NO RIGHTS FOR GAYS
Ali Bashir
Buddy Beaudoin
Ali Bashir wrote:
> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
--
*************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin Joh...@yahoo.com IRC# 18014594
********************** John 8:36 **************************
Bruce Garrett
Let me guess... Fred Cherry's got Johns 1 through 835 at
Yahoo.com.
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ Behold, he climbs upon the mountians, skipping
upon the hills. My beloved is like a young stag...
-The Song of Solomon
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ali Bashir wrote:
>
> > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
>
>
> A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
You are wrong.
Romer v Evans
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
DRS
:I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
Please do not feed the troll.
--
Beware of the Spam-Dog
J. David Eisenberg
: Ali Bashir wrote:
:> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
: A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
: legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
Buddy! You're back! Just when things were getting boring around
a.p.h.
Do I take it, then, that you agree with Ali that gays should have
no rights, and your only quarrel is with the way he has stated
the proposition?
--
J. David Eisenberg http://www.best.com/~nessus
Scruffy van Piebles
wrote:
>
>
>Ali Bashir wrote:
>
>> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
>
>
>A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
>legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
>
Hey Buddy, do that impression of the Paraclete on Angel Dust that you
do so well!
Scruffy
Kun Tai 2
no rights for moslems.
Rev. Billy
Snake Eggs and Spam!
I said I hate snake eggs and spam.
I said I hate them, damn you Buddy!
If you should bring them on my plane,
Don't plan to see your home again.
If you approach me on a boat,
I'll shove that spam right down your throat!
Get it through your skull so thick--
Snake eggs and spam, they make me sick!
The spam looks like doggy duke;
Those slimey eggs just make me puke.
If I ate them, I would vomit
Projectiles just like Halley's comet!
Now remove them from my face
Before I have to trash this place.
Should you serve them with a fox
Or inside a cardboard box,
I'd burn the box, all flaming red
And eat the roasted fox instead.
I know I've said this once before
I'm sure you think I'm quite the bore.
But I can't stand snake eggs and spam.
I mean I hate them, damn you Buddy!
What is it with you, Buddy, I croaked
(I'm all worked up, my voice is choked.)
You think I want this crap, I coughed
Do you have ties to Microsoft?
Have you bundled IE in your spam?
So Reno will ignore it Buddy?
Well I won't eat it anyway,
Not for a million bucks a day!
Now leave at once, you are dismissed.
Damn you Buddy, I'm getting pissed!
I told you how I hate that crap.
Don't make me give your face a slap.
Shut up Buddy, don't make me smack you.
The great Cornholio will attack you.
Snake eggs and spam don't have any rights!
We have to say, Huh-huh, you bite!
Risqilly - http://www.risqilly.org/
Rev. Billy
> Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com>...
> Let me guess... Fred Cherry's got Johns 1 through 835 at
>Yahoo.com.
Naw, it's BlowBoy, post was from rr, he thought it was Religious Right
when he signed up.
His therapy went bad today, so he scrurried into the bathroom with his
computer and just *had* to post on APH.
http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
Allen James
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ali Bashir wrote:
>
> > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
>
>
> A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
>
AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's statement? NO
RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
citizens of their Constitutional rights.
Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
the Second Amendment when you do try.
Allen James
--
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
Steve Caldwell
> A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
Buddy,
Perhaps you are correct in saying that gays are not a "legal civil
rights minority" (whatever that means), but gays are still entitled to
equal treatment before the law. You should re-read the opinion
overturning the Colorado Amendment Two ... Justice Kennedy quoted from
Harlan's dissent in the Plessey v. Ferguson case ... saying that no class
of people is a stranger to the law.
Have a great weekend,
Steve
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steve Caldwell
srca...@iamerica.net http://cust.iamerica.net/srcaldwe
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare."
--Blair Houghton
John De Salvio
shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
> In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ali Bashir wrote:
> >
> > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> >
> >
> > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
> >
>
>
>
> AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
>
> Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's statement? NO
> RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> citizens of their Constitutional rights.
>
> Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> the Second Amendment when you do try.
OH NO!!!
You mean, Shawn James Haff's "Lock and Load"????
OOOOOHH!!!
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Letao
<bas...@thefree.net> wrote:
> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
Well, aren't you special!?
Are there any good reasons why I should care?
[Sorry, had to feed the troll this one time...]
--
Safe journey,
Letao
djs...@yahoo.com
Allen James
des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote:
> In article <shrapnel-260...@hezron-36.d.enteract.com>,
> shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
>
> > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> > >
> > >
> > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> >
> > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's statement? NO
> > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> >
> > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > the Second Amendment when you do try.
>
> OH NO!!!
>
>
> You mean, Shawn James Haff's "Lock and Load"????
>
>
> OOOOOHH!!!
>
> --
> John
I don't EVER want to have ANYTHING to do with Shawn James Haff's 'load',
thank you. Uhg, I want to take a shower now..........
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
>
Now, here we have a really sterling example of a no-brainer operating
a computer -- sort of like monkeys playing chess -- the pieces move
around the board but, in actuality, nothing is happening.
ward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Buddy on false witness -
"1 : attestation of a fact or event : TESTIMONY one that gives evidence;
specifically:
one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal
[Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary]
Hence, a false witness is one who is guilty of breaking a sworn oath in a
court of law in which he/she vowed to tell the truth."
Who but our own Buddy B.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>
>Ali Bashir wrote:
>
>> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
>
>
>A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
>legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
I wonder if you could tell us what on earth a "legal civil rights
minority" may be and then cite the decision of the supremes in which
they "agree with this?"
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>
>Ali Bashir wrote:
>
>> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
Buddy glistered and stank and gave us -- >
>
>A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
>legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Not strictly apropos but it is always a pleasure to cite one of the
sonnets -- the business about love being an "ever fixed mark," is a
particular favorite of mine.
Buddy Beaudoin
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:27:54 -0500, Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ali Bashir wrote:
> >
> >> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> >
> >
> >A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> >legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
>
> I wonder if you could tell us what on earth a "legal civil rights
> minority" may be and then cite the decision of the supremes in which
> they "agree with this?"
The Supreme Court established three criteria in awarding special protected
status:
1) Protected classed should exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing
characteristics, like race, color, gender, that define them as a discrete
group. This does not apply to homosexuals. There is nothing outward that
would identify one as a homosexual. Therefore, homosexuals do not meet this
criteria.
2) There must be a history of discrimination evidenced by a lack of ability
to obtain adequate education, cultural opportunity, or economic mean income.
Again, this does not pertain to homosexuals. Homosexuals have never been
denied adequate education, and hold employment with an average annual income
of $55, 430, whgich is $20,000 more than the general population.
3) Protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness. From
the impact that the homosexual movement has made on the United States,
politically (one of the largest PACs is privately funded by homosexuals), one
can clearly see that that political powerlessness is another criteria that
homosexuals can not hold claim to.
A minority?? Of course. Two to three percent is definitely a minority, but
then again, thank God, so are arsonists. Chuck McIlhenny, a pastor in San
Francisco, could tell the american public a story about arson that was
directed towards his family in the middle of the night.
>
>
> ward
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Buddy on false witness -
> "1 : attestation of a fact or event : TESTIMONY one that gives evidence;
> specifically:
> one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal
> [Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary]
>
> Hence, a false witness is one who is guilty of breaking a sworn oath in a
> court of law in which he/she vowed to tell the truth."
> Who but our own Buddy B.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
How 'bout that Bill Clinton.......perjurer (false witness) extraordinaire and
friend of the wicked.
--
*************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin Joh...@yahoo.com ICQ# 18014594
Buddy Beaudoin
Rev. Billy wrote:
> bgar...@pobox.com (Bruce Garrett) wrote:
> > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com>...
