XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: Dev@null.net
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:39:10 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:
>Just Wondering wrote in
>news:542c9eef$0$16363$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net:
>
>> On 10/1/2014 6:31 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>>> news:542c8b40$0$4797$882e7ee2@usenet-news.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 -
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
