Same-sex marriage not a civil rights issue
Leroy N. Soetoro
ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
To the Editor:
I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
proponents always frame their quest as a civil rights issue (letter
writer Charles A. Bivona).
At the heart of his opinion is the fact that marriage should be a civil
right that is blind to the differences of gender. State government has
an interest in preserving the integrity of marriage by preserving its
definition. All people in this state who meet the qualifications have
the right to marry, all heterosexuals and homosexuals as well, provided
they conform to the current qualifications. If a person chooses not to
marry a person of the opposite sex, but desires a committed relationship
with a person of the same sex, they have the right to engage in a civil
union.
Now, if you are a man and a woman, that is called marriage, and no one
can deny the unique complementarity that one man and one woman bring to
marriage. Civil rights are given to every individual to exist in our
society: freedom of religion, speech, press, due process, protection
from unreasonable search and seizure, self incrimination, or being tried
more than once for the same crime. No homosexual is denied any of these
civil rights.
In fact because of hate-crime laws, most homosexuals now enjoy more
civil rights or protection than the average citizen. Maybe we should
stop asserting marriage to be a civil right, and instead see it as a
privilege, that two humans, a man and a woman enter into with the
purpose of, in most cases, creating, raising and nurturing the next
generation, which we call children.
Marriage serves a very important purpose to society and has often been
called the best department of health, education and welfare. We tinker
with its definition at our peril.
LEN DEO
Warren
The writer is executive director of the New Jersey Family Policy
Council.
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York's
million dollar tax evasion. Charles B. Rangel is still under
"investigation" by a "closed door" House Ethics Committee.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
juanjo
wrote:
> http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
This man is making the same argument for separate but equal as has
been used in the past to segregate and stigmatize minorities for
centuries. Civil Unions are equal to marriage in that they do not
reveive the same legal recognition at either the state or federal
level as a marriage does. In fact it is people like the writer who
have dedicated an inordinate amount of time to ensuring that this is
not the case so for anyone to make that argument is to engage in the
worst form of hypocrisy. Marriage is a civil right, recognized by the
courts of this country as such. In Loving v Virginia the court
stated, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
fundamental to our very existence and survival".
JohnN
wrote:
> http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
As usual, the American Talibaner provides no evidence that same gender
marriage harms anyone or the institution of marriage.
JohnN
Wayne
"juanjo" <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:89e7ee4d-5c29-4064...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 3, 8:33 pm, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
wrote:
>> http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
>> ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
>>
>> To the Editor:
>>
>> I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
>> proponents always frame their quest as a civil rights issue (letter
>> writer Charles A. Bivona).
>>
>> At the heart of his opinion is the fact that marriage should be a civil
>> right that is blind to the differences of gender. State government has
<snip>
>This man is making the same argument for separate but equal as has
>been used in the past to segregate and stigmatize minorities for
>centuries. Civil Unions are equal to marriage in that they do not
>reveive the same legal recognition at either the state or federal
>level as a marriage does. In fact it is people like the writer who
>have dedicated an inordinate amount of time to ensuring that this is
>not the case so for anyone to make that argument is to engage in the
>worst form of hypocrisy. Marriage is a civil right, recognized by the
>courts of this country as such. In Loving v Virginia the court
>stated, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
>fundamental to our very existence and survival".
-
More flawed thinking. Things that are indeed different, deserve different
legal treatment. Loving v Virginia was about a man marrying a woman, and
has no relevance is same sex marriage. AND....any homosexual can marry
someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination involved.
Peter Franks
That is correct. There is no 'sexual orientation' test for a man and
woman to enter into marriage.
Jimbo
wrote:
> http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
> ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
>
> To the Editor:
>
> I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
> proponents always frame their quest as a civil rights issue
It is a civil rights issue. There is no way around it.
Jimbo
> "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Actually, in legal terms, it does. Loving v. Virginia was about a
couple of different races marrying. If a white has the right to marry
a white, then a black must have that same right or run afoul of the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Same sex marriage is
exactly parallel with regards to gender. If a man has the right to
marry a woman, then a woman must also have that same right, and vica
versa. The issue is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation.
Jimbo
> Wayne wrote:
> > "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
But their is a gender test.
Josh Rosenbluth
Ironically, using the effed-up logic of Wayne and Franks ("any
homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
discrimination involved), then you are right. But, we shouldn't be
using effed-up logic.
Firstly, why is Loving racial discrimination? Two reasons: 1) blacks
were disfavored compared to whites because the law was motivated by
keeping the races pure to foster White Supremacy, and 2) if a black
were instead white, he could marry a white.
The first reason does not apply to same-sex marriages because neither
women nor men are disfavored. In contrast, gays are disfavored
compared to straights becauase only straights can marry their lover.
Hence, there is sexuality discrimination.
At first glance it appears the second reason does apply (if a man were
instead a woman, he could marry a man). But, that's only because of
the effed-up logic. Namely, if a gay man were instead a gay woman,
there would no longer be any interest in marrying a man, whereas the
effed-up logic assumes sexuality is mutable. The accurate statement
would be, if a gay man were instead a straight woman, then he could
marry a man. Or more generally, if a gay were instead straight, he
could marry his lover. Once again, that is sexuality discrimination.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Correct. There are other tests as well, all non-discriminatory wrt
sexual orientation.
Peter Franks
Then extend that to bestiality.
If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
completely. Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
Peter Franks
Explain how it is a civil rights issue, please.
Enos Penvy
False analogy. We're talking about human beings.
> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
> completely.
Definitions of terms change all the time.
> Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
There is no evidence that prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage
is what is best for humanity.
Enos Penvy
See Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of
man". So to deny marriage to a person involves that person's civil
rights.
Poetic Justice
Civil right allows for one race sex or ethnicity to be given benefits
that another is exempted from..... that's why I can't get affirmative
action credits for benefits.
That's why Gays can't get credit for Marriage benefits.
Too bad Social Justice allows for government to do this to us, huh.
Josh Rosenbluth
Two distinctions:
1) Bestiality is strictly a behavior, not an immutable trait.
2) Even if I am wrong about #1, we rightly discriminate against
people who are bestial in order to protect animals who cannot consent.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> Correct. There are other tests as well, all non-discriminatory wrt
> sexual orientation.
Then according to your logic, there is gender discrimination.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
>
> Civil right allows for one race sex or ethnicity to be given benefits
> that another is exempted from..... that's why I can't get affirmative
> action credits for benefits.
>
> That's why Gays can't get credit for Marriage benefits.
>
> Too bad Social Justice allows for government to do this to us, huh.
According to your logic, affirmative action has allowed the state to
discriminate in anyway it so desires? Or just in the name of Social
Justice?
Josh Rosenbluth
IAAH
Any black person can marry someone of the same
race. There is no discrimination involved.
