition suggests there was a societal definition against inter-racial
> >>marriage (as well as for Jim Crow) which means they too should have been
> >>shielded from Equal Protection.  I think it is wrong to provide Equal
> >>Protection exemptions based on tradition.
> >
> > If the definition of marriage really did exclude interracial marriages,
then
> > it was a mistake for the courts to insist that it had to include it, in
my
> > opinion, and as I have said.  I just believe that that was not the case,
and
> > that the objections were always more of the "we don't want those two to
get
> > married" than "that's not a marriage!".
>
> How do you know that?

I know that because at some point the equal recognition of all races as
equally human would trump any notion that interracial marriages didn't fit
it.  Yes, it IS a philosophical point, but that's something that judges DO
have to consider ... on occasion.

>  How do you know the same thing doesn't apply for
> same-sex couples?  What are the objective criteria for determining what
> is a "societal definition" and what is not?

Simple.  Ask people what they think marriage means.  I will say that most
people will include talk about "a man and a woman" and few will talk about
"different races" ... even back then.

>
> >>I instead proposed an alternative approach which you did not comment on:
> >
> > Because it was pointless.  First, by this logic a civil union idea would
> > cover your equal protection fears (which isn't what is being asked for).
>
> I am not asking for anything.

I know you aren't.  I meant that that was what THEY were asking for.

> > Second, it in no way addresses the social convention idea that I keep
> > raising.
>
> Of course my approach is in conflict with your "social convention"
> theory because your theory appears to be nothing more than a blanket
> upholding of tradition.  The consequence of which would make
> anti-miscegenation and Jim Crow beyond the reach of Equal Protection.

If you think I'm just doing a blanket holding of tradition, you haven't been
reading what I've said.  I only uphold "tradition" in this case because the
word is indeed only defined by social definition ... and society may not
hold to the traditional definition, BTW.  But we really should be asking.

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PmPld.10986$_J2.650@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:tmOld.5897$Ho4.195310@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > So are courts are ruled by "societal convention" and "societal
> > definition"?
> >
> > When all the law is doing is codifying a social convention for some
> > perceived benefit, absolutely.  What else could it be?
>
>     You are making remarkably stupid statements in public, seeing as
rather
> a lot of the clever things about United States law involved *defying*
social
> convention in favor of greater conformity to oft-neglected core
principles.

Yes, that's true, but you still avoid my actual point, which is that the
legal definition of marriage is nothing more than a codification of the
social conventional definition and so this point does not apply.

It boggles my mind that none of those who are ranting against me have ever
bothered TO CHALLENGE THAT CLAIM, even though I have repeatedly said that it
is, in fact, debatable.

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KlPld.10983$_J2.3120@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:MuOld.6064$Ho4.199979@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man
> > > and a woman of the same race.
> >
> > Really?  And your evidence for that is?
>
>     The part where interracial marriages were illegal until the middle of
> the 20th century comes to mind.

Oh, come on.  You should know better than to make such a point and leave me
the obvious out of saying that "Law does not define what the traditional
definition is".  After all, that's only been my argument FOR THE ENTIRE
THREAD.

> It's hard for there to be simultaneously a
> tradition of a thing, and the lynching of its practicioners.

And you leave me this argument that I have said before, which is "Their
objections are not that 'This isn't marriage' but is that 'these two people
shouldn't get married'".

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4197CC7E.1030209@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >     You don't seem to be grasping that cramming in *exceptions* to an
> > assertion that everyone deserves equal protection destroys the very
idea.
>
> Equal Protection is filled with exceptions.  For example, The Court
> ruled that only men have to register for the draft, and that a state
> could criminalize sex between an adult man and a girl while not
> criminalizing sex between an adult woman and a boy.  IMO, those didn't
> mean the Equal Protection sky was falling.

    In mine, it does.

-Michael

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:vTSld.8680$Ho4.333444@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a
man
> > > > and a woman of the same race.
> > >
> > > Really?  And your evidence for that is?
> >
> >     The part where interracial marriages were illegal until the middle
of
> > the 20th century comes to mind.
>
> Oh, come on.  You should know better than to make such a point and leave
me
> the obvious out of saying that "Law does not define what the traditional
> definition is".  After all, that's only been my argument FOR THE ENTIRE
> THREAD.

    Your decision to make use of obvious WEASELING is your own choice, not
mine, and it damnns you quite effectively.  There *was* no tradition of
interracial marriage, you jackass!  African americans in the United States
were *slaves*.  American Indians in the United States were *targets*.  When
people started engaging in interracial relationships (possible in a culture
where the idea of racial equality had finally taken root - for some people),
reactionaries made a point of creating laws *CEMENTING THE STATUS QUO*.
Ie; the tradition of marriage, *as it had been recently practiced*.


> > It's hard for there to be simultaneously a
> > tradition of a thing, and the lynching of its practicioners.
>
> And you leave me this argument that I have said before, which is "Their
> objections are not that 'This isn't marriage' but is that 'these two
people
> shouldn't get married'".

    Which is a semantic distinction entirely of your own devising, and
useless in real life. Wave the flag all you want, it's not convincing.

-Michael

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4197C2B1.5080502@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>
>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:41979DBD.9030500@gotcha.comcast.net...
>>>
>>>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:419772CD.9030406@gotcha.comcast.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>Traditionally, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman
>>>>>(implication being of the same species).
>>>>
>>>>In the USA, marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man
>>>>and a woman of the same race.
>>>
>>>Really?  And your evidence for that is?
>>
>>I am no historian on the subject, but I strongly suspect black-white
>>marriages were close to non-existent, and most certainly taboo, even
>>after the Civil War.  That is a de-facto definition buttressed by
>>anti-miscegenation laws and repeated judicial decisions upholding those
>>laws.
> 
> Oh, I suspect that that was the case as well.  But remember that, in many
> cases, the races were not considered equally "human", which WOULD then be a
> reason to claim that interracial marriages weren't marriages (although that
> is fairly logically inconsistent as soon as you legally recognize that all
> races can at least marry INSIDE the races).

Since blacks have always been allowed to marry blacks, they have always 
been considered human by your parenthetical logic.  Moreover even if you 
reject that reasoning, after the 14th Amendment blacks were considered 
full-fledged citizens.  And yet marriage was de-facto defined as between 
the same race for many decades afterwards.

> And I will concede that it is
> possible that legally allowing interracial marriages came before all races
> were considered equally human.  But I don't think that the traditional
> definition ever was as explicit over race as it was over men and women.

You got that backwards.  Race was explicit (anti-miscegenation laws) for 
far longer than sexual orientation has been (DOMAs have existed only for 
10 years).  In any event IMO, there is no legal difference between 
explicit and implicit definitions.

>>What are the objective criteria for determining what
>>is a "societal definition" and what is not?
> 
> Simple.  Ask people what they think marriage means.  I will say that most
> people will include talk about "a man and a woman" and few will talk about
> "different races" ... even back then.

It is crystal clear from attitudes at the time and anti-miscegenation 
laws that the majority back then felt marriage didn't include 
inter-racial couples.  It was a de-facto and de-jure societal definition.

IMO, you have arbitrarily concluded that same-sex marriage runs against 
a societal definition but inter-racial marriage did not back then.

>>>Second, it in no way addresses the social convention idea that I keep
>>>raising.
>>
>>Of course my approach is in conflict with your "social convention"
>>theory because your theory appears to be nothing more than a blanket
>>upholding of tradition.  The consequence of which would make
>>anti-miscegenation and Jim Crow beyond the reach of Equal Protection.
> 
> If you think I'm just doing a blanket holding of tradition, you haven't been
> reading what I've said.  I only uphold "tradition" in this case because the
> word is indeed only defined by social definition ...

You have failed IMO to defend why anti-miscegenation and Jim Crow laws 
weren't a societal definition.  If you can convince me that those laws 
weren't societal definitions, but opposite-sex marriage is, then I will 
agree that you aren't merely upholding tradition in all cases.

Josh Rosenbluth

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>>And you leave me this argument that I have said before, which is "Their
>>objections are not that 'This isn't marriage' but is that 'these two people
>>shouldn't get married'".
> 
>     Which is a semantic distinction entirely of your own devising, and
> useless in real life.

Bingo if you change the word "semantic" to "arbitrary".  You have 
summarized the hole in his argument in far fewer words than I did.

Josh Rosenbluth

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4197C79E.30000@gotcha.comcast.net...
> 
>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>
>>>>Jurisdictions have the right to decide the underlying reasons for
>>>>recognizing marriage.  But once they decide those reasons, it is the
>>>>role of the judiciary to determine if the jurisdictions are improperly
>>>>excluding classes of people given those reasons.
>>>
>>>Yes, once they write that into law then the courts get to decide on it.
>>>Unfortunately, most jurisdictions have not, and will not, since it may
>>>change over time as well.
>>
>>An explicit statement in the law of the reasons a jurisdiction
>>recognizes marriage is not a prerequisite for a court to ask the
>>jurisdiction for its reasons.
> 
> Without that statement, how would the jurisdiction ever be able to say what
> they really were?

States do not simply recognize marriage for the hell of it and can 
easily state the implicit reasons when asked.  If they can't, then they 
have an arbitrary law.

>>And yes, those reasons may change over
>>time.  So what?
> 
> There's little point in encoding the reasons into law to be used by the
> courts if it might change before those laws were changed and thus decisions
> would be made based on archaic ideas of what reasons they had to recognize
> marriages in the first place.

I agree there is little point in codifying the reasons since they will 
change.  But the fact the (implicit) reasons change is no barrier to a 
court asking for them.  To the contrary, the fact the reasons change is 
justification for courts to periodically ask to insure that anyone 
barred from marrying isn't be denied arbitrarily or in conflict with 
Equal Protection.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:pKSld.8673$Ho4.329944@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >     No. Statements like that are just plain piss-ignorant.  Polygamy is
an
> > enormous part of the tradition of marriage in world history - even in
North
> > America (mormons).
>
> Hmmm.  One small subculture in Western tradition whose idea was rejected
by
> almost everyone else as soon as they came across it.  A wonderful
> counter-example.  I applaud you [sarcasm].

    Responding to a point that destroys your own with lame sarcasm is
nothing more than ad hominem fallacy, jackass.  "Rejected by almost everyone
else"? I believe you mean "rejected by people in North America WITH
DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS".  Amazing, isn't it, how people of different
religions might feel differently about what "god" wants for people?  One
Western group had a tradition of polygamy.  Other Western groups did not.  I
wouldn't be surprised a bit to discover that some Native American cultures
had polygamous arrangements as well if I turned over some rocks, there.  And
now that I think about it, there are a host of unusual hippy groups (and
Moonies... ).

    Could you please explain when *part* of Western christian practice
somehow became the only acceptable definition of marriage, throughout human
history? Hmm?

    You're being dishonest, and I think that's highly insulting to everyone
here.

> > of divorce, divorce with but twelve words by a man....  The "tradition"
of
> > marriage is not a monolithic thing, inviolate throughout human history -
it
> > is an institution that has ALWAYS changed with time and culture.
>
> And I have never disagreed with that.  But can you honestly say that,
today,
> it has evolved to include same sex couples?

    Notice how *throngs* same-sex couples GOT MARRIED as soon as the option
became available to them?
    That's all there is to it.
    In a world where some 50% of heterosexual Americans get divorced, you
have a class of people *clamouring* to become spouses!

> But, looking at your own arguments here, do you think that people who
wanted
> to, say, have a polygamous marriage or marriage with someone underage
> (parental permission) should be allowed to do so because the definition of
> marriage is constantly changing?

    I see no reason that polygamous marriages should be disallowed between
consenting adults who wish to commit to one another in that fashion and who
are fortunate enough to find like minded soulmates.  Polygamy has a rich
history, some of it good, some of it bad - just like monogamous heterosexual
marriages.  We don't seem to put any effort into legislating that marriages
be good ones - or even loving ones - that's up to the participants to manage
for themselves.  Fundie-Mormon style polygamy with one man, a dozen wives,
and four dozen welfare children kept prisoner from education outside the
cult, to be married off to 50 year old uncles ... *that* is not an
acceptable arrangement - but the objections come from the lack of wealth to
support the family, the chattel slavery of the women and children that
result, the forced incest, etc. - not from the matter that N women were
moronic enough to pledge themselves to some jackassed religious nut.

    *Other* legal principles conflict with marrying children (ie; ability to
give legal consent) which makes such questions a non issue - just as does
the specter of people marrying their dog.  When you can find a dog giving
legal consent to become someone's wife, *then* you have an issue on that
one.

    It's the 21st century, and American jurisprudence has come to recognize
that it is simply not your neighbor's business what you do in your bedroom,
or who you love, and that *extant legal principles* already mandate this.


-Michael

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:QRSld.8679$Ho4.332599@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >     You are making remarkably stupid statements in public, seeing as
rather
> > a lot of the clever things about United States law involved *defying*
social
> > convention in favor of greater conformity to oft-neglected core
principles.
>
> Yes, that's true, but you still avoid my actual point, which is that the
> legal definition of marriage is nothing more than a codification of the
> social conventional definition and so this point does not apply.