> > Let me guess... Fred Cherry's got Johns 1 through 835 at
> >Yahoo.com.
>
> Naw, it's BlowBoy, post was from rr, he thought it was Religious Right
> when he signed up.
Beep...beep!! I be faster than you. Unless, of course, you are an RR too.
--
******************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin Joh...@yahoo.com ICQ# 18014594
*************************** John 8:36 *****************************
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ali Bashir wrote:
> >
> > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> >
> >
> > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
> >
>
> AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
>
> Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's statement? NO
> RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> citizens of their Constitutional rights.
>
> Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> the Second Amendment when you do try.
Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
--
*************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin Joh...@yahoo.com ICQ# 18014594
Allen James
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Allen James wrote:
>
> > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> > >
> > >
> > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
> > >
> >
> > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> >
> > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's statement? NO
> > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> >
> > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > the Second Amendment when you do try.
>
> Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
>
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most especially the latter.
For me, a major component of my personal happiness is in the time I spend
with The Little Guy. This particular facet of my happiness, which harms no
one and infringes upon the rights and freedoms of no one, is STILL illegal
in many states.
However, you've once again demonstrated your much-vaunted ability to miss
the point. Ali said, "no rights for gays". He meant, "NO rights for gays".
NONE. See, "no rights" means "no rights".
Allen James
PS- before anyone freaks, I call him 'The Little Guy' because he's smaller
than me. We're the same age.
Buddy Beaudoin
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:47:39 +0100, "Ali Bashir" <bas...@thefree.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> >
>
> I don't give a shit what you believe in and there are many who
> disagree with you and the numbers are climbing, so get over your
> bigotted self.
>
> The Speedbyrd(tm)
> a.k.a. "Jean-Pierre Pigglesworth"
>
> ICQ# 17433172
Do you know the meaning of "the worm turneth". Get usedto it.
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Supreme Court established three criteria in awarding special protected
> status:
> 1) Protected classed should exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing
> characteristics, like race, color, gender, that define them as a discrete
> group. This does not apply to homosexuals. There is nothing outward that
> would identify one as a homosexual.
It doesn't matter if it is "outward" or not. The fact is that sexual
orientation is immutable, uncheageable, and innate.
>
> 2) There must be a history of discrimination evidenced by a lack of ability
> to obtain adequate education, cultural opportunity, or economic mean income.
Gays easily qualify here. We are heavily discriminated against in the
fields of education and employment.
>
> 3) Protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.
This is pretty easy to qualify. Gays have almost no political power. We
have been unable to get even the most basic civil rights laws passed in 40
out of 50 states. We have 2 people elected to the Congress (out of 535).
> Chuck McIlhenny, a pastor in San
> Francisco, could tell the american public a story about arson that was
> directed towards his family in the middle of the night.
Wasn't he the Phelps-like minister in SF a few years ago who was known for
(and evetually convicted of) violently attacking gays in that city?
PS: Buddy, read "Romer v Evans"
You lose.
JTEM
: "Ali Bashir" <bas...@thefree.net> wrote:
:
: >I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
: Now, here we have a really sterling example of a no-brainer operating
: a computer -- sort of like monkeys playing chess -- the pieces move
: around the board but, in actuality, nothing is happening.
Ward, shame on you. Give the moron a little credit. He did say "believe"
which in no way implies rational thought, as well as "feel" which, as we
all know, is a definite reference to an emotional reaction.
Why, golly, if all of our oppoents made clear that they're not rational
people who've weighed all the sides of the issues before opening their
gaping traps, the rest of society would have no choice but to wake up and
correct the injustices.
John
Rev. Billy
http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
Rev. Billy
>Beep...beep!! I be faster than you. Unless, of course, you are an RR too.
AS per usual, wrong again Blowhard.....
http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
Rev. Billy
>Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
>United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
You've done this before blow...
for starters:
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which 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.
Eric Bohlman
: The Supreme Court established three criteria in awarding special protected
: status:
That "special protected status" means preferences and set-asides in
government contracting, *not* ordinary civil-rights protection. No gay
people are asking for set-asides or preferences. Plenty of groups that
do not come close to meeting that three-part test (Asians, Jews, you name
it) nonetheless enjoy the protection of civil rights laws, because those
laws don't name *groups*, they name *classifications* and *any* group
defined by one of those classifications automatically gets protection.
Jews, for example, are protected against discrimination on the basis of
being Jewish because being Jewish is a religious classification, and our
civil rights laws prevent discrimination based on *any* religious
classification. Asians are defined by "race" or national origin, and
neither classification is a permissible one for discrimination.
Civil rights laws generally (I can think of only three exceptions)
provide equal legal protection to members of *all* classes defined by the
protected classification. All existing and proposed civil rights laws
that would affect gay people define sexual orientation (heterosexuality,
homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality) as a protected classification;
that means straight people are protected against discrimination on the
grounds of being straight (which, while rare, has been known to happen).
Civil rights laws, affirmative action laws and social benefit programs
are distinct legal entities. A person can be covered by one but not by
another.
P.S. The three categories I can think of where only some groups defined
by a classification are protected are age (only people over 40
protected), disability (only people with disabilities protected) and
veteran status (only veterans protected).
David Whitt
In article <360d4...@news.thefree.net>,
Ali Bashir <bas...@thefree.net> wrote:
>I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Fortunately for us
queers, your opinion mean nothing.
-David Whitt
David Whitt
In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>,
Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
>legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
Yes, much as they once agreed that black were property and therefor had no
rights.
-David Whitt
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <360EFC98...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Allen James wrote:
> >
> > > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> > > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> > >
> > > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's statement? NO
> > > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> > >
> > > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > > the Second Amendment when you do try.
> >
> > Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> >
>
> Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most especially the latter.
> For me, a major component of my personal happiness is in the time I spend
> with The Little Guy. This particular facet of my happiness, which harms no
> one and infringes upon the rights and freedoms of no one, is STILL illegal
> in many states.
And you can spend as much time with "The Little Guy" as you want. However, the
Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever, wherever, and
whenever one wants.
**********************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ# 18014594
Rev. Billy
>And you can spend as much time with "The Little Guy" as you want. However, the
>Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever, wherever, and
>whenever one wants.
Your right, the Constitution does not mention it, therefore it is not
to be regulated by the Government. So the Government can not ban it,
regulate it, nor exclude Gay Marriage. DOMA is unconstitutional!
Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Risqilly - http://www.risqilly.org/
Buddy Beaudoin
> Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
>
> You've done this before blow...
>
> for starters:
>
> Amendment XIV (1868)
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
> United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
> shall make or enforce any law which 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.
>
The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
--
*************************************************************
John De Salvio
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Allen James wrote:
>
> > In article <360EFC98...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Allen James wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel
that way.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not
constitute a
> > > > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees
with this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> > > >
> > > > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's
statement? NO
> > > > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > > > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> > > >
> > > > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > > > the Second Amendment when you do try.
> > >
> > > Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > > United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> > >
> >
> > Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most especially the latter.
> > For me, a major component of my personal happiness is in the time I spend
> > with The Little Guy. This particular facet of my happiness, which harms no
> > one and infringes upon the rights and freedoms of no one, is STILL illegal
> > in many states.
>
> And you can spend as much time with "The Little Guy" as you want. However, the
> Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever, wherever, and
> whenever one wants.
The Constitution says nothing about sex, bonehead.
Ron Nicholson
In fact, until the 60s in a SC decision no one had the right to partake in
intercourse for the pupposes other than procreating.
Buddy Beaudoin wrote:
> Rev. Billy wrote:
>
> > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> >
J. David Eisenberg
: Ward Stewart wrote:
[snip]
And Mr. Beaudoin tries to sneak one under the radar:
: A minority?? Of course. Two to three percent is definitely a minority, but
: then again, thank God, so are arsonists. Chuck McIlhenny, a pastor in San
: Francisco, could tell the american public a story about arson that was
: directed towards his family in the middle of the night.