What you said sounds a lot dumber now, doesn't it?
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
IAAH
Can animals sign contracts? Did they suddenly gain
that right, or is this another "box-turtle" panic?
>
> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
> completely. Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
Oh, DO demonstrate how SSM goes on at "the expense
of what's best for humanity." I'm also going to
need your credentials that show us that you're
empowered to make that judgment.
Lane
> "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Except that marrying a gay marrying someone of the opposite sex would
be, according to Federal law, marriage fraud. So, your premise is
actually fundamentally wrong.
Lane
Lane
Well, and possibly more important from a Constitutional standpoint,
the animal has no right to marry because, as a non-human, it has no
rights under the Constitution.
Lane
Peter Franks
Not logic, definition.
Marriage discriminates on gender, age, and several other factors. None
of those discriminates are orientation in nature.
Peter Franks
There is no analogy to be drawn.
>> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
>> completely.
>
> Definitions of terms change all the time.
And new ones are created as well.
The definition of marriage has been constant for millennia, it needs no
changing.
>> Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
>> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>
> There is no evidence that prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage
> is what is best for humanity.
Clearly there is. Homosexuality does not result in the perpetuation of
the species, and that is counter to humanity. The *primary* purpose of
life is the propagation of the species -- look it up, not my
definition/conclusion, but the conclusion of biology.
Peter Franks
Says you. Same argument can apply to homosexuality, pedophilia,
necrophilia, etc. Regardless, it doesn't matter what the cause is.
Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
> 2) Even if I am wrong about #1, we rightly discriminate against
> people who are bestial in order to protect animals who cannot consent.
Animal consent isn't needed, unless I'm mistaken. I've never seen a
hunted animal sign a consent form...
Look, we've had this very discussion numerous times, and we have
different opinions. The facts are on my side though, like it or not:
- The definition of marriage has been the union of a man and woman.
This definition exists independent of law, although it often coexists.
- Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
- The term and act of marriage has connotations and regard independent
of law.
- Homosexual unions can be legalized and named (something different
than marriage) and enjoy whatever 'rights' may come with a legal marriage.
Peter Franks
Sorry, I don't have any credentials, but I don't need them to understand
fact.
Please research 'reproduction' and see how that applies to
homosexuality. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Nature,
we are designed to heterosexually reproduce.
Josh
OK. Laws which discriminate on the basis of gender are presumptively
unconstitutional. The state has the burden to show why such a law is
not unconstitutional.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
No one is being denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.
Do you disagree?
Peter Franks
Does it matter?
Josh
Not a fact - just your misguided opinion. Your other statements are
factual, but do not support your argument in my view.
Poetic Justice
I had a dog hump my leg once... obviously he consented.
> Josh Rosenbluth
Poetic Justice
the sex is what is on the legal documents.... you have established.
> Then according to your logic, there is gender discrimination.
>
Not discrimination, but affirmative action.
Poetic Justice
Necrophilia
>> Says you. Same argument can apply to homosexuality, pedophilia,
>> necrophilia, etc. Regardless, it doesn't matter what the cause is.
>> Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>>
>>> 2) Even if I am wrong about #1, we rightly discriminate against
>>> people who are bestial in order to protect animals who cannot consent.
>>
Necrophilia doesn't subject anyone to consent questions.
>> Animal consent isn't needed, unless I'm mistaken. I've never seen a
>> hunted animal sign a consent form...
>>
>> Look, we've had this very discussion numerous times, and we have
>> different opinions. The facts are on my side though, like it or not:
>>
>> - The definition of marriage has been the union of a man and woman.
>> This definition exists independent of law, although it often coexists.
>>
>> - Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>
> Not a fact - just your misguided opinion. Your other statements are
> factual, but do not support your argument in my view.
>
>> - The term and act of marriage has connotations and regard
>> independent of law.
>>
>> - Homosexual unions can be legalized and named (something different
>> than marriage) and enjoy whatever 'rights' may come with a legal
>> marriage.
exactly... The word "marriage" is taken and defines a union of a man
and a woman.
Now Gays need to find a word to define a union of same sex partners.
Then apply all the benefits that they can get from government or who
ever they can get benefits from.
Why Gays think they deserve a ready made tradition without doing the
work to create and sustain it, must be part of their Narcissism.
Poetic Justice
Explain how it works, if you disagree.
Poetic Justice
You mean like women only gyms?
It allows all people to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
discrimination.
How can they have a men's prison and a woman's prison? We obviously
can't discriminate against men by placing them in a different prison.
Josh
It's limited to Social Justice, or more accurately in the name of
rectifying past wrongs or promoting diversity. Now, how does denying
gays marriage benefits rectify past wrongs or promote diversity?
Josh Rosenbluth
Poetic Justice
Sexual orientation is NOT an issue of marriage.... only your physical
sexual standing.
You can get a sex change to be a female and do the paper work to become
a legal woman, then you are a man by birth and can't marry a woman. Or
you could become a woman physically and not do the paperwork and be a
physical woman married to a woman.... If you want to marry a man just
legally become a woman.
Do the paper work.
Poetic Justice
So you can understand reality on occasion.
juanjo
> "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:89e7ee4d-5c29-4064...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
> >> ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
>
> >> To the Editor:
>
> >> I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
> >> writer Charles A. Bivona).
>
> >> At the heart of his opinion is the fact that marriage should be a civil
> >> right that is blind to the differences of gender. State government has
>
> <snip>>This man is making the same argument for separate but equal as has
> >been used in the past to segregate and stigmatize minorities for
> >centuries. Civil Unions are equal to marriage in that they do not
> >reveive the same legal recognition at either the state or federal
> >level as a marriage does. In fact it is people like the writer who
> >have dedicated an inordinate amount of time to ensuring that this is
> >not the case so for anyone to make that argument is to engage in the
> >worst form of hypocrisy. Marriage is a civil right, recognized by the
> >courts of this country as such. In Loving v Virginia the court
> >stated, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
> >fundamental to our very existence and survival".
>
> -
> More flawed thinking. Things that are indeed different, deserve different
> legal treatment. Loving v Virginia was about a man marrying a woman, and
> has no relevance is same sex marriage. AND....any homosexual can marry
> someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination involved.
Speaking of flawed thinking. The issue in Loving v Virginia was not
that one could only marry a person of a different sex but rather that
marriage was a civil right and not a privilege as well as the state
could not interfere with the right to marry unless it had very
compelling reasons for doing so. As for your comment about any
homosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex they wish to, that
argument was used by the supporters of miscegenation and they lost.
The issue is whether one can marry the person they love and wish to
spend the rest of their life with. If this is forbidden then there is
no equality.
juanjo
> >> couple of different races marrying. If a white has the right to marry
> >> a white, then a black must have that same right or run afoul of the
> >> equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Same sex marriage is
> >> exactly parallel with regards to gender. If a man has the right to
> >> marry a woman, then a woman must also have that same right, and vica
> >> versa. The issue is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation.
