Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
J
the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
Society has more important matters that require attention.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
By John Jalsevac
December 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A newly released Angus Reid poll
shows that the majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex "marriage."
In the poll 1,001 respondents were asked, "Do you favor or oppose allowing
gays and lesbians to marry legally?" Forty-six percent of respondents said
that they were opposed to same-sex "marriage," while only 43% said they are
in favor. Ten percent said they are not sure.
The poll has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.
The results from the poll come at the same time as a volley of attempts at
legalizing same-sex "marriage" in some of the country's most liberal states
have been defeated.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
A very Merry Christmas to all!
Olrik
Left-handed people are diseased and should be corrected.
That's actually what the catholic church did until the '40s.
Olrik
<snip troll vomit>
Ray Fischer
>This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
According to your cite the poll is a tie, nazi turd. The difference is
within the margin of error. But I understand your need to lie about it.
And when one looks at the actual poll (rather than the pro-lie spin)
it looks very different:
Polling Data
Now, thinking about same-sex couples. Which of these statements
comes closer to your own point of view on the legal recognition of
same-sex couples in the United States?
Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry 36%
Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions, but not marry 25%
Same-sex couples should not have any kind of legal recognition 29%
Not sure 10%
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/same_sex_marriage_divides_views_in_us/
You bigots are in the minority. Your cult of hate is being rejected.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Ford
> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
Yaaaaaaaaaaay! Discrimination rules!!!!!! Woooooooooo!!!! USA!!! USA!!!
USA!!!
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
W.T.S.
news:3cp268....@news.alt.net...
> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
> history. Society has more important matters that require attention.
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
During the civil rights movement, most of the U.S. voted against integration
and voting rights, most would vote against them today.
As for more important matters, as the famous saying goes, "All mankind
should've been my business." Basic human rights are fundamental!
Church, bad. Sex, good.
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
Enos Penvy
> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
>
> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
> By John Jalsevac
>
> December 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A newly released Angus Reid poll
> shows that the majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex "marriage."
>
> In the poll 1,001 respondents were asked, "Do you favor or oppose allowing
> gays and lesbians to marry legally?" Forty-six percent of respondents said
> that they were opposed to same-sex "marriage," while only 43% said they are
> in favor. Ten percent said they are not sure.
46% v. 43% you consider to be a huge victory for the bigots?
Consider: 46% less 1.5% = 44.5%. Add that 1.5% to the 43% and you
get 44.5%. That's the margin of the difference. With just 1.5%
switching from "no" to "yes", you have an equal number for and
against.
And with 10% NOT SURE... well... I guess we can only imagine which way
they'd vote if they had to. I mean, those who are very anti-same-sex
marriage don't have to THINK about it (and clearly DON'T), so where do
we think these people who are sitting on the fence would go?
Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
from "no" to "yes".
Just 1.5%.
HUUUUUUUUUUUGE victory for your side, J. Young.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
duke
>Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
>still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>from "no" to "yes".
No future elections in the works.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
MarkA
> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> Society has more important matters that require attention.
Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
>
>
>
>
> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
>
>
>
>
> By John Jalsevac
>
>
>
> December 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A newly released Angus Reid poll
> shows that the majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex "marriage."
>
> In the poll 1,001 respondents were asked, "Do you favor or oppose allowing
> gays and lesbians to marry legally?" Forty-six percent of respondents said
> that they were opposed to same-sex "marriage," while only 43% said they are
> in favor. Ten percent said they are not sure.
46% is not a "majority"
>
> The poll has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.
>
> The results from the poll come at the same time as a volley of attempts at
> legalizing same-sex "marriage" in some of the country's most liberal states
> have been defeated.
...where religious conservative groups have spent millions spreading
dysinformation.
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
LC
> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
> history. Society has more important matters that require attention.
Someone explain "margin of error" to the J<unkie>.
In any event, the results show a near dead heat.
The trend is not your friend, IBen.
Richard Smol
> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
So what?
RS
WangoTango
>
> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
At one point a majority approved of slavery.
Doesn't make it right.
This is the might makes right mentality, nothing more.
Kenny McCormack
There are two basic flaws here:
1) In the minds of many people, there is no such thing as "right".
I.e., if you really, truly, believe in the concept of democracy,
then whatever the majority thinks is right is, by definition, right.
2) The obsession with the majority. The fact is that if 51% of the
people believe "X" and 49% believe "not X", it doesn't really
speak very highly of X - since almost half the people don't
believe "X".
Jimbo
wrote:
> In article <MPG.259c3d6fd18cf00198a...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
>
> WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In article <3cp268.ej9.1...@news.alt.net>, Jvisi...@live.com says...
>
> >> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
> >At one point a majority approved of slavery.
> >Doesn't make it right.
> >This is the might makes right mentality, nothing more.
>
> There are two basic flaws here:
> 1) In the minds of many people, there is no such thing as "right".
> I.e., if you really, truly, believe in the concept of democracy,
> then whatever the majority thinks is right is, by definition, right.
Which is the very reason this Nation was not set up as a strict
democracy. Our Nation was set up as, and remains to this day, a
Constitutionally defined Republic which operates along some Democratic
principles, we have a representational government, most of which we
vote for, or are appointed by those we vote for, however issues of
civil rights are not subject to mob rule. In terms of civil rights,
what the majority thinks is not necessarily right, or correct. Civil
rights can, on review of a compelling state interest and due process
of law, be modified or restricted, but not taken away without a
Constitutional Amendment.
Syd M.
> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially homophobic bigots who keep spreading lies and hatred around like there's no tomorrow and surprise, the weak minded swallow it. THAT is why it's been defeated 31 times.