Sorry, but arson is a crime of person A against person B, without
person B's consent.
This is in no way comparable to a consensual relationship between
two adults of the same sex. Nice try; please troll again soon.
: How 'bout that Bill Clinton.......perjurer (false witness) extraordinaire and
: friend of the wicked.
.and he's straight. What conclusion are we to draw from that,
Mr. Beaudoin?
--
J. David Eisenberg http://www.best.com/~nessus
Allen James
> Allen James wrote:
>
> > In article <360EFC98...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Allen James wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel
that way.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not
constitute a
> > > > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees
with this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> > > >
> > > > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's
statement? NO
> > > > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > > > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> > > >
> > > > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > > > the Second Amendment when you do try.
> > >
> > > Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > > United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> > >
> >
> > Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most especially the latter.
> > For me, a major component of my personal happiness is in the time I spend
> > with The Little Guy. This particular facet of my happiness, which harms no
> > one and infringes upon the rights and freedoms of no one, is STILL illegal
> > in many states.
>
> And you can spend as much time with "The Little Guy" as you want. However, the
> Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever, wherever, and
> whenever one wants.
Ah, the dishonesty. NOWHERE in any post have I in any way stated or
implied that I wanted the 'right' to "........sodomize whomever, wherever,
and whenever one wants."
You're as transparent as glass, ya know? Still unable, after all this
time, and after all the various ISP's you've been booted off of, to STICK
TO THE SUBSTANCE of the debate. Are you just unable to admit it when
you're wrong?
Do you really think that homosexuals want to be permitted to get married
so that we can ".............sodomize whomever, wherever, and whenever one
wants."? Are you REALLY that stupid? Or are you just being deliberately
obtuse?
I'm betting on the latter.
Allen James
Allen James
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>
> The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
>
The Constitution also fails to specifically mention "the right to eat
Quiche Lorraine". I personally detest Quiche Lorraine. Can I safely assume
that I therefore have the right to:
Demonize people who do like it
Organize to deny further rights to people who do like it
Demand that poeple who do like it be barred from teaching at cooking schools
Demand that any cooking or eating of said 'Evil Quiche' be subject to
criminal prosecution, wether such eating or cooking be done in public OR
private
....
Y'know, we've gone around this damn mulberry bush hundreds of times, Mr.
Beaudoin, and we seem to keep arguing the same points over and over again.
I'm arguing that I have just as much right to live here in the US of A and
to enjoy the rights and fulfill the responsibilities as my fellow
heterosexual citizens do.
What part of the above statement do you have a problem with, neighbor?
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Allen James wrote:
>
> > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> > >
> > >
> > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
> > >
> >
> > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> >
> > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's statement? NO
> > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> >
> > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > the Second Amendment when you do try.
>
> Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
What a dork -- *civil* rights as expressed in the 14th Amendment.
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And you can spend as much time with "The Little Guy" as you want. However, the
> Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever, wherever, and
> whenever one wants.
The Constitution doesn't allow anybody to do ANYTHING "wherever and
whenever" they want -- not even speech!
But the Constitution does allow for privacy in one's own home, and the
14th Amendment guarantees all citizens the same civil rights.
Better go take civics 101 Budster!
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rev. Billy wrote:
>
> > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> >
> > You've done this before blow...
> >
> > for starters:
> >
> > Amendment XIV (1868)
> > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
> > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
> > United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
> > shall make or enforce any law which 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.
> >
>
> The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
Learn to read, asshole. We're not talking about sodomy here, we are
talking about civil rights in things like employment and housing.
ital...@hotmail.com
Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> However, the Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever,
> wherever, and whenever one wants.
Nor does it specifically prohibit it. That's what state laws do.
These laws fall under the heading of 'religious persecution'. Once laws based
solely on religion-based morality are trashed for good, criminalization of
homosexuality will be the first to disappear.
--
Steve Giammarco
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>> >
>> >Ali Bashir wrote:
>> >
>> >> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
Buddy gathered his Klan robes about himself and concurred -- he
neglected to dwell on his and Pat's opinion on Moslems.
>> >
>> >
>> >A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
>> >legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
>>
>> I wonder if you could tell us what on earth a "legal civil rights
>> minority" may be and then cite the decision of the supremes in which
>> they "agree with this?"
>
>The Supreme Court established three criteria in awarding special protected
>status:
>1) Protected classed should exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing
>characteristics, like race, color, gender, that define them as a discrete
>group. This does not apply to homosexuals. There is nothing outward that
>would identify one as a homosexual. Therefore, homosexuals do not meet this
>criteria.
This is YOUR opinion which, in your utter dishonesty, represent to be
that of the Supreme Court.
And we do have, in spite of what your obsessed quacks choose to say
what are essentially "immutable characteristics,"
>
>2) There must be a history of discrimination evidenced by a lack of ability
>to obtain adequate education, cultural opportunity, or economic mean income.
>Again, this does not pertain to homosexuals. Homosexuals have never been
>denied adequate education, and hold employment with an average annual income
>of $55, 430, whgich is $20,000 more than the general population.
They are, on rare occasions, beaten to death on the streets simply
because they are perceived as being gay or lesbian.
With greater frequency they are gay-bashed by folks with YOUR hateful
slogans on their lips.
They are routinely denied employment for the same reason -- if you
think otherwise one can only cite the United States Army. They are
denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America as being "morally
unfit."
>
>3) Protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness. From
>the impact that the homosexual movement has made on the United States,
>politically (one of the largest PACs is privately funded by homosexuals), one
>can clearly see that that political powerlessness is another criteria that
>homosexuals can not hold claim to.
When we have succeeded in being treated as EQUAL to the rest of the
citizens our "political powerless" will have been demonstrated -- so
far, no go,
>
>A minority?? Of course. Two to three percent is definitely a minority, but
>then again, thank God, so are arsonists. Chuck McIlhenny, a pastor in San
>Francisco, could tell the american public a story about arson that was
>directed towards his family in the middle of the night.
And the hatred and homophobia which underlies your position
and posts is here clearly illustrated.
ward
>
>
>>
>>
>> ward
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Buddy on false witness -
>> "1 : attestation of a fact or event : TESTIMONY one that gives evidence;
>> specifically:
>> one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal
>> [Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary]
>>
>> Hence, a false witness is one who is guilty of breaking a sworn oath in a
>> court of law in which he/she vowed to tell the truth."
>> Who but our own Buddy B.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>How 'bout that Bill Clinton.......perjurer (false witness) extraordinaire and
>friend of the wicked.
____________________________________________________
¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Paganism is forced in the schools. Parents have
objected to texts, and been told they've got no say
in the matter. I understand enviro laws are partly
based in pagan belief."
Mark Johnson
____________________________________________________
¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Ezekiel Krahlin
<nes...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>: A minority?? Of course. Two to three percent is definitely a minority, but
>: then again, thank God, so are arsonists. Chuck McIlhenny, a pastor in San
>: Francisco, could tell the american public a story about arson that was
>: directed towards his family in the middle of the night.
>
>Sorry, but arson is a crime of person A against person B, without
>person B's consent.
>
>This is in no way comparable to a consensual relationship between
>two adults of the same sex. Nice try; please troll again soon.
I will post herein, an excerpt from:
Kenneth Cauthen on Homosexuality
http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/homosex.htm
---begin excerpt
Homosexuality is being hotly debated today in church and society. When
the case is made for the legitimacy of same-sex love, critics rush in
with three main defenses. (1) It is contrary to nature. (2) It is
condemned in Scripture. (3) Its acceptance would ruin society. The
most interesting thing about these three arguments is that they have
been used in the past to defend what is now universally regarded as
evil. In American history, slavery, segregation, and the denial of the
vote to women all illustrate the point. In each of these instances
nature and God were said to authorize a practice vital to the good of
society.
