XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: fmhlaw@comcast.net
On 10/1/2014 2:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote in news:542c5f8d$0$1917
> $882e7ee2@usenet-news.net:
>
>> On 10/1/2014 11:01 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote in
>>> news:XnsA3B8D3316F71Anoemailattnet@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> Just Wondering wrote in
>>>> news:542b5c88$0$4889$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/30/2014 6:41 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:lkim2a5da62hdaq7rrjt4p8b4leuhd4jrl@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:50:00 -0700, "Wayne"
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:8scm2ah87nmqg5smgf28h35ur47qkf5n11@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:36:48 -0400, WangoTango
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <5426724f$0$27326$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,
>>>>>>>> fmhlaw@comcast.net says...
>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2014 10:27 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <54234070$0$1917$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,
>>>>>>>>>> fmhlaw@comcast.net says...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2014 3:59 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mygarbagecan@verizon.net says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "David J. Hughes" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:HdzUv.240259$JH1.29846@fx08.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2014 12:57 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2014 11:27 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> La. state judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sept 22 2014
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconstitutional, in part because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violates equal protection rights, a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> judge ruled Monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Protection of what right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> # Fourteenth Amendment, section one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> # "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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> # Contract laws, of which marriage laws are a subset, should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not # discriminate on anything other than the ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent or enter into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> # a valid contract.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice cite. Too bad it isn't relevant except in the strange
>>>>>>>>> minds >>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proggies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assume that man A has the right to marry a woman, and man B
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> marry a woman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what weird world of logic does that mean that man A has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right to marry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> man B?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is nothing stopping them from any other type of
>>>>>>>>>>>> contractual agreement, duh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure there is. Many types of contracts are void on public
>>>>>>>>>>> policy grounds.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, you got a hair splitter for Christmas, how nice.
>>>>>>>>>> How about they are afforded equal protection under the law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They already are. They always have been. A person's right to
>>>>>>>>> marry is not affected by sexual orientation. A man can marry a
>>>>>>>>> woman, and a woman marry a man, regardless of whether either or
>>>>>>>>> both of them is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or any other
>>>>>>>>> ___sexual you care to name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # It's routine for the bigots to make that claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So "bigot" equals someone who doesn't agree with you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # No. Bigot is someone who makes silly claims to justify their
>>>>>> refusal to # treat others the way they are treated under the law.
>>>>>> fmhlaw@comcast.net # is one such bigot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so someone who disagrees with you is a bigot and makes silly
>>>>>> claims?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like in his book, someone who points out a virtually
>>>>> universal historical truth as old as the institution of marriage
>>>>> itself, that contradicts what in his mind is "how things should be",
>>>>> is a bigot making silly claims.
>>>> What is that "historical truth"?
>>>> Arranged marriage?
>>>> Forced marriage?
>>>> Polygamous marriage?
>>>> Child marriage?
>>>
>>> Among others.
>>>
>> Do y'all really lose track of a thread's subject so quickly? I had
>> pointed out that marriage is between a man and a woman.
>
> Yep.
>
> That is a
>> historical truth.
>
> Not necessairly.
>
> The result of a marriage is a relationship consisting
>> of a husband and a wife. That is a historical truth. NOT two
> husbands,
>> or two wives.
>
> Wrong. In some "marriages" it is has been multiple wives.
>
You describe polygyny incorrectly. It's not a marriage involving
multiple wives. It's one marriage between a husband and a wife, then
another marriage between a husband and a wife, etc. Multiple marriages,
not one marriage. Each marriages has only two partners - one husband
and one wife. And the wives are not each other's spouses, they each
have only one marriage partner, their husband. (For polyandry, just
reverse the sexes in this description.)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
