Maine voters latest to turn down gay marriage
Real America Speaks
PORTLAND, Maine (Reuters) - Voters in Maine on Tuesday
overturned a law allowing same-sex couples to wed, dealing a
fresh setback to the U.S. gay marriage movement in a race that
attracted national attention.
The law was approved by Maine's Legislature in May but was not
implemented after opponents gathered enough signatures to put
the issue to a "people's veto."
With 87 percent of precincts reporting, votes to reject the law
were running at 52.75 percent to 47.25 percent, according to
unofficial tallies from the Bangor Daily News.
Frank Schubert, chief organizer of the "Yes on 1" campaign to
reject same-sex marriage in the state, claimed victory early on
Wednesday, although his opponents refused to concede.
Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are
the only U.S. states where a same-sex marriage law is on the
books. In each instance, the laws were approved by legislatures
and judges, not by popular vote.
Citizens in some 30 states before Maine voted against same-sex
marriages.
The referendum in sparsely populated Maine was thrust onto the
national stage, attracting large levels of funding and battle-
hardened strategists.
The outcome is "further evidence that although voters have shown
tolerance toward same sex couples, they draw the line at
marriage," said Jeff Flint, a partner with Schubert Flint Public
Affairs in Sacramento, who worked on California's "Yes on 8"
campaign in 2008. "They feel marriage is different."
Groups in favor of traditional marriage prevailed in Maine even
though they were outspent two-to-one by the "No on 1" groups,
Flint said.
The push to repeal got powerful help from Portland's Catholic
Bishop Richard Malone, who spoke out repeatedly against the
legalization of same-sex marriage. About 37 percent of Maine's
population is Roman Catholic.
STATE OF THE UNIONS
Several U.S. states have statutes sanctioning various kinds of
civil unions for same-sex couples.
But those do not carry many of the same legal protections as
actual marriages, such as the ability to share healthcare
benefits with a partner, or inheritance rights.
"There were real inequalities in terms of Maine's statutes.
Civil unions did not equal civil marriages," Maine Governor John
Baldacci, a Democrat, said on local television of his decision
to support the gay marriage law.
Maine's initiative was closely followed after California's
bitter same-sex marriage fight in 2008. Proposition 8 upended a
state Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples have a
constitutional right to marry.
Some of the best known national gay and lesbian rights groups
would like to wait and watch before attempting to turn back
Proposition 8.
But John Henning, executive director of the group Love Honor
Cherish in Los Angeles said Maine's vote was likely to catalyze
grass-roots action in several states.
"It will light a fire under activists and be a reminder that we
all had our right to marry taken away in California," he said.
Chalk one up for the decent men and women of Maine, who
understand what the Gay agenda is really about - recruitment of
their children.
edi...@netpath.net
liberal states have either adopted same-sex marriage - or turned it
down - and all that's left are states in which there's no foreseeable
chance of adopting gay marriage.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
...bigoted garbage.
<flush>
Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
"Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because if
they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
It's only a matter of time before ALL forms of bigotry in the
USA are properly and PERMANENTLY extinguished.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The Inevitable Fate of Movements
of Intolerance in America
Society ALWAYS outgrows intolerant and hateful movements
that are mired in stupidity, and are supported by NO relevant
facts. ALWAYS. No exceptions! And our own history, here
in the USA, makes that very clear. Since 1865 ---
-- Slavery -- EXTINCT
-- Opposition to Women's Suffrage -- EXTINCT
-- Prohibition -- EXTINCT
-- Opposition to Birth-Control Pill -- EXTINCT
-- Segregation -- EXTINCT
-- Anti-Semitism -- ENDANGERED (Thankfully)
-- Anti-Choice (abortion) -- LAUGHINGSTOCK STATUS
-- Opposition to EQUAL Rights for Gays -- FADING FAST
Segregationists were a JOKE (i.e., "laughingstock status")
during the last few years before it became extinct. As opposition
to EQUAL rights for gays (with respect to housing, being parents,
marriage, and employment) continues to fade, the remaining
opponents first will become laughingstocks, and then that
hatefulness will end in extinction. constant consciousness-raising,
as is being assisted by the media in its sitcoms, talk shows, etc., is
very helpful.
The ludicrous and hateful actions and defense of sociopathic
agendas against individual liberties on the part of the adherents/
lemmings of the RRR Cult will soon lead to American society's
becoming EMBARRASSED to have those louts in their midst,
making our country a laughingstock in front of the entire world.