When the slavery of African Americans was condemned, it was defended
as essential to social order, harmony, and the welfare of all. The
authority of Aristotle was invoked to show that slavery was rooted in
natural law. The Bible was quoted to show that slavery was divinely
ordained and approved.
When women sought the right to vote, the best interests of society
were said to be in jeopardy. It was confidently argued that political
participation by women would mean "pretty girls button-holing strange
men on Election Day in behalf of the `handsome candidate'" and women
locked in jury rooms with males, subjected to tales of shocking
behavior. To the threat of social disintegration was added the
authoritative pronouncement that the involvement of women in politics
was prohibited by natural and divine law. Nature and Scripture were
called upon to show that woman's place was in the home and not in the
voting booth. Regarding the desire of women to vote, the Council of
Congregationalist Ministers of Massachusetts had this to say:
The appropriate duties and influence of woman are stated in
the New Testament. . . . The power of woman is in her
dependence, flowing from the consciousness of the weakness
which God has given her for her protection. . . . When she
assumes the place and tone of man as a public reformer . . .
she yields the power which God has given her ... and her
character becomes unnatural.
When the legal segregation of the races was being undermined, prophets
of doom predicted that catastrophe would surely result if blacks and
whites used the same public toilets or sat at lunch counters together.
If little white children sat in schoolrooms beside boys and girls with
African ancestry, all sorts of mischief would follow. Predictably,
nature and the Bible were called upon to show that the separation of
the races was both natural and divine. Look at nature. Robins and
mockingbirds don't mate and produce offspring, so people of different
races should follow that example and stay with their own kind. When
integrationists noted that the Bible tells us that God made all
nations of one blood, segregationists pointed out that the same verse
goes on to say that God has set the bounds of their habitation (Acts
17:26 KJV).
As history teaches us, religion has often been the ally of natural law
in defending tyranny and oppression. The use of the Bible to justify
subjugation is particularly distressing. Unfortunately, Scripture is
like a mirror in which interpreters, conservatives and liberals alike,
can usually find support for whatever views they hold. It is more
difficult to let the Bible be a searchlight that exposes our error and
leads to deeper truth. Let us remember that those who used the Bible
in the past to justify slavery, segregation, and the denial of the
vote to women were just as confident that they were in possession of
God's own truth as are those who quote Scripture today to condemn
same-sex love. This recognition ought at least to create in all of us
a sense of humility -- whatever our theological persuasion -- and
perhaps a good laugh at the almost irrestible tendency we have to
identify our own views with those of the Holy One in whose presence
our only hope is grace and mercy.
Nearly all Americans now recognize that slavery, racial segregation,
and the denial of the ballot to women were not good for society. They
were not based on natural law. They were not ordained by God. No one
who wishes to be taken seriously quotes the Bible to justify slavery,
segregation, or the exclusion of women from holding public office. Now
the time has come to say forthrightly that the condemnation of
same-sex love is no more a social necessity nor a mandate of nature
and God than were these previous evils. Future generations will
readily see that the arguments now being set forth to condemn
homosexuality are as groundless as the defense of slavery by
Bible-quoting preachers and Aristotle-quoting philosophers. After all,
the slaveholders could point to as many passages in the Bible in favor
of their views as some do now to condemn same-sex love.
When the analogies of the present controversy over homosexuality with
the past are called to mind, the response is predictable. This issue
is different. It is sad that General Colin Powell, himself a
distinguished African American of great ability, associated himself
with the view that overcoming the segregation of the races in the
military was different from removing the ban against gays.
Homosexuality is not the same as either of these past issues. But what
they all have in common is the element of oppression. The slavery and
segregation of African Americans, the subjugation of women, and the
persecution of homosexuals are alike in that they all deny dignity,
equality, and the full rights and privileges of citizenship to human
beings for reasons that have no basis in fact or in sound moral
reasoning. In time I believe that reasonable people will abandon the
claim that faithful, monogamous sexual relationships between persons
of the same sex are either destructive of society or obnoxious to
nature and God.
To "the aristocracies of colour, race, and sex," that have moved from
being matters of "social necessity . . . into the ranks of a
univerally stigmatized injustice and tyranny" must now be added the
aristocracy of sexual orientation.
---end excerpt
---
Q. How many heteros does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. I don't know, they're still trying to breed enough brains
for the challenge!
---
The Final Testament, a Bible by and for Gays only:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
oldfa...@my-dejanews.com
>The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the US consitution
includes "the right to play records by Phil Collins" either!!!!
Is there any point to your post?!??!
Old Fart!
M. WEAVER
M. WEAVER
I pay my taxs,serve my jury duty,help my comommunity. So WE should have
rights like every other person!
M. WEAVER
like every other person in this country.!
M. WEAVER
Lu Lu Pironi
M. WEAVER wrote in message
<7686-36...@newsd-174.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Rev. Billy
>Rev. Billy wrote:
>> You've done this before blow...
>> for starters:
>> Amendment XIV (1868)
>> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
>> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
>> United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
>> shall make or enforce any law which 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.
>The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
>sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
>of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
You always forget this part:
Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, as you have been told many times, the Constitution FORBIDS
the Government any powers not granted by the Constitution. DOMA is
unconstitutional. We the People have NOT granted the Government any
control over marriage, nor can it enforce your superstitions.
Also we are talking about Gay rights, not sodomy. YOU like to talk
about sodomy, but it's just the abuse of an old fairy tale.
Buddy Beaudoin
Don't forget that your "We the people" comprise only two to three percent.
> Also we are talking about Gay rights, not sodomy. YOU like to talk
> about sodomy, but it's just the abuse of an old fairy tale.
Gay rights?? Tell the truth.....the homosexual movement is nothing more than
a special interest group attempting to sound like a legal civil rights
group. You know what John Q. Shepherd does to wolves who dress up in sheep's
skins when he finally sees what the varmint is up to, doncha?? Weof-burgers
and warm wolf skins for his little kid's beds.
> http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
This proves that the man was rtight when he said.....
"When they begin to call you names and ridicule you, yit's a good sign
that you have won the argument."
Another Freudian slip, no doubt.
Allen James
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
>
> Gay rights?? Tell the truth.....the homosexual movement is nothing more than
> a special interest group attempting to sound like a legal civil rights
> group. You know what John Q. Shepherd does to wolves who dress up in sheep's
> skins when he finally sees what the varmint is up to, doncha?? Weof-burgers
> and warm wolf skins for his little kid's beds.
>
PFAW! Mr.Beaudoin-
What exactly are you implying by the above statement? Are you suggesting
some sort of 'Turner Diaries'-esque mass murder of your homosexual
neighbors by yourself and other alleged 'right-thinking' persons? Shame!
And delusions of grandeur! Sorry, but I just do not believe in the sort of
'grass-roots army of psychotic Bible-thumpers' that'd be necessary to
mobilize for such an occasion........
--
Allen James
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <360F6A8B...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Rev. Billy wrote:
> >
> > > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > > >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> > >
> > > You've done this before blow...
> > >
> > > for starters:
> > >
> > > Amendment XIV (1868)
> > > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
> > > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
> > > United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
> > > shall make or enforce any law which 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.
> > >
> >
> > The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> > sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> > of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
>
> Learn to read, asshole. We're not talking about sodomy here, we are
> talking about civil rights in things like employment and housing.
Homosexuals, as a whole, are a special interest group, and not a legal
protected civil rights group. According to criteria set up by the Supreme Court
of the United States, they do not qualify for protected civil rights status.
For an indepth presentation on the matter, visit........
"http://campus.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc-toc.html"
--
********************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ#
18014594
************************** John 8:36 ********************************
Buddy Beaudoin
> Well they do make bad decions to The court is wrong! We deserve rights
> like every other person in this country.!
