XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: fmhlaw@comcast.net
On 10/1/2014 7:16 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:16:20 -0600, Just Wondering
> wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