Even now, the process of their becoming FED UP with that is
building toward the critical mass that will trigger the *rejection*
of the RRR's **shameful** and worthless agendas. Before much
longer, society will reject those movements with all the force that
it brought to bear against segregation.
Historical precedents have CONSISTENTLY proven that
Americans **outgrow* movements of intolerance (such as ALL
of the above), and then REJECT them -- leaving them behind
FOREVER.
And *that* is EXTINCTION.
Very WELCOME extinction. As in, "Good riddance forever!"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
BE-VA
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
People who recognize Crazy Craig Chilton as a CRACK POT -- 100%
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
...bigoted garbage.
<flush>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Segregationists were a JOKE (i.e., "laughingstock status")
Wayne
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
message news:j5u2f512qocp70nhk...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:45:30 -0800 (PST),
> "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>
> ...bigoted garbage.
>
> <flush>
>
> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because if
> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>
is somehow relevant?
In your world, I'll bet that trees eventually grow up to touch the sky.
Milt Bradley
edi...@netpath.net
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
> > Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
> > nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
> > exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
> > "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because if
> > they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>
> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial HETEROSEXUAL marriage
> is somehow relevant?
He doesn't realize that the federal courts hold RACIAL discrimination
to a much stiffer standard than any other discrimination - and never
have equated gays with blacks.
Demon Buddha
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A312O20091104
>
> PORTLAND, Maine (Reuters) - Voters in Maine on Tuesday
Blah blah blah...
This is why it appears that we are doomed. With all the REAL problems
we have to contend with, people focus on trivial bullshit like this.
Unbelievable.
Dänk 1010011010
> On Nov 4, 11:10 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:j5u2f512qocp70nhk...@4ax.com...> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:45:30 -0800 (PST),
> > > Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
> > > nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
> > > exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
> > > "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because if
> > > they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>
> > So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial HETEROSEXUAL marriage
> > is somehow relevant?
>
> He doesn't realize that the federal courts hold RACIAL discrimination
> to a much stiffer standard than any other discrimination - and never
> have equated gays with blacks.
The civil rights of blacks and other racial minority groups are
derived from the 14th Amendment, which defines all persons born in the
United States as citizens, and then declares that no state shall
"abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Therefore, gays born in the United States are entitled to the same
legal rights and protections as blacks. Rightards are always babbling
about constitutional fundamentalism - a strict interpretation of the
Constitution exactly as it is written - and since there does not seem
to be any exception from the 14th Amendment for gay people (or short
people, fat people, ugly people, and whoever else you happen to
dislike), that means it applies.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> ...bigoted garbage.
>>
>> <flush>
>>
>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
>> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
>> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because if
>> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial HETEROSEXUAL
> marriage is somehow relevant?
Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th
Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally
to both of these situations is not my problem.
It's not surpring. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go
together.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> � �Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
>>> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
>>> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. �Because if
>>> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial HETEROSEXUAL
>> marriage is somehow relevant?
> The federal courts hold RACIAL discrimination to a much stiffer
> standard than any other discrimination - and never have equated
> gays with blacks.
That is changing FAST. I'm sure the courts can keep pace with
the reforms Congress is making. Such as the impotant expansion
of the Hate Crimes Act a few days ago.
Gray Ghost
news:cri4f5dkkubcemrgo...@4ax.com:
Ain't it amazing how fanatics can read whatever they want into whatever part
of the Constitution by the very clear "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not ebe infringed" somehow doesn't mean what a plain reading
suggests.
You are all a bunch of whiny hypocrites.
Bama Brian
Agreed. If gays want to be married, they can cut a contract similar to
the obligations conferred by state-honored marriage. Finding a church
willing to do the ceremony is just as easy.
Then, whether or not the state recognizes rights of inheritance, or
medical rights of next-of-kin, it becomes a moot point.
Such contractual issues would also neatly settle the issue of group
marriages. Just call 'em corporations instead.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Wayne
"Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcuiot$f6n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
In states that have voted down redefinition of marriage by a narrow margin,
it would be easy to pass a New Jersey style law that guarantees equal rights
without redefining marriage.
That would give homosexuals the equal rights that they are asking for. If
that isn't enough....then there is some kind of political agenda going on.
Dionisio
> In states that have voted down redefinition of marriage by a narrow margin,
> it would be easy to pass a New Jersey style law that guarantees equal rights
> without redefining marriage.