There is no right in the U.S. Constitution which are withheld from
homosexuals.
Now two of us know it.
--
*************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ# 18014594
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <360F69A8...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Allen James wrote:
> >
> > > In article <360EFC98...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Allen James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel
> that way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not
> constitute a
> > > > > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees
> with this.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's
> statement? NO
> > > > > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > > > > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > > > > the Second Amendment when you do try.
> > > >
> > > > Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > > > United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most especially the latter.
> > > For me, a major component of my personal happiness is in the time I spend
> > > with The Little Guy. This particular facet of my happiness, which harms no
> > > one and infringes upon the rights and freedoms of no one, is STILL illegal
> > > in many states.
> >
> > And you can spend as much time with "The Little Guy" as you want. However, the
> > Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever, wherever, and
> > whenever one wants.
>
> The Constitution says nothing about sex, bonehead.
Neither does it say anything about sexual activity which isn't sex. So what?
--
********************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ#
18014594
Buddy Beaudoin
ital...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <360F69A8...@yahoo.com>,
> Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > However, the Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever,
> > wherever, and whenever one wants.
>
> Nor does it specifically prohibit it. That's what state laws do.
>
> These laws fall under the heading of 'religious persecution'. Once laws based
> solely on religion-based morality are trashed for good, criminalization of
> homosexuality will be the first to disappear.
In the past, homosexuals were afforded a good deal of head turning when it came
to tow men co-habitating together.By and large they were left alone by society
who merely wanted them not to display their frivolities in public. It was their
public effrontries, and or when they were caught with minors that brought the
wrath of the law down on them.
--
*************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ# 18014594
John De Salvio
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rev. Billy wrote:
>
> > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> >
> > You've done this before blow...
> >
> > for starters:
> >
> > Amendment XIV (1868)
> > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
> > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
> > United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
> > shall make or enforce any law which 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.
> >
>
> The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
How many times you gonna post this bit of ignorance, BB?
Until EVERYBODY points out how stupid you are?
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <360EFC98...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Allen James wrote:
> >
> > > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not constitute a
> > > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees with this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> > >
> > > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's statement? NO
> > > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> > >
> > > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > > the Second Amendment when you do try.
> >
> > Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
>
> What a dork -- *civil* rights as expressed in the 14th Amendment.
And because I don't see the word "incest" in the wording, I guess that it should
be allowed to also....right?!? You reason like a psychotic lawyer.
--
********************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ#
18014594
James Doemer
Buddy Beaudoin wrote in message <360F6A8B...@yahoo.com>...
>> >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
>>
>>
>> for starters:
>>
>> Amendment XIV (1868)
>> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
>> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
>> United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
>> shall make or enforce any law which 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.
>>
>
>The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
>sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
>of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
>
The right of two consenting adults to "sodomize" each other in the privacy
of their
own home is covered in the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness."
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <360F69A8...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Allen James wrote:
> >
> > > In article <360EFC98...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Allen James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel
> that way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not
> constitute a
> > > > > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees
> with this.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's
> statement? NO
> > > > > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > > > > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > > > > the Second Amendment when you do try.
> > > >
> > > > Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > > > United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most especially the latter.
> > > For me, a major component of my personal happiness is in the time I spend
> > > with The Little Guy. This particular facet of my happiness, which harms no
> > > one and infringes upon the rights and freedoms of no one, is STILL illegal
> > > in many states.
> >
> > And you can spend as much time with "The Little Guy" as you want. However, the
> > Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever, wherever, and
> > whenever one wants.
>
> Ah, the dishonesty. NOWHERE in any post have I in any way stated or
> implied that I wanted the 'right' to "........sodomize whomever, wherever,
> and whenever one wants."
>
> You're as transparent as glass, ya know? Still unable, after all this
> time, and after all the various ISP's you've been booted off of, to STICK
> TO THE SUBSTANCE of the debate. Are you just unable to admit it when
> you're wrong?
>
> Do you really think that homosexuals want to be permitted to get married
> so that we can ".............sodomize whomever, wherever, and whenever one
> wants."? Are you REALLY that stupid? Or are you just being deliberately
> obtuse?
As one well known homosexual, the Reverend Robert Williams (who was ordained by
Sprong) already put it concerning the "marriage and comitted relationships"
schtick.....
"If people want to ry, OK. But the fact is, people are not monogamous...It is
is
crazy to hold this ideal and pretend it's what we're doing, and we're not.."
--
*************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ# 18014594
Allen James
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, lessee if I get it, and if I can do it too-
I am a homosexual. Whatever one homosexual believes is believed by all.
You are a christian. Whatever one christian believes is believed by all.
So you believe, as Fred Phelps, your fellow christian believes, that god
'hates' "fags", and that homosexuals deserve to die.
Okay, I think I understand how you view the world now. Even though I am in
a relationship with another consenting adult, and neither I nor he have
been 'unfaithful' to one another since we started seeing each other a year
ago, we are not monogamous because some other homosexual who I've never
met says we aren't. Right.
Buddy Beaudoin
Allen James wrote:
> In article <360F6A8B...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> > sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> > of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
> >
>
> The Constitution also fails to specifically mention "the right to eat
> Quiche Lorraine". I personally detest Quiche Lorraine. Can I safely assume
> that I therefore have the right to:
>
> Demonize people who do like it
>
> Organize to deny further rights to people who do like it
>
> Demand that poeple who do like it be barred from teaching at cooking schools
>
> Demand that any cooking or eating of said 'Evil Quiche' be subject to
> criminal prosecution, wether such eating or cooking be done in public OR
> private
>
> ....
> Y'know, we've gone around this damn mulberry bush hundreds of times, Mr.
> Beaudoin, and we seem to keep arguing the same points over and over again.
>
> I'm arguing that I have just as much right to live here in the US of A and
> to enjoy the rights and fulfill the responsibilities as my fellow
> heterosexual citizens do.
>
> What part of the above statement do you have a problem with, neighbor?
You can sodomize and be sodomized. Homosexuals just don't qualify as a legal
protected civil rights group. You can also believe that you should be, but that
does not constitute criteria that needs to be met before proected civil rights
status can be passed on your group. What criteria? You have probably already
read one of my replies in the past twenty-four hours.
Try this website for an indepth dissertation of the topic.....
"http://campus.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc-toc.html"
Allen James
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh goody- trot out the old 'special rights' strawman. I'm not asking for
any right my heterosexual neighbors do not have. What's so 'special' about
that?
You know full well your 'special rights' argument is specious. Give me one
real (not based on stuff out of a book I've read but know better than to
base my existence on) reason why homosexual citizens should be denied the
right to marry. Here, I'lll save you some time- the "can't reproduce"
argument falls on its face, unless you outlaw marriage between
heterosexual people whose reproductive organs do not function properly.
And that silly old "next, you'll want to marry a bathtub or a donkey"
likewise fails, as neither bathtub nor donkey can consent to marriage.
Ditto with that tired old "you'll try to marry a ten-year-old", as
children are likewise unable to consent to sexual relationships with
adults.
Well, I'm waiting........
Rev. Billy
>> Amendment X (1791)
>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>> Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
>> reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
>> Therefore, as you have been told many times, the Constitution FORBIDS
>> the Government any powers not granted by the Constitution. DOMA is
>> unconstitutional. We the People have NOT granted the Government any
>> control over marriage, nor can it enforce your superstitions.
>Don't forget that your "We the people" comprise only two to three percent.
No it represents the people of the United States. Whereas Religious
Extemists make up maybe 0.05 %.
>> Also we are talking about Gay rights, not sodomy. YOU like to talk
>> about sodomy, but it's just the abuse of an old fairy tale.
>
>Gay rights?? Tell the truth.....the homosexual movement is nothing more than
>a special interest group attempting to sound like a legal civil rights group.