    Your point is incorrect - the legal definition is a codification of an
*older* social convention - that has been found to conflict with core
principles.

-Michael

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:qDSld.8666$Ho4.327551@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >     I am quite amused at your decision to compare a BLIND PERSON
OPERATING A
> > PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MACHINE with two gay people in a committed
monogamous
> > relationship wishing to receive the same recognition from governmental
> > apparatus as heterosexuals can.
>
> It is simply an example that shows that discrimination is not simply "This
> class is disadvantaged, therefore this is unacceptable",

    Your example is incorrect on its merits. It is not *discrimination* to
restrict responsibility for the lives of others to those capable of
protecting them.

> so I fail to see why you are amused.  It was never an attempt to make the
two situations
> equivalent.

    Your weaseling is obvious. Please stop.

> >  Please explain how the Catholic perspective on
> > divorce and annullment - a social convention maintained a a rather large
> > proportion of the nation's christians - should be PART OF THE GOVERNMENT
> > DEFINITION THAT APPLIES TO *EVERYONE*.   Once you get over that hump,
the
> > right answer on homosexual marriage is a no-brainer.
>
> Sigh.  Tell me what the majority of people in the US or Canada think
should
> be the definition of marriage, and once we've determined that, THEN the
> answer really is a no-brainer.

    Please establish that the "majority of people" are the ones who get to
decide.
    Notice how this position would mean that interracial marriages would
have remained illegal for a much longer time - perhaps even today, given the
pathetic bigotries of the American South.


> >     Oh, please.  Look at the arguments made on the matter, you ignorant
> > buffoon. They're the same as the ones against gay marriage.
>
> Who cares?

    Because of your argument, moron.  You insist that there is some special
difference between {can/can't marry}{are/aren't in a marriage}.  However,
the ACTUAL OBJECTIONS raised against gay marriage are identical to the ones
once raised against interracial marriage - which means that their underlying
thesis is identical!

> My argumentation is valid ... and in my view is the correct
> reasoning to intervene and ensure that interracial couples are allowed to
> marry.

    Ahem. I believe you mean it is the "correct"  FIG LEAF you can use to
deny marriage to gays while still allowing yourself a the option to marry
whomever YOU want to.

> >     You really need to learn about Catholicism some time. By "social
> > convention", a great many marriages aren't as it is.
>
> You really need to step outside of this hatred of Catholicism and look to
> the greater view in society.

    My arguments have nothing to do with hatred of the Catholic church.
They are VERY IMPORTANT POINTS that your thinking need consider - namely,
that societies even today have wildly different ideas about marriage than
others - ideas that are, in fact, WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE - - and IF LEGISLATED
would be outright tyranny - leading to misery for all who did not share that
*religious* perspective.  Most people understand perfectly well that
*church* recognition of marriage must remain with *churches* as a result,
while *legal* marriage must remain secular, and that it must be conducted in
a fashion that represents the interests of the state.   Objections to
homosexual marriage lie entirely with *churches*.

-Michael

"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
news:Xns95A19832C86C2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > The part where interracial marriages were illegal until the middle of
> > the 20th century comes to mind.  It's hard for there to be
> > simultaneously a tradition of a thing, and the lynching of its
> > practicioners.
>
> I wonder if Utah is for or against this debate. They had a state law
> concerning marriage which was tossed out federally didnt they?

    Rather, they were compelled to amend their marriage laws as condition of
joining the Union.

-Michael

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419833C2.2060303@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>And you leave me this argument that I have said before, which is "Their
> >>objections are not that 'This isn't marriage' but is that 'these two
people
> >>shouldn't get married'".
> >
> >     Which is a semantic distinction entirely of your own devising, and
> > useless in real life.
>
> Bingo if you change the word "semantic" to "arbitrary".  You have
> summarized the hole in his argument in far fewer words than I did.

    Semantics are often used as fig leaves to conceal completely arbitrary
contentions
    Your bingo is authorized!

-Michael

>>nicely avoiding my question there. i didnt ask what would cause the
>>banning of public displays of affection, i asked if it *should* be
>>banned - in your opinion. however...
> 
> I wasn't avoiding the question.  I was trying to convey the reasons why
> things are done.  My personal opinion is not that relevant. 

it is totally relevant if ive just asked for your opinion. i know why 
things are done, which is why i didnt ask that question, i asked if we 
should ban displays of human affection - and you didnt answer the 
question at all - which is the very deffinition of avoiding the 
question... duh!


> The answer if
> you really want it is no.

so you *are* cool with seeing two guys kissing each other in public...


>>...you dont seem to want to voice your own opinion, instead you choose
>>to hide behind the intangible general concensus of "public opinion"
>>which in reality is derived from an outspoken minority that fears change.
> 
> My opinion doesn't matter. 

i know this - the opinions you have expressed here are a collection of 
primitive and ill-conceived opinions common to most of the insecure and 
mentally challenged individuals across the world...


> What is so important about my opinion when the
> discussion is not about what I personally want?

because i am holding this discussion with you, not the general public - 
therefore i want to discuss your opinions and not the opinions of a 
group of people you only know in the vaguest sense.


>>at least they would today. and im sure in the future society would find
>>it unacceptable to discriminate between sexual orientation, particulary
>>on such a fundamental right as the legal union of two loving partners,
>>which we call marriage.
> 
> You are making exactly the point that you admonished me previously for
> making instead of telling you my opinions.  However, my opinion is that
> calling the legal union between two gay people a "marriage" is not a
> fundamental right.

the legal union between two loving partners is a fundamental right for 
all people, gay or not. to give the same term two different names 
determined by the sexuality of the loving partners is to discriminate 
between sexuality and therefore undermine the fact that the union is a 
fundamental right to all people.


>>surprisingly you are missing the point... back in the past the world
>>being round was not a fact...
> 
> That's an amazing reinterpretation of the word "fact".

a deffinition of the word "fact" is something that is believed to be 
true or real. no reinterpretation, just the usage of one of its 
alternate meanings. i suggest you revise your far from laudable 
knowledge of the english language.


>> but, at best, a theory. language and
>>acceptance are changing concepts, but you want to resist these changes
>>and cling desperately to your ignorant attitude so you can justify your
>>discrimination.
> 
> 
> Well IMO that an ignorant statement of my position.

i am speculating about your motives based upon the content of your posts 
in this discussion - sure, however you are resisting change in favour of 
discrimination. this cannot be denied.


>>the "conventional interpretation of marriage" is as undefined and
>>changable as the statement is vague. and again, it is another concept
>>which has changed over time. 300 years ago marriage for the common man
> 
> Yeah, hardly anyone knows what a marriage is.  The ignorance flows.

again, the word marriage has a variety of similar meanings. you 
obviously think it only has one - and that is the christian meaning for 
marriage. unfortunately you never specified which meaning of the word 
marriage you were using - displaying an obvious lack of knowledge of the 
deffinition of the words you are using; including, but not limited to, 
the word ignorance.


>>was simply a case of standing on your doorstep and declaring to the
>>world that you and your spouse were married. later the christian church
>>made marriage at church compulsory. later in history places like las
>>vegas changed how marriage operates once more - allowing you to have
>>shotgun weddings, still legal in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Yet in all those 300 years and more, marriage was between a man and a woman.
> 

and during all that time, until recently, women were regarded as the 
inferior sex. and the independance of women has been strongly opposed, 
usually by insecure sexist males - just as the recognition of gay rights 
has been opposed by insecure homophobes... but as ive been saying - 
times change, along with public opinions and attitudes.


>>each time the deffinition of marriage has changed over the years there
>>has been resistance from ignorant individuals like yourself. but
>>unfortunately for you this has not halted progress.
> 
> LOL, yeah I've really been halting progress.  Your ignorance continues to
> flow.

i said you have not halted progress. and you are trying to ridicule me 
by sarcastically agreeing with me? do you have some kind of 
comprehension disability?


>>i have just shown you that the very definition of marriage has been
>>bastardized and altered over time. to oppose the constant and gradual
>>change of the deffinition of concepts and language is not only a perfect
>>example of the shallow thinking you are so eager to brand me with, but
>>its also the futile actions of someone who is, how did you put it,
>>"grasping at straws".
> 
> 
> Yep and when people don't adopt your views they are ignorant and prejudiced.

not at all. dont start thinking that just because i am pointing out the 
stupidity of your opinions that i believe that *all* opinions are stupid.


>>the long standing tradition is only applicable to a certain subset of
>>people who prescribe to the christian church. and yet you deem it
>>perfectly acceptable to discriminate against another group of people of
>>a similiar or larger quantity simply because you feel threatened by
>>their alternate sexuality.
> 
> Bigoted people are quick to assign attributes to others.  You are doing a
> fine job.  So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that only
> Christians think that a marriage is between a man and a women.  The
> ignorance continues to flow.

ah... you *do* have a comprehension disability. i said the "long 
standing tradition is only applicable to a certain subset of people who 
prescribe to the christian church". long standing tradition does not 
equate to marriage as a whole, but the actual long standing tradition 
associated with christian marriages. perhaps you should get somebody 
with a better command of the english language than yourself to speak for 
you.


>>the "society" that you are so eager to represent is nothing more than
>>the highly publicized views of an insecure minority.
> 
> Tell that to society.  I already can see that you are a very shallowed
> minded person that sees fit to denegrate others if they disagree with you.

i denigrate others when they have shown themselves without a doubt to be 
voicing primitive small minded views based upon prejudice and 
discrimination. which is exactly what you have been doing.

all the newsgroups we are posting across are video game newsgroups, and 
on the subject of video games you can disagree with me all you want, i 
will not oppose your opinions or ridicule you for it. however saying 
that the legal union of gay couples should be given a different name 
than marriage to signify that the union is that of a homosexual couple 
is plain and simple discrimination.


>>- a minority which
>>you have obviously borrowed your opinions from. unfortunately for them
>>you seem incapable of arguing logically, answering questions and using
>>put downs...
> 
> When people such as yourself cannot argue logically and use "put downs", I
> will respond with like put downs since it seems to be what you understand
> best.  I can guarantee you that I used no derogartory comment towards anyone
> in this news group except as a response to like comments.  It's recorded
> here and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.  It's pretty amazing that you
> would accuse me of relying on put downs when your post is a virtual diatribe
> that uses puts downs as a cornerstone of your position.

my put downs are logical conclusions to the opinions you have expressed 
within this discussion. you want to discriminate against gays, and i 
regard such discrimination to be small minded and primitive. besides, i 
was not complaining about your use of put downs - merely commenting on 
the fact that these put downs more accurately discribe your position 
than my own.


> Also I defy you to back up your claims that I "borrowed my opinions from a
> minority".  My opinions are derived from observing the majority. 

which majority are you talking about - the majority of human beings? the 
majority of american citizens? or, more likely, the majority of the 
people that you interact with? how do you observe this majority? how can 
you be certain these methods of observation are accurate for such a 
large number of people?

to answer your question, your views expressed in this discussion are the 
cliched opinions of a typical homophobic. homophobes may well be 
extensively publisized, however they are in fact a minority of the 
population of this world. ergo you borrowed your opinions from a minority.


> The only thing I have revealed about my own personal thinking wrt gays is
> that I don't relish the day when I see two men kissing in public.  And I bet
> that I am in the majority in that respect.

considering a vast proportion of females have no problem with gay men, 
and women count for approximately 50% of the worlds population, i would 
say you are very wrong in this assumption. your problem with your ideas 
of society and the majority is that you are speaking only for insecure 
heterosexual male americans instead of everybody who lives on this planet...


>>that are more applicable to the intended recipient than
>>yourself. you hide behind the views of "society" when you obviously lack
>>an understanding of how society operates and continually develops over
>>time - you want to put extraneous deffinitions onto concepts in order to
>>protect your insecurities about sexuality.
> 
> If anything my posts were the inspiration in this thread to discuss the fact
> that society changes over time. 

your very first post in this thread was this:

"Who's this "we"?  Ya got a mouse in your pocket?"

your second post was the discrimatory post that i originally replied to. 
so if you wish to hold the belief that bloviating your prejudice 
concerning homosexuality has been inspirational to the subsequent 
conversations concerning the gradual changes in society then you are 
truly an idiot. it would be like hitler believing himself to be a 
promoter of world peace.

"Jimmery" <not@chance> wrote in message
news:4198bfeb$0$6408$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >>nicely avoiding my question there. i didnt ask what would cause the
> >>banning of public displays of affection, i asked if it *should* be
> >>banned - in your opinion. however...
> >
> > I wasn't avoiding the question.  I was trying to convey the reasons why
> > things are done.  My personal opinion is not that relevant.
>
> it is totally relevant if ive just asked for your opinion. i know why
> things are done, which is why i didnt ask that question, i asked if we
> should ban displays of human affection - and you didnt answer the
> question at all - which is the very deffinition of avoiding the
> question... duh!
>
>
> > The answer if
> > you really want it is no.
>
> so you *are* cool with seeing two guys kissing each other in public...

How did you come to that conclusion?

> >>...you dont seem to want to voice your own opinion, instead you choose
> >>to hide behind the intangible general concensus of "public opinion"
> >>which in reality is derived from an outspoken minority that fears
change.
> >
> > My opinion doesn't matter.
>
> i know this - the opinions you have expressed here are a collection of
> primitive and ill-conceived opinions common to most of the insecure and
> mentally challenged individuals across the world...