>
> That would give homosexuals the equal rights that they are asking for. If
> that isn't enough....then there is some kind of political agenda going on.
[reposts old argument]
"Call it anything you want, just don't call it marriage."
Okay.
Done.
"Domestic partnership."
What's that? An "end run" you say? We were just following your suggestion, yet you object
to the term. Why?
Oh, "domestic partnerships treat the people to the same sort of obligations and
responsibilities that marriage does." Well, yes, that *is* the point remember.
Oh, we went too far? There's something inherently dangerous in making same-sex
relationships into a social institution advocating responsible behavior, or in holding
same-sex couples to obligations?
Don't get so red in the face! What's upset you now? Eh? "Same-sex couples" is a term you
find offensive? "Raises an immoral lifestyle choice to something seemingly on par with the
traditional, heterosexual, concept of the term 'couple' "?
All, right, we'll get back to that. First though, I'd like an answer as to how it is
undesirable to allow same-sex *persons* (better?) to enter into agreements that tie them
to one another with obligations and responsi...
Now you're objecting to an "allusion to the heterosexual phrase 'tying the knot' "?
All, right, I'll remember that. Back to the question: How does fostering acts of
responsibility and obligation between two same-sex people...
"Because it creates a fake impression -- an illusion -- of respectability, and a mockery
of marriage." I see.
So, in other words, we can call it anything we want; but it will always be this "mockery"
of marriage, and you will oppose it regardless of its name?
I see.
So, in other words, you lied. We can't call it anything.
Well, I guess we'll call it what it's supposed to be then: Marriage. Why should *we* join
the ranks of the fork-tongued? It seems there are enough people in that immoral lifestyle
choice already...
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"I am not insane. Just because you don't think there's a market for marijuana-scented car
air freshners... It would make the roads *much* safer 'cause people will know what'll
happen if they get stopped. Think about it, would *you* want to get pulled over in a car
that smells like you just smoked a big fat joint? That little doohicky hanging from the
rear-view mirror could probably get you lower insurance rates!"
--Dionisio, June 1995
(Brought to you by SigChanger.)
BE-VA
Being Black or a woman is immutable and is not a choice. Being a
homosexual is a choice. Get your facts STRAIGHT, boy.
BE-VA
<www.Lay-me.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving vs
Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is fundamental to the
continuation of the species..'" is it that you don't understand?
Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the scheme of mankind if it were
to vanish in the next
instant it would have no affect on the human race.
Crazy Craig, your inability to understand a simply worded statement is
astounding.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA")
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> (�`�.� Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>> ...bigoted garbage.
>>>>
>>>> <flush>
>>>>
>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
>>>> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
>>>> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because if
>>>> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial HETEROSEXUAL
>>> marriage is somehow relevant?
>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th
>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally
>> to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>
>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go
>> together.
> What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving vs
> Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is fundamental to the
> continuation of the species..'" is it that you don't understand?
> Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the scheme of mankind if it were
> to vanish in the next instant it would have no affect on the human race.
What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your
comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? ---
Bama Brian
Is it really? Is that what your preachers teach you? AFAIK, nobody
understands what drives one to be same sex oriented. Some homosexuals
suffered greatly and wished they could be heterosexual, back in the
middle of the last century when being homosexual was actively
suppressed. If they could have changed by choice, they would have done so.
BE-VA
<www.Lay-me.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 02:51:35 -0500,
> The handsome and multi-talented "BE-VA"
> <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
>> (¯`·.¸ CRAZY Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.Lay-me.com> wrote:
>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> (¯`·.¸CRAZY Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.Lay-me.com> wrote:
>>>>> "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> ...bigoted garbage.
>>>>>
>>>>> <flush>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
>>>>> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
>>>>> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because if
>>>>> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>
>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial HETEROSEXUAL
>>>> marriage is somehow relevant?
>
>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th
>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally
>>> to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>
>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go
>>> together.
>
>> What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving vs
>> Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is fundamental to the
>> continuation of the species..'" is it that you don't understand?
>> Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the scheme of mankind if it were
>> to vanish in the next instant it would have no affect on the human race.
>
> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your
> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? ---
Sorry, Moon Boy, posting BULL SHIT fro you own web site doesn't cut it.
Homosexuals MALE OR FEMALE because of their badly convoluted sexual
orientation contribute NOTHING to the scheme of mankind and should
homosexuality vanish in the next instant it would have no effect what
so ever on civilization. Granting them the special privilege of "same
sex marriage they are demanding, would be about as logical as allowing
rocks to marry.