Wrong again (as per usual)! Rights, equal rights is ALL we are talking
about, you are the one who's SEX obsessed.
> You know what John Q. Shepherd does to wolves who dress up in sheep's
>skins when he finally sees what the varmint is up to, doncha?? Weof-burgers
>and warm wolf skins for his little kid's beds.
A reference to a LooneyToons Catoon perhaps ? Are you now including
that in your religious fantasies ? Darn the 90 day observation did
nothing for your attitude!!
http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
And when they make fun of you and everyone laughs, your Buddy!!
J. David Eisenberg
: Rev. Billy wrote:
:>
:> Therefore, as you have been told many times, the Constitution FORBIDS
:> the Government any powers not granted by the Constitution. DOMA is
:> unconstitutional. We the People have NOT granted the Government any
:> control over marriage, nor can it enforce your superstitions.
: Don't forget that your "We the people" comprise only two to three percent.
How very droll. I had no idea that constitutional rights were
dependent upon population percentage. Since you seem to be the
expert on these things, Buddy, why don't you tell us -- to the
precise decimal point -- exactly what percentage of the population
a group must be before "equal justice under law" applies to its
members.
:> Also we are talking about Gay rights, not sodomy. YOU like to talk
:> about sodomy, but it's just the abuse of an old fairy tale.
: Gay rights?? Tell the truth.....the homosexual movement is nothing more than
: a special interest group attempting to sound like a legal civil rights
: group. You know what John Q. Shepherd does to wolves who dress up in sheep's
: skins when he finally sees what the varmint is up to, doncha?? Weof-burgers
: and warm wolf skins for his little kid's beds.
This paragraph certainly reveals the charity, love, and mercy that is
at the base of your christian belief.
--
J. David Eisenberg http://www.best.com/~nessus
Rev. Billy
>In the past, homosexuals were afforded a good deal of head turning when it came
>to tow men co-habitating together.By and large they were left alone by society
>who merely wanted them not to display their frivolities in public. It was their
>public effrontries, and or when they were caught with minors that brought the
>wrath of the law down on them.
You lie again! Tell the Doctor to increase the medication.
Rev. Billy
>> The Constitution says nothing about sex, bonehead.
>Neither does it say anything about sexual activity which isn't sex. So what?
Therefore the Government has no say so over either !
BTW: Buddy, your a lawyer now ?
Ron Nicholson
Do you honestly believe you'll convert someone.
Buddy Beaudoin wrote:
> John De Salvio wrote:
>
> > In article <360F69A8...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Allen James wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <360EFC98...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Allen James wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <360D7875...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > > > > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ali Bashir wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel
> > that way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A much better way to put this ALi is.....homosexuals do not
> > constitute a
> > > > > > > legal civil rights minority. And the US Supreme Court agrees
> > with this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AAAAaaaaAAAA! IT LIVES!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you totally unable to grasp the meaning of Mr. Bashir's
> > statement? NO
> > > > > > RIGHTS FOR GAYS. IE- strip honest, hard-working, law-abiding homosexual
> > > > > > citizens of their Constitutional rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, you can try... and I'll be exercising the rights guarenteed me by
> > > > > > the Second Amendment when you do try.
> > > > >
> > > > > Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > > > > United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most especially the latter.
> > > > For me, a major component of my personal happiness is in the time I spend
> > > > with The Little Guy. This particular facet of my happiness, which harms no
> > > > one and infringes upon the rights and freedoms of no one, is STILL illegal
> > > > in many states.
> > >
> > > And you can spend as much time with "The Little Guy" as you want. However, the
> > > Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever, wherever, and
> > > whenever one wants.
> >
> > The Constitution says nothing about sex, bonehead.
>
> Neither does it say anything about sexual activity which isn't sex. So what?
>
> --
> ********************************************************************
> The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
> indeed.
>
> Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ#
> 18014594
Ron Nicholson
rest of the country has problem. One law says that each state will recognize the
marriages of another state, and an act of congress says that only certain marriages
will be acknowledged.
Buddy Beaudoin wrote:
> Mike Silverman wrote:
>
> > In article <360F6A8B...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Rev. Billy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> > > > >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> > > >
> > > > You've done this before blow...
> > > >
> > > > for starters:
> > > >
> > > > Amendment XIV (1868)
> > > > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
> > > > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
> > > > United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
> > > > shall make or enforce any law which 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> > > sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> > > of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
> >
> > Learn to read, asshole. We're not talking about sodomy here, we are
> > talking about civil rights in things like employment and housing.
>
> Homosexuals, as a whole, are a special interest group, and not a legal
> protected civil rights group. According to criteria set up by the Supreme Court
> of the United States, they do not qualify for protected civil rights status.
> For an indepth presentation on the matter, visit........
> "http://campus.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc-toc.html"
>
Ron Nicholson
does the state have for intervening in an of two consenting adults, that is not
violation of the rights of another.
James Doemer wrote:
> Buddy Beaudoin wrote in message <360F6A8B...@yahoo.com>...
> >Rev. Billy wrote:
> >
> >> Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
> >> >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
> >>
> >> You've done this before blow...
> >>
> >> for starters:
> >>
> >> Amendment XIV (1868)
> >> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
> >> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
> >> United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
> >> shall make or enforce any law which 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.
> >>
> >
> >The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> >sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> >of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
> >
>
> The right of two consenting adults to "sodomize" each other in the privacy
> of their
> own home is covered in the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
> Happiness."
Ron Nicholson
-- still adhered to in the US.
Buddy Beaudoin wrote:
> ital...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > In article <360F69A8...@yahoo.com>,
> > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > However, the Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize whomever,
> > > wherever, and whenever one wants.
> >
> > Nor does it specifically prohibit it. That's what state laws do.
> >
> > These laws fall under the heading of 'religious persecution'. Once laws based
> > solely on religion-based morality are trashed for good, criminalization of
> > homosexuality will be the first to disappear.
>
> In the past, homosexuals were afforded a good deal of head turning when it came
> to tow men co-habitating together.By and large they were left alone by society
> who merely wanted them not to display their frivolities in public. It was their
> public effrontries, and or when they were caught with minors that brought the
> wrath of the law down on them.
>
> --
> *************************************************************
> The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
> you shall be free indeed.
>
> Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ# 18014594
Ron Nicholson
What compelling reason does that state have for regulating who you choose to
spend your life with, or me.
Buddy Beaudoin wrote:
> M. WEAVER wrote:
>
> > Well they do make bad decions to The court is wrong! We deserve rights
> > like every other person in this country.!
>
> There is no right in the U.S. Constitution which are withheld from
> homosexuals.
>
> Now two of us know it.
>
Ron Nicholson
rulings. And the US is not the only country in the world. Many place now consider
sexuality as part of their constitutional protected classes.
Buddy Beaudoin wrote:
> Allen James wrote:
>
> > In article <360F6A8B...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> > > sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> > > of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
> > >
> >
> > The Constitution also fails to specifically mention "the right to eat
> > Quiche Lorraine". I personally detest Quiche Lorraine. Can I safely assume
> > that I therefore have the right to:
> >
> > Demonize people who do like it
> >
> > Organize to deny further rights to people who do like it
> >
> > Demand that poeple who do like it be barred from teaching at cooking schools
> >
> > Demand that any cooking or eating of said 'Evil Quiche' be subject to
> > criminal prosecution, wether such eating or cooking be done in public OR
> > private
> >
> > ....
> > Y'know, we've gone around this damn mulberry bush hundreds of times, Mr.
> > Beaudoin, and we seem to keep arguing the same points over and over again.
> >
> > I'm arguing that I have just as much right to live here in the US of A and
> > to enjoy the rights and fulfill the responsibilities as my fellow
> > heterosexual citizens do.
> >
> > What part of the above statement do you have a problem with, neighbor?