>
> > Ironically, using the effed-up logic of Wayne and Franks ("any
> > homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
> > discrimination involved), then you are right. But, we shouldn't be
> > using effed-up logic.
>
> > Firstly, why is Loving racial discrimination? Two reasons: 1) blacks
> > were disfavored compared to whites because the law was motivated by
> > keeping the races pure to foster White Supremacy, and 2) if a black
> > were instead white, he could marry a white.
>
> > The first reason does not apply to same-sex marriages because neither
> > women nor men are disfavored. In contrast, gays are disfavored
> > compared to straights becauase only straights can marry their lover.
> > Hence, there is sexuality discrimination.
>
> Then extend that to bestiality.
>
> completely. Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>
and fearful! The bestiality argument. Let's be clear shall we?
Marriage is a contract which requires consent between two people
competent to enter into the contract. An animal is not capable of
giving consent since it is not a person.
Josh
Those can't violate the constitution since they are run by private firms.
> It allows all people to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
> discrimination.
>
> How can they have a men's prison and a woman's prison? We obviously
> can't discriminate against men by placing them in a different prison.
Because the state meets its burden of showing why it is important to
have gender-segregated prisons.
Josh Rosenbluth
juanjo
> The definition of marriage has been constant for millennia, it needs no
> changing.
>
Really? Have you bothered to actually look up all the different
arrangements made by couples and families when it comes to creating
socially related kinship bonds? Ancient Polynesians thought nothing
of marrying off a gay son to some warrior who was interested. Romans
and some Chinese societies allowed same sex unions to exist on the
same level as mixed gender unions. Polygamy and polyandry have
existed down through the millennium and even exist today, sometimes
openly and sometimes clandestinely. Until the 1200's in many parts of
Europe you could be married to a person in a permanent marriage which
allowed for the children to inherit or you could opt for a marriage
which allowed divorce and no inheritance by offspring. The Romans had
four different forms of mixed gender marriage that applied to citizens
and one that applied to freedmen and slave. I could go on and on but
time and space dictates otherwise.
The current marriage customs in the United States have morphed over
time and the present ones have been in place for roughly 140 years
give or take a couple decades.
> Homosexuality does not result in the perpetuation of
> the species, and that is counter to humanity. The *primary* purpose of
> life is the propagation of the species -- look it up, not my
> definition/conclusion, but the conclusion of biology.
Reproduction does not require marriage and never has. People have
been reproducing for tens of thousands of years and done quite well
without exchanging rings or having themselves registered at Target.
Similarly there is no requirement that married people actually
reproduce or be capable of doing so with each other. and many do not
because of a variety of reasons.
juanjo
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > 2) Even if I am wrong about #1, we rightly discriminate against
> > people who are bestial in order to protect animals who cannot consent.
>
> Animal consent isn't needed, unless I'm mistaken. I've never seen a
> hunted animal sign a consent form...
>
Where does hunting enter the picture? Marriage requires assent by
both the parties entering into the marriage and an animal is incapable
of giving consent since an animal is not legally a person.
> Look, we've had this very discussion numerous times, and we have
> different opinions.
true
> The facts are on my side though, like it or not:
>
says you
Poetic Justice
First off, it is diversity if you have a cultural difference, making us
all alike and Homogenizing the population is not respecting diversity,
and you need to respect it not change it - Even when it is your own
culture. The point being that our culture doesn't allow for Gay Marriage
so start your own culture of Gay unions.
What's wrong would be corrected through disrupting a Culture you are
supposed to respect for it's diversity(I don't think so), the Gays have
never needed marriage since they never had tax advantages and insurance
sharing in the past as a problem. There were no real Benefits to
marriage. it has only been in the last 70 to 100 years of over
legislating our lives that it could have made any difference.
Fly into Iran and get a Gay Marriage license.
Josh
> On 1/5/2010 7:36 PM, Josh wrote:
>> Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 5, 3:28 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Civil right allows for one race sex or ethnicity to be given benefits
>>>>>> that another is exempted from..... that's why I can't get affirmative
>>>>>> action credits for benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why Gays can't get credit for Marriage benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too bad Social Justice allows for government to do this to us, huh.
>>>>> According to your logic, affirmative action has allowed the state to
>>>>> discriminate in anyway it so desires? Or just in the name of Social
>>>>> Justice?
>>> Explain how it works, if you disagree.
>> It's limited to Social Justice, or more accurately in the name of
>> rectifying past wrongs or promoting diversity. Now, how does denying
>> gays marriage benefits rectify past wrongs or promote diversity?
>>
>
> all alike and Homogenizing the population is not respecting diversity,
> and you need to respect it not change it - Even when it is your own
> culture. The point being that our culture doesn't allow for Gay Marriage
> so start your own culture of Gay unions.
Disallowing gay marriage is justified because it saves the culture from
being less diverse? That is one seriously effed-up argument.
Josh Rosenbluth
dracc...@gmail.com
> >> couple of different races marrying. If a white has the right to marry
> >> a white, then a black must have that same right or run afoul of the
> >> equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Same sex marriage is
> >> exactly parallel with regards to gender. If a man has the right to
> >> marry a woman, then a woman must also have that same right, and vica
> >> versa. The issue is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation.
>
> > Ironically, using the effed-up logic of Wayne and Franks ("any
> > homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
> > discrimination involved), then you are right. But, we shouldn't be
> > using effed-up logic.
>
> > Firstly, why is Loving racial discrimination? Two reasons: 1) blacks
> > were disfavored compared to whites because the law was motivated by
> > keeping the races pure to foster White Supremacy, and 2) if a black
> > were instead white, he could marry a white.
>
> > The first reason does not apply to same-sex marriages because neither
> > women nor men are disfavored. In contrast, gays are disfavored
> > compared to straights becauase only straights can marry their lover.
> > Hence, there is sexuality discrimination.
>
> Then extend that to bestiality.
>
> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
> completely. Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>
Vegetables can not consent to enter into a contact. Homosexuals and
Heterosexuals both can and you been told this many times before.
dracc...@gmail.com
You are right about Age, seeing as we require people to be of a
certain age in order to enter into a legally binding contract. The
other factor is not allowing closely related people to marry this is
more a matter of sound genetic policy though even that has not always
been the case, especially if you look at your own Bible.
dracc...@gmail.com
You attempted to make the analogy and it is a false one.
> >> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
> >> completely.
>
> > Definitions of terms change all the time.
>
> And new ones are created as well.
>
> The definition of marriage has been constant for millennia, it needs no
> changing.