TRY THIS FACTUAL ARTICLE ON FOR SIZE, CRAZY CRAIG:
Gay Definition of Marriage is
Not the Equal of Heterosexual Marriage
Facts Show Sexual Fidelity Not a Part of Gay Union
We are seeing a major debate in Canada regarding the institution of
marriage, and about opening the doors to this institution to gays and
lesbians. Although I've not been married for years, I do have some
thoughts about marriage and what it represents.
Just what are the positive attributes which being married denotes?
Well, commitment for one. Marriage is all about commitment, till death
do us part and all. And fidelity. Couples enter into marriage with the
solemn intention of being faithful, despite what may occur down the
road. What about raising a family? The list goes on, but by and large,
marriage is now and has been viewed historically and culturally as a
positive state. A good marriage is one of those things we all grow up
hoping to attain and which, once we're married, we hope to preserve. It
is so vital to our self image that people in poor marriages often go to
extreme lengths to portray their union to the world as a positive one.
Is it any wonder that gays want to claim the term 'marriage' for their
unions? That acceptance, which has been the case in a few misguided
states, is based on the precept that gay relationships are 'just like
ours'. But what if this isn't true?
There is, in fact, a large body of evidence which shows that gay
relationships are not the equal of what heterosexual marriage is. If we
are to make the correct decision for this country, it behooves us to
examine all sides of the situation - even if some of it isn't pretty.
The first revelation we could examine is commitment. The 1984 book "The
Gay Couple" was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist (who
happened to be a homosexual couple), and they hoped to dispel the myth
that gay couples lacked stability and long-term relationships.
Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much
searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting
relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually
maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more
than 5 years.
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology had this to say:
"Gay" monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. "Monogamous" seems
to imply some primary emotional commitment, while casual sex continues
on the side (1). Imagine coming home to see your spouse heading out the
door saying "Love you loads honey, got to go see the boy(girl)friend
now." How does that make your creaky heterosexual bones feel? Does that
feel like the commitment you went to the altar for? Didn't think so.
Ignoring the emotional effects this could have on a straight
relationship, how about the health aspect of all this? Here's something
from the upscale gay magazine Genre, which surveyed 1037 readers in
October of 1996. "One of the single largest groups in the gay community
still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous
couples." 52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in
three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners
and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners.(2)
And Genre is an upscale gay men's magazine. We aren't talking about
street hustlers here.
How about fidelity, that "forsaking all others" thing we promised? Once
again, let's let a homosexual scientist do the talking. According to
Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist who has researched homosexuality
extensively - (males) are much more interested in casual sex and non
monogamous relationships. In the same article in The Advocate, Gretchen
Lee, managing editor of Curve, was quoted that one of her female staff
writers wanted to "even cruise for sex as gay men do."(3)
How about this comment from Dr. Martin Dannecker (a German sexologist,
who studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships")?
According to Dr. Dannecker, 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters
outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker
observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification"
between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he
expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote," the
average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past
year." In contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. (4)
According to gay icons Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who wrote
"After the Ball" (considered by many to be the definitive gay
manifesto), "The cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males,
given enough time, approaches 100%." (5)
Here is one more quote, again from a gay magazine, which is surely the
saddest testament to gay relationships that I have ever read. In the
July 1999 issue of Out Magazine there was an article about a lesbian
and a gay guy who decide to get married. The lesbian, Lisa, explains
the limitations of their relationship, "I had huge performance
anxieties, I mean, the total number of men whose bodies I'd touched and
tried to please was, you know, 9. That was, like, the total number of
men Bro (her gay husband) would try to please in a weekend...We'd drive
out to the Palisades in the evening and talk and talk and talk, then
I'd drop him off to go have sex in bathrooms." (6)
I hope that you have noticed that most of these examples are derived
from gay sources. I don't want anyone to think that these quotes are
coming from heterosexuals who are virulently opposed to any
consideration of gay marriage. This is largely what gays are saying
about themselves and their lives.
What I want to point out to you is that the entire notion of gay
marriage is being presented to Canadians using the facade that gays
have unions similar to heterosexual marriage. That is very simply just
not true. Gays themselves admit, as you have seen here, that fidelity
is not an issue with them.