Your posts are an example of ill-concieved opinions.

> > What is so important about my opinion when the
> > discussion is not about what I personally want?
>
> because i am holding this discussion with you, not the general public -
> therefore i want to discuss your opinions and not the opinions of a
> group of people you only know in the vaguest sense.

You mean "vaguest sense" as in observing the results of a overwhelming vote
to not allow gay marriage?

> >>at least they would today. and im sure in the future society would find
> >>it unacceptable to discriminate between sexual orientation, particulary
> >>on such a fundamental right as the legal union of two loving partners,
> >>which we call marriage.
> >
> > You are making exactly the point that you admonished me previously for
> > making instead of telling you my opinions.  However, my opinion is that
> > calling the legal union between two gay people a "marriage" is not a
> > fundamental right.
>
> the legal union between two loving partners is a fundamental right for
> all people, gay or not. to give the same term two different names
> determined by the sexuality of the loving partners is to discriminate
> between sexuality and therefore undermine the fact that the union is a
> fundamental right to all people.

Define legal union.

> >>surprisingly you are missing the point... back in the past the world
> >>being round was not a fact...
> >
> > That's an amazing reinterpretation of the word "fact".
>
> a deffinition of the word "fact" is something that is believed to be
> true or real. no reinterpretation, just the usage of one of its
> alternate meanings.

Refer back to "ill-conceived opinion" for a rebuttal of this statement.


> i suggest you revise your far from laudable
> knowledge of the english language.

The internet is the breeding ground of irony.

> >> but, at best, a theory. language and
> >>acceptance are changing concepts, but you want to resist these changes
> >>and cling desperately to your ignorant attitude so you can justify your
> >>discrimination.
> >
> >
> > Well IMO that an ignorant statement of my position.
>
> i am speculating about your motives based upon the content of your posts
> in this discussion - sure, however you are resisting change in favour of
> discrimination. this cannot be denied.

Speculation is correct.

> >>the "conventional interpretation of marriage" is as undefined and
> >>changable as the statement is vague. and again, it is another concept
> >>which has changed over time. 300 years ago marriage for the common man
> >
> > Yeah, hardly anyone knows what a marriage is.  The ignorance flows.
>
> again, the word marriage has a variety of similar meanings. you
> obviously think it only has one - and that is the christian meaning for
> marriage. unfortunately you never specified which meaning of the word
> marriage you were using - displaying an obvious lack of knowledge of the
> deffinition of the words you are using; including, but not limited to,
> the word ignorance.

This is simply an example of how baseless you arguments are.

> >>was simply a case of standing on your doorstep and declaring to the
> >>world that you and your spouse were married. later the christian church
> >>made marriage at church compulsory. later in history places like las
> >>vegas changed how marriage operates once more - allowing you to have
> >>shotgun weddings, still legal in the eyes of the law.
> >
> > Yet in all those 300 years and more, marriage was between a man and a
woman.
> >
>
> and during all that time, until recently, women were regarded as the
> inferior sex. and the independance of women has been strongly opposed,
> usually by insecure sexist males - just as the recognition of gay rights
> has been opposed by insecure homophobes... but as ive been saying -
> times change, along with public opinions and attitudes.

Irrelevant.  The issue is what society defines as marriage.  It always has
been between a man and a women in every society.

> >>each time the deffinition of marriage has changed over the years there
> >>has been resistance from ignorant individuals like yourself. but
> >>unfortunately for you this has not halted progress.
> >
> > LOL, yeah I've really been halting progress.  Your ignorance continues
to
> > flow.
>
> i said you have not halted progress. and you are trying to ridicule me
> by sarcastically agreeing with me? do you have some kind of
> comprehension disability?

On your part, yes.

> >>i have just shown you that the very definition of marriage has been
> >>bastardized and altered over time. to oppose the constant and gradual
> >>change of the deffinition of concepts and language is not only a perfect
> >>example of the shallow thinking you are so eager to brand me with, but
> >>its also the futile actions of someone who is, how did you put it,
> >>"grasping at straws".
> >
> >
> > Yep and when people don't adopt your views they are ignorant and
prejudiced.
>
> not at all. dont start thinking that just because i am pointing out the
> stupidity of your opinions that i believe that *all* opinions are stupid.

Or perhaps you are pointing out your inability to present an argument.

> >>the long standing tradition is only applicable to a certain subset of
> >>people who prescribe to the christian church. and yet you deem it
> >>perfectly acceptable to discriminate against another group of people of
> >>a similiar or larger quantity simply because you feel threatened by
> >>their alternate sexuality.
> >
> > Bigoted people are quick to assign attributes to others.  You are doing
a
> > fine job.  So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that only
> > Christians think that a marriage is between a man and a women.  The
> > ignorance continues to flow.
>
> ah... you *do* have a comprehension disability. i said the "long
> standing tradition is only applicable to a certain subset of people who
> prescribe to the christian church". long standing tradition does not
> equate to marriage as a whole, but the actual long standing tradition
> associated with christian marriages. perhaps you should get somebody
> with a better command of the english language than yourself to speak for
> you.

And your comprehension disability is characterized by the fact that you are
unable to grasp that I was pointing out that it isn't only Christians who
believe that marriage is between a man and a women.  For someone who's
*thinks* they have a command of the English language you certainly have a
problem understanding a simple statment.

> >>the "society" that you are so eager to represent is nothing more than
> >>the highly publicized views of an insecure minority.
> >
> > Tell that to society.  I already can see that you are a very shallowed
> > minded person that sees fit to denegrate others if they disagree with
you.
>
> i denigrate others when they have shown themselves without a doubt to be
> voicing primitive small minded views based upon prejudice and
> discrimination. which is exactly what you have been doing.

Likewise, but I wait until they resort to name calling as their last stance.
So people like yourself reach that point early.

> all the newsgroups we are posting across are video game newsgroups, and
> on the subject of video games you can disagree with me all you want, i
> will not oppose your opinions or ridicule you for it. however saying
> that the legal union of gay couples should be given a different name
> than marriage to signify that the union is that of a homosexual couple
> is plain and simple discrimination.

In your mind.

> > When people such as yourself cannot argue logically and use "put downs",
I
> > will respond with like put downs since it seems to be what you
understand
> > best.  I can guarantee you that I used no derogartory comment towards
anyone
> > in this news group except as a response to like comments.  It's recorded
> > here and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.  It's pretty amazing that
you
> > would accuse me of relying on put downs when your post is a virtual
diatribe
> > that uses puts downs as a cornerstone of your position.
>
> my put downs are logical conclusions to the opinions you have expressed
> within this discussion. you want to discriminate against gays, and i
> regard such discrimination to be small minded and primitive. besides, i
> was not complaining about your use of put downs - merely commenting on
> the fact that these put downs more accurately discribe your position
> than my own.

In your mind.

> > Also I defy you to back up your claims that I "borrowed my opinions from
a
> > minority".  My opinions are derived from observing the majority.
>
> which majority are you talking about - the majority of human beings? the
> majority of american citizens? or, more likely, the majority of the
> people that you interact with? how do you observe this majority? how can
> you be certain these methods of observation are accurate for such a
> large number of people?

The majority that recently voted on this issue in the US.

> to answer your question, your views expressed in this discussion are the
> cliched opinions of a typical homophobic. homophobes may well be
> extensively publisized, however they are in fact a minority of the
> population of this world. ergo you borrowed your opinions from a minority.

So you are now the spokeman for the whole world on the issue of what they
think about homosexual behavior?

> > The only thing I have revealed about my own personal thinking wrt gays
is
> > that I don't relish the day when I see two men kissing in public.  And I
bet
> > that I am in the majority in that respect.
>
> considering a vast proportion of females have no problem with gay men,
> and women count for approximately 50% of the worlds population, i would
> say you are very wrong in this assumption. your problem with your ideas
> of society and the majority is that you are speaking only for insecure
> heterosexual male americans instead of everybody who lives on this
planet...

Well I guess if you speak for the whole world that would include women too.

> >>that are more applicable to the intended recipient than
> >>yourself. you hide behind the views of "society" when you obviously lack
> >>an understanding of how society operates and continually develops over
> >>time - you want to put extraneous deffinitions onto concepts in order to
> >>protect your insecurities about sexuality.
> >
> > If anything my posts were the inspiration in this thread to discuss the
fact
> > that society changes over time.
>
> your very first post in this thread was this:
>
> "Who's this "we"?  Ya got a mouse in your pocket?"

I'd reply to this if you added a little more context for that quote you dug
up.

> your second post was the discrimatory post that i originally replied to.
> so if you wish to hold the belief that bloviating your prejudice
> concerning homosexuality has been inspirational to the subsequent
> conversations concerning the gradual changes in society then you are
> truly an idiot. it would be like hitler believing himself to be a
> promoter of world peace.

LOL, I'm not suprised that you managed to bring Hitler into this.

"bloviating", not hardly.  That would be far more indicative of your
discourse.  Try using a dictionary sometime and understand the meaning of
the words you use.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Fred Liken
<fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote:
>
> > Gays can still marry if they want.  No one is saying that if you are
gay,
> > you cannot marry someone of the opposite sex.
>
> > There's no discrimination as to their right to marry based on their
sexual
> > persuasion, sorry.
>
> > You'll have to admit that they are still allowed to marry, no?
>
> But the government is dictating who you can marry.  If two consenting
> adults want to get married,

They always have.  Polygamy is illegal in most (all?) states.

> why does it matter if they're different
> genders or the same gender?

Because marriage is between a man and a woman.  That's the big difference.

> And using "civil union" for same sex couples
> is a step backwards towards "separate but equal".

Not at all.  It's a step forward in allowing homosexuals to have the
benifits of marriage even though they can't get married because marriage
doesn't cover what they want to do.

> > Because it intrinsically isn't a marriage.  No one is claiming it is the
> > same thing as marriage.  It would offer the same privileges of marriage
to
> > people that choose not to marry, but rather enter civil unions.
>
> You're contradicting yourself here.

lol.  That's a lie and you know it.  lol.  You're just stuck in a corner and
now you're flailing about instead of actually addressing your shortcomings.

> If a civil union offers the same
> privileges as a marriage, then how is a civil union NOT a marriage?

Because marriages are between a man and a woman, and civil unions can be
between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.  That's how a civil union is
not a marriage.

You're going to have to get past that.

> How do they differ?

Feigning ignorance isn't going to get you any points.  Ignoring the premise
isn't going to get you anywhere.

> If there is no difference, why create a separate word for
> it?

They intrinsictly aren't the same.  Sorry.

> > The fact is, they would have the same privileges as a married couple
even
> > though they aren't married.  It's an extension of privileges because
> > homosexuallity is accepted.
>
> How would they not be married?

Feigning ignorance is pathetic.  :(

> You haven't explained how a civil union
> can be exactly the same as a marriage in the eyes of the law, without
> being a marriage.

No one said it would be exactly the same.  If you continue to feign
ignorance, there's very little point in continuing to talk to you.  :(

> Or, how about explaining it the other way.  How is a marriage not a civil
> union?

I would imagine that someone could get a civil union if they are
heterosexual.  There's no real reason they couldn't, as far as I can see.

> Does it come down to who performs the ceremony?

Nope.

> Does this mean
> that many couples aren't actually married, but are in civil unions because
> they didn't have their ceremony performed by someone associated with a
> specific religion?

Wow, you truly are grasping at straws now, my friend.  Your inability to
maintain a rational line of reasoning is hindering your ability to gain
ground.

Perhaps you should rethink your position because it seems you don't have a
concrete basis for your zealousness.

> Ooh, wait, that would be discriminatory as well.

Yawn...

> > Tolerance, my friend.  Just think how much gays are accepted in America.
So
> > much that their biggest plight is what their unions are called.
>
> If America was truly tolerant, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Actually, it is truly tolerant.  Tolerance doesn't mean changing your
beliefs to fit someone else's agenda that they wish to cram down your
throat.  Tolerance is figuring out a way to accommodate those that are
different.  That's exactly what's happening now, and the fact that people
tolerate homosexuality so much is evident in their willingness to create
civil unions to accommodate them.

> The
> governemt would be issuing marriage certificates to both hetero and gay
> couples alike.

Actually, no, since marriage is only between a man and a woman and that's
not a new tradition, sorry.

> > > The legislature can define and set the limits to marriage so long as
> > > they do so either 1) without discriminating against a class of people,
>
> > And, they aren't discriminating against gays.  Gays are still allowed to
get
> > married.  Sorry, but you have to admit that a gay person can marry a
member
> > of the opposite sex.  They do it all the time and have families with
them.
> > New Jersey's Governor, for example.
>
> > Those rights aren't being taken away.
>
> So what if someone wants to marry someone else of the same sex?
> Explain why that isn't allowed -

Yawn...  Then they simply can't, because marriage is between a man and a
woman.  Always has been.  It's nothing new.