On what planet are you living the definition of marriage has a changed
a million times over the eons. At one point not that long ago marriage
between brother and Sister or Adults and Children were common place.
Marriage now is about love but not too long ago it was about power and
money. You really need to get past your narrow view of history.
> >> Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
> >> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>
> > There is no evidence that prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage
> > is what is best for humanity.
>
> Clearly there is. Homosexuality does not result in the perpetuation of
> the species, and that is counter to humanity. The *primary* purpose of
> life is the propagation of the species -- look it up, not my
> definition/conclusion, but the conclusion of biology.
Marriage is not about perpetuation of the species now or really ever.
By your logic anyone that does not want or can not have children can
not be allowed to get married.
dracc...@gmail.com
You have not used a single fact here to make your argument.
Poetic Justice
NO... because it respects diversity to allow people to be what they are,
you are trying to make all of us square pegs fit in your round hole.
( did you get that analogy? )
Kind of like allowing the Muslims to pray and wear their clothes, rather
than force them to convert to Christianity to live here.
Create your own cultural heritage to enjoy. I support Diversity.
> Josh Rosenbluth
IAAH
Well?
>>
>>>
>>> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
>>> completely. Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority
>>> at the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>>
>> Oh, DO demonstrate how SSM goes on at "the expense of what's best for
>> humanity." I'm also going to need your credentials that show us that
>> you're empowered to make that judgment.
>
> Sorry, I don't have any credentials, but I don't need them to understand
> fact.
"Fact".
I see. Your position is "reproduction good,
non-reproduction bad."
That is *really* un-convincing. You haven't
demonstrated what you said, by the way.
>
> Please research 'reproduction' and see how that applies to
> homosexuality. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Nature,
> we are designed to heterosexually reproduce.
No, we are not "designed". No, it is not necessary
that every couple reproduce.
Your argument fails.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
Josh
Same-sex marriage doesn't allow people to be what they are? Huh?
Josh Rosenbluth
Political Winds
Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
> On 1/5/2010 2:36 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> > Jimbo wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
> >>> ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
> >>>
> >>> To the Editor:
> >>>
> >>> I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
> >>> proponents always frame their quest as a civil rights issue
> >>
> >
> > Explain how it is a civil rights issue, please.
>
> that another is exempted from..... that's why I can't get affirmative
> action credits for benefits.
Doesn't apply.
Dick suckers are not a race or ethnicity by themselves. They
are just plain old perverted dick suckers and shit suckers.
They live for the thrill of getting their assholes stretched and
licking the shit from their many partners anus.
> That's why Gays can't get credit for Marriage benefits.
Dick suckers can't maintain a relationship. They do not have
the psychological makeup to do so because their relationships
are based on sexual stimulation only.
> Too bad Social Justice allows for government to do this to us, huh.
Too bad society can't arm themselves for one night and rid the
planet of the queers and politicians who are fucking over
everyone because of a mentally ill three percent.
Lars Eighner
talented Poetic Justice broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> It allows all people to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
> discrimination.
By that logic laws that allow all people to marry someone of their own race
would not be discriminatory.
Scratch a homophobe and you turn up a racist every time.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 35
854.1 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
Lars Eighner
and talented Peter Franks broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> The definition of marriage has been constant for millennia,
No, it hasn't. In Europe, marriage has been restricted to opposite sex
couples for less than two millennia. Elsewhere in the world, prohibitions
on same-sex marriage are much younger than one millennium.
> Clearly there is. Homosexuality does not result in the perpetuation of
> the species, and that is counter to humanity.
Nonsense. Marriage is not a necessary or sufficient condition for children.
Marriage was not historically created for the purpose of child rearing, and
even today the majority of children in the US do not live with both their
biological parents who are married to each other.
> The *primary* purpose of life is the propagation of the species
Two words there: purpose and species. The species is not the individual.
The individual is not the species. Many species, including the human
species, propagate perfectly well without every individual producing
offspring --- many would face instant extinction if every individual
attempted to produce offspring.
> -- look it up, not my definition/conclusion, but the conclusion of
> biology.
Biology has no definition or conclusion about purpose. Biology describes
function. All species obviously function to propagate, including the human
species, but many including humans do not need every individual to propagate
in order for the species to propagate.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 35
854.2 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Lars Eighner
<hi0ijf$35t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> Look, we've had this very discussion numerous times, and we have
> different opinions. The facts are on my side though, like it or not:
> - The definition of marriage has been the union of a man and woman.
> This definition exists independent of law, although it often coexists.
This definition has only been applied relatively recently in human existence
by Europeans and by people who have been dominated by European force of
arms. Throughout most of the world and most of human existence no such
restriction have existed.
> - Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Without just cause it discriminates on the basis of sex.
> - The term and act of marriage has connotations and regard independent
> of law.
If they are independent of the law, then they should not serve to defeat
equality before the law.
> - Homosexual unions can be legalized and named (something different
> than marriage) and enjoy whatever 'rights' may come with a legal marriage.
Separate is inherently unequal.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 35
854.5 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
JayPee Vee
> In article <fiN0n.2504$5m....@newsfe12.iad>
>
>
>
>
>
> Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
> > On 1/5/2010 2:36 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> > > Jimbo wrote:
> > >> On Jan 3, 11:33 pm, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
> > >>> ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
>
> > >>> To the Editor:
>
> > >>> I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
> > >>> proponents always frame their quest as a civil rights issue
>
> > >> It is a civil rights issue. There is no way around it.
>
> > > Explain how it is a civil rights issue, please.
>
> > Civil right allows for one race sex or ethnicity to be given benefits
> > that another is exempted from..... that's why I can't get affirmative
> > action credits for benefits.
>
> Doesn't apply.
>
> Dick suckers are not a race or ethnicity by themselves. They
> are just plain old perverted dick suckers and shit suckers.
> They live for the thrill of getting their assholes stretched and
> licking the shit from their many partners anus.
Grow up.
Oh and, btw, I'm ready to bet that lesbian scenes in porn movies turns
you on? Right?
So much for your disgust of homosexuality...
Enos Penvy
> >>>> On Jan 5, 11:38 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:89e7ee4d-5c29-4064...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
> >>>>>>> ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
> >>>>>>> To the Editor:
> >>>>>>> I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
>
> There is no analogy to be drawn.
Thank you for admitting that you presented an obviously fallacious
concept here.
> >> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
> >> completely.
>
> > Definitions of terms change all the time.
>
> And new ones are created as well.
>
> The definition of marriage has been constant for millennia, it needs no
> changing.
The definition has changed. You must have been sleeping.
> >> Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
> >> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>
> > There is no evidence that prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage
> > is what is best for humanity.
>
> Clearly there is.
Then you'll be able to cite it.
> Homosexuality does not result in the perpetuation of
> the species, and that is counter to humanity.