PDW
The Chief Instigator
> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
>
> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
LieSiteNews remains everything but credible, LSD-Laced Junkie Young.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Grand Rapids 3 (December 20)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, December 26 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
The Chief Instigator
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enos...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
>>still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>from "no" to "yes".
>
> No future elections in the works.
You don't decide that, Demented Duke. Choke on that fact, and make the
world a slightly better place for your permanent absence.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enos...@null.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
> >from "no" to "yes".
>
>
> No future elections in the works.
In the US, there are always future elections in the works.
juanjo
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
> >from "no" to "yes".
>
> No future elections in the works.
>
When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
Blue Dogs
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> >This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>
> According to your cite the poll is a tie, nazi turd.
According to forty-some states now, you faggots can shove your
"marriage" up your ass.
Spartakus
> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
>
> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
So what? According to a poll that was published right around the time
of the Loving vs. Virginia decision, 67% of Americans opposed mixed-
race marriage at that time. Opposition to mixed-race marriage did not
become the minority position until 1991.
What's more, opposition to same-sex marriage has steadily declined
this decade. Read more at:
Kenny McCormack
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>>
>> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
>>
>> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
>So what? According to a poll that was published right around the time
>of the Loving vs. Virginia decision, 67% of Americans opposed mixed-
>race marriage at that time. Opposition to mixed-race marriage did not
>become the minority position until 1991.
Yes, and most Southerners still think it is a bad idea.
anonymous
>
> J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> >This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>
> According to your cite the poll is a tie, nazi turd. The difference is
> within the margin of error. But I understand your need to lie about it.
>
> And when one looks at the actual poll (rather than the pro-lie spin)
> it looks very different:
>
> Polling Data
>
> Now, thinking about same-sex couples. Which of these statements
> comes closer to your own point of view on the legal recognition of
> same-sex couples in the United States?
>
> Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry 36%
In Canada same sex couples are allowed to marry. The government just
added homosexuals to list that had only heterosexuals before. Now, of
course, it contains both.
> Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions, but not marry 25%
In Canada that wouldn't work because the word union has a different
meaning and differnt (less) legal rights than does the word marriage.
> Same-sex couples should not have any kind of legal recognition 29%
> Not sure 10%
Not relevant in Canada because equality has been granted.
anonymous
It doesn't matter when, but it is likely most countries in the world
will allow same sex marriage in the next 20 years.
anonymous
>
> J wrote:
>
> > Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
> Yaaaaaaaaaaay! Discrimination rules!!!!!! Woooooooooo!!!! USA!!! USA!!!
> USA!!!
Not so quick. Women didn't have the vote. Women didn't have the right
of 50 percent of the assets of the marriage?
Blacks didn't have many rights. Rode the back of the bus. Today blacks
are equal to whites. That took about 20 years and is still ongoing.
Also white are having fewer children and other people of other ethnic
and religious backgrounds are having lots of kids. So the whiteman
globally may be a minority in your lifeitme.
Alan Ford
>>> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>> Yaaaaaaaaaaay! Discrimination rules!!!!!! Woooooooooo!!!! USA!!! USA!!!
>> USA!!!
>
> Not so quick. Women didn't have the vote. Women didn't have the right
> of 50 percent of the assets of the marriage?
Yaaaaaaaaaaaay! We eliminated some discrimination but we still have
more! Woooooooooo!!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
> Blacks didn't have many rights. Rode the back of the bus. Today blacks
> are equal to whites. That took about 20 years and is still ongoing.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaay! We eliminated some discrimination but we still have
more! Woooooooooo!!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
Also, yaaaaaaaaaaaay! Most of those blacks who were discriminated
against now all too eagerly discriminate against gays! Woooooooooo!!!!
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
> Also white are having fewer children and other people of other ethnic
> and religious backgrounds are having lots of kids. So the whiteman
> globally may be a minority in your lifeitme.
Yaaaaaaaaaaay! Freedom of speech for white supremacists! Woooooooooo!!!!
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
The Lesbians
> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
> history. Society has more important matters that require attention.
No, it's no surprise, particularly when you remember how many were opposed
to interracial marriage just 20 years ago, including Jerry Falwell, who got
his start preaching against integration.
>
duke
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:30:50 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enos...@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
>>>still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>>from "no" to "yes".
>>
>> No future elections in the works.
>
>You don't decide that, Demented Duke.
That's a good argument for a regular political vote, but not for queerism, which
has no need to come backup and continues to fail gleefully.
> Choke on that fact, and make the
>world a slightly better place for your permanent absence.
Sweetness.
duke
wrote:
You don't. That's strictly God's domain.
duke
Interracial marriage is still between 1 man and 1 woman. Say bub-bye to queer
unions.
duke
Blah, blah, blah. But not the US of A, my country.
duke
wrote:
Must be why opposition continues to manifest itself.
duke
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>
>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
Queer unions is special rights.
MarkA
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>>
>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially
>>> considering the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the
>>> ballot box. It's time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the
>>> trash bin of history. Society has more important matters that require
>>> attention.
>>
>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>
> Queer unions is special rights.
>
Not when straight unions confer special rights.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Nomen Publicus
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 23, 4:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>>> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. �We've
>>> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>> >from "no" to "yes".
>>>
>>> No future elections in the works.
>>>
>>
>>When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>
> You don't. That's strictly God's domain.
What about that state contract you signed? That's what made it legal.
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
--
Evolution is a mathematically based theory. If you don't understand
statistics you will never properly understand evolution.
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:58:53 -0500, "The Lesbians"
> <Trib...@manhattan.sapphist.org> wrote:
>
> ><Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message news:3cp268....@news.alt.net...