What if someone wants to marry a cow?  Honestly, it is implicit that you
aren't suggesting that, but, it goes straight to the point.  Marriage has a
definition, and it is between a man and a woman.  There's plenty of things
that it doesn't cover.  Same sex couples is one of them.  They'll need to
either change the definition of marriage to cover same sex couples, and
abandon the previous definition... or simply create a new term to cover
their partnerships and protect the definition of marriage.

> AND isn't a violation of the couples' civil rights.

Yawn... please learn to read before you post.
No one is keeping them from getting married.  They are chosing not to.
Because you chose not to marry doesn't mean they are violating your civil
rights.

Civil unions have never been a civil right, either.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Allan C Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> No, you are missing the point.  Yes, it is indeed true that the US, in its
> constitution, forbids discrimination.  The problem is not with that.  The
> problem is that the courts have to decide "Is denying marriage to same sex
> couples discrimination or not?"  This decision is not as simple as simply
> saying "These people are treated differently as a class."  For example, it
> is perfectly acceptable and legal for an airline to say "No blind person may
> apply to be a pilot", because there is a very good reason for them to do so,
> and so the fact that they treat a recognizable class differently does not
> make it discrimination.

The constitution already forbids discrimination on the basis of race, 
color, creed, GENDER, or SEXUAL PREFERENCE.  So it seems to me that it's 
unconstitutional to forbid same-sex couples from obtaining a marriage 
certificate from the state.

As for the blind airline pilot scenario, that's not quite correct.  You 
must accept all applications.  This doesn't mean that giving a blind 
applicant a map and asking him to plot a course from point A to point B 
would be considered discriminatory.  If such a claim was made, you could 
argue that pilots need to be able to see in order to perform the job.

Please explain what a same-sex couple lacks that prevents them from being 
recognized as married in the eyes of the state and why this difference is 
considered a *requirement* in order to fulfill the state's definition of 
doing the job of being married.


> In this case, the judges are overstepping their bounds by insisting that
> same sex marriages must be recognized because the definiton of marriage
> SHOULD include such reasons.  But the definition of marriage is a social
> convention, and so what is a part of that definition should be determined by
> society.  So all the judges could do is examine the definition as it is
> currently defined in convention, and determine whether or not same sex
> marriages meet that standard or not.  And they do not -- whether that is
> right or wrong.  So a judge could NOT determine that this is discrimination,
> and so their attempts to do so are overstepping their bounds.

Again, Society != Laws.  Polygamy is illegal in the US, but there's this 
group over in Utah that believes polygamy is part of their religious 
freedom.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:

> The Federal Marriage Amendment would not strike down the Equal 
> Protection clause.  It would make that clause inapplicable to any 
> marriage case not involving one man and one woman.  Marriage cases 
> involving one man and one woman, and all other non-marriage cases, would 
> still be subject to Equal Protection as before.

So, the government cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, 
religious beliefs, gender, or sexual preference except in the case of 
marriage, where we discriminate against both gender and sexual preference.

Err...right.

At least it would put the US' hypocricy out in the open for all to see.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Gerry Quinn <gerryq@deletethisindigo.ie> wrote:


> Quite right.  That is why an amendment banning homosexuals from getting 
> married is most unlikely.

I wish I could be as sure about that as you...  11 states have already 
voted to pass an unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriages.  52% of the 
US believes everything Bush tells them.  Do you really think it'll be all 
that hard for Bush to "listen to the people" and ramrod yet another 
unconstitutional law through the government? 

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote

> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > lol.  No, it most certainly did not because that wasn't using "my"
argument.
>
> Your argument was that gays and straights have the same right to marry,
> the same restrictions, and hence there is no discrimination.

Same rights to marry as in man and woman, true.

> A direct
> consequence of that argument is that gays and straights have the same
> right to engage in heterosexual sex,

Um, no.  You've got a huge leap of logic there with no connection.  Sorry.

> the same restrictions against
> homosexual sex, and hence there is no discrimination.
>
> > Here, you are creating criminals out of people for something they are
doing.
> >
> > Marriage, on the other hand, is completely different.  First, it is not
a
> > new tradition that homosexuals cannot be married.  That's a long
standing
> > accepted fact.  Second, it is not a criminal matter that has a due
process
> > that is being circumvented.
>
> Your points about sodomy and marriage being different are valid.

Yep.  Hence not the same arguments.

> But,
> the principle of equal application not automatically implying
> discrimination applies in both cases.

There's no discrimination because the term marriage is what it is.  It
doesn't include homosexuals, and never has.  It's not new to say that a
marriage is between a man and a woman.  It has always been like that.  It is
what it is.

> The salient difference is that
> with sodomy, we know the discrimination is not permissible.  With
> marriage, it might be.
>
> >>There is discrimination.  Gays cannot marry the sole, unmarried to
> >>anyone else, adult, unrelated person they desire for their lifelong
> >>partner.  Straights can.
> >
> > I take that to mean that you are admiting that they can marry, just that
> > they can't marry who they desire to.  Sadly, being able to marry who you
> > desire to is not a right, or I'd be married to Sandra Bullok, or the
ilk.
>
> It's not that gays are denied the right to marry any one specific
> individual.

No.  There is no right to marry any one specific individual.

> It's that they are being denied the right to marry *anyone*
> in the feasible set of people they desire to marry, that feasible set
> defined by who they are as a class of people.  That's class-based
> discrimination.

Um, no, since they aren't being denied the right to marry, since marriage
explicitly doesn't cover homosexual couples.  There is nothing there that is
being denied because it doesn't exist to begin with.  You have to change the
definition of marriage to make this discrimination, period.


> >>It was about both Due Process and Equal Protection/discrimination.
> >>Quoting from Loving:  "the State contends that, because its
> >>miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro
> >>participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their
> >>reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious
> >>discrimination based upon race. [...] we reject the notion."
> >
> > That's what I said.
>
> That quote demonstrates that equal application of marriage laws to two
> classes of people does not automatically imply there isn't
> discrimination of one class over the other.

Interacial marriages are a subset of marriages.  Homosexual commited
couples, etc, aren't a subset of marriages.

> > I can call a car a plane, but that's nonsensical, because a car isn't a
> > plane.  A civil union isn't a marriage, so to call it one is
nonsensical.
>
> A car and a plane aren't 100% identical except for the name.  A civil
> union and a marriage are by your own construction.

No, and you need to get past that fact, my friend.  A civil union and a
marriage are not 100% identical by my own construction.

You and your ilk seriously need to quit feigning this ignorance.  It's
really impairing your ability to make a valid argument and that's wasting ev
eryone's time.

"drax" <drax1313@spamsandwichhotmail.com> wrote

> > Where you got that it was a basic
> > right was only talking about normal marriages as a necessary part of
> > procreation, not gay-marriages.
>
> Marriage is necessary for procreation?

Yes, in a more civilized time that was true by practice.

> > Because it intrinsically isn't a marriage.  No one is claiming it is the
> > same thing as marriage.  It would offer the same privileges of marriage
to
> > people that choose not to marry, but rather enter civil unions.
> >
> > The fact is, they would have the same privileges as a married couple
even
> > though they aren't married.  It's an extension of privileges because
> > homosexuallity is accepted.
> >
> > Tolerance, my friend.  Just think how much gays are accepted in America.
> So
> > much that their biggest plight is what their unions are called.
>
> So, the big argument is about the word marriage?  How silly.

Exactly.  Changing a word to meet your agenda and getting mad when it is
vetoed is silly.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>     I look forward to the christian's attempt.  This can't occur without
> rather a lot of discourse on the matter, and nothing shows up a bigoted
> fuckwit like the light of day.  By the end of the navel gazing session and
> the resurrection of love for our founding principles of equality, the
> country will be rushing to see which state can make gay marriages the *most*
> legal, first!  America's historic trend has been to recognize the fellow
> humanity of more and more of its oppressed minorities; slaves, women, people
> of colour ...now homosexuals are demanding to be part of society, and it's
> an argument they can't lose.  All the "moral" mongers have to offer is "god
> hates gays" - but all we need is one homosexual religion that glorifies them
> and suddenly there is a theological impasse!

You don't even need a "gay religion".  Lots of religions don't have 
stances on homosexuality.  Heck, many of them don't even have the concept 
of a "God" (or Gods, Goddess(es), etc.)

Also, from looking at America's history with regards to giving rights to 
Blacks and Women, the majority of the country had to be dragged - kicking 
and screaming into the new world.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the 
large scale social protests going on in the South to allow Blacks to keep 
their seats on the bus, go to schools with Whites, etc.  You also wouldn't 
have needed the large scale women's sufferage protests, not to mention the 
later protests during the 60s/70s for equal rights in the workplace, etc.

It seems that the US is on the verge of throwing another temper tantrum 
while the more enlightned of its citizens drag the country forward once 
again.  Unfortunatly, such periods are rarely without violence and this 
time, those throwing the tantrums are running the government!

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote

> > Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.
They
> > still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to
marry
> > someone of the opposite sex.  :)
>
> Ah yes, the same way blacks could sit on the seats NOT marked "whites
> only".

Yawn... such silliness isn't going to be accepted in this rational argument,
son.

Gays have the right to marry, just like a hetero-sexual couple.

> If the purpose of marriage is to produce more plebes for the kings to
> tax, then by all means make child production mandatory for married
> couples.

Yawn...

> But I was under the impression the USA was set up to throw
> off all the oldfashioned European-monarchy ideas - including marriage
> restrictions like that?

Oh, then you were severely ignorant, my friend.  The USA was founded on
basic Christian morals and ideals.  There was no hiding of it.  It's not
newly discovered fact, either.  Perhaps to you, but not like it wasn't there
to plainly see if you bothered to look.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10pi2857kldod7c@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Allan C Cybulskie
<allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > No, you are missing the point.  Yes, it is indeed true that the US, in
its
> > constitution, forbids discrimination.  The problem is not with that.
The
> > problem is that the courts have to decide "Is denying marriage to same
sex
> > couples discrimination or not?"  This decision is not as simple as
simply
> > saying "These people are treated differently as a class."  For example,
it
> > is perfectly acceptable and legal for an airline to say "No blind person
may
> > apply to be a pilot", because there is a very good reason for them to do
so,
> > and so the fact that they treat a recognizable class differently does
not
> > make it discrimination.
>
> The constitution already forbids discrimination on the basis of race,
> color, creed, GENDER, or SEXUAL PREFERENCE.  So it seems to me that it's
> unconstitutional to forbid same-sex couples from obtaining a marriage
> certificate from the state.

Except that *anyone* regardless of sexual orientation can get married.  The
issue is that they don't want to get married as marriage is defined.  What
they want to do is redefine marriage.  Which may be a reasonable thing to
do, but not necessarily a constitutionally guaranteed thing to do.  It's
entirely reasonable to say that the only real constitutional issues that
they have to address is whether they have rights to various benefits offered
to married couples.

Why can't I have a roommate that I decide to share those same rights with
and claim a constitutional right to those benefits without getting married?
Perhaps we all have a constitutional right to simply making a non-marital
union with anyone we like and ask for maritial benefits.  If society cannot
define what a marriage *is*, then why should society be able to extend
special benefits to married individuals?

Regardless of how similar you think that this issue is to other civil rights
issues, it still is a matter of society recognizing if this is the case and
coming to a resolution.  It isn't that clear cut wrt how this issue is
covered by the constitution.

"Theodore Jay Miller" <TedJMill@Mindspring.com> wrote

> > > Also, you didn't reply to my question as to why you think same-sex
> > > marriage bans aren't discrimination.
> >
> > Simple, their right to marry isn't being taken away from them at all.
They
> > still have the right to get married if they want, but they'll have to
marry
> > someone of the opposite sex.  :)
>
> That's like saying that laws against mixed-race marriages
> aren't discrimination, since the people involved still
> have the right to get married, they'll just have to marry
> someone of the same race.

Um, no.  Please keep up.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  A black
man and a white woman are covered under the term marriage, because they are
a man and a woman.  To say that a black man and a white woman can't get
married is based on racial qualifications and therefore discrimination.

On the other hand, to say that a man and a man can't marry is not
discrimination because the term marriage doesn't even apply.  It would
either have to be changed to include same sex couples, or more logically, a
proper term for their union can be used, civil unions, to extend the
privileges of marriage even though they can't get married because of the
definition of marriage.

No one loses.

> If two couples both want to get married, but only one is
> allowed to, solely because of the races of the people
> involved, that IS racial discrimination, right?

Yes, because the term marriage isn't based on race.  It's not between a man
and a woman of the same race, just a man and a woman.

> I'd
> certainly say so.  So if two couples both want to get
> married, but only one is allowed to, solely because
> the other is a same-sex couple, that is discrimination
> as well.

No, because marriage doesn't even cover same sex couples.  There's no
discrimination because there is no possibility for them to get married
because marriage is between a man and a woman.  A union between a man and a
man is intrinsically not a marriage.

One could argue, though, that the privileges of marriage should be granted
to those in a same sex relationship.  I'm liberal enough to agree with that,
so I support civil unions  That's the tolerant and fair thing to do.  To
redefine marriage to fit an agenda is not fair, though, and I don't support
that.

"Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote

> > To say this in smaller words: what constitutes marriage has always been
a
> > societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex couples
> > should be determined by society, not a judge.
>
> Imagine you are a supreme court justice and your highest law proclaims:
No
> state shall make or enforce any law which denies to any person within its
> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>
> Now imagine you have to review a state statute that indicates:  The state
> bestowed benefits of marriage are only available when a man and woman form
a
> legal union of marriage, and shall not be available to a union between
> people the same gender.
>
> In the example above the state grants marriage benefits based on the
gender
> of the person.  If you are *not* an activist judge how do you rule?

You just use your head and realize that they have equal protection under the
law and that they can marry if they chose, they just can't marry someone of
the same sex.  Their right to marry hasn't been taken away, it just simply
doesn't apply here.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:

> The I've been trying to make is that a civil union can give gays virtually
> all the benefits of marriage without sanctioning the idea that it is
> marriage.  This dispenses with argument that govt is redefining marriage to
> be also between same sex partners.  Regardless of whether it's your opinion
> that this is an example of backwards thinking, you have a marjority of
> society that feels it's important.  If gays want to get married in the
> church that still can.  And perhaps some time in the future society will
> modify it's thinking.  The main point of contention is whether it's
> discrimination and violates a constitutional right to ban marriage between
> gays.  If a civil union has esentially the same benefits offered by marriage
> then I don't think that claim could be made.

The point isn't to get "virutally the same rights" - they want the same 
rights.  Period.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Calling their union 
something different than a hetero union implies that the two are not the 
same, and therefore, not equal.  Even if the only difference between the 
two really is that a civil union is a marriage between a same-sex couple, 
why make the distinction at all?  If civil union partners really have the 
same legal rights and protection as a married couple, why create a new 
term that will then require you to alter countless laws for no good 
reason when there's a perfectly fine word out there called "marriage"?  The 
*ONLY* reason I could see this being considered is that there are too many 
people out there who feel that, for some reason, allowing a same-sex couple 
call themselves "married" somehow lessens their own marriage somehow.

> > A good point, though not quite on topic ;)  Those who would argue that
> > same-sex couples being able to declare themselves "married" somehow
> > damages, diminishes, or destroys the very fabric of society seem to be
> > happy enough to ignore the rampant amounts of divorce and other

> Embellishment of an argument is not exclusive to any one side.  I would say
> that the problem is judges proclaim that gays have a constitutional right
> that society overwhelmingly objects to.  And perhaps the point is that gays
> do have a constitutional right to laws formulated to benefit marriage, but
> the solution is to provide them with those rights through civil union
> without forcing a govt imposed redefinition of something that has
> significance in religion and culture.

Considering that the judges are looking at the constitution that says that 
the government MAY NOT discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual 
preference, I'd say their right...  As for the civil union thing, I'd only 
accept that if - and only if - the government ditches the whole "marriage"
thing completely - meaning you can ONLY get a civil union from the state 
and all rights/priveleges defined in the law that pertain to marriage have 
the word "marriage" scratched out, and the word "civil union" written in 
its place.  Now no one can get "married" by the state.  They can only get 
"civil union'd".  This way, every couple would have truly identical 
coverage under the law.  This would mean that "marriage" would only apply 
to a ceremony performed by a priest, Elvis impersonator,  minister, rabbi, 
shaman, or other spiritual leader that is recognized by the participants.  
Of course, the downside to this is that millions of people who only had a 
civil service would no longer be considered "married" but would only have 
a "civil union".

Look at it this way, this would then mean that you couldn't get your civil 
union dissolved until you got your marriage (if you had one) dissolved 
first.  If you belong to a religion that doesn't believe in dissolving 
marriages, then you're stuck.  After all, that's religious freedom, and 
the government isn't supposed to get involved with others' beliefs.

"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:419912b3$0$4704$45beb828@newscene.com...
> "Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote
>
> > > To say this in smaller words: what constitutes marriage has always
been
> a
> > > societal definition, and so whether or not it includes same sex
couples
> > > should be determined by society, not a judge.
> >
> > Imagine you are a supreme court justice and your highest law proclaims:
> No
> > state shall make or enforce any law which denies to any person within
its
> > jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> >
> > Now imagine you have to review a state statute that indicates:  The
state
> > bestowed benefits of marriage are only available when a man and woman
form
> a
> > legal union of marriage, and shall not be available to a union between
> > people the same gender.
> >
> > In the example above the state grants marriage benefits based on the
> gender
> > of the person.  If you are *not* an activist judge how do you rule?
>
> You just use your head and realize that they have equal protection under
the
> law and that they can marry if they chose, they just can't marry someone
of
> the same sex.  Their right to marry hasn't been taken away, it just simply
> doesn't apply here.

Apparently what some people can't seem to grasp is that a judge should not
have the right to define marriage for society.  Marriage benefits are not
based on the gender of a person.  People of both genders enjoy the benefits
equally.  Before a judge could even presume to be qualified to redefine
marriage to include same sex couples, the judge has to fully comprehend how
and why marriage benefits came to be in the first place.  Something that I
doubt any single person has sufficient knowledge to do.  It is activism to
impose a ruling like this on society.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10pi5uakscjuc22@corp.supernews.com...
> Considering that the judges are looking at the constitution that says that
> the government MAY NOT discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual
> preference, I'd say their right...

I'd say they are wrong.  Discrimination is based on the principle that you
are denying people based on attibutes that have nothing to do with what's
being denied.  You couldn't claim discrimination because black actors
weren't given the same opportunity as white actors to play some famous white
person in a biographical film.  For the same reason you can't claim
discrimination because two people who are of the same gender can't be
married.  Until marriage is redefined, it isn't discrimination.

Gay couples have the burden of proving that they should be given all of
those same benefits.  Proving that they have a right to redefine marriage is
probably even more difficult and is most likely going to require that
society as a majority will accept that redefinition.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10pah9inavuhk4f@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Michael Scott Brown
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >     Read the constitution and its amendments, people.
>
> You're expecting people to read and think for themselves?  If more people
> did that, we wouldn't have elected Bush.

LOL!  The parrot makes a funny!

Fred Liken wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
> 
>>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
>
>>Your argument was that gays and straights have the same right to marry,
>>the same restrictions, and hence there is no discrimination.
> 
> Same rights to marry as in man and woman, true.
> 
>>A direct
>>consequence of that argument is that [with same-sex sodomy laws] gays and straights have the same
>>right to engage in heterosexual sex the same restrictions against
 >>homosexual sex, and hence there is no discrimination.
> 
> Um, no.  You've got a huge leap of logic there with no connection.  Sorry.

Under (current) marriage laws, gays and straights have the same right to 
marry someone of the opposite sex and cannot marry someone of the same 
sex.  Under (now-defunct) sodomy laws, gays and straights have the same 
right to have sex with someone of the opposite sex and cannot have sex 
with someone of the same sex.

That is a trivially obvious parallel requiring not even a short step in 
logic.  All you have to do is substitute 'sodomy laws' for 'marriage 
laws' and 'have sex with' for 'marry'.

Thus, if your claim about there being no discrimination in current 
marriage law is true, then it must also be true that there was no 
discrimination in sodomy laws.  But, The Court found those laws did 
discriminate against gays, and hence current marriage laws also 
discriminate against gays.

>>But,
>>the principle of equal application not automatically implying
>>discrimination applies in both cases.
> 
> There's no discrimination because the term marriage is what it is.  It
> doesn't include homosexuals, and never has.  It's not new to say that a
> marriage is between a man and a woman.  It has always been like that.  It is
> what it is.

According to this logic, slaves defined as not being citizens cannot 
possibly be discriminatory because it is what it is.  It's not new, it's 
always been like that.

The fact that something is defined and rooted in tradition is no defense 
to whether or not it is discriminatory.

>>>>It was about both Due Process and Equal Protection/discrimination.
>>>>Quoting from Loving:  "the State contends that, because its
>>>>miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro
>>>>participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their
>>>>reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious
>>>>discrimination based upon race. [...] we reject the notion."
>>>
>>>That's what I said.
>>
>>That quote demonstrates that equal application of marriage laws to two
>>classes of people does not automatically imply there isn't
>>discrimination of one class over the other.
> 
> Interacial marriages are a subset of marriages.  Homosexual commited
> couples, etc, aren't a subset of marriages.

As above, a definition or tradition is no defense against a charge of 
discrimination.  But even so, on what *objective* (not merely an 
arbitrary opinion) basis do you make the claim that inter-racial 
marriages are a subset of marriage while same-sex marriage is not?

>>>I can call a car a plane, but that's nonsensical, because a car isn't a
>>>plane.  A civil union isn't a marriage, so to call it one is nonsensical.
> 
>>A car and a plane aren't 100% identical except for the name.  A civil
>>union and a marriage are by your own construction.
> 
> No, and you need to get past that fact, my friend.  A civil union and a
> marriage are not 100% identical by my own construction.

How are they different other than the name and who is eligible? 
Specifically, how are the rights, responsibilities and benefits different?

If the only difference is the name and who is eligible, that would be 
like having a car for straight people, and having an exact replica for 
gay people but calling it a 'gorp' instead.  Why would we call it a gorp?

Josh Rosenbluth

Doug Jacobs wrote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Allan C Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>No, you are missing the point.  Yes, it is indeed true that the US, in its
>>constitution, forbids discrimination.  The problem is not with that.  The
>>problem is that the courts have to decide "Is denying marriage to same sex
>>couples discrimination or not?"  This decision is not as simple as simply
>>saying "These people are treated differently as a class."  For example, it
>>is perfectly acceptable and legal for an airline to say "No blind person may
>>apply to be a pilot", because there is a very good reason for them to do so,
>>and so the fact that they treat a recognizable class differently does not
>>make it discrimination.
> 
> 
> The constitution already forbids discrimination on the basis of race, 
> color, creed, GENDER, or SEXUAL PREFERENCE.

No.  The state has more leeway to discriminate on the basis of gender 
than race, and more leeway to discriminate on the basis of sexual 
preference than gender.

Josh Rosenbluth

FLY135 wrote:
> 
> Except that *anyone* regardless of sexual orientation can get married.  The
> issue is that they don't want to get married as marriage is defined.

The issue is gays aren't allowed to marry the sole, unmarried, 
unrelated, adult person they want for their life-long partner. 
Straights can.  The current definition of marriage is discriminatory.

> Why can't I have a roommate that I decide to share those same rights with
> and claim a constitutional right to those benefits without getting married

Not allowing roommates the same rights to marriage without getting 
married is also discrimination.  But, it is almost certainly 
Constitutionally acceptable because 1) single people are not even a 
minimally protected minority class, and 2) the state can claim the 
purpose of marriage is to encourage lifelong loving relationships which 
foster societal stability.

Josh Rosenbluth

FLY135 wrote:

> The I've been trying to make is that a civil union can give gays virtually
> all the benefits of marriage without sanctioning the idea that it is
> marriage.  This dispenses with argument that govt is redefining marriage to
> be also between same sex partners.  Regardless of whether it's your opinion
> that this is an example of backwards thinking, you have a marjority of
> society that feels it's important.  If gays want to get married in the
> church that still can.  And perhaps some time in the future society will
> modify it's thinking.  The main point of contention is whether it's
> discrimination and violates a constitutional right to ban marriage between
> gays.  If a civil union has esentially the same benefits offered by marriage
> then I don't think that claim could be made.

I suspect your are correct in theory but not in practice.  If civil 
unions were 100% identical to marriage except for the name, they just 
might pass Constitutional muster.  However in practice, different names 
usually lead to differences in substance.

Even if the Constitutional requirement is met by civil unions, why would 
you want to have a different name if the two are 100% identical?

Josh Rosenbluth

FLY135 wrote:
> "Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
> news:10pi5uakscjuc22@corp.supernews.com...
> 
>>Considering that the judges are looking at the constitution that says that
>>the government MAY NOT discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual
>>preference, I'd say their right...
> 
> I'd say they are wrong.  Discrimination is based on the principle that you
> are denying people based on attibutes that have nothing to do with what's
> being denied.  You couldn't claim discrimination because black actors
> weren't given the same opportunity as white actors to play some famous white
> person in a biographical film.  For the same reason you can't claim
> discrimination because two people who are of the same gender can't be
> married.  Until marriage is redefined, it isn't discrimination.

In both cases, there is discrimination.  The Equal Protection question 
is whether or not the discrimination is Constitutionally acceptable.

A definition is not a defense against discrimination.  The definition 
itself is subject to Equal Protection review.

Your movie example might pass Constitutional muster if The Court feels 
that having a white actor portray a white historical figure is 
compellingly linked to the film's accurate portrayal of history.  That 
reasoning has nothing to do with definitions.

> Gay couples have the burden of proving that they should be given all of
> those same benefits.  Proving that they have a right to redefine marriage is
> probably even more difficult and is most likely going to require that
> society as a majority will accept that redefinition.

Per Romer v. Evans, the burden of proof is on the state to justify 
discrimination against gays.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote

> >>Your argument was that gays and straights have the same right to marry,
> >>the same restrictions, and hence there is no discrimination.
> >
> > Same rights to marry as in man and woman, true.
> >
> >>A direct
> >>consequence of that argument is that [with same-sex sodomy laws] gays
and straights have the same
> >>right to engage in heterosexual sex the same restrictions against
>  >>homosexual sex, and hence there is no discrimination.
> >
> > Um, no.  You've got a huge leap of logic there with no connection.
Sorry.