We are not talking about homosexuality. We are talking about the
supposed dangers of same-sex marriages. It is your burden to show us
these dangers.
> The *primary* purpose of
> life is the propagation of the species -- look it up, not my
> definition/conclusion, but the conclusion of biology.
We are not discussing purpose of life, either. We are discussing same-
sex marriage. (And "purpose" is a very strange concept -- because to
be honest with you, NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS what our "purpose" is, or if
we have one.)
Enos Penvy
>
> > 1) Bestiality is strictly a behavior, not an immutable trait.
>
> Says you. Same argument can apply to homosexuality, pedophilia,
> necrophilia, etc. Regardless, it doesn't matter what the cause is.
> Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>
> > people who are bestial in order to protect animals who cannot consent.
>
> Animal consent isn't needed, unless I'm mistaken.
You're mistaken. In the U.S. and in most parts of the world, both
parties to marriage must consent.
> I've never seen a
> hunted animal sign a consent form...
You and these false analogies.
> Look, we've had this very discussion numerous times, and we have
> different opinions. The facts are on my side though, like it or not:
The facts are on the opposing side. The tide has turned.
> - The definition of marriage has been the union of a man and woman.
> This definition exists independent of law, although it often coexists.
The definition has changed.
> - Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Humans do that, and they create marriage laws.
> - The term and act of marriage has connotations and regard independent
> of law.
Many terms do. What's your point?
> - Homosexual unions can be legalized and named (something different
> than marriage) and enjoy whatever 'rights' may come with a legal marriage.
In many places in the world, same-sex marriages are called marriages,
including in the United States. Unfortunately for you, "majority
rule" doesn't apply to ever-changing living languages. We're not
taking a vote on word usage, and any such vote would be meaningless
even if it were possible.
Poetic Justice
> In our last episode, <_VQ0n.2268$Sk4...@newsfe10.iad>, the lovely and
> talented Poetic Justice broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
>> It allows all people to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
>> discrimination.
>
> By that logic laws that allow all people to marry someone of their own race
> would not be discriminatory.
>
> Scratch a homophobe and you turn up a racist every time.
Since the limit is SEX NOT RACE you are lying. Sex is not equal to
RACE.... if it is then explain how they are the same and if so why are
they listed seperately in the same law.
Every one who isn't a homo is a homophobe to you Libs, if we don't admit
to being a homosexual then we are repressing our real feelings and just
won't admit that we are deep down homosexuals....
Well we aren't all Homosexuals.
When you have to get out the RACE card, that means a Liberal is losing
the the discussion.
JayPee Vee
wrote:
> On 1/6/2010 10:16 AM, Lars Eighner wrote:
>
> > talented Poetic Justice broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
> >> It allows all people to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
> >> discrimination.
>
> > By that logic laws that allow all people to marry someone of their own race
> > would not be discriminatory.
>
> > Scratch a homophobe and you turn up a racist every time.
>
> Since the limit is SEX NOT RACE you are lying. Sex is not equal to
> RACE....
Where did he said it was? Learn to read, THEN answer,
if it is then explain how they are the same and if so why are
> they listed seperately in the same law.
>
> Every one who isn't a homo is a homophobe to you Libs,
Are you playing stupid or are you really stupid?
if we don't admit
> to being a homosexual then we are repressing our real feelings and just
> won't admit that we are deep down homosexuals....
Uh... no. He never said that.
>
> Well we aren't all Homosexuals.
>
> When you have to get out the RACE card, that means a Liberal is losing
> the the discussion.
When you have to play the STUPID card, that means a rightard is losing
the discussion
Enos Penvy
wrote:
> On 1/6/2010 10:16 AM, Lars Eighner wrote:
>
> > talented Poetic Justice broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
> >> It allows all people to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
> >> discrimination.
>
> > By that logic laws that allow all people to marry someone of their own race
> > would not be discriminatory.
>
> > Scratch a homophobe and you turn up a racist every time.
>
> Since the limit is SEX NOT RACE you are lying. Sex is not equal to
> RACE....
FWOOSH!!
> if it is then explain how they are the same and if so why are
> they listed seperately in the same law.
>
> Every one who isn't a homo is a homophobe to you Libs, if we don't admit
> to being a homosexual then we are repressing our real feelings and just
> won't admit that we are deep down homosexuals....
>
> Well we aren't all Homosexuals.
>
> When you have to get out the RACE card, that means a Liberal is losing
> the the discussion.
You poor thing. The world is spinning soooooooooooooooo fast.... you
must be getting dizzy.
Enos Penvy
> >> Jimbo wrote:
> >>> On Jan 5, 12:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>>> someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination involved.
> >>>> That is correct. There is no 'sexual orientation' test for a man and
> >>>> woman to enter into marriage.
> >>> But their is a gender test.
> >> Correct. There are other tests as well, all non-discriminatory wrt
> >> sexual orientation.
>
> > Then according to your logic, there is gender discrimination.
>
> Not logic, definition.
>
> Marriage discriminates on gender, age, and several other factors. None
> of those discriminates are orientation in nature.
So far as I know, no jurisdiction in the U.S. (or anywhere else, for
that matter) has ever prohibited homosexuals from getting married
based on their sexual orientation, so the issue isn't necessarily one
of orientation but of gender.
Consider this:
I am a male.
A female may marry me (and receive the legal benefits of marriage to
me).
A male may not (and will not receive any legal benefits that might
have come from a marriage to me).
You don't see an issue there with regard to gender? (Also, I believe
that in many jurisdictions, a male-to-female transgendered person
WOULD be able to marry me... so we're talking about THE SAME PERSON
who, as one gender, would NOT be able to marry me, but with another
[legally recognized] gender WOULD be able to. And in THAT case, it's
rather like saying I can marry a blonde but not a brunette, so a
natural blonde gets a dye job and then we can be married.)
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> So far as I know, no jurisdiction in the U.S. (or anywhere else, for
> that matter) has ever prohibited homosexuals from getting married
> based on their sexual orientation, so the issue isn't necessarily one
> of orientation but of gender.
>
> Consider this:
>
> I am a male.
>
> A female may marry me (and receive the legal benefits of marriage to
> me).
>
> A male may not (and will not receive any legal benefits that might
> have come from a marriage to me).
>
> You don't see an issue there with regard to gender?
I don't.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/04b13b2fe19af98e
Enos Penvy
> On Jan 6, 12:34 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > So far as I know, no jurisdiction in the U.S. (or anywhere else, for
> > that matter) has ever prohibited homosexuals from getting married
> > based on their sexual orientation, so the issue isn't necessarily one
> > of orientation but of gender.
>
> > Consider this:
>
> > I am a male.
>
> > A female may marry me (and receive the legal benefits of marriage to
> > me).