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
> >> history. Society has more important matters that require attention.
> >
> >
> >No, it's no surprise, particularly when you remember how many were opposed
> >to interracial marriage just 20 years ago, including Jerry Falwell, who got
> >his start preaching against integration.
>
> Interracial marriage is still between 1 man and 1 woman. Say bub-bye to queer
> unions.
SO you have just shifted your bigotry and hatred to another minority.
No big surprise there.
Mark Sebree
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 23, 4:30 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> >> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
> >> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
> >> >from "no" to "yes".
>
> >> No future elections in the works.
>
> >When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>
> You don't.
Yet you claim that you have the right to vote on other people's right
to get married. That is discriminatory.
> That's strictly God's domain.
No, it is not. Your imaginary friend has no dominion over anything in
the real world, like marriage. The TRUTH is that marriage should not
be a matter to be voted on because it should be a matter of civil and
equal rights, which means that the right to get married to the single,
unrelated, consenting adult of EITHER gender should be left up to the
individuals involved. The state should not have the right to limit
whom a person can marry outside of general, broadly defined, secularly
based, gender neutral guidelines. Any exceptions should be objective,
documentable, and challengeable in a court of law.
Your religious beliefs do not apply to anyone except you, and have no
place in the law or anyone else's life.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
> >
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
> >
> >Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>
> Queer unions is special rights.
Only if you think that the government gets to pick and choose what
rights it protects based on a religious view. Once the government got
into the marriage business it was Constitutionally bound to apply it
equally to ALL citizens.
I think you would be better served running a campaign to get the Vatican
to return all the stolen property it has received over the years. I
doubt Jesus would line his halls with the spoils of hundreds of years of
plunder stolen from the people's of the world.
Mark Sebree
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
> >Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>
(I changed your words to make them more accurate without changing the
meaning.)
No, they are not. They are the same rights as heterosexuals now
have. As is currently stands, HETEROSEXUALS are the ones with the
special rights since they are the only ones that can get married to
the person of their choice anywhere in the country, they have access
to all the federal laws that pertain to marriage, and their marriages
are recognized anywhere in the country without significant work by the
couple.
Homosexual couples only want those same rights as heterosexual take
for granted. That means that they are not looking for "special
rights", or if you prefer, they want to change the "special rights"
into equal rights open to every adult, unrelated couple where neither
party is currently married to another. They want to remove the gender
and sexual orientation restrictions currently in place in marriage
laws.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
duke
wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 23, 4:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>>>> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. �We've
>>>> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>>> >from "no" to "yes".
>>>>
>>>> No future elections in the works.
>>>>
>>>
>>>When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>>
>> You don't. That's strictly God's domain.
>
>What about that state contract you signed? That's what made it legal.
The state contract is signed immediately before or immediately after the
marriage ceremony. That's what establishes civil partnership responsibility of
the loving couple, with or without a marriage ceremony.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 7:35�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 23, 4:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. �We've
>> >> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>> >> >from "no" to "yes".
>>
>> >> No future elections in the works.
>>
>> >When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>>
>> You don't.
>
>Yet you claim that you have the right to vote on other people's right
>to get married. That is discriminatory.
Queers can never get married. Marriage from God requires one man and one woman.
>No, it is not.
God invented marriage, and he will not bless a mortal sin like queer sex.
duke
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:38:40 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>>>
>>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially
>>>> considering the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the
>>>> ballot box. It's time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the
>>>> trash bin of history. Society has more important matters that require
>>>> attention.
>>>
>>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>>
>> Queer unions is special rights.
>Not when straight unions confer special rights.
Straight unions are not special rights. It takes a change in state laws to
allow the mortal sin of queer sex joinings.
duke
>In article <m5o6j59jq6sme1q7p...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>> >
>> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>> >
>> >Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>>
>> Queer unions is special rights.
>
>Only if you think that the government gets to pick and choose what
>rights it protects based on a religious view.
It's already been established, starting on September 17, 1787.
duke
Shifted? Bigotry?
Mark Sebree
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:32:33 -0800 (PST), Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
> >>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
>
> >> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
> >So what? According to a poll that was published right around the time
> >of the Loving vs. Virginia decision, 67% of Americans opposed mixed-
> >race marriage at that time. Opposition to mixed-race marriage did not
> >become the minority position until 1991.
>
> >What's more, opposition to same-sex marriage has steadily declined
> >this decade. Read more at:
>
> Must be why opposition continues to manifest itself.
>
No, opposition continues to manifest itself because some people just
will not let go of their bigotry, nor will they seek to learn about
the issue or try to look at it from the oppressed's viewpoint. They
could have been raised in such a bigoted environment, they may have
been taught that bigotry in their place of worship, or they may have
had a traumatic experience and want to punish all people with that
characteristic.
It takes many generations to get rid of bigotry. Just take a look at
the bigotry that still manifests itself against blacks, and the
misogyny that still shows up against women.
What can be done is educate the young about the facts, raise awareness
of the discrimination and its affects on the people that it harms, and
to legally remove barriers which exist which discriminate against the
specified groups, and to legally prevent discrimination where
feasible, such as the workplace, housing, and the service industries.
The discrimination diminishes with time as the young who have learned
the truth and the facts age and rise to power. They remove the
discriminatory laws from the books. They remove the barriers that are
in place. And they educate the next generation to dismiss the bigotry
of the previous as ridiculous because it is.
Mark Sebree
> Duke
Mark Sebree
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:38:41 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >J wrote:
>
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
> >>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
>
> >> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
> >> By John Jalsevac
>
> >> December 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A newly released Angus Reid poll
> >> shows that the majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex "marriage."