> Under (current) marriage laws, gays and straights have the same right to
> marry someone of the opposite sex and cannot marry someone of the same
> sex.  Under (now-defunct) sodomy laws, gays and straights have the same
> right to have sex with someone of the opposite sex and cannot have sex
> with someone of the same sex.
>
> That is a trivially obvious parallel requiring not even a short step in
> logic.  All you have to do is substitute 'sodomy laws' for 'marriage
> laws' and 'have sex with' for 'marry'.

Um, no, because anal sex can be between a man and a woman, or a man and a
man, by definition, and marriage, cannot.  And, sorry, but one is making a
criminal of someone, and the other isn't.

So, really, what you've done is taken something and dumbed it down to the
point that you felt you could make a case.  It's classic logical fallacies
at work, my friend.

> Thus, if your claim about there being no discrimination in current
> marriage law is true, then it must also be true that there was no
> discrimination in sodomy laws.

Actually, no, since sodomy is something that a man and a man can do, by
definition.  Marriage, OTOH, is not.

> But, The Court found those laws did
> discriminate against gays, and hence current marriage laws also
> discriminate against gays.

Actually, no, since one is a criminal matter and the other was a contractual
matter.

In one, the people were deemed to be in violation of the law.  There's no
parrallel between the two, sorry, since no one is being jailed for gay
marriage, since there is no circumventing of the judicial due processes to
convict someone, which would be required for the 14th amendment to apply.

Your analogy is critically flawed.

> > There's no discrimination because the term marriage is what it is.  It
> > doesn't include homosexuals, and never has.  It's not new to say that a
> > marriage is between a man and a woman.  It has always been like that.
It is
> > what it is.
>
> According to this logic, slaves defined as not being citizens cannot
> possibly be discriminatory because it is what it is.  It's not new, it's
> always been like that.

And, what did it take to outlaw slavery?  An amendment to the Constitution.

> The fact that something is defined and rooted in tradition is no defense
> to whether or not it is discriminatory.

Actually, it is.  If it is defined as between a man and a woman, there is no
discrimination because there is no restriction of rights based on sexual
preference.

There is no discrimination.  Sorry.  You can get married independant of your
sexual preference.  Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
There's no getting around that other than changing it.

> > Interacial marriages are a subset of marriages.  Homosexual commited
> > couples, etc, aren't a subset of marriages.
>
> As above, a definition or tradition is no defense against a charge of
> discrimination.

There is no possibility for discrimination, sorry.

> But even so, on what *objective* (not merely an
> arbitrary opinion) basis do you make the claim that inter-racial
> marriages are a subset of marriage while same-sex marriage is not?

Did you bother to read my post at all?

> >>>I can call a car a plane, but that's nonsensical, because a car isn't a
> >>>plane.  A civil union isn't a marriage, so to call it one is
nonsensical.
> >
> >>A car and a plane aren't 100% identical except for the name.  A civil
> >>union and a marriage are by your own construction.
> >
> > No, and you need to get past that fact, my friend.  A civil union and a
> > marriage are not 100% identical by my own construction.
>
> How are they different other than the name and who is eligible?

Seriously, if you're just going to continue this feigned ignorance, you
merit little respect.

> Specifically, how are the rights, responsibilities and benefits different?
>
> If the only difference is the name and who is eligible, that would be
> like having a car for straight people, and having an exact replica for
> gay people but calling it a 'gorp' instead.

If a car required that a man and a woman drive it, then there would have to
be a different name for something that didn't have that requirement.  Sadly,
your analogy fails because of your intellectual dishonesty.

:(

Fred Liken wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
> 
>>Under (current) marriage laws, gays and straights have the same right to
>>marry someone of the opposite sex and cannot marry someone of the same
>>sex.  Under (now-defunct) sodomy laws, gays and straights have the same
>>right to have sex with someone of the opposite sex and cannot have sex
>>with someone of the same sex.
>>
>>That is a trivially obvious parallel requiring not even a short step in
>>logic.  All you have to do is substitute 'sodomy laws' for 'marriage
>>laws' and 'have sex with' for 'marry'.
> 
> Um, no, because anal sex can be between a man and a woman, or a man and a
> man, by definition, and marriage, cannot.

The Texas law only outlawed anal sex between people of the same sex.

> And, sorry, but one is making a
> criminal of someone, and the other isn't.

That difference of course has no relevance to whether or not there is 
discrimination.  That difference is salient only to whether or not the 
discrimination is lawful (it wasn't for sodomy, it may or may not be for 
marriage).

>>>There's no discrimination because the term marriage is what it is.  It
>>>doesn't include homosexuals, and never has.  It's not new to say that a
>>>marriage is between a man and a woman.  It has always been like that.
>>>It is what it is.
>>
>>According to this logic, slaves defined as not being citizens cannot
>>possibly be discriminatory because it is what it is.  It's not new, it's
>>always been like that.
> 
> And, what did it take to outlaw slavery?  An amendment to the Constitution.

But it was discrimination all the time.  Now, you may be correct that 
same-sex marriage proponents will lose in court, just like opponents of 
slavery did, because the discrimination is lawful.  But you are 
incorrect that current marriage law isn't discriminatory.

>>But even so, on what *objective* (not merely an
>>arbitrary opinion) basis do you make the claim that inter-racial
>>marriages are a subset of marriage while same-sex marriage is not?
> 
> Did you bother to read my post at all?

Yes, you have arbitrarily decided what the definitions are.

>>Specifically, how are the rights, responsibilities and benefits different [between marriage and civil unions]?
>>
>>If the only difference is the name and who is eligible, that would be
>>like having a car for straight people, and having an exact replica for
>>gay people but calling it a 'gorp' instead.
> 
> If a car required that a man and a woman drive it, then there would have to
> be a different name for something that didn't have that requirement.

Even though it is an exact replica?  You do realize that in such a case, 
you are only fooling yourself by calling it a different name.

Josh Rosenbluth

In article <4199450C.9030705@gotcha.comcast.net>, 
jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net says...
>
> Not allowing roommates the same rights to marriage without getting 
> married is also discrimination.  But, it is almost certainly 
> Constitutionally acceptable because 1) single people are not even a 
> minimally protected minority class, and 2) the state can claim the 
> purpose of marriage is to encourage lifelong loving relationships which 
> foster societal stability.

Or that the purpose of marriage is to encourage lifelong loving 
relationships between men and women which foster social stability and 
provision for the physical and psychological needs of children.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <10pi2lsgq66q929@corp.supernews.com>, djacobs@shell.rawbw.com 
says...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Gerry Quinn <gerryq@deletethisindigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > Quite right.  That is why an amendment banning homosexuals from getting 
> > married is most unlikely.
> 
> I wish I could be as sure about that as you...  11 states have already 
> voted to pass an unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriages.  52% of the 
> US believes everything Bush tells them.  Do you really think it'll be all 
> that hard for Bush to "listen to the people" and ramrod yet another 
> unconstitutional law through the government? 

Quite obviously, it would be next to impossible, even if he showed any 
intention of wanting that.  (And what 'unconstitutional law' was 
'ramrodded through the government'?  Not an amendment banning same-sex 
marriages, that's for sure.)  

Come back to usenet when your paranoia has abated.

- Gerry Quinn

What is with this MORON?  The idea of blacks being told to not sit in
seats marked "white only" is NOT silly.  It's a valid comparison to
the bigotry of those who would discrimate.

And then this undereducated idiot tries to call someone else
"ignorant" for not believing the USA was founded on Christianity.  The
self-righteouness and utter falciousness is making me want to throw
up!  It's common friggin knowledge that the first ammendment is based
on separation from church and state.  It is the FIRST because it wa
sthe PRIMARY goal of the forfathers to NOT base this country on any
religion.

And then this idiot claims it such a widely known fact, and if people
don't believe his RECONSTRUCTIONISM it's because they haven't bothered
to look.  Well I have, and this what I found:

United States Constitution (1787):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st,1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and
State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the
separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the
United States." There existed little controversy about this
interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of
Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or
act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the
parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever
produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries."

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that
our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the
Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all
U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This
Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.")

John Adams (1735-1826)
"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the
natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle
or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of
that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of
the rights of mankind."

I could go on and on, siting the literal MILLIONS of quotes and laws
from our founding fathers that would obliverate your argument
entirely.  But what is the point?  It is YOU who is ignorant and
unresearched, all the while masquerading as a holier than thou.

Besides, even if you did want to make a case for biblical anti
setiments  ignoring the first ammendment, you'd still be hard pressed
to find a biblical law which jusges homosexuality a transgression.
There is only ONE biblical quote that lists homosexuality as a
transgression, but it is found in leviticus, a book written for LEVITE
PRIESTS, not laity.

>>>The answer if
>>>you really want it is no.
>>
>>so you *are* cool with seeing two guys kissing each other in public...
> 
> 
> How did you come to that conclusion?
> 

::sigh:: let me recap for you. i asked if we should ban public displays
of affection. you answered no. two guys kissing each other in public is
such a display of affection. ergo you dont think it should be banned.


>>>My opinion doesn't matter.
> Your posts are an example of ill-concieved opinions.

which of course is your opinion. which doesnt matter. ah well.


>>because i am holding this discussion with you, not the general public -
>>therefore i want to discuss your opinions and not the opinions of a
>>group of people you only know in the vaguest sense.
> 
> You mean "vaguest sense" as in observing the results of a overwhelming vote
> to not allow gay marriage?

lol! a single vote does not give you an accurate idea of the opinions of
a group of people. so yes, in the vaguest sense.

besides, which vote was this? who took part in this vote? what
demographic do they represent? what choices did they have in the vote?
what information had they been exposed to before this vote? more
specifically what propagander had they been fed? and do they really
represent the general public of the 6 billion people living on this
planet? or, let me guess - you are quite happy to believe any statistic
that is presented before you, as long as it can be used, however
tentatively, to agree with your current set of opinions?


>>the legal union between two loving partners is a fundamental right for
>>all people, gay or not. to give the same term two different names
>>determined by the sexuality of the loving partners is to discriminate
>>between sexuality and therefore undermine the fact that the union is a
>>fundamental right to all people.
> 
> Define legal union.

the partnership of two people which is protected by the law.


>>a deffinition of the word "fact" is something that is believed to be
>>true or real. no reinterpretation, just the usage of one of its
>>alternate meanings.
> 
> Refer back to "ill-conceived opinion" for a rebuttal of this statement.

refer to a dictionary for the deffinition of words you are obviously
confused about.

actually just to make things as simple for you as possible, here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact

look under deffinition 2.c and behold your apparent stupidity.


>>i suggest you revise your far from laudable
>>knowledge of the english language.
> 
> The internet is the breeding ground of irony.

explains why you are here.


>>i am speculating about your motives based upon the content of your posts
>>in this discussion - sure, however you are resisting change in favour of
>>discrimination. this cannot be denied.
> 
> Speculation is correct.

but you do not deny your actions as i have described them here.


>>again, the word marriage has a variety of similar meanings. you
>>obviously think it only has one - and that is the christian meaning for
>>marriage. unfortunately you never specified which meaning of the word
>>marriage you were using - displaying an obvious lack of knowledge of the
>>deffinition of the words you are using; including, but not limited to,
>>the word ignorance.
> 
> This is simply an example of how baseless you arguments are.

lol! you cant even argue with me anymore. you have to resort to simple
put downs because you have depleted your list of justifications for
prejudice.

nevermind. i was wondering how long you would be able to maintain your 
arguement before you degenerated into pathetic statements.


>>and during all that time, until recently, women were regarded as the
>>inferior sex. and the independance of women has been strongly opposed,
>>usually by insecure sexist males - just as the recognition of gay rights
>>has been opposed by insecure homophobes... but as ive been saying -
>>times change, along with public opinions and attitudes.
> 
> Irrelevant.  The issue is what society defines as marriage.  It always has
> been between a man and a women in every society.

the issue is that you refuse to believe that the definition society
gives to any kind of concept or term can change.

i have already shown you that the definition of marriage has changed, 
and yet you refuse to believe it can change further. how short sighted 
of you.


>>i said you have not halted progress. and you are trying to ridicule me
>>by sarcastically agreeing with me? do you have some kind of
>>comprehension disability?
> 
> On your part, yes.

you command of the english language is obviously lacking.


>>not at all. dont start thinking that just because i am pointing out the
>>stupidity of your opinions that i believe that *all* opinions are stupid.
> 
> Or perhaps you are pointing out your inability to present an argument.

lol! you are merely displaying *your* inability to argue at all. you put 
forth your primitve views, and when they are challenged and debunked you 
have no choice but to resort to poor insults, ridiculous statements and 
avoiding simple questions.