For whatever reasons, and it can be backed up by research and anecdotal
evidence, few gays form unions that are exclusive to their partner. In
fact, the sheer prodigiousness of the gay lifestyle and the number of
partners gay men have beggars the straight male's imagination. One
researcher noted that "Homosexuals still have 3-4 times as many
partners as heterosexuals". (7)
The American Psychological Association, who have stated that
homosexuality is not a deviation and started the ball rolling towards
normalization of homosexuality, also have said "after the AIDS epidemic
the average number of male homosexual partners only dropped from 70 to
50 per year". (8)
Imagine that - only 50 per year. Studies in Canada show that the
average Canadian only has sex 102 times per year. This is one of those
things that makes me go "hmmmm".
If we're going to have this debate, and we are doing that right now,
then let's have it with all the facts out in the public's eye so that
we can make a wise and well-informed decision.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
>> Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA")
>> <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
>>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ...bigoted garbage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <flush>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND,
>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful
>>>>>> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in
>>>>>> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because if
>>>>>> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial HETEROSEXUAL
>>>>> marriage is somehow relevant?
>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th
>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally
>>>> to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>>
>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go
>>>> together.
>>> What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving vs
>>> Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is fundamental to the
>>> continuation of the species..'" is it that you don't understand?
>>> Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the scheme of mankind if it were
>>> to vanish in the next instant it would have no affect on the human race.
>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your
>> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? ---
<boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married
couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during their
marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a flying rat's ass!
Furthermore, there are NO laws on the books any more about
adultery because those laws WERE utterly asinine.
So your WHINING about any so-called "infidelity" that might occur
for same-sex marriage couples is ludicrous! It's NO big deal when
something that TRIVIAL goes on during ANY marriages. AND -- it is
NO one else's business.
Wayne
> Furthermore, there are NO laws on the books any more about
> adultery because those laws WERE utterly asinine.
>
Irrelevant to homosexual "marriage".
> So your WHINING about any so-called "infidelity" that might occur
> for same-sex marriage couples is ludicrous! It's NO big deal when
> something that TRIVIAL goes on during ANY marriages. AND -- it is
> NO one else's business.
>
Irrelevant to homosexual "marriage".
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an irrelevant
topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for any busybodyish
loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it.
>> Furthermore, there are NO laws on the books any more about
>> adultery because those laws WERE utterly asinine.
> Irrelevant to homosexual marriage.
See above. What I said is applicable to ALL marriages.
Wayne
definition of marriage to include same-sex. There is no reason that civil
unions couldn't provide all the rights that homosexuals want.
Scout
Strange, that's not what the LAW says.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
>>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
>>> Irrelevant to homosexual marriage.
Since same-sex marriage is totally HARMLESS and there is
NO good reason to **exclude** same-sex couples from marriage,
everything I've said provides an EXCELLENT framework for ending
the accordance of the right to marry as being a SPECIAL right that
is made available, elitist-fashion, solely to heterosexual couples.
> There is no reason that civil unions couldn't provide all the rights
> that homosexuals want.
Absolutely WRONG! As the blacks knew well, 70 years ago,
separate-but-equal is hatefully DISCRIMINATORY. And, see THIS:
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com/Marriage-is-MARRIAGE.html
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
>>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
WHAT laws? The U.S. Supreme Court very sensibly put an END
to all hateful and nonsensical laws pertaining to how consenting
adults have sex when, with its "Lawrence vs. Texas" decsion in 2003,
it kicked the government OUT of U.S. bedrooms.
Those were the ONLY laws that COUNTED -- and they all are GONE.
Scout
Sorry, that only governs the control of what sexual acts you may engage in
with a consenting party.
Adultary is STILL a crime. You do know what adultary is, right? Something
concerning infidelity?
For example in Michigan, adultery is a FELONY, and can be punishable by up
to 4 years in jail.
Sorry, but in most places adultery is still a crime, though I have to admit
it isn't commonly prosecuted. However uncommonly prosecuted doesn't mean it
still isn't.
Ask Sergeant Chistopher K. Fairley who was convicted of adultery is it isn't
a crime.
Maybe you can ask Lt. Cmdr. Syneeda Penland about her conviction of
adultery?
Have you checked with Specialist Jacob J. Martinez about whether he could be
convicted of adultery?
Maybe you can ask Raymond Bushey Jr.about whether adultery is illegal?
So, yes, infidelity is a crime in most states and people are still convicted
of it.
Hardly "irrelevent".