>
> >> In the poll 1,001 respondents were asked, "Do you favor or oppose allowing
> >> gays and lesbians to marry legally?" Forty-six percent of respondents said
> >> that they were opposed to same-sex "marriage," while only 43% said they are
> >> in favor. Ten percent said they are not sure.
>
> >> The poll has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.
>
> >> The results from the poll come at the same time as a volley of attempts at
> >> legalizing same-sex "marriage" in some of the country's most liberal states
> >> have been defeated.
>
> >>http://www.lifesitenews.com
>
> >> --
> >> J Young
>
> >> A very Merry Christmas to all!
>
> >It doesn't matter when, but it is likely most countries in the world
> >will allow same sex marriage in the next 20 years.
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
Meaning that you cannot accept or understand the facts and the truth
that counter your ignorance and bigotry.
> But not the US of A, my country.
You do not own the USA. It is much my country as it is yours, more so
given that I have served in the military and have supported the
military through my career afterwards.
Same sex marriage is already in the USA, and it is expanding in
coverage. In just over a week, New Hampshire will have legal same sex
marriages, and DC just passed a law which legalizes same sex
marriages. The movement to get rid of the discriminatory DOMA law and
the discriminatory DADT law are gaining a lot of strength, and those
laws are likely to be overturned soon.
The USA should have been at the forefront of this equality issue, but
instead, we are lagging far, far behind the rest of the First World,
probably because of the political strength and lies of the extreme
religious right which you idolize/
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:06:34 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:38:40 -0600, duke wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially
> >>>> considering the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the
> >>>> ballot box. It's time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the
> >>>> trash bin of history. Society has more important matters that require
> >>>> attention.
> >>>
> >>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
> >>
> >> Queer unions is special rights.
>
> >Not when straight unions confer special rights.
>
> Straight unions are not special rights. It takes a change in state laws to
> allow the mortal sin of queer sex joinings.
Your religious delusions are not applicable to the status of human
rights. In fact, your church has an abysmal record on human rights.
Maybe you should start there.
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
>
> Queers can never get married. Marriage from God requires one man and one woman.
They aren't asking to be married by your god, they are demanding equal
protection under the law. What the members of your church does is their
business, what the government does to people is a different matter.
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:19:58 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <m5o6j59jq6sme1q7p...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> >> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
> >> >
> >> >Few things are "more important" than human rights.
> >>
> >> Queer unions is special rights.
> >
> >Only if you think that the government gets to pick and choose what
> >rights it protects based on a religious view.
>
> It's already been established, starting on September 17, 1787.
Snipping the parts you don't like doesn't make them go away....
Only if you think that the government gets to pick and choose what
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:16:47 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <c0o6j5pgjncu3u81j...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:58:53 -0500, "The Lesbians"
> >> <Trib...@manhattan.sapphist.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message news:3cp268....@news.alt.net...
> >> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
> >> >> history. Society has more important matters that require attention.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >No, it's no surprise, particularly when you remember how many were opposed
> >> >to interracial marriage just 20 years ago, including Jerry Falwell, who got
> >> >his start preaching against integration.
> >>
> >> Interracial marriage is still between 1 man and 1 woman. Say bub-bye to queer
> >> unions.
> >
> >SO you have just shifted your bigotry and hatred to another minority.
> >No big surprise there.
>
> Shifted? Bigotry?
I know big words......
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> >What about that state contract you signed? That's what made it legal.
>
> The state contract is signed immediately before or immediately after the
> marriage ceremony. That's what establishes civil partnership responsibility of
> the loving couple, with or without a marriage ceremony.
>
>
There are differences between civil unions and marriages under the law.
All they are asking for is that they get equal protection under the law,
like every other couple.
Mark Sebree
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:06:34 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:38:40 -0600, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>
> >>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially
> >>>> considering the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the
> >>>> ballot box. It's time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the
> >>>> trash bin of history. Society has more important matters that require
> >>>> attention.
>
> >>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>
> >> Queer unions is special rights.
> >Not when straight unions confer special rights.
>
> Straight unions are not special rights.
Yes, they are. Only heterosexuals can get married to the single,
unrelated, consenting adult of their choice anywhere in the country,
have access to the over 1000 federal marriage laws and hundreds of
state marriage laws, and have those marriages instantly recognized
anywhere in the country. Homosexuals do not have those rights.
> It takes a change in state laws to
> allow the mortal sin of queer sex joinings.
Since sin is nothing more than an opinion about how people should act
based on religious views rather than objective reasoning, it has no
place in the laws and is not applicable to anyone else. Therefore, if
someone does not think that something is a sin, then it is not a sin,
and your opinion does not change that.
And just because it requires a change in the laws does not mean that
changing marriage to be gender neutral and sexual orientation so that
homosexuals have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals, in fact
and in practice, does not mean that homosexuals are asking for any
special rights. They are simply asking for the same rights that
heterosexuals have and take for granted.
What's more, EVERY citizen has the RIGHT to petition the government to
right transgressions and inequalities in the laws, and every citizen
has the right to petition the government to create new laws.
Therefore, homosexuals trying to get equal rights via legal means is
not conferring any special rights to them either.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Mark Sebree
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:18:42 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 24, 7:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 23, 4:30 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> >> >> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
> >> >> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
> >> >> >from "no" to "yes".
>
> >> >> No future elections in the works.
>
> >> >When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>
> >> You don't.
>
> >Yet you claim that you have the right to vote on other people's right
> >to get married. That is discriminatory.
>
> Queers can never get married.