>
> > A male may not (and will not receive any legal benefits that might
> > have come from a marriage to me).
>
> > You don't see an issue there with regard to gender?
>
> I don't.
Well, the issue isn't sexual orientation, because as a gay man, I can
marry, and I can even marry another gay person, but the person would
have to be female.
So the issue is really one of gender.
Here's an interesting paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=646963
Josh Rosenbluth
You snipped the link, and did not reply to my post in which I directly
addressed your argument.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/04b13b2fe19af98e
> Here's an interesting paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=646963
She argues the lack of same-sex marriage disfavors women because
traditional gender roles are perpetuated without same-sex marriage.
Firstly, I disagree that traditional marriage inherently disfavors
women. Secondly, although it is true that traditional marriage has
disfavored women as it has been practiced, that has markedly changed
without any reference to same-sex marriage. Thirdly, it is only
sepculative that same-sex marriage would further equate gender roles.
Finally, the Constitutional argument depends on the state knowing
ahead of time that denying same-sex marriage will disfavor women.
Given the three prior points, I don't see how that can be the case.
She does say however that there is in addition sexuality
discrimination. Also, she recognizes that the bulk of case law goes
against her.
Josh Rosenbluth
juanjo
wrote the following childish nonsense proudly for all to see:
>
> Dick suckers are not a race or ethnicity by themselves. They
> are just plain old perverted dick suckers and shit suckers.
> They live for the thrill of getting their assholes stretched and
> licking the shit from their many partners anus.
>
Does your mommy know you are playing with her computer?
Enos Penvy
> On Jan 6, 1:37 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 12:34 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>
> > > > So far as I know, no jurisdiction in the U.S. (or anywhere else, for
> > > > that matter) has ever prohibited homosexuals from getting married
> > > > based on their sexual orientation, so the issue isn't necessarily one
> > > > of orientation but of gender.
>
> > > > Consider this:
>
> > > > I am a male.
>
> > > > A female may marry me (and receive the legal benefits of marriage to
> > > > me).
>
> > > > A male may not (and will not receive any legal benefits that might
> > > > have come from a marriage to me).
>
> > > > You don't see an issue there with regard to gender?
>
> > > I don't.
>
> > Well, the issue isn't sexual orientation, because as a gay man, I can
> > marry, and I can even marry another gay person, but the person would
> > have to be female.
>
> > So the issue is really one of gender.
>
> You snipped the link, and did not reply to my post in which I directly
> addressed your argument.
>
Yeah... I don't think you make a good argument here.
> > Here's an interesting paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=646963
>
> She argues the lack of same-sex marriage disfavors women because
> traditional gender roles are perpetuated without same-sex marriage.
> Firstly, I disagree that traditional marriage inherently disfavors
> women. Secondly, although it is true that traditional marriage has
> disfavored women as it has been practiced, that has markedly changed
> without any reference to same-sex marriage. Thirdly, it is only
> sepculative that same-sex marriage would further equate gender roles.
I give you credit for reading it, but it is summarized on the page
before you download the paper: "Discussions about sex-based
discrimination, women's subordination, and the quest for gender
equality (discussions that I call gender talk) are virtually
impossible to locate in the popular discourse about same-sex marriage.
This is so even though the scholarly literature has analyzed such
issues in depth, a few judicial opinions have used gender talk to find
invalid laws denying same-sex couples the opportunity to marry, and
popular culture seems preoccupied with gender talk in related
contexts."
> Finally, the Constitutional argument depends on the state knowing
> ahead of time that denying same-sex marriage will disfavor women.
Ummm... how do you figure?
> Given the three prior points, I don't see how that can be the case.
>
> She does say however that there is in addition sexuality
> discrimination. Also, she recognizes that the bulk of case law goes
> against her.
Oh. Well, if that's the case, you win.
Josh
Why? Be specific.
>>> Here's an interesting paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=646963
>> She argues the lack of same-sex marriage disfavors women because
>> traditional gender roles are perpetuated without same-sex marriage.
>> Firstly, I disagree that traditional marriage inherently disfavors
>> women. Secondly, although it is true that traditional marriage has
>> disfavored women as it has been practiced, that has markedly changed
>> without any reference to same-sex marriage. Thirdly, it is only
>> sepculative that same-sex marriage would further equate gender roles.
>
> I give you credit for reading it, but it is summarized on the page
> before you download the paper: "Discussions about sex-based
> discrimination, women's subordination, and the quest for gender
> equality (discussions that I call gender talk) are virtually
> impossible to locate in the popular discourse about same-sex marriage.
> This is so even though the scholarly literature has analyzed such
> issues in depth, a few judicial opinions have used gender talk to find
> invalid laws denying same-sex couples the opportunity to marry, and
> popular culture seems preoccupied with gender talk in related
> contexts."
That summary is only tangentially relevant to the constitutional issue,
merely mentioning the fact of a few judicial opinions. Fortunately, she
goes into some detail on the constitutional aspects of these cases,
which I summarized above.
>> Finally, the Constitutional argument depends on the state knowing
>> ahead of time that denying same-sex marriage will disfavor women.
>
> Ummm... how do you figure?
Unlawful discrimination under the Equal Protection clause cannot be
based on merely what results. It must be a known consequence before the
fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Davis
Josh Rosenbluth
dracc...@gmail.com
OK so your argument boils down to your being a Big Fat Bigot. We can
dismiss you out of hand then.
dracc...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> > talented Poetic Justice broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
> >> It allows all people to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
> >> discrimination.
>
> > By that logic laws that allow all people to marry someone of their own race
> > would not be discriminatory.
>
> > Scratch a homophobe and you turn up a racist every time.
>
> Since the limit is SEX NOT RACE you are lying. Sex is not equal to
> RACE.... if it is then explain how they are the same and if so why are
> they listed seperately in the same law.
You are correct race and sex are not the same thing, but they are both
described under the various Civil Rights Acts and Court Findings as
being equal under the law in the ways they are discriminated against
and the banning and equal treatment under the Law.
> Every one who isn't a homo is a homophobe to you Libs, if we don't admit
> to being a homosexual then we are repressing our real feelings and just
> won't admit that we are deep down homosexuals....
I am not a homosexual not am I a homophobe. You fear and hate
homosexuals fro being homosexuals that makes you a homophobe see the
difference?
> Well we aren't all Homosexuals.
You are right some of us are heterosexual, some bisexual and some are
not certain what we are, that is the diversity of America and the
Human Race. You are a bigot it is sad mental illness that with
education and maybe in your case shock therapy can be resolved.
> When you have to get out the RACE card, that means a Liberal is losing
> the the discussion.
Sexual Orintatation, Race, and Gender are all things we are born with
thus they are equally protected under the Law.