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
In article <n4k9f5pmjds2gamop...@4ax.com>
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com>
wrote:
Yes there is. I personally don't want gays contaminating the
condition of marriage. That's reason enough and good enough.
If a majority agrees with me, then that's the way it is.
You losers have lost every battle so far. One would think you'd
figure out that people just don't like queers or what they
represent.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "Anonymous Remailer (austria)")
>>>>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
>>>>> Irrelevant to homosexual marriage.
>> everything I've said provides an EXCELLENT framework for ending
>> the accordance of the right to marry as being a SPECIAL right that
>> is made available, elitist-fashion, solely to heterosexual couples.
>>> There is no reason that civil unions couldn't provide all the rights
>>> that homosexuals want.
>> Absolutely WRONG! As the blacks knew well, 70 years ago,
>> separate-but-equal is hatefully DISCRIMINATORY. And, see THIS:
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com/Marriage-is-MARRIAGE.html
> I personally don't want gays contaminating the condition of marriage.
ROTFL!!!!! That's the **same** STUPIDITY that the moronic
and bigoted segregationists spewed when they were WHINING
about interracial marriage -- just before THEIR equally-hateful and
ignorant agenda went down the Drain of Extinction, never to be
heard from again -- just as *yours* SOON will.
(Just the sort of ignorance we can expect from a CRAVEN COWARD
who hides behind an anonymous remailer. And an expecially DUMB
one at that -- since everyone knows who he is! ROTFL!! What a tool.)
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
>>>>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
Bullcrap!! Such a law, IF on the books AND enforceable, would
make the State of Michigan a National Laughingstock! Adultery is
NO big deal in the 21st century, and no one in his right mind would
think otherwise. (It is noteworthy that NO lemmings of the RRR Cult
can be considered completely sane.)
> Sorry, but in most places adultery is still a crime, though I have to admit
> it isn't commonly prosecuted. However uncommonly prosecuted doesn't mean
> it still isn't.
I'd be AMAZED if there's been any such LUDICROUS attempt to
prosecute such a triviality in this country in this century -- OUTSIDE
of the screwed-up and often-draconian MILITARY "justice" system!
> Ask Sergeant Chistopher K. Fairley who was convicted of adultery is
> it isn't a crime.
WHO? And if so, military "justice" often goes off the deep end.
> Maybe you can ask Lt. Cmdr. Syneeda Penland about her conviction
> of adultery?
Railroaded in a Kangaroo Kourt because she'd been a whistle-blower
regarding fraud. Her PARTNER in the "adultery" got a COMMENDATION!
http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Navy_Adultery__Man_Gets_a_Medal_Woman_Gets_the_Brig_90802
http://
www.
allgov.com/ViewNews/
Navy_Adultery__Man_Gets_a_Medal_Woman_Gets_the_Brig_90802
> Have you checked with Specialist Jacob J. Martinez about whether
> he could be convicted of adultery?
See above about military "justice" -- still very much in the Dark
Ages in some respects:
http://www.slate.com/id/2091777/
BTW -- WHY are *you* so hung up on adultery? What's IN it
for YOU to be making such a big deal over such a TRIVIALITY?
Scout
I'm sorry, you get so upset with the simple presentation of factual
information.
> Such a law, IF on the books AND enforceable, would
> make the State of Michigan a National Laughingstock!
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-30
> Adultery is
> NO big deal in the 21st century,
YOU may think so, but the law has a slightly different view.
I will simply note your backpedal from "irrelevent" to "no big deal".
It is a big deal to those convicted and serving time in jail for it.
> and no one in his right mind would
> think otherwise.
And yet people are being convicted of it by juries of their peers. Seems
other people do think it is a big deal.
> (It is noteworthy that NO lemmings of the RRR Cult
> can be considered completely sane.)
>
>> Sorry, but in most places adultery is still a crime, though I
>> have to admit it isn't commonly prosecuted. However uncommonly
>> prosecuted doesn't mean
>> it still isn't.
>
> I'd be AMAZED if there's been any such LUDICROUS attempt to
> prosecute such a triviality in this country in this century -- OUTSIDE
> of the screwed-up and often-draconian MILITARY "justice" system!
Well, your ignorance of reality is pretty amazing.
>> Ask Sergeant Chistopher K. Fairley who was convicted of adultery
>> is
>> it isn't a crime.
>
> WHO? And if so, military "justice" often goes off the deep end.