YEs, they can, and they are. They are getting married in several
other countries, and have been for several years, they can in several
US States, and they will soon be able to in New Hampshire and
Washington DC.
> Marriage from God requires one man and one woman.
Which is meaningless since your opinion does not matter. Other people
believe that your deity does not require that marriage be limited to
one man and one woman, but rather can include 2 men or 2 women. Their
beliefs and interpretations of your mythology as just as valid or
invalid as yours are, and just as meaningless to the topic at hand.
And it does not matter what you think your deity thinks because
neither your beliefs nor anyone else's has any place in a discussion
about who can and cannot get married in the USA because BY LAW
religious beliefs cannot be forced onto the general public via the
force of law. The STATE cannot use religious beliefs as an excuse for
discrimination and denying a group equal rights. But then, you do not
really understand the concept of equal rights, and you have never
shown an interest in understanding what they are or what they mean.
>
> > No, it is not. Your imaginary friend has no dominion over anything in
> > the real world, like marriage. The TRUTH is that marriage should not
> > be a matter to be voted on because it should be a matter of civil and
> > equal rights, which means that the right to get married to the single,
> > unrelated, consenting adult of EITHER gender should be left up to the
> > individuals involved. The state should not have the right to limit
> > whom a person can marry outside of general, broadly defined, secularly
> > based, gender neutral guidelines. Any exceptions should be objective,
> > documentable, and challengeable in a court of law.
> >
> > Your religious beliefs do not apply to anyone except you, and have no
> > place in the law or anyone else's life.
>
> God invented marriage,
No, man invented marriage and your deity. Until you can objective
prove that your deity exists, there is no reason to think that it
does.
> and he will not bless a mortal sin like queer sex.
Your opinion on the matter is meaningless since your opinion and
beliefs do not apply to anyone else. If a person does not believe
that homosexual sex and same sex marriage is a sin, then it is not a
sin, and your beliefs are just shown to be hateful and oppressive as
others know them to be.
What's more, it does not matter what your religion states is and is
not a sin because it has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. The
STATE decides who can and cannot get married, and it MUST apply the
laws equally in truth and in practice, and it cannot use any religious
beliefs as a basis for any laws. Currently, the laws at the federal
level and in most states are discriminatory because they deny
homosexual couples the right to get married for the same reasons and
in the same manner as heterosexual couples, and they refuse to
recognize all legal marriages performed in other states. The
discussion is about equal rights and equal protection under the law,
both in practice and in reality. Your fantasies have no bearing and
no place in the discussion.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Mark Sebree
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:16:47 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In article <c0o6j5pgjncu3u81jtabsn2vic9pl4e...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32> >> <Triba...@manhattan.sapphist.org> wrote:
>
> >> ><Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:3cp268....@news.alt.net...
> >> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
> >> >> history. Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
> >> >No, it's no surprise, particularly when you remember how many were opposed
> >> >to interracial marriage just 20 years ago, including Jerry Falwell, who got
> >> >his start preaching against integration.
>
> >> Interracial marriage is still between 1 man and 1 woman. Say bub-bye to queer
> >> unions.
>
> >SO you have just shifted your bigotry and hatred to another minority.
> >No big surprise there.
>
> Shifted? Bigotry?
Are you having problems with the simple English? Do you need help
with the dictionary to look up the definition of the words? I am sure
that you can find a grade school teacher to help you with them.
Then again, you never have been able to understand most of the facts
that you have been told, preferring your fantasies over reality.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Jimbo
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:55:45 -0000, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Dec 23, 4:30 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> >>>> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
> >>>> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
> >>>> >from "no" to "yes".
>
> >>>> No future elections in the works.
>
> >>>When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>
> >> You don't. That's strictly God's domain.
>
> >What about that state contract you signed? That's what made it legal.
>
> The state contract is signed immediately before or immediately after the
> marriage ceremony. That's what establishes civil partnership
That's what establishes civil marriage.
Jimbo
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:18:42 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 24, 7:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 23, 4:30 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> >> >> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
> >> >> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
> >> >> >from "no" to "yes".
>
> >> >> No future elections in the works.
>
> >> >When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>
> >> You don't.
>
> >Yet you claim that you have the right to vote on other people's right
> >to get married. That is discriminatory.
>
> Queers can never get married. Marriage from God requires one man and one woman.
>
> >No, it is not.
>
> God invented marriage,
You can't even prove your imaginary sky-pixie exists, much less that
it invented anything.
Jimbo
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:06:34 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:38:40 -0600, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>
> >>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially
> >>>> considering the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the
> >>>> ballot box. It's time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the
> >>>> trash bin of history. Society has more important matters that require
> >>>> attention.
>
> >>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>
> >> Queer unions is special rights.
> >Not when straight unions confer special rights.
>
> Straight unions are not special rights.
Yes, they are.
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Dec 23, 4:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>>> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. �We've
>>> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>> >from "no" to "yes".
>>>
>>> No future elections in the works.
>>>
>>
>>When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>
And according to your own BIble cites, you are going against God when
you deny gays the right to marry.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>>
>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>>> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>>> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>>> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>>
>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>
>Queer unions is special rights.
Nobody believes crazy liars like you, puke.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Syd
> In article <4b31c038$0$1659$742ec...@news.sonic.net>
>
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > >This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>
>
> According to forty-some states now, you faggots can shove your
> "marriage" up your ass.
Wrong.
Syd
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:38:41 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
>
> >> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
> >> By John Jalsevac
>
> >> December 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A newly released Angus Reid poll
> >> shows that the majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex "marriage."
