XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 03:14:26 -0600, Just Wondering    
   wrote:   
      
   >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)