>>ah... you *do* have a comprehension disability. i said the "long
>>standing tradition is only applicable to a certain subset of people who
>>prescribe to the christian church". long standing tradition does not
>>equate to marriage as a whole, but the actual long standing tradition
>>associated with christian marriages. perhaps you should get somebody
>>with a better command of the english language than yourself to speak for
>>you.
> 
> And your comprehension disability is characterized by the fact that you are
> unable to grasp that I was pointing out that it isn't only Christians who
> believe that marriage is between a man and a women.  For someone who's
> *thinks* they have a command of the English language you certainly have a
> problem understanding a simple statment.

i know that it isnt just christians who believe that marriage is between 
a man and woman. what is more i have never denied it. you have obviously 
come to the concluesion that i cant comprehend this, but without any 
evidence. perhaps this is how you reach all your concluesions.


>>i denigrate others when they have shown themselves without a doubt to be
>>voicing primitive small minded views based upon prejudice and
>>discrimination. which is exactly what you have been doing.
> 
> Likewise, but I wait until they resort to name calling as their last stance.
> So people like yourself reach that point early.

name calling is not my last stance. if someone is displaying an ignorant 
opinion i will call them ignorant. if you have such an issue with my 
observations on your character as presented in this discussion then i 
suggest you give up now, if you dont then why do you make such a big 
deal of it?


>>all the newsgroups we are posting across are video game newsgroups, and
>>on the subject of video games you can disagree with me all you want, i
>>will not oppose your opinions or ridicule you for it. however saying
>>that the legal union of gay couples should be given a different name
>>than marriage to signify that the union is that of a homosexual couple
>>is plain and simple discrimination.
> 
> In your mind.

not at all, by the very deffinition of the words involved - you are 
discriminating against gays. again, go look up the word discriminate.


>>my put downs are logical conclusions to the opinions you have expressed
>>within this discussion. you want to discriminate against gays, and i
>>regard such discrimination to be small minded and primitive. besides, i
>>was not complaining about your use of put downs - merely commenting on
>>the fact that these put downs more accurately discribe your position
>>than my own.
> 
> In your mind.

lol! you really have run out of arguements!


>>which majority are you talking about - the majority of human beings? the
>>majority of american citizens? or, more likely, the majority of the
>>people that you interact with? how do you observe this majority? how can
>>you be certain these methods of observation are accurate for such a
>>large number of people?
> 
> The majority that recently voted on this issue in the US.

but you fail to answer my other questions which are essential to 
understanding the relevancy of the vote itself.


>>to answer your question, your views expressed in this discussion are the
>>cliched opinions of a typical homophobic. homophobes may well be
>>extensively publisized, however they are in fact a minority of the
>>population of this world. ergo you borrowed your opinions from a minority.
> 
> So you are now the spokeman for the whole world on the issue of what they
> think about homosexual behavior?

lol! more ridiculous statements! where do you draw these bizarre and far 
fetched concluesions from? perhaps you think that you are ridiculing me, 
but instead you are only succeeding in making a fool of yourself. i was 
expressing *my* opinion, and nothing more. to take what is obviously my 
opinion and then think i am trying to be some kind of world spokesman 
only highlights how stupid you actually are.


>>considering a vast proportion of females have no problem with gay men,
>>and women count for approximately 50% of the worlds population, i would
>>say you are very wrong in this assumption. your problem with your ideas
>>of society and the majority is that you are speaking only for insecure
>>heterosexual male americans instead of everybody who lives on this
>>planet...
> 
> Well I guess if you speak for the whole world that would include women too.

more on your bizarre and poorly formed "concluesions".

having totally failed in presenting a valid argument against me, FLY135 
resorts to making ridiculous statements in the hope that they can 
conceal his complete lack of discursive ability.


>>your second post was the discrimatory post that i originally replied to.
>>so if you wish to hold the belief that bloviating your prejudice
>>concerning homosexuality has been inspirational to the subsequent
>>conversations concerning the gradual changes in society then you are
>>truly an idiot. it would be like hitler believing himself to be a
>>promoter of world peace.
> 
> LOL, I'm not suprised that you managed to bring Hitler into this.

and im not surprised once more you have completely avoided addressing 
any of the points i have brought up. obviously they are too much for you 
to deal with.


> "bloviating", not hardly.  That would be far more indicative of your
> discourse.  Try using a dictionary sometime and understand the meaning of
> the words you use.
> 

bloviating can equally be applied to yourself as it can be to myself. i 
bloviate like you use put downs. of course somebody of your caliber 
would be incapable of admitting to any kind of negative aspect about 
themselves.

i await you next batch of random concluesions which are more akin to a 
conversation going on in your head rather than actual responses to my posts.

hawkbeak@hotmail.com (Volstag) wrote in message news:<b4d10b91.0411081134.1908ccec@posting.google.com>...
> steveblonskebiancas@hotmail.com (Steve Blonske) wrote in message news:<266b15c7.0411041601.37dc795b@posting.google.com>...
> > Listen up you Red-state Republican cocksuckers- 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Get over it dude.  I would posit that the "red" states need the "blue"
> states as much as the "blue" states need the "red" states.  There's no
> way in hell you could magically seperate them and expect everything to
> be hunky-dorey.


It's good that you're using quotes, since no state is completely "red"
or "blue" anyway.  It's been a long time since art class, but I submit
that they're all purple.  Sure, Texas and the south is more like a
fuschia; New England and California are more like violet.  I live in a
state called Ohio, which means we're about as purple as they come. 
Bottom line, we look like a nation of pansies when we're this divided.

If we're going to be divided, we at least should have a third party
that's just as popular, and their color could be orange.  Then we'd be
a nation that's brown (right?).  'Cause hey, nobody would ever want to
mess with 3,537,441 square miles of poop.

"Jimmery" <not@chance> wrote in message
news:4199fe94$0$4884$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >>>The answer if
> >>>you really want it is no.
> >>
> >>so you *are* cool with seeing two guys kissing each other in public...
> >
> >
> > How did you come to that conclusion?
> >
>
> ::sigh:: let me recap for you. i asked if we should ban public displays
> of affection. you answered no. two guys kissing each other in public is
> such a display of affection. ergo you dont think it should be banned.

My interpretation of "cool with it" is that I don't find it offensive.
That's not the same as saying it shouldn't be banned.

> >>>My opinion doesn't matter.
> > Your posts are an example of ill-concieved opinions.
>
> which of course is your opinion. which doesnt matter. ah well.

Too bad you can't stay focused on discussing the topic.

> >>because i am holding this discussion with you, not the general public -
> >>therefore i want to discuss your opinions and not the opinions of a
> >>group of people you only know in the vaguest sense.
> >
> > You mean "vaguest sense" as in observing the results of a overwhelming
vote
> > to not allow gay marriage?
>
> lol! a single vote does not give you an accurate idea of the opinions of
> a group of people. so yes, in the vaguest sense.

Yeah, voting on an issue doesn't reveal anything about the public's opinion.
Good argument if you are trying to prove that you've got no argument.

> > Define legal union.
>
> the partnership of two people which is protected by the law.

Define protected by law.

> >>a deffinition of the word "fact" is something that is believed to be
> >>true or real. no reinterpretation, just the usage of one of its
> >>alternate meanings.
> >
> > Refer back to "ill-conceived opinion" for a rebuttal of this statement.
>
> refer to a dictionary for the deffinition of words you are obviously
> confused about.

I suggest you do the same.

>
> actually just to make things as simple for you as possible, here:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact
>
> look under deffinition 2.c and behold your apparent stupidity.

look under deffinition 2.a and behold your apparent stupidity.

> >>i suggest you revise your far from laudable
> >>knowledge of the english language.
> >
> > The internet is the breeding ground of irony.
>
> explains why you are here.

This makes no sense.

> >>i am speculating about your motives based upon the content of your posts
> >>in this discussion - sure, however you are resisting change in favour of
> >>discrimination. this cannot be denied.
> >
> > Speculation is correct.
>
> but you do not deny your actions as i have described them here.

Of course I do.  You can't even interpret a simple statement without
screwing it up.  Why would I agree that you could accurately descibe my
actions?

> >>again, the word marriage has a variety of similar meanings. you
> >>obviously think it only has one - and that is the christian meaning for
> >>marriage. unfortunately you never specified which meaning of the word
> >>marriage you were using - displaying an obvious lack of knowledge of the
> >>deffinition of the words you are using; including, but not limited to,
> >>the word ignorance.
> >
> > This is simply an example of how baseless you arguments are.
>
> lol! you cant even argue with me anymore. you have to resort to simple
> put downs because you have depleted your list of justifications for
> prejudice.

Of course I can't "argue" with you.  You can't even stick to discussing the
issue.

> nevermind. i was wondering how long you would be able to maintain your
> arguement before you degenerated into pathetic statements.

So, you degenerated on the first post.

> >>and during all that time, until recently, women were regarded as the
> >>inferior sex. and the independance of women has been strongly opposed,
> >>usually by insecure sexist males - just as the recognition of gay rights
> >>has been opposed by insecure homophobes... but as ive been saying -
> >>times change, along with public opinions and attitudes.
> >
> > Irrelevant.  The issue is what society defines as marriage.  It always
has
> > been between a man and a women in every society.
>
> the issue is that you refuse to believe that the definition society
> gives to any kind of concept or term can change.

I wrote this 5 days ago.  So I'd say that it's quite evident that I
recognize that society can change.  As I said, I don't agree that you are
capable of "intepreting my actions".

"If gay people want to take the society's conventional interpretation of the
meaning of marriage and force them to adopt a new meaning then the greatest
chance of success is to gently reformulate society's acceptance.  It isn't
suprising that the act of trying to shove it down their throats would meet
with equal resistance"

> i have already shown you that the definition of marriage has changed,
> and yet you refuse to believe it can change further. how short sighted
> of you.

Actually I believe that your posts are an example of naivity and
sefl-indulgence.

> >>i said you have not halted progress. and you are trying to ridicule me
> >>by sarcastically agreeing with me? do you have some kind of
> >>comprehension disability?
> >
> > On your part, yes.
>
> you command of the english language is obviously lacking.

This is an example of your inability to discuss the topic.

> >>not at all. dont start thinking that just because i am pointing out the
> >>stupidity of your opinions that i believe that *all* opinions are
stupid.
> >
> > Or perhaps you are pointing out your inability to present an argument.
>
> lol! you are merely displaying *your* inability to argue at all. you put
> forth your primitve views, and when they are challenged and debunked you
> have no choice but to resort to poor insults, ridiculous statements and
> avoiding simple questions.

Yeah right.

> >>ah... you *do* have a comprehension disability. i said the "long
> >>standing tradition is only applicable to a certain subset of people who
> >>prescribe to the christian church". long standing tradition does not
> >>equate to marriage as a whole, but the actual long standing tradition
> >>associated with christian marriages. perhaps you should get somebody
> >>with a better command of the english language than yourself to speak for
> >>you.
> >
> > And your comprehension disability is characterized by the fact that you
are
> > unable to grasp that I was pointing out that it isn't only Christians
who
> > believe that marriage is between a man and a women.  For someone who's
> > *thinks* they have a command of the English language you certainly have
a
> > problem understanding a simple statment.
>
> i know that it isnt just christians who believe that marriage is between
> a man and woman. what is more i have never denied it. you have obviously
> come to the concluesion that i cant comprehend this, but without any
> evidence. perhaps this is how you reach all your concluesions.

Perhaps you could spend more time to formulate you message so that it means
what you want it to mean.

> >>i denigrate others when they have shown themselves without a doubt to be
> >>voicing primitive small minded views based upon prejudice and
> >>discrimination. which is exactly what you have been doing.
> >
> > Likewise, but I wait until they resort to name calling as their last
stance.
> > So people like yourself reach that point early.
>
> name calling is not my last stance.

I know. It's your first stance.

> not at all, by the very deffinition of the words involved - you are
> discriminating against gays. again, go look up the word discriminate.

You can't determine if it's discrimination by looking it up in a dictionary.
If your ability to determine the particulars of a situation is limited to
checking the dictionary then it's no wonder that your areguments are so
shallow.

> >>my put downs are logical conclusions to the opinions you have expressed
> >>within this discussion. you want to discriminate against gays, and i
> >>regard such discrimination to be small minded and primitive. besides, i
> >>was not complaining about your use of put downs - merely commenting on
> >>the fact that these put downs more accurately discribe your position
> >>than my own.
> >
> > In your mind.
>
> lol! you really have run out of arguements!

What's to argue?  You go on a diatribe about how superior you believe in
your own mind that you are.  In case you haven't noticed, there is very
little point in arguing issues like that.

> >>which majority are you talking about - the majority of human beings? the
> >>majority of american citizens? or, more likely, the majority of the
> >>people that you interact with? how do you observe this majority? how can
> >>you be certain these methods of observation are accurate for such a
> >>large number of people?
> >
> > The majority that recently voted on this issue in the US.
>
> but you fail to answer my other questions which are essential to
> understanding the relevancy of the vote itself.

You failed to pose those questions.

> >>to answer your question, your views expressed in this discussion are the
> >>cliched opinions of a typical homophobic. homophobes may well be
> >>extensively publisized, however they are in fact a minority of the
> >>population of this world. ergo you borrowed your opinions from a
minority.
> >
> > So you are now the spokeman for the whole world on the issue of what
they
> > think about homosexual behavior?
>
> lol! more ridiculous statements!

Yes I know.  I wouldn't of had to respond to those ridiculous statements if
you just had admitted it earlier.