>
> >> In the poll 1,001 respondents were asked, "Do you favor or oppose allowing
> >> gays and lesbians to marry legally?" Forty-six percent of respondents said
> >> that they were opposed to same-sex "marriage," while only 43% said they are
> >> in favor. Ten percent said they are not sure.
>
> >> The poll has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.
>
> >> The results from the poll come at the same time as a volley of attempts at
> >> legalizing same-sex "marriage" in some of the country's most liberal states
> >> have been defeated.
>
> >>http://www.lifesitenews.com
>
> >> --
> >> J Young
> >> Jvisi...@live.com
>
> >> A very Merry Christmas to all!
>
> >It doesn't matter when, but it is likely most countries in the world
> >will allow same sex marriage in the next 20 years.
>
>
You don't get to decide that either, bigot Dork.
PDW
Syd
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>
>
> Queer unions is special rights.
>
>
Nope.
The only one's demanding 'special rights' are the bigoted religious.
PDW
JTEM
"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone,
Who cares?
Rights are by definition "Rights," and not privileges
won by popular vote.
To claim otherwise is to claim that, say, all Baptists
could be turned into slaves tomorrow, if only 51 out of
every 100 voters (NOT "citizens," but voters) decide
that it's a good idea.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2009 22:24:42 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:30:50 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enos...@null.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
> >>>still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
> >>>from "no" to "yes".
> >>
> >> No future elections in the works.
> >
> >You don't decide that, Demented Duke.
>
> That's a good argument for a regular political vote, but not for queerism,
> which
> has no need to come backup and continues to fail gleefully.
You do not get to impose your personal beliefs on the world.
And your personal beliefs are getting every day to be more in the
minority. At least where there are STRONGLY SECULAR DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENTS able to protect others from them.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 23, 4:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. �We've
> >> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
> >> >from "no" to "yes".
> >>
> >> No future elections in the works.
> >>
> >
> >When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>
> You don't. That's strictly God's domain.
>
The state has the ultimate authority over civil marriage, which is
strictly a matter of civil law.
What churches do is of no legal consequence, unless their agents are
authorized by the state to perform civil marriages.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:58:53 -0500, "The Lesbians"
> <Trib...@manhattan.sapphist.org> wrote:
>
> ><Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message news:3cp268....@news.alt.net...
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
> >> history. Society has more important matters that require attention.
> >
> >
> >No, it's no surprise, particularly when you remember how many were opposed
> >to interracial marriage just 20 years ago, including Jerry Falwell, who got
> >his start preaching against integration.
>
> Interracial marriage is still between 1 man and 1 woman.
Not necessarily, these days.
And look how long it took to get women the vote. That a movement fails
at its first attempt does not end the movement.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >It doesn't matter when, but it is likely most countries in the world
> >will allow same sex marriage in the next 20 years.
>
> Blah, blah, blah. But not the US of A, my country.
That is up to the voters in the USA.
And I'll bet that in older times you would have been one of those
vociferous reactionaries who loudly opposed women's right to vote.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:32:33 -0800 (PST), Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
> >>
> >> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122208.html
> >>
> >> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
> >
> >So what? According to a poll that was published right around the time
> >of the Loving vs. Virginia decision, 67% of Americans opposed mixed-
> >race marriage at that time. Opposition to mixed-race marriage did not
> >become the minority position until 1991.
> >
> >What's more, opposition to same-sex marriage has steadily declined
> >this decade. Read more at:
>
> Must be why opposition continues to manifest itself.
There was immense and long lasting opposition to women getting the vote,
too.
There will always be stupid reactionaries like Puke who are opposed to
any change merely because it is a change.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
> >
> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
> >> history.
> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
> >
> >Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>
> Queer unions is special rights.
Women's suffrage was once regard as being special rights.
Ray Fischer
The Chief Instigator
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>>> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>> >from "no" to "yes".
>>>
>>> No future elections in the works.
>>>
>>
>>When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>
> You don't. That's strictly God's domain.
That means you don't get any say in anyone else's marriage. You're going to
be late for fellating your supposed god's son tonight (or tomorrow), Pervert
Duke.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Grand Rapids 3 (December 20)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, December 26 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
The Chief Instigator
> In article <0a431c2f-2a57-475f...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>>> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>>> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>>> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>>>
>>>
>>> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>>
>>So what? According to a poll that was published right around the time
>>of the Loving vs. Virginia decision, 67% of Americans opposed mixed-
>>race marriage at that time. Opposition to mixed-race marriage did not
>>become the minority position until 1991.
>
You're not speaking for any Southerners than yourself, KlanBoy. (Free clue:
the 150th anniversary of the States War is not very many days over a year
from now. I'm a Kentucky native who has lived all but six months of my life
south of the Ohio.)
The Chief Instigator
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:16:47 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <c0o6j5pgjncu3u81j...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>>@cox.net says...
>>> <Trib...@manhattan.sapphist.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> ><Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message news:3cp268....@news.alt.net...
>>> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>>> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of
>>> >> history. Society has more important matters that require attention.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >to interracial marriage just 20 years ago, including Jerry Falwell, who got
>>> >his start preaching against integration.
>>>
>>> unions.
>>
>>SO you have just shifted your bigotry and hatred to another minority.
>>No big surprise there.
>
> Shifted? Bigotry?
That's what you use on groups you say your imaginary god doesn't approve of,
Drunk from Delusion Duke.
The Chief Instigator
> On 23 Dec 2009 22:24:42 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:30:50 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enos...@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
>>>>still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>>>from "no" to "yes".
>>>
>>> No future elections in the works.
>>
>
> That's a good argument for a regular political vote, but not for queerism, which
> has no need to come backup and continues to fail gleefully.
>
>> permanent absence.