Josh
> On Jan 6, 12:21 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> wrote:
>> On 1/6/2010 10:16 AM, Lars Eighner wrote:
>>
>>> In our last episode, <_VQ0n.2268$Sk4....@newsfe10.iad>, the lovely and
>>> talented Poetic Justice broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>>>> It allows all people to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
>>>> discrimination.
>>> By that logic laws that allow all people to marry someone of their own race
>>> would not be discriminatory.
>>> Scratch a homophobe and you turn up a racist every time.
>> Since the limit is SEX NOT RACE you are lying. Sex is not equal to
>> RACE.... if it is then explain how they are the same and if so why are
>> they listed seperately in the same law.
>
> You are correct race and sex are not the same thing, but they are both
> described under the various Civil Rights Acts and Court Findings as
> being equal under the law in the ways they are discriminated against
> and the banning and equal treatment under the Law.
No. The state must overcome a higher burden for racial classifications
than gender classifications.
>> Every one who isn't a homo is a homophobe to you Libs, if we don't admit
>> to being a homosexual then we are repressing our real feelings and just
>> won't admit that we are deep down homosexuals....
>
> I am not a homosexual not am I a homophobe. You fear and hate
> homosexuals fro being homosexuals that makes you a homophobe see the
> difference?
>
>
>> Well we aren't all Homosexuals.
>
> You are right some of us are heterosexual, some bisexual and some are
> not certain what we are, that is the diversity of America and the
> Human Race. You are a bigot it is sad mental illness that with
> education and maybe in your case shock therapy can be resolved.
>
>> When you have to get out the RACE card, that means a Liberal is losing
>> the the discussion.
>
>
> Sexual Orintatation, Race, and Gender are all things we are born with
> thus they are equally protected under the Law.
No, as noted above on race versus gender. Yet even more importantly,
the burden shifts to the plaintiff when the state classifies by sexuality.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>> "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:89e7ee4d-5c29-4064...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
>>>>>>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>>>>>> I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
>>>>>>>>> proponents always frame their quest as a civil rights issue
>>>>>>> someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination involved.
>>>>>> That is correct. There is no 'sexual orientation' test for a man and
>>>>>> woman to enter into marriage.
>>>>> But their is a gender test.
>>>> Correct. There are other tests as well, all non-discriminatory wrt
>>>> sexual orientation.
>>>
>>> Then according to your logic, there is gender discrimination.
>>
>> Not logic, definition.
>>
>> Marriage discriminates on gender, age, and several other factors.
>> None of those discriminates are orientation in nature.
>
> unconstitutional. The state has the burden to show why such a law is
> not unconstitutional.
Then call it unconstitutional and divorce law from marriage.
Redefinition isn't an option.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>
>> different opinions. The facts are on my side though, like it or not:
>>
>> This definition exists independent of law, although it often coexists.
>>
>
> Not a fact - just your misguided opinion. ...
Ok.
Can a man and woman get married to each other regardless of their sexual
orentation?
Yes or no, please.
Beam Me Up Scotty
yes, when I got married, there was zero interest in orientation.
Lars Eighner
and talented Peter Franks broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> Josh wrote:
>> OK. Laws which discriminate on the basis of gender are presumptively
>> unconstitutional. The state has the burden to show why such a law is
>> not unconstitutional.
> Then call it unconstitutional and divorce law from marriage.
> Redefinition isn't an option.
It was restricting marriage to opposite sex couples that was the
redefinition of marriage. Your myth doesn't trump history, and in the
history of marriage, same-sex marriage is older than your myth.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 38
919.6 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Josh
Yes, it is.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
> Josh wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Not a fact - just your misguided opinion. ...
>
> Ok.
>
> Can a man and woman get married to each other regardless of their sexual
> orentation?
>
> Yes or no, please.
Yes. Nonetheless, a gay person cannot marry their lover, while a
straight person can. Therefore, it is sexuality discrimination.
Josh Rosenbluth
W Mitty
Loving v Virginia was about a man marrying a woman, and
> has no relevance is same sex marriage
actually it wasn't, it was about mixed -racial marriages.( which are indeed
a different thing)
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hhvptq$d2e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "juanjo" <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
W Mitty
> woman to enter into marriage.
nor should there be, just as there should be no religious test, or racial
test....
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hhvrvk$qvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
W Mitty
discrimination because blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry
whites....
"Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3a8395a-8214-4856...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 11:38 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Actually, in legal terms, it does. Loving v. Virginia was about a
W Mitty
If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
completely. Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
sure
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hi04ar$osp$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 12:22 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ironically, using the effed-up logic of Wayne and Franks ("any
>> homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
>> discrimination involved), then you are right. But, we shouldn't be
>> using effed-up logic.
>>
>> Firstly, why is Loving racial discrimination? Two reasons: 1) blacks
>> were disfavored compared to whites because the law was motivated by
>> keeping the races pure to foster White Supremacy, and 2) if a black
>> were instead white, he could marry a white.
>>
>> The first reason does not apply to same-sex marriages because neither
>> women nor men are disfavored. In contrast, gays are disfavored
>> compared to straights becauase only straights can marry their lover.
>> Hence, there is sexuality discrimination.
>
> Then extend that to bestiality.
>
> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it completely.
> Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at the expense of
> what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>
>> At first glance it appears the second reason does apply (if a man were
>> instead a woman, he could marry a man). But, that's only because of
>> the effed-up logic. Namely, if a gay man were instead a gay woman,
>> there would no longer be any interest in marrying a man, whereas the
>> effed-up logic assumes sexuality is mutable. The accurate statement
>> would be, if a gay man were instead a straight woman, then he could
>> marry a man. Or more generally, if a gay were instead straight, he
>> could marry his lover. Once again, that is sexuality discrimination.
>>
>> Josh Rosenbluth
W Mitty
"IAAH" <n...@email.exists> wrote in message
news:hi0eft$u3r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 1/5/10 11:38 AM, * Wayne wrote:
>> "juanjo" <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> woman, and has no relevance is same sex marriage. AND....any homosexual
>> can marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination
>> involved.
>
> Any black person can marry someone of the same race. There is no
> discrimination involved.
>
> What you said sounds a lot dumber now, doesn't it?
>
> --
> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally
> cannot
> prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the
> gods of
> Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these
> hypotheses is
> more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable
> knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them."
> -Bertrand Russell
W Mitty
marrying be discrimination?
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hi0ht3$m88$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2:33 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Jimbo wrote:
>>>> On Jan 5, 12:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>> "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> That is correct. There is no 'sexual orientation' test for a man and
>>>>> woman to enter into marriage.
W Mitty
changing.
Well not exactly... loving v virginia changed the definition of marriage....