> fetched concluesions from? perhaps you think that you are ridiculing me,
> but instead you are only succeeding in making a fool of yourself. i was
> expressing *my* opinion, and nothing more. to take what is obviously my
> opinion and then think i am trying to be some kind of world spokesman
> only highlights how stupid you actually are.

LOL, to quote you.... "how can you be certain these methods of observation
are accurate for such a large number of people?"

> having totally failed in presenting a valid argument against me, FLY135
> resorts to making ridiculous statements in the hope that they can
> conceal his complete lack of discursive ability.

It's funny how when I laugh at your inability to simply discuss the issue
without interjecting derogatory comments that you sit down and compose a
whole post accusing me of not being able to argue the issues.

>
> > LOL, I'm not suprised that you managed to bring Hitler into this.
>
> and im not surprised once more you have completely avoided addressing
> any of the points i have brought up. obviously they are too much for you
> to deal with.

The points that you bring up are accusations about my personal nature.
These are not relevant issues.

> bloviating can equally be applied to yourself as it can be to myself.

As with just about everyone's post.  The point is that you accomplish
nothing by accusing someone of what you do as well.

> i
> bloviate like you use put downs. of course somebody of your caliber
> would be incapable of admitting to any kind of negative aspect about
> themselves.

See above.
>
> i await you next batch of random concluesions which are more akin to a
> conversation going on in your head rather than actual responses to my
posts.

You are the one making erroneous conclusions.  I'm just being obstinate and
throwing the same lame crap back at you.

The reality is that you know nothing about me or what I think.  Even when I
make a argument on an issue, you immediately just past the points I make,
speculate on what I believe, and then argue against some opponent you've
created in your imagination.

I have no religious convictions that make me believe that gays should not
marry.  I have no personal objections to gays marrying.  While I don't like
the idea of seeing two guys kissing, it doesn't bother me to see two girls
kissing.  That has nothing to do with some moral upbringing, but I bet it
has a lot to do with biology.  My arguments are based on being "open-minded"
about the fact that society has a lot of people who have various reasons for
not wanting govt. to promote the gay lifestyle as a perfectly equal and
valid lifestyle.

Parents do have the right to raise their children with their moral code.
Society has an obligation to be responsible in respecting this as well as
respecting others right wrt many issues.  Most parents want their children
to grow up with the belief that creating a traditional family unit, having
children, and perpetuating the family tree is correct lifestyle.  So I can
understand why something that would potentially threaten this statistically
would not be readily accepted.

Also there is an issue of why marital benefits are offered.  For example,
why do married people get the biggest tax deduction?  And why should a gay
couple be entitled to this?  I'm a single parent with two children and don't
get as big a tax deduction as a married couple.

The fact that I personally don't object to gay marriying and yet can
recognize that there is validity to the viewpoints of those who do is an
example of open-mindedness.  Your characterizations of me as a ignorant
bigot and word games over dictionary definitions is nothing more than
avoiding discussing the issue intelligently.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41994632.2020601@gotcha.comcast.net...
> FLY135 wrote:
>
> > The I've been trying to make is that a civil union can give gays
virtually
> > all the benefits of marriage without sanctioning the idea that it is
> > marriage.  This dispenses with argument that govt is redefining marriage
to
> > be also between same sex partners.  Regardless of whether it's your
opinion
> > that this is an example of backwards thinking, you have a marjority of
> > society that feels it's important.  If gays want to get married in the
> > church that still can.  And perhaps some time in the future society will
> > modify it's thinking.  The main point of contention is whether it's
> > discrimination and violates a constitutional right to ban marriage
between
> > gays.  If a civil union has esentially the same benefits offered by
marriage
> > then I don't think that claim could be made.
>
> I suspect your are correct in theory but not in practice.  If civil
> unions were 100% identical to marriage except for the name, they just
> might pass Constitutional muster.  However in practice, different names
> usually lead to differences in substance.
>
> Even if the Constitutional requirement is met by civil unions, why would
> you want to have a different name if the two are 100% identical?

Other than the obvious reason that society may not want the govt to define
marriage as also being between individuals of the same sex?  What about the
marriage tax law?  Should that apply to gay couples as well?  I'm a single
parent that doesn't get the same tax deduction that a married couple does.
Perhaps it's important to examine why we choose to provide these benefits
and determine whether it makes sense to give them to same-sex couples.

"Jimmery" <not@chance> wrote

> the "conventional interpretation of marriage" is as undefined and
> changable as the statement is vague.

Actually, no.  There's been a common theme throughout...

> and again, it is another concept which has changed over time.

Not fundamentally, no.

> 300 years ago marriage for the common man
> was simply a case of standing on your doorstep and declaring to the
> world that you and your spouse were married.

BS, but then again, you'll provide a source, no?  You don't know what you're
talking about, obviously, seeing as marriage licenses were required in the
1700's and before.

Oh, and it had to be a man and a woman.  Not homosexual couples.

> later the christian church
> made marriage at church compulsory.

Nope, since that would be after 1700's, and it being in a church was not
compulsory, my ignorant friend.  Actually, the Council of Trent stated that
marriages had to be performed in the presence of a priest and that there be
at least two witnesses.  That was in 1563 and was in response to a recent
phenomenon where people were being wed with no witnesses, etc, which was
sanctioned to begin with.  Perhaps that's what you were thinking about
above, but it wouldn't follow since they weren't considered married...
Oops?

Oh, and it had to be a man and a woman.  Not homosexual couples.

> later in history places like las
> vegas changed how marriage operates once more

Not really, since Vegas marriages are still performed according to the rules
codified in the 1500's.  Still need an ordained or licensed clergyman with
permission from the government to perform marriages, or a justice of the
peace.

Oh, and it had to be a man and a woman.  Not homosexual couples.

>allowing you to have
> shotgun weddings, still legal in the eyes of the law.

You don't know what the term "shotgun wedding" means, obviously, since
consent has been codified since 866 AD, dumbass.  :)  Perhaps you should
look up the term "shotgun wedding".

Oh, and it had to be a man and a woman.  Not homosexual couples.

> each time the deffinition of marriage has changed

Marriage, my ignorant friend, has not changed over the years.  It's the
union of a man and a woman.  Perhaps the requirements for one to be
recognized and ceremonies have changed, but marriage has not, my ignorant
friend.

> over the years there
> has been resistance from ignorant individuals like yourself. but
> unfortunately for you this has not halted progress.

Since there's been no change to marriage, you're left holding your pee pee,
son.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote

> A friend of mine was going to marry someone from another religion and they
> were going to have a dual ceremony (one for each religion.)  However they
> had a hard time finding someone willing to perform his half of the
ceremony.
> The person they originally contacted refused, saying it was against his
> beliefs to marry a mixed-faith couple.
>
> Was this within his rights,

To refuse to marry them?  Yep.

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote

> Yes, marriage has NEVER been about love, which kind of destroys the notion
> that gay couples are in love as much as heterosexual couples are and so
> should be able to have recognition of that (as activists for same sex
> marriage insist).

^^^^ Coffin nail #8291

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:4197C2B1.5080502@gotcha.comcast.net...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>> Second, it in no way addresses the social convention idea that I keep
>> raising.
>
> Of course my approach is in conflict with your "social convention" theory 
> because your theory appears to be nothing more than a blanket upholding of 
> tradition.  The consequence of which would make anti-miscegenation and Jim 
> Crow beyond the reach of Equal Protection.

Social convention is not really the issue.  I went back and looked at my 
outline on equal protection.  The USSC will only strike state laws that are 
intentionally discriminatory (mere discriminatory effect is not enough). 
Intent can be shown three ways:  Facial discrimination, discriminatory 
application, or discriminatory motive.  When a statute establishes a 
classification based on gender, the Court has expressly held that the 
government has the burden of proof and that "an exceedingly persuasive 
justification" is required in order to show that gender discrimination is 
"substantially related to an important government interest."  [U.S. v. 
Virginia, 116 S.Ct.2664 (1996)]

I think it's a strain to try to apply gender equal protection to marriage 
statutes:  Marriage statutes appear to classify people into three groups 
based on gender:  (1) M+M=No; (2) F+F=No; (3)  M+F=OK.  The classification 
appears to be facially discriminatory because the statute defines marriage 
as "between a man and a woman."  The classification also appears to be 
intentionally discriminatory in its application because the state refuses to 
license same-gender couples. Therefore, the state should be prepared to show 
an exceedingly persuasive justification that the gender discrimination is 
substantially related to an important government interest.

On the other hand, perhaps this just isn't a gender equal protection case. 
When involving a state action that does not involve a suspect or 
quasi-suspect classification, the action will be upheld unless the 
challenger can prove that the action "is not rationally related to a 
legitimate government interest."  Marriage statutes are gender neutral in 
classification because they don't limit marriage to just one gender.  There 
is also equality in application because any gender can obtain a marriage 
license.  Therefore, the challenger must show that limiting marriage to a 
man and a woman is not rationally related to any legitimate government 
interest. 

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 CritiquingChrist <CritiquingChrist@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is with this MORON?  The idea of blacks being told to not sit in
> seats marked "white only" is NOT silly.  It's a valid comparison to
> the bigotry of those who would discrimate.

I gave up trying to reason with him.  It's clear that technology isn't the 
only topic that he doesn't have a clue about...  

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Gerry Quinn <gerryq@deletethisindigo.ie> wrote:

> Quite obviously, it would be next to impossible, even if he showed any 
> intention of wanting that.  (And what 'unconstitutional law' was 
> 'ramrodded through the government'?  Not an amendment banning same-sex 
> marriages, that's for sure.)  

Ever hear of the Patriot Act?  All the government has to do is call you a 
terrorist, and you lose all your rights.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 FLY135 <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:

> Apparently what some people can't seem to grasp is that a judge should not
> have the right to define marriage for society.  Marriage benefits are not
> based on the gender of a person.  People of both genders enjoy the benefits
> equally.  Before a judge could even presume to be qualified to redefine
> marriage to include same sex couples, the judge has to fully comprehend how
> and why marriage benefits came to be in the first place.  Something that I
> doubt any single person has sufficient knowledge to do.  It is activism to
> impose a ruling like this on society.

Judges - by definition - are required to interpret the laws to pass 
judgement.  They "impose" their rulings on society all the time - it's 
their job.

And you have still not explained how changing the government's definition 
of marriage to include same-sex couples is going to somehow damage society 
or marriage itself.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4199450C.9030705@gotcha.comcast.net...
> FLY135 wrote:
> >
> > Except that *anyone* regardless of sexual orientation can get married.
The
> > issue is that they don't want to get married as marriage is defined.
>
> The issue is gays aren't allowed to marry the sole, unmarried,
> unrelated, adult person they want for their life-long partner.
> Straights can.  The current definition of marriage is discriminatory.

Just being discrimatory doesn't mean that it must be changed.  Some people
like to smoke pot and others like to drink alcohol.  Pot smokers are
discriminated against.  I'm a single parent and pay on a higher tax scale
than married people who make the same amount of money.  That's
discriminatory.  The issue isn't whether it's discriminatory, but whether it
is deserving of change.

> > Why can't I have a roommate that I decide to share those same rights
with
> > and claim a constitutional right to those benefits without getting
married
>
> Not allowing roommates the same rights to marriage without getting
> married is also discrimination.  But, it is almost certainly
> Constitutionally acceptable because 1) single people are not even a
> minimally protected minority class

So to be qualified as a minority you simply have to desire something the
majority doesn't?  Or you just have to desire something and have some law
already protect you in some manner?

>, and 2) the state can claim the
> purpose of marriage is to encourage lifelong loving relationships which
> foster societal stability.

Why can the state claim this but not also specify that what it's trying to
foster is mother/father/child relationships?  This is a key point because
the question is why do we even provide special consideration for family
units?

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c03f6e8783069ea989b01@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <4199450C.9030705@gotcha.comcast.net>,
> jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net says...
> >
> > Not allowing roommates the same rights to marriage without getting
> > married is also discrimination.  But, it is almost certainly
> > Constitutionally acceptable because 1) single people are not even a
> > minimally protected minority class, and 2) the state can claim the
> > purpose of marriage is to encourage lifelong loving relationships which
> > foster societal stability.
>
> Or that the purpose of marriage is to encourage lifelong loving
> relationships between men and women which foster social stability and
> provision for the physical and psychological needs of children.

No doubt.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Allan C Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Sigh.  Tell me what the majority of people in the US or Canada think should
> be the definition of marriage, and once we've determined that, THEN the
> answer really is a no-brainer.  Whether those people are Christian or not
> doesn't matter; and just to make it clear, whether the answer comes up as
> "same sex couples are included" or "same sex couples are excluded" really
> doesn't matter to me.

> But no one has really asked yet, have they?

Other than the informal polls - which showed that the majority of your 
countrymen have no problem with same-sex couples getting married.  Perhaps 
you should move down here where the majority of the voters seem to agree 
with your views already.

And if you don't really care one way or the other, why are you so 
incessant that we just blindly follow tradition when it's been shown - 
repeatedly - that the tradition doesn't match today's society - or the law 
that it supposedly adheres to.

No one has yet explained how allowing the government to recognize same-sex 
marriages the same as hetreo marriages is going to affect either society 
or its view of marriage.