>
> Sweetness.
Be thankful I've no intent to ever have to tolerate your noisome presence in
person, as I'd ensure you'd be deaf for a while.
The Chief Instigator
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>>
>>> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>>> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>>> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>>
>
> Queer unions is special rights.
It's equal rights: you're supposedly straight, and you could marry the
consenting person of your choice. Heterosexuals (like me) have that right,
but in 46 states in this country (45 a week from tomorrow), homosexuals
can't. The same reasoning that issued Loving v. Virginia will machine-gun
your futile fantasy, sooner than later.
The Chief Instigator
> In article <4b31c038$0$1659$742e...@news.sonic.net>
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>> >This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>>
>
> According to forty-some states now, you faggots can shove your
> "marriage" up your ass.
You might want to take a look at the Constitution: if homosexual marriage
is legal in the four states that have allowed it (and New Hampshire will
join the club a week from Saturday), it has to be honored in the other
states that haven't yet made it legal. I guess that's why you're just the
usual anonymous coward who'd rather kill himself than post a real identity.
Werewolfy
> Rights are by definition "Rights," and not privileges
> won by popular vote.
>
> To claim otherwise is to claim that, say, all Baptists
> could be turned into slaves tomorrow, if only 51 out of
> every 100 voters (NOT "citizens," but voters) decide
> that it's a good idea.
Rubbish. That's not what you shout as you walk through the streets in
your gaudy costumes screaming for 'Gay' Rights.
Never mind, Baptists, people who spend their times lurking in bushes
around public toilets, people like you JTEM, should be enslaved..after
castration.
Anyway, what concern is alt abortion to you? Men don't become pregnant
when you make sex with their bowels..do they?
Werewolfy
Teresita
> And according to your own BIble cites, you are going against God when
> you deny gays the right to marry.
Yea, for it is written:
Timothy 4:1-3 "...in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking
lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
**Forbidding to marry** and commanding to abstain from meats, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and
know the truth."
Teresita
> Only if you think that the government gets to pick and choose what
> rights it protects based on a religious view. Once the government got
> into the marriage business it was Constitutionally bound to apply it
> equally to ALL citizens.
Correct. But the rednecks and peckwoods felt it was necessary at the time
to make marriage a state function to protect the purity of the Aryan Woman
from genetic corruption by the Mud People.
Teresita
> Queer unions is special rights.
We pay taxes and vote, we should have marriage equality.
Ray Fischer
>On 24 Dec, 20:42, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rights are by definition "Rights," and not privileges
>> won by popular vote.
>>
>> To claim otherwise is to claim that, say, all Baptists
>> could be turned into slaves tomorrow, if only 51 out of
>> every 100 voters (NOT "citizens," but voters) decide
>> that it's a good idea.
>
>Rubbish. That's not what you shout as you walk through the streets in
>your gaudy costumes screaming for 'Gay' Rights.
As opposed to you good Christians, goose-stepping through the streets
of Berlin demanding the elimination of Jews?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Teresita
> On Dec 23, 7:17�am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Majority in US Opposed to Homosexual "Marriage"
>
> So what?
The majority of the US favors pizza. That doesn't mean I have to eat it.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Rubbish. That's not what you
Wow, you spend Christmas day cyberstocking....
I guess you were thinking that you hadn't done
a good enough job disgracing yourself yet, and
that you really needed do something to set
yourself up as "Pathetic".
Congratulations on your success.
duke
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:26:04 +0100, Blue Dogs <bl...@dogs.com> wrote:
>> In article <4b31c038$0$1659$742e...@news.sonic.net>
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>> J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>> >This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>>>
>>> According to your cite the poll is a tie, nazi turd.
>>
>> According to forty-some states now, you faggots can shove your
>> "marriage" up your ass.
>
>You might want to take a look at the Constitution: if homosexual marriage
>is legal in the four states that have allowed it (and New Hampshire will
>join the club a week from Saturday), it has to be honored in the other
>states that haven't yet made it legal. I guess that's why you're just the
>usual anonymous coward who'd rather kill himself than post a real identity.
No, no honor is required if it is not legal in the other states.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:34:14 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 23 Dec 2009 22:24:42 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:30:50 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enos...@null.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. We've
>>>>>still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>>>>from "no" to "yes".
>>>>
>>>> No future elections in the works.
>>>
>>>You don't decide that, Demented Duke.
>>
>> That's a good argument for a regular political vote, but not for queerism, which
>> has no need to come backup and continues to fail gleefully.
>>
>>> Choke on that fact, and make the world a slightly better place for your
>>> permanent absence.
>>
>> Sweetness.
>
>Be thankful I've no intent to ever have to tolerate your noisome presence in
>person, as I'd ensure you'd be deaf for a while.
Yada, yada, yada.
duke
>In article <gh57j557t9qagodc9...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> >What about that state contract you signed? That's what made it legal.
>>
>> The state contract is signed immediately before or immediately after the
>> marriage ceremony. That's what establishes civil partnership responsibility of
>> the loving couple, with or without a marriage ceremony.
>>
>>
>As usual, you know nothing.
>There are differences between civil unions and marriages under the law.
**THERE** you go, wt. I knew if I kept saying it to you atheists, you'd finally
get the message.
>All they are asking for is that they get equal protection under the law,
>like every other couple.
That - they get.
>Only if you think that the government gets to pick and choose what
>rights it protects based on a religious view.
You got it backwards, wt.
duke
>On Dec 24, 11:28�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:55:45 -0000, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Dec 23, 4:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >>>> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. �We've
>> >>>> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>> >>>> >from "no" to "yes".
>>
>> >>>> No future elections in the works.