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hi0i2b$m88$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Enos Penvy wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2:35 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On Jan 5, 12:22 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Actually, in legal terms, it does. Loving v. Virginia was about a
>>>>> couple of different races marrying. If a white has the right to marry
>>>>> a white, then a black must have that same right or run afoul of the
>>>>> equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Same sex marriage is
>>>>> exactly parallel with regards to gender. If a man has the right to
>>>>> marry a woman, then a woman must also have that same right, and vica
>>>>> versa. The issue is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation.
>>>> Ironically, using the effed-up logic of Wayne and Franks ("any
>>>> homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no
>>>> discrimination involved), then you are right. But, we shouldn't be
>>>> using effed-up logic.
>>>> Firstly, why is Loving racial discrimination? Two reasons: 1) blacks
>>>> were disfavored compared to whites because the law was motivated by
>>>> keeping the races pure to foster White Supremacy, and 2) if a black
>>>> were instead white, he could marry a white.
>>>> The first reason does not apply to same-sex marriages because neither
>>>> women nor men are disfavored. In contrast, gays are disfavored
>>>> compared to straights becauase only straights can marry their lover.
>>>> Hence, there is sexuality discrimination.
>>> Then extend that to bestiality.
>>
>> False analogy. We're talking about human beings.
>
> There is no analogy to be drawn.
>
>>> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
>>> completely.
>>
>> Definitions of terms change all the time.
>
> And new ones are created as well.
>
> The definition of marriage has been constant for millennia, it needs no
> changing.
>
>>> Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
>>> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>>
>> There is no evidence that prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage
>> is what is best for humanity.
>
> Clearly there is. Homosexuality does not result in the perpetuation of
> the species, and that is counter to humanity. The *primary* purpose of
> life is the propagation of the species -- look it up, not my
> definition/conclusion, but the conclusion of biology.
W Mitty
Suppose the law was only same gender people can get married.... would that
be a civil rights issue?
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hi0ira$35t$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Enos Penvy wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Jimbo wrote:
>>>> On Jan 3, 11:33 pm, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100102/OPINION02/91230070/1095/O...
>>>>> ON/Same-sex+marriage+not+a+civil+rights+issue
>>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>> I find it exasperating to continue reading where same-sex marriage
>>>>> proponents always frame their quest as a civil rights issue
>>>> It is a civil rights issue. There is no way around it.
>>> Explain how it is a civil rights issue, please.
>>
>> See Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of
>> man". So to deny marriage to a person involves that person's civil
>> rights.
>
> No one is being denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.
>
> Do you disagree?
Wayne
"W Mitty" <f...@dfe.com> wrote in message
news:hia67j$d8h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Loving v Virginia was about a man marrying a woman, and
>> has no relevance is same sex marriage
>
> actually it wasn't, it was about mixed -racial marriages.( which are
> indeed a different thing)
>
There was NO homosexual issue in Loving v Virginia.
Poetic Justice
> would a law that prohibited two people of different religious faiths from
> marrying be discrimination?
"Amendment I
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion* ,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
<PAGE 1 >
Peter Franks
Sorry, it isn't.
There is too much historical and non-legal attachment to the term and
institution. Show some tolerance for those that respect the institution
as defined and attack this from a different means (id est, a new legal
institution).
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Josh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>>>
>>> Not a fact - just your misguided opinion. ...
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> Can a man and woman get married to each other regardless of their
>> sexual orentation?
>>
>> Yes or no, please.
>
> Yes.
Ok. We [now] agree that this isn't a question of discrimination wrt
orientation.
Peter Franks
> they are being denied marriage on basis of gender. agree...
>
> Suppose the law was only same gender people can get married.... would that
> be a civil rights issue?
No, it is one of definition.
If there were such a law, and the heteros wanted to 'enjoy the benefits'
(whatever that means), then they should *properly* advocate for a new
institution that provides the legal benefits requested under new and
distinct terminology.
Josh Rosenbluth
As a matter of your opinion, it is a bad option, one that should be
rejected. But as a factual matter, before a court a law, it is an
option.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh wrote:
> > Peter Franks wrote:
> >> Josh wrote:
>
> >>>> - Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>
> >>> Not a fact - just your misguided opinion. ...
>
> >> Ok.
>
> >> Can a man and woman get married to each other regardless of their
> >> sexual orentation?
>
> >> Yes or no, please.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Ok. We [now] agree that this isn't a question of discrimination wrt
> orientation.
No, we don't. And you are first-class asshole when you claim we
agree, even though you know we don't.
> > Nonetheless, a gay person cannot marry their lover, while a
> > straight person can. Therefore, it is sexuality discrimination.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Hardly. You look at law as the source of all that is right. It isn't.
Peter Franks
> On Jan 9, 11:32 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Josh wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> Josh wrote:
>>>>>> - Marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>>>>> Not a fact - just your misguided opinion. ...
>>>> Ok.
>>>> Can a man and woman get married to each other regardless of their
>>>> sexual orentation?
>>>> Yes or no, please.
>>> Yes.
>> Ok. We [now] agree that this isn't a question of discrimination wrt
>> orientation.
>
> No, we don't. And you are first-class asshole when you claim we
> agree, even though you know we don't.
Whatever. Let's recap, and then I'm moving on:
Franks: Can a man and woman get married to each other regardless of
their sexual orentation?
Rosenbluth: Yes.
I agree with your response, therefore we agree. QED.
Have a nice day.
-pf
Josh Rosenbluth
Yep, you are a first-class asshole.
Josh Rosenbluth
dracc...@gmail.com
This is about contract law this is not about your very narrow very
bigoted religion. The Church nor any Church or faith gets to define
what civil marriage means no one is forcing any religion or church to
marry anyone to anyone that is a decision that is made at the Church
level. What you are trying to do is force your religious views on the
Rest of the People of the Country.
dracc...@gmail.com
No they would be guilty of fraud if a heterosexual male or female were
to marry a homosexual male or female that is fraud, thus not legal
under the civil law.
dracc...@gmail.com
> Loving v Virginia was about a man marrying a woman, and
>
> > has no relevance is same sex marriage
>
> actually it wasn't, it was about mixed -racial marriages.( which are indeed
> a different thing)
>
>
> news:hhvptq$d2e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
Loving established marriage as a civil right thus it is on point for
this discussion you and others can grasp at straws, stamp your feet
and cover your ears but it does not change the law and the reality.
>
>
> > "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
dracc...@gmail.com
> Then extend that to bestiality.
>
> If you are going to destroy the definition, then obliterate it
> completely. Picking and choosing what to morph it into by a minority at
> the expense of what's best for humanity is inappropriate.
>
> sure
>
>
> news:hi04ar$osp$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
That is a red herring and you know it. Beastiality is not even close
to the same as homosexual marriage or even homosexual sex. It is about
consent and the ability to enter a binding contract. Try and keep up
with the adults.