>
>> Maybe you can ask Lt. Cmdr. Syneeda Penland about her conviction
>> of adultery?
>
> Railroaded in a Kangaroo Kourt because she'd been a whistle-blower
> regarding fraud. Her PARTNER in the "adultery" got a COMMENDATION!
>
> http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Navy_Adultery__Man_Gets_a_Medal_Woman_Gets_the_Brig_90802
>
> http://
> www.
> allgov.com/ViewNews/
> Navy_Adultery__Man_Gets_a_Medal_Woman_Gets_the_Brig_90802
>
>> Have you checked with Specialist Jacob J. Martinez about whether
>> he could be convicted of adultery?
>
> See above about military "justice" -- still very much in the Dark
> Ages in some respects:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2091777/
>
> BTW -- WHY are *you* so hung up on adultery? What's IN it
> for YOU to be making such a big deal over such a TRIVIALITY?
Seems the military thinks adultery is a big deal, and I also notice how you
managed to snip out and ignore the civilian case presented as well. Seems
when the facts don't conform to what you want you either try to claim they
don't apply or ignore them outright.
Sorry, but infedality is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, is still a
crime in most places, and people are still convicted of it even in the 21st
Century.
You can either accept the facts, or demonstrate your inability to deal with
reality. Your choice.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, is still a
> crime in most places, and people are still convicted of it even in
> the 21st Century.
(1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
(2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it
is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
(3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or
otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as
STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13
a.m. would be.
In the 21st century, any law against abortion should
be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
Scout
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal,
>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of
>> it even in
>> the 21st Century.
>
> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go abroad can
carry a DEATH sentence.
So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. The law
certainly sees it as a big deal.
> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it
> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the convictions
exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or
> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as
> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13
> a.m. would be.
Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly assert that
infidelity is "irrelevant".
> In the 21st century, any law against abortion should
> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission that infidelity
is relevent and adultery can be a big deal despite your denials.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal,
>>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of
>>> it even in the 21st Century.
>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go
> abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>
> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. The law
> certainly sees it as a big deal.
The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And as
i pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, almost NO one
is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It would be a great way for
a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms.
>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it
>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the con-
> victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
See above.
>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or
>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as
>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13
>> a.m. would be.
> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly assert
> that infidelity is "irrelevant".
It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world would
anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution.
>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should
>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission
> that infidelity is relevent...
I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I can't
even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking TROLL status,
are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? There are TRILLIONS
of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why does a lobster's shell
turn from green (or blue) to red when one boils it? Etc., etc.)
Scout
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:11:56 -0500,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal,
>>>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of
>>>> it even in the 21st Century.
>
>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
>
>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go
>> abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>
>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal.
>> The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
>
> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT.
And for the times it is not.....it is.
Thanks for your admission that infidelity is not "irrelevent" and adultery
isn't a big deal, at times.
<snip>
Oh, FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply that your
assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and connected to that your
initial assertion that infidelity is irrevelent.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal,
>>>>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of
>>>>> it even in the 21st Century.
>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go
>>> abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>
>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal.
>>> The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And as
>> I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, almost NO one
>> See above.
[ ... ]
> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply that your
> assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and connected to that your
> initial assertion that infidelity is irrevelent.
It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by
wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it
an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions
by now!
Scout
Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their adultery would
probably disagree that it's never a big deal.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[ ... ]
>>>> See above.
[ ... ]
>>> that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and con-
>>> nected to that your initial assertion that infidelity is irrevelent.
>> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
> Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their adultery
> would probably disagree that it's never a big deal.
As I said BEFORE (and which you in cowardly fashion (what with
it's being a relevant point) deleted) ---
Scout
I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this offense in THIS
century, and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and
adultery isn't a big deal are both bullshit. Now you may feel they should
be, but until the laws are repealed......your feelings on the matter don't
mean shit. Infidelity can be relevent, and adultery can be a very big deal.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[ ... ]
>>>>>> See above.
[ ... ]
> offense in THIS century...
NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there
actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue
so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and
> adultery isn't a big deal...
...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
<remaining REDUNDANT whines flushed>
Scout
I accept your admission that prosecution does occur, thus infideality is NOT
irrelevent and adultery can be a big deal.....even in the 21st century.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this
> offense in THIS century...
NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there
actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue
so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and
> adultery isn't a big deal...
...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Scout
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this
>> offense in THIS century...
>
> NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there
> actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue
> so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
>
>> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and
>> adultery isn't a big deal...
