XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: me4guns@centurylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:542eebf4$0$24460$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
> On 10/3/2014 6:13 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:09:53 -0600, Just Wondering
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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. That is a
>>> historical truth. 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.
>>>
>> Thats true in our current...Christian ...culture.
>>
>> However...historically and across the world...polygamy has been the
>> norm.
>>
>> As has child marriage, forced marriage and arranged marriage.
>>
> None of which involve a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman.
Educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