>
> You can sodomize and be sodomized. Homosexuals just don't qualify as a legal
> protected civil rights group. You can also believe that you should be, but that
> does not constitute criteria that needs to be met before proected civil rights
> status can be passed on your group. What criteria? You have probably already
> read one of my replies in the past twenty-four hours.
>
> Try this website for an indepth dissertation of the topic.....
> "http://campus.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc-toc.html"
zoe wilfong
> >
> > What a dork -- *civil* rights as expressed in the 14th Amendment.
>
> And because I don't see the word "incest" in the wording, I guess that it should
> be allowed to also....right?!? You reason like a psychotic lawyer.
What's incest got to do with anything, buddy? Why don't you make your
case against *gay* rights, if you have one; by switching the subject to
incest, it makes it apparent that you don't really have a case against
gay rights. The tired old linkage is just a dodge to divert attention
from this fact. Surprise, surprise.
zoe
James Doemer
Buddy Beaudoin wrote in message <36103474...@yahoo.com>...
Where do you see that Gays are asking for "Protected" civil rights group??
>
>
Ward Stewart
<nes...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: Ward Stewart wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>And Mr. Beaudoin tries to sneak one under the radar:
>
>: A minority?? Of course. Two to three percent is definitely a minority, but
>: then again, thank God, so are arsonists. Chuck McIlhenny, a pastor in San
>: Francisco, could tell the american public a story about arson that was
>: directed towards his family in the middle of the night.
>
>Sorry, but arson is a crime of person A against person B, without
>person B's consent.
>
>This is in no way comparable to a consensual relationship between
>two adults of the same sex. Nice try; please troll again soon.
>
>: How 'bout that Bill Clinton.......perjurer (false witness) extraordinaire and
>: friend of the wicked.
>
>.and he's straight. What conclusion are we to draw from that,
>Mr. Beaudoin?
It must also be noted that he is a Southern Baptist -- there can be
little doubt that such religions breed up the very finest hypocrites.
ward
____________________________________________________
¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Paganism is forced in the schools. Parents have
objected to texts, and been told they've got no say
in the matter. I understand enviro laws are partly
based in pagan belief."
Mark Johnson
____________________________________________________
¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Nor does it say there is a right to stick your willie into a woman's thingie.
>In fact, until the 60s in a SC decision no one had the right to partake in
>intercourse for the pupposes other than procreating.
>
>Buddy Beaudoin wrote:
>
>> Rev. Billy wrote:
>>
>> > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right of any citizen of the
>> > >United States. Which rights in the Constitution are you speaking of?
>> >
>> > You've done this before blow...
>> >
>> > for starters:
>> >
>> > Amendment XIV (1868)
>> > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
>> > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
>> > United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
>> > shall make or enforce any law which 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.
>> >
>>
>> The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
>> sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
>> of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
>>
Buddy, you really are a piece of shit -- the constitution EXPRESSLY
offers the citizens the right to BE LEFT THE HELL alone by meaching
preaching hypocrites who would seek on the basis of their flickering
light to interfere with their fellow citizens leading their harmelss,
quiet lives.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Rev. Billy wrote:
>>> You've done this before blow...
>>> for starters:
>>> Amendment XIV (1868)
>>> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
>>> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
>>> United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
>>> shall make or enforce any law which 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.
>
>>The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
>>sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
>>of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
>
>You always forget this part:
>Amendment X (1791)
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
>reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
>
>Therefore, as you have been told many times, the Constitution FORBIDS
>the Government any powers not granted by the Constitution. DOMA is
>unconstitutional. We the People have NOT granted the Government any
>control over marriage, nor can it enforce your superstitions.
>
>Also we are talking about Gay rights, not sodomy. YOU like to talk
>about sodomy, but it's just the abuse of an old fairy tale.
>
In this particular discussion I am fond of the NINTH amendment --
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"ward.
not bad!
ward
>http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that in any
harmless matter he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be
restricted by prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors --
if THEY wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must
demonstrate the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
John De Salvio
shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
> In article <361036F7...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > Do you really think that homosexuals want to be permitted to get married
> > > so that we can ".............sodomize whomever, wherever, and whenever one
> > > wants."? Are you REALLY that stupid? Or are you just being deliberately
> > > obtuse?
> >
> > As one well known homosexual, the Reverend Robert Williams (who was
> ordained by
> > Sprong) already put it concerning the "marriage and comitted relationships"
> > schtick.....
> > "If people want to ry, OK. But the fact is, people are not
> monogamous...It is
> > is
> > crazy to hold this ideal and pretend it's what we're doing, and
> we're not.."
> >
>
>
> So, lessee if I get it, and if I can do it too-
>
> I am a homosexual. Whatever one homosexual believes is believed by all.
> You are a christian. Whatever one christian believes is believed by all.
>
> So you believe, as Fred Phelps, your fellow christian believes, that god
> 'hates' "fags", and that homosexuals deserve to die.
>
>
>
> Okay, I think I understand how you view the world now. Even though I am in
> a relationship with another consenting adult, and neither I nor he have
> been 'unfaithful' to one another since we started seeing each other a year
> ago, we are not monogamous because some other homosexual who I've never
> met says we aren't. Right.
I might point out that he quoted the Rev. Williams as saying no PEOPLE
are monogamous.
Most people are heterosexual.
Let's dump marriage altogether, since no one's doing it ight....
John De Salvio
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ital...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > In article <360F69A8...@yahoo.com>,
> > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > However, the Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize
whomever,
> > > wherever, and whenever one wants.
> >
> > Nor does it specifically prohibit it. That's what state laws do.
> >
> > These laws fall under the heading of 'religious persecution'. Once
laws based
> > solely on religion-based morality are trashed for good, criminalization of
> > homosexuality will be the first to disappear.
>
> In the past, homosexuals were afforded a good deal of head turning when
it came
> to tow men co-habitating together.By and large they were left alone by society
> who merely wanted them not to display their frivolities in public. It
was their
> public effrontries, and or when they were caught with minors that brought the
> wrath of the law down on them.
And we kicked back.
Now stupid BB is going to try to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
BB is still a FRAUD.
James Doemer
John De Salvio wrote in message ...
:In article <shrapnel-280...@azathoth-39.d.enteract.com>,
:shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
:
:> In article <361036F7...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
:> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:> > >
:> > > Do you really think that homosexuals want to be permitted to get
married
:> > > so that we can ".............sodomize whomever, wherever, and
whenever one
:> > > wants."? Are you REALLY that stupid? Or are you just being
Some of us are doing it right..... Monogamous after 22 years of
marriage, and loving it!
John De Salvio
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Allen James wrote:
>
> > In article <360F6A8B...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Constitution does not include "the right to sodomize". "The right to
> > > sodomize" is not a "privilege" guaranteed under the Constitution. Unless,
> > > of course, you can provide citation where the courts have said this.
> > >
> >
> > The Constitution also fails to specifically mention "the right to eat
> > Quiche Lorraine". I personally detest Quiche Lorraine. Can I safely assume
> > that I therefore have the right to:
> >
> > Demonize people who do like it
> >
> > Organize to deny further rights to people who do like it
> >
> > Demand that poeple who do like it be barred from teaching at cooking schools
> >
> > Demand that any cooking or eating of said 'Evil Quiche' be subject to
> > criminal prosecution, wether such eating or cooking be done in public OR
> > private
> >
> > ....
> > Y'know, we've gone around this damn mulberry bush hundreds of times, Mr.
> > Beaudoin, and we seem to keep arguing the same points over and over again.
> >
> > I'm arguing that I have just as much right to live here in the US of A and
> > to enjoy the rights and fulfill the responsibilities as my fellow
> > heterosexual citizens do.
> >
> > What part of the above statement do you have a problem with, neighbor?
>
> You can sodomize and be sodomized.