>>
>> >>>When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>>
>> >> You don't. �That's strictly God's domain.
>>
>> >What about that state contract you signed? �That's what made it legal.
>>
>> The state contract is signed immediately before or immediately after the
>> marriage ceremony. �That's what establishes civil partnership
>
>That's what establishes civil marriage.
There's no such thing as a civil marriage, vacant lot.
duke
>In article <fl57j5lcub746t299...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>>
>> Queers can never get married. Marriage from God requires one man and one woman.
>
>They aren't asking to be married by your god, they are demanding equal
>protection under the law.
That's exactly ALL they can get.
> What the members of your church does is their
>business, what the government does to people is a different matter.
Poor wt, arguing my point and doesn't even understand it.
duke
wrote:
>> Queers can never get married.
>YEs, they can, and they are.
Nope. But they do get a free pass to an eternity with satan at his home.
duke
>On Dec 24, 11:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:18:42 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 24, 7:35�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 23, 4:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. �We've
>> >> >> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>> >> >> >from "no" to "yes".
>>
>> >> >> No future elections in the works.
>>
>> >> >When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>>
>> >> You don't.
>>
>> >Yet you claim that you have the right to vote on other people's right
>> >to get married. �That is discriminatory.
>>
>> Queers can never get married. �Marriage from God requires one man and one woman.
>>
>> >No, it is not.
>>
>> God invented marriage,
>You can't even prove your imaginary sky-pixie exists, much less that
>it invented anything.
I can't prove you have thoughts either.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 23, 4:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>>>> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. �We've
>>>> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>>> >from "no" to "yes".
>>>>
>>>> No future elections in the works.
>>>>
>>>
>>>When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>>
>>You don't. That's strictly God's domain.
>
>And according to your own BIble cites, you are going against God when
>you deny gays the right to marry.
I'm not the one doing the rejection. The loving couple are.
duke
Too bad the queers don't "know the truth".
duke
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:35:03 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 23, 4:30?am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:02:29 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>>>> >Anyway, let's assume that half will be for, and half against. ?We've
>>>> >still got just that tiny 1.5% margin there... only 1.5% need to switch
>>>> >from "no" to "yes".
>>>>
>>>> No future elections in the works.
>>>>
>>>
>>>When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage Duke?
>>
>> You don't. That's strictly God's domain.
>
>That means you don't get any say in anyone else's marriage.
That's very right. Congrats, west loop. God has the final sayso.
duke
>In article <ho57j5dqkm7leh689...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:06:34 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:38:40 -0600, duke wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially
>> >>>> considering the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the
>> >>>> ballot box. It's time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the
>> >>>> trash bin of history. Society has more important matters that require
>> >>>> attention.
>> >>>
>> >>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>> >>
>> >> Queer unions is special rights.
>>
>> >Not when straight unions confer special rights.
>>
>> Straight unions are not special rights. It takes a change in state laws to
>> allow the mortal sin of queer sex joinings.
>Your religious delusions are not applicable to the status of human
>rights.
Status of human rights comes from God.
> In fact, your church has an abysmal record on human rights.
>Maybe you should start there.
I know otherwise.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 11:30 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:06:34 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:38:40 -0600, duke wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>>
>> >>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially
>> >>>> considering the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the
>> >>>> ballot box. It's time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the
>> >>>> trash bin of history. Society has more important matters that require
>> >>>> attention.
>>
>> >>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>>
>> >> Queer unions is special rights.
>> >Not when straight unions confer special rights.
>>
>> Straight unions are not special rights.
>Yes, they are. Only heterosexuals can get married to the single,
>unrelated, consenting adult of their choice anywhere in the country,
>have access to the over 1000 federal marriage laws and hundreds of
>state marriage laws, and have those marriages instantly recognized
>anywhere in the country. Homosexuals do not have those rights.
Of course they do within the laws of the country.
duke
>On Dec 24, 11:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:06:34 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:38:40 -0600, duke wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>>
>> >>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially
>> >>>> considering the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the
>> >>>> ballot box. It's time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the
>> >>>> trash bin of history. Society has more important matters that require
>> >>>> attention.
>>
>> >>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>>
>> >> Queer unions is special rights.
>> >Not when straight unions confer special rights.
>>
>> Straight unions are not special rights.
>
>Yes, they are.
Come, come, little vacant lot. At least try to support that statement for once
in your life.
duke
>In article <bq57j5101732jdfns...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:19:58 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <m5o6j59jq6sme1q7p...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>> >@cox.net says...
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>> >> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>> >> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>> >> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>> >> >
>> >> >Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>> >>
>> >> Queer unions is special rights.
>> >
>> >Only if you think that the government gets to pick and choose what
>> >rights it protects based on a religious view.
>>
>> It's already been established, starting on September 17, 1787.
>Only if you think that the government gets to pick and choose what
>rights it protects based on a religious view.
Those rights were established by the people long ago.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 7:38�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>>
>> >> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>> >> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>> >> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>> >> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>>
>> >Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>>
>> [Homosexual marriages are] special rights.
>
>(I changed your words to make them more accurate without changing the
>meaning.)
There is no such thing.
duke
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:38:40 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:12:45 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:17:10 -0500, J wrote:
>>>
>>>> This news should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially considering
>>>> the issue has been defeated 31 times in 31 tries at the ballot box. It's
>>>> time to relegate the issue of 'gay marriage' into the trash bin of history.
>>>> Society has more important matters that require attention.
>>>
>>>Few things are "more important" than human rights.
>>
>> Queer unions is special rights.
>
>It's equal rights:
Not according to states rights.
duke
It's against the law.