>
> ...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
Right, going to jail, felony convictions or even a death sentence are no big
deal....
Interesting standard you have there. So tell me what do you consider to be a
big deal?
BE-VA
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
> WHAT laws? The U.S. Supreme Court very sensibly put an END
> to all hateful and nonsensical laws pertaining to how consenting
> adults have sex when, with its "Lawrence vs. Texas" decsion in 2003,
> it kicked the government OUT of U.S. bedrooms.
>
> Those were the ONLY laws that COUNTED -- and they all are GONE.
You are one FUCKED UP cowboy, Crazy Craig Chilton. Do you really
approve of your wife fucking your neighbor and your daughter giving
blow jobs to lonely soldiers at the Des Moines USO?
BE-VA
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
Really? Thousands of layers who handle divorce cases would be surprised
to hear that, you ignorant fuck-wit!
BE-VA
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
>>>>> Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by
>>>>> wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it
>>>>> an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions
>>>>> by now!
>
>> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this
>> offense in THIS century...
>
> NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there
> actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue
> so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
>
>> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and
>> adultery isn't a big deal...
>
> ...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
>
> <remaining REDUNDANT whines flushed>
Don't you think that your deletion of relevant information is cowardly,
Crazy Craig Chilton, or is only cowardly when others do it. hmmmmmm?
I direct your attention to this excerpt from one of your recent snake
oil SPAMMING posts:
***************************************
"From: "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com>
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities,az.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re:
Maine voters latest to turn down gay marriage
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:57:35 GMT
As I said BEFORE (and which you in cowardly fashion (what with
it's being a relevant point) deleted) ---"
************************************************************************
BE-VA
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:48:39 -0500,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this
>> offense in THIS century...
>
> NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there
> actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue
> so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
>
>> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and
>> adultery isn't a big deal...
Whooops! The above has another of your deletion of relevant material
(and you added those clever little three dots too). You do still
consider that "COWARDLY don't you? And when, oh when will you stop
SPAMMING usenet with intent to con people out of their hard earned
wages with you snake oil ads for your childish and totally irrelevant
pamphlet "LEARN HOW TO GET PAID TO TRAVEL"?
>
> ...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
> -- Craig Chilton
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[ ... ]
>>>>>> See above.
[ ... ]
>> As I said BEFORE (and which you in cowardly fashion (what with
>> it's being a relevant point) deleted) ---
>>>> Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by
>>>> wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it
>>>> an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
>>>>
>>>> For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
>>>>
>>>> We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions
>>>> by now!
> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this
> offense in THIS century...
NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there
actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue
so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and
> adultery isn't a big deal...
...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
<remaining REDUNDANT whines flushed>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
>> Adultery is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
> Really? Thousands of layers who handle divorce cases would
> be surprised to hear that.
I clearly stated that ADULTERY (i.e., extramarital affairs)
is NO big deal.
But if you don't think that LAWYERS don't blow things 'WAY
out of proportion, about just about everything -- routinely --
then you don't know diddly about lawyers.
Adultery, PER SE, **is** NO big deal.
Scout
Jail time, felonies, even a death sentence is according to you "no big
deal".
Scout
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:08:03 -0500,
> Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA"
> <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Adultery is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
>
>> Really? Thousands of layers who handle divorce cases would
>> be surprised to hear that.
>
> I clearly stated that ADULTERY (i.e., extramarital affairs)
> is NO big deal.
...and you are WRONG.
In the US it can be a felony with jail time of up to 4 years. Abroad it can
result in a death sentence.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA"
>> <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> Adultery is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
>>> Really? Thousands of layers who handle divorce cases
>>> would be surprised to hear that.
>> I clearly stated that ADULTERY (i.e., extramarital affairs)
>> is NO big deal.
>>
>> [[ But if you don't think that LAWYERS don't blow things 'WAY
>> out of proportion, about just about everything -- routinely --
>> then you don't know diddly about lawyers.
>>
>> Adultery, PER SE, **is** NO big deal. ]]
WHY were you so afraid of what I pointed out before that
you had to OMIT it? (I've RESTORED it, above, between the
double brackets, so everyone can see your DISHONESTY.)
> ...and you are WRONG.
>
> In the US it can be a felony with jail time of up to 4 years.
WHERE?? WHAT sate could still be that **benighted**?
> Abroad it can result in a death sentence.
We're discussing ONLY the USA here.