Just like heterosexuals.
But heterosexuals are much less likely to be prosecuted for it.
> Homosexuals just don't qualify as a legal
> protected civil rights group. You can also believe that you should be,
but that
> does not constitute criteria that needs to be met before proected civil rights
> status can be passed on your group. What criteria? You have probably already
> read one of my replies in the past twenty-four hours.
You mean the morning joke from BB?
It was old, it was not funny, and it made you look like a fool. AGAIN.
THAT was what we laughed at.
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> M. WEAVER wrote:
>
> > Well they do make bad decions to The court is wrong! We deserve rights
> > like every other person in this country.!
>
> There is no right in the U.S. Constitution which are withheld from
> homosexuals.
>
> Now two of us know it.
The. U. S. Supreme. Court. Disagrees. With. You.
Romer v Evans.
Address this case otherwise there is no point in having any conversation.
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
Mike Silverman
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Homosexuals, as a whole, are a special interest group, and not a legal
> protected civil rights group.
The. U. S. Supreme. Court. Disagrees. With. You.
Romer v Evans.
Mike Silverman
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the past, homosexuals were afforded a good deal of head turning when
it came
> to tow men co-habitating together.By and large they were left alone by society
> who merely wanted them not to display their frivolities in public. It
was their
> public effrontries, and or when they were caught with minors that brought the
> wrath of the law down on them.
No, it was bigots and bashers like yourself who hate gays and wish to see
them all dead.
But, here's news for you:
These days, we shoot back.
Better duck.
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Homosexuals just don't qualify as a legal
> protected civil rights group.
The. U. S. Supreme. Court. Disagrees. With. You.
Romer v Evans.
Address this case otherwise there is no point in having any conversation.
--
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don't forget that your "We the people" comprise only two to three percent.
The Jews are only 2% -- are you going to take their rights away next?
> Gay rights?? Tell the truth.....the homosexual movement is nothing more than
> a special interest group attempting to sound like a legal civil rights
> group.
Nope. Like Coca-Cola, we are the Real Thing.
Morally and legally.
Mike Silverman
> On 29 Sep 1998 09:35:03 -0500, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <36102E5D...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> ><joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> M. WEAVER wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well they do make bad decions to The court is wrong! We deserve rights
> >> > like every other person in this country.!
> >>
> >> There is no right in the U.S. Constitution which are withheld from
> >> homosexuals.
> >>
> >> Now two of us know it.
> >
> >The. U. S. Supreme. Court. Disagrees. With. You.
> >
>
> So?
So, Buddy's hallucinations have no relevance to the real world. I was
politely informing him of that fact.
> What are you a parrott? Another baseball addict who thinks the Cubs
> will make him a REAL MAN!!!
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You get hit in the head with a
baseball or something?
Buddy Beaudoin
Mike Silverman wrote:
> In article <36102D9C...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget that your "We the people" comprise only two to three percent.
>
> The Jews are only 2% -- are you going to take their rights away next?
You, like the Jewish citizens of this country, have all the rights that you need
quaranteed by the US Constitution.
--
********************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ#
18014594
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Silverman wrote:
>
> > In article <36102D9C...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't forget that your "We the people" comprise only two to three percent.
> >
> > The Jews are only 2% -- are you going to take their rights away next?
>
> You, like the Jewish citizens of this country, have all the rights that
you need
> quaranteed by the US Constitution.
But us Jews (of which I am one) enjoy special rights.....in other words,
religion is a protected class under the civil rights laws.
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <361031B2...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the past, homosexuals were afforded a good deal of head turning when
> it came
> > to tow men co-habitating together.By and large they were left alone by society
> > who merely wanted them not to display their frivolities in public. It
> was their
> > public effrontries, and or when they were caught with minors that brought the
> > wrath of the law down on them.
>
> No, it was bigots and bashers like yourself who hate gays and wish to see
> them all dead.
I think that you're listening to strange voices, Michael. I never have ever have
said or implied such a thing. Do you know the meaning of the word "paranoia"?
James Wright
Ali Bashir wrote:
> I believe in no rights for gays and there are many who feel that way.
Has anyone noticed that the man who mumbled the above sentence 3 days
ago, has not said anything else? And all of you have been fighting over
this for *3* days.... It amazes me how 1 sentence on the internet can
blow up even when the person who said it sits in silence... wow... that's
power...
--
Cisco
"You gotta mean what ya say, you gotta say what ya
mean, trying to please everyone, sacrifice ya own
needs, check in the mirror my friend, no lies will be
told then, pointin' the finger again, you can't blame
nobody but you!!" -- janet.
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <361031B2...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ital...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <360F69A8...@yahoo.com>,
> > > Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > However, the Constitution does not recognize the right to sodomize
> whomever,
> > > > wherever, and whenever one wants.
> > >
> > > Nor does it specifically prohibit it. That's what state laws do.
> > >
> > > These laws fall under the heading of 'religious persecution'. Once
> laws based
> > > solely on religion-based morality are trashed for good, criminalization of
> > > homosexuality will be the first to disappear.
> >
> > In the past, homosexuals were afforded a good deal of head turning when
> it came
> > to tow men co-habitating together.By and large they were left alone by society
> > who merely wanted them not to display their frivolities in public. It
> was their
> > public effrontries, and or when they were caught with minors that brought the
> > wrath of the law down on them.
>
> And we kicked back.
>
> Now stupid BB is going to try to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
>
> BB is still a FRAUD.
Do you know the meaning of the word "libel"?
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <shrapnel-280...@azathoth-39.d.enteract.com>,
> shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
>
> > In article <361036F7...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think that homosexuals want to be permitted to get married
> > > > so that we can ".............sodomize whomever, wherever, and whenever one
> > > > wants."? Are you REALLY that stupid? Or are you just being deliberately
> > > > obtuse?
> > >
> > > As one well known homosexual, the Reverend Robert Williams (who was
> > ordained by
> > > Sprong) already put it concerning the "marriage and comitted relationships"
> > > schtick.....
> > > "If people want to ry, OK. But the fact is, people are not
> > monogamous...It is
> > > is
> > > crazy to hold this ideal and pretend it's what we're doing, and
> > we're not.."
> > >
> >
> >
> > So, lessee if I get it, and if I can do it too-
> >
> > I am a homosexual. Whatever one homosexual believes is believed by all.
> > You are a christian. Whatever one christian believes is believed by all.
Williams said that homosexuals are not monogamous, and that they pretend that they
are monogamous. This is known as "letting the cat out of the bag". I suggest a
basic course in reading comprehension.
John De Salvio
<big...@provide.net> wrote:
> John De Salvio wrote in message ...
> :In article <shrapnel-280...@azathoth-39.d.enteract.com>,
> :>
> :> So you believe, as Fred Phelps, your fellow christian believes, that
> god
> :> 'hates' "fags", and that homosexuals deserve to die.
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :> Okay, I think I understand how you view the world now. Even though I
> am in
> :> a relationship with another consenting adult, and neither I nor he
> have
> :> been 'unfaithful' to one another since we started seeing each other a
> year
> :> ago, we are not monogamous because some other homosexual who I've
> never
> :> met says we aren't. Right.
> :
> :I might point out that he quoted the Rev. Williams as saying no PEOPLE
> :are monogamous.
> :
> :Most people are heterosexual.
> :
> :Let's dump marriage altogether, since no one's doing it ight....
> :
> Some of us are doing it right..... Monogamous after 22 years of
> marriage, and loving it!
[sigh]
Maybe someday... [snif]
Rev. Billy
>Williams said that homosexuals are not monogamous, and that they pretend that they
>are monogamous. This is known as "letting the cat out of the bag". I suggest a
>basic course in reading comprehension.
Can you cite where he said this ?
I suggest that you never tell the truth.
Risqilly - http://www.risqilly.org/