XPost: az.general, az.politics   
   From: lesliesethhammond@yahoo.com   
      
   "Deecell Bathery"  wrote in message   
   news:12tjsr2frh9np16@corp.supernews.com...   
   >   
   > "Seth Hammond"  wrote in message   
   > news:53u6apF1ubrd7U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>   
   >> "Deecell Bathery"  wrote in message   
   >> news:12tjnl8d86o6661@corp.supernews.com...   
   >>>   
   >>> "Larry in AZ"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:Xns98DA872C4D3EAthefrogprince@69.28.173.184...   
   >>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner   
   >>>>    
   >>>> said:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> In article <9062a$45d749d8$45035f0c$16791@msgid.meganewsservers.com>,   
   >>>>>  "Stan de SD"  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> I'm an atheist, and I see no reason to legalize or force anyone to   
   >>>>>> accept, gay marriage.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In other words, you don't see any reason for marriage.  After all, if   
   >>>>> gay marriage has no reason to be legal, then no other marriage has a   
   >>>>> reason to be legal.  And if no one should be forced to accept gay   
   >>>>> marriage, no one should be forced to accept any other marriage.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Here's the deal...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Marriage," as known throughout most of human history has been between   
   >>>> a man   
   >>>> and a woman.  Unless perverted by some religious sect or cult, that's   
   >>>> also   
   >>>> meant one man and one woman.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Gays deserve equal protection and rights, but let's call it something   
   >>>> else...   
   >>>   
   >>> Marriage is a contract, nothing more. At least as far as our government   
   >>> should be concerned. By supporting a religious view of marriage (which   
   >>> is what you are saying they should do), our government is acting   
   >>> unconstitutionally.   
   >>   
   >> Nonsense.  Marriage is older than any organized religion - by far....   
   >   
   > Tell you what, bigmouth, why don't you provide some evidence for your   
   > bullshit, okay?   
   >   
   > Prove that marriage existed as one man, one woman before organized   
   > religion.   
      
   Glad to, but if I do will you promise to shut the fuck up about your   
   aberrant views?   
      
    "The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and   
   Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier   
   conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that   
   marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often   
   transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual   
   union from the infancy of the human race" (History of Matrimonial   
   Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91).   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> Should the government be allowed to regulate a contract between two   
   >>> consenting adults based on sexual orientation?   
   >>   
   >> Yes.  Clearly.   
   >   
   > No, that's not the government's role. The government's role is to enforce   
   > contracts. I would think you righties wouldn't like government   
   > interference in your personal contracts but I guess I am wrong.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Homosexuality serves no useful purpose for a society that relies upon   
   >> self-perpetuation as a species.  They're misfits, at best.   
   >   
   > That's not for you or the government to decide.   
   >   
   > I find bigoted one note conservative jerks like yourself to be misfits and   
   > have many destructive qualities that harm society. I guess that means I   
   > have a right to take away your rights, because I don't like you.   
   >   
   > Find out if the constitution says you have a right to limit a person's   
   > rights because of personal belief and then we'll debate further.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> How about religion and race?   
   >>   
   >> How about avoidance of strawmen?   
   >   
   > Unfortunately those are not strawmen. Their were mysogenation laws that   
   > were struck down in the past.   
   >   
   > You just keep swinging and missing.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> They used to but those were struck down. What makes gender any   
   >>> different?   
   >>   
   >> Explain to us all the beauty and human dignity involved in felching.   
   >> Leave out nothing, OK?   
   >   
   > Neither I nor anyone else need do this. Consenting adults have a right to   
   > have consentual sex with each other any way and as often as they want with   
   > no need to get your approval. Talk about a strawman.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> What if one is transgendered? If one goes by genetics there are already   
   >>> men getting married to genetic men in this country. Does the absence or   
   >>> presence of certain gender specific private parts make one a man or a   
   >>> woman? Hermaphrodites and the sexually ambiguous can get a license and   
   >>> marry either sex if they declare themselves one sex or another. Can a   
   >>> man marry another man if he just declares himself a woman?   
   >>   
   >> Is it news to you that there are exceptions to every rule?   
   >   
   > So then you admit that marriage is not necessarily between one man and one   
   > woman.   
   >   
   > Thank you for your admission of defeat.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> If we are truly secular, the government should not be making these   
   >>> decisions and marrying people according to a religious view. Maybe the   
   >>> government should get out of the marriage business entirely and let   
   >>> anyone have a civil union that wants.   
   >>   
   >> Marriages can be performed by more than clergy.  Many are married by   
   >> gummint judges.   
   >   
   > It's funny that guys like you hate government intrusion until you want to   
   > punish perfectly legal behavior you don't approve.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)